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
That was a direct question for Mr. Kukucha.
Mr. Kukucha, did you catch that question?
He might be frozen. We'll just suspend here for a second.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I'll bring this meeting back to order.
Mr. Kukucha, can you hear me all right?
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Kukucha, you said you hadn't bothered to read the SDTC act. If you had, you would have realized that the legal advice you and the board were receiving was in contravention of the act.
Have you bothered to read the contribution agreements with ISED?
As an Individual
The contribution agreements were negotiated between management and the companies, so they were all individual projects.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
You sat on the board, and you were voting yes or no with respect to funnelling money out the door. Had you bothered to read the contribution agreements, you would have learned that when you voted to approve millions of dollars in COVID funding, putting aside the conflicts of interest, it was also in contravention of the contribution agreements with ISED.
You didn't bother to read those agreements, did you?
As an Individual
The COVID approvals that were made, the second COVID approvals—I was only on the board for the second COVID approvals—came to us with a blanket set of funds with no list of companies, to give management discretion. When I asked management—because I specifically asked the question and other board members did as well—whether or not this was in contravention or whether or not it was approved by government, management confirmed it was approved by government, and there was no—
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
[Inaudible—Editor] contravention of the contribution agreements.
You said, or at least Mr. Ouimet and Ms. Verschuren said in their testimony, that the board approved those funds because SDTC's portfolio companies were struggling during COVID.
You know, sir, that this isn't true.
As an Individual
I do know that many companies were struggling during COVID, so we took it on face value that management had canvassed all the companies—
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Chair, it's my time. I'm reclaiming my time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Order, gentlemen.
As I said, we're trying to safeguard the interpreters here, as well as maintaining decorum.
Mr. Cooper, you have the floor, please.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
The whistle-blower testified that at the time of the second tranche of the improper and unlawful so-called COVID relief payments, for which you were then on the board, SDTC had completed a full survey of the total portfolio of SDTC companies and found that every single company, on average, had over 14 months of runway, proving that the companies that received the money didn't need the money.
Would you not have seen that analysis?
As an Individual
We did receive the analysis. I can't speak to the specific facts you mentioned, but there were concerns with the supply chain. There were concerns with a number of issues. Even companies that I was involved with and that had no involvement with SDTC were also deeply concerned.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
There were 14 months of runway, and the money went out the door. Sir, it had nothing to do with COVID relief, and everything to do with funnelling money into companies in which board members had interests. That's what was really going on.
Mr. Ouimet, when you last appeared before the INDU committee in December, you stated that at SDTC, “The conflict of interest management procedures are rigorously followed.” Do you stand by that?
Corporate Director, As an Individual
Absolutely. The procedures were followed, but the documentation was lacking at times. The Auditor General identified that failure and we took note of that.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Mr. Ouimet, you keep claiming that the minutes were the problem: not that there were conflicts of interest, not that money improperly went out the door, but that there were inaccuracies in the minutes.
With respect to the minutes, in the “Verschuren Report”, in which Ms. Verschuren was found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner, paragraph 69 says, “Ms. Lawrence stated [that] the minutes were carefully reviewed and amended internally where necessary, and should be considered as accurate.”
Is Ms. Lawrence wrong? Is that what you're saying?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
He said he could only speak for himself.
You have a small amount of question time remaining, Mr. Cooper.