Industry Committee on July 31st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, MP Brock.

Just to be clear, we have one motion and then one amendment and one subamendment, and we're in fact discussing the subamendment. I would ask members to try to generally stay on the topic of the subamendment, which we're discussing right now, with regard to the number of hours per witness and the number of meetings, from two to one.

However, Mr. Brock, in this committee we're rather collegial. I've given leeway on all sides to sometimes stray a little past the exact topic we're discussing. I think it can be pertinent to the subamendment to discuss the broader context.

I do give a bit of leeway, but let's try to focus on the subamendment so that we can move with haste and efficiency in this meeting.

Mr. Badawey, the floor is yours.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do apologize for hurting Mr. Brock's feelings. However, the topic at hand is with respect to the issue. I'm speaking about the issue through the subamendment that Ms. Damoff has presented. With that, and the overlying message that I'm speaking on, however, is the time being wasted by the Cons once again to play their political games?

Having said that, and speaking to Ms. Damoff's subamendment, we are looking at an amendment that outlines two meetings. Again, I'm not prepared to play those political games over the course of those two meetings. I think one meeting will suffice. I think with that, giving the opportunity to the individuals who we'll actually be allocating an hour each to we'll in fact come to the results of what we're all looking for out of this meeting, and with that the opportunity to once again bring attention to the efforts by the minister to look at corrective actions being taken ever since he announced that back on October 3, 2023.

I think at the very least, both Mr. Brock and his colleagues on the opposite side will recognize that we are here to get a job done, not a political job but the business of government, and to get to the bottom of which we're all looking for with respect to this one meeting being undertaken.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Masse.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again, congratulations.

I think I have a decent record here of trying to be collegial and getting things done in compromise. Let me lay it out in terms of the subamendment and the amendment, because we can have either a long meeting or a quick one.

The subamendment won't fly for me in terms of one meeting instead of two because of a couple of things. It won't even allow all members to participate in that meeting. For me, with all we've invested in it, it's a no go. If the Bloc and Mr. Villemure agree with that, then that's done and over with, because the Conservatives probably won't agree to reduce their amount of time.

That brings us to the main motion. The main motion as amended by Mr. Villemure is to have the meetings when we return to the House of Commons in September, which I don't think the Conservatives want, but at the same time is a moot point if we don't change our position, the Bloc doesn't change their position and the Liberals don't. That means we can actually get this meeting done quickly, if we want, in terms of getting two meetings done with two hours for the witnesses, and it would be at the beginning of the session.

I have a point with regard to that. Often we waste those first two meetings in that week on planning. We would then get that out of the way, so it is an advancement in time and effort. As well, we don't absorb House of Commons resources for maybe a week or two weeks in advance of Parliament coming back, taking people off of vacations and taking people away from their families. It also ensures that the House doesn't have to have encumbrance prices with regard to reinstating the committee.

I would appeal to the members here today that if they do actually want to get things wrapped up and get going on this very important matter.... I won't speak to the substance here or the motivations, but the reality of the math is that the Liberal amendment is a no go if we hold to the position right now and later on, the Conservatives would then have to put a little water in their wine, so to speak, by making sure that the committee does have to have the meetings and that they get to have the time they want. I think it's a good motion, but it won't happen until we get back, which is an advancement in time, because normally that time would be wasted as we start to plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Masse, for that clear intervention. I think a quick meeting is what we all hope for, so thank you very much, Mr. Masse, for laying it out so clearly.

Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

With the greatest respect to Mr. Masse and Monsieur Villemure, I see no reason why between now and when the House comes back this committee can't allocate two meetings totalling four hours. I don't think that's much to ask.

It seems like some members would prefer to take a vacation or be in their ridings. I'd like to be in my riding as well, but this committee has important work to do in the face of a very damning report from the Ethics Commissioner with respect to the conduct of the former chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which is better known as the Liberals' billion-dollar green slush fund.

I just want to say, before I get into why time is of the essence, that I am astounded by the remarks by my friend Mr. Badawey and his characterization of Conservatives playing politics and how this is about political games. He said the Conservatives have been on some sort of diatribe—those were his words—over the past year.

What is he talking about? Has he not read the Auditor General's report, which found that $400 million of taxpayers' money improperly went out the door? It found that $330 million in taxpayer dollars was funnelled from the green slush fund into companies of board members—$330 million. Of that, $76 million went to companies of board members as they deliberated and voted at board meetings to funnel money into their own companies or companies they have interests in.

Those were the findings of the Auditor General. On top of that, there were 186 conflicts of interest, and he says that it's political games, that it's politics. I'll tell you what it is. It's Liberal corruption. He should be embarrassed to be part of a government that has, over the past nine years, resulted in a culture of corruption that starts at the top, starting with the Prime Minister, but has made its way through all aspects of this government, including this billion-dollar green slush fund, which one department official characterized as sponsorship-level corruption.

We now have a report from the Ethics Commissioner, who found that the former chair, who was hand-picked by none other than former industry minister Navdeep Bains—the Prime Minister's best pal—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, what's the relevance?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, Mr. Badawey.

The same goes for Mr. Cooper. I was waiting for Mr. Brock to raise the point of order, but—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I'm sure he wasn't going to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

As you can see—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I view this entire intervention as being relevant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes. Well, as you can see, I give quite a bit of leeway, so I'll let you continue, Mr. Cooper, but let's try to....

I think we know where everyone stands, so we can probably proceed to votes fairly quickly and Mr. Perkins can catch his flight.

I'll yield the floor back to you.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Right now, I'm going to get into why it's important that we have these hearings. We have a report from the Ethics Commissioner, a damning report, which found that the Liberal-appointed former chair of the green slush fund broke the law, violated ethics laws by contravening on multiple occasions the Conflict of Interest Act.

More specifically, the report of the Ethics Commissioner found that the chair broke the law when she moved two motions at green slush fund board meetings which resulted in one of her companies, NRStor, receiving nearly $220,000 in taxpayer money. That is a case of straight-up self-dealing, straight-up conflict of interest and straight-up corruption, and now she has been found guilty.

Given the report, it's important that we get to it to hear from the Ethics Commissioner and to hear from Ms. Verschuren. There is no reason why this should not happen for almost two months.

With respect to the Ethics Commissioner's report, it's also important to note it is narrow in scope, and it needs to be read alongside the damning Auditor General's report that was released in June.

With respect to Ms. Verschuren and the need for her to appear for at least two hours and why I think there is a need to hear from her sooner rather than later—and certainly not when we come back in two months—there is the fact that the Ethics Commissioner specifically looked at only two instances where she had what he determined was conduct that amounted to a conflict of interest when she moved those two motions that resulted in $220,000 being funnelled to NRStor. When one reads the Auditor General's report, the Auditor General identified 20 additional conflicts involving Ms. Verschuren where she participated in and voted in favour of motions that resulted in monies being funnelled from the green slush fund to companies she has an interest in. Those additional 20 conflicts involve a further $2,560,000, nearly $2.6 million, that went to companies she has an interest in, in addition to the $217,000 the Auditor General identified and the Ethics Commissioner looked into, for which he found Ms. Verschuren guilty of violating the Conflict of Interest Act.

It seems to me that based upon the Auditor General's report, there may, in fact, be much more work for the Ethics Commissioner to do to investigate whether Ms. Verschuren contravened the Conflict of Interest Act multiple other times in 20 cases of conflict identified by the Auditor General. It underscores why we need to hear from Ms. Verschuren sooner rather than later. She needs to come before our committee, and she needs to address these 20 additional conflicts. Then, based upon on her testimony, additional steps can be taken, including referring the matter to the Ethics Commissioner to undertake a further investigation.

I have more to say, but I'll leave it there for now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Brock, you're the last person I have on my list.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I would be remiss if I didn't join the rest of my colleagues in offering congratulations as well, sir. You're in for the ride of your life.

I want to keep my comments brief. I understand I'm the last speaker on the list, unless someone raises their hand.

I've listened very carefully to everything my colleagues have said, and I want to underscore the importance of this being not only important and an issue that needs to be fully examined at this committee but also urgent.

As my colleague Mr. Cooper has alluded to, I share the same view that the Ethics Commissioner's report was narrowly focused. It underscores what we have heard by way of various reports in national media that the level of corruption with this Justin Trudeau government and how they misuse taxpayer money is merely the tip of the iceberg. There's not a day that goes by that I don't hear from followers on my social media who are thanking the opposition parties, particularly the Conservatives—and it's Conservatives, not “Cons”, to correct the characterization by Mr. Badawey—

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Just one second, Mr. Brock.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

A comment like that in the House would have been met with a strong rebuke from the Speaker of the House.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Relevance, Mr. Chair...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Brock, just one second. I have a point of order from MP Badawey.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

It's regarding relevance.

[An hon. member]

[Technical difficulty—Editor] say that in the House.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

In reference to us as “Cons”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Excuse me, Mr. Badawey. I can't hear your point of order. I think the boom mic is not properly placed.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

My point of order is on relevance, Mr. Chair.