Mr. Chair, honourable members and officials, my name is Douglas McConnachie. I'm the CFO and assistant deputy minister of corporate management at ISED. I am grateful to have this opportunity to contextualize the remarks that were attributed to me in recent media reports related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC.
Mr. Chair, the allegations that were made against SDTC are very serious. However, it is important to note that the confidential file prepared by the complainant did not contain clear evidence of wrongdoing or misconduct, in spite of its impressive size. Due process demanded that we address the complaint expeditiously and in confidence, both to protect the complainant from reprisal and to ensure that the reputations of the SDTC board and executive were not unfairly besmirched. ISED decided to undertake a fact-finding exercise to determine whether the allegations had merit and whether there was a factual basis upon which to take further action.
Between March 17 and September 29, I met with the complainant 24 times, representing more than 30 hours of conversation. My objective in these meetings was to be as transparent as possible about how ISED was managing the complaint and to provide timely updates on the status of the fact-finding exercise. I wanted the complainant to understand that ISED was taking the complaint seriously, and to build his confidence in the integrity of the process. I also wanted the complainant to have trust in my neutrality, since none of the allegations implicated me as an individual.
By the midpoint of the exercise, it became apparent that the complainant either did not understand or did not agree with the methodology and approach being used by Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton, or RCGT. He was not satisfied with allowing RCGT to independently validate his allegations on the basis of objective facts. The complainant stated his opinion that RCGT was overly reliant upon documentation provided by SDTC, and he requested follow-up interviews to walk through documentation he possessed. Since the provenance of this information could not be authenticated, RCGT rightly pushed back against these requests.
As the preliminary findings started to come in, I advised the complainant that facts had been found to support some of the allegations. These included inconsistencies and opportunities for improvement in the application of general governance and conflict of interest practices, compliance with the contribution agreement and certain human resources practices.
Mr. Chair, I was surprised and disappointed to uncover these types of issues in a mature organization with a highly experienced board and executive. In my opinion, these issues do not meet the standards of the public service. However, none of these issues rose to the standard of wrongdoing or misconduct, and they did not support taking formal action against individuals.
The complainant was visibly upset that the facts were not aligning with the narrative of his complaint. He repeatedly stated it would be a great injustice if the SDTC board and executive were allowed to continue to serve in their roles, and they could not be trusted to remediate the issues that had been identified.
During our meetings in August and September, the complainant repeatedly pressured me for details of any findings that would implicate the SDTC board and executive. I was hammered with questions on what actions the government might take to replace or dismiss individuals. I was asked over and over to speculate on the different ways in which the government might take action. In retrospect, I should have ended my meetings with the complainant at this point, but I still thought I could de-escalate the situation.
In order to mollify the complainant, I speculated that the results of the fact-finding exercise could give rise to an expanded investigation by ISED, the Auditor General or other third parties. I speculated that the government might question its confidence in the board and whether it was tenable for them to continue to serve. I further speculated that the government might decide to reorganize or wind down SDTC, and that this could have an undesirable impact on employees and stakeholders. At the same time, I made it very clear to the complainant that these decisions were exclusively within the purview of the government, and that I would almost certainly not be involved in nor asked to advise on any process requiring decisions by the Governor in Council.
Since it has come to light that our conversations were recorded without my knowledge, I can see I was baited into making these speculative and inappropriate remarks. Recent media reports have selectively excerpted and sequenced a few minutes from over 30 hours of conversation in order to advance the false narrative that there was a consensus within ISED that the SDTC board and executive should be terminated. However, the timeline clearly illustrates that my comments were made before the RCGT report was received and well before I briefed the deputy minister and other officials. The media reports also suggest the minister's response to the findings does not align with my advice. This is simply not the case.
Mr. Chair, it is important to note that I directly oversaw the engagement with RCGT until its conclusion, I authored the management response and action plan to address the issues identified in the report and I drafted the briefing note in collaboration with other ISED officials to generate advice for the minister. I stand by this advice and I feel strongly that the minister's response was justified and proportionate.
In summary, I was extremely naive to expect that my good faith conversations with the complainant would remain private. I never expected my remarks to be used out of context to reinforce a narrative that is not supported by independently verified facts. I was too transparent, too trusting, and I deeply regret any impact that this has had on the government, SDTC and ISED.
Mr. Chair, I would be pleased to take your questions at this time.
Thank you.
