44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/6/24 3:29:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the motion before us, 14 days is a very reasonable timeline. These documents exist. They can be tabled so that Canadians can get the answers they are entitled to. When it comes down to it, the corruption, the scandal, the pork-barrelling and the conflicts of interest are an abuse of institutions that Canadians should be able to trust. Transparency is very key.
We have laid out a very straightforward motion that is an important first step in ensuring that Canadians get the answers they deserve.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:30:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I actually do not mind addressing the House on this particular issue, but I thought I would start off in the same manner in which the former leader of the Conservative Party, today's opposition House leader, did. I can understand why he wanted to talk about the economy, interest rates, inflation rates and concerns that he had with the government on those issues. Before he actually got to the motion itself, he spent probably about 50% of his time talking about that issue.
I like to think that the member has some valid points in some of the things that he was saying in terms of concerns that Canadians have in regard to some of those key indicators, and that is why I thought that maybe, given that the former leader of the Conservative Party started the debate talking about the economy, I would participate by sharing some thoughts, some actual facts, on that issue.
Yesterday was actually a very good day in Canada. Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of Canada actually reduced interest rates. We are the first country in the G7 to actually see a reduction in the interest rate. That is good news, and I want to reinforce that to members opposite. This will be the first reduction in four years, and we have to put it into the context of what is happening around the world.
When we take a look at interest rates and inflation rates around the world, Canada is doing relatively well, especially if we compare our economy, interest rates and inflation rates to other G7 and G20 countries. Canada is doing quite well, and yesterday, with the announcement from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, we actually saw a decrease. Canada is the first country in the G7 to do so.
I address that point to my friend, the Conservative House leader, who started off by talking about concerns regarding interest rates. I thought that was some good news, and I wanted to share that with the member opposite.
Now let us talk about the motion that we have today. If we take a look at Sustainable Development and Technology Canada, better known as SDTC, which has been referred to throughout the day, I believe it is important that we highlight the fact that SDTC has been around for over 20 years. That is a very important fact. Next to that, we need to recognize that it is actually an arm's-length foundation, meaning that it has a very independent nature.
When we think of the board that members continuously make reference to, the Government of Canada does not appoint all the board members. We are not solely appointing the entirety of the board members to SDTC, and I think that is another very important thing to realize.
When we think in terms of what SDTC has done over the last 20 years, it is important that we reflect on the hundreds of projects that have been initiated, and as a direct result of that initiation, Canada has done relatively well on a number of fronts. When I think of Sustainable Development Technology Canada over the years, I think of quality air, clean water, enriched soil and the type of technology that needs to be developed in order to provide that quality, as well as to look at environmental initiatives that will have an impact not only here in Canada, but around the world.
As an arm's-length foundation, many of the investments have allowed Canadian companies not only to create jobs in Canada, not only to ensure that we have a healthier environment, but also to lead the world in many areas, and so we are contributing to technological advancements around the world through SDTC.
When we think of how the government provides funds to support Canadian companies that have the potential to be world leaders in technology, as a political entity, the Liberal Party has valued and recognized the importance of the government being involved indirectly, which is why it is in support of the foundation. The foundation, as I pointed out, was created 20 years ago. Obviously, it has survived a good number of years, even under Stephen Harper. We recognize the fact that the foundation continued to receive support. I suspect, with the millions of dollars that it has received over the years, that many of those Canadian-based companies, and the fine work they have done in terms of the advancement of technology, have contributed in many different ways, not only here, but abroad.
If we look at some of the companies that have benefited by it, three things come to my mind. I think of water, whether it is water treatment or whatever it might be. I think of energy with Manitoba and Quebec, two provinces that have so much development in hydro. There is so much potential in that industry and Canada, on many fronts, leads the way, because, in good part, of agencies such as SDTC, along with other levels of government and their investments or the national government's investments. When I think of water, energy and agriculture, all one really needs to do is take a look at the last few years to see how those three items come to the top of mind for me personally and why I believe it was important that the government take action on the issue.
Let us put it in perspective in terms of what has actually taken place. There were concerns raised a couple years back in regards to how SDTC was being governed, and employees and others had legitimate concerns. That was brought to the attention of the government. The government intentionally chose to look into the matter with not one, but two internal-type reviews, one being an external third party from within the department. An assessment was done and that report came out last fall. The government was concerned about the report and ultimately froze the new funding going to SDTC. The report, at least in part, caused the Auditor General of Canada to take note and to look into the matter. As a direct result of that, what we saw was the report that was just released earlier this week.
When the report was released, the government, as it has in the past, consistently acknowledged that we have independent offices of the House of Commons to support members and to ensure that there is a higher sense of transparency and accountability. Through that report, we get a much clearer sense of the serious issues that had to be addressed. We are taking actions based on many of the report's recommendations. The government respects the recommendations and continues to follow them and the thoughts flowing out of that report.
Some tangible actions have already been taken. There is no longer a board and we have put into place a transitionary board with retired deputy ministers; I believe there are three retired deputy ministers. We are looking at how ensure that there is ongoing governance that will reinstate public confidence in a program that, generally speaking, has delivered for Canadians. We recognize that there have been some issues. We are not denying that. That is why we are dealing with the governance issue today and it is now being transferred over into the jurisdiction of the NRC.
We are taking it away from a foundation-type of board model, which is arm's-length from the government, and we are putting it into a Crown corporation, where there is the opportunity to ensure more direct accountability. I see that as a very strong, tangible action. When we first heard about the issue, the minister took action to ensure that we could find out more information as to what was taking place. For the Conservatives opposite to try to give an impression that the government has not been taking action, I think, is somewhat misleading.
At the end of the day, when a government spends a great deal of money, sometimes money is spent in an inappropriate fashion. When that takes place, I would suggest that it is important to watch the actions of the government to ensure public confidence, transparency and integrity of the system, a higher sense of oversight and a better sense of accountability. Changing that governance, ultimately, is going to ensure all of that.
The NRC has done some wonderful things in Canada. It has an infrastructure that is already in place. I suspect that many individuals from SDTC will have the opportunity to continue, to ensure that those jobs are in fact being taken into consideration. Think about the programs that are out there. I do not know all of the Canadian-based companies that have received support, but there are quite a few of them and many of them are ongoing. We are talking about hundreds over the years, so it is important that we continue with the program itself. This is where it will be interesting to hear from members of the Conservative Party in terms of where they see the program or the initiative.
Stephen Harper supported it, but we know that there has been a hard right turn within the Conservative Party. Just like Erin O'Toole supported a price on pollution, today's Conservatives do not support a price on pollution. Do they support having greener grants and support programs? Is that part of the motivation? They have not been clear on that issue.
Instead of having a substantive debate in regard to the benefits that have been realized, whether it is the jobs, the economics or the environment and the world-leading technology that is being developed, the Conservatives' sole focus is to try to shift the blame and say that the government has not been responding to the issues as they have been coming up, and then they try to label our government as corrupt. Nothing could be further from the truth on this issue.
It is interesting, when we do a comparison. When Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, we had the ETS scandal, and I made reference to it earlier. A number of people across the way had that shell shock-type of look, or one of a deer caught in the headlights. Maybe they should look it up. That was a technology service contract and, indirectly, the Conservative leader himself would have been somewhat associated with it, at least for a portion of his time with the Stephen Harper government. That was a $400-million contract.
If the Conservatives want to talk about corruption, they should take a look at the allegations that were being made back then. Now contrast how the Conservative Party approached that mega-scandal with what they are saying today. We can see that it is quite different. Today's Conservative Party looks at things in a very different light. What we see is a Conservative Party that really has one or two issues that they want to focus on, and if we try to change that focus, the Conservatives get upset.
Conservatives want to focus on personalizing politics. They want to divide Canadians. They want to try to give the impression that Canada is broken, and that the institution of Parliament is not working. On the one hand, that is the type of messaging that we see time and time again. Character assassination is on the top of that list. The Conservatives are trying to feed the far right, and get them upset, angry and motivated to do the things that we are seeing today, which is somewhat disappointing in many ways.
On the other hand, the Conservatives go around, spreading misinformation on issues, such as the carbon rebate versus the carbon tax. I would suggest that the issue we have before us today is an issue the Liberal government is taking seriously. It has demonstrated that by the actions that we have taken to date.
We are going to ensure that there is a high sense of accountability and transparency on the issue. We are going to ensure that, at the end of the day, Canadian taxpayers are protected, so the program will lead to ongoing clean energy and worldwide recognition of the advancements that Canada is making on technology.
2056 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:50:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals talk a lot about climate change, day in and day out. They use it to justify imposing a carbon tax that does nothing to change the climate but essentially impoverishes Canadians and shuts down industry.
Sustainable Development Technology Canada was doing a good job under the appointees by Harper. As a matter of fact, it was examined by the Auditor General and got a AAA rating, a great record. However, since that time, more recently, the Auditor General has released a report saying that it is a mess. It is a scandal. They are Liberal insiders. This was supposed to be for green technology, but it is a slush fund. They cannot even trace where a lot of the funds are going.
Could the member admit that it is really about making Liberal-friendly appointees and their companies rich and has nothing to do with climate change at all?
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:51:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to think that all appointees under this administration, whether Conservatives, Liberals, New Democrats, independents or possibly the odd separatist, though hopefully not too many, would be responsible in that position and take actions that are in the best interests of Canada as a nation. That is my expectation.
If they do not meet the expectations, then there is a need to take action. That is, in fact, what we have seen the government do. Tangible actions have been taken on this particular issue, and we will continue to move forward in making sure that Canadian taxpayers are in fact—
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:52:37 p.m.
- Watch
There needs to be time for more questions.
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:52:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the tragedy in all this is that every time there is a Liberal scandal, they quickly cook up a fresh scandal to bury the previous one. There is no end to the mismanagement and lack of transparency.
I think that, in this matter, there are reasonable doubts that justify making these documents available to parliamentarians. Will the parliamentary secretary commit to providing them, as we are requesting? It is important that this be clear, in the name of transparency.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:53:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have a system in Parliament that enables standing committees to be very productive. It is the will of standing committees to meet and build up relationships that ensure a higher sense of accountability and transparency. Nothing prevents standing committees from calling before them the ministers responsible and others to take a deep dive into what has taken place. That is all good. I would encourage and support standing committees doing that.
At the same time, from my perspective, it is also important for departments and ministers to do what they can. I am satisfied that we have a minister and a government that continue to ensure there is a higher sense of accountability, having found the degree to which there were problems. We saw that more specifically this week, as the board no longer exists.
138 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:54:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member said there are some issues at Sustainable Development Technology Canada. Let us go over the basics. Annette Verschuren, the former board chair, as well as being CEO of a Toronto-based energy storage firm called NRStor Inc., participated in approving grants totalling $217,000 to her own company. She refused to recuse herself.
SDTC awarded funding to projects that were ineligible. It did not follow conflict of interest policies for directors 88 times. The legal requirements for the number of foundation members were never met; the board was required to have 15 members, but, by 2020, there were only two. Decisions were also made without quorum. These are not “some issues”. This is a board that is colossally compromised by corruption.
Given facts such as these and more, would my hon. colleague really describe the situation at SDTC as one where there were “some issues”?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:55:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would not want to attempt to marginalize the serious issues that the Auditor General has brought forward, and this is why I provided comments regarding the appointment of board members. There are many boards that are appointed. Whether the government appoints Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats or people who are really and truly independent to boards, I expect, as I like to think every member should, that they would behave in an appropriate fashion and respect conflict of interest and so forth. When that does not happen, I expect the government to take action, and the current government has done so. It demonstrated that as far back as two years ago in freezing new funding.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:56:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member opposite seems to have a really bad case of political amnesia. He always wants to change the focus and forgets that it is actually nine years of the Prime Minister and his party in power. They are in power for now; I hope a Conservative government will be back in office in short order. He talks about history lessons and how “Stephen Harper did this.” He probably goes back and even talks about John Diefenbaker. I am surprised he did not invoke Sir John A. Macdonald and blame him for the government's latest scandal.
I want to go back just a shorter amount of time than that to when the Prime Minister and the NDP Liberal government came into office. The Liberals said, in their 2015 election platform, “Liberals will also make government information open by default to all Canadians”.
The member talks about the high standard he is holding his government to and says that anybody who questions this is a radical, an extremist or on the fringe. Simply, given what he ran on when he came into office in 2015, if he has such “high standards” that he holds himself to, is he going to vote for the motion?
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:57:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was with the Prime Minister when we were in third party, where he talked about things such as proactive disclosure. We, in fact, put in proactive disclosure even before we were elected into government. I know the member will recall that.
As a government, we have consistently been very transparent and accountable for the many different programs we brought in, even when it came to the pandemic. Then, governments around the world had to develop and promote programs and spend a great deal of money. Whenever there has been opportunity to ensure we can have the documents required, at one point or another, the government has been bringing forward the information in a reasonable way.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:58:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, he cannot deny that the Auditor General released a report. The findings of that report are absolutely devastating and require an in-depth review.
Taxpayers expect accountability. They expect us, as elected officials, to be able to shed light on this type of scandal.
Is he prepared to ensure that we are given access to all of the documents?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:59:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have more confidence in our standing committees than some members maybe do. In fact, one may have a standing committee that is effective in building relationships and trying to get to the bottom of everything that has happened. I would encourage members to work with those who are on the most appropriate standing committees in order to take that deeper dive into the situation.
I am not trying to undermine the seriousness of the Auditor General's report. I recognize it, as the government has. The government has taken direct actions, as would have been expected. Just because the official opposition feels it has to attach the words “scandal” and “government” to anything and everything that moves in Ottawa or across the country, it does not necessarily justify every demand the Conservative Party has. It would likely cost into the hundreds of millions of dollars to provide all the documents the Conservatives would want to see, especially if we factor in—
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:00:23 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:00:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup.
Before I begin, I want to share some very bad news with the House. After nine years of this Prime Minister, the cost of housing has never been higher. Rentals.ca reports that rents have increased 9.3% year over year. That means the average rent reached $2,202 in May. This is an all-time high for rents paid in Canada. In Vancouver, rent costs $2,671; in Toronto, $2,479; in Halifax, $1,925; in Montreal, $1,763; in Winnipeg, $1,416. No one has been spared.
The cost of housing keeps soaring because this government is not building enough of it. Only the Conservatives have a plan for building homes, not bureaucracy. I wanted to take this opportunity to pass that message on. Why? We witnessed something quite incredible this week. We received not one, not two, not three, but four damning reports about this government's management.
A damning report has been released on this government's management of foreign affairs. We learned about it this week. The National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians also released a scathing report, which revealed that the Prime Minister repeatedly tried to cover up, deny and then downplay the impact of foreign interference on Parliament and on our elections.
It was probably a terrible day for the Liberals, but I would say that it was an even worse day for Canadians when they saw the Auditor General's reports on McKinsey, the Liberal green fund, which we are talking about today, and cybersecurity.
There have been three reports showing that this government is simply incapable of managing the affairs of the state and the money that Canadians entrust to it. It is not the government's money. It is Canadian taxpayers' money. Unfortunately, the government no longer deserves the trust of Canadians when it comes to managing the money people earn by working hard day after day, and night after night for some folks, seven days a week. Reading these reports, one cannot help but wonder how the Liberals manage to do so much so poorly.
Why am I mentioning that? The reason is that the government continues to spend freely with $61 billion in new inflationary spending that was supported by the Bloc Québécois in the last budget. What did that do? It drove up the cost of housing in a way that has never before been seen in Canada.
Food also costs more. All a person has to do is go to the grocery store on a daily or weekly basis. One has to be there to see people passing up the nicer cuts of meat for something cheaper. People have to make tough choices like that, and sometimes they cannot even buy food that is essential for staying healthy. Why? They cannot afford it. They are worried that, when they get to the register, they will find out they do not have enough money in their bank account to cover their groceries. That is what things are like now in Canada after nine years of this Prime Minister.
Last week, we moved a motion that neither the Bloc Québécois, nor the Liberal Party, nor the NDP supported. We asked the government to suspend the gas tax this summer to give a little breathing room to Quebeckers and Canadians who have been struggling with the cost of living and inflation over the past year. We wanted to give them a break and a chance to dream of taking a little vacation. Unfortunately, the other three parties rejected the idea out of hand. For purely ideological reasons, those people no longer want us to use cars. They want us to travel by bike, through bike paths or whatever, even though they know perfectly well that we do not have the infrastructure.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Luc Berthold: It is true, Madam Speaker, that we do not travel through bike paths; we travel on bike paths. The NDP member himself is very much in favour of increasing carbon taxes. He himself voted against our motion to suspend the taxes. He is against Canadians and Quebeckers taking vacations this summer.
Today we are talking about the sixth report of the Auditor General, the subject of which is Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC. As I said, this report is damning for a number of reasons. This report covers the period from March 1, 2017, to December 31, 2023. During that time, the board of directors approved 226 projects worth $836 million. That is a lot of money.
It all started after a whistle-blower exposed what was going on by recording a senior public servant who criticized the Liberal government's total incompetence because it inappropriately awarded contracts worth $123 million.
I am going to take the liberty of repeating the statements made by this whistle-blower, given that they are the reason we are here today. Thank goodness at least one person dared to stand up and make it clear that the minister responsible, and his office, knew about the corruption within the Liberal green fund and were helping spread it. According to the whistle-blower, they then lied repeatedly. “The minister said...multiple times, that he was briefed on the outcome only on August 27, but that's definitively not true.”
These are comments from the whistle-blower who broke this scandal. Thanks to him, Canadians were able to learn about what was going on within this organization, this Liberal green fund.
The Auditor General noted that the SDTC did not comply with conflict of interest policies in 90 cases. That means that people voted on funding when they were directly involved in the companies receiving it. That is unbelievable. Unfortunately, a departmental representative attended most of those meetings but turned a blind eye. He seems to have done absolutely nothing to help prevent these conflicts of interest.
Some $76 million was allocated to projects with ties to Liberal cronies, appointed to the leadership of this organization. Some $59 million was allocated to projects that should not have received money. We are talking about money that should have gone to innovative environmental projects but instead went to projects that had nothing to do with environmental innovation. How was anyone okay with this?
The thing that stands out from the Auditor General's report is that this all started when former minister Navdeep Bains decided to dismiss the former chair and appoint one of his friends to head the fund. All the problems started there. Before that, there was no problem at the SDTC.
The other thing to keep in mind is on page 23 of the Auditor General's report and reads as follows:
We found that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada had not received records of conflicts of interest at Sustainable Development Technology Canada....
That is understood. Further on, the report states as follows:
We found that the department had not asked for or received such information and did not determine what actions it should take when informed of conflicts of interest by the foundation.
The Auditor General concluded the following:
Sustainable Development Technology Canada did not always manage public funds in accordance with the terms and conditions....
Most importantly, she stated the following:
Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's oversight did not ensure that the administration of public funds was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contribution agreements and with relevant government policies.
That is squarely the minister's responsibility. He did not do his job. He could have and should have put a stop to this spending spree a lot sooner. Unfortunately, he did not.
Today, we are asking that all of the material examined by the Auditor General be turned over to the RCMP so that it can get to the bottom of this matter and, most importantly, tell us whether any fraud was committed.
1359 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:10:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, certainly there were policies governing conflicts of interest at SDTC. Not only were there policies, but those policies did not even comply with the legislation. They were inadequate.
That is not all, however. In addition, within SDTC, these policies were not being respected, and were themselves illegal. Furthermore, SDTC's conflict of interest policies were less stringent for the board of directors and management than for SDTC employees.
I would like to know how that can reasonably be explained. In my colleague's opinion, is that in itself enough to request additional documents so that taxpayers can get a straight answer?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:11:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which is so relevant. After the new chair was appointed, resignations followed as people got caught. Afterwards, it was funny to see these folks denying all the conflicts of interest, as though it were normal to vote to give themselves money and then profit from it.
The chair voted to give $217,000 to companies in which she was a shareholder. If her lawyers advised her that she could do that, the rules must have been wrong. The rules did not apply to her, but they applied to everyone else at SDTC.
My colleague is absolutely right. Changing the rules to benefit oneself is illegal. I think it is perfectly legitimate for Canadians to ask the RCMP to get to the bottom of this, because the Auditor General does not have the mandate to lay criminal charges.
Unfortunately, this whole affair smacks of criminal behaviour.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:12:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments.
Obviously, the NDP agrees that the more transparency and accountability, the better.
Furthermore, as far as accountability and responsibility go, my colleague and the Conservative leader recently discovered an interest in Montreal and the tragic events that unfolded there. The opioid and addiction crisis is a real crisis happening across the country, including in Montreal. The Standing Committee on Health went to Montreal to study the overdose crisis and meet with experts and groups working in the field to save lives. Do members know how many Conservative MPs were sent to study the situation in Montreal? Zero.
Why is my Conservative colleague unwilling to go visit Montreal and meet with organizations on the ground and doctors at the Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal to find out what is really going on with Montreal's opioid and overdose crisis?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:13:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would gladly go to Montreal.
However, I do not need to go to Montreal, because I know from reading the newspapers that tragic events are unfolding every day in Montreal. The most recent story involved a pregnant woman who was picking up her child from day care and was followed by someone. She was frightened. That is the reality we read about every day in the papers. This just goes to show how nine years of inaction on the part of this government have brought crime to a point where people are afraid to go out on the streets.
That being said, I understand why my NDP colleague did not want to ask a question about the report, because it is a very important report and, unfortunately, he will probably have to support whatever recommendations come from the top.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:14:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to tie in with what my colleague from Montreal just said.
Yesterday, his colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, the member for Windsor West, spoke with officials who were there. He asked them a question about the fact that it was whistle-blowers who finally exposed the truth and that these people were never protected in any way. Some lost their jobs and were unable to find another job in the public service.
It is thanks to their efforts that the truth was exposed. I would like my colleague to tell me how we might protect them in the future.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
