Debates of Sept. 27th, 2024

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to refresh one's memory. It is particularly important because Quebec's motto is “Je me souviens”, or I remember.

In his speech on September 16, the opposition leader and member for Carleton questioned whether we could have confidence in our institutions' representatives, and that worries me. More specifically, he questioned whether parliamentarians should have confidence in the Auditor General of Canada. The Conservative Party has a peculiar habit of blaming everyone and pointing fingers. However, when it comes to finding solutions, it is none of their concern. That is not particularly inspiring from the people who want to take power and govern in the near future.

My question for my colleague is quite simple. His leader once demanded that the governor of Canada's central bank be fired because of inflation. Now, he is questioning whether we should have confidence in the Auditor General of Canada regarding the production of certain documents and access to them. Can my colleague tell me clearly whether or not he has complete confidence in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada in this matter?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen from the Auditor General time and time again is that, after nine years, the NDP-Liberals cannot seem to manage the government. We do not think they could manage the finances of a lemonade stand appropriately, that is, of course, unless it was a Liberal insider running the till and jamming their pockets with the nickels of the neighbourhood children who tried to buy a glass, every time.

In this case, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars that the Auditor General uncovered as part of the grift and conflicts of interest that the government presided over and then tried to sweep under the rug. We kept hearing from the minister responsible that everything was fine and that the Liberals had the situation well in hand. However, after sustained pressure and the audit they never wanted to happen, they finally shut down the corrupted organization, only to shift all of its business, to hide it under the auspices of the very government that allowed that corruption to occur.

We thank the Auditor General for her work in helping to expose to Canadians the inability of the Liberals to properly manage the finances of our nation or any of the subsidiaries of the Government of Canada.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of my colleagues who have been speaking on this corruption that has been exposed and that needs to be escalated. We are hearing from the Liberals, again, another cover-up, that they are trying to hide behind all sorts of excuses rather than turn these documents back over to Parliament, as has been requested and as has been ruled on in a question of privilege by the Speaker himself.

I would ask my colleague if he could talk to the fact that this is just another example of ongoing Liberal corruptions and cover-ups, like the WE scandal, the ad scam and the arrive scam. Why do they not just come forward with the information? Is it because there are actually people in cabinet who are benefiting personally from all of this cash that has gone missing in the hands of Liberal cronies and friends?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at some of what the Auditor General found. We can draw some conclusions, of course, about whose pockets that money went into.

The Auditor General found that for 10 ineligible projects, it was $58,748,613, and in 90 cases where conflict of interest policies were not followed, it was $75,974. For projects without ensuring that contribution agreement terms were met, it was $58 million. Another 96 cases, where conflict of interest policies were followed, was $259 million. The numbers do not lie when we look at the corruption that was allowed to fester under the Liberals.

We have to ask ourselves what was in it for them. What was in it for the Liberals and their friends? Of course, it was their financial betterment, their personal enrichment. This was all about helping Liberal insiders while Canadians have been struggling to feed themselves. It is a shameful legacy, but it is one that, as the member rightly pointed out, follows on the heels of the $60-million arrive scam or the $1-billion WE scandal and, of course, the other cases where the Prime Minister was found to be outside of the law or to have broken the law, just like the long history that includes the ad scam, of course.

I think that goes to the heart of it. The reason the Liberals do not want any sunlight or disinfectant to be applied here is because the last time there was a massive scandal of this scale, it brought down a Liberal government, a tired, corrupt Liberal government. What is old is new again. It looks like they have the very same concerns about this multiple-hundred-million dollar scandal.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say that, over the years, the member really has not changed. His priority has been to amplify the issue of character assassination and he has got it down to a fine art. I give full credit on that account. The issue I have is this: What about the Charter of Rights and our Constitution?

Does the member not recognize that what his party is calling for is information to be passed directly from here to the RCMP? We would go out and get the information and then we would hand it directly over to the RCMP. That is, in fact, what Conservatives are asking for. It does not matter what the charter says or if the RCMP or the Auditor General are uncomfortable with the request.

Does he not think he should at least have some support outside the Conservative Party, from agencies like the Auditor General and the RCMP?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any sections of the charter cited for the parliamentary secretary's attempt to obstruct a parliamentary investigation into corruption in his own government. However, the documents exist and they belong to the Government of Canada. Therefore, if the parliamentary secretary is saying that what is required is a warrant by the police to kick in the office doors of cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister and parliamentary secretaries to get the truth for Canadians, we do not need to do that because the House has ordered the production of documents.

The member talks about what is legal. The legal authority rests with this place, and is unfettered, to send for people and papers. The requirement for those papers is very simple. They need to exist and they need to be inside Canada. If they belong to the government, we can get them. If they belong to a private corporation or a private citizen, we can get them.

Is it in the public interest that we do this? Absolutely, it is. It is hundreds of millions of dollars of corruption that the member for Winnipeg North has allowed to happen under the current Prime Minister, the only prime minister in Canadian history who has been found guilty of breaking the law, and that is the legacy after nine years of the NDP-Liberals. We make no apologies for getting the truth for Canadians about the government that has allowed the theft of Canadians' tax dollars to help out Liberal insiders. We are going to fight tirelessly to get accountability for Canadians, and we are not going to make any apologies for it.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in the really insightful speech from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, who has worked very hard on this scandal, he mentioned the Auditor General who took a small sample of the transactions of the insider Liberal board members and found that 82% were corrupted.

The interesting thing is that for a year and a half we have had lots of studies and public hearings on this and yet, none of the main broadcast media, CTV or CBC, has had one story on it. I would like the member to comment about the ability or willingness of the media to do its job, which it does not seem to be doing. Why might it not be doing the job of covering this Liberal scandal and cover-up?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets, who has worked tirelessly to get answers and accountability for Canadians. We owe him a debt of gratitude for that. He is absolutely right. The numbers that I talk about are just a small sample of cases that they looked at with respect to the corrupted $1-billion green slush fund.

It is interesting that the member brings up media. We had the case of CTV this week, which was caught maliciously editing a clip of the Leader of the Opposition to create a fake story about something that was not said. That shows something about priorities. We talk about other things that the government spends Canadians' money on. That includes, of course, massive media subsidies. People can draw their conclusions about why heavily subsidized Liberal media would not want to call out the corruption that has occurred after nine years of the current government.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here, proud to represent, stand with and stand for the people of Battle River—Crowfoot.

It is unfortunate that, after nine years of the Liberals leading this country, we are once again debating a scandal of unbelievable proportions. I want to talk a little about the circumstances that led us to the SDTC situation, and then I want to dive into why documents matter, what this violation of the privilege of members of this place is, and why that should be so concerning to Canadians.

On Sustainable Development Technology Canada, the Auditor General did a report that found that the Liberals, the Prime Minister and the ministers had turned it into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. A recording of a senior civil servant slammed the “outright incompetence” of the government, which gave more than 390 million dollars' worth of contracts inappropriately.

To put that into context, $390 million is an astounding amount of money, especially at a time when Canadians are hurting. This year, we will see more than two million Canadians forced to visit a food bank. In my own constituency, I speak to many not-for-profits, hosted out of churches or community centres, and local food banks.

The actions of the government, such as the implementation of the carbon tax and the mismanagement of the economy, have led to increased inflation, among so many other things. Canadians, in record numbers, are being forced to visit food banks. I see some of the numbers provided to me by local food banks, often run by volunteers, and they are absolutely heartbreaking.

I have heard from some of the folks who run one of the local food banks, and they were stunned that it is not just folks who have fallen on hard times who are being forced to visit the food bank, and it is not just those who have lost their jobs who are being forced to visit the food bank. In some cases, it is people from around the community who simply have no other options. Their credit cards are maxed out, and they do not have anything left at home to feed their children. They were, in those cases, forced to visit a food bank. That is the legacy of the Liberals.

We have 25% of Canadians, according to reports, facing poverty-like conditions. What is the government's response? It is 390 million dollars' worth of contracts inappropriately given out, many of which went to well-connected Liberal insiders. It was $390 million not going to help Canadians, and not going to grow the economy, but $390 million, more money than most people could ever imagine, going to well-connected insiders.

The Auditor General found that SDTC gave $58 million to 10 ineligible projects. The government talks big about the environment, yet it gave $58 million to projects that were supposedly to help the environment. That was the reason this fund was created. However, it could not demonstrate that there would be an environmental benefit or the development of any green tech.

I know there are many Canadians watching because of the absolute corruption that has been normalized under the Liberal government and the Prime Minister, which has been supported by the NDP.

It is absolutely astounding that, in the midst of a time when the Liberals talk big about the environment, they are giving dollars to projects connected with Liberal insiders that did not even try to explain and did not even try to defend what they were doing as being good for the environment, even though that was why these programs were created. The Auditor General made it clear that the blame for this scandal falls on the government and the industry minister, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts that were being given to Liberal insiders.

I hear often from members of that side of the House, and I hear from Canadians as well, asking what we would do differently. I am proud to stand as part of a party that takes governing seriously and that would fight corruption and incompetence, especially the sort of incompetence that leads to this type of gross mismanagement scandal to the tune of $390 million being misappropriated.

I want to talk about why the finding of a violation of privilege is such an important issue. I believe that many people outside this place and in fact, certainly from some of the questions I have heard from members of other parties in this place, some in this place also, do not take seriously Parliament's constitutional role. Let me unpack that a little bit for the benefit of those watching and explain why documents matter.

It is less about whether or not there are physical documents we can read from; that is not the whole point here. The point is that there is an institution that is Parliament, which in our Westminster system of governance is the supreme authority of our country. As parliamentarians, we are that which makes up a Parliament. I believe that there are two Liberal vacancies with by-elections forthcoming, and at the rate at which the Liberals are losing seats, it will certainly be interesting to watch what those election results are.

The MPs who make up Parliament have unfettered access to call for documents and for people to come as witnesses. We talk about that a lot in the context of committee, and it is a key element of the constitutional role that this place plays in our country. We cannot dismiss the importance, because that is the cornerstone of the democratic system we have. It is this place, the only place in the country, I would add, that is truly representative of our country. Every square inch of the nation of Canada is represented in this place and only in this place. That is why Parliament is given such significant latitude to be able to do things like call for documents.

The government refused to be transparent and provide the documents in question. Its members gave a whole litany of excuses. In fact I found it very interesting that when the House leader was speaking very negatively about the Speaker's ruling that has led to this debate, quite astonishingly, she pivoted away from saying that she was disputing the ruling but said that she was dismayed at the ruling.

I would suggest that any member of this place who is dismayed at the constitutional authority of what Parliament is meant to be needs to go back and look at the history, the construction, of the constitutional reality and the traditions that make up what this place is. It has to come down to the very idea of where the buck stops. It stops with Parliament.

I want to highlight something in the context of what I have just described, because there has been, under the Liberals, a concerning trend of wanting to distance the executive function of government from Parliament. I understand that it is inconvenient that the Liberals do not have unfettered power to do anything they want; it is an inconvenient thing they are forced up against. I have seen, over the last close to five years that I have had the honour of serving in this place and serving the people of Battle River—Crowfoot, how the Liberals have been able to sign deals, have backroom handshakes and have the whole deal with other opposition parties in order to have a functional majority.

However, Canadians sent a minority Parliament to Ottawa in the last election, and this place has the ability to do things like demand documents; it has the full constitutional right to do so. It is outlined very clearly that this is in fact the case. When members of the government are making excuses and figuring out ways around this place, it is deeply concerning and should cause concern to every Canadian, regardless of what political party they are a part of.

This is not a partisan issue; this is a Canadian issue.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member from Winnipeg seems to be laughing when I say that the very foundation of our institutions is not a partisan issue, and therein lies the problem. The very foundation of our democratic system is taken so flippantly by members who pursue their personal politics. As we have seen outlined in the course of this SDTC scandal, back in 2018, when former minister Navdeep Bains did not like that the chair of the board of SDTC was criticizing things the government was doing, the chair was replaced, contrary to advice from those within his own department. We have seen a continuation of that political manipulation since, which has led to this scandal. A very clear timeline has been laid out. The Liberals do not take seriously Parliament's role.

I understand that they would rather an audience than an opposition. They would rather have carte blanche to do whatever they want and pursue their personal, political, financial and other interests. However, that is not how this place works. MPs are sent here to represent their constituents.

I will speak to those on the Liberal backbench. They have an obligation to not simply prop up their Prime Minister. They are sent here as members of Parliament. We are on the ballot as members of Parliament. They will stand to be judged in the next election by Canadians as members of Parliament, and they will have to answer, just like the NDP and the Bloc, for supporting this type of corruption.

I would encourage them to take seriously the role that this place is meant to play, because as we have seen, there is a distancing. With the way the Liberals operate, they want unfettered control to do whatever they want, and they treat Parliament only as an inconvenience. That is truly a national scandal that is eroding the trust that Canadians have in their institutions.

As a proud Canadian, as somebody who has grown up in this country and spent a lot of time being involved as a volunteer and staff member, and as a passionate politico, I have watched and studied a lot about government and other institutions, such as United Kingdom's Parliament, and about the history of our democratic system, how like systems around the world have developed over the course of the last number of centuries and some of the history that goes much further back than that. As it used to be, while we may not have liked or agreed with the person in charge of the country, just as we may not like the current Liberal Prime Minister or may not have liked a previous Conservative prime minister or previous Liberal prime minister, we could respect the offices and institutions. It is troubling that, increasingly, I hear from Canadians that they are losing trust in the institutions we have. This is from the actions of the Liberals, who are bent on trying to keep the truth from coming out and, in this case, refusing to provide documents. Now it is the authority of the House and a violation of privilege that have led to the motion and amendment we are debating today, which I am proud to support. It comes down to that very simple choice.

Part of the challenge is that the erosion of trust and the normalization of scandal have led many Canadians to question the legitimacy of much to do with government, and that is going to take hard work to restore. I am so proud to be a part of a party committed to doing the hard work required to restore trust in our institutions and ensure that this place, Parliament, is respected. I would suggest that the very root of where we are today on this motion related to SDTC is these documents. These documents matter. The heart of our parliamentary institutions, our democracy, is at stake, and we have seen continual attempts by the Liberals to try to erode it.

This adds to a litany of scandals that is quite astounding. I talked about the normalization of scandals. As soon as the ruling was delivered yesterday evening, I went through and reflected on some of the scandals. I have been a member of the ethics committee for a significant portion of this and the last Parliament. We are, of course, debating the document production related to SDTC.

Prior to this, there was the arrive scam, with $60-plus million on an app that was budgeted to cost less than $100,000, and sole-source contracts. We are seeing a massive mismanagement of those contracts today. We see that they seem to be going to friends and insiders. As well, there is the fact that during a time of crisis, the government would, instead of working in the best interests of Canadians, choose to enrich its friends. It is absolutely shameful.

There was the WE Charity scandal. Again, in the midst of what was a national crisis, the government chose its friends over well-established protocols that could have easily been expanded. There is the Canada summer jobs program. Instead of using a program like that and expanding it, the government was going to give $1 billion to its friends, who had given significant benefits and paid, to the tunes of hundreds of thousands of dollars, close members of the Prime Minister's family. I would remind the House that the Prime Minister went as far as to prorogue Parliament to keep the names and the amounts of those payments from coming out. I was on the ethics committee at the time.

Further, we have the SNC-Lavalin scandal, where the only reason that the RCMP did not lay charges against the sitting Prime Minister is because they determined it was not in the public interest of Canada. Imagine, there has been such a deterioration of our institutions that it has led to it being deemed in public interest that the Prime Minister should not be dragged in front of a judge.

There was the Aga Khan Island trip. There are the indigenous contracts, which I know are being studied at committee, as there seem to be Liberal insiders who are manipulating that process, taking money that should be going to first nations here in this country.

We have the massive growth of consultants. In fact, there have been some very interesting editorials of late that say that it has become a consulting capital and that the only way to get anything done is to hire the right consultants. That is not how a government should be run.

There have been billions of dollars in handouts. I cannot help but think of the ventilators that went to a former Liberal MP and ended up in a scrapyard, to the tune of, again, hundreds of millions of dollars.

Where does this leave us? Once again, MPs will be given a choice, to support accountability and, I would go further, support the very foundation of what our democratic system is supposed to be, the idea of parliamentary supremacy. To ensure that we can get the answers, not that Conservatives want, but that Canadians deserve, that's where the rubber hits the road.

I would urge all members, Liberal backbenchers, members of the NDP, members of the Bloc Québécois, and the few independents we have, every MP in this place, to think seriously about the role of Parliament, the principles of parliamentary supremacy, and ensure that we all do our part to combat the corruption and do the hard work required to restore trust in the institutions that Canadians need to be able to trust and look at with respect.

I would urge every member in this place to support this motion, to take seriously our democracy and ensure that that hard work can be done. Let me simply conclude with this, because I have my doubts after nine years of seeing exactly what the Liberal attitude is. When it comes to the hard work of restoring trust, I am proud to be a part of a party that has a plan and the energy.

When the leader of the official opposition, the member for Carleton, is the prime minister, we can do that hard work to restore the trust that is required in our institutions and work on behalf of Canadians, not on behalf of insiders.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Conservative colleague's attempt to bring this debate into the realm of ethics. I would just like to point out that I taught ethics, political philosophy and democracy for 30 years.

Let us be clear. The primary job of a member of Parliament is to hold the government to account, regardless of its political stripe. It makes no difference whether it is a majority or minority government. Our job is to hold the government to account. When the government has a majority, it usually tells us to take a hike. The fact that this is a minority government helps us enormously, because it means we can end up in a situation like the one we are in today.

Let us be clear. The government made a mistake. When the House votes to demand that documents be tabled, they must be tabled. An investigation will eventually be needed to get to the bottom of this. If the RCMP does not want the documents, it does not have to accept them. However, we need to have a say in the matter.

I have a question for my colleague. If there were an election tomorrow, the Conservative Party would form a majority government. In ethics, we say that a principle is a real principle when the choice is made to put it into practice.

If my colleague ends up sitting on the other side of the aisle, will he still stand up and staunchly defend the principle of tabling documents, as he is doing now, or will he play the Conservative government game and tell opposition members to take a hike?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, his background and the context he provided. I would suggest that all members of this place, especially the Liberals, could maybe take lessons from him. Even though he is a member of a separatist party, he certainly has a better grasp on the role of a member of Parliament than the backbenchers of the Liberal Party. It comes to the very foundation of what we are as parliamentarians. I tell students who I speak with, and I speak with them on a regular basis, that it is one of the coolest things about Canadian democracy.

I would ask this question. How many votes, and I cannot say their names, but I would name the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, other MPs and myself as well, do we get to cast on election day? It seems like a trick question, but the answer is one. We all get to cast one vote as Canadians. Likewise, when somebody is elected, we get to occupy the honour of one seat in this place.

I ask this question. How many seats does the Prime Minister occupy, does the Leader of the Opposition occupy? Again, it is one seat.

It is the duty of every member of Parliament, regardless of their political background, regardless of their history, to take seriously that obligation, as MPs, to stand up for the people who sent them here, to be the Parliament, in this case the 44th Parliament, to stand up, regardless of one's political interests because that is the point.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is made up of a foundation of pillars. Democracy is supreme. The parliamentary proceedings that take place here are no doubt very much supreme, but so is justice. When we have an independent judicial system and independent institutions like the RCMP, those two are pillars that make Canada the country it is today. This Conservative motion, which says that we are going to start collecting information to hand directly over to the RCMP, many would argue is a violation of our Constitution and our charter, which are part of our Canadian identity.

Does the member not recognize that there is a fine line that has been crossed by the Conservative Party of Canada? We could talk about Conservative scandals, or whatever kinds of scandals members want, but at the end of the day, the Conservative Party has crossed the line.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the irony in the statement that the member just made is that he talked about Parliament being supreme but then went on to say how Parliament cannot do anything about this, how Parliament should not look for answers, how Parliament should not do anything to uncover the scandal, the corruption and the mismanagement of the Liberals. I find it troubling that the Liberals will, it seems, stop at nothing to cover up the corruption that is being led by the Prime Minister, the industry minister and members of the government.

We are not instructing the RCMP on what to do, but the Liberals are suggesting that somehow Conservatives' calling for documents is not part of our jobs as members of Parliament to get to the bottom of a scandal that has cost taxpayers to the tune of $380-some million. I would encourage the member to ask his constituents whether or not they suggest that Parliament has a role to play in finding answers to where the money went.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Winnipeg North, every time he gets up, try to cover up Liberal corruption and this scandal is just sickening.

I want to thank the member for Battle River—Crowfoot for his articulation on this. He layed out that it all started with Navdeep Bains, when he was the minister of industry, appointing Liberal cronies that then were able to line their pockets with taxpayer money while the current Minister of Industry willfully turned a blind eye. It looks like he also may have enriched the value of shares of the Minister of Environment, who has stakes in one of the companies that benefited from all the Liberal largesse and corruption.

One whistle-blower who gave testimony said:

I think the current government is more interested in protecting themselves and protecting the situation from being a public nightmare, and they'd rather protect wrongdoers and financial mismanagement than have to deal with a situation like this SDTC and the public sphere.

Is that not actually the definition for Liberal cover-ups and Liberal corruption?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Manitoba understands very well and has rightfully pointed out how the member from Winnipeg North is covering up the corruption. What we have is not Conservative accusations, but the fact that the Auditor General, an independent officer of Parliament, has found egregious mismanagement to the tune of 390 million dollars' worth of contracts given inappropriately.

Conservatives did not do the audit. The Conservatives have demanded that the audit be done. We saw the inconsistencies and how the chair of the fund was getting these contracts and whatnot, so we called in the auditors. The good thing about the Auditor General is that they take politics out of it. The Liberals may not like what the Auditor General found, but the fact is that the Auditor General found that $390 million was mismanaged and went to Liberal insiders.

Whistle-blowers, in testimony, made it evidently clear that there were activities that would not pass the smell test. They went on to say that the Auditor General surely would find that the mismanagement was true. One whistle-blower suggested that it was a sponsorship scandal era type of scandal when it comes to mismanagement. I would like to quote one whistle-blower, who told the public accounts committee:

Just as I was always confident that the Auditor General would confirm the financial mismanagement at SDTC, I remain equally confident that the RCMP will substantiate the criminal activities that occurred within the organization.

Those are not my words; those are the words of a whistle-blower from within SDTC. That is what the Liberals are trying to cover up.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

I am pleased to rise today as a member of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. We have the pleasure of working in this committee with our colleagues from the Maritimes to advance the development of new technologies and industry in Canada. We have had the opportunity to debate various issues with our Liberal, NDP and Bloc colleagues and we work in very close collaboration. We are truly trying to advance Canada's economy within this committee.

Today I am obliged to talk about what we discovered when we heard something rather alarming. We found out that there had been some misappropriation at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, regarding the green fund. Some people had been appointed to SDTC's board by the Liberals. Those people paid themselves knowing full well that they were in conflict of interest. This has been proven, and not by us.

The Auditor General was the one who discovered that these directors had given large sums of money to their own business, or to organizations they held shares in or had ties with.

I had the opportunity to speak with the former chairperson of SDTC, Annette Verschuren, who appeared before our committee not once but three times at our invitation. The last time I spoke to her, I told her that I had a high school diploma in auto body work. I am a guy who never enjoyed going to school. I graduated from high school with my mother's help and I am grateful to her. That high school diploma in auto body work got me into the workforce. Based on what I learned in school, I always knew that no one can take what does not belong to them, or acquire something through a conflict of interest that they are not entitled to. I always knew that no one should use their relationships for monetary gain or preferential treatment. I do not understand why such a smart, socially-active businesswoman like her could not grasp the position she was in. That is what I said to the former chairperson of SDTC.

This position was actually offered to her by the former minister of industry, Mr. Bains. Unfortunately, Mr. Bains now seems to be suffering from Alzheimer's, because he does not remember appointing her to that position. There was a conflict between these two individuals' different interpretations. Neither of them could remember what was said. No one could tell us how she ended up in that position. To make matters worse, before being appointed, Ms. Verschuren had already received funding thanks to her connections with the fund. She knew full well that by taking the appointment, she would be in a conflict of interest. When I asked if it had occurred to her that she could be in a conflict of interest, she admitted that it had crossed her mind, but that she had not withdrawn from consideration.

The fact that she is no longer sitting on this board of directors would mean that she is no longer accountable. That is interesting, because she and the other board members awarded themselves tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. Those amounts were given to people who were in a clear conflict of interest. I am not the one saying that. It is the Auditor General.

As elected officials, we find ourselves in the House today because of non-compliance with a request that was made by all parliamentarians. Of course, I am talking about the members of the opposition parties, because the government did not want to co-operate in producing documents that would enable us to confirm and verify all these facts. In addition to the projects that these people approved for themselves, the Auditor General identified 10 ineligible projects worth close to $60 million. On 96 occasions, conflict of interest policies were followed, but in 90 cases, they were not, which means that these people allocated money to themselves.

I want to come back to the fact that I just have a high school diploma and a diploma in auto body repair. I was 18 years old when I finished high school, but I already knew that this is not how things should be done. About 10 years ago, I took a course at the Collège des administrateurs de sociétés, Université Laval's college of corporate directors. The first thing we learned about governance was the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest. Imagine if we, as members of Parliament, gave ourselves public dollars belonging to Canadians, either from our MP budget or through other channels. That would be an absolute scandal. In fact, in the past, with the sponsorship scandal, we saw how the Liberals were scheming to help their friends. The same principle applies today.

It is important that we have access to all the documents, because tens of millions of dollars were given to directors who were in a direct conflict of interest. This money may also have been misspent. The Auditor General actually said herself that $60 million was allocated to 10 projects that were ineligible. Who were these people who received that money, and why did they receive money from that fund? People can apply for funding from any number of funds in Canada. What is the relationship between the people who received money and the companies in question?

All the documents requested were sent to us completely redacted for reasons of confidentiality. I heard my Liberal colleague say earlier that the documents could simply be handed over to the RCMP. In Canada, all of us here come before the RCMP. We are here to make laws and implement them. It is our privilege to receive these documents. They were requested on June 10. Today is September 27 and we are still waiting. It is a question of privilege.

This is not the first time that the government has concealed information. In 2015, the Liberals boasted that they would be the most transparent government in this country's history. I think it is fairly obvious that this is far from true. It is really unfortunate that we are still talking about this in the House of Commons even now, when, in fact, it is a question of parliamentary privilege.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup that I do not have Alzheimer's. I have a very good memory. The motto in Quebec is “Je me souviens”, or “I remember”. I do not trust people who preach to others when things in their own party are not entirely above board.

I would remind my colleague about the G8 and G20 spending scandal. That was not even about people on boards of directors who might have been giving money to Liberal cronies. It was the minister himself who diverted public funds to run ads in his own riding. I am not making it up. We know it. It is in Sheila Fraser's report. She was the auditor general at the time. Thirty-two infrastructure projects were funded in Minister Tony Clement's riding. He is a former Conservative minister. We are talking about $50 million to make tourist information signs and install public washrooms and build roads in unrelated areas, in connection with the projects for the G8 and G20 summit.

I would like my colleague to tell me how Quebeckers can feel reassured? When the Conservatives were in power, they dipped into public funds to divert money. That was also called out by the then auditor general.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also a Quebecker, and my motto is also “Je me souviens”, or “I remember”. I will remember, as will all Quebeckers, that, as we speak, the Bloc Québécois is supporting a centralizing, spendthrift government. The Bloc supported spending hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, over the past nine years, and particularly over the past four or five. As a result, we now have two million people using food banks.

We will not take any lessons from the Bloc Québécois.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he does not think that what he is trying to do is counterproductive. I understand that the RCMP wrote to the law clerk of the House of Commons in July saying that it is highly unlikely that any records that they receive through this process could be used in an investigation as it would affect the suspect's Charter of Rights. Does he not understand that the process that is being undertaken now is actually counterproductive to bringing any criminals to justice?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is counterproductive is the fact that the Liberals do not want to co-operate and ask all the opposition parties that are here, that are represented in the House, to provide the documents in question. That is what we call counterproductive.

The privilege that we have to be able to access those documents is an extremely important parliamentary privilege. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not want to co-operate. That is very harmful to Canada.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for highlighting the importance of this question of privilege in this case of conflict of interest.

I would simply like him to explain why transparency is so important to restoring public confidence in the use of limited taxpayer dollars.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and congratulate him on his French. I did not even know he spoke French. That is great news. We have another French speaker in the House of Commons. That is great. I would like to congratulate him. The Bloc Québécois will be happy; we have yet another francophone.

My colleague's question is very simple. We have the privilege of being in the House of Commons. We are here to keep an eye on things. As my Bloc Québécois colleague, who taught ethics for 30 years, said earlier, the primary role of parliamentarians is to ensure that the country is well governed. That includes knowing how the public's money is being spent. That is our role. Frankly, it is an absolute priority for the opposition to make sure that the government is doing its job and giving us the information in full “transparency”. I use quotation marks because, obviously, the current government does not know the definition of the word transparency.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what the House is debating today is astounding, mind-numbing corruption under a Liberal government kept in power by the NDP.

This government is also supported by the Bloc Québécois.

We are talking about the billion dollar green slush fund, known as Sustainable Development Technology Canada. It was set up in 2001 to provide financial assistance to green technology companies that were looking to be commercialized. This was a worthy objective, and Conservatives favour technological breakthroughs that help the environment. That is the way to do it. We do not support a carbon tax that hurts Canadian companies and Canadians. The carbon tax is a tax plan, not a climate plan. Conservatives have called for a carbon tax election, which the Liberals, Bloc and NDP have said no to, not just to us but to Canadians.

In 2017, the Auditor General produced a report and gave the SDTC a clean bill of health. The SDTC at that time was under the chair who was appointed by the Conservative government. Fast-forward to today. Thanks to whistle-blowers, who had access to information within the government and the SDTC, a web of corruption, of Liberal-friendly individuals and firms, has been exposed, totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. The Auditor General has released a new report examining 226 out of 405 transactions. She found, out of the 226, that 186 of them had conflicts of interest totalling $330 million, or 82%. Extrapolating from the entire amount that was given out by SDTC, that equals about $800 million of expenditures that were conflicted.

What do we mean by conflicted? It means that the people on the board who were appointed received personal benefits. Their companies received personal benefits from the transactions. It really undermines a lot of the expenditures that the Liberals make. We have to, as the opposition, as taxpayers, second-guess almost everything that they are doing. We start scratching the surface and wonder about the connection to a Liberal-friendly individual or company. We have seen it throughout. In 2019, the Minister of Industry at the time, Navdeep Bains, appointed a chair who, he was told, had a conflict.

I will continue on the next sitting of the House.