SoVote

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

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/6/24 4:40:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a good speech and underlined the fact that Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, was necessary for the development of many technological innovations. I want to remind her that that is why the Liberals should not have scrapped the foundation by allowing wrongdoing and putting up with it for so long. The government cannot dissociate itself from what happened at SDTC for a very simple reason. Under the law, Minister Bains had the power at the time to request specific audits every year to verify whether the funding agreements and the rules were being followed. During all those years, that Liberal minister never once got up in the morning and decided to request an audit and check for himself. How is it that this Liberal minister of innovation, science and industry at the time did nothing when he could have done something? How is it that with this government it always takes a report by the Auditor General for it to finally rise in the House and say that something was mismanaged?

177 words

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Jun/6/24 4:41:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, of course we take conflicts of interest very seriously. Recusals should be done, and in light of the findings of the report of the OAG, over the coming months, SDTC programming will transition to the National Research Council of Canada. We believe that the NRC's vast experience in supporting innovative, tech-focused, small and medium-sized enterprises under programs such as the industrial research assistance program will make it the ideal choice to responsibly steward these homegrown clean technology companies. This structure will help rebuild public trust, while increasing accountability and transparency.

95 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Jun/6/24 4:41:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, although it feels as though she had to stick to a script today. She was repeating talking points. Personally, I am very concerned about the Liberals' lack of transparency on this issue. The NDP is worried. On the subject of transparency, in March she voted in favour of the NDP motion on the crisis and genocide taking place in Gaza. Among other things, the motion called for an embargo on arms sales to Israel and the Netanyahu government while it is bombing Gaza. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has not issued a notice to Canadian arms exporters about their continuing to sell weapons to Netanyahu's genocidal regime. In the interests of transparency, how can my colleague explain her government's inaction when she voted for this motion?

137 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/6/24 4:42:41 p.m.
Watch

I would like to remind the hon. member that we are considering an opposition motion. I regret to tell him that his question has very little to do with that. However, I will give the parliamentary secretary a chance to answer, if she so wishes.

45 words

Secretary

Mrs. Jenica Atwin

Jun/6/24 4:42:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I welcome the question from my hon. colleague. First and foremost, it is a very complicated issue, so I am being careful with my words today, absolutely. With respect to my support for Gazans and for citizens facing atrocities in the Middle East, I have signed a letter to support an arms embargo. Therefore, I support ongoing efforts to ensure that this tragedy comes to an end.

69 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/6/24 4:43:19 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Shepard, Housing; the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Finance.

55 words

Mr. Tony Van Bynen (Newmarket—Aurora, Lib.)

Jun/6/24 4:43:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. On Tuesday, the government announced that it would be transferring Sustainable Development Technology Canada's programming to be based within the National Research Council of Canada. I will speak more about this in a minute. However, I would first like to highlight the events and the independent reviews that have led us to this decision. The government expects organizations that receive public funds to be held to the highest standards. When allegations of mismanagement at SDTC first came to light, the government took immediate action to undertake the proper due diligence to understand the facts. These were serious allegations, and they warranted a careful assessment of all the evidence. It is only with the facts that we can take the appropriate steps to return to the business of supporting our Canadian clean technology sector. As the first step, the government engaged an impartial third party, Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, or RCGT, to undertake a fact-finding exercise. This focused on organizational policies, procedures, program governance and project approval processes. At its conclusion, the fact-finding exercise did not reveal any clear evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct at SDTC. However, RCGT did make a number of observations that showed that SDTC was not in full compliance with the terms and the conditions of its contribution agreements. These findings warranted a deeper examination, and again, the government took action. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, worked collaboratively with the Office of the Auditor General in support of a full audit. Just as the government has high standards for the use of public funds, it also expects employees to benefit from a healthy and a respectful work environment. Given this, in addition to the RCGT fact-finding exercise, the government took action to address allegations that related to human resources practices. ISED requested the Department of Justice to appoint a law firm, McCarthy Tétrault, to undertake a fact-finding review of alleged breaches of the labour and employment practices and the policies at SDTC. Current and former employees were permitted to speak freely to the law firm without violating any applicable settlement agreements or non-disclosure agreements. The fact-finding review, which is publicly available, concluded that SDTC's leadership did not engage in the type of repetitive, vexatious or major incident conduct that would constitute harassment, bullying or workplace violence under the applicable standards. Turning now to the Auditor General's audit, as mentioned, the government welcomed the Auditor General's decision to undertake the audit and fully co-operated with the auditors. Evidence collected from all of these independent reviews have revealed lapses in SDTC's governance model. We are taking definitive action anchored in facts, as established by independent parties, most notably the Auditor General. To be clear, the Auditor General did not report evidence or suspicion of criminal behaviour. The government is confident in the rigour and the expertise the Auditor General and her office brought to this issue, and we accept her findings and recommendations. Measures have been established for stronger governance and oversight at SDTC. These measures, which will remain in place, ensure increased transparency and accountability. With the changes in leadership, the government will maintain that confidence as the programming transitions into the next phase. While SDTC has been instrumental in developing a successful clean technology sector in Canada over the years, a new delivery approach to support this vital sector of our economy is now needed. That is why the government took decisive action by announcing a new delivery approach that includes transitioning SDTC and its employees to the NRC. In addition to its proven track record of providing tailored support to Canada's innovative small and medium-sized businesses, the NRC is a Government of Canada organization, and it is subject to rigorous and stringent oversight of its personnel and finances. This move will help rebuild the public trust while increasing accountability and transparency in program delivery. The decision to transfer the programming is not just about sound government, it is about people and the clean-technology industry. Canada's clean-technology sector is world-renowned for developing innovative, clean-technology solutions. In 2024, there were 13 Canadian companies named to the Global Cleantech 100 list. This is a clear testament to Canada's innovative ecosystem and the clean-technology sector's ability to compete against leading innovative countries, such as the United States and Germany. The Government of Canada also recognizes the importance of retaining subject matter experts. These employees have a wealth of experience and knowledge, and have been integral in helping Canada's clean-tech companies move from seed to start-up to scale-up. Their transition to the NRC will help ensure Canada's clean-tech companies will be at the forefront of efforts to address climate change, continuing much-needed federal support for businesses to innovate, grow and create well-paying sustainable jobs. This support will continue. SDTC is resuming funding for all new eligible projects in a sector vital to our country's economy and clean-tech growth. In line with the Auditor General's findings, ISED will enhance the oversight and monitoring of funding through this transitionary period. We know that clean-tech companies have felt the impacts of the funding pause as the government took the time it needed to uncover the evidence and to put in place a robust governance solution. We have done what we set out to do, and we thank the clean-tech sector for its resilience and patience as we shaped a new way forward. The government has done its due diligence, and neither the OAG nor any other independent review found any evidence of fraudulent or criminal activities by an officer, director, member or employee of SDTC. While some of these investigations concluded there were lapses in governance, including their management of conflict of interest, these conclusions did not identify fraud or criminal activity. We are focused on restoring governance at SDTC and getting back to the business of supporting our Canadian innovators. I encourage all members to support the government's actions to advance homegrown clean-tech solutions and achieve Canada's climate goals.

1041 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Jun/6/24 4:51:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member talked about some lapses in conflict of interest management. That is a pretty gentle way to describe what happened. There was gross mismanagement of funds. We know that whistle-blowers have been raising serious questions for years about how these public funds were managed. Their complaints were never taken seriously. It was not until this became public that the government chose to act. Could the member explain to me why it has taken the government so long to take action on something that it has known about for years?

93 words

Mr. Tony Van Bynen

Jun/6/24 4:52:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments, observations and questions from my colleague. I do not have a chronology in front of me, but I do know that when it was appropriate, the government did take action. It made sure that it took thorough action. It did not just react to parts of the story. The government did a very thorough analysis and responded appropriately.

64 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Jun/6/24 4:53:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, standing here in the House of Commons is important on behalf of all Canadians. Canadians really want to know where the $123 million in the green slush fund is. Will the NDP-Liberal government commit to handing over the documents and allowing the investigation to go forward with the RCMP?

52 words

Mr. Tony Van Bynen

Jun/6/24 4:53:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government has taken the appropriate steps to make sure that the organization is transparent and accountable, that there is a review, as appropriate, for all of the undertakings within the organization, and that the Canadian dollars invested in these corporations have, as we have shown earlier, created some very terrific responses as far as innovation in the clean-technology sector goes. In large measure, our funds were well invested and produced great results and jobs for the Canadian people.

82 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/6/24 4:54:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Auditor General's findings are devastating and call for a comprehensive review. This story cannot be allowed to end with the end of SDTC's operations. It is imperative that all documents are preserved to help determine what really happened. Does my hon. colleague agree?

48 words

Mr. Tony Van Bynen

Jun/6/24 4:54:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government will do what is required to do and will produce what is required to produce.

19 words

Produce

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)

Jun/6/24 4:55:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the member speak, and the member before him, who laid out very clearly in terms of what the investigation revealed, which is that no criminal activity occurred, that they are confident the investigation was thoroughly completed and that, at this point, they have made various recommendations as to how to proceed moving forward, despite the fact that our colleagues across the way just seem unwilling to accept this. Would the member comment on the thoroughness of the investigation and perhaps remind everybody of what he was saying during his speech?

96 words

Mr. Tony Van Bynen

Jun/6/24 4:55:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there were three independent reviews. All of the recommendations of those reviews were undertaken. It is interesting, and I see some of my colleagues who were present at the INDU committee last night, where we did talk to people from the industry, and they said that we need to be very careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Again, I remind members that 13 of our Canadian innovators were on the top 100 world, global and innovators awards list. So, we are doing some good things. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

103 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Jun/6/24 4:56:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, is this member telling me that there are 90 cases of conflict of interest, not reported, $123 million missing, and he is like, “It's okay. It's been done well”? Is that literally what his speech is about?

43 words

Mr. Tony Van Bynen

Jun/6/24 4:56:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I indicated what actions the government has taken and what actions the government will undertake to make sure that we strengthen the governance model, transparency and accountability. I am focused on going forward, of course. This is an important industry for our country. It creates jobs.

48 words

Mrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC)

Jun/6/24 4:57:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in this place today to speak to the Conservative opposition day motion introduced in the House, which calls for the following: That the House order the government, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) and the Auditor General of Canada each to deposit with the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, within 14 days [although I understand an amendment has been made] of the adoption of this order, the following documents, created or dated since January 1, 2017, which are in its or her possession, custody or control: The motion goes on to detail the nature of the documents and the process for obtaining them and ultimately the submission of these documents to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for “its independent determination of whether to investigate potential offences under the Criminal Code or any other act of Parliament.” Before I go any further, I will note I am splitting my time with my colleague, the MP for St. Albert—Edmonton. Earlier this week, the Auditor General of Canada tabled three damning reports in the House of Commons, including “Report 6—Sustainable Development Technology Canada.” Under the scandal-ridden Liberal government, the SDTC has become plagued by conflicts of interest as the corrupt nature of the government has taken hold of this organization. Let us take a look at the “At a Glance” page of her report, which reads, “Overall, we found significant lapses in Sustainable Development Technology Canada’s governance and stewardship of public funds.” As well, “Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada did not sufficiently monitor the compliance with the contribution agreements between the foundation and the Government of Canada.” The Auditor General found that SDTC had awarded funding to projects that were ineligible, even though “they did not meet key requirements” and where conflicts of interest existed. In total, 123 million dollars' worth of contracts were found to have been given inappropriately, with $59 million being given to projects that never should have been awarded any money at all. On top of this, the Auditor General discovered that conflicts of interest were connected to approval decisions. Because of this, nearly $76 million of funding was awarded to projects where there was a connection to the Liberal friends appointed to roles within SDTC, while $12 million of funding was given to projects that were both ineligible and had a conflict of interest. In fact, the Auditor General discovered that long-established conflict of interest policies were not followed in 90 cases. That must be a record for a single organization managing hundreds of millions of dollars. In one instance, the Prime Minister's hand-picked SDTC chair siphoned off $217,000 to her own company. At a time when Canadians are struggling to pay their mortgages, put gas in their vehicles to go to work or feed their families, the Liberal government is doing what Liberals do best, which is wasting taxpayers' dollars. They make a big show of creating the appearance of doing something while blatantly disregarding the policies and rules in order to funnel money into the pockets of Liberal insiders. The Auditor General made it clear the blame for this scandal lies directly at the feet of the Prime Minister's industry minister, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts that were being awarded to Liberal insiders. The minister utterly failed in his duty to protect the Canadian taxpayer. The Auditor General also released a damning report into the taxpayer-funded contracts that the Prime Minister awarded to his well-connected friends at McKinsey. The AG discovered that over the past few years, McKinsey has been awarded almost $200 million in contracts and that 90% of the contracts awarded to McKinsey were given without following the appropriate guidelines. Are we seeing a pattern here? In many cases, it was unclear what the purpose of the contract was or if the desired outcome was even achieved. It gets better, or should I say, it gets worse? In one case, the Canada Border Services Agency saw that McKinsey did not qualify for a contract. Can members guess what it did? It revised the statement of work so that McKinsey could qualify. That is not all. The Liberal government often sole-sourced these contracts directly to McKinsey and never even bothered to explain why a non-competitive process was justified. Can members imagine that? This is a multinational, billion-dollar company. This is absolutely concerning. About 70% of all contracts awarded to McKinsey were non-competitive. Worse still, in 13 out of 17, or 77%, of the contracts involving sensitive data given to McKinsey, the Liberal government allowed McKinsey to operate without the necessary security clearances. What is going on here? Why did the government go to such great lengths to break the rules? At that time, McKinsey was led by Dominic Barton. That might explain it. He was a close friend and adviser of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. I guess it should come as no surprise that the Liberals gave McKinsey hundreds of millions of dollars. Barton was the key figure in the Liberals' Advisory Council on Economic Growth and their Indo-Pacific Advisory Committee. It was also Barton's idea to create the failed, scandal-plagued Canada Infrastructure Bank. It was Barton and McKinsey that had to pay nearly $600 million in damages for helping create the opioid crisis. Despite this, the Prime Minister appointed Barton as Canada's ambassador to China. We cannot forget arrive scam and the damning Auditor General's report that came out in February of this year. It is a report that resulted from a motion put forward by Conservatives that called on the Auditor General to conduct a performance audit, including the payments, contracts and subcontracts for all aspects of the ArriveCAN app, and to prioritize this investigation. What did the Auditor General find? Members guessed it. She found a glaring disregard for management practices and an inability to assess the true cost of this app given the lack of information available to do a proper audit. It is an app that should have cost Canadians $80,000, but it ballooned to $60 million, and probably more. The outrageous spending habits of the government have put the futures of Canadians at risk. It has created a cost of living crisis, making it difficult for Canadians to put food on the table and a roof over their heads. It has failed to deliver for Canadians on every level. A record two million Canadians are visiting food banks in a single month. Housing costs have doubled. Mortgages have doubled. Over 50% of Canadians are $200, or less, away from going broke, yet the government continues to refuse to take any responsibility for its failed nine years of governance. After nine years of the Prime Minister, life has never been more difficult for Canadians. For well-connected Liberal friends, life has never been so good. The Prime Minister turned Sustainable Development Technology Canada into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. This was made clear through a secret recording of a senior civil servant who slammed the outright incompetence of the Liberal government, calling the SDTC's actions “a sponsorship-scandal level kind of giveaway.” The Prime Minister is not worth the cost and is not worth the corruption. It is incumbent on the House to shine light on the failures of the government and its corruption, and to deliver answers for Canadians. That is why I hope all members in the House will vote in favour of this motion, which would deliver more transparency for Canadians. When we get elected, common-sense Conservatives would end the corruption and fix the budget by firing the high-priced consultants.

1308 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/6/24 5:07:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very powerful speech. The Bloc Québécois was in favour of the principle of the motion, but we had concerns about its wording. However, with the amendment that the Conservative Party proposed a few moments ago, it would be entirely appropriate for us to lend our support. I am confident that the House will be able to adopt this important motion. We need to get to the bottom of this. We had concerns about the 14-day deadline for the production of documents. Just having the documents translated requires more time. Also, we were uncomfortable with Parliament making a recommendation to the RCMP. In our view, it is not up to politicians to recommend to the police that they investigate or suggest to them that offences have been committed. They are truly independent. However, thanks to the amendment that has been proposed, we now support this important motion. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the importance of getting to the bottom of this issue.

180 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 326