Debates of June 6th, 2024

Opposition Motion—Documents Regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the idea of sustainable development and funding green projects is something that is worthwhile. I would like to think that all political parties in the House support it, with the possible exception of the Conservative-Reform party.

Looking at it, yes, obviously everyone in the chamber recognizes that something is wrong here. The minister took immediate action, and the National Research Council is going to, in essence, ensure that we can continue to have funding ongoing while we address the concerns that have come out.

Would the member not agree that to have a government agency, such as NRC, take responsibility for this important file is a positive step forward?

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that it is too little, too late. In paragraph 6.52 of the report, the Auditor General says, “We found that the department knew of 96 cases when directors declared conflicts of interest because it had access to the meeting minutes and materials of the board of directors.”

The department had access to all kinds of documents. It never asked questions about ineligible projects or about recovering funds from those projects. The department simply did not deal with what was happening at Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC. What a crying shame that it is now getting rid of SDTC altogether without a plan B.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, the NDP supports this motion because Canadians expect that their tax dollars will be managed responsibly and will not be used to appoint political appointees and other corporate friends. We absolutely support getting answers about the financial mismanagement, conflict of interests and toxic workplace at Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

I wonder if the member would agree that, while the Liberals are saying that they have done what they can, they have not done enough, which has led to the important motion we are debating today.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, the Liberal government did not do enough in recent years to monitor what was going on. It sent money, but it did nothing to monitor what was being used and what was being done with that money.

Second, suggesting that getting rid of SDTC will fix everything is absolutely ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that eliminating a fund and transferring the money and the employees to the National Research Council will fix everything. These are the same employees. What is more, the eligibility criteria for projects to get funding remain unclear.

What is going to happen? We do not know.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to follow my colleague from Terrebonne, but I will do my best to address the day's topic, the production of documents following the three rather explosive reports just made public by the Auditor General of Canada.

I will quickly address the Conservatives' motion because I may have a few proposals to make at the end of my speech. The Conservatives' motion essentially asks that the House order the government and Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, to produce several documents within 14 days following the potential adoption of the motion.

They want all files, documents, briefing notes, memoranda, emails or any other correspondence exchanged among government officials regarding SDTC; contribution and funding agreements to which SDTC is a party; records detailing financial information of SDTC; SDTC conflict of interest declarations, which we will be talking about in detail; briefing notes and so on. They also want these documents to be provided to the RCMP for its independent determination of whether to investigate potential offences under the Criminal Code. I will circle back to that later as well.

In short, this motion relates to the performance audit of SDTC submitted by the Auditor General of Canada two days ago, on June 4. The Auditor General looked into the organization's activities between April 1, 2017, and December 31, 2023, and her findings were as numerous as they were damning. Let me name a few.

She revealed that SDTC “did not always manage public funds in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contribution agreements for the Sustainable Development Technology Fund”. That was the basis for her findings. She also revealed that “the foundation had not established targets or clear guidance for assessing eligibility criteria” of the projects it was going to fund. Despite the eligibility criteria, when it finally arrived at the conclusion that a project was ineligible, in some cases, the foundation gave the projects funding even if they did not support the development or demonstration of a new technology, or if “their projected environmental benefits” had been exaggerated.

The foundation did not inform Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada of funding that needed to be recovered. The foundation poorly managed its conflicts of interest in several respects. Its records show that “the conflict-of-interest policies were not followed in 90 cases”. The foundation's conflict-of-interest policies simply did not comply with its enabling legislation. It did not even have an “effective system to maintain records over disclosures of conflicts of interest and related mitigating actions.” SDTC's conflicts of interest were linked to approval decisions representing nearly $76 million in funding awarded to projects. This is no small matter. The foundation did not declare its conflicts of interest to the department. The board of directors failed “to oversee the foundation's compliance with key legal requirements.” Right from the start, the board was not set up correctly, since the number of directors did not comply with the enabling legislation. There were only two, rather than the 15 who were supposed to sit on the board.

Nevertheless, SDTC should not take all the blame. The minister did not provide sufficient oversight of the foundation's use of public funds. That, my friends, is another problem. Despite whistle-blowers having sounded the alarm a long time ago, nothing was done. As one of my colleagues, the member for Mirabel, mentioned in his question to a Conservative member, former minister Navdeep Bains could have requested audits but did not. As the saying goes, the longer we wait the worse things get. In this case, the wait was long indeed, and things went from bad to worse.

In short, what the Auditor General of Canada did two days ago was to finally confirm what we have suspected for months. She tabled three reports the same day and with the same ultimate finding, which is especially striking: The Liberals have completely lost control of the machinery of government. If we needed another blatant example of this, we got one today.

As my colleague from Terrebonne mentioned yesterday during a question, Ottawa should get its own house in order instead of trying to manage the provinces. It should begin by doing its own job before trying to do everyone else's. This shows there are systemic problems within the machinery of government. The widespread trend to contract out and create increasing distance between the government and the projects it manages leads to an absence of accountability and transparency. This doubles and even triples the number of intermediaries, causing us to lose the thread concerning who does what. We are unable to follow the money, and we lose track of everything. This is probably something the government can at last understand. It truly tends to be incapable of following up on programs because they have been outsourced to third parties.

If the government were asked to do an eight-piece puzzle, it would probably not be above making sure the puzzle was manufactured by a Liberal and creating a non-government agency specializing in solving puzzles. It might even hire a consulting firm to get engineering advice about puzzles, but it would certainly not be able to determine how much it ended up costing them to finish the stupid puzzle. It might not even be able to finish it because one of the pieces was lost in the sofa cushions. That is how the current government is running things, and here we have a clear example of that.

Essentially, the problem is that we need to support the development of sustainable technologies. At a time when climate change is likely to cause not only health problems, but economic problems as well, we need to deal with it and develop technologies that can help mitigate it. The problem is that, by suspending funding activities for SDTC because it was so rotten, they also suspended the funding needed to develop these technologies.

In the meantime, we are continuing to fund oil companies and engage in greenwashing by asking the same oil companies to develop their own sustainable technologies. Ultimately, it probably suits the Conservatives to be able to blame the government for its poor management inasmuch as we know they are climate change deniers, but we still need to tackle the underlying problem and fund the development of green technologies.

That being said, there are interesting things in the Conservatives' motion. My colleague alluded to them. Asking for the rapid production of numerous documents may help us prevent a few of them from getting lost in the sofa cushions. They are sending the message that members of Parliament intend to look into the matter, which is not bad in itself. We need to shed light on this issue to make the government stop constantly delegating its authority and its project management to other entities. Let us not forget the importance of transparency in the government's management of different projects and the subsidies it grants.

However, there are two things in this motion that bother us, and we need to point them out. They are asking that the documents be produced within 14 days of the adoption of the motion. The Conservatives appear to have forgotten that there are two official languages and that the Bloc Québécois works in French. Fourteen days will not be sufficient to have all of the requested documents translated. It might be a good idea to show a little flexibility in this respect without going overboard.

Furthermore, regarding involving the RCMP, as worded, the motion seems to be giving the RCMP instructions rather than simply allowing it to access documents, which it would be more than capable of obtaining through warrants, anyway. In short, we are open to talking with the Conservatives about minor amendments to their proposal.

We invite them to come talk to us. We will be in the House fairly late this evening anyway. Properly managing the Liberals' legislative agenda means we will be working for quite a while. The Conservatives should not hesitate to come see us to discuss proposals and amendments. We are always open to discussion.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, earlier today, we had a Liberal member stand up and say that the government has done what it set out to do. When one looks at 186 breaches of conflict of interest in SDTC alone, the government definitely set out to do what it wanted to do, which was to reward Liberal friends with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.

Does my colleague see that particular issue as well with the current government?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I said already, when we create parallel entities and delegate, including to firms or boards, the important principle of government accountability tends to get lost. This is the crux of the issue, of which Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, is just one example.

The way the government manages its affairs and its propensity to constantly delegate need to be examined. It is systemic. Decisions are being made further and further away from the government, which can then distance itself from them. Furthermore, the traceability of many decisions is lost. This is what we have to fix.

SDTC is a symptom. It is the disease that causes the symptom. That is what we must tackle. We have another blatant example of that here.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that SDTC was an arm's-length organization from the government. When it was brought to the attention of the government, immediate actions were in fact taken. Ultimately, today, it has now been given over to NRC to ensure that we can continue to deal with things that are affecting our water, energy and agricultural communities, and to make sure that the good work being done is allowed to continue while we continue to address what the auditor referenced this week.

Would the member not agree that having NRC take over is the responsible thing to do? Through NRC, it would be more direct, in terms of the government because it is a Crown corporation.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the problem is that we never should have reached this point. It was said earlier. Minister Navdeep Bains was informed, and he did nothing. He did not request an audit. Shutting down SDTC is the nuclear option.

It might have been better to do things differently. We know this type of program is the product of the government's obvious desire to create a fiscal imbalance, stop funding the provinces and keep their money in an effort to prove that the federal government is the one that gets things done. The federal government is the one that creates agencies, gives funding and grants subsidies.

Quebec, however, had Transition énergétique Québec, which, incidentally, operated in partnership with SDTC. It could manage such a fund. Since Quebec is a leader in developing sustainable technologies, I put the suggestion out there.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to take the Liberals seriously when they talk about climate change.

This is a perfect example right here. They have $37 billion-plus for a pipeline, and at the same time, they actually bought the pipeline, managed the pipeline and continue to put all the resources into the pipeline. Meanwhile, the Liberals created an agency independent from the government, they claim, with all hands-off, so they have no responsibility, no accountability, and they let the workforce down by making them the scapegoats for sustainable investment and projects.

Could the member tell us how we can even take the Liberals seriously when the numbers for the investments and the strategy do not actually coincide with the rhetoric?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the question clearly shows where the government's priorities are in terms of climate.

If we had applied the same criteria to Trans Mountain as those used for the SDTC in abandoning the whole project, we would have pulled out of Trans Mountain a long time ago. Finally, funding was secured, which went far beyond what was originally estimated, to end the damned project because it is oil and that is one of the priorities of a government that, despite everything, tries to make us believe it is green.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Griesbach.

This issue is serious. New Democrats will support this motion. We have supported shedding more light on this because we believe in the support of sustainable technology, but it has to be done with accountability and it has to be done with a process that builds public confidence. This motion would provide a clearer path of where we need to go because the Liberals continue to be in some type of spin cycle that they cannot get out of and will continue to be in until there is actually justice on this file.

SDTC was created under Jean Chrétien's government. It has survived all the way through successive Liberal and Conservative governments over this period of time and, most recently, it has poked its head out again because the workers brought forth the erosion of a good program and some good investments that were costing Canadians.

What is important to recognize, too, is that all the other competition that was going on for money in SDTC, which is 100% publicly funded, was lost because corrupt and poor decision-making processes, political interference and intimidation sent money to projects that should not have been supported. By the organization's own internal investigations, which are now shedding more light, it probably had political favouritism involved at the very least. That is unfortunate because all those other companies, investment strategies, programs and services are now cast in doubt. To this day, we have not recovered a single cent from all that money that went out there.

The practices got so bad that during the pandemic the government just decided it was going to give everybody a 5% raise because it could not bother to go through the files. The government gave up and decided to just give everybody 5% more across the board in funding. On top of that, there was also 10% more for some select companies and, surprise, surprise, familiar names have popped up and political connections have popped up. There still has not been a word from the government about what it is going to do about that.

During that process, some managers were getting bonuses. They should have declared a conflict of interest. Some managers would get their packages, would go into the boardroom and would know it was all on the table there. They would leave for a moment and then they would come right back into the same room. They would do that over and over. What was awful was that there was a direct connection to the minister's office because we had a public servant staffer in there.

During all that decision-making process, all that camaraderie and all that time at the board table, there was no information apparently brought back to the minister; nor recognition at a time when we had not one, not two, but now three reports about how poorly it operated, about how poor the decision-making process was and about the culture of racism and sexism. An attack on French workers as well was noted in terms of the whistle-blowers. Some people lost their jobs and they had to sign non-disclosure agreements just to get out of there so they and their families could be protected.

I had an amendment that I wanted to propose today that would call on the government to apologize. Neither the government nor the minister nor anybody has apologized to these workers and their families for the stress that they went through every day having to go into a toxic workplace, being pressed to hand out government money to people it should not have gone to, and being maligned in the public as SDTC spokespeople defended the organization and the culture there at the expense of the whistle-blowers.

I had a motion that was ruled out of order because of the document requirement. Part of this motion is different from what I was proposing, so we will look for another way to have the government to at least say sorry. How sad is it that I had to come here today to get the government to say sorry to the whistle-blowers?

I want to go back for a second. Let us recognize what has happened here. The government created SDTC at so-called arm's length because then the workers were not unionized and it had fewer supports and structures for workers and their families.

I asked the government if it would at least, in all these months of investigations and circuses, allow those employees to get out of this toxic environment and have another public service job, but no, the government could not even do that. It could not even do that for the remaining people who have held the line and done the right things. We still do not know who is going to be migrated over to the other agency.

They do have an association, so there will be better rights there. I do not know the full story right now, and we do not even know if that is what they wanted. Perhaps some of them still wanted to go somewhere else and start a new chapter, doing the right thing. We should have at least provided the choice for them. The government has not done that, and part of that is because of its insincerity in protecting workers. The government's recent decision on anti-scab legislation does not mean it has changed its culture against workers.

I asked that there be an independent evaluation to determine whether managers and people in authority, including board members, should keep their positions and be migrated. That is a fair thing, because there are probably some good people in there who do not need to be blanketed as part of the problem of workplace bullying.

We had the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton report, the confidential report of the special committee and the Osler report. The Privy Council Office got a report, and now we have the Auditor General's report, all because a number of people raised issues about people like Annette Verschuren and others who were in conflict of interest in deciding where money should go and where it should not go. This is the biggest part of this that we want to fix, if we are going to have the confidence of the public for doing work for sustainable technology.

I asked my colleague where the Liberals are on this, so let us get an idea here. The Liberals continue to leave all these people on their own. They cannot say sorry, but they had enough energy to buy a pipeline and manage the politics of a pipeline, at 37 times the cost and with less accountability. They are putting that on the shoulders of the workers to whom they still cannot even say they are sorry.

An interesting thing has come about in this culture that still exists under Liberals. I recently got a document. As we are looking at a potential strike and border closure, here is what the departments under the governance of the President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Public Safety should know about. Their management plan right now to deal with our customs officers on the front line is an email that went out to their staff and to the unionized workers saying:

As stress and anxiety rise with the pending strike deadline of Friday, June 7th, 2024 16:00EST, we wanted to send out some clarifying information to our team. Some officers across the county have received letters deeming their positions “essential”. In essence, this means that they are to report to work for duty (our team) despite being in a legal strike position. These determinations were made with PSAC and TB collaboration. For those officers who did not receive notification and therefore were not deemed “essential”, you have the choice to either participate in the legal strike actions or continue to report to your current work (our team). Whatever decision each team member makes will be respected and kept private. We will not be disclosing who was deemed essential and who was not. We will continue to support each other and continue to ensure our team is a healthy, supportive team, free of any harassment. Should any team members who were not deemed “essential” decide to continue to report to work, please PRIVATELY email me...as such reporting will be recorded to ensure those who reported are continued to be paid.

This attempts to bring in scabs and break the union. Right now, our border could be closed for the economy and is being compromised for safety. The President of the Treasury Board has a recommendation to treat these workers like every other border officer and every other public safety officer by giving them the “25 years and out” and also ensuring the workplace is safe for all of us.

Shame on the Liberals for the continuing practices of their management and for not caring about the workers who actually fight for Canadians every single day.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have seen, since this began to unfold quite some time ago, that the current minister gets up and claims that as soon as the government knew there were governance problems, its members took swift action. We have heard that talking point repeatedly today during this debate, and it is false.

We know that this goes right back to 2017 and the behaviour of the former minister, and we know it was only through the whistle-blowers, the workers themselves, who brought this to the public's attention at tremendous personal cost to themselves, that we even know the depths of the corruption at work here.

As such, I wonder if the member could correct the record with respect to the false narrative from the Liberals that they took immediate action.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the proof is in the reports that were identified, brought in and have lingered for years, even the external ones that had to be approved by the minister's office to be investigated, as well as the fact there was somebody from ISED sitting on the board of directors. How could the government not know this was happening? It was like having a front row seat on the Titanic and for some reason having no idea what was going on. I can say that the cozy relationships, the appointment process and all those different things, unfortunately clouded some really good work that could have been done. That is why we need to clean this up, to make sure that the workers and taxpayer money are going to be respected.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague is working very hard at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology.

I would like him to talk about the fact that, as my colleagues from Terrebonne and Saint-Jean explained in their speeches, we are talking about the damning reports of the Auditor General. We are talking about poor management, and this is not the first scandal involving poor management in the federal system. It is one after another and we can see it building up.

What I see is this worrisome tendency of the federal system to want to take money, try to create programs, manage them poorly, and meanwhile retain the money that should be transferred to the provinces so they can manage their own areas of jurisdiction. Quebec also has its own environmental programs, and we have talked about it.

The Liberals and the Conservatives who followed made cuts, undermined transfers and tried to meddle. In the end, we lost out again, and in 2024 we have an incompetent, non-functional federal system.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the auto sector where I come from, we have been looking at, and fighting for, a transition to a green car strategy for a long period of time. We are finally seeing some of that innovation. What has been exciting is that we are seeing Quebec re-emerge as a place for automotive investment. That was lost with the Sainte-Thérèse plant and other places that were very good, well-established automotive manufacturers. Now we are being brought back into the fold of competing, which is excellent for Ontario and Quebec, but, sadly, what we are seeing with this situation is an erosion of confidence in the programs and services. That is why yesterday at committee I raised this concern with some of those who were saying that we should just turn the spigot back on. We have to make sure there is accountability for workers and also a proper process, not just move it to a department without a plan. If we want to do this right, it needs work.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his work. I enjoy working with him on the industry committee.

When I used to serve on boards and it came to pecuniary interests, we used to ask if anyone was making any money, and 90% of the time people were making money. This is not just in one instance, but in many instances.

The solution from the government is to dissolve SDTC and put it back into the government. The very problem that created all of these instances, of course, was that the minister and the department had that knowledge. The member even mentioned that a member of ISED was sitting on the board.

How do we ensure that we maintain the creation of sustainable technology and innovation as a whole in Canada given how muddled this whole process has been and how corrupt the government is?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his work.

The minister needs to bring in all of the opposition parties if there is going to be a new model presented. The government has not presented a plan and is just shuffling it off without sharing any of that information. That is not healthy for the workers, or for ourselves, as we have the hard job of making sure that the government and those who have benefited from this are held to account. That is why I will be supporting the Conservative motion today.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Windsor West, for his immense work in making certain there is justice for workers and for Canadian taxpayers in regards to this ridiculous and unfortunate circumstance that the government finds itself in, which is a very blatant disregard for the procedures and practices that are required of boards and taxpayer dollars.

I want to first recognize the immense suffering of Palestinians who are seeking safety and shelter. Just this morning, we learned that there was another air strike against a United Nations school that harmed over 6,000 innocent lives. We need sanctions, we need a two-way arms embargo and we need a ceasefire now.

The Auditor General just released her damning report in regard to serious issues and claims made against Sustainable Development Technology Canada's governance and stewardship of public funds, issues that were present in her investigation. The report reads:

We found that the foundation awarded funding to projects that were ineligible, that conflicts of interest existed in some instances, and that certain requirements in the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act were not met.

It continues to say, “the foundation awarded funding to 10 ineligible projects of 58 we examined.” It goes on to suggest that they “found 90 cases that were connected to approval decisions, representing nearly $76 million in funding awarded to projects, where the foundation’s conflict-of-interest policies were not followed.” In addition, it suggests, “The board of directors...did not ensure that the foundation complied with its enabling legislation. The act requires that the foundation have a member council of 15 members.” It says that unfortunately “The board of directors supported reducing that number to 2.”

I do not think it takes a rocket scientist to know that public accountability in the creation of a board, particularly of 15 members, is an important piece of the enabling legislation that would have, or could have, required more oversight. However, the reduction of those members to just two creates a very obvious vulnerability and risk present to the very obvious mismanagement of this fund, likely leading to the very serious issues of conflict of interest.

It is extremely concerning that SDTC was handing out money to companies for projects that were not eligible. This fund is intended to ensure that we have sustainable development of clean technology, something I believe many members in the House support. In fact, this fund goes back in its origin for a significantly longer amount of time, beginning in 2001. Back then, it was established as a not-for-profit corporation, with a mandate to award funding to eligible projects, carried on primarily in Canada, to develop and demonstrate new technologies related to climate change, clean air, clean water and clean soil, to make progress on sustainable development.

The goals are to ensure that we have a responsible path toward a future where our children and our grandchildren can breathe good air, drink good water and live in an environment that Canadians, for so long, in particular indigenous people, have safeguarded and stewarded for generations. It is needed now more than ever to ensure that these projects are not just developed in Canada, but that they actually serve the goals of a more sustainable future.

However, it is a double sin to not just see that this fund has been left largely in the hands of a government that is so disinterested in the accountability that is required of non-for-profit corporations, but it is leading to what is a very obvious and extreme instance of misappropriation of funds. In addition to all of that, we see these extreme conflict of interest cases where, in one circumstance, a board member was able to award their own company millions of dollars. That is basic-level transparency of which members of boards, particularly government created boards, should have an understanding.

I know many members in my community who sit on small non-profits and do the hard work every time they go into their board meetings. They read the minutes, and they clarify among themselves and their colleagues the true facts. They also hold themselves to a moral standard, because they are serving a community and they are serving a real need.

It is a second sin to use what was intended to be one of the most important pieces of a better future for Canadians as an easy access point for corruption and conflict of interest. The foundation entered into contribution agreements with the Crown, most recently with the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, to manage the sustainable development technology fund. According to these contribution agreements, the fund's goal is to advance clean technology innovation in Canada, specifically by funding and supporting technology projects at the pre-commercial development and demonstration stages, to demonstrate solutions to Canadians that have a potential for our future.

It came to light in February 2023 that Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada had received serious allegations of financial mismanagement and poor human resource management practices at the foundation. In March of 2023, the department hired an external consultant to conduct a fact-finding exercise to determine whether there was sufficient merit to the allegations. In November of 2023, the department announced that a law firm would be hired to review alleged breaches of the labour and employment practices and policies.

In August of 2023, whistle-blowers filed a complaint against SDTC, hoping for a management overhaul. In their complaint, the whistle-blowers alleged a series of conflict of interests and a number of potential cases of mismanagement of public funds at the foundation.

It is important that I make note of those very brave workers, the people who were able to see what was wrong when it was meant to be for true good. They courageously stepped forward under penalty of losing their jobs. For many Canadians, the penalty of losing their jobs would also mean they would also be penalized by losing their ability to house and feed themselves, of dignity for themselves and their family. These workers put everything on the line so that Canadians could get the truth that we are dealing with here today.

These whistle-blowers are in need of real protection. That highlights an even bigger problem we have, which is the need for whistle-blower reforms to better protect whistle-blowers in an instance where they have witnessed corruption and mismanagement and bring forward what they have seen.

We know that in the instance I cited earlier, it was an approving grant to NRStor, totalling $217,000 in 2020 and in 2021. Those grants were part of COVID-19 funding to help businesses survive the pandemic. However, the former board chair of SDTC said that she received a legal opinion to not recuse herself in the very instance of her own company applying for funds to the fund she chaired. She followed that legal advice, citing that this was the reason why she did not recuse herself. It does not take an immense amount of knowledge to know that if someone's company is applying to a fund to which he or she is a not-for-profit, of which the person is the chair, that it is not just a perceived conflict of interest but a very real conflict of interest.

I am delighted to say that I am thankful to our Conservative colleagues for bringing this motion forward. The New Democrats will be supporting this motion to better understand and to better bring clarity to this immensely difficult issue facing Canadians and Canadian taxpayers.

I hope we have the courage in this place to not only deal with the production of these documents for the better purpose of our investigations, but to also recommend true solutions that can put an end to this kind of extreme level of breach of trust. It is not just present here but has been on so many issues even prior to the current government. It is so important that we take this opportunity to clampdown and create better security assurances, as called for by the Auditor General.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think what the member was really trying to get at in his speech is that it seems like this type of corruption, this level of corruption, is ingrained in the government. Toward the end of his speech he was referencing that even during the pandemic the government was taking taxpayer money and sending it off to Liberal insiders.

Does the member agree that this is not just a one-off with the government, but that this is actually part of what it is at its very core?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak to not only the party's record of corruption, but how consecutive governments, particularly Liberals, have to wait for the Auditor General to catch them red-handed. It should not take the Auditor General and other independent officers of the Parliament to hold the government accountable to do the job that it is supposed to do.

A government should have the ability to hold itself accountable and review these processes internally before this level of corruption takes place. The whistle-blowers came forward many times, and it took them filing an official complaint before the government even listened.

Worse yet, we still know that the recommendations made by the Auditor General to just follow the rules that are in place are still instances where the Auditor General has to call attention to the government. Her recommendations are squarely put on the fact that rules are in place, but rules are meaningless if they are not followed.

We need to hold governments accountable when they breach public trust, and we need to set an example so that Canadians can actually build trust in our systems and not continue to see what is a tradition in the country of the breach of public trust toward the abuse of taxpayers.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madame Speaker, as my colleagues have said previously, we agree with the idea and the principle of the motion, but we do not agree with its wording.

For example, we think there should be more time granted to allow translation services to do their work, as well as a less prescriptive tone to avoid directing the RCMP. It should not be told in advance whether there was an infraction or not, because that is not our job as parliamentarians.

That said, basically, we are fully in favour of requiring that the documents be produced.

Does my colleague have the same position, that is, does he agree with the idea, while recognizing that the motion needs to be amended to be truly appropriate?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for what I believe is a very good-willed offer to parliamentarians in this place to not only strengthen this motion, but to enable us to get not only more documentation, appropriate documentation, which, allowing for more time for translation services, allowing more time for the public service to actually provide credible documents to the betterment of this investigation, is an important piece to this work.

I would support such an amendment that would see, for example, within the first paragraph of the motion, it amended from within 14 days to a longer period of time to give the supply period of these documents a better chance of being fully reviewed and also tabled in this place.

To the second point that the member makes about directing the RCMP, I fully agree that the RCMP cannot be directed by parliamentarians, particularly in places of democratic nature, because the RCMP investigation needs to have impartiality and independence, which I support.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to recognize that this is an arm's-length foundation that has been up and running for the last 20 years. To try to give a false impression that the government has been standing by idly doing nothing, that the federal Auditor General's report comes out and then we take action, is just simply not true. The government has been aware of it. It is the one that initiated the review, which got the third party engaged, which ultimately led to the federal Auditor General also then becoming engaged, all of which the federal government, and the minister in particular, has supported. We have acknowledged that.

I was intrigued by the questions that were just posed. After stating the facts, does the member then support the motion being proposed by the Conservatives if it is unamended?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the first portion of the member's comments regarding the arms-length nature of the not-for-profit, I would submit that this is the truth. However, another truth is the fact that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry entered into an agreement with Sustainable Development Technology Canada in order to deliver a fund.

The government needs to take more seriously its approach to partnering with groups when they are in breach of very basic principles.