SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 258 - Nov/29/23

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Nov/29/23 2:20:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister, his billion-dollar green slush fund is engulfed in corruption. His hand-picked board chair was caught funnelling $220,000 to her own company and then paid herself $120,000. Then she and the CEO both resigned in disgrace. We learned yesterday that another board member funnelled millions of taxpayer dollars to not one, not two, not three, but four companies that she personally had an interest in. The Liberals knew about the corruption and ineligible payments and they did absolutely nothing. One senior government official called it an ad scam-level payout. Meanwhile, whistle-blowers are afraid of professional and legal reprisals because the Liberals refused to offer them any protection. At every level of the Prime Minister's green slush fund, there is corruption and more insiders getting paid. With an Auditor General investigation and an Ethics Commissioner investigation, it is clear that the Prime Minister just is not worth the cost. Conservatives will keep fighting to expose Liberal corruption and find out who got rich.

179 words

Context: House Hansard - 258 - Nov/29/23

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Nov/29/23 7:32:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I posed to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, a question that he conveniently refused to answer concerning corruption at the Liberals' billion-dollar green slush fund known as SDTC. An independent, fact-finding report reveals a cloud of mismanagement, conflicts of interest and self-dealing at SDTC. The report found, among other things, that the board improperly paid out nearly $40 million in so-called COVID relief payments, including funnelling millions of dollars to companies that board members had an interest in. The chair of SDTC, during questioning before the ethics committee, was forced to admit that she funnelled $220,000 to her own company, and then funnelled $120,000 of that into her own personal bank account. She even moved the motion at the board. Incredibly, she claimed it was all okay because she and the board had received legal advice. It turns out that the lawyer who provided that legal advice is none other than a member of the SDTC council. In other words, the lawyer was providing legal advice about conflicts of interest when he, himself, had a conflict of interest. In providing that advice and being paid for that advice by SDTC, as he was, the law was broken, because section 16 of the SDTC act prohibits any member of the SDTC council from profiting from SDTC. Yesterday, we learned that another board member at SDTC had funnelled a staggering $42.5 million of taxpayers' money into four companies that she had an interest in. She enriched herself to the tune of $42.5 million. It is unbelievable. It appears that this only scratches the surface of corruption and mismanagement at SDTC, because according to whistle-blowers, the level of corruption and self-dealing exceeds $150 million of taxpayers' money squandered. Despite the well-documented corruption and mismanagement involving tens upon tens of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, no one has been held accountable. The chair resigned but not at the request of the minister, and the minister continues to stand behind the corrupt SDTC board. Why? Why is the minister more interested in protecting Liberal insiders who got rich improperly at the expense of taxpayers rather than rooting out the rot and corruption at the Liberals' green slush fund?

388 words

Context: House Hansard - 258 - Nov/29/23

Mr. Michael Cooper

Nov/29/23 7:39:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary confirmed that the resignation of the chair of SDTC was a personal decision that she did not make at the direction of the minister. This was the same chair who funnelled $220,000 into her own company and then transferred $120,000 of that into her personal bank account. That is corruption, yet it did not meet the level for the minister to call on her to resign. If that level of corruption does not suffice calling for a resignation, what does?

90 words