:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the Speaker's ruling regarding the Liberal government's refusal to comply with a binding House order to produce documents related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or better known to Canadians as the Liberal green slush fund.
It is like Groundhog Day here in Parliament. We are once again debating another Liberal scandal instead of legislation, but the Liberals have done this to themselves. They are clearly trying to hide the details of yet more corruption. I have a prediction: These documents will eventually prove that the Liberals have wasted taxpayer money and helped their friends. Why else would they go to such great lengths to keep them so secret?
It is simply astounding and, frankly, infuriating to me and to the people I represent that the Liberal government has become so complacent and so careless that it is willing to let millions of tax dollars be wasted and does not even want an investigation into how or why. We are not just talking about numbers on a balance sheet here; we are talking about the hard-earned tax dollars of everyday Canadians. It is reasonable for them to loathe the waste and corruption they have seen under the Liberal government.
The sheer audacity of the to sidestep a binding House order and to cloak himself in secrecy is nothing short of outrageous. Make no mistake, his stonewalling is not just irresponsible; it is a betrayal of the trust of the very people he, and everyone in this place, was elected to serve. We owe it to Canadians to demand answers, to hold the Prime Minister accountable and to ensure taxpayer money is not being funnelled into the hands of his friends, Liberal insiders.
To demonstrate why we must find the Liberal government in breach of parliamentary privilege by ignoring the will of this House, we must examine the pattern of appalling evasion and secrecy habits from the government. As a bit of a refresher on previous Liberal failures to be open and transparent, beyond the matter before us, let us not forget the SNC-Lavalin scandal. This was when the decided to fire Jody Wilson-Raybould for refusing to go along with his nefarious plan to change the law to protect himself and, of course, his friends. The Prime Minister was then repeatedly asked to waive cabinet confidence to let Ms. Wilson-Raybould speak, and he refused time and time again. He did everything he could to make sure that no one, including and especially the RCMP, could even get access to evidence to properly investigate the matter.
Now, let us fast-forward to the Winnipeg lab documents the refused to hand over, once again defying the will of Parliament in the process. When the previous Speaker ruled that he and his government must hand over the documents, the Speaker said:
The [powers] in question, like all those enjoyed by the House collectively and by members individually, are essential to the performance of their duties. The House has the power, and indeed the duty, to reaffirm them when obstruction or interference impedes its deliberations. As guardian of these rights and privileges, that is precisely what the House has asked me to do today by ordering the Speaker to reprimand you for the Public Health Agency of Canada's contempt in refusing to submit the required documents.
This all sounds a little familiar to today's debate, of course. What did the do in that instance? He was callous enough to let the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada take the fall. It was cruel that he decided to make a public servant take the fall for his failures of leadership and his own political objectives. A long time ago, it feels like forever, nine long, miserable years ago or so, the Liberal Prime Minister promised that government would be open by default. I do not know if the Prime Minister believed himself then, or if he just drank too much of his own Kool-Aid, but his record does not match that empty rhetoric.
In politics, we should not be judged by our words; we should be measured against our actions. Words are cheap, and without following through, they are not worth anything. I do not blame Canadians for being upset with the , not just for this scandal but broadly speaking, because he is anything but open and transparent. The fact we are here debating this again today is yet another proof point of that.
However, the reason this motion is so important is that it transcends mere procedural oversight. It speaks directly to the integrity of our democracy and the accountability we owe to the people each one of us represents in this place. This issue is not just about a handful of documents. It reflects a broader principle of good government, one that is essential for maintaining public trust, something the lost some time ago.
Let us revisit the timeline and the facts that have brought us here today. On June 10, the House passed a motion demanding specific documents that are critical to our oversight of government operations. We set a reasonable deadline of 30 days to comply, yet what followed was far from satisfactory. It was extremely disappointing, but perhaps not surprising given the Liberals' track record. The reports submitted to the Speaker by the law clerk indicated partial disclosures and numerous redactions. In some cases, we faced outright refusal from various government departments. This is not merely a technical breach. It constitutes a dismissal of Parliament's authority. The actions of the Liberal government convey the troubling message that it simply prioritizes convenience over accountability. This is not how government is meant to function.
Let us take a moment to reflect on the importance of parliamentary privilege. The Speaker has in the past noted the absolute nature of the powers to order the production of documents. This is no trivial matter; it is a cornerstone of our democratic process. Parliamentary privilege allows us to demand transparency, ensuring that the government is held accountable to the people it serves or, at least, should serve. This House has the unequivocal right to request any information necessary for us to fulfill those parliamentary duties.
The must recognize that he is not above the rules that govern this place because it operates under the scrutiny of the House and, by extension, the very people of Canada we are here to represent. To stress that point, let us reflect on some historical precedents. Speaker Milliken affirmed the House's unwavering right to order the production of documents, asserting that no exceptions should be made for any category of government documents. This principle is enshrined in our procedural traditions and underscores the fundamental duty of Parliament to oversee the actions of the government of the day.
As for why we are taking this somewhat extraordinary step, it is because what we uncovered regarding this green slush fund scandal is nothing short of appalling. It directly undermines the fundamental tenet of responsible governance: that taxpayer dollars should be directed toward their intended purposes and, better yet, they should achieve outcomes of those purposes. We discovered that the Liberals appointed a board of directors with individuals closely aligned with Liberal interests and with deep-seated conflicts of interest. This board then made decisions that funnelled taxpayer money to companies that, as the Auditor General pointed out, have no verifiable environmental benefits. The Liberal government has tried to spin a yarn about how this was using tax dollars on green projects; instead, it was mired with conflicts of interest and ineligible project applications.
I want to extend my sincere gratitude to my many hard-working Conservative colleagues, particularly the member for , who have dedicated countless hours to find the truth. They have done exemplary work on behalf of Canadians by digging deep to get to the bottom of this mess. The member for South Shore—St. Margarets exposed this green slush fund for what it truly was, a mechanism for companies to cash in for projects that were not even eligible or simply to enrich themselves.
I am particularly troubled by the notion of the board of directors allocating taxpayer money to companies in which they have a vested interest. This is a profound betrayal of the public trust. This is why this production order is so critical and why the government's defiance of such a serious breach of parliamentary privilege is so appalling. In my view, it is imperative that any member of this House who has any desire for accountability must support this motion.
For those watching at home, I will give a rundown of how we got here. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, was not always this body engulfed in scandal and corruption. In fact, it was started back in 2001 with the purpose of funding companies that create technologies promoting sustainable development; this is not a bad idea. In its intended form, SDTC is an arm's-length and not-for-profit organization. However, it all changed with the Liberal government, which transformed it into anything but that. SDTC has a board of directors that oversees payments from the fund.
Jim Balsillie, the former co-CEO of BlackBerry, became the chair of this board back in 2013. He served in that capacity for several years, that is, until one day, the then Liberal industry minister expressed concerns because Balsillie was critical of the Liberal government. So they did what Liberals do and searched for a friendly face to take on the role, ultimately settling on Annette Verschuren in June 2019.
That is when the problems really started. Ms. Verschuren had received SDTC funding, which made her the only chair in the fund's history to have interests in a company receiving money from the organization. The minister, the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's bureaucratic department, were warned of the risks with her appointment, yet they went ahead anyway. Ms. Verschuren went on to normalize an environment where conflicts of interest thrived. Simply put, the board of directors would award funding to companies in which they held financial interests. They enriched themselves at the expense of hard-working, taxpaying Canadians.
The examples are incredibly damning, so let me just mention a few. Stephen Kukucha, a former Liberal political staffer, served as a director for some time. During his tenure, companies he had a financial interest in received nearly $5 million in SDTC funding. Guy Ouimet, another director, admitted that companies he had a financial interest in received about $17 million in SDTC funding.
These numbers are not exactly chump change, but they pale in comparison to the story of Andrée-Lise Méthot. Ms. Méthot owns Cycle Capital, a firm that apparently invests in green technologies. During her time on the board, $114 million in SDTC grants were given to companies she had a financial interest in. That was just during the time she was on the board. When we combine what the companies she had invested in received both before and during that time, the total was $250 million.
I would like to say it stops there, but it actually gets a little worse. Before he was focused on driving our economy into the ground, the radical was a so-called strategic adviser for none other than Cycle Capital. During his 10 years there, millions went from Liberal coffers to that firm. In fact, I understand he still owns shares in the company but refuses to tell us how much they have increased in value. My theory is that they have increased a lot, because he is apparently rich enough not to worry about the economic vandalism he and his government are doing to Canadians. He must be buffered from those challenges.
Regardless, the corruption was too great. The gravy train had to end at some point. In late 2022, whistle-blowers raised concerns about corruption at SDTC. Later in 2023, they went public with those concerns, sounding the alarm about unethical practices at the organization.
That November, the Auditor General announced that an audit of SDTC would be completed. The report released in June 2024 was damning, to say the least. The Auditor General found 186 conflicts of interest. Not one, not two, not a few, but 186. Who in their right mind would think this is acceptable? I do not care what one's political stripe is; nobody would find that acceptable. To fight back against any investigation into that is simply appalling. Of the sample of contracts investigated by the Auditor General, it turns out $390 million in contracts was inappropriately awarded.
For many years, it was a good time to be a Liberal insider, until these dastardly whistle-blowers emerged. It turns out, time is up. The most damning testimony came from these whistle-blowers. Let me read a few quotes. One reads:
I think the current government is more interested in protecting themselves and protecting the situation [from] being a public nightmare. They would rather protect wrongdoers and financial mismanagement than have to deal with a situation like SDTC in the public sphere.
Another reads, “The true failure of the situation stands at the feet of our current government, whose decision to protect wrongdoers and cover up their findings over the last 12 months is a serious indictment of how our democratic systems and institutions are being corrupted by political interference.”
I will pause to give everyone a chance to reflect on those statements. If they do not drive home the problem, I do not know what will.
Recognizing this, the House decided to pass a motion on June 10 that called on the Liberal government to provide to the House documents pertaining to SDTC. It included provisions for the documents to then be provided to the RCMP so that it could undertake a criminal investigation on whether criminal offences were committed. This last piece is important, since the Auditor General conducted a governance audit, not a criminal investigation.
What did the government do in response? It is a reasonable question. It did not do what it was supposed to do, of course. It delayed and deflected so long that it forced the Speaker of the House to rule that the government violated the privileges of the institution and its members. That, simply put, is the story of how the Liberals transformed an arm's-length, not-for-profit organization into a money grab for Liberal insiders.
We all know the saying that sunlight is the best disinfectant. The used to crow about this all the time, but as of late, I would not dare him to say it publicly because it would not be taken seriously. Like many of the 's promises, this one, of course, has faded into the distance.
It has taken immense effort from a parliamentary committee and now a production order from the House of Commons for the government to comply with our request for basic documentation about these payments. This should have been a straightforward process. These documents do not require a motion to obtain. Departments ought to proactively disclose such information or at least readily provide it upon request. A government intent on transparency would have no qualms about sharing this information, but that is not the Liberal government.
Consider this: The government has consumed valuable legislative time forcing us to extract information that it could have disclosed at the outset. Instead of coming forward with the necessary documentation when initial concerns arose, the Liberals chose to conceal it intentionally, wasting time and resources that could have been better spent, I think, in the eyes of every Canadian. The ongoing redactions and the refusal to release certain documents speak volumes about the abilities of the government. These are not the actions of a government with nothing to hide.
We are merely asking the government to hand these documents over to the law clerk, who can then forward them to the RCMP if necessary. If, as we suspect, wrongdoing and illegality occurred, we owe it to the Canadian taxpayers, who have seen their money wasted, to pursue the truth.
I fully support the proposal to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This committee can delve deeper and examine what documents remain outstanding, what has been withheld and, crucially, hold those accountable for any misappropriated tax dollars. I urge all members to support this course of action, because we need to send a strong message to the Liberal government that we will not be intimidated by its underhanded tactics or its secrecy.
I am not daunted or apprehensive about taking the Liberals on. This is exactly what I am doing at the environment committee right now, as we start the process of investigating the Liberals' net zero accelerator fund, which is worth $8 billion, far more than the green slush fund that we are talking about today. The environment committee has passed numerous motions to get its hands on the contracts the Liberals signed, and we will do whatever is necessary to get to the bottom of that quagmire. Based on the Liberals' track record, I would not be surprised if we see ourselves back here for a failure to deliver those contracts.
It is vital that we remember who as members of Parliament we serve. Each of us has a duty to our constituents to ensure that the government is spending their hard-earned money appropriately, that it is not being wasted or misspent and that it is going toward its intended purpose, not to the pockets of Liberal insiders and those who simply know how to game the system. This is more than just documents. This is about accountability and our democracy, and those who do wrong must be brought to justice.
I encourage all members, particularly my Liberal colleagues, whom I know this will be rather difficult for, to stand up for what is right, because their voters elected them for the same reason that mine elected me: They want members to do the right thing. They want them to vote for this motion to provide a bit of disinfectant and sunlight to this information. When it matters most, it is time to stand up.
:
Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of days, it has been somewhat difficult to listen to all the comments as the Conservatives work with other members of the House to put a serious twist on things. How can they say that, just because we have the parliamentary authority and the decisions we make are so supreme, we are somehow allowed to walk over things like the Charter of Rights? I am not surprised this is coming from the Conservatives, because they also believe in being able to use the notwithstanding clause on a whim.
I would suggest that individuals need to be aware of what the Conservatives are asking for. We can simply say that the Conservative Party has taken it upon itself, according to the member for , to assist the RCMP. They are going to gather information and provide it to the RCMP directly. I would suggest that this blurs the issue of judicial independence.
Time and again, we hear Conservative members stand up and try to give the impression that everything is okay, that we should not worry about it, that they are not going to be walking on any potential issues related to the charter. They say that they have the supreme right because, after all, they are members of Parliament. That is what it is they want to say, loud and clear. I understand the important role we all play as members of Parliament, but I also have a deep respect for the institution of our RCMP. Therefore, when it says that it is very uncomfortable with what is being proposed by the Conservatives, unlike the Conservatives, I listen to that. I think the wording was “extreme discomfort”. When the Auditor General also expresses extreme discomfort with the issue, I listen to that.
For those who are asking how it is a charter issue, I am not a lawyer. However, I understand the importance of judicial independence. Furthermore, I suspect that there is a good potential for guilt to be found. I suspect that, when and if this thing goes before a court, we could easily see a defence lawyer challenging how the rights of an individual were breached through the Charter of Rights by the manner in which the RCMP was provided information. It is highly irresponsible to completely close our eyes and deny that. That is what we are seeing from the official opposition. Why? It is because they say that all they are trying to do is assist the RCMP. What a slippery slope that is. What are the Conservatives going to do if they do not like the conclusion of one aspect of the law or the RCMP's conclusion not to lay charges on something? Are they then going to take action and say that they are supreme because they are members of Parliament and that they want the RCMP to lay a charge?
I have more confidence in the system and the institution, in the RCMP and even in the work that has been done to date on the issue. Let us think about it. When this issue first came to light, we had the department and the responsible and two independent investigations that were done, as well as work by the Auditor General of Canada. I do not know how many hours of debate took place, as well as questioning of all the individuals involved at the standing committee.
The Conservatives have a drive to try to keep it alive, even if it means walking over someone's charter rights. Where was this enthusiasm when they were actually in government? That is the nice thing about what is said inside the chamber: It is all recorded. The Conservatives' focus, virtually from day one, has been on character assassination; wherever they can throw the word “corrupt”, they do. I want to remind members opposite of their actual behaviour.
I appreciate that a number of the New Democrats actually raised a couple of these points, and I want to reinforce some of these things. Let us think in terms of Conservative government corruption, in just one government: that of Stephen Harper. Many members who are sitting across the way were a part of that government. In fact, the was a minister.
I have a short list of instances of their corruption. There is a much longer list; maybe I will be able to expand on it sometime next week. There is the anti-terrorism scandal by the Conservative Party, the Phoenix scandal and the G8 spending scandal. There is also the gazebo scandal; we had a minister taking money and saying they wanted to build a gazebo. What about that scandal? That is one of the sub—
:
Mr. Speaker, the last one I mentioned was the election scandal, but there should be an “s” on “scandal” because there was more than one. Remember that one Conservative member of Parliament actually went to jail as a result. That is not to mention the robocalls and the fines the Conservative Party had.
There is something that all of them have in common, and that is what I want to try to rope together. Trust me, there is a lot more than what I just said. Let us think about this. There are all the different scandals, but where were the Conservatives and some of the enthusiastic members jumping out of their seats wanting to address this issue when it came to collecting information and handing it directly to the RCMP. Where were the Conservatives' accountability issues back then? I would suggest—
Mr. Larry Brock: There was no criminality.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, he says there was no criminality. I just finished telling the member opposite that one of the Conservative MPs went to jail. He would not have gone to jail if he were innocent. That was a Conservative scandal. How can the member say there is no criminality? I shake my head sometimes.
At the end of the day, we need to understand and appreciate that the Conservatives, while in government, did not believe in accountability when it came to scandals because they constantly buried them. Not only Liberal members will say that; other members will say the same thing.
Now there is an issue before us today that the Government of Canada has taken seriously right from the get-go, even before the Conservatives were aware of it. To give the false impression that it is only the Conservatives who are concerned about ensuring there is justice on the issue is a false narrative; it is just not true. On more than one occasion, more than one minister has stood to defend the taxpayer on the issue, saying they will ensure that there will be a consequence for whoever violates and abuses tax dollars. I would like to think that is a given.
When the today talks about accountability and transparency, Canadians can feel confident in knowing that the government is not trying to avoid accountability whatsoever. The Liberal Party does believe in the the Charter of Rights and in our Constitution. In fact it was the Liberal Party that brought the charter into being. That is the reality of it.
It is truly amazing that today the and other members, including the previous speaker, said we could be doing something other than debating the issue. Of course we could be doing something else, but who has been doing all of the debating? For the last couple of days, the Conservatives have continued to debate the issue. What happens if the Conservatives stop debating it? It means there will be a vote. What will happen when the vote occurs? The issue is likely going to go to the procedure and House affairs committee, where there will be a great deal of discussion on the issue, and where witnesses will appear. That is not really what the Conservatives want.
Ms. Michelle Ferreri: Call an election.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they want what the member just heckled, and that is to call an election. That is the only thing on the minds of the Conservatives today, not the concerns and issues that Canadians have in the communities we represent, but rather, one focus, and one focus alone. All they want to do is talk about scandal, corruption and character assassination. That is their objective between now and whenever the next election takes place.
At the end of the day, if the Conservatives really and truly want to put Canadians ahead of their own political ambitions, we would see this go to committee, but they do not want that. They moved an amendment so that not only can every member speak to it once but they can also do it a second time.
This is because the Conservatives want to prevent the House from being able to debate government legislation, which is interesting. They are preventing legislation from being debated, and then say that the House is not functional. Well, gee whiz, that is like standing on a sidewalk, tripping a child who then falls on the sidewalk and then asking, “What are you doing lying on the sidewalk?” Well, the Conservatives have tripped legislation on the sidewalk. It just does not make any sense. If the Conservatives want to work for Canadians, then they should do that. Do not believe that, at the end of the day, everything they are doing is in the best interests of Canadians when, in fact, it is not. It might be in the best interests of the and the Conservative Party itself, but they should not try to give false impressions in regards to the interests of Canadians.
SDTC is an institution that has been here for more than 20 years. It has done a fantastic job over the years at ensuring that technology in Canada continues to evolve to the degree where, I would suggest, we do not have to be second to any other country. It is because of individuals, like former prime minister Jean Chrétien, who brought this program into existence, and it has made a difference. It has had a very tangible and real impact.
Unfortunately, at times, issues come up, which is not new to this government or any other government before it, where there appears to be significant abuse. The question is, what does the government do when it sees it? I would suggest to compare our actions to Stephen Harper's actions, and members will see that we have been forthright in providing information to members and in being there for committee members.
However, to ask Liberal members of Parliament to ignore the comments of the RCMP and the Auditor General in terms of the risk factor by bringing in this particular tactic, well, I think we should be concerned. If the Conservatives are genuinely interested in ensuring that there is more accountability on this issue, well then, why not allow it to go to committee? What is the purpose in preventing this from going to committee?
At the end of the day, as I indicated, Conservatives have a strong focus on character assassination. One Conservative member stood up in the debate and effectively said, “Well, you know, corruption takes place in a different sense”. We often hear Conservative members, in addressing this issue, talk about other issues, and one of those is in regards to Mark Carney, and we hear what they say about that particular individual.
I raised a question on a different issue of a conflict of interest, much like what the Conservative member yesterday said when he made reference to corruption in a different sense. I responded to that particular statement by talking about a young lady, Jenni Byrne, who is a lobbyist and does work with Loblaws. She played a critical role in Stephen Harper's elections. I believe she was the co-chair or manager of the current leadership bid, and I know that she is deeply involved in the Conservative caucus.
I am thinking that, if I were to behave like a Conservative and started putting dots here and dots there, and then pulled them all together, I might think there was something corrupt about this, something that maybe we should be investigating. I am wondering if some of my like-minded colleagues on the other side would see that there could be some value in this. After all, it was Stephen Harper who ultimately saw Loblaw and Shoppers melt into one, and the Conservatives are concerned about affordability. The reduction of competition no doubt had something to do with that.
Better yet, in my member's statement today, I talked about allegations of foreign interference. The should be aware that there are serious allegations that the leadership he won was impacted by foreign interference. Again, let us look at these dots, which the Conservatives like. There might be something there. I think we better pursue the issue of why the leader of the Conservative Party does not get security clearance. I started thinking that maybe it is because he would not get approved if he applied, which would then beg the question of why he would not be approved and if there is something we do not know about.
I am sure members can appreciate and understand the point I am getting at, which is that the Conservatives are—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!