SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/6/24 10:16:54 a.m.
Watch

I remind members that they are not to read the petitions verbatim; they are supposed to be summarizing them. I see that there are a lot of individuals trying to get their petitions in. We have only four minutes, so I would ask members to please summarize. The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa has the floor.

60 words

Mr. Dan Mazier (Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, CPC)

Jun/6/24 10:17:14 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents. I rise for the 41st time on behalf of the people of Swan River, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. They live in crime and chaos caused by the Liberal government's soft-on-crime laws, like Bill C-5, which allows criminals to serve their sentences at home. In fact, Manitoba West District RCMP reported that in 18 months, just 15 individuals racked up over 200 charges. The people of Swan River are asking for jail, not bail, when it comes to violent repeat offenders. The people of Swan River demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I support the good people of Swan River.

138 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/6/24 10:18:08 a.m.
Watch

Uqaqtittiji, I have some petitions with me as well. I have petition number 12950150, on the subject of foreign affairs. This is a similar petition to what was already tabled, but I wanted to show my support for how important it is to share that Israel's war with Hamas killed almost 20,000 people in Gaza in the two months between October 7 and December 18, 2023, with about 70% of them being women and children. The undersigned citizens and residents of Canada have called on the government to impose a two-way embargo on arms between Canada and Israel; to investigate whether Canadian weapons or weapons components have been used against Palestinian civilians in the occupied Palestinian territories, including during the current war on Gaza; to review all military and security co-operation between Israel and Canada; and finally, to close loopholes that allow the unregulated and unreported transfer of military goods to Israel through the United States.

160 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/6/24 10:19:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, another petition I have is on the environment, petition number 12257265. Children born in 2020 will face an average of two to seven times more extreme weather events than their grandparents. According to a 2021 report in the Lancet, 83% of children worldwide reported that they think people have failed to take care of the planet. Those most affected by climate change are the youngest generation, as they will live to see the worst effects of the crisis. They call on the government of Canada to require all members of Parliament, regardless of party lines, to consult with secondary or elementary school leadership, student councils or environmental youth groups of those under 18 in their ridings, before Parliament holds the second reading of any bill that directly affects Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. The purpose of the consultation would be to listen to the viewpoints of those directly affected by the specified bill but do not already have representation in Parliament.

163 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Jun/6/24 10:21:02 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-310

Madam Speaker, the last petition that I will read out is petition number 12734938, regarding firefighters and how important it is that we support the great work they do and that we make sure they have the supports they need. The petitioners say that the undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to support Bill C-310 and enact amendments to subsections 118.06(2) and 118.07(2) of the Income Tax Act in order to increase the amount of the tax credits for volunteer firefighting and search and rescue volunteer services from $3,000 to $10,000.

104 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/6/24 10:21:50 a.m.
Watch

There is no more time for petitions. That brings us to the end. I do want to remind members again that they are to summarize their petitions when we do petitions. They are not to put their points of view forward as to whether they support those petitions. That brings us to the end of petitions. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre is rising on a point of order.

69 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Jun/6/24 10:22:14 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order to discuss a serious incident that occurred in this chamber on Tuesday night. As you may recall, the House was sitting late on that evening to debate Bill C-20, the public complaints and review commission. Bill C-20 is a very important piece of legislation, which is a long time coming. The purpose of the bill was to put in place an independent oversight body for the RCMP and CBSA as a way to deal with institutional issues, including actions of excessive police force and systemic racism. It is also worth noting that the debate that evening came a day after the five-year anniversary of the release of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls across the country, which called on a need for reforms in policing to deal with both violence and over- and under-policing of indigenous peoples, particularly indigenous women, specifically noted in calls for justice 9.1 to 9.11. It is within this context, the comments I am about to cite are deeply concerning. During the debate on the bill, the member for Saskatoon West made very concerning and inappropriate remarks. During the member's speech, while speaking about the case of Myles Sanderson, the member made the following shocking and completely wrong statement. He said, “One of the interesting things in that particular incident was that the perpetrator, Myles Sanderson, had a history of violent offences and had been recently released on parole, despite the prediction by the parole board that he was likely to reoffend because of his racial background.” Mr. Speaker, that is not at all what the Parole Board said in a statement in response to the final report of the National Joint Board of Investigation into the mass stabbing in Saskatchewan by the offender on statutory release. It clearly said, “The BOI found there were no pre-incident indicators or precipitating events that were known to staff, or that staff could have acted upon to prevent this incident.” Moreover, the Parole Board also noted, “the overall case preparation leading up to the release of the offender was both reasonable and appropriate, including the consideration of the Indigenous social history of the offender in the decision-making process.” It is important to note “that courts must consider an Aboriginal offender's background when he or she is being sentenced for a crime. Factors that are considered include discrimination, physical abuse, separation from culture and family, or drug and alcohol abuse”, in response to the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling. I will read from the Supreme Court ruling, R v. Ipeelee. It states—

457 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/6/24 10:25:59 a.m.
Watch

We are getting into the debate of the other night. Could I ask specifically what the point of order is, or what Standing Order the member is referring to so that we can have a better idea of what we are looking at? The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

49 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Jun/6/24 10:26:14 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is very important context about why—

10 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/6/24 10:26:23 a.m.
Watch

Yes, but in a point of order, we normally have to look at what Standing Order we are specifically looking at because what I am hearing sounds more in the line with a question of privilege, which requires an hour's notice to go to the House. I do not really want to cut the hon. member off, and I understand the sensitivity around this, but I want to make sure that we are following the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

89 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Jun/6/24 10:26:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the statement of the member for Saskatoon West, which I read into the record a few moments ago, was very clearly said by the member. It was audible when re-examining the video of his intervention, and that was recorded in the blues. I am going to read it again into the record—

56 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/6/24 10:27:21 a.m.
Watch

How about if we speak off-line about this to see what would be most appropriate? It sounds like it may be something that would fall more into the privilege range, and there is a different process for that if we are looking at a specific Standing Order to try to make a case. I understand the importance of what the hon. member is trying to bring forward, but I think the tool that is being used is not the correct one. I would suggest that we have a little chat, and then maybe come back to this after. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

105 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Jun/6/24 10:28:06 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, are you suggesting that this be a question of privilege and not a point of order? I want to make sure, out of respect to you, that I understand you correctly.

33 words

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/6/24 10:28:17 a.m.
Watch

I think it would be best to consult with the Table and see how we can tighten it up just a little to make sure that it is in the correct order for hearing in the chamber. Let us do that. We will see if we can come back with that.

51 words

Ms. Leah Gazan

Jun/6/24 10:28:34 a.m.
Watch

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will come back to it later.

11 words

Back
Later

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

Jun/6/24 10:28:40 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time, please.

16 words

Stand
Ask

The Deputy Speaker

Jun/6/24 10:28:46 a.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

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

Jun/6/24 10:29:46 a.m.
Watch

moved: That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 14 days of the adoption of this order, the following documents, created or dated since January 1, 2017, which are in its or her possession, custody or control: (a) all files, documents, briefing notes, memoranda, e-mails or any other correspondence exchanged among government officials regarding SDTC; (b) contribution and funding agreements to which SDTC is a party; (c) records detailing financial information of companies in which past or present directors or officers of SDTC had ownership, management or other financial interests; (d) SDTC conflict of interest declarations; (e) minutes of SDTC's Board of Directors and Project Review Committee; and (f) all briefing notes, memoranda, e-mails or any other correspondence exchanged between SDTC directors and SDTC management; provided that, (g) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall promptly thereafter notify the Speaker whether each entity produced documents as ordered, and the Speaker, in turn, shall forthwith inform the House of the notice of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel but, if the House stands adjourned, the Speaker shall lay the notice upon the table pursuant to Standing Order 32(1); and (h) the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel shall provide forthwith any documents received by him, pursuant to this order, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for its independent determination of whether to investigate potential offences under the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament. He said: Mr. Speaker, after nine years, it is clear that the NDP-Liberal government is not worth the cost or the corruption. The Auditor General delivered a shocking report this week that outlined a history of wasted money, conflicts of interest, and possible illegal and criminal activity in funnelling taxpayer funds to Liberal-friendly board appointees' own companies. Let me just set the context. Right now, Canadians are living through complete misery. Government-caused inflation leading to high interest rates means that Canadians are hit with a brutal double whammy of not only having to pay higher prices at the store but also higher interest payments on their debt, everything from lines of credit to mortgages. They are paying more for the goods they buy and for the money they owe. This comes after the Prime Minister promised Canadians that interest rates would stay low for a very long time. The Prime Minister also promised Canadians that he was going to go into debt so they did not have to. It is cold comfort now for the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who are facing default on their mortgages, as those rates keep rising, pushing people out of the homes that they have lived in for years. In many cases, there are tragic stories of people moving back in with their parents because they have lost the ability to stay in their house. This is all caused by wasteful government spending, pushing up prices and forcing the Bank of Canada to raise interest rates at the fastest pace in Canadian history to combat that inflation. The government will tell us that it is not its fault. The Prime Minister loves to spread blame around. He is always looking for people to pin responsibility on, anyone other than himself. The Liberals say ridiculous things like there is global inflation, as if inflation was kind of like the weather, where we might have a warm front move in off the gulf and we might have some pesky inflation plaguing Canadians. Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary problem. It is always caused when governments print money that they do not have out of thin air, flooding the economy with brand new cash without any growth in economic activity to justify that expansion of the money supply. When the Conservatives point that out to the Liberals, they say that, in fairness, Canada was going through a pandemic and that they had to spend all this money to keep Canadians safe. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found that 40% of all that extra spending had nothing to do with the pandemic. Now, slowly but surely, we are learning what actually happened. The Liberals used the excuse of a pandemic to line the pockets of their friends and waste taxpayer money, not only during that critical period of the pandemic but also in the years that have followed. When Canadians are begging the government to get inflation and interest rates under control, the government keeps borrowing billions and billions to spend, spend, spend, not benefiting Canadians but lining the pockets of its friends. I have so much to say that I do not think I am going to fit it all into my slot, so I am going to share my time with the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets, Madam Speaker. I know that he has been working hard on this file. He is one of the members of Parliament who rolled up his sleeves and pored through documents, vigilantly looking for waste of taxpayer money. On this side of the House, we know that Canadians work so hard for the money they earn. The least they can expect is a government that respects the value of that hard work and their tax dollars. I will run through a few of the greatest hits of Liberal corruption during the pandemic. We will remember the time the Prime Minister tried to funnel a billion dollars to his friends at the WE organization, an organization that had paid members of his own family hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees. We will remember former Liberal MP, Frank Baylis, who suddenly, without having experience in the field, developed a medical fabrication company that did not actually produce anything, getting sole-sourced contracts from the government. In the past few months, we have learned more and more about the arrive scam app, where the government ballooned costs for IT services without any accountability or oversight of where that money was going. It is clear that the Liberals use crises and attempts to fulfill noble causes to hide the corruption that they have become so famous for, and now we have an example. The Liberals talk about the crisis that Canadians are facing. They try to justify all their wasteful spending and all their massive tax hikes on the backs of existential threats coming from climate change. However, now we know that their efforts to improve the environment have nothing to do with lowering emissions, but everything to do with doling out cash to people who have supported the Liberal Party in a very real way. Let us look at what the Auditor General found: $76 million in taxpayer money was paid out in direct conflict of interest. That means there were people on the board, people who made the decisions about where the money would go, who should have recused themselves because they had a financial interest in some of the companies that would get contracts. In fact, the Auditor General found, and through investigations at committee we also found, that there were government representatives in almost all the board meetings when these decisions were being made. There cannot be any excuse the government has that this corruption was happening in some kind of arm's length way. They were in the room when they were being warned there were conflicts of interest. They were in the room when the decisions were made. They were in the room when they found out the companies getting the contracts were at least partially owned, if not entirely owned, by members of the board themselves. For Canadians who are following this story, basically what the government did was with respect to an existing agency, SDTC, which, by the way, had been fulfilling all its governance requirements up until 2017. Then something peculiar happened. Former minister Navdeep Bains did not like something that the chair of that board said, something about protecting the privacy of Canadians. That rubbed Navdeep Bains the wrong way, so he fired that chair and he appointed one who would be much more co-operative with the Liberal government. That is when the problems started. The chronology is stark. When he was minister, Navdeep Bains went on to appoint another five controversial board members who engaged in unethical and illegal behaviour by approving funding to companies in which they held ownership or held seats on the board. There are examples of those officials sitting on the board as observers witnessed 96 conflicts of interest, but the officials did not intervene. We have examples from the Auditor General's report of $59 million being paid out to projects that did not qualify. I want to read what the Auditor General said about that. She said, “These projects were ineligible for funding because, for example, they did not support the development or demonstration of a new technology.” The entire point of this agency, the entire point of this funding mechanism, was to incubate, to find potential technologies that might help reduce emissions and clean up particulate matter from the air. The whole purpose was that the agency would grant some of the funds to scale-up some of these innovative technologies. What the Auditor General is saying is that in the agency's own project applications, there is no proof that there would be any benefit to the environment, not that it had tried and failed, not that it hoped that some new technology would work and despite its best efforts it was not fruitful. That happens all the time in the world of scientific innovation and inventions. People take ideas, they test them and sometimes they do not work. They learn from that and they go on to the next thing. In this situation, the applications themselves could not even point to any environmental benefit. There were $6 million charged to taxpayers for projects that were not even built; over $123 million in misappropriated funds; and as I mentioned, over 180 conflicts of interest with the funds. Here we have an example of Canadians suffering through one of the biggest cost of living crises since the Great Depression. Mothers are watering down milk to feed their children; people are moving back in with their parents; and single moms are working two, maybe even three jobs just to tread water, not with any hope of getting ahead but of just keeping a roof over themselves and their family. While all this is happening, while the Prime Minister is claiming that every single penny he needs to scoop out of the pockets of taxpayers must go to all this spending, we find out that hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted, that there were massive conflicts of interest and that we have another example of Liberal corruption, where the Liberals reward their friends instead of respecting taxpayer dollars. That is why this motion is so important, so we can get all the information handed to the RCMP, because this is so serious we believe this warrants a police investigation.

1860 words

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

Jun/6/24 10:39:59 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, 60% of the member's comments were with regard to the economy. It is interesting when he does that. When the world was seeing record-high increases in interest rates and inflation, Canada's performance was far superior than the vast majority of other countries, especially if we compare ourselves to the G20 and the G7. There is even some good news. For the last four months, inflation has been kept under control. In fact, yesterday it was announced that Canada was the first G7 country to see a decrease in the interest rate. This is all good news. I am glad the Conservatives now want to start talking about the economy today and the day after, but I wonder if he could provide his thoughts with respect to the good news that Canada is the first of the G7 countries to decrease interest rates.

147 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/6/24 10:41:04 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have an Auditor General's report that may very well end up with an RCMP investigation and perhaps criminal charges, and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader cannot even defend it. There is nothing the member can defend in the Auditor General's report. Did the Auditor General get anything wrong? Was she wrong when she said that $76 million in taxpayer money was paid out in direct conflicts of interest? Was she wrong when she said that $123 million in total was misappropriated? Was she wrong when she said that $59 million was given out to companies that did not even qualify? No. The member wants to tell us not to worry, that Canadians should take heart that it is worse in some other parts of the world. That is not good enough.

139 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 326