Industry Committee on Sept. 16th, 2024

[Annette Verschuren]

Mr. Chair, it's a really important point. These are high-risk, difficult projects to start. SDTC begins the pipeline, and then other organizations, financial institutions, support them.

It's critically important that we continue to invest in small and medium-sized companies. They are the future of Canada. We are an innovative society. Those companies become large companies, and those companies export to other parts of the world. I am extraordinarily interested in moving those organizations ahead, and I have been. I think it's an underestimated area of potential development in our country.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

This is a highly competitive, high-performing sector in Canada. A few years ago, the industry accounted for between 2.9% and 3.3% of Canada's GDP. What does it represent today as a percentage of GDP?

[Annette Verschuren]

I do not know that answer. Is it double?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I'm asking you.

[Annette Verschuren]

I don't know. I apologize.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I'll pass on that, then.

It's important that we continue to invest in these industries, and it's important that the government continues to support these industries, but the issues and concerns and challenges that the industry has suffered have been real challenges.

You're not the only one to deserve blame here. I'll place some of the blame on the Tories, who continue to malign the clean-technology funding and continue to try to vilify a fund that is part of a wider ecosystem supporting a highly innovative, competitive industry in Canada. The clean sector is a key driver of innovation in our country. Tories love to cry about a productivity crisis in Canada, yet they so brazenly malign some of our most competitive industries. We know that the Tories aren't solution-driven. They're jeopardizing the future of this entire industry.

I'll leave my comments at that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Garon, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I'll use my turn to move the following motion:

Given that the Auditor General's Report 6 - Sustainable Development Technology Canada 2024 concluded that the Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) program failed on several points in the allocation of funding and that projects were approved while there were board members who were in conflict of interest and that they did not withdraw from decision-making;

That the Committee declares :

that it is of the opinion that the offending companies that acted in bad faith and despite the ethical rules that apply in cases of conflict of interest must reimburse the sums they received from the Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) program and;

it believes that companies that acted in good faith should not be penalized for the government's laxity in implementing the Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) program and allocating funding;

Consequently, the Committee proposes that the Auditor General issue a list of organizations or companies that are at fault, that have acted in bad faith, despite the ethical rules that apply in cases of conflict of interest.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Garon.

Has the motion been distributed in both official languages?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Obviously, everyone understands French, but for those who do not, we're working on it. We're waiting for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You could ask your Conservative colleagues for help with the translation—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Especially Mr. Généreux.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Perfect.

Okay, since the motion has not yet been sent in both languages, but will be sent shortly, I propose that, in the meantime, we suspend the meeting for a few minutes so that all members can receive it, read it and decide what they think. We'll then resume the meeting.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was just hoping that perhaps I could use my two minutes to get something in that I would like to get done. It is separate from this, but I have limited time. If I could do that, it would be appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Masse, I'm positive we'll have the time to get to you. It's probably best, given there is a motion on the floor, that we deal with this one first, and then we'll come to you. You're next on the list.

We'll briefly suspend just to tend to the motion.

Mr. Garon, I want to make sure I understand.

Are you moving your motion or—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I am moving the motion.

I apologize for my limited knowledge of procedure, especially compared to the Conservatives, but I've been told that this is allowed because this is the subject currently being debated. However, out of courtesy, we can wait a few minutes for it to be translated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, you sure can.

Okay, we'll wait for the translation. We'll come back to the motion once it has been distributed. In the meantime, we could continue with questions.

How long do you think it will take, Mr. Garon?

We'll suspend for five minutes to have it circulated, and then we'll deal with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Garon, you can't move a motion unless it's in both official languages. Unfortunately, time is running out and we have to wrap up at 6:30 p.m. We don't yet have the motion in both official languages. Let me know when you have it in both official languages and can send it to the clerk, and I will recognize you so you can move it.

In the meantime, I'd like us to continue our discussion with the witness who's here. If you don't have a question for him, I'll go to Mr. Masse.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make sure other colleagues get a chance to ask questions, but I do have something I want to get on the record today for business for this committee.

I'm going to read this into the record for consideration for future business:

That the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology undertake a study on the issue of credit card practices and regulations, following recent concerns about the high interest rates, excessive fees, and consumer protection. This study should include, but not be limited to, the following areas:

a. Interest rates and examining of the impact of high credit card interest rates on Canadian consumers and potential measures to cap or regulate these rates;

b. Fees and charges and analysis of various fees associated with credit cards, including the payment fees, annual fees and foreign transaction fees, and how these fees affect consumer finances;

c. Consumer protections and a review of these measures related to credit cards, with a focus on improving transparency in credit card terms, interest rates and fees;

d. Predatory lending practices, to investigate predatory lending practices within the credit card industry, and recommendations for stricter regulations to prevent exploitation of consumers;

e. Financial literacy, with consideration of the role of financial literacy in helping consumers manage credit card debt, and potential initiatives to enhance financial education;

f. Regulatory oversight, including an assessment of the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks overseeing credit card companies, and potential impacts to ensure fair and transparent practices.

The study should be no fewer than four meetings and include consultations with relevant stakeholders, including financial experts, consumer advocacy groups, and representatives from the credit card industry.

I just want to table that notice for now. I'll turn my time over now to other members of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Masse, for this notice of motion.

I am just informed by colleagues that I would have needed unanimous consent to have that motion withdrawn.

Mr. Garon, we need the committee's unanimous consent to withdraw your motion until you get it translated. I assumed there was unanimous consent, but I just want to be sure.

Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the motion? It will be presented again by the end of the meeting.

Since no one is opposed, I'll give the floor to Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Verschuren, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner found that you guilty of 24 conflicts of interest in your role as chair of the Sustainable Development Technology Canada fund.

Madam, I have a high school diploma, a diploma in auto body repair. I have always known that using other people's money to benefit myself is wrong. How, despite all your experience, did you not know that when the Liberal government gave you the job? In fact, you stated earlier that you had to speak to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner before you took the job, because your companies had already received money.

Why did you accept the job?

[Annette Verschuren]

Mr. Chair, in terms of your question on recognizing that there were conflicts, I established.... This was something that I could contribute to, in terms of being the chair of SDTC. I had an interest to promote this clean-tech sector.

Of the 24 conflicts, in fact for 20 of them I abstained, as opposed to leaving the room. I want to make it very—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Ms. Verschuren, I'm sorry, but I was the mayor of La Pocatière. I'm a contractor, and I was a supplier to the city before I ran for mayor. I knew perfectly well that, as mayor, I would no longer be able to access city contracts or money. Those are basic rules of governance. How did that not occur to you on the 24 occasions when you gave yourself money without recusing yourself, without leaving the room?

That's awfully hard to believe. Seriously, I don't understand how, given your experience, you couldn't figure out that you absolutely had to leave the room and that you couldn't make a decision that would benefit your company. I don't get it.

How did that never occur to you?

[Annette Verschuren]

It certainly crossed my mind, and that's why I declared them when there was a perceived conflict—and these are all perceived conflicts that we're talking about here—so it was really important for me to recognize that. I followed the procedures that I thought were correct.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Ms. Verschuren, earlier you said that you ended up hiring a lawyer, who provided guidance for making your decisions to ensure that you were not in conflict of interest. Apparently the blame lies with that lawyer or those lawyers—I don't know if there was one or more. It's their fault for misleading you.

As I said, I have a high school diploma, a diploma in auto body repair. Do you know what that means? You're a smart woman, Ms. Verschuren. How did you fail to realize—I've sat on several boards of directors, including the Port of Québec, for which I was also a supplier. I always recused myself when I was in a conflict of interest. I didn't have contracts while I was on the board; I wasn't allowed to have contracts.

I don't understand why you didn't realize that you had no business being there.