Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 18th, 2023

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Through you, Chair, I wanted to know if it would be appropriate if we as a committee.... I realize that there was not a lot of time on the clock today for us to get all of our questions in. I'm wondering if our witnesses would be amenable, if the committee sent them a list of questions, to providing written responses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Mr. de Eyre, I suspect that's not a problem for you or Mr. Lieber either. If you do, obviously you're going to go through the clerk, and we'll send them on behalf of the committee.

Gentlemen, I want to thank you for being here today, both Mr. Lieber from Washington and Mr. de Eyre. You should be able to catch your flight back to Toronto, as promised.

I'm going to dismiss the witnesses. I do have a hand in the room and that would be Mr. Barrett's.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett, please.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I wanted to use the opportunity we had this afternoon to follow up on a notice of motion that I provided to the committee with respect to Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

There were new revelations in news media today with respect to the whistle-blowers in this case who have now expressed a concern for reprisals against them.

The committee currently has this study programmed, and because of the importance of this issue and the runway that's required to get a study off the ground, I would like to move this motion today. We have a few minutes. Members have had a few days to consider it, so I would like to advance this and then we will proceed with this.

This has been circulated to all members of the committee. I will read the motion now. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h) and in light of the new information revealed through whistleblower complaints, regarding the one-billion-dollar fund awarded by the government to Sustainable Development Technologies Canada to deliver taxpayer money to the green tech sector, the committee dedicate six meetings to this matter and hear testimony from the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Finance, and that the committee order the government to produce all documents related to this program, including emails, briefing notes, text messages, contracts, funding agreements, memorandums of understanding and any other document that the government has related to this program.

Chair, it is incredibly important. At a time when Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis, it looks like, as a result of conflicts of interest and gross mismanagement at this taxpayer-funded organization.... Canadians must be able to get answers about the alleged misappropriation of over 150 million taxpayer dollars.

This is incredibly important. I appreciate that this isn't a study that's going to step off on Monday morning or Wednesday afternoon of next week, but I put the motion on notice in good faith because I wanted members to have the opportunity to consider it. With the revelations today about the concerns of the whistle-blowers, the proponents behind this, the prospect of a parliamentary committee studying this should in its infancy provide some comfort that Canadians are now aware, that reprisals would, of course, be unacceptable and that the country is watching.

I think it's incredibly important for our democratic institutions that people know that, when they see something wrong happen, they can bring it forward without those fears of consequences and reprisals, and that they are not working with their hands tied behind their back because of non-disclosure agreements or threats to their safety or their livelihoods.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

The motion has been moved. I'm going to deem it in order, but I will caution the committee that, whichever way we want to go with this, as you stated, it's not going to start in the next couple of weeks. I want to make that clear because we have committed to and are focused on the social media study and that's the actual game plan that we have mapped out between the clerk and the analysts.

I see Madame Fortier, but I'm going to go to you, Mr. Green, first because you had your hand up.

Go ahead, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As you will recall, I think this is an important study. I just want to reference, as I'm sure you will all recall, that in the Trudeau Foundation study we made it crystal clear that, for people who testify here, their testimony is protected. I think it's important for Canadians watching to know that when people participate in these parliamentary committees they should be able to do so with candour. Certainly, whistle-blowers need to be protected, so I wanted to start there.

I do think this is something we could probably get done maybe in two meetings. I don't know that we need three.

If I'm to understand correctly right now, you're looking at three. Is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The motion says six, Mr. Green.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's six. Okay. That seems like a lot. I'm going to be honest. I'm not on, I don't think, for six meetings, but I will certainly cede the floor to other interventions that might be able to convince me otherwise.

At this point, I think we can bring in the necessary parties and have perhaps the time within two or three meetings to unpack some of that, rather than drag it out over six.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Green.

Thank you for the point on parliamentary privilege being extended to members of the public who appear within the committee structure as well. I think that is an important point.

Madame Fortier, go ahead, please.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing that motion forward. I believe there is some importance to looking into it. Perhaps I would suggest the same as my colleague from the NDP, Matt Green, that we don't need six meetings to do so. Two would probably be the better approach.

There is also a lot of effort being done currently, as we know, by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry in looking into it. We know we saw that there is a Grant Thornton report that has been tabled.

I would bring forward, Mr. Chair, three amendments to the current motion, if I may.

The first one would be, as I mentioned earlier, to replace the words “six meetings” with “two meetings”. It would also be to invite the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry , but we would remove the words the Minister—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Excuse me. Can we...?

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Am I too fast? I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Yes, we should go one amendment at a time because the clerk has to make note of it.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Okay. I'll go one amendment at a time. I have three.

Do you want me to explain them all first, or do you want...?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I think the way we should do this is debate each amendment—

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I'm getting coached for the first time. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That's okay. We should debate each amendment, Madame Fortier, as you propose them.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Yes, that's perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The first one is to go from six to two. We've heard Mr. Green speak to that.

I'd like to hear what you have to say about that particular amendment. Go ahead, please.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Again, I think it's important that we look into it, but we don't need six meetings. Two meetings should be enough for some of the witnesses we could bring forward. I will be sharing further down that there may be fewer witnesses.

I'll share that later.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Can we poll the room, then, to see whether there's agreement among the parties on this particular amendment?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Let's just move to a vote on it, Mr. Chair. Then we can move on to Ms. Fortier's next amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The first amendment on the motion is to reduce this from six to two meetings.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

You have another amendment to the main motion as amended. Go ahead, please.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion is to invite three ministers, but I think there is one who could answer our questions and help us get a closer look.

That is why my second amendment would delete the words “Minister of the Environment” and “Minister of Finance”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The second proposed amendment by Madame Fortier is to remove “the Minister of Finance” and “the Minister of Environment”, but have the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry appear.

You've heard the terms of the amendment. Is there any discussion on this?

Mr. Barrett, go ahead, please.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, like the previous amendment, I am also opposed to this amendment.

Because of the seriousness and scope of the issue, the ministers listed were carefully selected. I don't always swing for the fences and ask that, for example, the Prime Minister come to committee on every issue. I think it's important that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the Minister of Environment and the Minister of Finance be invited to come to committee, their schedules permitting. I'm sure they'd have the time, if requested.

I'm opposed to the amendment.