Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2024

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

That transfer has to take place by the end of this year. Is that correct?

It is now October, and we still don't know who will be transferred or not. Won't employees who are not being transferred receive advance notice? Again, this seems quite vague.

Perhaps you simply don't know the answer; that would be a shame, for someone who sits on the board of directors.

[Cassie Doyle]

We will provide to the committee that information. I can assure you that we are very advanced in our workings with the NRC and ensuring alignment between the two organizations. There is no deadline by the end of this calendar year. Our aim is to have this done within our appointment of one year.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

I'm going to move on to another topic.

You mentioned in your opening statement that you were still reviewing projects covered by the Auditor General's recommendation number 6.29. However, SDTC's response to that recommendation was a partial acceptance. That response practically says that Sustainable Development Technology Canada's managers and employees are smart enough to determine whether the projects meet the criteria. Today, however, you stated that you were following the recommendation. That is inconsistent.

Are you changing SDTC's response to the Auditor General, or are you instead going back on what you said today and saying that the acceptance of this key recommendation was only partial?

[Cassie Doyle]

As I mentioned, we're in the process of implementing Auditor General's recommendation 6.29, and—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Ms. Doyle, the recommendation was only partly accepted by Sustainable Development Technology Canada, meaning that it was not truly accepted. Now you're telling me it's being implemented. That's contradictory.

[Cassie Doyle]

One thing I should explain is that the response to the Auditor General's report was prepared in advance of our appointment as a board. When we were appointed as a board, it was the very day that the report came out, so we had no input into that. We as a board are implementing the recommendations of the Auditor General as written, so we are undertaking a review of every project and we're using independent third parties.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

That's quite relevant. So you had conversations on that subject. I imagine you've seen the answers provided by SDTC and that you targeted that recommendation; it is important, after all. That's really the most important recommendation in the Auditor General's report, and it has only been partly accepted. You're now telling me that the current board members were appointed after the former board's responses were written and that, in the end, you accepted the recommendation.

Have you spoken with those who partly accepted the recommendation so that it can go forward, or are you using big words to tell us that you accept it without it truly going forward?

[Cassie Doyle]

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are implementing that recommendation as it was written using independent third parties. I can't speak to the partial acceptance—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Who—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

The time—

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Let me ask a quick question.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I've already given you extra time.

Mr. Desjarlais is next.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Doyle, for being present at our committee today. I was pleased to see from your opening remarks that you're committed to three overall priorities that I find critical to the re-establishment of public trust and to making clear the fiduciary responsibility that lies between taxpayers and institutions.

Auditor General Hogan in her news release on this audit said the following:

Like all organizations funded by Canadian taxpayers, Sustainable Development Technology Canada has a responsibility to conduct its business in a manner that is transparent, accountable, and compliant with legislation. Our findings show that when this doesn't happen, it's not always clear that funding decisions made on behalf of Canadian taxpayers were appropriate and justified.

As you know, Ms. Doyle, there were serious concerns related to the breach of public trust under issues of conflict of interest and board and executive mismanagement. These two issues are incredibly challenging for what is an earnest policy—a policy intended to support small and medium-sized businesses in Canada and a program and policy intended to ensure innovation and to ensure that Canada could actually make stuff and produce stuff and do stuff not only to help our economy but also to help our environment. This is something that young people across the country, people who love the outdoors and people who cherish what we've inherited in our country really value, but they are finding it difficult to square the circle in what has been the very disappointing and extreme level of corruption we've been investigating through the SDTC process.

When it became apparent that this issue was so extremely mismanaged, the minister rightfully did disband SDTC and began the process of transferring that work to NRC.

That is where we find you, Ms. Doyle. You got a phone call from the government: We're in trouble. We need you to help us rebuild a system that has largely left Canadians now both nervous and mistrustful.

This is an incredible challenge. I really appreciate your accepting this role. Of course, as you know, given the gravity and severity of this issue, we have some very difficult questions that I hope you can provide some clarity on.

Can you please describe what specific responsibilities you hold in managing the transition to the NRC?

[Cassie Doyle]

As I mentioned, we're a three-person board, so we pretty well operate sharing all the responsibilities. I have taken a particular interest in the area of restart, the restart of funding, as a member of the board, but we are providing very strong executive oversight of the organization, so we work very closely together.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Ms. Doyle, are you paid by the Canadian taxpayer?

[Cassie Doyle]

Yes, I am.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

What is your compensation for being a member of the board? Do you have salaries, honorariums, per diems...?

[Cassie Doyle]

We are paid a per diem for one day, for example, or a half-day. It's aligned with kind of the lower end of the deputy minister salary.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

What is that?

[Cassie Doyle]

It works out to being about $750 for a half day or $1,500 for a day of work.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much.

Have you had to recuse yourself from any discussions during your time on the board? If so, why?

[Cassie Doyle]

I have not. I can say that I have no conflict of interest when it comes to my own investments or connections or relationships with clean-tech companies in Canada.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Have you ever had conflict of interest training prior to your appointment to the board, or during your tenureship on the board so far?

[Cassie Doyle]

We did. As a board, we met with the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to ensure that we really understood our obligations under the act. As well, SDTC now has an independent ethics adviser. I met with that individual to go through all my own personal holdings to ensure no conflict of interest before taking the assignment.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you so much for that answer.

I think that leads into this next question. For clarity purposes, did any companies of which you were an owner, partial owner or member of a board receive any SDTC funding at any point in time?