Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to speak in strong support of this motion, which is imperative in getting to the bottom of how Annette Verschuren was appointed chair of SDTC—notwithstanding the fact that her companies had received $20 million dollars in funding, putting her in multiple conflicts of interest—and how it is that the first time in the history of SDTC that a chair was appointed, the Liberals decided to appoint an individual who had multiple conflicts.
What followed her appointment by the Liberals, by Minister Bains, was a corrupt racket in which taxpayers got ripped off as Liberal insiders got rich. That has been confirmed by the findings of the Auditor General, who found that $390 million of taxpayer money improperly went out the door, including 330 million taxpayer dollars that were funnelled into the pockets, or at least into the companies, of board members. The Auditor General identified 186 conflicts of interest. That is the result of Minister Bains's decision to appoint Annette Verschuren.
What we saw in multiple hearings, including those in which former minister Bains came in, obfuscated and refused to take responsibility, was a whole lot of smoke and mirrors. No one wants to take responsibility for the decision, even though we know that ultimately it was a decision made by Minister Bains. When he came to this committee, he said his responsibility as minister was to make appointments, but then when he was pressed about the appointment of Verschuren, he said, oh, well, it really wasn't my decision; there was a process. It was an open, transparent and merit-based process. It was led by PCO, and essentially PCO made the decision, and he had to live with it.
He didn't expressly state that, but that is in essence what his answers were when I repeatedly asked him if he accepted responsibility for the appointment of Verschuren. Not once did he acknowledge that the buck stopped with him, that it was his decision. He didn't take responsibility.
What's worse is that Minister Bains left this committee with the impression that he had two names: Verschuren and one other individual, who then withdrew. He left this committee with the impression, and he certainly didn't clarify the record, that the process was the process and he was respecting the process—nothing more than that. We now know that wasn't true. We know today that Minister Bains had six names that were provided in the advice letter from PCO. What happened to the other names?
It appears that they weren't considered, and that Minister Bains and the PMO were determined to appoint Verschuren. Why else is it that former CEO Leah Lawrence was specifically instructed by Minister Bains to talk to Verschuren, but she wasn't asked to talk to anyone else? Why? Why wasn't she asked to talk to the other four individuals? One withdrew because they had a conflict. What happened to the other four names?
Why was Leah Lawrence left with the impression that there were only two names, one of whom had withdrawn? Why did Minister Bains specifically identify Verschuren?
Again, I underscore that someone had conflicts of interest. To her credit—and I'll give her very limited credit—at least she identified that she had conflicts, but the minister evidently didn't give a damn about those conflicts. We now have what we have, which is $390 million of taxpayers' money that has essentially been misallocated, misappropriated and funnelled into the companies of a bunch of Liberal insiders. It makes the sponsorship scandal look small in comparison.
To that end, we need to get the letter; we need to get the minutes and we need to get the communications. We need to get to the bottom of what the hell was going on with the minister and with the PMO that led to the appointment of Verschuren. By the way, the documents produced by the government in response to the June order, to go back to the point that was raised by Ms. Yip, have not been tabled in the House; nor are they public.
Frankly, that was by deliberate design. First, it was to avoid the need for translation and all the delays that come with that. Second, it was to minimize any reasonable arguments the government might make to justify the redactions. Third, it was to be consistent with our motivations that the motion was about getting the information to the Mounties.
Where Ms. Yip was going, with the greatest of respect, is just not correct. It's not accurate, and it underscores why this motion needs to pass and why we need to get these documents, these communications, to this committee as expeditiously as possible. It's so that we can continue to probe to get to the bottom of how Canadian taxpayers got ripped off to the tune of $390 million and how Liberal insiders appointed by Navdeep Bains got rich.