I hear you.
Evidence of meeting #148 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 verschuren.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #148 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 verschuren.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Cooper....
Ms. Khalid, it is not helpful to accuse colleagues of lying, but I'm going to hear from you.
Liberal
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
Thank you so very much.
We live in the same universe. I would appreciate it if my colleagues across the way were more truthful in how they—
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Cooper, you too will have another turn.
Ms. Khalid, if you could, please conclude.
Liberal
Iqra Khalid Liberal Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON
You know, Chair, there's no way of getting through to them. That's fine.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Again, I appreciate words like “untruthful”. That's parliamentary. The other word I would urge all members to avoid.
Mr. Stewart, it's back to you for just over four and a half minutes.
October 30th, 2024 / 5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Auditor General made it abundantly clear that the blame for this scandal falls squarely on you as the former Liberal industry minister, and the current industry minister, who did not sufficiently monitor the contracts being given to Liberal insiders. The Auditor General found that the Liberal-appointed SDTC board gave $330 million of taxpayer money to companies for which the board members who voted to give out that money had a conflict of interest.
In addition, the Auditor General found that the same Liberal-appointed board approved another $59 million for projects that were not eligible for funding because they were outside of the SDTC foundation's mandate. The Auditor General said at least 10 of those projects did not even produce green technology or contribute to emission reductions whatsoever.
Last week, we had a senior official from the Privy Council office, the Prime Minister's own department, testify as we are trying to seek clarity on Annette Verschuren's appointment as chairperson in 2019. The lack of consistency in witness testimony certainly looks like a cover-up at the highest levels of the current government.
Ms. Verschuren testified that she did not apply for the chairperson role but was called two or three times by you, Mr. Bains, in your former role as industry minister, asking her to take the job. Leah Lawrence, the president of SDTC, also testified that Minister Bains absolutely called Annette Verschuren twice, or multiple times. This was after nearly a year-long selection process had already produced a short list of names for your consideration, but then suddenly Ms. Verschuren's name was suspiciously added, and she was appointed the chairperson on June 19, 2019. We have not been able to find out why there was a last-minute addition. It was certainly the beginning of the culture of corruption at the Liberals' green slush fund.
Ms. Verschuren testified at the industry committee on September 16 that she did not apply for the chair position. As I said earlier, she said you approached her two or three times to take the position of chair of the Liberals' green slush fund—
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it has nothing to do with debate. You've been pretty hard on us for reading something, and I'm pretty sure, although I respect Mr. Stewart, that he's reading as well, so we're just.... Apply the same rules you have given us, the same—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I'm sorry, Mr. Drouin. That is when we're debating a motion. In your time with a witness, you could read for five minutes, and it would not.... It's your five minutes. Members can read or they can cite evidence. There's no problem with that. It's when we're debating a motion that we require members to be....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Okay. Thank you.
You can back up, Mr. Stewart. I will give you a little more time.
Go ahead, please.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would submit that these are my own questions that were prepared, and because of the chronological order, I'm trying to keep them in line.
I'll go back to my questioning.
In your testimony to the public accounts committee on October 9, you stated that you couldn't recall asking her to take the position. I'm referring to Ms. Verschuren. Earlier today in your testimony, you stated it was “not uncommon” for you to call people to ask them to apply. These are your words, Mr. Bains.
Ms. Verschuren remembers you calling her two or three times, and Leah Lawrence remembers you calling her at least twice.
This is my question for you today. I can guarantee you that a proper answer is not, “As I stated earlier, this particular file wasn't my role.” I would like a real answer and a new one.
Why did the president and Annette Verschuren, between the two of them, remember as many as five phone calls, and you remember none? Why is that?
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
I'll cut you off there. I'm cutting you off because I didn't ask you if she applied; I asked you if you phoned her. Everybody remembers you phoning her except for you.
Therefore, I'm going to ask you again: Isn't it true that you called Ms. Verschuren and asked her to apply for the position? That's a yes or a no, to be very specific.
Conservative
Jake Stewart Conservative Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB
Thank you.
This is my last question, and quite frankly, it's the same question.
Former minister Bains, everyone in Canada knows that you called Annette Verschuren. Why can't you simply admit that you did that? You admitted that you called other people. Is it because you can't take accountability for this massive corruption of failure or that you won't take accountability? Clearly, you called others; you admitted it. Admit that you called her, and admit that it's a failure. That's my question. Admit it now while you still can.