Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 27th, 2024

[Andrew Noseworthy]

Certainly.

Very quickly, the process was that the project review committee presented information to the board. That was the basis of the board's discussion. There was usually a small package on each individual project. A vice-president of the organization reviewed the project with the board. Board members asked questions. In some cases, there was a very fulsome conversation when there were questions. In some cases, I recall, there were very limited conversations around projects.

It was not unusual to have an animated discussion on specific projects, but I never saw any fundamental disagreements. It was more around challenging the evidence that was brought forward by the PRC.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

In all of those decisions—I don't know how many were made—how often did the board go against the recommendation of the project review committee?

[Andrew Noseworthy]

I don't recall the board ever going against the recommendation of the project review committee.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

In a sense, the board, even though there were animated discussions sometimes, essentially rubber-stamped each decision. The real decisions about whether to fund projects seemed to be made at the project review committee stage. If that's the case, please remind me, because again I'm new here, who sits on that committee.

[Andrew Noseworthy]

Mr. Chair, my understanding is the project review committee comprises some board members and, I believe, some staff. I have no particular insight into it, because I did not participate in it and have no window into its activities.

My impression is that it was, without question, the substantive venue for the detailed discussion and due diligence of projects. It is the place where experts were brought in to discuss the merits of projects and to provide views. It would have been the place where, I would say, the vast bulk of discussion on individual projects would have taken place.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

If you have a brief question, sir, go ahead.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Briefly, it comes back to the question about Zoom meetings.

If lots of these meetings were essentially Zoom meetings during the COVID-19 period, was leaving the room just leaving the Zoom room or going off-line? Is that all that happened?

[Andrew Noseworthy]

Mr. Chair, as I understand the situation, when people recused themselves, they went off-line and were then brought physically back in by the corporate secretary or someone else after the discussion of the specific project had been completed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

We have two more members to hear from.

Mr. Cooper, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Noseworthy, the Auditor General, in her report, noted that with respect to the $38.5 million in so-called COVID-19 relief payments, ISED supported SDTC's decision to funnel those monies out the door. Is that correct?

[Andrew Noseworthy]

We accepted the decision of the organization to provide that funding, yes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Notwithstanding that those monies did not comply with the contribution agreement.... Is that correct?

[Andrew Noseworthy]

The advice that we were working under is that as those projects were extensions of existing projects that had been previously approved, they were in compliance with the contribution agreement.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

The minister was informed of those payments. Is that correct? You stated that SDTC wrote to the minister.

[Andrew Noseworthy]

That is correct.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you for that.

I will now be moving a motion. It reads:

That, in relation to its study on Report 6, Sustainable Development Technology Canada of the 2024 Reports 5 to 7 of the Auditor General of Canada, in which the Committee is examining the Liberal government's $400 million Green Slush Fund corruption scandal, the Committee:

a) make the following interim report to the House: “Your committee wishes to admonish the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Minister of Environment and Climate Change for failing to make themselves available to give evidence on the Committee's examination of Sustainable Development Technology Canada despite being invited by the Committee on June 6, 2024, and October 7, 2024, respectively, and recommends that the House order that these ministers-in-hiding each appear before the Committee for two hours before the House recesses for the Christmas break.” and

b) if necessary, hold additional meetings to accommodate the ministers.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Cooper, could I ask if you have sent that motion to the clerk as of yet? if not, would you do that right away, please.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I believe so, and if not, we will do so momentarily.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to suspend for a few minutes. I'm going to consult with the clerk, and I'm going to endeavour to have the translated motion sent out very quickly.

Mr. Noseworthy, you can just hang around for a few minutes. If you'd like to get up and walk around, that's okay, but perhaps you could stay within earshot. You have about three to five minutes, anyway, until I come back.

Thank you.

We will suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to call the meeting back to order.

Mr. Noseworthy, can you hang tight for a few minutes? I'd like to take the temperature of the members to see whether this is going to be quick business or go on for a while. If it does, I will come back to you as soon as I can. I certainly won't belabour it, but we'll get a taste of the room and see where we're at.

Mr. Cooper, your motion is in order, and it has been sent out to members. You have the floor, sir.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This Liberal green slush fund scandal is massive. Four hundred million taxpayer dollars went out the door improperly, including $330 million involving 186 conflicts of interest among board members, and tens of millions of dollars funnelled directly into companies in which board members had interest. As we heard today, we have an assistant deputy minister who was the eyes and ears of the department sitting in on each of these meetings as money improperly went out the door, including instances of board members padding their own pockets and contravening the SDTC act.

What we also have are two ministers in Justin Trudeau's cabinet in hiding with a lot to answer for: environment minister Stephen Guilbeault and the ISED minister, François-Philippe Champagne.

This committee called on Minister Guilbeault to appear before it all the way back on June 6. It's now November 27 and Minister Guilbeault hasn't found the time to fit an appearance before this committee in his calendar. He is essentially thumbing his nose at this committee, at answering questions and at being accountable as minister.

Minister Guilbeault has a lot to answer for, because it was Minister Guilbeault who was a lobbyist for Cycle Capital and a close associate of Andrée-Lise Méthot, who is and was the CEO of Cycle Capital. She sat on the SDTC board when $10.4 million was funnelled illegally, in contravention of subsection 12(2) of the SDTC act, to companies in Cycle Capital's portfolio, in which Andrée-Lise Méthot had interest. This is a minister who lobbied, on behalf of Cycle Capital, the Prime Minister's Office 50 times, all the way up to the chief of staff. Minister Guilbeault is someone with interest in Cycle Capital who may have profited from the monies that improperly went out SDTC's door into Ms. Méthot's companies in Cycle Capital's portfolio. Minister Guilbeault sat around the cabinet table when it voted to approve 700 million taxpayer dollars going to this corrupt SDTC green slush fund.

Then there is Minister Champagne. It's been nearly two months since this committee invited Minister Champagne to appear before it. Minister Champagne, like Minister Guilbeault, is in hiding.

I have to say that Minister Champagne has an absolute responsibility to appear before this committee, because this green slush fund falls directly under the purview of his department. He is the minister responsible. It should be noted that many of the conflicts of interest and much of the corruption that took place at SDTC, which Minister Champagne is responsible for and must answer for by virtue of being minister, took place directly under Minister Champagne's watch, which provides that he has even more to answer for. It's not just that he inherited a mess in which things occurred before his time. Conflicts of interest, money improperly going out the door, self-dealing and corruption occurred directly under his watch as minister. Minister Champagne has a lot to answer for in terms of what appear to be his attempts to cover up the corruption, conflicts and mismanagement at SDTC.

Minister Champagne has repeatedly claimed that when he found out about the corruption and self-dealing, he took action. Well, how convenient, because all of this was happening while he was minister, and he did nothing until the whistle-blower was about to go public. Then, all of a sudden, when he realized that he had a scandal that was going to go public, Minister Champagne took an interest in the matter.

We know that RCGT was retained to undertake an independent fact-finding investigation. According to the whistle-blower, an interim report was prepared as far back as May 2023, with RCGT having been retained in March 2023.

According to the whistle-blower, much of what was in the interim RCGT report was damning. What was contained in that report ultimately has been confirmed by the Auditor General. Instead of seeing that the report be made public, according to the whistle-blower, the minister's office interfered in the release of that report.

In the whistle-blower's testimony before this committee on September 18, 2024, he said this with respect to the interim fact-finding report of RCGT:

All of this should have led to immediate action, but once those findings reached the Privy Council Office and the minister's office, everything changed. The investigation was delayed for another four months, allowing SDTC to continue misusing funds and mistreating employees, when at this point the federal government had in fact known this was true.

Minister Champagne needs to come to committee and needs to answer questions about that. Not only that, according to the whistle-blower, between May and when the RCGT report was finally released, Minister Champagne and his office were involved in tampering with and demanding material alterations to the RCGT report to water it down.

According to the whistle-blower, by late August or early September, there were discussions at ISED about firing the SDTC board and about firing the corrupt executives at SDTC, but suddenly, when the minister got wind of it, that changed. That didn't happen. We know that it was in fact what didn't happen, because when the RCGT report was issued in October, which was a damning report with much, if not all, of it supported by the Auditor General's later report—and by the way, the Auditor General found even more damning evidence in terms of what was going on at SDTC—the minister kept the board in place, including the corrupt and conflicted chair, Annette Verschuren.

For all of these reasons and more, we need to hear from Minister Champagne. These ministers, in this Justin Trudeau government, a government that really is defined by a culture of corruption and by a complete lack of transparency, need to be hauled before this committee, and they need to answer questions about what they knew about corruption and mismanagement at SDTC.

I would hope that members would support this motion so that we can hear from these ministers as soon as possible. It's time that they get out of hiding and come before the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Up next is Mr. Drouin.

You have the floor, please.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand my colleague's accusations. This proves just how much he has absolutely no interest in what really happened at Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

His motion has already been moved, and accusations have already been made. In some respects, we don't have a problem with the intent of the motion. However, the preamble is unacceptable.

In fact, it would be like me telling the chair that I wanted to invite the members of the Conservative Party, because they weren't being honest with Canadian taxpayers; they took part in partisan activities using Canadian taxpayers' money; they took part in caucus meetings while they were at a partisan meeting held in Quebec City, for example. We have ample evidence. The chair ruled on this motion as being out of order. I don't want to make accusations, but I would like to know how to get to the truth. I know that a number of accusations have been made against Mr. Guilbeault, particularly by Mr. Cooper and Mr. Perkins, but I don't agree with them.

Andrée‑Lise Méthot testified before the committee, and she was accompanied by her lawyer. She warned them that they had the privilege of having the protection of Parliament and that she could not sue them for things they had said. That's why they're repeating it here, and I understand that.

Furthermore, as you know very well, Mr. Chair, I won't be running in the next election, but I respect the people. I'm prepared to repeat everything I say here outside the House of Commons and on Wellington Street, without the protection of Parliament. However, my colleagues don't have the courage to do the same thing. They didn't, and I understand that.

They always talk about Mr. Guilbeault, and the fact that certain actions made him suddenly richer. We heard from the CEO, who explained to us that she manages assets, whether they are worth $1 or $100 million. If the asset is worth $1 and the return on investment is worth $100 million, that's one thing, but if you manage $600 million and the assets don't generate any money, that's something else. I think my colleagues on the other side of the table don't understand finance. I invite them to go back to university and take a basic accounting course. That way, they would understand how things work.

Whether the value of an asset is $2 or $1 billion, the return on investment is always what matters, but my colleagues are confusing these two things. They've never had the courage to say outside what they're saying here. They just have the courage to say it while they have the protection of parliamentary privilege. They never had the courage to say it outside the committee room. I invite them to say the same thing on Wellington Street, on Sparks Street or on Bank Street, because—

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

On a point of order, I've said lots outside. You just don't pay attention.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

It seems that some people are offended by what I'm saying.