44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2024 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:19:18 a.m.
- Watch
That was a point of order.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:19:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in terms of the blues, we are allowed to change things, but the change by the member entirely takes away what was said in the House. The edit made to the blues changed it entirely. Changing the record from “because of his racial background” to “regardless of his racial background” might seem like a small change, but it fundamentally alters the meaning of what was said. The former links criminality to one's race and the latter is not connected to race. That is—
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:20:19 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Saskatoon West has apologized.
I would ask the member for Winnipeg Centre to speak to the Clerk to find out if that is more a question of privilege. It seems to me that it is more of a point of debate at this point in trying to expand on the point of order that the hon. member just brought forward again. I am not sure if it is a question of privilege as opposed to a point of order. It seems to be debate.
The hon. member for Saskatoon West did apologize.
The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:21:11 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member did not really apologize. He gave the reason he changed the word. He is not taking responsibility—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
27 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:21:30 a.m.
- Watch
Order, please.
The hon. member did apologize. He said that if it offended anybody he apologized and that it was not the word he wanted to use. The apology is there, so I would just ask the hon. member to maybe discuss it with the clerks or with her House leader to see how to move forward from here. At this point, I feel this is more of a point of debate.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Windsor West.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:22:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing that is concerning about this situation is that the government knew about the problems with the workforce at SDTC. Now it is proposing another model, moving it under another government department, which would have more direct oversight. What is the point if SDTC management and board members who abuse the staff and the process are still part of it?
How many of these individuals has the government rooted out to stop them from joining the recovery process and the justice necessary for the workers who remain there? I asked the government to offer other jobs to the SDTC whistle-blowers and it refused, leaving them in a lurch until right now. What is the government going to do to ensure it is a safe workplace?
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:23:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we too feel it is very important to preserve a healthy work environment for the employees of SDTC. After all, they are not the ones at fault here. To the member's point, the board is no longer and will be reconstituted with new members under the new governance framework. As I said in my speech, employees who have worked at SDTC will be given opportunities within the new structure to have meaningful employment and to apply their skills and expertise in a way that benefits the clean-tech sector across Canada, which, to me, makes a lot of sense.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:23:47 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, perhaps the parliamentary secretary will be able to tell us if Navdeep Bains will be part of that process and put some more corrupt Liberals in.
My question is about the statement by the parliamentary secretary that the government acted and supported every single time the investigation into this. That is actually factually incorrect. That member, at the industry committee, opposed every vote we tried to have to do an investigation into this, every single time. It was only through the support of the Bloc and the NDP that we were able, in the industry committee, to do any investigation into this corruption at all.
Why is it that the member would claim that the Liberals actually were in front of this when they were fighting it every step of the way?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:24:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what that member just uttered is patently false. I have supported meetings on SDTC at committee, and our government has studied it at multiple committees. We have also taken action from day one to, as I said, do numerous fact-finding missions and independent reviews, all of which have provided the evidence and support for the actions we are now taking. We have taken those to heart and we have acted on the recommendations that independent third parties have given us, including all the witness testimony that has been provided at numerous committees.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:25:21 a.m.
- Watch
Order, please.
The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets has a habit of doing this, and I asked him to please be respectful and to allow members to have their say. If he has anything else to say, then he should wait until the appropriate time.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 11:25:21 a.m.
- Watch
You voted against all the summonses.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
