Matt Jeneroux

[Privilege, October 30th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would ask the member to repeat the question, but honestly, it is the same question he has asked every single member who is here.

[Privilege, October 30th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could think of a Seinfeld reference that is equally adequate to that of the esteemed member for Durham there. I hope that, as the night goes on, something will come to mind. Before I get into my speech, I just wanted to highlight something very briefly, if the House will quickly allow. I had the immense privilege to go and visit, last weekend, an organization called Jack.org. It is Canada's only charity training that empowers young leaders to revolutionize mental health.

The work they are doing is incredibly moving, and I wish I had more time in the House to share some of the stories. Suicide among youth is still the leading health-related cause of death for young people in Canada. One in seven young people in Canada reports having suicidal thoughts, to say nothing of those who do not report. This year, 150,000 will act on their thoughts by attempting suicide. For hundreds of them, the attempt will be fatal. Things need to change, and Jack.org is doing a lot of that work for us.

Now to turn to the matter at hand, which is the privilege motion here before the House. I rise with great disappointment to speak to this question of privilege. This particular question of privilege is related to the failure to produce documents required by an order of the House. On June 10, a majority of members in the House passed a motion that ordered the production of important documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

The key word there is “order”. It was not “ask” or “request”; it was not that, in the opinion of the House, the board “should”. The House of Commons has the authority to order the production of documents. That authority comes right from the Constitution; in fact, it is in section 18 of the British North America Act, also known as the Constitution Act, 1867.

It clearly states, “The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada”. That power includes the time-honoured ability to send for persons, papers and records.

As is explained in Bosc and Gagnon at pages 984 to 986:

The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction. There is no limit on the types of papers likely to be requested; the only prerequisite is that the papers exist in hard copy or electronic format, and that they are located in Canada.

It continues:

No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records.

That is our collective right, as the House of Commons, as the grand inquest of the nation. Documents have been ordered by the House; those documents have not been provided. That, unfortunately, is why we are debating the question of privilege today.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC for short, is the organization we are focusing this privilege motion on once again today. It has become known here in the House as the green slush fund. Just to back up a bit, and for some historical context, the Office of the Auditor General made several key observations for the audit period of March 2017 to December 2023.

I will read a few quotes from the report that was tabled in the House on June 4. First, “10 projects were awarded $59 million” in funding when they should have been deemed “ineligible”. I would suggest that is concerning. Second, SDTC's “conflict-of-interest policies were not followed” in “90 cases”. Again, this is very concerning.

Third, “the board approved $58 million for projects without ensuring that they met the terms of the contribution agreements.” I would think that this is something the government would also be very concerned about.

Meanwhile, the responses to these issues appear to show the exact opposite. Of the responses I have seen to many Auditor General reports, I cannot recall such out-of-touch responses. In its written responses, SDTC made false and outright preposterous claims.

First, SDTC claimed, “Each project proposal goes through rigorous due diligence and evaluation” that is “robust” and “highly credible”. That is simply not true, but if it were true, SDTC would not be facing this $58-million scandal, unless the due diligence it was referring to is actually just its insiders looking at who on the board would be getting money out of each proposal.

Second, SDTC claimed that it was subject to an Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada evaluation in 2018. That was six years ago and outside the period of the Auditor General's audit. Essentially, SDTC was clearly ignoring the audit period and ignoring these findings.

Third, SDTC claimed it “uses external experts”, but then failed to identify them. For an organization whose problem is conflicts of interest to claim things are going to be better based on the advice provided by some unnamed external experts shows just how out of touch SDTC had really become.

Fourth, SDTC claimed that it did not fully agree to the Auditor General's recommendations because SDTC “has delivered strong outcomes against these objectives.” Unless those objectives were to push money into companies that board members had a financial interest in, that is simply not true. The Auditor General found that 82% of the funding transactions approved by the board of directors during the audit period were conflicted. That is unreal.

Fifth, SDTC wrote, “written records did not fully capture the robust deliberations that were made” and “SDTC is of the view that these projects met the eligibility criteria set out...but acknowledges that the [Auditor General] reached a different conclusion”, suggesting that the independent Auditor General was basically out to get them. The arrogance is appalling. The operators of the green slush fund were simply saying that the Auditor General got it wrong, there was nothing to see here, we should ignore it and let them get back to business. Then, at the same time, they admitted that their own written records do not support their claim, so they stuck by their story.

Sixth, SDTC claimed it “had clear processes for staff and directors to declare real, potential and perceived conflicts”. Again, this claim completely ignores the findings of the Auditor General and, subsequently, the public accounts committee. We know conflicts were not declared, and even when they were declared, they either voted for their own projects or took turns voting for each other's projects. The idea that there were clear processes for conflicts of interest would be laughable if it were not so sad.

Seventh, SDTC claimed it “further strengthened its conflict-of-interest policies” in November 2023. This shows exactly that the SDTC only cared about preventing corruption after they got caught with corruption. By November 2023, they knew the Auditor General's report was coming because the audit period was from March 2017 to December 2023. Claiming that policies have been strengthened and implying nothing further needs to be done after corruption has already been uncovered is disingenuous.

There is a word that comes to mind: entitlement. This kind of entitlement comes from an organization that is so used to getting vast amounts of money for its own purposes, it disconnects from the realities of honest and hard-working Canadians.

There is still a lot that we do not know about the green slush fund, but what we have learned through the industry committee and the public accounts committee is alarming. What we have learned so far has made those of us on the opposition benches determined to get the full story, and for that, we need these documents the House requested back on June 10th.

We know that SDTC was created in 2001, and as of an audit in 2017, no problems had arisen. The conflict of interest culture only emerged after board members were appointed under the current Prime Minister by former minister Bains. The most concerning of these appointments was in 2019, when the chair, Annette Verschuren, was appointed despite multiple warnings of conflicts of interest. Those warnings turned out to be warranted as, this past July, the former chair was determined by the Ethics Commissioner to have violated the Conflict of Interest Act by participating in decisions to benefit organizations she had an interest in. One would suggest that they were warned but went ahead anyway.

We now know that former assistant deputy minister Noseworthy was responsible for keeping watch over SDTC, but we can only call his job simply a failure. On December 11 of last year, he appeared at the industry committee and said, “To my knowledge, I am not aware of any decisions to allocate funds to projects related to board members where they did not recuse themselves.” However, the Auditor General's report released just two months later informed us that the system was filled with conflicts of interest. Again, the Auditor General is independent. Therefore, the assistant deputy minister either lied at committee or was willfully blind to the corruption that was going on around him. We also know that, if there were any semblance of good governance, the minister of innovation, science and industry would have been notified. However, because accountability is absent, we do not know what the minister knew or when he knew it.

Nevertheless, we do know that at least one Liberal MP was informed almost two years ago. When the whistle-blower known to the public accounts committee as Witness 1 appeared at public accounts last month, they informed the committee that they had informed the Liberal member for Calgary Skyview all the way back in May 2022. The whistle-blower further stated that this member “assured me that he took this situation seriously and guaranteed that he would facilitate contact with the appropriate people in the federal government and the Auditor General's office.” However, we now know that the member was not true to his word and subsequently refused to engage.

We know that the directors were appointed to the board. A key example of this was long-time Liberal operative Stephen Kukucha. He was appointed to the board in February 2021. This is after he had been a long-time donor, a ministerial staffer in the Chrétien government, original organizer for the Liberal Party and former general secretary for the Liberal Party 2016 Convention. Shortly after the Prime Minister came into office, this insider became a lobbyist; he advocated for energy and transportation businesses. It does not get more inside than this, yet he was appointed to the board of the green slush fund, exactly where companies that had a financial interest could receive contributions directly from the government.

Furthermore, in another twist, as my hon. colleague for South Shore—St. Margarets has explained, we now know that the Minister of Environment has had an interest in a venture capital firm called Cycle Capital. Cycle Capital also received funding from the same green slush fund. It just keeps unravelling more and more.

Finally, we now know from a member of the new board that, since this scandal broke, none of the money that was wrongfully sent out has been recovered. On behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, I will say that this is unfair, unacceptable and, quite frankly, incredibly frustrating. Simply put, after all this, it seems rather clear and painfully obvious that we need the documents that were called for in the motion passed by a clear majority of members on June 10.

This is not only a matter of parliamentary privilege; it is also a matter of the moral obligation we have to Canadians. In order to meet that obligation, we need to access documents when we have ordered them from the executive branch. The public accounts committee is still waiting on documents it has requested to receive. We do not have the contribution and funding agreement showing the requirements and obligations of the recipients. We do not have the conflict of interest declarations of the board members, and we owe it to Canadians to produce this information. When we put all of this together, we do not have transparency, oversight or accountability.

I started my speech indicating that I am disappointed to be rising in this debate in Parliament because it is not the first time we have seen this type of parliamentary privilege violated. Earlier this year, there was yet another privilege debate on yet another scandal, the one related to ArriveCAN. The slow erosion of rights and privileges is not a small matter. It is an absolute threat to our democracy. We saw this in the previous Parliament with the Winnipeg lab scandal, and it caused tremendous hardship for the scandal-plagued government.

On that occasion, in the 43rd Parliament, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada was even called to the bar of this House of Commons to be admonished for failing, or, perhaps more accurately, refusing, to provide documents that he had been ordered to provide to the House. One would have hoped the government had learned from that experience, but clearly, it did not, and here we are again.

In June 2021, 147 members on that side of the House, shamefully, voted against the motion on the question of privilege, which has proven to be a huge mistake. I should hope, this time around, history does not repeat itself and they do not repeat that mistake. However, now we have this green slush fund scandal. The government continues to refuse to release documents that it has been ordered to produce because, one can only presume, it does not want to help uncover corruption that has occurred under its watch for the past several years, corruption that has benefited its own insiders. It is an issue of vital importance. No matter how hard the government tries to push it away, Parliament must continue to pursue it.

When the opposition House leader raised the initial question of privilege, he referenced a memorandum he had obtained from the Privy Council Office at the beginning of this Parliament. That memorandum read, “Public servants do not share in ministers' constitutional accountability to the Houses of Parliament but support ministers in this accountability”; it also stated that “the ultimate accountability for deciding what information to withhold from or release to parliamentarians resides with the responsible minister.” The government may believe the rights and privileges of Parliament no longer matter, but we will soon see if it believes the ministerial responsibility still matters. It is the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry who is ultimately responsible for SDTC and for this violation of an order of the House. It is the minister who must be held accountable.

In conclusion, I support the motion as moved by the opposition House leader, and I will reference it here. The motion by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle on the alleged failure to produce documents pertaining to Sustainable Development Technology Canada reads as follows: “That the government's failure of fully providing documents, as ordered by the House on June 10, 2024, be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.”

The amendment reads:

provided that it be an instruction to the committee:

(a) that the following witnesses be ordered to appear before the committee, separately, for two hours each:

(i) the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry,

(ii) the Clerk of the Privy Council,

(iii) the Auditor General of Canada,

(iv) the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

(v) the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada,

(vi) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons,

(vii) the Acting President of Sustainable Development Technology Canada,

(viii) a panel consisting of the Board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada; and

(b) that it report back to the House no later than Friday, November 22, 2024.

The green slush fund has been exposed as a tremendous waste, a scandal where taxpayers' hard-earned money was used to benefit government insiders at SDTC. We need more details. Canadians deserve to know more details and to know who is at fault. There are individuals who need to be held accountable, and the people within the government who should have known and should have prevented this from happening need to be held accountable.

I will be voting for this motion, and this time, I hope every member, regardless of party affiliation, does the right thing and votes yes, yes for accountability and yes for respecting orders of the House of Commons.

[Mental Health, October 29th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, on World Mental Health Day, Mental Health Research Canada released its landmark collaborative national report, titled “A Generation at Risk: The State of Youth Mental Health in Canada”. This report brings together research and lived experiences to help us better understand the youth mental health crisis.

Three key take-aways are declining mental health, service gaps and access barriers, and collaborative action. While 19% of youth accessed mental health services last year, an additional 9% are still in need of care but not receiving it. The report outlines key recommendations to improve youth mental health, including enhancing prevention, improving the quality of mental health services and expanding access.

I give a special thanks to the organizations involved in the report, including Aire Ouverte, Jack.org, Kids Help Phone, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Strongest Families Institute, the Youth in Mind Foundation, youth wellness hubs and, of course, Bell Let's Talk. I thank them all for their continued support in building a future of better mental health for all.

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 16th, 2024]

With regard to Elections Canada (EC) and Communications Security Establishment Canada's reports on "Cyber threats to Canada's democratic process - 2023 update" and "Cyber security guidance for elections authorities (ITSM.10.020)": (a) what measures has EC taken since the last general election to safeguard the integrity of elections, candidates and campaigns against cyber threats, including (i) deepfakes, (ii) artificial intelligence, (iii) bots, (iv) other attacks on telecommunication infrastructure (such as "distributed denial of service" attacks) that aim to disrupt, interfere with or sway elections as warned against in the reports; (b) for each measure in (a), (i) what was the cost, (ii) when was it implemented, (iii) how and from whom was the measure originally proposed; and (c) are there any threats which EC does not have the capacity to fully guard against, and, if so, what are they, and has EC sought assistance from the government or any other entity to guard against such a threat, and, if so, what are the details?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 16th, 2024]

With regard to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), broken down by year since January 1, 2019: (a) how many cases of (i) gender discrimination, (ii) disability discrimination, were filed against the CPPIB; (b) of the cases in (a), how many were settled without formal litigation; (c) how many non­disclosure agreements were signed by former employees related to the cases in (a); (d) what percentage of the employee disciplinary actions and terminations were handled (i) internally by employee relations, (ii) by external counsel; (e) what is the breakdown of the number of discrimination cases filed against the CPPIB in each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (f) which law firms were hired to represent the CPPIB and, broken down by city, what was the total amount in legal fees paid to each firm; (g) how much was paid in legal fees for (i) employee terminations, (ii) employee-initiated legal action against the CPPIB for which the CPPIB retained legal counsel; (h) what was the total severance paid out in each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (i) which laws firms were hired and retained by the CPPIB in the offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (j) what were the legal fees paid annually for each of the law firms retained by the CPPIB to defend the CPPIB;

(k) how many female employees were terminated through restructuring from Senior Associate level to Managing Director level for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (I) how many female employees were terminated through voluntary resignations from Senior Associate level to Managing Director level for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (m) how many (i) female, (ii) male, employees were promoted above the Senior Associate level; (n) what is the percentage of female departures from the Executive and Senior management pool from the CPPIB in its entirety and for each of its offices located in (i) Brazil, (ii) Hong Kong, (iii) India, (iv) London, (v) New York, (vi) San Francisco, (vii) Toronto; (o) what is the number of disability accommodation cases for (i) long-term, (ii) short-term, (iii) permanent, disability that were sent through Manulife; (p) how many employees who went through a Manulife accommodation remain with the CPPIB; (q) how many of the employees who remain with the CPPIB have been promoted in the last five years; (r) how many formal complaints brought by employees went through (i) a CPPIB Clearview Connects Whistleblower process, (ii) a CPPIB Conduct Review Advisor, (iii) a Legal and Compliance CPPIB, (iv) human resources; and (s) broken down by each part of (r), how many of the complainant employees remain employed by the CPPIB?

[Werner Schmidt, April 18th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart to announce the passing of a dear friend, Werner Schmidt. Werner was a distinguished educator, a former member of Parliament, an Alberta politician and, most importantly, a beloved man of faith and family. In his 92 years, Werner was a man with abiding values of integrity and honesty. He was committed to leading by example and inspired many of us around him.

A former school principal, Werner became the leader of the Alberta Social Credit Party from 1973 to 1975. A foundational member of the Reform Party of Canada, he was instrumental in its inception in British Columbia. His political career blossomed when he became the member of Parliament for Kelowna—Lake Country, serving from 1993 to 2006. He is lovingly remembered by his remarkable wife Teena, his sons Allan and Dwayne and their spouses Lori and Cheryl, along with his grandsons, Tyler and Wyatt.

May Werner rest in peace. Canada, as a country, is better off having had him serve with distinction.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2024]

With regard to Department of Employment and Social Development (ESDC) access to information requests A‑2019‑01074 and A‑2020‑01070: (a) on what date did ESDC receive each request; (b) to what date did ESDC extend the deadline for responding to each request; (c) on what date did ESDC receive the Information Commissioner's orders to respond to each request; (d) on what date was ESDC required, by the Information Commissioner's orders, to respond to each request; (e) has ESDC responded to each request, and, if not, (i) why not, (ii) on what date does ESDC expect to respond to each request; (f) what is ESDC's reason for not correctly estimating the amount of time required to respond to each request; (g) why did ESDC not comply with the Information Commissioner's orders; (h) in lieu of compliance with the Information Commissioner's orders, why did ESDC fail to apply to the Federal Court for a review of the orders; (i) what is the position of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Official Languages, as ESDC's department head, on (i) the acceptability of these delays in processing access to information requests, (ii) ESDC's disregard of the Information Commissioner's orders, including ESDC's decision not to apply for Federal Court review; (j) if the minister considers the actions in (i) to be unacceptable, what specific actions has he directed to be done to ensure that similar failures do not occur in the future; (k) what is the position of the Attorney General of Canada on ESDC's combined failure to respond to the requests and apply for Federal Court review, including whether it undermines the government's commitment to the rule of law in Canada; and (l) what specific actions has the Attorney General directed to be done to ensure that similar failures do not occur in the future?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2024]

With regard to government-owned land or buildings being considered for sale for the purpose of housing: what are the details of each building or piece of land, including the (i) address and location, (ii) size of the land, (iii) square footage, (iv) current state of the building or land, including the type of current occupants, if applicable, (v) current state of sale or disposal, (vi) expected date of sale or disposal, (vii) number of housing units projected to be built at the site?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2024]

With regard to Privy Council Office (PCO) access to information requests A‑2020‑00583, A‑2021‑00266, A‑2021‑00272, A‑2021‑00490, A‑2021‑00495, A‑2022‑00163, A‑2022‑00176 and A‑2022‑00182: (a) on what date did PCO receive each request; (b) to what date did PCO extend the deadline for responding to each request; (c) has PCO responded to each request, and, if not, (i) why not, (ii) on what date does PCO expect to respond to each request; (d) why did PCO not correctly estimate the amount of time required to respond to each request; (e) what is the Prime Minister's position on PCO's delays in processing access to information requests, including whether the delays are acceptable; and (f) if the Prime Minister does not consider the delays to be acceptable, what specific actions has he directed to be done to ensure that similar delays do not occur in the future?

[Carbon Pricing, February 13th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I have more. An Alberta leadership candidate said, “There's no way people can be on board with the federal plan when even the prime minister isn’t on board, when he’s playing games with it” and that the federal carbon levy is “dead”. Another candidate said we must move away from a consumer carbon tax.

When he loses the support of the far left Alberta NDP, the minister must know he has a problem. Will he cancel his carbon tax before April 1, once and for all?