Industry Committee on July 31st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 132 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

Before we begin, esteemed colleagues, I would like to ask those of you here in Ottawa to consult the little card in front of you for guidelines on using the microphones and the earpieces to protect the health and safety of the interpreters.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. To ensure that the meeting runs smoothly, I would like to remind members that it's important they raise their hand or identify themselves if they wish to speak.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), the committee is meeting to look into a request to consider the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's Verschuren report and other findings related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC.

Without further ado, I will now give the floor to Mr. Perkins, who has circulated a motion.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, colleagues.

Chair, since this is the first meeting since the new addition to your family, maybe I could start with congratulations on behalf of His Majesty's loyal opposition on the addition of Abraham to your family. We all wish you well in that new and exciting adventure. I hear the first 20 years are the most difficult.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's good to know.

Thank you, Rick.

On that note, thank you for chairing the committee at the end of the summer. I missed you guys, but I wouldn't have missed my girlfriend's delivery for anything in the world, not even this committee.

Thank you.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Those are the right priorities.

Last week, the Ethics Commissioner of Canada produced a report on the activities of the chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, a Crown agency charged with distributing money to pre-commercial green technology companies. That was in response to a letter from Conservatives way back in November asking for and seeking clarification from the commissioner on what we knew then. We know a lot more now, but we wanted to know what we knew then.

The shocking part of it, for those who weren't following, was that the Prime Minister's hand-picked chair was found to have breached ethics laws and the Conflict of Interest Act of Canada as a public officer holder for her private interests, and she improperly furthered those private interests.

This emergency meeting to discuss having some hearings on this was not only put forward by the Conservatives but was signed by both the NDP and the Bloc to have this as a statement of the urgency of this issue.

I'll briefly explain why this is important. We actually now have two shocking reports, the first one being the Ethics Commissioner's report on the conduct of the chair on a very small segment of what she did. He dealt with three instances essentially of conflict. The Auditor General's report that came out in June was even more shocking because, in the case of the chair, it actually found 20 conflicts of interest, and most of those were not examined by the Ethics Commissioner.

The report by the Auditor General found that for a little over $800 million of taxpayer money given to green technology companies in the five years she audited, 44% of the time, or 186 times, nine Liberal-appointed directors were found to have had conflicts of interest. The actual total of those conflicts of interest the Auditor General reported is $330 million of the $800 million. It was also found by the Auditor General that another $58 million was illegally spent outside the parameters of what SDTC was allowed to in their agreements with the Government of Canada. That's almost $400 million of the $800 million that was misappropriated or had a conflict of interest when it comes to this situation with the green slush fund.

Therefore, we are seeking a meeting with the Ethics Commissioner to discuss his findings. We need to do that quickly, because the transition of this fund to the NRC is ongoing right now, and money is starting to be spent again by the slush fund without our ability to still go in and understand the extent to which these funds were abused by insiders on the slush fund who were appointed by the Prime Minister.

We need to get to the bottom of this. We want to see the Ethics Commissioner come before this committee within the next four weeks. We'd like to see the subject of this report, Annette Verschuren, the former chair, also appear to discuss why she thought it was appropriate to, on almost 20 occasions, be in a conflict of interest where her personal financial interests were benefited by her being the chair.

The report also mentions an organization called MaRS. I think it's important for people to know that the industry department, through the regional development agencies, also funded over the last five years $48 million to MaRS from the federal taxpayer. Guess who the chair of MaRS is. It's the same chair who resigned in disgrace from the green slush fund and is the subject of the Ethics Commissioner's report.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I understand, Mr. Perkins, and maybe I missed it, that you are moving a motion that you've circulated.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I should read that into the record and do that formal part, which is to move the motion that was circulated. The motion reads:

Given the Ethics Commissioner's “Verschuren report” finds that the former chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada broke the Conflict of Interest Act, the committee holds two meetings within four weeks of this motion being adopted and calls the following witnesses:

(a) the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Konrad von Finckenstein, to appear for two hours;

(b) the former chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada and current chair of MaRS, Annette Verschuren, to appear for two hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

We're debating the motion brought forward by Mr. Perkins.

I have Monsieur Villemure, Madam Damoff and Mr. Badawey.

Monsieur Villemure.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also want to congratulate you, but you'll understand that I'm not doing so on behalf of the Queen.

Although the Bloc Québécois agrees with the spirit of the motion, I will try to make a comment by removing the few preconceptions it contains. The Ethics Commissioner found that Ms. Verschuren had committed offences by not recusing herself on a few occasions. I read the report, but I didn't see a direct accusation of a conflict of interest. At best, we know that she didn't recuse herself.

We have known since November 2023 that this situation is a problem, and I think it's important that we look into it. However, is it urgent? That's debatable. I'd therefore like to move an amendment to the motion right away, which will be sent to you in both official languages. It reads:

Given the Ethics Commissioner's Verschuren report, finds that the former chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada broke the Conflict of Interest Act; that the committee hold two meetings, and calls the following witnesses: the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Konrad von Finckenstein, to appear for two hours; and the former chair of Sustainable Development Technology Canada and current chair of MaRS, Annette Verschuren, to appear for two hours; and that it is understood that the meetings on this matter will be held in priority to all other committee studies and that the committee will dedicate its first two meetings after Parliament resumes in September 2024 to hearing these witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Villemure.

We will wait until the amendment is distributed to the members.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Villemure, essentially, the amendment you are moving is more about the timeline, since it seeks to have us deal with this matter first when we come back in September. Is that right?

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

Basically, we're keeping the substance of the motion, but changing the timeline.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay.

The clerk is circulating it right now.

I'll reiterate what Mr. Villemure is proposing. It's essentially the same substance of the motion, so it has the same witnesses, but there's a change in the time frame. Instead of being within four weeks, it would be the first item of business for this committee when we resume in September. It still has two hours with the Ethics Commissioner and two hours with Annette Verschuren.

You've all heard the amendment proposed by Mr. Villemure. I will continue the discussion as it is circulated, if you don't mind, because this is essentially the substance of it.

I recognize Madam Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

It's a pleasure to sub in on this committee. Let me join other members in congratulating you and your girlfriend on the little baby boy you welcomed.

Can you clarify something, Chair? Monsieur Villemure's amendment is for one hour with the Ethics Commissioner and two hours with the former chair. Is that correct, or is it two hours with each?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

It's for two hours with each.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay, but the timing would be in September. Is that right? I haven't seen the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That's correct. It would be the first item of business when we come back in September. The first week would be dedicated to these two meetings, from what I understand.

The amendment to the motion is being circulated now, so you'll have the exact wording, but that's essentially it, MP Damoff.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Okay. I would like to speak to it.

I had the pleasure of sitting on the ethics committee with my friend from the Bloc, where we heard from the Ethics Commissioner, as well as from the former chair prior to her resigning. I remember being really disappointed. That's probably not a good word. I was concerned by and disappointed with the way she conducted herself at that committee. This was someone who had a history, going back to the Harper years, of being appointed to boards and advisory committees, and I pointed out to her that even if she got advice to the contrary, she should have known better and recused herself.

I don't think there's any disagreement among the parties on this. She did not behave in the way she should have. She's not new to the role. I could be mistaken about this, but I think she was appointed under former prime minister Martin, then under the Harper government and then under ours. She's someone who came with the experience, and she should have known better.

I don't think we need two hours with each of them. If somebody added up all the hours both of these individuals testified at different committees in the House of Commons.... I think you should hear from them, certainly, but I think an hour for each one would be sufficient.

I'd like to amend Mr. Villemure's amendment to one meeting of one hour each, if I could, Chair. Is that appropriate right now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

That would be a subamendment.

Hold on for one second. I'll validate that with the clerk.

To clarify, Madam Damoff, you're proposing to amend Mr. Villemure's amendment, so that instead of it being two meetings of two hours, it would be one meeting, with one hour for the Ethics Commissioner and one hour for Annette Verschuren.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Exactly. Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

The rest of the amendment proposed by Mr. Villemure remains the same, so it's just—

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

That's correct. It's just the timeline.

Both of these witnesses have spoken about this at great length. I think the committee should definitely hear from these individuals, but I think two hours each is more time than is needed to get to the bottom of...well, not even get to the bottom of it. I shouldn't say that, because the minister actually acted quickly when the information came to light, and took action on what was happening with the fund.

Certainly, they appeared at the ethics committee shortly after all of this came to light. I think one hour for each of them would be adequate to have parliamentarians ask the questions they wish to ask of them.

I'll leave it there, Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, MP Damoff.

We have a subamendment. You've all heard the proposition by MP Damoff. Right now, we're debating the subamendment. We can vote on it at some point and then get back to the amendment by Mr. Villemure.

MP Damoff's subamendment is on the floor right now. It's about the number of meetings and the time allocated for each of the witnesses. That's what we're discussing right now.

I have MP Badawey on my list, followed by Brian Masse, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Brock.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll say this, and I'll be blunt about it. Especially for the past year, we've been going through this diatribe of attempts by the Conservatives time after time to create scandal in an attempt to create the narrative that the government isn't acting in the best interests of Canadians. Quite frankly, I'm getting tired of it, because, once again, it's just a narrative they continually try to gain.... Of course, they utilize the media to get out there to try to manipulate public opinion.

With that being said, they're simply playing politics. As Ms. Damoff alluded to, we feel this is of extreme importance. The minister, back on October 3, 2023, thought it was of extreme importance and announced corrective actions after his fact-finding efforts to get to the bottom of what we're discussing today.

The bottom line is that it's being dealt with.

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

Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

One second, MP Badawey. I have a point of order.

Mr. Brock.

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

I thought the chair made it abundantly clear that we were debating the subamendment and not the substantive motion brought by Mr. Perkins or the amendment brought by Mr. Villemure. What we're hearing is completely irrelevant material on the subamendment. I'd like to get to the point, because a number of members want to add to this discussion. We have a number of motions on the table. All will have to come to a vote at some point.

I would just ask the chair to ask the member to get to the point and be relevant.

Thank you.