MPs Expand Probe on Federal Green Fund Plagued by Conflicts of Interest

A House of Commons committee will take a deeper look at a federal foundation financing green technologies in light of an auditor general report finding multiple conflicts of interest.
MPs on the public accounts committee voted on Sept. 3 to call additional witnesses and to ask the auditor general to undertake a performance audit of Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC).
“We need to ask that the auditor general herself do a more extensive study of what’s been going on in the Liberal green slush fund than she did in her selective sampling, random sampling of projects,” Tory MP Rick Perkins said in tabling his motion to expand the committee probe.
Liberal MPs on the committee unsuccessfully sought to remove the clause in Perkins’ motion asking the auditor general to undertake a new probe of SDTC.
“I don’t think we should be dictating to her,” said Liberal MP Iqra Khalid, who instead suggested first hearing from Hogan and other witnesses in committee before deciding on next steps.
Hogan is part of a new list of witnesses being called to testify before the committee. It also includes RCMP Commissioner Michael Duheme, a former ISED deputy minister, current acting board members of SDTC, former board members such as Andrée-Lise Méthot, as well as principals from businesses which received ineligible funding or were implicated in conflicts of interest.
NRC President Mitch Davies told the public accounts committee on Sep. 3 that the full transition would take one year.
In the meantime, project funding was given the green light after being stopped for months while it operates under an interim board. Davies said the interim board does not report to the NRC. When asked whether the current board has any conflicts of interest he said he was not “in any position” to address the matter directly. “You have to address that to the individuals involved,” he said.
In July, the ethics commissioner released the findings of two probes into former directors at SDTC.
SDTC was contacted for comment but didn’t respond by publication time.