Evidence of meeting #137 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
I thank the member for his outrage, however that may be. I want to clarify that when I was talking about my first amendment, striking “Minister of Innovation” and replacing it with “Government of Canada”, it was not to go willy-nilly all over. It was specifically in the context of this motion: How do we get to what this motion is asking for?
What I'm trying to say is that, based on my experience, based on what we've heard in testimony, it is not one department that is responsible here in terms of recuperating the funds. It is, practically speaking, better for this committee to expand it. Let's make this process easier. Let's not get wound down, going after a single minister. Clearly, members spend a lot of time on that minister's Twitter feed. I'm sure they can find better things to do with their time, quite frankly, because the minister gets around so much everywhere. What I'm trying to say here is that I proposed this amendment for us to be practical in how we're able to do what the motion is asking for.
Secondly, when I listed a company, I was talking about the general disdain for how Parliament is currently conducting itself with businesses. We heard PCO officials tell us today how worried they are about the implications, about people's dissuasion from actually engaging with any public office because of the kind of bleep show they have to go through as they try to do the right thing for the country and as they try to grow their businesses. It is not about percentages. It is about public perception. It is about the trust we can build within our industry—within the clean-tech sector, for example.
I'm not disagreeing with the member on the intention of his motion. I am trying to make two small tweaks that will help us to get to the objective he's trying to reach in the first place. Again, we're trying to have an open and honest debate here about how we're going to achieve what we're trying to achieve in this public accounts committee, which is to hold departments and organizations to account for every single dollar they spend and to ensure that there is public accountability. At the same time, I'm also saying that there should be public trust in the institutions that are functioning here. By doing what the opposition has been doing thus far, we're diminishing that trust.
The clean-tech sector is a massive part of what is happening in the future of our industry. We have heard from witnesses here in this committee how important it is, what the objective of this is, and what we can achieve if it's improved and it's made sure that there is further accountability and oversight, which the minister has taken responsibility for and has taken action on before, and the Auditor General has provided recommendations on, which also are now on the way to being implemented.
What I'm saying in these two amendments that I'm proposing is let's find the balance, guys. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let's make sure we are being responsible with the privileges we have and with the responsibilities we have in this committee. Let's ensure that we are trying to practically achieve the objectives of what it is we're trying to achieve.
Now, I can go ahead and say, well, perhaps the opposition doesn't want to achieve the objectives. They want to go down another path. They want to go down and find and accuse anybody and everybody and kill a complete industry, but I'm not going to do that, because I believe in my heart of hearts that the members of this committee genuinely care about the clean-tech sector.
What I'm saying is that your actions are not showing us that. Let's be nuanced. Let's be balanced, and let's ensure that we go about this in a such way that industry is still maintained while also ensuring that we are creating further accountability for taxpayer dollars.
Again, I'm happy to receive any comments from colleagues, but I really think that these two amendments.... Well, it's actually one amendment with two points, and it proposes a very reasonable way for us to move forward on this motion. As I said to Mr. Perkins, I really appreciate the intent of this motion, and I'm hoping, on his gentleman's honour, that this is not another clickbait-type scenario where the industry ultimately gets punished collaterally for the actions of a very few.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
We'll now move to a vote. Voting yes will strike “Minister of Innovation, Science, and Industry” and replace it with “Government of Canada”, as well as removing “within 100 days following the adoption of this motion”. Voting no will maintain the motion as it was tabled by Mr. Perkins.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Brock, you have an issue you'd like to raise. The floor is yours.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Yes. I'd like to move a motion, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
The motion reads:
That, in relation to the press release issued by Minister Champagne on June 4, 2024, announcing resumed funding to SDTC projects under reinforced contribution agreements signed with ISED, the committee orders the production of all such contribution agreements and that they be deposited with the clerk of the committee within 14 days following the adoption of this motion.
The purpose—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Let me pause, and you'll have the floor again.
Could you or a member of your team submit the motion to the clerk?
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Mr. Chair, could we just suspend while we receive that motion?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Sure.
Let me hear a few words from Mr. Brock, which will give us a sense...or would you rather...?
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Well, my words will be more than a few, so perhaps we should suspend momentarily.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
All right, I will suspend for approximately five minutes. If I see interaction—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Well, I'll tell you what. If I see interaction, I'll come see you. It'll be five to 10 minutes, but if I see people just sitting around—
Liberal
September 5th, 2024 / 2:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Yes, I know, but I'll read the room. I will call us back within 10 minutes.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Can you wait until I get back, Mr. Chair? Would that be okay?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
No, Mr. Brock has a long opening. I'll call us back within 10 minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I call this meeting back to order.
Mr. Brock, you have the floor, please.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Thank you, Chair.
All right. There is, in our respectful opinion on the Conservative bench, great value and relevancy to this particular motion. I'll break it down.
It was a pivotal moment for Minister Champagne to make the announcement he made on June 4. As you know, for several months prior to that, there was a suspension of funding, which began in the fall of 2023. I have pulled the Government of Canada press release from that particular date, June 4. He was quoted in this particular document, and he indicated:
Effective immediately—
I read that to mean June 4, 2024.
—SDTC will also resume funding, under a reinforced contribution agreement with ISED, for eligible projects in a sector vital to our country’s economy and clean growth transition. In line with the Auditor General’s findings, my Department will enhance oversight and monitoring of funding during the transition period.
We have a number of difficulties with that statement. It requires clarification. The first observation I would make is that on resuming funding, I don't know if that's actually accurate. It may have occurred. There may be partial funding, but I'm not so sure about a full resumption of funding.
I raise these issues, Mr. Chair, because of an article that was produced yesterday, on September 4, 2024, in which Peter McArthur was quoted. Peter McArthur, for the record, is the chair of the Ontario Clean Technology Industry Association. While he speaks about the impacts the suspension had on the industry, what's quite noteworthy in this document is that, “To this day,” effective September 4, 2024, “McArthur told the Star, the money has yet to start flowing again.”
Obviously, both versions of that statement can't be true at the same time. Is Mr. McArthur in error? I don't think so, given his position in the industry. Is the minister in error? Is the minister trying to give the impression that all is well; lessons have been learned and a new set-up is in place to restore the confidence of Canadians in this particular program? We don't know.
This isn't the first time the integrity and the character of Minister Champagne have been brought into question at this committee and other committees. We know the whistle-blower at SDTC, who ultimately resigned—he was not fired—did not receive a compensation payout and did not receive any other bonuses. He simply resigned. He has nothing to lose. He made it abundantly clear at committee. Again, I apologize, sir, if I can't be precise about which committee he testified at. It could have been at industry. I could be mistaken. However, he testified quite clearly that Minister Champagne lied. He lied to committee; he lied to parliamentarians and he lied to Canadians about when he first found out about the irregularities at SDTC.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Brock, I appreciate your tone and everything, but if you could just avoid unparliamentary language—
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
It's not for me. I'm quoting the whistle-blower. The whistle-blower quite clearly indicated that he lied. They're not my words.
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Sure.
We have evidence against this backdrop that has been produced in the last several weeks that an assistant deputy minister of Minister Champagne's department actually attended each and every board meeting at SDTC. Clearly, he should have brought all of these issues regarding the conflicts of interest to the attention of his deputy minister, who in turn reports directly to Minister Champagne. Therefore, to suggest that Minister Champagne only found out about the issues in the fall of 2023, I believe, is disingenuous.
To further reinforce that point, Mr. Chair, we have the tape-recorded conversations with Assistant Deputy Minister McConnachie, who didn't realize he was being recorded by the whistle-blower. McConnachie was very, very concerned, to the point of simply saying—and I'm paraphrasing—“The minister's going to freak out. Minister Champagne is going to freak out when he hears about what's going on at SDTC. He's going to want to shut it all down.”
Now, are we to believe—are Canadians expected to believe—that the strong commentary from the assistant deputy minister was not shared with the DM or Minister Champagne? I think that's a pretty big stretch.
Again, these are my words, Chair, not the words of the whistle-blower. The integrity and character of Minister Champagne are clearly at issue here.
What we also found out on Tuesday—and this is from questions I put to the representatives of the NRC—is that they're not supervising or monitoring what's going on currently at SDTC. They have nothing to do with it. To our point that we made on Tuesday, Mr. Chair, it's essentially the same old operations at SDTC, with a new chair and two new directors.
Now, I had questions to put to NRC officials, but I chose not to ask them because, clearly, they would have said to me, “I'm sorry, Mr. Brock. We don't know that answer.” One question would have been, “What are the reinforced terms of the contribution agreement?” We know it's not listed anywhere on the ISED website. It's not listed anywhere on the SDTC website. What does “reinforced contribution agreement” mean?
We, as parliamentarians, Mr. Chair, should have access to those agreements so that we can review the terms and determine whether they're consistent with the old contribution agreements that were so readily not followed. That's a concern we have that's reflected in the motion.
The other issue is where he says his department “will enhance oversight and monitoring of funding”. What does that mean? We simply don't know. To what extent are the new chair and the new directors providing appropriate governmental oversight to the same old SDTC? We simply don't know.
Therefore, I think it's incumbent upon this committee, sir, to obtain those documents, verify that they do exist, and determine, contrast and compare how they improve the oversight mechanism and how they provide assurances to Canadians that we're not going to go down the same old road of Liberal insiders greasing their pockets again on the taxpayer dime.
I hope every committee member will find favour in having access to documents so that we can discharge our respective responsibilities. What we need here is transparency. What we need here is accountability. We all know that sunshine is the best recipe for transparency. That's why I think this motion has merit, and I would encourage all my colleagues to support it.
Thank you.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
I'm sorry, Chair. I wasn't sure if there were any hands raised among our colleagues who have joined us virtually here today.
I'm a little bit perplexed, Chair. I would quote my colleague, and the number of times he has said “may” or “may not”. You know, whether it is one thing or the other, this is a bit challenging for me. I'm not sure what the objective of this motion is. I'm not sure whether this is the right committee for this motion to be presented in.
I will read the motion right now. It says:
...the press release issued by Minister Champagne...announcing resumed funding to Sustainable Development Technology Canada projects under reinforced contribution agreements signed with the Department of Industry, the committee orders the production of all such contribution agreements and that they be deposited with the clerk of the committee within 14 days following the adoption of this motion.
That is probably one of the vaguest motions I've seen in a very long time, given the context of why we're here and what we're doing here. I've seen so many of my colleagues over these years as a young Liberal and as I was going through law school and really actively participating in just keeping an eye on what happens in Canadian democracy. I remember past governments and Conservative members, including their opposition leader, posing with companies with massive cheques and saying, “Hey, look at what we did. Look at what we did.”
I'm not sure if that's the angle they're trying to get at, that members of Parliament should not celebrate the success of industry or should recuse themselves if money is being doled out in positive ways. I don't want to take away from the importance of the SDTC study that is going on here, because I do not agree with any wrongdoing in the use of taxpayer dollars, but at the same time, isn't it the objective of the Minister of Industry to promote Canadian industry? As I said earlier with....
I'll perhaps pause while the Conservatives are conferring over there, Chair.