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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Next up is Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné.
You have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Mr. Ouimet, who were the minutes of the board meetings sent to?
Corporate Director, As an Individual
The minutes were sent to the directors, to everyone who was present. I'm sure they were made available to officials from the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, since they took part in the meeting.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Thank you.
You're saying you never opened one of those reports, so you didn't realize there were errors.
Corporate Director, As an Individual
I always read them and I recognize that mistakes may have been made.
There are actually two kinds of mistakes. What happened with Swirltex was a genuine mistake that nobody noticed. Then—
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
You didn't notice the Swirltex mistake, nor did you notice that—
Corporate Director, As an Individual
No, I didn't see the mistake. I saw the minutes, but I missed the line about Swirltex, and I didn't realize there was a mistake.
The Auditor General identified other lapses. As I said earlier, if someone declared a conflict, it was obvious to me that it wasn't on the record whether that person entered or left the meeting. However, the fact that the person declared a conflict indicated to me that they did not take part in the decision, that they left the meeting, but it was not—
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I understand what you're saying about that, Mr. Ouimet. I'm just trying to wrap my head around this. You're telling me that, in your opinion, to resolve a conflict of interest, the person just has to declare it and there's no need to leave the room.
So, if there were eight conflicts of interest—I'm sure the Auditor General wasn't just making that up—that means there were at least eight different records of proceedings in which you didn't pick up on that important information. You recused yourself when you had a real conflict of interest, and you didn't pick up on the fact someone said you had a conflict of interest with a company. You missed all that.
Did you fail to do your job as a director, Mr. Ouimet?
Corporate Director, As an Individual
No. I reviewed the minutes of the meeting regularly and every time I declared a conflict of interest, I made a note of it. I know I recused myself and every time I did, I left the meeting room. I never stayed.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
That's not what I asked you, Mr. Ouimet.
It was also your role as an administrator to review the accounts and verify that the work was done properly and, obviously, that there was no conflict of interest, neither real nor apparent. That is also part of an administrator's responsibilities.
Corporate Director, As an Individual
Your point is well taken.
Since the beginning of the fiscal year, we have recognized that the documentation was lacking at certain times.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Next is 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.
Witnesses, the Auditor General's report says that they found that the SDTC board did not ensure SDTC's “compliance with its enabling legislation.” They also found that “the board did not follow the process required by the contribution agreements to approve funding.” These are pretty damning statements by the Auditor General.
To evidence this, in her “Findings”, paragraph 6.27 states:
For the 58 projects described in paragraph 6.21, we reviewed and analyzed the materials that Sustainable Development Technology Canada had used to screen and assess projects for funding. This included budgets, corporate information, risk assessments, external expert reviewers' reports, and materials and minutes of the related meetings of the Project Review Committee and the board of directors.
Both of you were members of the board.
It continues:
We found that 2 Ecosystem projects were clearly ineligible, as they did not fund or support the development or demonstration of a new technology. While we did not perform a technological assessment of projects, we also found 7 Start-up projects and 1 Scale-up project where, in our view, the foundation's documents did not demonstrate that eligibility criteria were met.... Overall, these 10 projects were approved for $59 million in funding, of which $51 million was disbursed as at the end of our audit period.
The Auditor General found that 10 projects, totalling $59 million in funding, were approved despite not meeting eligibility criteria. Was the board made aware of these projects and the fact that they did not meet eligibility criteria?
Mr. Kukucha.
As an Individual
My recollection is that the ecosystem projects were approved prior to my joining the board. The one ecosystem project I recall reviewing was the Verschuren Centre, which we actually turned down at the project review committee. I know that I and other new board members had questions about that program that we asked at the board.
As an Individual
We asked questions at the board about that, because we could not find information online about that either. We probed management with that. Again, as with some other matters, we were assured by the CEO that this was approved by government and that there was written confirmation for that.
As an Individual
We trusted the management and the CEO who ran the organization. We believed that if there was a different view, the ADM from the government who was sitting in the room would have either approved or contradicted that. There seemed to be unanimity that this was [Technical difficulty—Editor] for the purpose of the organization.
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Did the ADM's presence give you false concerns that they were approved or had passed the line?
As an Individual
At one point, there was a verbal confirmation; at other points, there was no verbal dissent. That's correct.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much. That is the time.
I turn now to Mr. Nater.
You have the floor for five minutes, please.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Perkins.
I just want to get a few questions of clarification for you on the record, Mr. Kukucha.
The conversation of January 27, 2023, with the whistle-blower, how did that occur? Was it over the phone, or was it on Zoom or some other platform?
As an Individual
The whistle-blower contacted me, and it was an unknown number that came up on my phone. I picked it up. I was at the end of a meeting, so I requested that they call me back approximately 45 minutes later or something like that. When I was in an environment where I could take notes and be attentive, they called me back, and then an hour-long conversation ensued after that.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thanks for the clarification.
To your knowledge, prior to this conversation, had you had any dealings with this individual?