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.
As an Individual
I can speak only with respect to what I had access to, and I did not have access to that. I saw that only last week.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Okay. I'm just wondering, if a board member has not seen the conclusions of a report—and I will ask the same question of Mr. Ouimet afterwards—how it is possible that somebody who works for SDTC would have access to the conclusions or seem to think that the conclusions of the report would have been somehow manipulated. I want to remind a certain committee member that waivers were offered to employees, so the NDAs did not apply in the McCarthy review at all. If there were allegations of harassment or whatnot, NDAs were waived for employees. It is important that employees be treated properly and that there be no harassment in organizations, and certainly the SDTC, which is what we're talking about.
If you had no idea about the conclusions of the report or what was in the report, did you receive any official communications from the department or in any other instances since you resigned from the board? Do you know whether your colleagues received a copy previously?
As an Individual
As far as I'm aware, they did not. The only communication I had from the organization was to advise of this request for testimony and to provide materials, including the McCarthy report.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Okay. I know that the McCarthy review was not prepared for the Department of Industry. It was commissioned by the Department of Industry, but in cases like this, it would be normal that the Department of Justice would be responsible for that, especially if accusations are made, whether it's an arm's-length organization that reports to a department or the department itself. So the Department of Justice was responsible for that particular report.
I find it odd that accusations would be made, and I plead again with those who are saying that the conclusions were somehow manipulated to submit evidence, because that is the only way we can move forward on this particular issue. Otherwise, we don't have documentation or proof to move forward on whether or not the McCarthy review was actually manipulated. Until I have proof, that's just a drive-by smear, in my opinion.
Mr. Ouimet, I'd like to ask you the same question. Were you aware of the McCarthy Tétrault review?
Corporate Director, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, during the investigation process, SDTC's board of directors commissioned Osler to produce a report about that. It was deemed not to be an independent report because it was commissioned by the board of directors.
When the minister asked the Auditor General to intervene, he asked McCarthy Tétrault to conduct an independent study. The study was not commissioned by the board of directors. Every executive and every board member was examined. The study ran its course, but it was conducted independently of the board of directors. We got the report once it was done. I'm not sure if I was on the board at the time, but I did receive the report. We acknowledged the findings.
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
Mr. Ouimet, you mentioned that you did not understand why the Auditor General found there was a conflict of interest in the case of Swirltex.
Briefly, can you give us a bit of information about that?
Corporate Director, As an Individual
Yes.
According to the minutes, I declared a conflict of interest regarding Swirltex. I told the Auditor General that it was probably a mistake in the minutes, since I have no shares in that company. I'm not familiar with that company; I don't know what it does. I have no idea what connection I might have to that company. In my opinion, the only possible explanation is that someone made a conflict of interest declaration about Swirltex, and the person taking the notes put the wrong name in the minutes.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Do you remember who had a connection to Swirltex or who had a potential conflict of interest?
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Thank you.
In your testimony, you said that you always recused yourself when you had a conflict of interest. If I understand correctly, you always left the room, you did not give your opinion and you did not do anything to secure public funds for a company in which you had shares. However, the Auditor General's report identified 90 cases of conflict of interest where the individuals did not recuse themselves. Those are the conflicts of interest that we're talking about today. You were named eight times in the report. My understanding is that Swirltex is a special case, and the Auditor General isn't here today to explain it to us.
Why does your testimony contradict what's written in the Auditor General's report? Can you explain that to us?
Corporate Director, As an Individual
Yes.
The first issue is the COVID‑19 payment. There was a difference of legal opinion, but the conflicts of interest that we declared previously were noted by the Auditor General, because we took those files into account when we made our decisions in relation to COVID‑19.
In other cases, such as Swirltex, it's very clear that the minutes of, say, an investment committee will indicate that so-and-so declared a conflict of interest. Usually, when a director declares a conflict of interest, they recuse themselves and leave the room or the Teams meeting, but the minutes don't record that. They don't always say that so-and-so is out of the room or back in the room. The minutes just say that so-and-so declared a conflict of interest. The Auditor General can therefore say she has no evidence the person left the room.
Finally, as I said earlier, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner and I discussed all the breaches that concerned me. He swore me in, and he swore other witnesses in. He said he was satisfied with that. I understand that you're conducting your own investigation, but there's only one version of the facts. I can't change the facts.
Corporate Director, As an Individual
In addition, administrative lapses are recognized—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Up next, we have Mr. Desjarlais for two and a half minutes, please.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I now want to turn to a finding of the Auditor General's report. Can you both please confirm whether you've read the report and whether you agree with its findings? Yes or no would be fine as an answer.
Mr. Kukucha.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Mr. Kukucha, I think you could probably agree with me that this is not an answer to whether you agree with the Auditor General's report.
Do you agree with the independent findings of Canada's Auditor General?
As an Individual
As I stated in my opening statement, there were shortcomings that were laid out, and they speak for themselves.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Would it be okay to say that you partially agree, then, or do you outright reject it?
As an Individual
I take it for what it is. It's a report of the Auditor General.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Mr. Ouimet, do you agree with the findings of the Auditor General?
Corporate Director, As an Individual
SDTC management accepted the Auditor General's recommendations and provided its responses, which I have seen and which are included in the appendix to the report. It's important to read the report. The facts are presented from one point of view, and, from that point of view, they are accurate.