Mr. Speaker, it is truly a privilege to stand here on behalf of the wonderful people of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

When we talk about privilege, we must remember that our work here representing our constituents is an honour, not an entitlement. Privilege is something that we as parliamentarians have inherited through the centuries to ensure that we can speak and exercise our roles as grantors of supply and legislators. It is something entrusted to us, and we must ensure that when it comes time for a new generation of parliamentarians, it is in the same condition or better than when we received it. Canadians sent us here with the expectation that we will carry out these duties with respect and integrity.

Throughout my public service as a city councillor and now as a member of Parliament, I have consistently strived to maintain what I call the public trust. That is to say, in our conduct within our public institutions, we act as trustees of sorts. We may have legitimate disagreements about how best to pursue the public interest through reason, reflection, discussion and debates, but the heart of any decision must be centred on protecting the collective trust of the people we serve. People in positions of leadership make a point of carrying out duties that will maintain or enhance the trust in our system as much as possible. Unfortunately, what we have seen with Sustainable Development Technology Canada and its green slush fund falls far short of that standard.

Ultimately, it comes down to what kind of country we wish to see and believe in. It could be a country where hard work and sacrifice earn a powerful paycheque, where a citizen can afford nutritious food, gas and a home in a safe neighbourhood, and where they can raise a family, perhaps build a business or retire with dignity. However, it could be a country where hard work and sacrifice are viewed as something for lesser mortals, where family and high-corporate or political connections assure success rather than a better idea, a mousetrap or a hustle, where an economy of gatekeepers is made for and managed by the gatekeeping class and those seeking to join it, and where merit and hard work are undervalued in light of who someone knows and what they can do with their position of authority.

The latter description of country is corrosive, and it harms the previous version. It is not the kind of Canada I want to see for my children. However, here is where these two conflicting visions have collided.

Today, we have a Canada where over two million hard-working working-class people and those with lower incomes are lining up at food banks to feed themselves, while a rogue Crown corporation, appointed by the NDP-Liberal government, puts itself first in line for its own interests, not for the Canadians who are suffering the worst of our own made-in-Canada, GDP-per-head recession. In the past eight out of nine quarters, Canadians have seen their purchasing power eroded. We are seeing the NDP-Liberal government, which brags that it is the most activist government ever, leave people to watch their dollar erode and our country's productivity erode. Those so-called progressives should be mindful of what U.S. economist Paul Krugman warned: “productivity isn't everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything.” That remark, after eight back-to-back quarters of a declining GDP per head, should act as a cold shower for all members of this place.

We have young people who are working multiple jobs only to find themselves locked out of the dream of home ownership, seniors who would prefer to volunteer at food banks, not line up at them, and families that use metal detectors to look for disposable needles and drug paraphernalia on their children's soccer field. They scratch their heads asking, “What has happened in this country?”

The member of Parliament for Carleton has said that he wants to restore the promise of Canada. His mission is to bring back the country we knew and still love. He wants to put hard work and merit as a first principle for getting ahead in this country. However, the member of Papineau, who is the Prime Minister, has essentially enabled the well-connected to get ahead, despite all of his talk about inclusiveness, at the expense of everyone else.

We have been debating this privilege motion for months. If we only listened to Liberal ministers or their parliamentary secretaries, those at home might think there is nothing to worry about. However, many Canadians are asking why this debate continues.

Let us review what we know. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, was founded in 2001 to provide taxpayer-funded support to green technology companies that were looking to be commercialized.

The foundation has received $1 billion of taxpayer money since this Liberal government was elected. Investigations by parliamentary committees found that, over a five-year period reviewed by the Auditor General, 82% of the funding transactions approved by the board of directors involved conflicts of interest.

Let me say that again: 82% of the funding transactions approved by the board of directors involved conflicts of interest. According to the Auditor General, that is $330 million of taxpayer money that was given to companies whose board members were in a conflict of interest when they voted to allocate the funds.

These figures can be alarming. Many Canadians get mad when they learn how much money was involved here. It gets worse. The Auditor General also found that the board of directors approved $59 million in additional projects that were outside the foundation's mandate, breaking the SDTC contribution agreements and Canada's conflict of interest laws.

Let us not forget that the Auditor General wrote:

We found that the foundation awarded funding to 10 ineligible projects of 58 we examined. These 10 projects were awarded $59 million even though they did not meet key requirements set out in the contribution agreements between the government and the foundation.

Let us stop for a moment. In my riding, I have had constituents who, through no fault of their own, were overpaid CERB. In those situations, CRA clawed back every single dollar of overpayment. I have also had citizens who were deemed ineligible for CERB funding after the fact, and they found every single dollar clawed back. What will happen to these ineligible projects at SDTC? Will these people have that money clawed back as well, or is it different when it comes to Liberal insiders pocketing tax dollars they are not eligible for? Do members of the Liberal government think that is right? It would be one set of rules for someone who received CERB payments they were not eligible for and a different set of rules for ineligible insiders cashing in on SDTC funding they were not eligible for.

How do these things happen? How is it that no one raised a red flag? Why is no one in the Liberal government saying we need to claw funds back? Why is it that fairness for everyone does not apply to Liberal insiders?

Let us be clear. The law clearly states that a Governor in Council appointee chosen by the government to oversee taxpayer funds should not personally benefit from their committee role, nor should their family, yet somehow, over five years, the board approved 405 transactions, and the Auditor General, after examining 226, discovered that 186 of them were conflicted, an astonishing 82% totalling $330 million. This begs the question: If the Auditor General were to analyze all 400 transactions, how many more would show similar conflicts? Those 400 transactions represent $832 million in taxpayer money. It appears that appointees selected by the Prime Minister and his cabinet position themselves to profit from this privilege. That is a staggering figure. Some might even call it outrageous.

The Auditor General identified nine directors as the people responsible for these conflicts of interest. That is why the CFO of the industry department told the whistle-blower that this issue was far bigger than the Chrétien government's $42‑million sponsorship scandal. What we are uncovering is just the tip of the iceberg.

I congratulate my colleagues on the committee for their diligent work in shedding light on these matters. Each layer they remove leads to requests for more documents that reveal more disturbing details. The government has consistently obstructed our efforts to obtain these documents, and we know why. Even a preliminary investigation by the Auditor General shows that $390 million was paid out to Liberal insiders.

The Liberals and the Prime Minister are resisting the production order for documents to be submitted to the RCMP. The Prime Minister's office defied the House's order and instructed departments to redact sensitive information, resulting in documents being heavily blacked out or not given at all. What are they hiding? We all know what the Liberals are hiding. I suspect they are hiding further misconduct and misuse of taxpayer funds.

The limited information we have seen, 226 out of 400 transactions, indicates this is just the beginning, amounting to $390 million. Strangely, this does not seem to faze the NDP-Liberal government. It is almost as if the program was deliberately designed to work this way, Liberals benefiting Liberal appointees. This is reminiscent of past scandals, like SNC-Lavalin, where the Prime Minister attempted to exert pressure on then-member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville Jody Wilson-Raybould to protect his wealthy associates. When she refused to comply, our great feminist Prime Minister dismissed her. Similarly, when Dr. Jane Philpott spoke out against this pathetic and shameful treatment, she was also ousted.

This is the track record of our so-called feminist Prime Minister. This is the same Prime Minister who accepted a lavish vacation from the Aga Khan and has repeatedly violated ethical standards. It should come as no surprise that we find ourselves in yet another Liberal scandal involving the protection and enrichment of Liberal insiders, entitled to their entitlements.

Let us also not forget that millions of taxpayer dollars were funnelled to a charity that employed members of the Prime Minister's own family. Did he take responsibility? No, but his friend, Mr. Morneau did. It is funny how that works. It is always someone else who takes his hits. I guess that was a learning experience for the rest of us.

I must express my disappointment at the backbenchers on that side of the House. Sure, the infamous 24 who oppose the Prime Minister's continued premiership, and note I did not refer to it as leadership, have been making the news. Surely, there must be more than 24 who feel their government's stonewalling of this House's production order is out of order. They must be receiving the same calls and emails from constituents that I am.

They should remember that while they sit on the government side, unless they are in cabinet, and it might be stretched to a parliamentary secretary, technically anyone who is not in cabinet is not part of the government. Those MPs work for the Canadians who elected them. Those seats do not belong to the Prime Minister or his prime ministerial office. They belong to the people that those MPs represent.

I encourage them to reflect on why they ran for public office. I doubt any of them imagined that they would spend their time covering for entitled Liberal insiders who have profited from ill-gotten gains. Yet, here we are, debating a motion of privilege because the Prime Minister prioritizes protecting his job and his friends over safeguarding taxpayer money.

Setting aside all the discussions about privacy protection and quotes from former law clerks, it boils down to this: SDTC's board of directors used this Liberal slush fund to get rich, and the Auditor General caught it in the act.

With the help of a whistle-blower, my colleagues discovered even more corruption. The House ordered documents to be produced so that the RCMP could determine whether a criminal investigation is justified. The Liberal government refused to produce the documents, which, according to the Speaker's ruling, constitutes a breach of our privilege. For nearly three months now, instead of working for Canadians, we have been obstructed by a government that is trying to protect a Prime Minister who has clearly been here too long.

One day, hopefully soon, Canadians will return to the polls to decide who will lead this great country. Will they choose a party and a leader who have shown a lack of respect for hard-earned tax dollars, a deficit of ethics and limited moral backbone, a government that has enriched its friends while doubling housing costs, sent two million Canadians to food banks, and allowed crime and public disorder to rise, or will they choose a common-sense government led by the hon. member for Carleton, one that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budgets and stop the crime? I believe Canadians will make the right choice. I look forward to that day.

Before I end my comments, I just want to recite one more time the importance of this particular debate. It is about this place that we work in, the public trust that we have been asked to hold. I am not asking for Liberal, NDP, Bloc or Green members to agree with me. We can fight all those battles. We can discuss and debate the ideas about how best to serve the public interest. However, that public trust means that we have to view this place as being worthy so that when we discuss our work in Parliament, we can say a majority of the House decided to force the government to bring forward documents and the government followed that order, the same as a court order would be in any other circumstance.

This is Parliament. These are the rules that we have inherited. This is the chamber that we have all sought and given so much to be here so that so we can represent our constituents. Let us ensure that when we give the torch to the next generation of parliamentarians, they can look us in the eye and say this is as good as or better than when we found it. We cannot allow this privilege to be something we can fritter away. This is something that we need to press the government on. Government members themselves, who are not part of the cabinet, should be impressing upon their own Prime Minister and his cabinet just to open it up. Let these things come forward and then we can move to other discussions. However, right now, to allow the Liberal government just to pass on this, that it will not comply with something that has been ordered, is wrong.

We have a duty to this place to make sure that those orders mean something and to force the government to start honouring the traditions of this great country and the Westminster system that has served it so well.

Dan Albas

$544,111.00