Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 6th, 2023

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for being with us today.

You are well placed within the government, and I'm going to question you on precisely that. We get the impression from the few incidents that have occurred in recent years that the government doesn't want to govern at the administrative level or is incapable of doing so. I see that the government often outsources its obligations to third parties, as it did with SDTC in 2001. The logic involved is somewhat the same as with the ArriveCAN app and the WE charity. The problem I see in this outsourcing of government services is that it shields the government from the accountability and transparency to which a department is normally subject.

I'd like to hear your opinion on that. If we prevent transparency and accountability, how can we properly do our job here?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Villemure.

That's not actually my choice. In 2001, Parliament passed a bill concerning this matter. SDTC is thus the result of a choice that the minister or department made. The framework under which public funding in this area was to be managed was dictated by that federal act, which was passed under a previous government in 2001. The government wanted independence and transparency. That's how it's stated in the act; I'm not the one saying it. So it was a government choice. It was parliamentarians who made that choice by passing a bill and creating an act that made a number of provisions. Remember that many people at the time wanted more independence and funding that wouldn't be managed by the government. That's precisely what Parliament chose to do at the time.

Going back to the comments that my colleague Mr. Barrett made earlier, since the governance of that organization is determined by the act, you should choose your words carefully. It's not the minister who decides; it's the act that establishes this framework.

That being said, the contribution agreement describes the minister's rights. Fortunately, in response to the allegations, I got the organization to agree to open its books and allow us to examine its human resources practices. However, if you read the act, you'll agree that human resources practices are the responsibility of the organization's board of directors, not the department, and even less so the minister.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

However, in that scenario, there's a big difference between a desire for independence, which is entirely praiseworthy, and the risk of winding up in a situation where the department has virtually no right of review, as is the case with the ArriveCAN app and the WE charity, which I just mentioned.

You could say there have been no problems in a number of cases, and I would absolutely agree with you on that.

Whatever the case may be, do you question the idea of having public funds be administered by third parties?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I think we always have to be cautious.

SDTC isn't a well-known organization, but it funds the most green technology projects. Statistics show that the funding it has provided has assisted 500 companies and contributed to the development of 194 new technologies that have helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an amount equivalent to the removal of 7 million cars from our roads. We're talking about 20,000 jobs since 2001. I'm not saying that solely as a minister. As parliamentarians, we can weigh that and conclude that things have worked well for a long time under the regulatory and legal framework established by Parliament in that year.

I don't want to name any businesses, to avoid focusing attention on them today, but all MPs have a number of these businesses in their ridings. Many people have received funding in the past 20 years. That has helped create Canadian champions in certain fields.

I would just say that we can't confuse SDTC with other subcontractors because we have a federal act that determines how that funding must be administered.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

All right. I'm going to discuss your department now, to be sure we're talking about the right thing.

Our committee requested a document that was prepared by Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton. Despite our request, however, we received a highly redacted version, and subsequently a slightly less redacted one. The reasons given for the redactions related to privacy, of course, and the confidentiality of third-party information.

I thought that amounted to avoidance. We have a very clear understanding of privacy requirements in this committee. In this case, however, that many reductions prevents me from understanding the situation. It seems to me there are less aggressive ways to anonymize reports while still allowing us understand them.

I'm not passing judgment and disregarding those concerns. I'm trying to understand what we're facing, but the report prevents me from understanding.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'm all for complete transparency. As regards the document you saw, the health and safety of certain employees who had received threats were also a concern. Consequently, in the circumstances, you can understand why we acted cautiously. I'm saying that as a minister, but the deputy minister could say more about that. We also need a framework that can help protect privacy. In this instance, we received information that threats had been made against certain individuals. As you will understand, we also have a duty of care.

I say that as a parliamentarian. I think we have to be aware of it. If there's a way to submit the information, whether it be in camera or otherwise, I'm in favour of full transparency. These documents are of public interest.

As I said, I want to get to the bottom of this matter, but I want to do it the right way, in accordance with natural law and procedural fairness, but also while protecting health and safety. I was informed that certain individuals had been threatened. Parliamentarians must be aware of that. We want to get to the bottom of this, but we want to do things properly as well, to protect employees' health and safety.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

It seems to me that, if you had used “Mr. A”, “Mr. B” and “Mr. C”, for example, or “company A”, “company B” and “company C”, it would have been easier for us to follow the plot.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That's one possible way to proceed. I'm saying that to the chair of the committee while glancing at the deputy minister.

In all of this, we're trying to do things right. If there's a way to proceed as you suggest, by referring to “company A”, “company B” and “company C”, I completely agree. My only concern really was the health and safety of certain employees who had indicated that their safety was at stake.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

I share your concern, but I'd simply like to understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Villemure and Minister.

Mr. Villemure, I allowed you an extra 15 seconds.

Mr. Masse, you're up next. You have six minutes and 10 seconds. Go ahead.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here, Mr. Minister.

I don't believe it's appropriate to use the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Technology Act as a shield. I spoke on that legislation and I knew that the vulnerability was really about creating another element outside the government so workers can't actually get the same treatment and supports as a federal public servant.

My first question to you, Mr. Minister, would be this. Will you guarantee all the current employees an equivalent position in the federal civil service if they come forward, if they feel they are not being treated well right now?

Will you guarantee that we will actually be there for them and their families in terms of employment, and that confidentiality will be able to be expressed?

They're at risk. Will you guarantee those individuals their jobs?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I hear your question.

I cannot change the act; that's for sure. What I can do and what we have provided—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

You can change the act, actually. We can put an all-party motion forward and do that. We'll craft that and get it ready. We can actually change the act to protect these people.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I was talking about the current version.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, I am too. We can change it.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I agree with you that Parliament can make an amendment and change that.

What we did in the meantime, which I think is the best thing we could do under the circumstances today, because I think we're talking about an actual issue with real people who have real allegations, is to make sure we have a process whereby we demanded and obtained from STDC that they would relieve people of their confidentiality obligations, whatever they might be.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I've talked to some of the former employees, and I can hear it in their voices. What's taking place there is very disconcerting, and I can hear in their voices their concern about the current people who are still employed there.

What can you offer those people? Aside from a private law firm outside, what you can take away from right now is that we at least go away from this meeting and look at guaranteeing their employment within the public service, in equivalent positions, so we can actually get to the bottom of this.

The legislation can be changed, but in the meantime we have to do something for them and their families. We're talking about a lot of money here.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

That's why I did....

Listen, you're talking to the person who acted. There were people who were talking, and I took action from the moment there were allegations. As you know, there's a history of that. I'm the first one to act on something.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I appreciate that, but these people need their jobs.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I appreciate that. What I'm saying, Mr. Masse, is that I acted immediately to have a report done, so that we have a factual basis, the Raymond Chabot report. By the way, for colleagues, that's—

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

That's great, but that's way out there for them. Every day, people have to go into this agency as this is being wrangled out in public. They have to get up and go into this environment and actually try to produce for us and, on top of that, deal with their own repercussions from this. I'm looking for guarantees on how we protect those people—specific guarantees.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I appreciate that.

That's what we did. Today, my understanding, as a lawyer, of the situation as we see it, is that some of them have refrained from bringing forward their allegations because of concern with respect to a non-disclosure agreement or even [Inaudible—Editor] agreements. What we demanded and obtained from STDC.... We're not managing human resources here. You're talking to the minister. This is done by the board and the management of STDC.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Yes, and they are all politically appointed, through a process.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

It's not the minister. This is human resources. It's clearly in the act.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

No, but it is not an entitlement for them to be the director there, or board members. It's not an entitlement. It's a privilege.