Evidence of meeting #139 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sdtc.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
The RCMP commissioner also stated, in their letter from July 25, that, after careful review of available evidence, like the OAG's report on SDTC, along with reports by ISED and any “publicly available information”, they did “not identify any criminal offences or evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this time, whether in relation to any specific individual or organization” related to the SDTC matter.
Do you care to comment on this?
As an Individual
I think, for all of the information the RCMP received from ISED or the AG, again the question to them is, were any of them looking for criminal intent? It's one thing to say that no criminal intent was found, but the question to ask the AG or anyone else is, were they looking for criminal intent or were they not?
If you look at the scope of the RCGT report or the Auditor General's report, that was not in their scope or mandate, so that doesn't reconcile with the secondary.... If someone was actually looking for that and nothing was found, okay, sure, but that hasn't happened yet. It's one thing to say nothing has been found as of yet, but that obfuscates the fact that nothing was looked into, for that matter.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have a lot of time, so I would appreciate brief answers.
This next question is intended to remind the public and parliamentarians here of a certain fact.
When was the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton report submitted to Innovation, Science and Economic Development?
As an Individual
The draft report would have been shared with ISED sometime in May, if not June.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
So it was in May or June of last year.
You said that there's evidence that discussions about very serious problems took place between Minister Champagne, his staff and the directors of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC.
What is that evidence?
As an Individual
It was the recordings, and I would maybe request that.... I'd be fully willing to have an in camera session to have all of the key recordings played for everyone in the committee in order for them to make their own decisions about the situation.
Bloc
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Okay.
Are you also in possession of the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton report?
As an Individual
I received a full verbal debrief, but it was basically read to me verbatim.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
So, you don't have a paper version.
I would have liked you to give the committee a copy.
A copy of that report was given to another committee, but, unfortunately, it was heavily redacted. That was a violation of parliamentarians' rights.
I would have liked you to give us a copy of that report, because I think it contains information that would be very relevant.
I have so many questions. I could get started on another topic. Anyway, I have a quick question.
Do you believe that some of the projects actually were eligible?
You gave a very negative overview of the situation, but I understand that this is your testimony and your experience.
Were there any companies that deserved the funding and met the criteria and should, by rights, continue to receive funding from an organization that is managed better than SDTC was?
Are there any companies that should continue to operate?
As an Individual
That's correct. In my previous testimony at the industry committee, I stated that I think 90% or maybe the majority of the projects should have received funding and are eligible across all categories. It's only a small majority that's connected to a small group of—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Up next, we have Mr. Desjarlais.
You have the floor for two and a half minutes, please.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I turn to a piece of evidence that was suggested in the Auditor General's report, paragraph 6.74:
An assistant deputy minister of the department regularly attended meetings of the foundation's board and received all board materials. But neither the department nor the foundation documented what they expected from this role. We found that the directors' understanding of the assistant deputy minister's role did not align with his own. This ambiguity led the board to believe that the assistant deputy minister's presence at meetings provided an implicit agreement by the department for any decisions that the board made.
Are you aware which deputy minister that is?
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
How often, in your understanding of the situation, was Mr. Noseworthy privy to information related to either the HR issues or the decisions that led to conflicts of interest?
As an Individual
I don't know which report it's said in, but one of the reports specifically states that none of the HR issues were ever reported at the board level. Even when they did exist, the board would never be privy to them. That's a finding from, I think, either the AG or RCGT.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
With that knowledge.... I'll just accept this to be true for the purpose of this questioning.
Is it likely that the ADM did not know or was unaware of the HR issues because of that breakdown of HR systems within the organization?
As an Individual
That's correct.
I don't believe the board was privy to most of these situations, but I would say that Andrew Noseworthy himself was a conflicted party at SDTC because he has a friendly relationship with Annette Verschuren. Some of the funding that was given to the Verschuren Centre through ACOA was with the support of Andrew Noseworthy, who himself was acting in a professional capacity at ACOA.
Again, even the ISED representative was a bit too friendly with everyone at the top, so whether or not there were issues that he maybe could have noted, he probably wasn't the right person to be there because of his other issues at that point.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
The assistant deputy minister didn't understand his role within the organization or why he was attending these board meetings, according to the Auditor General. However, you're going a step further by suggesting that he perhaps had an interest in participating in those board meetings.
Is that correct?
As an Individual
That's correct.
One thing I should maybe mention is that ISED actually completed a report that gave a glowing review of SDTC in, I believe, early 2023. It was then shelved and never published. There is an ISED review of SDTC that, again, maybe proves how little they actually understood about the organization and how obfuscated the situation was. Maybe it's the fact that no one expects an organization that's giving out free money to have these types of issues, but maybe that's why it happened that way.