Evidence of meeting #143 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 sdtc.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I'll ask Ms. Morgan if she could take her seat at the end of the witness table.
I'll turn things over to you, Ms. Yip, as soon as you're settled there, but do take your time.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I apologize, Mr. Erskine-Smith. The time is yours, not Ms. Yip's. Pardon me; I misread my paper.
If you're ready, Mr. Erskine-Smith, you have the floor for five minutes, please, to conclude questions to Ms. Morgan, and then we'll wrap things up.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks very much.
I suppose I want to start with the different categories of projects that will fall under your review. There will be some projects that were eligible and had no conflicts, and you can restart that funding. This has been a detriment to those companies that haven't had the opportunity to access funds.
Where a project has been deemed ineligible, though, and there was no conflict, that's one category. There would be others where they were eligible and there was a conflict, but the conflict was declared and there were proper processes undertaken. Then there are other categories, and I think this may be why some members have expressed frustration today.
It's not enough to say you'll treat it on a case-by-case basis, because we know actually that there are these pretty standard categories that different companies will fall into. In a case where there is a conflict, for example, and it was inappropriate that funding was distributed but there was no fraud and no wrongdoing per se on the company's part, there was an impropriety in the allegation nonetheless, and that should be addressed.
Therefore, I think it would be helpful.... You may not have an answer today, and I'm not going to demand a yes-or-no answer as far as that goes, but I actually really appreciate the work that people do to come in and fix a situation like this after the fact, especially someone like you, who are not conflicted and have been subjected to two hours of this nonsense despite the fact you're there to clean up the mess. I think we should be working alongside you in doing so, but I do think it falls short to say we're going to do it on a case-by-case basis and be so vague.
Therefore, I won't ask you to commit to coming back in person, but I think there does have to be some communication from the board to us in writing to outline what that process is in a clearer way. Again, I think case-by-case is insufficient to outline at some point—it doesn't have to be tomorrow—what the expectation of the board is and what the advice is from the experts you're consulting with as to how you're going to deal with these different and distinct categories.
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
In the Auditor General's report, there were two ecosystem projects, for example, that were clearly deemed to be ineligible, and the board took action immediately to cease funding for ecosystem projects, because the Auditor General determined that ecosystem projects in general were not eligible under the contribution agreement.
There were also issues regarding approval of the seed funding programs, primarily around the governance and approval process, so those have also been stopped by the board. That program will be transferred, we expect, to the National Research Council.
Then, in the case of the start-up funding, there are obviously different categories, as the member indicated, including a category where the Auditor General has reviewed and not found any issues of ineligibility. There are also categories where the Auditor General did find eligibility issues. They noted that they did not perform a technological assessment of projects and, therefore, did request that all of the projects under this entire period be reviewed one by one.
Of course, there will be different categories. As I noted in terms of funding restarts, we're looking on a priority basis at the projects where we have companies that have met their agreements, and we'll be looking at those as a first step. It's prioritizing the companies where they are in progress on projects and where funding has been paused. As those go forward, we'll be able to work on the restart.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
It all makes sense. The only thing I'll say to that is I appreciate having to review them one by one and case by case, but ultimately, the objective of that review is to then sort them into a category.
I think the frustration you're getting in some ways is because if there is a decision that was subject to a conflict where there was a failure to recuse, and the Ethics Commissioner would find, if he was reviewing every single case, that its approval was improper, it's important for us to know how that category would be dealt with.
It's not enough to say that in this particular case or in that particular case, they're unique. No. The problem will be the same. It might be a different company or it might be a different merit to the company, but the fundamental conflict problem may well be the same.
Again, it may not be clear in your mind yet what all of those categories are and what the process is for each category, but it would be helpful for us to understand them. There wouldn't be so much “yes or no” or back-and-forth if we properly understood it.
The only other thing I would leave you with—and it would be a help for this committee—is there is that one company, NRStor, that received funds. We know it was subject to an issue whereby the individual should have recused themselves but instead abstained. That's not criminal wrongdoing, Mr. Perkins, but it's nonetheless an ethics violation.
That particular case is emblematic of one category, so how one deals with that will suggest how one will deal with other similar cases. It would be good for us to know, in writing at some point, how the board intends to deal with that particular case.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you.
Ms. Morgan, you have the last word, if any—without interruption, please.
I'll go over to you.
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
I have nothing to add.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Okay. I appreciate that.
Mr. Erskine-Smith was quite clear in his request, so we'll leave that with you.
There are just a few points before we end things here.
I want to thank you, Ms. Morgan, for coming in today, for being so patient while we dealt with some sudden committee business, and for your assistance today in relation to this study.
There have been several requests for information from you and your team. Could you endeavour to provide that? Generally, we like to have responses back to this committee in about three weeks to be in a position to review them. As I said, please be as forthcoming and as transparent as you can. Should you find there's a roadblock, please state that so we have a sense of why you might not be able to answer or provide answers that are as fulsome as we might like.
I want to note, colleagues, before I look for your consent to adjourn, that on Wednesday I'm going to start the meeting at 4:15 instead of 4:30. Mr. Bains has agreed to appear, but he has some scheduling conflicts. Knowing as well the state of the chamber with respect to votes—I don't expect any on Wednesday—we're going to begin at 4:15. That notice will likely go out today. We're waiting for some paperwork on that, but I wanted to give you all as much of a heads-up as possible.
I'm looking for your permission to adjourn this meeting.
