SoVote

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

Ms. Leah Gazan

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

Ms. Leah Gazan

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

Apologize

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP)

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

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

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

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

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

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

Mr. Rick Perkins

Jun/6/24 11:25:21 a.m.
Watch

You voted against all the summonses.

6 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/6/24 11:25:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to stand first to say that I have tracked the work of Sustainable Development Technology Canada over a 22-year history, in which there were leading entrepreneurs from my own riding, people like Juergen Puetter from the wind energy sector, who was active as a member of the board. In those days, we would look at a track record of extremely effective, targeted support that led to multiplier factors of benefits to our economy in moving to innovative technology. I cannot believe it is the same organization that is found so lacking in rigour by our current Auditor General. There has been a shocking decline in management, and I certainly support the Conservative motion today that we get to the bottom of it. Does the hon. parliamentary secretary see a day when Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or the work it was doing, will be properly restored through the National Research Council?

156 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Jun/6/24 11:26:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member's question is a good-faith question. It is exactly what we hope to see. This organization has a legacy of really great strategic work in helping finance, seed and scale up financing for some of our most promising clean-tech entrepreneurs. To see that work continue is really where our commitment is. Obviously, we need to address the governance issues that have surfaced and the practices that have been lacking. I agree with her that the hope is that we can do that, under the National Research Council, in a way that gives a lot more oversight to the federal government. I think that is what is really needed in this case. I share her concern and her commitment to ensuring that we restore SDTC to its previous and most effective model.

140 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné (Terrebonne, BQ)

Jun/6/24 11:27:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Saint-Jean. Sustainable Development Technology Canada or how to take a great idea and a noble cause and screw the whole thing up. This organization was founded as a non-profit in 2001 with the noble aim of stimulating innovation in clean energy and green technologies during a crucial stage for many entrepreneurs and creators, that being the pre-commercial stage. This is the point where businesses are not yet profitable and need financing to be able to develop their technologies and commercialize them. In Quebec, home to a strong entrepreneurial fabric, many businesses depend on this type of financing, which can be obtained in very few places. Since its inception, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, has been sitting on about $2.1 billion in funding. Of this amount, it has spent $856 million on some 420 projects, which is no trifling sum. Again, this was for a noble cause, with the laudable aim of stimulating innovation in clean technologies. This funding is necessary. On Tuesday the Auditor General's devastating report landed with a thud. In fact, this is one of three devastating reports we received Tuesday, proof that this government has completely lost control of the federal machinery of government. This is appalling. First, we see that since the eligibility criteria were simply not defined, there is no way of knowing which projects could qualify. There was no follow-up on the fact that certain projects had, for example, proved less beneficial for the environment than what had been previously described. The eligibility criteria were not even sent to the outside experts who had been asked whether these projects should be funded or not. That takes the cake: Outside experts are hired to tell us whether this is a good or a bad project, but they are not sent the eligibility criteria. The number of problems outlined in this report is outrageous. What is more, the Auditor General noted that one out of 10 projects were ineligible. It is as if, every time someone buys a bag of 10 apples at the grocery store, one of them is rotten. There comes a point when enough is enough. That is what happened at SDTC. One out of 10 projects were not even eligible. That is a huge ratio. Then we get to what might explain why some ineligible projects were still funded: conflict of interest. The Auditor General identified 90 breaches of conflict of interest policies. In some cases, there were personal business relations between directors and the companies. In many cases, although the person disclosed their conflict of interest, they were still present when the decision was made whether or not to fund the project. Put the conflicts of interest and the ineligibility of projects together, and there is wrongdoing amounting to many tens of millions of dollars. That is what we learned from the Auditor General's report. It is passing strange, moreover, that we learned that Sustainable Development Technology Canada had been abolished the very morning the report was submitted. What is going to happen with these recommendations? The recommendations made to SDTC will not be followed up on, since SDTC no longer exists. That raises a lot of questions. The government has disavowed an entity that receives public funds, that has a responsibility to taxpayers, that has a dual responsibility: properly managing the public funds it receives and stimulating a part of the economy essential to our future. The government says that the organization, the foundation, is not even worth cleaning up, and that it must be abolished. What we have also learned is that SDTC employees will all have access to positions at the National Research Council of Canada, and that the funds will also be transferred there. However, we are not being told how that will work. We are completely in the dark. What is going to happen with the funding? I would remind the House that this funding is essential. What will happen? Will the criteria at last be clear? Will projects continue to be funded? Will all the projects funded to date really be audited? Are we going to resume funding those that truly need it and whose survival depends on it? There are tons of questions. This elimination comes at a crucial time. Now that many questions are being raised, it seems quite wise to scrap Sustainable Development Technology Canada or SDTC. Will the documents follow? Will the government destroy all the documents that prove conflicts of interest or those that show that there may have been questionable ties or that the department may have been aware of certain facts well before the report was tabled and the first alarm sounded? This leads me to today's opposition motion, moved by the Conservatives. If the aim is to shed light on what is happening at SDTC and to protect information that will support an investigation, especially by the RCMP, we fully agree on that. The wording now has to be made acceptable and realistic. For example, the 14-day deadline is inadequate, given the volume of documentation requested. It is a huge number of documents. It includes all emails and briefing notes about SDTC exchanged between the directors for the past decade. That is huge. If these documents have to be translated, and we would like them to be, because we want them in both official languages, 14 days is not enough. Obviously, this sort of thing is very important to us. We also want to tighten the language. Asking for financial information on every company that received funding from the SDTC may be going a bit too far. We should tread more lightly. However, we definitely agree that we should focus on projects where the Auditor General found a breach of conflict of interest policies. We must get to the bottom of this. These documents must be preserved so the RCMP can investigate, if necessary. I would also point out that we must be very careful with how we word the request to the RCMP. In fact, we have no request to make to the RCMP. The RCMP decides whether, yes or no, it wants to launch an investigation or open a file on the matter. Yes, it can rely on the Auditor General's report. However, the documents used by the Auditor General must still exist, and the RCMP has to be able to go to the SDTC, which no longer exists, and request the documents. That is one of the things we would like to improve in the Conservatives' current motion. However, let us not forget one thing. All the bad elements mentioned in this report and all the money that came out of the SDTC are preferable to the billions of dollars we are sending to the western oil companies. Moreover, we should we forgot the SDTC's important role and commendable objective in contributing to a cleaner future, with less climate change, more mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, with more of our clean technologies and so on. We should not forget the fund. This type of investment, because it comes from our taxes, must continue to exist. Let us not wage a vendetta against all the projects that need this funding. We have to be clear, and the wording has to be written more accurately so we can do our work as parliamentarians more seriously. Once again, the Liberals have proved to us that they are unable to manage anything, and it is really too bad, but do not worry: The Bloc Québécois will be here to help shed light on the issue.

1294 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Jun/6/24 11:37:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's remarks on the corruption we are seeing in the Liberal government, which is displayed in the Auditor General's report. I will note, as seen on page 14 of the Auditor General's report, that there were 90 cases where, according to the foundation's own records, conflict of interest policies were not followed. How do we get rid of corruption in Parliament and in our institutions? How do we do it?

79 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Jun/6/24 11:38:03 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to begin, if we could get rid of corruption here there would be no more Liberal Party. Furthermore, we would really like Quebec to be independent so we could leave this Parliament. Nevertheless, if there has been misconduct, I would like it to be dealt with. However, the Conservative Party must not forget that there is a commendable objective in this type of investment and it should not start a vendetta against everything that is clean. That is what I want to see.

85 words

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

Jun/6/24 11:38:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the idea of sustainable development and funding green projects is something that is worthwhile. I would like to think that all political parties in the House support it, with the possible exception of the Conservative-Reform party. Looking at it, yes, obviously everyone in the chamber recognizes that something is wrong here. The minister took immediate action, and the National Research Council is going to, in essence, ensure that we can continue to have funding ongoing while we address the concerns that have come out. Would the member not agree that to have a government agency, such as NRC, take responsibility for this important file is a positive step forward?

117 words

Ms. Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

Jun/6/24 11:39:38 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would say that it is too little, too late. In paragraph 6.52 of the report, the Auditor General says, “We found that the department knew of 96 cases when directors declared conflicts of interest because it had access to the meeting minutes and materials of the board of directors.” The department had access to all kinds of documents. It never asked questions about ineligible projects or about recovering funds from those projects. The department simply did not deal with what was happening at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC. What a crying shame that it is now getting rid of SDTC altogether without a plan B.

112 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 326