Evidence of meeting #135 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 sdtc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I'd say that we maybe wait until 4:30. At 4:30, if there's still no end in sight to these motions, we'll release the witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I appreciate that, Mr. Masse, and I'm sure Mr. Angus and Mr. Chhabra do as well.
Yes, Mr. Perkins, you may resume.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Chair, that concludes my initial remarks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Are there any other speakers?
I see Mr. Généreux and then Mr. Turnbull.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to read the French translation of the amendment proposed after Mr. Perkins’s motion. In the last paragraph, the proposed amendment reads as follows:
the committee therefore orders SDTC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) to produce copies of each reinforced contribution agreement signed since June 4, 2024, along with copies of any contribution agreement signed during the Auditor General’s audit period from 2018 through 2023, without redactions, in both official languages, within 14 days following the adoption of this motion, in order to monitor the department's compliance with the Auditor General’s recommendations.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I guess I'm having a little trouble understanding what the intention of this motion is. Perhaps Mr. Perkins can enlighten us further on his intentions here.
This particular topic has been studied and studied. There have been, of course, the Auditor's General report and the Ethics Commissioner's investigation and findings, and we've have had this particular motion introduced at public accounts as well. It's exactly the same and was adjourned. The committee there, I believe, adjourned debate on this motion. That's a matter of the public record, I believe, but what I'm interested in here is trying to understand the motives behind the motion.
We know that the board was dissolved, the CEO and chair resigned, the people who were at SDTC are no longer there and the organization is being folded into the NRC with rigorous oversight, which obviously could be an improvement for sure. What I'm trying to get my head around is what the objective is here. What are we trying to accomplish in using up more committee time? At the public accounts committee, the members decided not to move forward with a study on this topic. I find that kind of interesting. They could take that up at any point, obviously, since this was moved at that committee as well.
Here is the thing I'm struggling with. We know that the companies out there that are the mom-and-pop type of clean-tech companies across Canada rely on this funding to continue to scale up and do the work that they do, which is to grow their businesses in Canada. We've said for many years that they punch above their weight and that they need access to those funds. The funds had been stalled, or we pushed pause on those funds going out, for the whole time that all of these independent reviews and investigations were taking place.
This is now, I think, an intention to go after the small.... The companies are not the guilty parties here. The people who mismanaged the organization—or there were allegations of mismanagement—have been held to account. We've called them to committee numerous times. We've, in my view, studied this to death. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, what's the intention? Why are we now trying to go after the industry itself?
This seems to be an attempt to essentially have all of these.... This says that “new project approvals have now started”. Well, that's the intention. The intention is that SDTC, which had been around for over 20 years, which was funded by the Honourable Michelle Rempel Garner.... In fact, when she was minister, there was $300 million that went to SDTC. It's not as if previous Conservative and Liberal governments didn't support this organization. In fact, we all did. Why? It was because we all know the value of supporting our clean-tech industry.
What I find hard here is that it seems as though the Conservatives are never satisfied with getting to the bottom of something. Our government has, over and over again.... The minister has been clear, I've been clear, we've all participated in these studies and we haven't fought you. We have said: “Okay, let's get to the bottom of this. We want answers too.”
We've done that over and over again, and now the Conservatives are not satisfied. They want to do it more and to do it in a way that harms the clean-tech industry. Why would you want to harm the small mom-and-pop businesses out there that rely on this funding? Is it the intention here to eradicate the entire clean-tech industry? Is it to pull these people before committee and question their legitimacy as businesses? To me, that's unacceptable. I don't think we need to use committee time for that.
To me, if we've all agreed in the past that better oversight is needed, that there were some technical violations, as the Ethics Commissioner had said.... I know that the Conservatives keep pumping up their little misinformation campaign—
Conservative
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
—in trying to call this more than what it is, but we know that the Ethics Commissioner said it was “a technical violation”. That's what he called it. That was his term. I asked him very specifically about what the difference is between abstention and recusal, and he said, well, it's basically a technical violation of the act.
The Conservatives want to say that this is corruption and this person is a Liberal insider. They're saying it every day in the House of Commons and it's not true. It's false.
You want to continue to do that. I get it. I get that this is politics and you want your clicks and your little videos to put out on social media, but that's not what's actually happened here. I know that you want to make it seem like that's what happened, but I really don't think that we should be using committee time essentially to question small and medium-sized enterprises across Canada and jeopardize the funds they need in order to scale and grow their businesses. That includes businesses in Sherbrooke. It includes businesses in Calgary, Victoria and Thornhill. There's a long list.
I don't think the Conservatives—or I hope, anyway—are jumping to the conclusion that every clean-tech business in the country is now a target to be ripped down and torn down because of a few technical violations at SDTC, which have been accounted for. The individuals have been held to account and the organization has been completely transformed to have better oversight and a tighter governance model and framework.
To me, that seems like you got what you wanted, which was accountability. We all wanted that, but now you can't put it to bed. You've got to keep wanting to study it. I just don't understand the rationale.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We were discussing the amendment Mr. Généreux sent by email.
The next speaker will be Mr. Patzer, to be followed by Ms. Rempel Garner.
September 23rd, 2024 / 4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thanks, Chair.
Let's start off with the fact that there were 186 contracts, I believe, that were in conflict. At this point, it's about making sure that now that there's funding going back out again, there wasn't just a pause and then a restart of funding to the same 186 companies that had irregularities in their applications and in their contracts. This is about making sure that taxpayers are not once again continuing to fund people who don't deserve to get this money. That's what it comes down to.
This is about the accountability piece that I was talking to you about last week when we were debating a different motion. It should absolutely be in the interest of every member of Parliament, regardless of political stripe, to make sure that any company, regardless of which government is in power, isn't ripping off the taxpayer.
The fact is that it's $330 million on 186 contracts. That's where the counter is at with this particular fund since this government took over. If nothing has been done to remedy this and it's just going to continue on as it was before, then of course there are going to be substantive issues that this committee should be looking at and that every member should want to look at.
At the end of the day, it comes down to accountability. Has the minister been accountable to taxpayers to make sure that the adjustments have been made, to make sure that this process does not happen and that the companies that have already been found to be under a conflict aren't also continuing to get something when they shouldn't be getting it?
This is not about assaulting the mom-and-pop shop that might be looking to get in on something; this is about people who have connections, and they're using them to improperly further their own means.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Patzer.
Before giving the floor to Ms. Rempel Garner, I want to tell Ms. Angus and Mr. Chhabra that they may leave the meeting if they wish, unless someone is vehemently opposed.
Lady and gentleman, thank you for joining us and taking part in this exercise.
The next speakers are Ms. Rempel Garner, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Drouin.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to make the case for this motion in the context of some of the comments Mr. Turnbull made.
First of all, thank you for acknowledging the support of the Harper government for promoting clean technologies. As I mentioned in my introduction to the committee, I actually spent a lot of time, prior to being elected, commercializing early-stage university technology, but with a specific focus on clean tech—clean energy tech—and I'm familiar with this space. I think we're all in agreement that ensuring there are funds available, whatever the structure looks like, to help Canadian start-up companies in the clean-tech space is important.
I'm going to get to the point here. I'm not filibustering. This is for the benefit of my colleagues in the Bloc and in the New Democratic Party. If I may, I'm trying seriously to make an argument on this for my colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP. I don't see this as being anti-small company. I actually see this as protecting the small companies, and here's why.
There was a reputational risk exposure to these companies when the conflict of interest came out—there was—and in order for us as parliamentarians to continue to recommend to the government in violent agreement that there should be some sort of support for clean energy companies, we have to make sure that this reputational risk has been removed. For anybody who was associated with a potential conflict of interest, it's about making sure that their governance now reflects what's happened in this committee, right?
To me, that's why the production of the documents is a good thing here. It's just a check, like, “Yep, this has been...”. It's so that after all of this exercise that's happened in this committee, anybody who's been involved in this conflict of interest is no longer in that position with the funds still flowing through to them. It's just a simple “Yes, there has been follow-up” or “No, there hasn't.” That to me is....
For the government, if everything has been done, then there should be no problem with releasing this information. What I like about how this motion is structured is that it doesn't require a study. It's just a production of documents. It's just a “Yes, this has been done” or “No, this has not been done”: check, check, check or not check, not check, not check. Also, the other thing is that if it hasn't been done, it will force the department and the minister to get it done.
For me, the insinuation that this motion is about hurting these industries.... No. This is about reputational risk that has been inflicted upon these companies by the malfeasance, frankly, of the federal government. By “malfeasance”, I mean lack of oversight. This is to ensure that if there was any reputational risk, it through a lack of oversight by the department.
All we are saying with this motion is to just make sure that any governance issue that might have been lingering as a result of everything this committee has uncovered has now been rectified. Then we can go to the public and say, “Yes, problem solved, yes, we can go forward, and yes, this is working”, because there are still questions about what's going on here. This is not asking for a study; this is saying, “Where's the proof that this has been done?” Frankly, I think that if I were on the board of one of these companies, I would be saying that this is a good thing, that it helps us and it gets us out of the woods.
This is a situation very similar to the argument that if there are members of Parliament listed in the NSICOP report and that the names can't be released in public, there's a cloud that hangs over everybody. What we're doing with this is saying that if the governance issues have been rectified, that's great. Put it out there: check, check, check and we're good to go.
I think this is an elegant solution because it doesn't require more committee meetings that I'm sure the minister doesn't want to go to. Again, if it is done as it should be done—and as the parliamentary secretary claims—there should be zero issues in issuing this. I think we should get on with it and vote in favour of this motion.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
[Inaudible—Editor] hear what Mr. Drouin has to say.
To answer MP Turnbull's questions, which I think MP Rempel Garner did extremely well, this, for those watching, is called a motion for production of documents. It doesn't take up any of the committee's study time. It's just saying, “Produce these documents.”
Why are these documents important? That's essentially what MP Turnbull was asking. This isn't some sort of determination by this committee of who should or should not get money. The production of the documents.... There are two basic documents. One is these things that have been referred to in every hearing so far on this issue and called “contribution agreements”.
SDTC, the green slush fund, is a foundation. It was a foundation set up by the Chrétien government. As such, it doesn't receive parliamentary appropriations like a Crown corporation does; it receives large lump sum amounts, the last one being just about four weeks before Minister Champagne took over, when $750 million was transferred from the federal government under former minister Bains before he went off to help raise cellphone rates for Rogers.
What does that do? Well, the industry department, which former minister Bains and Minister Champagne are responsible for, sets out an agreement with the board and the management of SDTC, the Liberal green slush fund, to say, “This is what you can spend money on within the parameters of how Parliament has allocated it, and you're limited to this.”
Why is that important? Well, I know this is a difficult thing sometimes for government members to accept, but the Auditor General is an officer of Parliament and is neutral. In the Auditor General's report, the Auditor General said that $58 million in taxpayer money.... That's a lot of money by anyone's standards. It's more than the sponsorship scandal under the Chrétien government, which was for $42 million funnelled to Liberal insiders. This $58 million is outside of the contribution agreement. That's not me: That's the Auditor General's finding, not just in a report, but in her testimony before committee.
Incredibly, former SDTC director Stephen Kukucha from British Columbia, who served in the office of former Liberal minister Anderson, who was also the organizer in British Columbia for Justin Trudeau, testified in committee that when he joined the SDTC board, they never gave him the contribution agreements to read—these secret documents. They're not out there. They're not available on the website. They've never done this. They've never released them, but yet the Auditor General is basing that $58 million on the fact that it's outside of the agreement.
They didn't even share them with SDTC board members. Talk about corporate governance failure under these Liberals. Annette Verschuren, Stephen Kukucha, Guy Ouimet, Andrée-Lise Méthot—all these people were appointed, including the nine directors who were found in conflict of interest 186 times by the Auditor General in her select examination of 226 transactions, which represents about half of what was done in that period of time. Of those 226, 186 were conflicted.
We're asking for those documents. I don't know why the government wants to prevent them from being released to the committee without redaction. The minister has said, and the deputy minister of industry has said, that some of this money should be paid back. Well, how do we know that some of these companies aren't now getting more money, the ones who got it outside of the contribution agreement or were in conflict? The only way is through transparency and tabling the documents.
Those are the two documents we're looking for. We're not looking for 12 more meetings on this. There are other things we can do on this at meetings, for sure, but to me, transparency, as somebody once said, is the best....
What is it? Sunshine is the best—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Disinfectant.
Why is the government not willing, if they have this great new process in place, with this great new board, to have that kind of transparency, at least the kind of transparency that the previous old SDTC green slush fund had? We have less now.
Those two documents are what we're asking for in the production of documents. It's not an issue of saying yea or nay on a particular company, as the Liberals like to imply. They see a bogeyman there. Maybe they are trying to hide the bogeyman. I don't know.
However, I can understand why every time we have a meeting, new evidence and new levels of incompetence and self-dealing are revealed. That's why this has gone on. Perhaps Liberal members should ask themselves why they are okay with that. Why don't they want to get to the bottom of it? Why do they keep saying...?
Every time we put forward a request for documents that have been revealed by testimony or every time we say, “Oh, look, the chair and the Liberal minister are contradicting each other, so let's have both of them here at committee to see who is lying”, the government resists. That tells me that they're not interested in the truth. They're not interested in getting to the bottom of it. If they were, they wouldn't oppose this motion.
If they have nothing to hide, release the documents.
Liberal
