SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

Mr. Luc Thériault

Feb/15/24 5:15:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

7 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/15/24 5:15:52 p.m.
Watch

Call in the members.

4 words

Call

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/15/24 5:58:37 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/15/24 5:59:17 p.m.
Watch

The next question is on the main motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

53 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Feb/15/24 5:59:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are requesting a recorded vote.

8 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/15/24 6:10:44 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Feb/15/24 6:11:39 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-354 Bill C-11

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C‑354, which was introduced by the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois's bill seems pretty straightforward. It states: The Commission shall consult with the Government of Quebec about the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec and with the governments of the other provinces about the French-speaking markets in those provinces before furthering the objects and exercising the powers referred to in subsection (1) in respect of the aspects of the Canadian broadcasting system that concern those matters. This seems like a fairly simple request for consultation, and it would require the CRTC to consult Quebec and the provinces. Of course, I support the principle that the Government of Quebec should have the opportunity to express itself, especially when it comes to Quebec's cultural distinctiveness. The Government of Quebec and the National Assembly of Quebec are not shy about making their position known, especially when it comes to protecting the French language and Quebec culture. As Conservatives, we on this side of the House recognize that French is the only official language that is in decline in Canada. As such, we have an essential role to play in protecting it. To continue the debate, I would like to come back to Bill C-11, which amended the Broadcasting Act. The Government of Quebec had called for specific amendments to this bill so that Quebec's concerns would be heard. In February 2023, Quebec's minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, wrote to the then minister of Canadian heritage. I will read some excerpts from that letter to provide some context for the Bloc Québécois bill. At the time, the Bloc refused, for months, to convey this request from Quebec's elected officials to the House of Commons. I will now quote Minister Mathieu Lacombe: It is essential, both in Bill C‑11 and in its implementation by the CRTC, that Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and the unique reality of the French-language market be adequately considered. I would like to reiterate our demand that a formal, mandatory mechanism for consultation with the Government of Quebec be set out in the act to that effect....[Quebec] must always have its say before any instructions are given to the CRTC to direct its actions under this act when its actions are likely to affect companies providing services in Quebec or likely to have an impact on the Quebec market.... This letter that came from the Government of Quebec was sent to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Unfortunately, as far as we can tell, it seems that no one in the Liberal government saw fit to respond to this request. There was complete radio silence after that letter. However, on this side of the House, the Conservatives heard this plea. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent and the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles rose in the House several times to urge the government to receive the Quebec minister in committee in order to hear what Quebec was asking for and determine how Bill C‑11 could contribute to ensuring that the act takes Quebec's cultural distinctiveness into account. That is something tangible. We had a tangible request from Quebec to be heard on a bill that would have considerable repercussions on Quebec's cultural distinctiveness and on Quebec's language. We felt it was important to grant this request and allow the Quebec minister to come testify in committee. Allow me to quote an article from La Presse from February 14, 2023. That was a year ago almost to the day. The headline of the article read, “Broadcasting Act reform: Conservative Party supports Quebec's request for a say”. That about sums it up. I think La Presse hit the nail pretty much on the head. I will read some of the article: The Conservative Party is urging the [Prime Minister's] government to refer Bill C‑11, which seeks to modernize the Broadcasting Act, to a parliamentary committee in order to examine Quebec's request for the bill to include a mandatory mechanism requiring the province to be consulted to ensure that the CRTC protects Quebec's cultural distinctiveness. That article was written by Joël‑Denis Bellavance, someone who reliably reports the facts. A little further on in the article, it talks about what happened here in the House of Commons when we discussed this issue. It states, and I quote: In the House of Commons on Tuesday, the Conservative member [for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles] and his colleague [from Louis-Saint-Laurent] both questioned [the heritage minister] on this subject and urged him to consider Quebec's “legitimate request”. The article goes on to quote the question that was asked that day: “[The] Quebec government is urging the Liberal government to include a mechanism for mandatory consultation in Bill C-11 to ensure the protection of Quebec culture....Do the Prime Minister and the Bloc agree with Minister Lacombe when it comes to Quebec culture and the fact that the government needs to send the bill to committee?” asked the member [for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles]. That is a very legitimate question that was asked in response to the letter published the day before by journalist Joël-Denis Bellavance. The answer given by the then minister of heritage was rather cold. It was more of a diversionary tactic. The minister completely avoided my colleague's question. Instead, he chose to go on the attack and to completely avoid answering the simple question about the fact that the Quebec minister of culture and communications was asking to appear before the parliamentary committee. During the same question period, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent raised the issue again. I would like to quote from the article and the question at the same time: “[H]ow can a member from Quebec, a minister from Quebec, refuse to listen to the demands of the Government of Quebec? I understand that the purpose of Bill C-11 is to centralize power in Ottawa, with help from the Bloc Québécois, which I might have to start calling the ‘centralist bloc’”, fumed [my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent]. Members will understand the reason for his anger, not only toward the governing party, the Liberal Party, but also toward the Bloc Québécois. The Liberal minister came out with a sledgehammer argument. Instead of answering the question and granting the Quebec minister of culture and communications' legitimate request to appear in committee, the then minister of heritage accused the Conservative Party of trying to stall the bill's passage again. It was as though asking to hear from the minister of a duly elected government was not a good enough reason to slightly delay a bill's passage in order to find out what Quebec had to say. That is unacceptable. In his letter, Minister Lacombe argued that, as the “heartland of the French language and francophone culture in America”, Quebec considered it “vital to have a say in these instructions”. It seems to me that the committee should have listened to what Minister Lacombe had to say. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent moved a motion in committee. Unsurprisingly, the Liberal Party voted against that motion, which was intended to allow a discussion of the amendments proposed by the Senate and Quebec's request. Again unsurprisingly, the NDP sided with the Liberals. How did the Bloc Québécois member vote in committee? Did he seize the opportunity to be the voice of reason, speaking on behalf of Quebec and Quebeckers? After a formal letter from the Government of Quebec and a unanimous motion from the National Assembly, which side did the Bloc Québécois take? The answer will shock everyone, even our our viewers: The Bloc Québécois voted against the common-sense motion moved by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, which would have allowed the voice of a Quebec minister to be heard in committee. At the time, not only did we agree in principle, but we took concrete action to ensure that the Government of Quebec would be heard. Now let us see how negotiations unfold in committee, so we can find out whether everyone really meant what they said.

1437 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Feb/15/24 6:21:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the NDP recognizes that Quebec is a distinct nation within Canada. We also recognize that it is the only predominantly French culture in North America. We know that if we want to protect this culture, we must also protect and promote the French language in Canada. Radio and television broadcasting are a key part of promoting the French language and francophone culture in the 21st century. That is why it is so important that the French language be well represented in the decisions made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC. To ensure that francophones have a voice at the CRTC, there used to be a tradition of alternating between an anglophone and a francophone chairperson. The current government, however, has decided to put an end to that tradition. We think this proposal requiring the CRTC to consult the Quebec government makes sense. We also want the CRTC to be required to consult with francophone communities and organizations across Canada, not just in Quebec. Naturally, the Government of Quebec should play a special role in the CRTC's decisions in order to stand up for the interests of Quebec. It is a good idea to stop putting all our faith in the long-standing practice of alternating between francophone and anglophone chairpersons and to require the CRTC to consult the Government of Quebec, as well as other francophone organizations across Canada. For those reasons, we support this bill at second reading stage.

247 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Feb/15/24 6:23:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-354 Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for being so concise. On this February 15, before I begin my speech, I would like to salute a few illustrious people, namely François-Marie-Thomas Chevalier de Lorimier, Charles Hindelang, Pierre-Rémi Narbonne, Amable Daunais and François-Stanislas Nicolas. We think of these persons today, as we have done every year on February 15 since 1839. The bill we are discussing today is a very simple bill. What we are really asking is that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act be amended to ensure that Quebec is systematically consulted when the CRTC puts in place any regulations that would have an impact on Quebec culture. It is a short bill involving one very simple amendment. Earlier I listened to my Conservative colleague recount the events that followed the passage of Bill C-11. When Bill C-11 was almost ready to be passed, the Conservative Party released a letter that was sent to the government, the Liberal Party, to the heritage minister at the time. That letter set out Quebec's specific demands with respect to Bill C-11, which reformed the Broadcasting Act. I would like to provide a bit of context. With a little good faith, I think that my Conservative colleague will lend credence to what I am going to tell the House. The Conservatives unduly delayed and blocked the bill in committee for a very long time. Quebec had demands and it was not consulted during the study of the bill, at least not formally. By the time Quebec's demands finally arrived, the bill was about to be passed. Does that mean that the demands therein were illegitimate? No, not at all. Realistically, however, it was too late to reopen the file in committee and go back to the drawing board, so to speak. If my Conservative colleague had the slightest understanding of how the Government of Quebec operates in this kind of situation, he would not have talked about having Quebec's minister of culture and communications, Mathieu Lacombe, appear before the committee. If he had the slightest understanding of how the relationship between Quebec and Ottawa works, he would know that Quebec government ministers do not testify in committee. They have a nation-to-nation relationship with Ottawa. They speak minister to minister. Ministers from Quebec do not appear before committees. He should know this, but he does not. It was much more dramatic to take the letter and say that the Bloc and the Liberals do not listen to Quebec. He said the Bloc did not listen to Quebec, did not listen to cultural groups and did not listen to groups in Quebec's broadcasting sector during the study of bills on broadcasting, online news and anything to do with Quebec culture. What a joke. It is funny, actually, so that is how we will take it. That being said, we have here Bill C-354, which was introduced by my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. This bill addresses one of the most important demands set out in that letter from Minister Lacombe and the Government of Quebec. This is a natural demand and Minister Lacombe was not the first to make it. Quebec's need, its desire, its demand to have its say in the decisions that are made in Ottawa and that have an impact on francophone culture and the French language dates back to 1929 and has been kept alive by successive Quebec governments. The premier at the time, Louis-Alexandre Taschereau, saw this weird new technology called radio and thought that it needed to be regulated immediately. That is when a regulatory body was created to provide oversight. To no one's surprise, instead of agreeing with what Quebec was doing and choosing to play a part in this regulatory body, Ottawa decided to do something else. It created the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, or CRBC, the current CRTC's ancestor. Both organizations were developed in parallel, as is so often the case, with a tiny intrusion into Quebec's jurisdictions. It seems that this was even more commonplace back then and that people did not complain as much. There was no Bloc Québécois to fight for Quebec in Ottawa. Long story short, wanting to have a say in French-language communications and culture in Quebec is not just a Quebec separatist or nationalist thing. Liberal governments also asked for it, and so did Union Nationale governments. Even former minister Lawrence Cannon, who was a Liberal minister in Quebec before becoming a Conservative minister in Ottawa, asked for it. This is not a demand being made by spoiled sovereignist brats who want to repatriate all powers to Quebec. This is a reasonable request to ensure that Quebec is consulted on decisions made by the next-door nation that affect the Quebec nation's culture. We will be voting on Bill C‑354 in a few days. We are not asking for the moon. At the moment, we are not even asking for the right to immediately create a Quebec CRTC, which is also among Quebec's requests and the Bloc Québécois's plans, and quite reasonably so. For now, this is not what we are asking. For now, we are simply responding to a straightforward request from Quebec. As my Conservative colleague said earlier, the Conservatives tried to promote this request themselves, but it was already too late in the Bill C‑11 process. I presume that the entire House of Commons will support this very reasonable request when we vote on this amendment to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act. Bill C‑354 was introduced in response to a request from Quebec, the Government of Quebec and the people of Quebec, and I think everyone in the House should agree that Quebec and the provinces that are concerned about preserving French in some of their communities should be consulted when regulations are put in place that will have an impact on the French language and culture in those places.

1042 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Feb/15/24 6:32:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-354

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑354, which seeks to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission Act to impose additional consultation obligations on the CRTC, namely the obligation to consult the Government of Quebec on its cultural distinctiveness and the governments of the provinces and territories on their French-speaking markets. Our government is already working tirelessly to ensure that our broadcasting system is in tune with the evolution of our digital world and that it represents all Canadians. Our actions in this regard prove it. Modernizing the legislative framework for broadcasting is one way our government has been able to provide ongoing support for the French language. A good example of this is the Online Streaming Act, which received royal assent in April 2023. That was the first major reform of the Broadcasting Act since 1991. This act will enable all Canadians, including members of Canada's francophonie, to recognize themselves more clearly in what they watch and listen to, thanks to a new framework that better reflects our country's diversity. The reform of the Official Languages Act is just one example of our hard work in support of the French language. The purpose of the act is to protect and promote the French language by recognizing its status as a minority language in Canada and North America. While the objectives of Bill C-354 are laudable and relevant, it is clear the bill poses more problems than it solves and would create redundant obligations and impede existing processes, and that is why the government is opposed to this bill. Among other things, the bill has a number of problems. It proposes to impose redundant consultation obligations on the CRTC and it could be perceived as jeopardizing the CRTC's independence. With respect to redundancy and increasing the burden on the CRTC, this administrative tribunal already holds extensive public consultations before making decisions. Quebec therefore already has the opportunity to participate in these consultations, regardless of their scope, and it does just that. Furthermore, in carrying out its mandate, the CRTC must respect the Government of Canada's commitment to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities in Canada. The obligation set out in Bill C‑354 to consult the government of Quebec, the other provinces and the territories would, however, impose an additional burden in terms of time and resources. While our government understands the importance of having regulatory measures in place to ensure that the broadcasting landscape is equitable and representative, it is hard to see how additional consultations would add value when the provinces and territories can already participate in said process and do so regularly. That is the issue with this bill. It is simply not necessary. Another problem lies in the implications of this bill on other obligations under the Broadcasting Act. As an administrative tribunal operating at arm's length from the federal government, the CRTC regulates and supervises broadcasting and telecommunications in the public interest. With regard to broadcasting, the CRTC's job is to assess how best to give effect to the policy objectives of the Broadcasting Act. One of these objectives is to support the creation and discoverability of original French-language programming. In a democracy like ours, it would be inappropriate for any level of government to exert inappropriate influence on the day-to-day decisions of the CRTC, which is an independent body. Just as a requirement for the CRTC to consult the federal government would undermine its independence, so too would a requirement to consult provincial and territorial governments. Bill C-354's requirement to consult directly with provincial and territorial governments on certain matters in the exercise of its powers would be unprecedented for the CRTC. Moreover, it would risk interfering with the decision-making process and undermine public confidence in its independence. At the risk of repeating myself, I would like to remind the House and all Canadians that the government already actively consults the provinces and territories, particularly when it comes to broadcasting. I understand the intention behind my good friend's proposal, but the reality is that the work that the CRTC does already takes into account the very requests that he is making. The CRTC plays a critical role in regulating Canada's broadcasting system. It is essential that we give it the necessary flexibility to carry out its mandate effectively. Bill C‑354 goes against these objectives. It is clear that Bill C‑354 poses several problems. It does not target the right legislative vehicle, it creates ambiguities and imposes a disproportionate and unnecessary burden on the CRTC, to name just a few. Imposing a consultation requirement on the CRTC, as proposed, is inappropriate for the various reasons I mentioned. In conclusion, I believe that, although this bill is motivated by good intentions, it presents major risks for the effective functioning of the CRTC and for the legitimacy of our processes for regulating our broadcasting system. I encourage my hon. colleagues to consider the consequences of this proposal carefully before making any decisions. Our government will be ready and willing to answer members' questions and will continue to ensure that the CRTC has the means to fulfill its critical role without imposing unnecessary burdens on it. The reality is that if we consider the motivations behind the proposal in this bill, there are many things that the hon. member, as I mentioned before, seeks to achieve. We need to understand that the mandate of the CRTC, what the CRTC already does and seeks to do, particularly with regard to consultation, already exists. It is important for us to remember that provinces like Quebec already get involved, make their submissions and appeal to the CRTC, as and when required. For us to add an additional layer of reporting requirement on the CRTC causes a significant concern with respect to interference from levels of government. It is important for us, particularly in this challenging time, to ensure that the independence of the CRTC is maintained, that we do not cause the perception of undue influence on it and we do not create an environment where the CRTC feels it is under an obligation of specific levels of government, whether federal or otherwise. I would encourage all members to consider seriously, while taking into account the laudable and certainly well-intentioned thinking behind the proposal, that the CRTC is already responsible for this. There is an arm's-length relationship with government that must always be maintained and we cannot do anything to create the perception that the government, at any level, is telling the CRTC what to do. With that, I again ask hon. members in the House to consider seriously the ramifications and implications of opening up the CRTC to direction from any level of government.

1147 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 6:40:38 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion. If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

69 words

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Feb/15/24 6:41:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I request a recorded division.

7 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 6:41:26 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

25 words

Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC)

Feb/15/24 6:42:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, back in November, I put a question to the Minister of Innovation regarding the government's decision around its massive subsidy program for battery plants. I asked him about the inconsistencies that the government had offered at that time for the number of taxpayer-funded foreign replacement workers who were going to be employed amid the massive incentives that were being given to a profitable company in Windsor. It was quite alarming. People were really surprised that, despite the massive financial support from the government, this was not even going toward local jobs in Windsor. Rather, it would require a massive number of temporary workers, who would have to come and add to the strain on local housing and health and all the other services that people need municipally. Moreover, the salaries of people who were coming in to take these jobs would be paid from the taxes of local workers in Windsor. The response was wholly unacceptable. The minister just talked about how wonderful it was that they have all these new factories that are being built only with massive support from the government. The question, at the time, was this: Would they release the contracts and actually be clear with Canadians as to the details and what the costs would be? The estimates are that every family in Canada would be paying $1,000 for this subsidy program for construction to be carried out by temporary foreign workers, not local workers, who would be adding to the strains on the local housing market and all the other things that go along with that. This is part of a broader pattern where the current government's industrial policy is to chase out actual real investment, whether foreign or domestic, and the only way they can get anything built in this country is to subsidize. We need look no further than what the Liberals have done in the oil and gas industry. The government's own report from Statistics Canada states that rising living standards will depend on productivity growth. It says, “Labour productivity has declined in 11 of the past 12 quarters and is below prepandemic levels.” Furthermore, “business investment in non-residential structures and machinery and equipment has...pulled back since...the mid-2010s.” The living standard of Canadians is declining. The per capita GDP in Canada is shrinking. People are doing less well, and the response of the current government is simply to try to incentivize countries through subsidy while it is chasing out private capital, as it has done in my province. To top it all off, this week, the environment minister said that there will be no more road construction, when road construction leads to productivity. One wonders whether the batteries from the Stellantis plant subsidized by the government will power flying cars. It is a growing country that needs roads. The Liberals do not want roads or private investment. They simply want to subsidize as their industrial policy.

500 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Feb/15/24 6:46:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be here tonight and to answer the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge's questions regarding employment at the NextStar battery plant in Windsor. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify the ways in which Canadians will benefit from the partnership with NextStar. NextStar is investing billions of dollars to establish Canada's first large-scale EV battery manufacturing plant in Windsor. This facility will produce leading-edge lithium ion battery cells and modules for Stellantis's vehicle production in North America. Through its investment, NextStar will create a total of 2,300 jobs for Canadians during the construction of the facility and an additional 2,500 permanent jobs for Canadians during the operation of the facility. Beyond the jobs associated with the facility in Windsor, an investment of this size will act as an anchor for further investments across the EV battery supply chain. It will also help secure the new EV mandates at Stellantis's Windsor and Brampton assembly plants. It is correct that during the construction phase of this project, NextStar has indicated they will employ approximately 900 foreign specialists with technical skills needed to install machinery and equipment and to train Canadians. That is in addition to its commitments to create jobs for Canadians. The Liberal government strongly believes that all businesses operating in Canada should prioritize the use of our local workforce. The government will continue to work with NextStar to ensure that it is filling as many jobs as possible through our talented local workforce and that it is minimizing the number of workers employed from outside Canada. However, it is important for the member opposite to remember that this is the first large-scale battery plant in Canada. Most of the machinery and equipment will be imported, as it cannot be sourced domestically. It is normal practice in the manufacturing and automotive sectors that when dealing with imported specialized machinery and equipment, the company supplying the machinery has its own employees complete the installation. This is not only because of proprietary knowledge and warranty issues, but also because it is important to bring new expertise and skills into Canada. Without the use of foreign workers, this investment and others like it would not be possible. The resulting thousands of Canadian jobs would not be created. This is a first of its kind transformational investment that requires expertise that currently resides outside of Canada.

410 words

Mr. Pat Kelly

Feb/15/24 6:49:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the Liberal government would simply get out of the way, private capital would return to this country, and we would have actual investment that would employ Canadians and create jobs without massive subsidies. The estimate has been that the subsidy on this plant alone will be $1,000 per family in Canada. A perfect example of the Liberal government's absolutely disastrous track record on investment in this country is the oil and gas business, where it chased out private capital that would have built the Trans Mountain pipeline. Now, the government has to massively subsidize that project, when it could have been built with private capital and could have employed Canadians in both the construction and the fulfillment of that job. The project is still not done. The government wants extraordinary credit for its subsidy program when it should be welcoming private capital.

147 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull

Feb/15/24 6:50:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that I disagree with the member opposite. I think the stats and the actual information out there actually proves the opposite. Canada is rated number three in the world in foreign direct investment. We have also been rated by BloombergNEF as the number one place for investment in electric vehicle supply chains in the whole world. The automotive manufacturers in Canada and around the world are taking major steps to transition to electrification. As a result, demand for EV batteries is expected to grow exponentially over the next decade. Canada is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this transition with its existing expertise in the automotive sector, clean energy and an abundance of critical minerals and access to global markets. However, Canada will not be able to secure these investments without taking steps to remain competitive. Restricting the use of foreign—

148 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/15/24 6:51:29 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

8 words

Mr. Michael Cooper (St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC)

Feb/15/24 6:51:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question I posed to the Minister of Industry in question period last November, namely which Liberal insiders the minister is protecting at the Liberals' corrupt green slush fund. The level of corruption, conflict of interest and self-dealing at the fund is staggering. According to whistle-blowers, more than $150 million of taxpayers' money has been misappropriated by Liberal insiders at the fund. An independent fact-finding report revealed that board members of the fund funnelled tens of millions of taxpayer dollars from the fund to their own companies; talk about self-dealing and corruption. The minister has the authority to fire the corrupt green slush fund board, but incredibly, the minister refuses to do so. Why does he? When the scandal broke, the minister claimed he was unaware of corruption at the green slush fund, but the minister's claims are contradicted by the facts. Here is a fact: As early as 2019, the minister's predecessor, the Liberal industry minister at the time, Navdeep Bains, was informed that the Liberal-appointed chair was in a major conflict of interest because her company was receiving millions of dollars from none other than the fund. Not only that, but the minister sent his officials to each and every green slush fund board meeting, including the very meetings in which decisions were made to inappropriately and perhaps illegally funnel money from the fund to board members' companies. According to whistle-blowers, the minister and his department are engaged in a coordinated campaign to cover up corruption at the fund, and the minister is more interested in damage control than in getting to the truth. With these things taken together, it is evident the minister knew of corruption at the green slush fund, did nothing about it and turned a blind eye to it, thus enabling Liberal insiders to get rich. When the corruption was revealed, the minister continued to stand behind the green slush fund board. Again, why is he protecting corrupt Liberal insiders?

342 words

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, Lib.)

Feb/15/24 6:54:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton regarding Sustainable Development Technology Canada. We have taken responsible and prudent actions necessary to investigate the claims that have been presented to us. These processes are well under way. The party opposite needs to understand that proper due diligence takes time and that the appropriate measures are in place to allow the processes to play out. Innovation, Science and Economic Development has temporarily frozen SDTC's funding and has appointed a legal agent to review the organization's HR practices. The minister has also accepted the resignation of the board chair and the CEO of the organization. Funding will not be restored until the minister is satisfied that SDTC has fully implemented the actions contained in the management response and action plan issued in response to the recommendations in the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton report. SDTC has worked diligently to provide documentation to demonstrate that changes have been made, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada is now in the process of assessing the completeness of SDTC's response in ensuring that the appropriate measures are actually in place. We cannot proceed on half-truths. Facts matter in this case. Our actions and the associated measures put in place will continue to be informed by proper due diligence. We await the Auditor General's report, the results of the legal review of HR practices and the conclusion of the Ethics Commissioner's investigation. We will take the appropriate measures in response to any findings or recommendations that may result from these processes. SDTC is an organization that wants to get back to supporting Canadian innovators in the clean tech sector. I think the party opposite should allow due process to take its course as we remain prepared to take the next necessary actions. The government is committed to supporting Canada's innovative industries in the clean tech sector. Canadian clean technology companies are crucial to ensuring that Canada and the world meet their 2030 and 2050 climate commitments. I am confident that we are on the right path with the implementation of the corrective measures, the review of SDTC's human resources management, the Auditor General's audit and the Ethics Commissioner's investigation.

384 words