Evidence of meeting #133 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Okay, that's great.
I note that you were appointed by Jim Flaherty to the Economic Advisory Council. You were appointed by Jim Flaherty again to the Venture Capital Expert Panel and were appointed again by Jim Flaherty in, I think, 2014 to the Venture Capital Expert Panel. I assume all of those were panels and advisory positions and that they were not making funding decisions. Is that correct?
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Were you ever accused of being a Conservative insider for your appointments and your service on any of those advisory panels or councils?
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Okay.
I know my colleague has already mentioned that you have donated, quite a number of times, to the Conservative Party. What I'm taking issue with is that I think you have, at least to some degree, owned up to the mistakes you've made and have expressed that you regret that you didn't recuse yourself when you should have. I would say that you ought to have known. I believe you ought to have known that you should have recused yourself, because that's in the conflict of interest code that you were supposed to abide by. In essence, you were responsible, as the board chair, and I think you've expressed some regret.
However, what I take issue with is the Conservatives calling you a Liberal insider, which I don't believe is the truth. I believe that you've shown yourself to have donated to the Conservative Party and you have been appointed for many years and have served under quite a number of Conservative leaders in this country. You donated $1,675 to the Jean Charest leadership campaign, as did Mr. Perkins on this committee, and I wanted to ask you whether you were as much of a Conservative as Mr. Perkins, and/or as Liberal as him.
Annette Verschuren
Mr. Chair, I've never been associated with any party. The public offices that I've held and the responsibility that I held during my career... I made the decision never to be associated with a party, and so I leave it at that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you.
I'm going to go back to the motion presented by Mr. Garon. It has been translated and distributed in both official languages to members of the committee. Everyone has had a chance to read the wording of the motion.
Mr. Garon, if you have no further comments, we can debate the motion. However, maybe I'll let you—
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
If I may, I’ll just comment briefly on the motion. I know that time is precious and everyone received it in writing. I apologize regarding the process and, next time, if there is a next time, I will try to send my motion in both official languages.
It’s simply a motion asking the Auditor General to provide us with a list of companies that allegedly received money from SDTC in violation of the law and ethical rules. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts passed a motion with similar content. I think it’s important that the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology pass one as well, since the Minister of Industry obviously reports directly to the committee.
I’d like to add just one point that I think is important. In all of the events that cropped up around SDTC, it’s important to remember that the green transition is important, that government investment is needed and that the green transition is a public good.
As I already said to some of the witnesses we heard from, I think that part of the tragedy of SDTC—apart from the fact that we may have significantly undermined public confidence in the use of taxpayers’ money—is that we had to freeze the funds of companies that had a positive impact on our communities and our economy. We hampered the green transition. I think some companies will have to make repayments based on objective criteria. In my opinion, it’s only fair to suggest that the Auditor General provide us with a list of the companies involved. It should also be pointed out that companies not at fault are protected from this process.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
The floor is open. Mr. Masse has the floor, followed by Mr. Turnbull.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank my colleague for bringing forward this motion.
There's no need to apologize. This has been a long and difficult issue that we've been dealing with, and now other committees in Parliament have been dealing with it. I actually do appreciate the motion, because he is correct.
Unfortunately, part of the victimization includes a couple of things that I still want to see concluded—namely, to have the full restoration of compensation for employees and whistle-blowers. The confidentiality agreements and non-disclosures that they were forced into should be torn up at some point in time. We're just looking for the appropriate vehicle to be able to do that. With this motion, that wouldn't be appropriate, because it deals specifically with the Auditor General.
I think it's a very responsible motion, because it uses that third party of the Auditor General, and not the committee or Parliament. Going line by line through the different types of businesses is important, because we want it to be objective and independent. Many parliamentarians and Canadians have full confidence in the Auditor General process. I think that the mover's use of the Auditor General in this motion is actually very wise.
I will just conclude that we do not want to lose the opportunity for the good companies to be able to get the appropriate supports that they deserve for greening the economy. We need innovation and we should weed out the ones that didn't really receive these supports responsibly, so they can maybe return that money to make a better investment.
With that, New Democrats will be supporting this motion, and I thank the mover for putting it forward. It's straightforward, it's simple, and it separates the objective of Parliament by looking for accountability through the practical element of having the Auditor General as a third party to decipher exactly how to go about the next stage. I think that's a very wise way of approaching it.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
As I read this, I have a number of issues that come up for me with regard to this motion. I'll quote from it, and then I'll tell you what I think.
One issue is around "the Committee declares that it is of the opinion that the offending companies".
First of all, I'm not sure: Did the companies actually offend, or was it the board members who offended? They're the ones who are said to have contravened the code of conduct. It's not necessarily the companies. There are many companies that may be in the portfolio that SDTC funded for which the funding was merited and the due diligence was done, or there could be, anyway, rom my perspective. I remember reading quite a lot of extensive information in numerous reports about how much due diligence was done at the organizational level within the organization for the board to eventually approve funding decisions.
Who are we asking to make the determination of who acted in bad faith versus who acted in good faith? How are we to know that? We're asking the Auditor General to do that work. We're asking them to determine it. The Auditor General's already done an investigation and hasn't been able to determine that. They've determined that there were conflicts of interest perceived, and the commissioner—I'm using his words—said there was "a technical violation". We could disagree about that; maybe some people feel that there was more than a technical violation. I agree that Ms. Verschuren and some of the other board members ought to have known that they should have recused themselves, that it was their responsibility to be aware of what's in the conflict of interest code, 100%, but they've also all lost their positions. Is that sufficient? I don't know whether you guys feel like that's sufficient.
When I look at this, who is going to determine who acted in bad faith? Are we now saying that the Auditor General has to do an investigation of every single company to determine who acted in bad faith? I'm not sure that the Auditor General would be able to make that determination. I'm not sure what you guys think, but that seems to me to be asking a lot of the Auditor General. Then you're asking them to report who acted in bad faith and then recoup funds, right? That's what the gist of this motion includes.
I'm not sure whether the Auditor General.... That's making a lot of demands on the Auditor General, who's supposed to operate independently. We're not supposed to be giving direction to the RCMP and we're not supposed to be giving direction to the Ethics Commissioner. We can lodge complaints, and they investigate if they see fit to do so. The RCMP, the Auditor General and the Ethics Commissioner are independent officers who are supposed to do their work independently of us, so if we're now telling the Auditor General that they've got to do a determination, I think we're overstepping our role in Parliament. Convince me otherwise.
The other thing that I would take issue with is the part that says, "the government's laxity in implementing the SDTC program”.
I take issue with that, Mr. Garon. I don't believe that there is laxity on behalf of this government at all. The SDTC is an arm's-length organization; it's independent and it's been operating for very many years, so to what degree is the government of the day responsible for oversight of that? You and I will argue about that, then, for the rest of the meeting, so let's go. Fine; let's argue about it for 10 meetings. I don't care.
I don't agree, and I'll make arguments to the contrary of what you're going to say. I don't believe that the government has been lax on SDTC at all, and I will defend that.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.
I have Mr. Garon, but I'll just volunteer one small comment.
If I read the motion correctly, it “proposes that the Auditor General" and "that the committee is of the opinion", so it's not very binding as a motion from my reading of it, in terms of the added burden. That's just my my two cents on this.
Mr. Garon, you have the floor.
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Hearing Mr. Turnbull filibuster an opposition motion when we’re used to hearing him filibuster his own bill is a bit of a change.
All joking aside, the committee and Parliament have no place telling the Auditor General what to do. That’s exactly the spirit in which the motion was drafted.
We suggest that the Auditor General provide us with a list. Does she have to comply with the motion? The answer is no, but she will know that Parliament and the committee want to find out more about the situation. At some point, it becomes difficult to draft a motion like this. In fact, this is the most consensus-driven way of doing it.
As for everything our colleague Mr. Turnbull said, I would say that, from the outset, if I'm not mistaken, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts unanimously passed a motion calling for certain sums to be reimbursed by the minister within 100 days. There is therefore a presumption that certain companies may have received some of this money. The Liberals agree with this presumption, as do the Conservatives and the New Democrats, if I’m not mistaken.
Earlier, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner mentioned that Minister Bains did have certain tools at the time that enabled him to avoid this type of situation. These tools did indeed exist. Did the minister have this information? Did he have any reason to use those tools? It remains to be seen.
That said, absolutely nothing in this motion binds the Auditor General or condemns the government in advance. If the Auditor General were to consider the motion, which is non-binding—and if Mr. Turnbull happens to be right about the government being absolutely diligent in its dealings with SDTC—I don’t see why the governing party would have any reluctance whatsoever in supporting such a motion. It would be hard to understand. When you have nothing to hide, you open the books.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I would argue that we've done that from day one. I have a list here—it's a page and a half—of all of the interventions and the work our government has done to get to the bottom of this and expose all the facts in this particular case. It has all the collaboration we've had with independent officers. There's nothing to hide at all.
I can't in good faith support a motion that includes the point that says, “the government's laxity in implementing the SDTC program”. Essentially, I would have to agree with that statement, and I don't agree with it. I don't believe the government has been lax. I believe that as soon as we found out about allegations of mismanagement and misconduct, we acted, and I stand by that. If I believed otherwise, I would say so. I really do believe we acted quickly and were forthcoming in collaborating with all of the independent experts and groups.
If you take that out, I think we could support it.
Again, the fact that it's proposed to the Auditor General is noteworthy and it makes me feel a bit more comfortable.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I think we all want to get results for this at the end of the day, so I'm prepared to move the motion to remove that component. If a Liberal isn't willing to do it, then I'll do it, because I want to see us get this through and get some results.
Liberal
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Unless Mr. Turnbull wants to propose.... Why don't you propose what you're thinking about?
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I'm thinking on the spot here. It says the committee “believes that companies that acted in good faith should not be penalized”. Cut out “for the government's laxity in implementing the SDTC program and allocating funding”. If you want to take that clause out, I think we can probably support it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We've heard Mr. Turnbull's proposed amendment. I'm not sure if it's Mr. Masse's or Mr. Turnbull's proposed amendment, but let's say it's Mr. Turnbull's for clarity's sake.
Is there a consensus around the table, or should we put it to a vote?
You've all heard what's being proposed by Mr. Turnbull for the amendment to the motion.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The amendment passes, which brings us back to the motion as amended.
Any other comments on the motion as amended? Very well.
We will now vote on the amended motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Wonderful, the motion passed unanimously. It’s a fine demonstration of consensus.
The meeting is drawing to a close. It’s already 6:26 p.m. Thank you, colleagues.
We will therefore see each other on Thursday morning to resume our study of Bill C-27.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
It's 6:26, and the meeting is ending at 6:30 p.m. I would have to split it among four; for a minute, I don't think it's worth it, Mr. Perkins.
On that note, colleagues, I'll see you on Thursday.
The meeting is adjourned.
