SoVote

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

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/6/24 5:08:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my hon. colleague. We look forward to the vote coming to this place and to having the support of the Bloc. I am glad that we were able to address their concerns.

40 words

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

Jun/6/24 5:08:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would simply like to remind her that the first government to be found in contempt of Parliament in the history of Canadian politics was Stephen Harper's government when it refused to provide members with budget details on law and order bills. Today, it is all well and good to talk about transparency and accountability, but I would like to remind the House of that black mark on the record of the Conservative Party, which was found guilty by Parliament at the time. The NDP agrees that transparency is important, and we have doubts about the Liberals' willingness to be transparent. I would like to know what measures my colleague would put in place to ensure that members of the House and the public, the people who we represent, get all of the necessary information.

146 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/6/24 5:09:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have to say that it is always rich to hear the NDP pretend to be an opposition party when it is more critical of other opposition parties than it is of the scandal-ridden government. The NDP leader and this member have sold out their party for a pension. The polling reflects how Canadians feel about his decision. Today, that member has a chance to vote in favour of a motion that would actually hold the government to account. We would like to see the member support this motion to get to the bottom of this issue and provide more transparency to Canadians. The only question is if he will do it.

115 words

Mr. Don Davies

Jun/6/24 5:10:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am sure my hon. colleague did not mean to cast this aspersion, but the phrase she used about selling out for a pension would suggest that one of her colleagues in this place was trading their political beliefs or ideas for money. I am sure she would not want that aspersion to be cast. I think it is unparliamentary, and I would ask her to retract it.

75 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/6/24 5:10:56 p.m.
Watch

That may be subject to debate, and I do not think it is necessarily a point of order. I will leave it at that. Continuing with questions and comments, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester has the floor.

39 words

Mr. Stephen Ellis (Cumberland—Colchester, CPC)

Jun/6/24 5:11:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my learned colleague's comments here. It would appear to me that this is an ongoing problem with a government that is not careful with other people's money, everybody's money, in this entire country. I wish we were here debating something that was confined to the green slush fund. This clearly is not. I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment a bit on the lack of prudence with others' money that the government continues to portray to Canadians.

86 words

Mrs. Kelly Block

Jun/6/24 5:11:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the fact is that numerous investigations have taken place into the actions of the government and the departments that serve it, and it is not only STDC, but also others, as I mentioned in my remarks. Some of those investigations are still under way, and some of those investigations are being undertaken by the RCMP. The bottom line here is that, to date, all of the reports that have been tabled have been damning to the government when it comes to how it is spending taxpayers' money and what it is allowing to continue, which is glaring mismanagement, complete disregard for the rules, conflicts of interest and no value for money.

113 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Jun/6/24 5:12:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of our Conservative motion that calls on the Liberals to end their cover-up and produce for the House, as well as turn over to the RCMP, all documents relating to corruption and self-dealing with respect to the Liberals' billion-dollar green slush fund, otherwise known as Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC. The staggering level of corruption, conflicts and self-dealing was revealed in the Auditor General's report that was tabled in the House earlier this week. It is a direct result of a culture of corruption embedded in the rotten Liberal government. That is demonstrated by the fact that, before the Liberals took office, under the previous Harper Conservative government, SDTC was functioning well. That is evidenced by a 2017 report of the Auditor General that went back into the Harper era and gave SDTC a clean bill of health. The ethical spiral downward at SDTC occurred exclusively under the watch of the Liberals, and more specifically, under the former minister of industry, Navdeep Bains, and the current minister of industry. To put a timeline on when that began, I would submit it happened when Navdeep Bains, the Prime Minister's good buddy, decided, for purely political reasons, to fire the Harper-appointed chair of SDTC, who had presided over it when it received a clean bill of health from the Auditor General, and replace that chair with Ms. Annette Verschuren. There was a major problem with the appointment of Verschuren because she had a major conflict of interest, namely that her company was receiving money from SDTC. That is a major conflict of interest that Navdeep Bains was warned about multiple times, including by Annette Verschuren herself, who, to her credit, said that she had a conflict of interest. Navdeep Bains did not care and, conflicts of interest be damned, he appointed Annette Verschuren as chair. The culture within any organization begins at the top, and the culture that was set by Navdeep Bains at SDTC was a culture where conflicts of interest did not matter. Looking back at what has transpired since that time, and the decisions that Navdeep Bains made, both with respect to the appointment of Verschuren, as well as several other directors, it is now evident to me that Navdeep Bains wanted to turn SDTC into a slush fund where Liberal insiders could rig the system to line their own pockets by ripping off taxpayers. That is precisely what has happened at SDTC, and Navdeep Bains is the architect of that. For years, Navdeep Bains, as the former industry minister, and the current minister turned a blind eye to all kinds of conflicts of interest, and tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was being funnelled improperly out the door at SDTC. The only time the minister pretended to take some interest in the corruption at SDTC was when a whistle-blower sounded the alarm over nearly $40 million in so-called COVID relief payments being approved by the board. The Auditor General, in her report, determined that those COVID relief payments contravened the contribution agreement with the Department of Industry, and that there were 66 cases of conflicts of interest in which board members voted to approve funds that were funnelled into companies that they had an interest in. I have to note that Annette Verschuren, the chair, actually moved both motions to funnel monies into her own companies from SDTC. The rot and corruption was blatant. They were not even trying to hide it. However, it gets a lot worse than the COVID relief payments, because the Auditor General found 186 cases of conflicts of interest involving board members and consultants. In 90 cases, board members voted to approve funds that were funnelled into companies they had an interest in and benefited from, and they did not even so much as declare a conflict. Some $76 million went into those companies, voted for by board members at SDTC. It is not just $76 million, and I should not say “just” $76 million. Tens of millions of taxpayers' money was also funnelled into companies of SDTC board members while those members served on the board. I note, for instance, that the Minister of Environment's good friend and former colleague Andrée-Lise Méthot, at the time as she served on the board, benefited to the tune of $42.5 million in SDTC funds, which went into her companies. Then there are Guy Ouimet, another board member, whose companies received $4 million in funding from SDTC, and Liberal insider and former Liberal staffer Stephen Kukucha, whose companies received $25 million from SDTC when he served on the board. This speaks not only to major and serious conflicts of interest, but to the fact that members of the board broke the law. They broke the Conflict of Interest Act. Board members are public office holders. They are bound by the Conflict of Interest Act and the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act, which the Auditor General determined. The Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act very expressly, in subsection 12(2), provides that board members shall not profit or benefit from decisions of the board, and they profited handsomely. In addition to that, $59 million improperly went out the door to projects that contravened the contribution agreement with the Department of Industry, and that is just scratching the surface because those are only the projects that the Auditor General audited. The Auditor General concluded that there were likely many more projects to which money went out the door improperly. Through it all, an assistant deputy minister sat in on each and every board meeting in which these decisions were made, when board members had conflicts of interest and when money went out the door in contravention of the contribution agreements, and former minister Bains and the current minister did nothing. The current minister turned a blind eye until he was caught. One current senior industry official said that things are so bad at SDTC, he compared them to “a sponsorship-scandal level kind of giveaway”. Based on what we know from the Auditor General's report, which likely just scratches the surface of the corruption and self-dealing at SDTC, it looks to be a lot worse than the sponsorship scandal. We are talking about potentially hundreds of millions of dollars that were improperly funnelled out the door from which board members profited. In closing, let me simply say this is why it is time for the Liberals to end the cover-up. It is time to turn over the documents to the RCMP. It is time to call in the Mounties.

1128 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Jun/6/24 5:22:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's take on something. As I said earlier today, we have before us a government that keeps piling up scandals in a rather spectacular and surreal way. The Liberals never have to account for the previous scandal because it gets buried by a new scandal in the news. Does this situation not help to dispel the suspicions that we have about some members of the House of Commons being involved in foreign interference, for example? Does this not hamper the government's management of international relations files? I would like my colleague to share his overall understanding of that.

108 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/6/24 5:23:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this week alone we had three Auditor General's reports, all of which are an indictment of the management by the government. Frankly, what they illustrate is a culture of corruption. We have a government that has been in office for nine years, and there has been a consistent pattern of mismanagement, entitlement, self-dealing, conflict and corruption. As bad as SDTC is, it is only one example of the corruption that we have seen from the Liberals. It is why Canadians are so hungry to see the Prime Minister call an election so that Canadians can rid themselves of this corrupt government.

105 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Jun/6/24 5:24:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as this story has been unfolding, up to and including the debate today, we have seen the Liberals claim they dealt with the problem as soon as they became aware of it. We know that this is a terrible mistruth. We know that former minister Navdeep Bains was warned about the board appointment, which he went ahead and made anyway. We also know that senior staff were present when these votes and the self-dealing took place. Could the member debunk the government's defence and absurd claim that it dealt with this in an expeditious fashion?

99 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/6/24 5:25:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the government turned a blind eye to corruption at SDTC until a whistle-blower came forward and said there were real problems with the COVID relief payments. The Auditor General concluded that there were 66 conflicts and that the contribution agreement was violated. The notion that the Liberals got ahead of this is absolutely false. The assistant deputy minister was there when all of these conflicts occurred and all of these improper expenditures were approved by the board. They also claimed that they are not to blame because it is an arm's-length foundation. Well, I would suggest they read the Auditor General's report, which found that they completely failed to provide appropriate oversight with respect to expenditures and monitoring conflicts of interest.

127 words

Mrs. Tracy Gray (Kelowna—Lake Country, CPC)

Jun/6/24 5:26:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member spoke quite a bit about the ongoing corruption. We know that with this particular fund, there was a conflict of interest, and the government seems to lack an ethical compass. It seems like so many of these different departments are not following processes and procedures and have conflicts of interest, with Liberal friends getting ahead. We can go back to the We Charity scandal and the arrive scam. There is just so much. Can the member speak to the lack of governance, management and ethical compass?

90 words

Mr. Michael Cooper

Jun/6/24 5:27:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think the Auditor General's report with respect to SDTC showcases all that is wrong with the government. We had a situation where the former minister knew that the person he was appointing as chair was in a conflict of interest and appointed her anyway. Then we had ministers who turned a blind eye to the self-dealing and corruption that occurred repeatedly throughout—

68 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/6/24 5:27:55 p.m.
Watch

We have to resume debate. The hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock has two minutes.

17 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 326