Evidence of meeting #140 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 ouimet.
A video is available from Parliament.
Corporate Director, As an Individual
Nobody contacted me because I'm not associated with the government or politics, and I don't know anyone who is. I applied on my own when I saw the job offers from the Governor in Council. I believed I could contribute to the organization.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Mr. Kukucha, you had—and I don't know if you still do—a small financial interest in Terramera and Miraterra. Is that right? I think they're the same company, essentially.
As an Individual
Yes, I made a very small investment in 2016, which was five years before my appointment to the board.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
In your opening, you said that you joined the board in February 2021—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
—and that there had been no funding of the companies—mainly this one that you had an interest in—while on the board. However, according to SDTC's records on the website, on March 30, 2021, they approved $8 million for Terramera while you were on the board.
As an Individual
I don't recall making the statement that no funding was made. My understanding is that I joined in February 2021 and, at my first board meeting—I was unaware this was something the company had applied for—they received $7.9 million, and I recused myself by moving out of the room for that funding decision.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
In your opening, you said the only thing that was after your appointment was COVID. Now you're changing the story, and Terramera received $4.5 million before you were on the board.
The Auditor General identified a conflict for you with Rotoliptic Technologies. What's your involvement there?
As an Individual
The company was Rotoliptic Technologies. At one point, I sat on the board of that company, and I resigned from that position the moment I joined the SDTC board. I had made an investment in them in 2017.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
You had an investment in them.
What about Ecoation Innovative Solutions?
As an Individual
Again, I had a very small investment in them that I made in 2017, so if you see a pattern here, most of these investments were made in 2016 and 2017.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
You have an investment in them; that's good.
Before and during your time on the board, those companies received almost $12.5 million, of which $8 million—almost three-quarters of that—happened while you were on the board with one particular company. To me, that goes to the systemic conflict of interest we're seeing that directors had where, 82% of the time, they were voting themselves money for each other's companies.
Mr. Ouimet, why was Swirltex a conflict?
Corporate Director, As an Individual
I told the Auditor General that I was not familiar with Swirltex. I have no connection to that company, and I don't know why it appeared in the minutes. We missed that. I'm not familiar with the company, and I have no connection to it.
Corporate Director, As an Individual
Lithion Recycling and enim, which I have no connection to, are sister companies. I did in fact declare a perceived conflict of interest, because this is a sister company to a company I was associated with. I therefore recused myself.
Conservative
Corporate Director, As an Individual
Lithion Recycling was part of a consortium that submitted the Nano One application. I recused myself from that one as well.
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Enim, which is a sister company, meaning it is owned, got $3 million from SDTC while you were on the board, and Nano One got $10 million.
Again, it looks like there were a lot of conflicts of interest and financial interests among you and your fellow directors. The Auditor General named nine directors, some of them GIC and some of them not, who had conflicts of interest. Did it not seem unusual? Both of you are experienced directors. Have you ever served on a board where more than 80% of the transactions were conflicted when they came to the board?
Mr. Ouimet, go ahead.
Corporate Director, As an Individual
I never calculated the percentage of transactions.
Every time the SDTC board or a committee met to review projects, three or four conflicts might be declared. Most of the time it was perceived conflict and people were very, very careful.
The actual number of investments held by directors does not correspond to the number of perceived conflicts.
Corporate Director, As an Individual
I personally have no interest in any of the companies that were declared, other than Lithion Recycling.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
All right, thank you very much.
The next speaker is Mr. Drouin.
Mr. Drouin, you have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before us today.
I'd like to start my questioning with Mr. Kukucha.
Thanks again for being before our parliamentary committee. I know there have been multiple investigations, and you've been called back to another committee.
You mentioned the McCarthy review. We heard some testimony about the McCarthy review from the whistle-blower last week. When the McCarthy review was launched, were you, as a board member, aware that the review was being done with employees?
As an Individual
The board was made aware that an independent legal firm had been hired and was looking into the matter, but we did not have—or at least I did not have—visibility into that process or what was occurring. In fact, I saw the report for the first time approximately two weeks ago, or actually last week, when I was advised that I had to testify.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Some allegations were made by the whistle-blower—and we've asked for documentation—that somehow the minister had concocted the conclusions of that report. Even though it did not directly report to the minister but to another department, obviously when issues arise with an arm's-length organization or the department itself, it is reasonable that a particular report would be reporting to another department.
The board didn't have access to those documents before the McCarthy review at all, and you've just testified that you saw that for the first time two weeks ago. Is that correct?