44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2024 10:00AM
- 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
- Jun/6/24 4:15:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague completely. We absolutely must protect whistle-blowers.
This week, I saw the Minister of Industry boasting that an investigation had been done and that SDTC had been shut down. Unfortunately, while he was boasting, he forgot to mention that the whistle-blower, the one who really brought the facts to light, is in trouble right now. The government failed to protect him.
In my opinion, it is important that we take care of whistle-blowers and that we get to know what is really going on inside the machinery of government.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:16:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today.
Nine years with this Prime Minister in power has meant nine years of scandals. The scandals are piling up here in Ottawa at an unbelievable rate. There is a new one every day. This week, the Auditor General of Canada discovered that the Prime Minister turned Sustainable Development Technology Canada into a slush fund for Liberal Party insiders.
This is taxpayers' money, more specifically, $123 million that SDTC awarded to close associates who were not only in a conflict of interest, but in some cases were not even eligible for funding. A total of $59 million of Canadians' money was awarded for ineligible projects, and $76 million was awarded for projects with a connection to Liberal cronies who had been appointed to positions within SDTC.
There is more. The Auditor General's report further indicates that long-standing conflict of interest management policies were completely ignored in 90 of the cases. We are not talking about one or two cases. We are talking about nearly 100 cases where conflict of interest policies were not followed. This is serious.
I was a member of the board of directors of the Port of Québec, and I owned a company. Obviously, the Port of Québec could not do business with my company. It was out of the question. It was not allowed. I do not understand how the members of this organization's board of directors were able to give themselves so much money. It is unbelievable.
More specifically, the SDTC chair, who was chosen by none other than the Prime Minister himself, misappropriated $217,000 for her own personal gain. She blatantly exploited public resources and behaved incredibly irresponsibly with regard to the ethics rules and with regard to the trust of Canadians.
Is no one in the government able to allocate those funds properly? One has to wonder. Who is responsible for preventing this type of scandal? One also has to wonder about that.
Whistle-blowers are the ones who tipped us off. They made sure that we, the official opposition, moved this investigation forward until it reached the point where the Auditor General was asked to investigate to get to the bottom of things.
The Auditor General made it clear that the responsibility lies squarely with the industry minister. This minister failed to adequately monitor contracts awarded to Liberal insiders and, in so doing, he seriously failed in his duty to protect Canadian taxpayers as well as Canadian dollars. He completely neglected the essential task of ensuring that public funds are managed with integrity and transparency. This scandalous situation is equally unacceptable.
The abuse of power and corruption are unacceptable. Canadians deserve much better after nine years of scandals from this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister and his government have betrayed the trust of Canadians with every misallocated dollar. We pay taxes. We send money to the federal government in the hope that the federal government will spend it wisely and, more importantly, offer services and products that we could be proud of. That is not the case right now.
They betray our trust with every dollar wasted and every dollar taken out of Canadians' pockets. Public funds are not there to line the pockets of Liberal cronies or to make the rich richer. Canadians are suffering and are having an extremely tough time meeting their most essential needs, namely food and shelter. While hunger and homelessness are a reality for more and more Canadians, while they cannot even live in dignity, while they are faced with choices such as buying food or paying the rent, living in a motel or living in the street, the government is turning public funds into a slush fund for its friends. How could such an abuse of power happen? How could there be such a misappropriation of funds?
The Auditor General noted that Sustainable Development Technology Canada did not comply with conflict of interest policies in a hundred or so cases; spent nearly $76 million on projects with ties to highly placed Liberal cronies in the organization; and spent $59 million on projects that should not have received money. Think about it. There is a special fund that is supposed to be used to help the environment and help the country become carbon neutral by 2050, and it is being used to fund projects that have nothing to do with the green fund. It is quite incredible.
The Auditor General also noted that SDTC also spent $12 million on projects that involved a conflict of interest and were also ineligible for funding. What is more, its chair diverted $217 billion to her own company.
Talk about a total and outrageous lack of accountability. The Liberal government is neither transparent nor accountable. It should always be held responsible for its actions, and it should always answer Canadians' questions, especially when their money is being misappropriated, wasted, invested in a corrupt and negligent way. I think I speak for all Canadians when I say that we need answers. The most important thing is making sure Canadians get answers. That is why we think this matter should be handed over to the RCMP so they can find out the truth.
Once again, we are disappointed for Canadians, disappointed for our country and disappointed in this Liberal government. However, our disappointment merely reinforces and confirms what we already knew. We need to bring common sense back to Ottawa, and we need to do it now. Only the common-sense Conservatives can put an end to the corruption, the irresponsibility and the negligence. Respecting conflict of interest policies does not seem like mission impossible to us. It should not even be an issue. At the risk of repeating myself, it is just common sense.
I took a course in business administration at Université Laval. That was in 2013, if I am not mistaken. Anyone who wants to have a governance role must absolutely ensure that there is no conflict of interest in anything they are going to do. Allocating millions of dollars to one's own companies within an organization like that is completely and utterly unacceptable.
I can guarantee that we will bring common sense back to Ottawa. Serving the interests of those who elected us, representing them properly, answering their questions correctly, ensuring they can live with dignity, all without abusing their money, now that is common sense, and that is what we will stand up for on this side of the House. Nine years of scandals is nine years too long. Canadians deserve to see an end to this long and difficult era of scandals. We want to help bring this chapter to an end. Democracy depends on peoples' trust in their representatives. Without that trust, we have nothing.
Today, we are speaking out against the irresponsible corruption that has taken place at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, an organization where a failure of governance and a continuous cycle of mismanagement have led to very serious violations of conflict of interest policies. This has led to the mismanagement of over $123 million of taxpayers' money. An RCMP investigation is absolutely crucial. As usual, the government claims to be surprised and will waste even more money on overly generously paid consultants to cover up yet another scandal.
We know that the minister was informed years ago that there were concerns regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada, so why did the problem continue? How did the mismanagement get so out of hand? This investigation is urgent. Action is urgently needed. It is imperative that we take action as quickly as possible. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the following amendment:
That the motion be amended:
(a) by replacing the words “14 days“ with the words “30 days”;
(b) by adding the word “and” at the end of paragraph (f), and by adding, after paragraph (f), the following new paragraph: “(g) in the case of the Auditor General of Canada, any other document, not described in paragraphs (a) to (f), upon which she relied in preparing her Report 6—Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which was laid upon the table on Tuesday, June 4, 2024;”; and
(c) in paragraph (h), by deleting all the words after the word “Police”.
1414 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:25:52 p.m.
- Watch
It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. If the sponsor is not present, the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party may give or refuse consent on the sponsor's behalf.
Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I am asking the deputy House leader if he consents to this amendment being moved.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:26:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do consent with pleasure.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:26:39 p.m.
- Watch
The amendment is in order.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:27:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, unfortunately some Conservative members are calling it nothing more than a slush fund. I am wondering whether the member could provide some clarity. Does the member believe that the Conservative Party would in fact cut the funding aspect to the fund?
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:27:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the question is not whether we are going to abolish a fund like this.
The reality is that we are all well aware of the fact that we must continue to invest in technology. What is more, it is part of the Conservative government's policies to bring new technologies on board to deal with the problem of climate change in Canada.
Inevitably there will be and continue to be investments, but not with people who are appointed by friends of the Liberal fund who make sure that Liberal cronies can line their pockets.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:28:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party seems to have some good ideas. It recently had one. It wants to lower federal gas taxes. That sounds interesting. I wondered why they had not come up with it sooner if it was such a good idea.
I did some searching. In 2008, the Harper government said that higher gas prices were unavoidable and that Canadians would have no choice but to reduce their dependence on oil and gas. He said, and I quote, “I believe you will see, over the next few years, the general trend of gasoline and other energy costs will continue to rise”.
Stephen Harper, the former leader of the Conservative Party, refused to cut federal gas taxes. I will quote him again. He said, “The ability of governments to affect the price of gasoline per se is so small that it's not worth doing. What you've really got to do is lower costs for consumers generally, rather than try to fight the upward trend in the price of gasoline.”
One member who was around under the Harper government is the current leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Carleton. I would like my colleague to explain in concrete terms who is telling the truth. Was it the former leader of the Conservative Party or the new leader of the Conservative Party?
229 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:29:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a little odd that my colleague would ask me a question about that, because we have been extremely clear for months and months. We still want to pause taxes on fuel for the summer to give Canadians a break. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois does not want this and has spoken out against this idea.
However, the member is not asking me about the nearly $200 million that was put into a fund managed by friends of the Liberals, who allocated funds to themselves while sitting on the board of directors of that organization. That is completely unacceptable. It is beyond belief. He is not even asking me anything about that.
Does this mean the Bloc Québécois is okay with what those people were doing?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:30:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing that popped into my mind as my colleague was speaking was that he talked about the fact that only Conservatives would be able to stop the corruption and the secrecy. That did make me laugh a bit because perhaps the member forgets all of the secrecy and corruption under the Harper government. Many of the people who were part of that government are still sitting in this place as part of the Conservatives today.
We talk about the scandal with the Senate. We talk about the 170 times Harper refused to give information to Parliament about budget numbers. We talk about when Bev Oda falsified documents. The scandals that the Conservative Party has actively participated in make me wonder how its members have the audacity to stand in this place to criticize the Liberal Party.
Today, it does feel a bit like the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are both saying that the other party is worse, when Canadians should probably be aware that they are both pretty darn bad.
175 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:31:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, once again, I cannot believe it. Questions like that prove the NDP-Liberal coalition wants to protect its Liberal cronies. They are all one and the same. I cannot believe the questions we are hearing today.
We are not the ones saying so. The Auditor General of Canada said so. If I am not mistaken, she was appointed by the current Prime Minister. She is independent. She has been doing an outstanding job for months. This is not her first report. She released three more reports like it this week.
I do not understand why the NDP is still working so hard to protect the Liberals. It is absolutely unacceptable.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:32:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Newmarket—Aurora. I am pleased to rise to speak to today's opposition motion with the hopes of addressing the findings and finding a path forward.
The Government of Canada is committed to supporting the growth of the clean-technology sector. Our clean-technology sector is a powerful engine for economic growth. In recent years, Canadian companies have generated revenues and achieved accolades on the global stage. Encouraging innovation in the sector not only drives the creation of new businesses but also attracts significant international investments.
On Tuesday, the Auditor General released her report on the audit of Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The audit's objective was to determine whether funds were managed in accordance with the contribution agreement between SDTC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and with proper oversight. The report identified issues around project eligibility and conflict of interest at SDTC. The report recommended enhanced oversight by ISED to ensure SDTC's full compliance with its contribution agreement and the proper allocation of funds.
The Auditor General did not report evidence of criminal behaviour. The Auditor General's findings and recommendations are in alignment with the results of the independent fact-finding exercise undertaken at the request of the government by Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton. That exercise resulted in significant actions being taken at SDTC to enhance accountability and transparency.
Following allegations of a toxic workplace and inappropriate practices at SDTC, the government appointed a third party law firm to undertake a fact-finding review of alleged breaches of labour and employment practices and policies at SDTC. It conducted voluntary interviews with current and former employees, and the report 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.
Those are three reviews conducted by independent, impartial experts in their respective fields. The very same documents requested in the motion before us would have already been examined. I would ask what the members of the party opposite think would be uncovered in the duplicative exercise that is being proposed. The government took action. The Auditor General took action. We appreciate and accept her findings.
Neither the Auditor General's audit nor any of the other fact-finding reviews found evidence of fraudulent or other criminal activities by any officer, director, member or employee of SDTC. While some of the reviews concluded that there were lapses in SDTC's governance, including its management of a conflict of interest, these findings did not include suspicion or evidence of fraud or other criminal activity that would warrant a referral to the RCMP.
The government has taken steps to directly address the lapses that were identified, and it is ultimately moving the programming to within the National Research Council to ensure the future stewardship of the programs. Leadership has been stabilized with the appointment of a new board chair and two new directors. The new appointees have been chosen for their expertise in governance and organizational transformation. This reflects the mandate to transition the programming and personnel to the NRC.
Furthermore, ISED, through its contribution agreement with SDTC, has put in place measures to strengthen the conflict-of-interest processes and capacity as part of its enhanced oversight, which will continue. Consistent with the responsibilities established in SDTC's enabling statute enacted by Parliament, SDTC is an arm's-length organization that is responsible for the selection and management of projects and the associated agreements. The Government of Canada does not have any evidence of willful misconduct or deliberate unethical behaviour in the establishment of contribution agreements between SDTC and the funding recipients.
The government has taken significant steps to ensure transparency and accountability through increased oversight of SDTC's operations, and following the findings on conflict-of-interest, ISED has implemented enhanced standards for disclosure, documentation and management of conflict of interest, as it should. 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.
The government is committed to ensuring that public investments continue to advance the commercialization of clean technologies in support of Canada's climate change priorities. Efforts have begun to ensure a smooth transition of SDTC programming to the National Research Council under new leadership. Work over the past year has rightly involved a lot of attention on fact finding, due diligence, governance and renewal. My hope is that this can now allow us to move forward and have the House ensure ongoing support for clean tech in Canada as we face down the climate crisis.
Other countries are not waiting to accelerate the growth of their clean technology industries. Whether we look at the United States, Europe, Asia or beyond, governments are enhancing their efforts to position their clean technology companies for success. With the announcement this week, the government is putting the focus back on serving Canadian clean technology innovators and positioning homegrown technologies to compete and win in the global marketplace.
873 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:38:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of the Auditor General's report.
This report is very clear and straightforward. The people were appointed by the government, by both the former minister and the current one. They knew that these people had a conflict of interest. There was no doubt about it, but they decided to go ahead anyway, especially the former minister, Mr. Bains, who appeared before the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology yesterday.
Does my colleague think it is okay that these people were appointed even though everyone was well aware they owned companies in this sector and might give themselves some of the money?
Does my colleague accept the report? Does she agree that this matter should be referred to the RCMP?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 4:39:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the various reviews conducted, including the Auditor General's report, have revealed the serious lapses in the SDTC's governance. This prompted a new delivery approach to the government support for the clean-tech sector. On June 4 of this year, the minister announced a new governance approach that will strengthen oversight and accountability to meet today's expectations of stewardship. As soon as the allegations were brought forward, the government acted swiftly to address the situation. Funds were frozen, and there was new funding for the SDTC. We initiated two separate independent reviews to thoroughly examine the claims and invited the Auditor General to conduct the audit. I do accept the findings, and I certainly stand for transparency, for accountability and for upholding the highest standards of integrity for the House.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
