SoVote

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Jun/6/24 10:44:07 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the most shocking things in the Auditor General's report is that she classified two groups of conflict of interest decisions. The first group involved 96 occasions where the board members declared a conflict of interest but then awarded themselves money. The most shocking part is the $76 million, which is another 90 times when these board members did not have the courage to share that they had a conflict of interest. That is 186 times, half of which they hid. Could the member comment on why someone would be appointed to the board with that kind of ethic?

103 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer

Jun/6/24 10:44:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the member is absolutely right. Canadians would ask themselves why a government would do this. Why would there be government officials in the room overseeing these types of decisions, knowing that there were conflicts of interest? I think it goes back to the fact that this is the desired outcome. It is why a Liberal minister put his friends on the board. It is said that a fish rots from the top. The Prime Minister faces no consequences for his myriad conflicts, and there are other ministers with similar types of findings against them. The Prime Minister has been convicted three times. Nothing happens to the ministers and nothing happens to the Prime Minister. We can see the culture of corruption that the Prime Minister has created.

131 words

Mr. Rick Perkins (South Shore—St. Margarets, CPC)

Jun/6/24 10:45:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin with a slight indulgence of the House. This is a remarkable day in history, the 80th anniversary of D-Day. I just wanted to share a brief story because we probably all have family members who, in one way or another, have a connection to World War II. My mother's cousin Everett Borgald, my second cousin, from Chester Basin, Nova Scotia, signed up like a lot of young men did in 1942. He ended up landing in Normandy a month after D-Day, in July 1944. He was a tank trooper. He went inland and fought in the brutal battle of the Falaise gap, which the allies won on August 21, 1944, one month after he landed. Two days later, in the subsequent pushing back of the German army, his tank was attacked by two 75-millimetre shells that pierced the turret and mortally wounded my second cousin. His best friend, who happened to be part of the crew, pulled him out of the tank, but unfortunately he did not survive. He passed away on August 23, 1944. Like many others, I am thinking of family members who made the ultimate sacrifice for the freedom we have, and I just wanted to acknowledge that. Today we are debating a motion to have the Liberal government produce SDTC documents and send them to the RCMP. SDTC is a foundation set up 20 years ago by a Liberal government to invest in pre-commercialized green technology. The organization was doing good work. In fact in 2017, the Auditor General did a governance audit and found that it was complying with all of the best practices. Unfortunately, after that, the chair of the board at that time started to criticize the government publicly around the breaches of data and weak privacy policies, appearing before a parliamentary committee. Former minister of industry Navdeep Bains and his office phoned the president of the green slush fund, as it has become known, and asked them if they could get the chair to stop criticizing the government. The chair was not taking orders from the government and continued to criticize it. After an appearance at a parliamentary committee two days after that, the former minister's office phoned and said, for some reason, it was going to change the chair, and gave two names. The minister's office told the president to check it out. Former minister Navdeep Bains phoned the president personally and said that they were changing the chair because he was saying things they did not like. They had not been able to keep him quiet, so they gave two names and asked that they be checked out. The president, Leah Lawrence, testified in industry committee that she checked the two names out. The first person declined because they had a conflict. The second one said they were willing to do it even though they had a conflict. The president advised the assistant deputy minister, Mr. Noseworthy, who was the liaison who sat in the board meetings, that it was an inappropriate appointment of a chair because the appointee was conflicted. She was conflicted because the green slush fund was already doing business with her company. However, Ms. Verschuren had no problem with being in a conflicted position, because she was doing the same thing at an organization called MaRS in Toronto, which I said also helps with the finance. The former minister came back through the ADM a couple of weeks later and said they were changing them. They phoned the then chair, Mr. Balsillie, and told him he was out. Three days later, Annette Verschuren was in, over the stringent objections of the organization. This included its head of communications, who, only a few months earlier, was working in the Prime Minister's Office, and they phoned the former minister's office to say that this was inappropriate. This is all in testimony. What happened? It was the fourth or fifth appointment that the then minister Bains had made. It is quite a record of insider dealing and trading, the billion-dollar slush fund. The Auditor General audited a small portion, only five years' worth, and released a report this week. The AG found that board members voted to give companies money, and in 186 of the transactions, board members had an ownership interest in the companies. The Auditor General pointed out that in 90 of the transactions, board members did not even declare the conflict of interest, and that money alone totalled $76 million. The situation led whistle-blowers to go to the government a year and a half ago to seek help and to stop the corruption. The CFO from the industry department is quoted as saying that this is the biggest scandal since the sponsorship scandal. Actually, that was a Liberal scandal as well, in a previous government. The current scandal is huge in terms of dollars, compared to the earlier one. Almost half of all the transactions in the period of time that the Auditor General audited were transactions in which the board voted money to companies that they owned, almost half of the billion-dollar slush fund went to them, feathering their own interests. Public office holders have to comply with the Conflict of Interest Act, which says that public office holders cannot financially benefit from any job they are appointed to by the government. The SDTC act, an act of Parliament, says that individual board members cannot participate in and benefit from, for them or their families, any decision that financially makes their situation better, yet the directors did it 186 times while the senior departmental official sat in the meeting. The departmental official briefed his deputy minister at the time, who I am sure briefed the minister, former minister Bains, who did nothing for 46 months. The current minister, over the 46 months this was going on, did absolutely nothing until the whistle-blowers went public. To give the House some idea of the graft and corruption, Andrée-Lise Méthot, a director appointed in 2016 by former minister Bains, while she was on the board, her companies that she has an equity investment in, received $42.5 million from the green slush fund. Before she was appointed to the board, her companies received $143 million from the green slush fund. She should never have been appointed to the board. She had an immediate conflict of interest. It was in breach of both the Conflict of Interest Act and the SDTC act to appoint her. Annette Verschuren was the chair. We went through that. She has a company called NRStor, which was receiving government money. She was appointed to the board and should not have been. Guy Ouimet admitted in committee that he sat in committee and voted $4 million to his own company, which he owns equity in, and nobody in the government stopped it. That was a direct conflict of interest. Stephen Kukucha, the organizer for the current Liberal leader in British Columbia and a former Liberal staffer to an environment minister, was on the board, and while he was, his companies received almost $25 million. This is massive corruption and fraud on a scale not seen in Canada in my recent memory, which is longer, I think, than that of some of the people here; at least, I am told that frequently. What we have is a situation where last night we actually summoned, and it was the only way we could get him, former minister Navdeep Bains to the industry committee. He now works for Rogers, the largest and most expensive cellphone company in Canada, or the most expensive in the world. He was the minister who was supposed to reduce cellphone prices but actually ended up selling out and joining the most expensive company in the world in the last two years. I think Mr. Bains was actually zooming, but it looked more like he was some sort of avatar that was programmed with only two answers: that it is a public and open process and that he had nothing to do with it. Obviously, if the former minister had nothing to do with it, then he was directed by the PMO to appoint the Liberal hacks, cronies and swindlers to the board. He betrayed and said he does not have anything to do with it. His chief of staff said that he himself did not have anything to do with it either. They played the Hogan's Heroes Sergeant Schultz card and said, “I know nothing. Talk to somebody else.” It is typical of the government, and everybody in the government. It is never the fault of the person who made the appointment. It is somebody else's fault. It is the “the dog ate my homework” government. We are asking the House to pass a motion saying that the corruption has to end, and that not only does it have to end but it has to be investigated by the RCMP now that we have the Auditor General's report. I would ask and encourage all members to please show the ethics necessary for us and for Canadian taxpayers, and ensure that any illegal activity is dealt with by the police.

1558 words

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

Jun/6/24 10:55:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to the member's point, the government has consistently acknowledged the work that our independent officers do for the House of Commons on behalf of Canadians. Where there is a need, the government has taken to action address the concerns. We continue to wait, and we will ultimately see what takes place. Having said that, I would contrast some of the actions of the current government with those of previous administrations. There was the ETS scandal, which was in excess of $400 million, under the Harper regime, which completely ignored the issue and denied any sort of accountability and transparency. The member can feel free to provide comment on that if he would like.

116 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Jun/6/24 10:56:42 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I understand why the parliamentary secretary does not want to talk about the scandal we are debating today. The issue is this: The government claims to have done something, but it was actually the whistle-blowers who exposed this corruption, because the government was not doing its job. Even after receiving word of it, the government did nothing except call for a study. It was the ethics committee, led by a Standing Order 106(4) motion brought forward by our ethics critic, that called for it to be investigated by the Auditor General. The Auditor General's review was done because of the actions of our side, the official opposition, not because of the Liberals, who are continuing to cover up the corruption.

125 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/6/24 10:57:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yesterday, former minister Navdeep Bains appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. The Auditor General's report very clearly indicates that the minister at the time had the power to request that Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, be audited to see what was happening, so I asked the minister how many audits he had requested. Not only did the former minister not respond, but we know that he did not request any audits. He told us that this was a completely independent fund. What does my colleague think that Minister Bains should have done at the time when allegations of wrongdoing were already circulating in his department?

113 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Jun/6/24 10:58:16 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was an excellent question the member for Mirabel asked at the committee meeting last night. Of course, the automaton, AI-generated vision of former minister Bains just stuck with the process, and the answer, obviously, was zero, because he would not answer it. What former minister Bains could have done in the first place to prevent this was to not appoint corrupt Liberals to the board but to appoint people with ethical approaches to business and to ensure that when he got the monthly reports from the board with respect to the board meetings and what was going on, he did something to stop the corruption with respect to the 186 times the Liberals voted to give themselves money.

122 words

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

Jun/6/24 10:59:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a good example of how this type of situation would escape the current process the government has decided on is an interesting point the member has talked about before. Annette Verschuren is a good example of receiving all kinds of money from several different projects, and even from SDTC, but what about the managers who got bonuses to give money to projects that were not even recommended for acceptance? Why are we not getting the money back from those people? They got the bonuses through corruption and malfeasance, and at the expense of the workers whom I have been trying to raise as the real victims in the situation.

111 words

Mr. Rick Perkins

Jun/6/24 10:59:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is true. Like a lot of things with respect to the government, the management of SDTC was not paid for results but for output, which generated the need for its members to get a bonus when they put money into a project. That was not a great way to go forward. I would say this about the governance structure of the organization, which deteriorated greatly in 2019: When the chair changed the rules with respect to conflict of interest to suit her own benefit, it actually allowed the directors to buy shares in the companies for insider trading three days after the board approved money for those companies. That is how bad the corruption in the organization was under the Liberals.

124 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Jun/6/24 11:00:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this motion. I would like to address the substance of the issues raised and present the government's action to address allegations at SDTC and the actions we are taking to restore public trust and restore funding to Canada's world-class clean-tech sector that is helping deliver climate solutions and create the jobs of the future. On Tuesday, we announced that we will transition SDTC programming to the National Research Council to enhance governance and ensure public confidence after recent reviews, including, but not limited to, the report of the Office of the Auditor General, which revealed lapses in SDTC's governance. We take those lapses very seriously. Transitioning SDTC programming to the NRC will ensure continued support for clean technology innovations, which, as we all know, is not only crucial for meeting Canada's climate targets, but is also helping companies scale up and grow, strengthening our economy and creating good jobs. The changes announced will provide continuity and stability for clean-tech companies across the country, ensuring that entrepreneurs can move forward confidently with current projects and SDTC employees have opportunities to continue their work to enable homegrown innovation. I will return to these themes in more detail in a moment. First, let me provide some background on the facts, the specific issues raised, the reaction by the government and the key steps that we are taking. This government expects organizations that receive public funds to be held to the highest standards. When allegations of mismanagement at SDTC first came to light, our government took immediate action to undertake the proper due diligence to understand the facts. These were serious allegations that warranted a careful assessment of all of the evidence. Only with the facts could we then take the appropriate next steps. As the first step, the government engaged an impartial third party, Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, to undertake a fact-finding exercise. That fact-finding exercise focused on a review of documentation and interviews with key stakeholders related to organizational policies and procedures, program governance and the project approval process. RCGT also interviewed employees, external advisers, senior management, members of SDTC's board and government officials. After receiving this report, we took swift action to freeze any new funding to SDTC and we tasked the organization with a management response and action plan. We also began to work collaboratively with the Office of the Auditor General to support a full and comprehensive audit. Just as the government has high standards for the use of government funds, we expect employees to benefit from a healthy and respectful work environment. Given this, in addition to the RCGT fact-finding exercise, the government took action to address allegations related to human resource practices at SDTC. With SDTC's consent, which was required due to the organization's status as a shared governance corporation at arm's length from Innovation, Science and Economic Development, ISED requested that the Department of Justice appoint McCarthy Tétrault LLP to undertake a fact-finding review of alleged breaches of labour and employment practices and policies at SDTC. Current and former employees were permitted to speak openly and freely to the law firm without violating any applicable settlement agreements or non-disclosure agreements. The report of the review, which the government has made publicly available, concluded that SDTC's leadership did not engage in the type of repetitive, vexatious or major-incident conduct that would constitute harassment, bullying or workplace violence under applicable standards. Now, let me move on to two days ago, on June 4, when the Auditor General, as we all know, released the report of her audit of SDTC. As mentioned, the government welcomed the Auditor General's decision to undertake this audit and fully co-operated with the auditors. The Government of Canada agrees with the findings of the Auditor General's report on SDTC. We acknowledge the areas identified for improving governance, accountability and conflict of interest practices. Several of the recommendations are already being implemented by the organization, such as revising procedures for funding decisions and project oversight, as well as clarifying roles and responsibilities. The government is committed to working with SDTC to implement further measures that uphold transparency and prudent management of public funds. Evidence collected from all of these independent reviews revealed lapses in SDTC's governance. We have never once denied that those are true lapses in its governance. The government listened and, as we saw yesterday, we are taking definitive action. To be clear however, the Auditor General did not report any evidence or suspicion of criminal behaviour. As acknowledged by Ms. Hogan herself before committee on Tuesday, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada has reacted quickly and well in response to the findings in the reports. In October 2023, a management response and action plan was developed, which set out action items aimed at improving SDTC's governance, its conflict of interest management and human resource practices; and at enhancing ISED's oversight of SDTC to ensure that the organization is in full compliance with its contribution agreement. A reinforced contribution agreement with SDTC will formalize the enhanced governance practices and oversight measures set out in the MRAP. Of chief importance among amendments and complementary MRAP actions are those that clarify, enhance and standardize SDTC's reporting requirements and processes, which will allow the government greater insight into and oversight of the organization's operations and management of public funds. To help restore confidence in SDTC's management of public funds for the benefit of Canadians, ISED has implemented enhanced standards for disclosure, documentation and management of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, active reporting requirements have been established to track conflict of interest disclosures and recusals. This includes measures specific to SDTC employees, external consultants, senior management and the board. These measures will increase accountability, ensuring that any potential conflicts are managed effectively. They also introduce new requirements for declaring and documenting management of conflicts of interest within the foundation and reporting them to ISED. Collectively, these measures establish stronger governance and oversight of SDTC and will ensure increased transparency, accountability and confidence in the new board's ability to continue delivering benefits to Canadians as the programming transitions to its next phase. Sustainable Development Technology Canada was created over 20 years ago in 2001. Canada's clean technology ecosystem looked very different at that time and was much less mature than it is today. The funding that has been provided since has helped to commercialize many clean technologies, and these projects continue to make valuable contributions to the Canadian economy, and the environment, today. It has been an example of how Liberal leadership in the environment and climate change has always supported economic growth in Canada, helping good companies grow and helping Canada be a leader in the world. The governance model adopted by Parliament at that time in the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act provided for a high degree of independence, but the various reviews I have outlined prompted the government to take a close look at whether the governance structure of SDTC continues to be fit for purpose today. After careful consideration, we determined that a new delivery model for SDTC programming was needed. This is why our government took action by announcing a new delivery approach that includes transitioning SDTC programming and employees to National Research Council Canada. In addition to its proven track record of providing tailored support to Canada's innovative small and medium-sized businesses, the NRC is a Crown agency and is subject to rigorous and stringent oversight of its personnel and finances. This will help rebuild public trust while increasing accountability and transparency in program delivery. This transition will take several months, so the government appointed new SDTC leadership, made up of highly regarded and trusted individuals, to lead the important work ahead to ensure the terms and conditions of ongoing projects are respected, and appropriate employment opportunities for SDTC employees at the NRC are identified, because it is not just about sound governance; it is about people. SDTC's employees have a wealth of experience and knowledge of the clean-tech sector and have been integral in helping Canada's clean-tech companies move from seed to start-up to scale-up. Their transition to the NRC will help ensure that Canada's clean-tech companies will be at the forefront in the fight against climate change by receiving the same type of support to innovate, grow and create well-paying, sustainable jobs. This support will continue with resumed funding for new, eligible projects in a sector vital to our country's economy and clean growth transition. In line with the Auditor General's findings, ISED will enhance oversight and monitoring of funding throughout the transition period. Now, the opposition members do not take climate change seriously. We know that from their many actions and votes against climate change. Conservatives would rather play politics than make sure that Canada's clean-tech sector can keep paving the way for the solutions the world needs. However, we understand that confidence in SDTC must be restored so that these visionary entrepreneurs can receive the funding they need for their businesses. Continuity of support for our clean-tech sector is paramount in the fight against climate change, and to keep growing our economy and keep Canada competitive in a world looking for cleaner solutions. We know that clean-tech companies have felt the impacts of the funding pause as this government took the time it needed to uncover the evidence and identify a robust governance solution. We have done what we set out to do, and we thank the clean-tech sector for its resilience and patience as we shape the way forward. The wheels are in motion at ISED, the NRC and SDTC to make the transfer happen while ensuring continuity for clean-tech projects and SDTC employees. By transitioning the support for clean-technology innovators into the NRC, leveraging its robust governance structure, the government will maintain the strengths of the programming that have benefited Canada's clean-tech companies for over two decades. Going forward, it is crucial that our efforts are focused on supporting Canadian innovators in the clean-tech sector. These companies are generating jobs and developing world-class technologies to respond to the impacts of climate change and build the economy of the future here in Canada.

1753 words

Mr. Ryan Williams (Bay of Quinte, CPC)

Jun/6/24 11:13:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the appetite for Canadians for corruption is very low, but specifically, right now, given the fact that the financial burden of Canadians is becoming quite high, this corruption, after nine years of this Liberal government, is just becoming far too much for Canadians. We know that of all the individuals being investigated, we are asking the RCMP to look into this one individual, who may or may not be investigated, as it is very concerning. A former industry minister, Navdeep Baines, appointed the chair of the board. Subsequent members to the board, who he knew at the time, had conflicts of interest and doled out $140 million of taxpayer money where directors voted 186 times in instances with conflicts of interest. However, more concerning to Canadians with the burden of the cost of living is that this minister got a million-dollar job with Rogers Communication at a time when he promised cellphone bills would be down 25%, and this government subsequently promised 50%. Rogers has posted its best profit ever off the backs of Canadians. Canadians demand an answer. Why was this appropriate for this government to treat this individual and others this way and for the further corruption coming from this story and others?

208 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Jun/6/24 11:14:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, from day one, when we learned of the allegations of mismanagement, our government has consistently taken steps forward to address the issues that surfaced, and I have outlined that very clearly in my speech. Our government has taken action time and time again to collect the facts. We have never denied the fact that these allegations are serious and that there are breaches to specific governance standards that we all think we need to uphold. We are doing the work. We are now relaunching SDTC with a new governance model that will have the accountability, transparency and oversight that I think we all agree is needed.

109 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Jun/6/24 11:15:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, towards the end of his speech, the parliamentary secretary raised a couple of interesting points, namely the consequences these measures will have and the relentlessness of the Conservatives, who, as we know, are largely funded by oil companies. He was talking about the consequences this relentlessness had on Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which invests massively in green funds, technological innovation and small and medium-sized businesses that will contribute to the energy transition and the economy of tomorrow. I would like to ask the government representative what he thinks of this strategy. More importantly, what does the government intend to do to ensure that investment in these SMEs continues? After all, they depend on investment to be able to take their technologies to the next level. They have been neglected for just over a year now. These SMEs have no governance or ethical problems, but they are victims of these political strategies.

154 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Jun/6/24 11:16:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, part of my reason for getting into politics was to support small and medium-sized enterprises in this country and ensure that we unlock capital and investment to scale up the innovative solutions that entrepreneurs and small business owners are developing, so we can meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, one of the challenges obviously being climate change. I cannot tell members how committed we in the government are. There is a heartfelt commitment to ensuring that small businesses can access the capital and support they need. Obviously, SDTC has played a pivotal role in that. We got a letter from Canada Cleantech that said, “Canada has consistently outperformed in the cleantech sector relative to its size, partly due to the support of SDTC as a funding source for early-stage technologies.” That is just one example. That is why we feel it is so important to get SDTC back up and running under a new governance framework.

163 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Jun/6/24 11:17:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising to address the point of order raised earlier today by the member for Winnipeg Centre. I wish to apologize—

25 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/6/24 11:17:41 a.m.
Watch

The point of order was set aside, if I remember correctly. I will allow the hon. member to continue, but I would ask him to indicate which standing order he is rising on.

33 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Jun/6/24 11:18:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to advise the House that I misspoke one word when I read my speech on Tuesday night.

22 words

Speech
Word

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/6/24 11:18:20 a.m.
Watch

I will listen to it, but if it becomes a point of debate, I will let the member know. I am hoping that it will be on a point of order from the Standing Orders. The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

41 words

Mr. Brad Redekopp

Jun/6/24 11:18:28 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Madam Speaker, I wish to apologize to the member, to the House and anyone else I may have offended. Specifically, the member referenced a speech that I gave in the House Tuesday night on Bill C-20. In a quote she read from my speech, I said the following, “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.” I misspoke when I used the word “because”. I meant to say “regardless”. This was caught immediately and when the blues came out, the preliminary version of Hansard, we requested to change the word “because” to “regardless”. That change was accepted and published in Hansard officially. Once again, I apologize for misspeaking. I never meant to offend anyone. I never meant to cast any aspersions on anyone because of race.

175 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/6/24 11:19:18 a.m.
Watch

That was a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

12 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 326