SoVote

Nov/8/23 4:19:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. whip, has raised a very important point. Your ruling is that you are not in a position to make a determination. The Canadians who saw that gesture can and clearly are, and they know what the hon. member did; they can see the obvious gesture. Mr. Speaker, you have said that you are not in a position to take one member's word over another, which is fine. It is now on social media. It lives on there. Canadians, especially the voters in Avalon, can make their own determination about whether they think it is appropriate, when people are struggling with their home heating bills, to get the finger from a member who was voting against our common-sense motion.

126 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Nov/8/23 4:23:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we had a question in question period today from the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona that had absolutely nothing to do with the administrative responsibilities of government. It was directed at the Conservative opposition, and you allowed the Prime Minister to respond. In a question currently before you, the House leader for the NDP quoted extensively from one of my previous rulings as Speaker on questions that have nothing to do with the administrative role of government. I just want to quote it, only because it has been referenced in previous points from other members intervening on this question. I said: ...as I said on December 1, 2011, (Debates, p. 3875), the Speaker is called upon to make decisions about the admissibility of questions on the fly. In that regard, since members have very little time to pose their questions and the Chair has even less time to make decisions about their admissibility, it would be helpful if the link to the administrative responsibility of the government were made as quickly as possible. Accordingly, these kinds of questions will continue to risk being ruled out of order and members should take care to establish the link to government responsibility as quickly as possible. I have had a chance to look at the blues and the question from the member for Edmonton Strathcona. There is nothing about the federal government's area of responsibility in it. It was an attack levelled at the leader of the Conservative Party. I wanted to cite that part about making the point as quickly as possible because what we found today is that you allowed basically a 35-second attack against the Leader of the Opposition but did not allow the Leader of the Opposition to respond. You allowed the Prime Minister to respond. I understand why that would be the normal instinct, as it is government members who answer questions during question period. However, what I would urge you to reflect on as you come back to the House on this larger point about these questions is that if you wait until the very end of a question to make that determination and if members do not make a link to the administrative responsibility of the government early, you end up running the risk of having an unanswered attack on a member or another party. When the government has the ability to defend itself, you, as many Speakers have in the past, have allowed the government to answer questions that may otherwise have been ruled out of order for precisely that reason: An attack has been levelled and a charge has been made. The courteous thing to do is to allow a minister who would like to respond to use the opportunity to do so. However, when that attack is made against an opposition leader, there is no opportunity for a response to be made. It puts the House in a difficult situation when we have members being accused of something. In every other aspect of debate, including questions and comments during speeches and when we have motions for time allocation, there is an attack and a counterattack. There is a response to the questions being asked. The scenario we had today was an attack on the Leader of the Opposition, followed by an attack on the Leader of the Opposition. It was a coalition partner asking another coalition partner a question about the Leader of the Opposition. That is the unfortunate situation that arose out of question period today. What I would urge you to do when an attack is being made against an opposition party is to quickly determine early on in the question whether there is as link to government business and then not allow the government coalition partner to respond to an attack from the junior coalition partner. That does not respect the tradition and purpose of question period.

651 words

The Speaker

Nov/8/23 4:23:27 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for his intervention on this matter. I am certainly going to review the blues and very much reflect upon what the member has raised about previous ruling that the member had the benefit of sharing with this House when he occupied the chair. I think the member has made a prima facie case as to why it is important to make sure that questions asked quickly come to a point relating to the administrative affairs of government or of a committee chair. It will be useful in the reflection I am working on as we speak, on which I will come back to the House, on the point of order originally raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. Speaking of which, I see the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby on his feet. I am assuming it is on a point of order. I hope it is a new point of order the member is going to make, because I think we have exhausted, on all sides of this House, the issues that have been raised, which are going to be helpful to me in making my determination. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

209 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Nov/8/23 4:24:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, because I have raised this issue a number of times, quoting of course my friend, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, but also Speaker Bosley and Speaker Milliken. It is absolutely true we have seen a lot of examples from the Conservatives of questions that have had nothing to do with the administration of government. In the case of the member for Edmonton Strathcona, she established that link to government administration in the responsibility for the Canada Health Act in the very first sentence of the question. I agree with the argument of my friend from Regina—Qu'Appelle that questions should carry on government administration. That is exactly why the member for Edmonton Strathcona established that link in the first sentence of her question.

133 words

The Speaker

Nov/8/23 4:25:48 p.m.
Watch

I thank all members for their interventions, and I also appreciate the interventions being brief. I would like to thank again the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for a very substantive intervention. I hope to come back to the House soon. It might be after the constituency break, but I hope it can be sooner than that.

58 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/8/23 4:26:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to six petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

35 words

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

Nov/8/23 4:27:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Tuesday, February 14, be concurred in. To start, I want to say that I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot. Before I begin, I want to mention that this week is the birthday of the member's predecessor, the wonderful Kevin Sorenson. It was his 65th birthday. Since Mr. Sorenson and I used to fly together a lot, I had the pleasure of enjoying a birthday with Kevin one night. We were flying back to Edmonton, we landed and we went to our cars. I got into an Uber to go home and Kevin went to pick up his car from the outdoor lot. It turned out that, although it was a brand new car, it would not start. He thought, “crap, it is my birthday”, and so he went back to the airport to rent a car. He handed over his credit card and driver's licence, but it turned out his licence had expired about five minutes earlier, because we were five minutes in. So, poor Kevin, not only on his birthday did he have to spend it with me on a plane, but his car would not start, he could not get a rental car and he had to catch a cab all the way home to Battle River—Crowfoot. I am pleased to be talking today regarding the study in question. Actually, Kevin, at the time I first started doing some work on public accounts, was the chair of the committee. However, the greening government report that we are chatting about today is actually perfect timing for a lot of reasons, and I will comment on some of the timing as I go. One of the reasons this is great timing is because in public accounts we are actually studying the green hydro sham. I call it a sham, because there are various issues that come up about the government's actions, and I will cover them later in my talk. On the greening government report, I will give a couple of points to give some background. Treasury Board launched the greening government strategy back in 2017 with the ultimate goal to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. I will comment from the Auditor General's report, which says that “The Government of Canada has indicated that it is committed to leading by example in both the domestic and global transition to a low‑carbon economy.” Again, I get back to the great timing, because we just heard from the environment commissioner commenting that the government has not once yet achieved a single one of its environmental goals. Yet, we have here the public accounts committee looking at a report stating that the government's goal was to be a domestic and global leader and transition to a lower-carbon economy, but failed. It is an interesting comment from the Auditor General that said that the federal government is responsible for 3% of all GHG emissions, which is larger than any single corporation or company in Canada. One would think that this government would actually work to reduce its own GHG emissions instead of driving out of business so many companies across Canada. Instead, we see its goal is to reduce GHG by eliminating revenue-producing companies, especially in Alberta, but at the same time growing its own emissions. From the findings of this report, the Auditor General comments that “5 years into the strategy, the [Treasury Board] secretariat’s efforts to reduce emissions were not as complete as they could have been—especially considering...[their statement that they were going to be a] global leader in transitioning”. So here we have the Auditor General pointing out that the government is all talk and no action on this issue. Further into the report there is the comment, “We found that the overall reported results from Crown corporations were neither included on the secretariat’s website nor aggregated”. Why is this important? Again, I talked about timing and the government. Treasury Board does not cover Crown corporations. We, of course, have the green scam going on right now with the SDTC where we have a $1-billion Liberal green slush fund and where we know millions have been diverted to companies without any oversight. Here we have the Auditor General herself commenting that the Treasury Board has provided no oversight on these programs with Crown corporations. The Auditor General continues to argue that the Treasury Board Secretariat of the government also left an important context out of its reporting, such as “an overview of...government's key sources of emissions”; “key activities undertaken by the secretariat”; “opportunities, risks, and related mitigation measures likely to affect the government’s ability to implement the strategy over the remaining 28 years”; and “information about how the strategy supported the United Nations 2030 Agenda.” Liberals did not know what they were doing, they did not know what they were going to achieve, they did not know how they were going to achieve it and they did not know when they were going to achieve it. That pretty much sums up the government in a lot of areas, but especially on the green front. The Auditor General also concluded, “we found that the Greening Government Strategy did not contain sufficient detail about some important commitments. Additional information would give parliamentarians and Canadians a clearer picture of what is to be accomplished, including the government’s plans [how] to transition”. It is very clear that throughout this report it says there was a lack of transparency in the government's reporting. Then the Auditor General finished up commenting on limited risk management. This is important because at this time in the ethics committee and others, we are talking about the $1-billion slush fund, with no oversight and no risk of management on the government's programs for spending. She stated, “We also found that the secretariat did not identify how it would consult departments on their risks in order to come up with a more comprehensive, accurate list of these.... We found that only 8 of 27 departments had created emission reduction plans for...” government programs, and that was all. I want to talk about the SDTC. It is important because the Auditor General has made it clear that Treasury Board, which is responsible for oversight, has not provided oversight. It failed on the oversight of Crown corporations, which the SDTC is, and did not provide risk management or risk mitigation. There is a comment in the SDTC mission statement that says their “investments translate to economic and environmental benefits.” We heard earlier that the environment commissioner stated the Liberals have not achieved one target in their environmental plans. I have to disagree. The Liberals have achieved one plan, and that is stuffing taxpayers' money into connected Liberals' pockets through the SDTC. We have looked up donations from the directors of the SDTC. Tens of thousands of dollars have flown into the Liberal government's coffers and, at the same time, millions are going out the door that are unaccounted for. The SDTC also said, “We help Canadian companies develop and deploy sustainable technologies by delivering critical funding”. The SDTC mission statement further stated, “committed to full transparency”. That is very similar to the government saying “open by default”. Both are not true. We have had to fight in committee to get information. I will read a couple of comments from the whistle-blower on the SDTC about some of the money that was wasted, “There's a lot of sloppiness and laziness. There is some outright incompetence and, you know, the situation is just kind of untenable at this point.” It seems very similar to the $54-million ArriveCAN scandal, but I think this is going to be much larger. The whistle-blower went on to say, “The minister is going to flip out when he hears the stuff and he's going to want an extreme reaction, like shut it all down.” I will note that the minister found out in March and here we are in November before we have seen some action by the government. “It's unlikely that certain members of the board”, we will remember the board that funnelled tens of thousands of donations into the Liberal coffers, “or the entire board, and executives are going to be able to continue to serve. Like they've kind of lost the confidence. So really, the discussion will be the mechanisms for getting them out.” It continues, “...pretty well prepared to talk him off the ledge. Like minister, '[That's a] bad idea, we've got other ideas'.” We have the Auditor General's report on the greening government strategy very clearly laying out problems. Back in 2022, a year ago, we knew there were problems with Crown corporations. In March, whistle-blowers came forward about the waste of taxpayers' money. Now it is November and we still have not seen action. It is very clear that Canadians cannot afford the costly government after eight years and, after eight years, it is very clear the environment cannot afford the government either.

1598 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Nov/8/23 4:38:00 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-9

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member was aware that, according to today's agenda, we were supposed to be debating Bill S-9, which deals with the chemical weapons convention and updating that legislation. It was brought in through the Senate. My understanding was that there would be unanimous consent for getting this bill passed. I wonder if the member could explain why the Conservatives chose to play games today, games that will ultimately prevent Bill S-9 from being introduced. This means that Canadians will have to wait once again because of the filibustering methods of the Conservative Party. How does the member justify filibustering important legislation?

109 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Nov/8/23 4:38:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the question I would ask of the member is how he justifies the continuing cover-up of this slush fund. At committee, we tried to get this information. The Liberal government and its Bloc allies voted against requiring documents related to the Liberals' green slush fund to be released at committee. He talks about games. I would like his party to end the game of this cover-up and release the information to Canadians, Canadians who are suffering across the country, coast to coast, with paying their bills, paying their rent and affording food. They are struggling, and the government continues to cover up. That is at least $40 million of taxpayers' money wasted.

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Nov/8/23 4:39:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the timing of this report is rather odd. I would like to ask my Conservative colleague if that was intentional. The Conservatives have led the charge, which the Bloc Québécois and the NDP support, to get to the bottom of public funds being used or misused in a green fund that was created by the government. We are dealing with an independent group, but we see that the use of funds is not optimal. Is there an order to follow when we question the use of these funds? The purpose of these funds is to invest more in our green economy, which is a good thing, but if, at the end of the day, the money is not going to the right place, we can ask questions about that. Is the member's goal to highlight that today?

144 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Nov/8/23 4:40:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what my colleague is saying. The money is not being used as it was intended. Whether someone is for one type of ideology or the other, we do have very clear rules about our spending. We have clear rules about how the Treasury Board should react and what rules they should follow. It is very clear from the greening government report from the Auditor General that the government is not following the rules. In fact, eight out of 27 of the government's departments refused to hand over documents backing up its emission reduction claims. That is how much confidence the government has in its propaganda. It was only eight out of 27, so 75% of the departments refused to hand over information to the Auditor General to back up the government's claims. Canadians do not believe the government is committed to helping the environment. I think it is only committed to helping its propaganda points.

162 words

All Topics

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Nov/8/23 4:41:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in a previous Parliament, the member for Edmonton West and I did a lot of work on what was at that time called vote 40, which had all the appearances of a Liberal slush fund. We did some good work together to hold them to account for that. We do not hear this as much in the chamber anymore, but at that time it was common to hear the phrase “sunshine is the best disinfectant”. I wonder if the member for Edmonton West remembers who it was who would so often utter that phrase and what that would mean in this case.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Kelly McCauley

Nov/8/23 4:42:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we do miss my colleague on OGGO. I enjoyed working with my NDP colleague from Vancouver Island. We certainly miss his interventions. It was, of course, the Liberals who talked about sunshine being the best disinfectant. A commitment to transparency is actually in the mission statement of this green slush fund. We have the government saying that openness is the default. We would like to see them follow through on that.

73 words

All Topics

Ms. Leslyn Lewis

Nov/8/23 4:43:09 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-242

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Today, I was attempting to vote and was not able to because of technical difficulties. I am still on the line with the technical department. I would like unanimous consent for my vote to be registered as yes for the last vote, which was for Bill S-242.

56 words

All Topics

The Deputy Speaker

Nov/8/23 4:43:09 p.m.
Watch

Is it agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Deputy Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Kitchener Centre, Small Business; the hon. member for Victoria, Climate Change; and the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Foreign Affairs.

63 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Nov/8/23 4:43:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place to debate issues that are so important to Canadians. I would thank my hon. colleague from the West Edmonton Mall constituency. He did bring up my predecessor, who I remember very fondly, having worked with and volunteered on his campaigns in my home constituency of Battle River—Crowfoot, which was then called Crowfoot. I would like to give a big shout-out to Kevin Sorenson, who was chair of the public accounts committee during the 42nd Parliament. It was his birthday the other day. I will not tell the House how old he is, but I wish Kevin a happy birthday. I know he was able to enjoy some time with his grandkids. Here we are again talking about government corruption. It has become something that I hear about regularly as a Conservative MP. It has truly disillusioned so many in our country on whether or not they can trust the government. Increasingly, across the country, north, south, east, west and everywhere in between, we hear that Canadians simply cannot trust the government. This is so concerning because it is one thing to disagree with the government, its policies and its ideology, but increasingly, because of the last eight years, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister have decreased their trust. There has been a significant erosion in the trust Canadians have in our general institutions. That is so problematic because it transcends politics. It transcends any particular party. The damage that has been done to this country by the Prime Minister and the Liberals has truly created a circumstance where there are more people all the time who are saying that they simply do not believe our country can continue to function as is. As a parliamentarian, as somebody who believes so very much in the future of our country, somebody who is proud to represent the constituents of Battle River—Crowfoot, it is so unfortunate and distressing that all the MPs in the Liberal caucus, the NDP caucus and the Bloc caucus prop the Prime Minister up. Here we are today debating another motion. The committee brought forward a report that speaks to some of this corruption. It truly emphasizes the point that the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, made, which is that everything in Canada feels broken. That is certainly the case when it comes to the cover-up that seems to be taking place with respect to the whistle-blower revelations from SDTC. There is a report that the minister requested to be done on some of these documents. At the ethics committee, we asked for this document. We had Liberal members, along with members of the Bloc and NDP, who said that they would ask nicely. Although I, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes and other Conservatives made the case that it is past the time to ask nicely because the Liberal government refuses to be honest and allow for the truth to get out. We have a report before us that is heavily redacted. While Conservatives brought forward a motion that would have demanded those answers, it was the other political parties of this place that joined together to allow the cover-up to continue. We have delegations and whistle-blowers who came forward because they were distressed about how there were millions of dollars and words being thrown about, saying that this could make the sponsorship scandal seem small. There is a level of corruption and connections with Liberal insiders that is truly astounding, and this contributes to that further erosion of trust. It is to the point where I am increasingly hearing from constituents and folks across our country that they find it difficult to keep track of the number of scandals the Prime Minister has found himself embroiled in. This is increasingly making it a challenge for the government to administer, and that trust is being broken with Canadians. There are millions of dollars disappearing in a way that has become commonplace. Also, and this cannot be lost in the midst of this, it has reduced the trust that any Canadian has in the government being able to accomplish its objectives. Now, we can agree or disagree with what the objective is, but one should be able to trust that the government would work toward fulfilling it. The proof of this is so very clear with that government's own environment commissioner's report, which was released earlier this week. We see that the Liberals are failing to meet their targets, yet they are spending hundreds of millions of dollars, billions of dollars, on things where money is being skimmed off the top. It leads one to that conclusion. The insiders seem to be the ones who get these lucrative contracts, where $38 million and a billion-dollar green slush fund evaporates. While whistle-blowers are saying it as loud as they can, releasing, publicly, some of this information. We have members of the House, in every other political party, covering up that corruption. This cannot be lost on the environment commissioner. Not only is there corruption but the corruption is leading to the government not being able to accomplish anything. The carbon tax is not leading to emissions reductions. The fact is that we have a whole host of green programs, more than I could name, probably, in a 10-minute speech, that are not leading to the promised emissions reductions. I will quote the report from the public accounts committee we are debating today because I think it is quite something. These are not my words, but it states: Parliamentarians and, more importantly, taxpayers must have complete confidence in and oversight over the federal governments long-term strategy to achieve Net-Zero or the current plan should be scrapped in its entirety. Through their own admission, neither department studied in this report could accurately state Net-Zero was possible... We see that, by the government's own admissions, it is now realizing that they cannot accomplish their objectives. We have a corrupt Prime Minister and a corrupt government being propped up by a host of either willing participants or those who are blind and are showing an unbelievable level of cowardice to the corruption that is being perpetuated within our country, which is contributing to that erosion of trust taking place in our government. This is not simply Conservatives saying this. Recently, in a study at the access to information and ethics committee, which I am proud to be a part of, we studied the idea and issues surrounding government access to information. The Prime Minister divides at every turn for his own political gain, whether it is premiers from coast to coast uniting against the carbon tax, as an example, or when it comes to unanimous agreement, and this was very important, that the access to information system was broken. Every witness who came to committee agreed that the access to information system in Canada was broken, with one exception. The former president of the treasury board was the only one, the only witness, who came to testify before the ethics committee who said there was not a problem. It is that wilful blindness, that ignorance and that intentionality that are leading to a culture of secrecy, a culture of corruption, that needs to be addressed. Canadians have zero confidence in the government's ability to accomplish its objectives. Canadians have zero trust in the Liberal government's ability to administer, with integrity, the public purse. Increasingly, I am hearing from Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are ready for a change, for somebody to bring common sense back to this country, so that when they pay taxes, when tax time comes, they can trust the fact that, while the government takes, they can trust that it is being administered properly because that has been destroyed by those Liberals. It is time to bring home some common sense to our country. It is time to bring back some integrity to our government. The only way that this would happens would be when the member for Carleton, after what will be a carbon tax election, can take the Prime Minister's chair and bring back, bring home, common sense to this nation and restore trust in our governmental institutions to truly bring back the Canadian advantage, which has been lost under those Liberals and that Prime Minister.

1424 words

All Topics

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy (Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Nov/8/23 4:54:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been talking about trust quite a bit in his remarks. I am just curious why he thinks the Canadian people could trust the party opposite when we know the kinds of reckless ideas that they are putting forward, such as crypto, misogynistic hashtags, photos with illegal protesters, legislation that is trying to use backdoor methods to open up debate on a woman's right to choose, and all the other things that Canadians are very concerned about. I just do not understand how the member could accuse this side of a lack of trust, when that party has been so reckless and is doing things which are of great risk to Canadians.

118 words

All Topics

Mr. Damien Kurek

Nov/8/23 4:54:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what is so very interesting is that the member seems either to be wilfully ignorant of the corruption or to be complicit in it, maybe benefiting from it, because the member, along with her caucus colleagues, is refusing to allow sunlight to shine in order to ensure that Canadians can get answers for where the money is going and who is getting rich. The member needs to look back over the last eight year at funds, at the SDTC, which has turned into a scandal that whistle-blowers are saying is bigger than the sponsorship scandal; at a carbon tax that is failing to meet its objective; and at a government that is truly seeing an erosion of trust in the very foundations of things that we, in this country, used to be able to take for granted. The member should look closely at her government and her caucus colleagues, and ask why they are contributing to a culture of corruption, a culture of secrecy that is destroying the very foundation for the government that we should all be able to trust in this country.

187 words

All Topics

Hon. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Nov/8/23 4:56:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am tabling the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1742 and 1743, and the revised responses to Question No. 1738, originally tabled on November 6, 2023, and Questions Nos. 1745 and 1744.

42 words

All Topics

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Nov/8/23 4:56:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech. To summarize it briefly, he said that the money needs to go to the right place and that we need to manage the money better here, in terms of the public finances and so on. There is one thing that I know. Right now, today, oil companies are making $200 billion in profit. Then, the Conservatives are telling us that it costs a lot to heat a home, that the price of gas is rising, that the cost of every fossil fuel is skyrocketing, and that all of these things are hard for taxpayers. If the oil companies are making $200 billion in profit and the Canadian government continues to provide them with $83 billion in subsidies from now until 2035, can my colleague tell me whether he is actually serious when he asks where the money is going?

152 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 249