SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC)

Sep/17/24 10:07:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The 42nd report is entitled “Report 6, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, of the 2024 Reports 5 to 7 of the Auditor General of Canada”. Specifically, it was passed in the committee that we report it to the House; it asks the Auditor General to undertake a value-for-money and performance audit of the work done by SDTC since Monday, January 1, 2017. The 43rd report is entitled “Report 6, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, of the 2024 Reports 5 to 7 of the Auditor General of Canada”. Specifically, the committee expressed extreme concern with the blatant disregard for taxpayer funds. Therefore, it calls on the Government of Canada to recoup these funds for Canadian taxpayers, following the adoption of this motion that the committee report this matter to the House.

157 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Sep/17/24 10:09:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before my colleague rises to speak, I wanted to respond to a question of privilege raised by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle yesterday. Our spot to intervene was reserved by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who identified that we would like to reply. I want to say that the matter of privilege follows from a House order made in June to ensure that the documents related to SDTC be compiled and provided to the RCMP to ensure that they have access to all information on this issue. Canadians deserve to know how their tax dollars are spent and, specifically, how those dollars were awarded to SDTC. As I said at the time, New Democrats believe that this is broader than just the SDTC issue. For decades, Liberals and Conservatives have appointed friends to positions of power to be rewarded with taxpayers' dollars. We saw that yesterday at testimony, where both Liberals and Conservatives competed in a challenge over who was more corrupt versus the other. That happened just yesterday, if we want to watch the tapes. It was actually at the industry committee. This is just the latest example. For that reason, we supported the motion in June to order these documents for clarity. In fact, New Democrats have been calling for more information to be released through reform of our system internally. This has yet to be done by either the Liberals or the Conservatives. It is actually borne through legislation of Crown copyright that goes back to 1909 and has yet to be reformed. As outlined by the Conservative House leader, responses to this order have been inconsistent. While we appreciate the unusual nature of this order, the House indeed ordered the documents. As such, it is up to the House to decide whether it is satisfied by the nature of the response. I would be remiss if I did not point out that there is an element of hypocrisy again in this, as the Conservatives were not consistent on this issue when they were in government. In fact, I have sat in this chamber many times when they did not do what they are now requesting. As such, we want to make sure the documents are actually released and are provided to all of Parliament. More importantly, New Democrats support that process because it only sheds light on the hypocrisy of the Conservatives now requesting what they often have denied in their past practices in this chamber.

423 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

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

Sep/17/24 11:50:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the member's last statements and go to the Auditor General's comments. From what I understand, there was a clear indication the Auditor General found that the government has appropriate contracting rules that are actually in place. The problem is that the rules were not properly followed. When that occurs, there is an obligation for the government to take action. When the government did discover this, there were actions. Internal reviews were done. The Auditor General was brought in. The RCMP is also now looking into the matter. I do not know exactly where it is at in regard to it, but there seems to be a great deal of attention being brought to the issue, and justifiably so. The government has not been shy in terms of recognizing the need for transparency and accountability on the issue. The government believes that there have to be and will be consequences for those who have broken the rules and taken advantage of taxpayers. I wonder whether the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the Auditor General's comments that we seem to have the right system.

197 words

Context: House Hansard - 337 - Sep/17/24

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

Sep/17/24 12:56:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is one fundamental flaw in what the member is trying to portray. He is attempting to mislead Canadians, quite frankly. The member knows full well that inappropriate behaviour has not been condoned in any form by this government. In fact, when it was discovered that there was inappropriate behaviour, the government acted quickly by ensuring there was a process to assure Canadians, the taxpayers, that there would be accountability and there would be a consequence for those who had violated the procedures in place to protect the taxpayer. The member intentionally tried to give the impression that it is the Liberal Party or the government, the politicians, that has not protected the interests of the taxpayer when that is just not true. If we want to look at a scandal where politicians were trying to cover something up, look at the $400-million ETS scandal of the Harper era, which the Conservatives across the way are absolutely silent on.

162 words