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
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Well, if it's in camera, you can't speak about it until we agree in camera. We can set aside some of the meeting to discuss that so that you're not fenced in. I understand what you're trying to accomplish, and that's a fair point, but I guess what I'm still worried about is—
September 23rd, 2024 / 4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Masse, but so far, we're still debating the amendment proposed by Monsieur Généreux.
In the motion, there’s no mention of going in camera, so this discussion is somewhat pointless.
The discussion is moot right now because there is no proposal. We're still debating the amendment by Mr. Généreux.
Mr. Turnbull is next.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I thought the argument the Conservatives were making for why this is necessary was to move forward and ensure that the organization was accountable and abiding by certain guidance, etc., from the Auditor General's findings. However, Mr. Généreux is now requesting documents going back to 2018. We also have another committee that's looking into this. I don't understand why we would need to do this in this committee.
We just agreed as a committee, and we all came together in consensus, on a motion about what we were going to study. Remember, we did this earlier. We allotted time for the request the Conservatives made in the last meeting, which was to have the minister for two hours. We said, “Let's make that a priority. Let's get the minister here.” Okay.
They want to hear from the minister. In the last meeting, we had a debate. The minister is likely going to need to appear numerous other times, but no, they wanted the minister on his mandate for two hours, so we made that happen. Then we had Mr. Masse bring forward a good-faith motion to study a topic we all said was important. We said, “Let's pause Bill C-27. Let's do some of these other things.” Now, today, right after we finished that, we have another motion to go back to studying SDTC again.
Just a few months ago, the Conservatives called a Standing Order 106(4) meeting in the middle of the summer. Do you remember that? I don't know if you remember that day, but we all came together to have a meeting. It wasn't all that productive, I would say. We still scheduled the first meeting when we came back to have two hours with Annette Verschuren and an hour with the Ethics Commissioner. Again, we showed and signalled we were willing to get to the bottom of this and willing to work together as a committee
Where do we draw the line? We just keep going down this path of more and more. This issue has been studied. There's another committee looking into it. Why do we need to do this here? If public accounts is already doing this work, I don't see why we need to duplicate its efforts—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
We're the ones accountable in Parliament for the money spent by this department.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor. Mr. Perkins, you don't have the floor, but I'll....
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I feel that we're spinning our wheels here. We had the officials here today. We could have been productive on Bill C-27. It's unfortunate that they're no longer here.
I understand that Mr. Perkins has more motions that he wants to pass. I honestly don't see the need for document production going back to 2018, which is the amendment Mr. Généreux introduced. It's counter to the whole argument the Conservatives were making in the first place.
What is this really about? It just doesn't seem like it's consistent with the arguments that were made at the outset, so it's making me question the motives behind this motion.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Mr. Chair, I remember that, during the election in 2015, the Prime Minister very clearly said his government would be the most transparent ever to exist in Canada. Nine years later, there’s still a problem with transparency. Every time we make request for documents, like this one—requests which are, between you and me, very simple—they are always challenged. We have to justify why we are asking for those documents.
Essentially, what we are looking for is the truth. We want to know if things changed compared to how they were done before, in a transparent way. It is simple. I’ll stop there. Let’s move on to the vote and move on the next call.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
That’s music to my ears, Mr. Généreux.
I see that there are no other speakers on the list.
Madam Clerk, I therefore request a vote on Mr. Généreux’s amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4.)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
We now come back to the motion as initially tabled by Mr. Perkins.
Do you have any comments on the motion?
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I appreciate the point made by my colleague, Mr. Masse, to the effect that some of this information could be harmful to businesses which, in fact, did absolutely nothing fraudulent. As we know, there were problems at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, at the highest level, with the board of directors. It was documented. We were very hard on them, but it remains that SDTC is, in and of itself, a toxic name. The process requested here could be harmful to some businesses.
As I said earlier, I still think the Conservatives’ request for documents is legitimate. Personally, I would be inclined to support it if the words “without redactions” were removed. In my opinion, the government needs the option to hold back any information whatsoever that could be harmful to businesses. The committee has the privilege of requesting those documents again without redactions if it determines it was excessive.
My proposed amendment therefore simply removes the word “without” before the word “redactions.”
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Very well.
Did you all hear Mr. Garon’s proposal to remove “without” from “without redactions”?
The debate is open.
Mr. Turnbull, you have the floor.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I'm sorry, but maybe it's the French translation. I might be struggling to understand, so my apologies. I mean no offence to our translators. They're doing a great job, but I didn't quite understand whether—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Basically, after “June 4, 2024,” you would remove “without redactions”. It allows for redactions if you remove these two words. That's what, in essence, Mr. Garon's proposing.
