Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 7th, 2024

[Marta Morgan]

I do not.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's clear enough. It feels like we're beating a dead horse here, but just so I'm absolutely clear on this, your job is to transition this organization into the NRC. Is that right?

[Marta Morgan]

That is correct.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's great.

I guess my last question in relation to the line of questioning that Mr. Cooper was going down is this. The Ethics Commissioner found two violations. One was in relation to this bundled decision of COVID payments. Obviously, it's a good thing that you and your colleagues are undertaking a project-by-project review to get to the bottom of things and make sure that all projects are eligible and no one is benefiting from funding simply because they have a stake in it, that it's based on proper eligibility and rigorous eligibility criteria. You've already made clear that there are independent reviews and everything else.

There is that one company that the former chair did have a stake in, but not as a sole owner. You have articulated that you have clear processes that you're following, and I appreciate all that, but it would be helpful if the board could submit in writing at some point the information, the process and ultimately the decision in relation to that project in particular. It's because that is, as far as the public is concerned, the funding decision that has generated a lot of attention. It's the funding decision that was central to the Ethics Commissioner's decision. Obviously, that Ethics Commissioner's report found it was the difference between an abstention and a recusal.

The Conservatives can cast this as.... Well, they have tried to cast this as a criminal matter in the most absurd terms. However, this is the difference between an abstention and a recusal, and it was wrong. It was wrong for the individual to not fully recuse themselves and to only abstain. That is the issue that has garnered the most attention. Therefore, some clarity on process going forward and providing updates to this committee on that particular issue would be great, so that we don't just have to beat the dead horse over and over again.

Mr. Chair, my last comment is simply this: When we have board members come to this committee and we're going to ask very similar questions because their objectives are the same, it would be helpful to not spend two hours individually with separate board members. It would be helpful to group witnesses together where it is reasonably possible.

Thanks so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

We now go to Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné for two and a half minutes.

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

Ms. Morgan, you said that only projects found to be eligible by the consultants would start to receive funding again.

Is that correct?

[Marta Morgan]

The board has put in place a process, which will include—

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

Stop repeating the same line. I want a yes or no answer.

I'd like you to confirm the answer you gave my fellow member.

You said that only projects determined to be eligible at the end of the review process would start to receive funding again.

Is that correct, yes or no?

[Marta Morgan]

As part of the review of eligibility, there will be an independent review, and the board will consider the results of that independent review in making a decision about project restart.

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

All you did was paraphrase, and you cost me a minute. Wonderful. Thank you very much.

Now, does that mean that if a project is determined to be ineligible, you will stop funding it?

[Marta Morgan]

If a project is found ineligible, we will take the appropriate action required under the circumstances.

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

What does that mean, exactly?

[Marta Morgan]

We are looking at individual projects, and we will need to assess, in the case of individual projects, what the appropriate action is. If there is evidence, for example, of fraud or wrongdoing on the part of the recipient, then the board will take action to recover funds.

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

Again, since the individuals no longer have a conflict of interest, if the projects in question are found to be eligible, they will start receiving funding again. That's great.

Are you still getting advice from the Osler law firm?

[Marta Morgan]

We have retained an independent law firm to provide conflict of interest and ethics advice.

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

I was asking specifically about the Osler law firm.

Are you still dealing with the firm?

[Marta Morgan]

SDTC receives advice from a number of law firms, depending on the issue at hand. We do continue to receive advice from Osler on certain issues.

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

Ms. Verschuren accused an associate of giving her bad advice on multiple issues relating to the approval of projects during the pandemic and the awarding of contracts. That associate worked at Osler, and you are continuing to deal with the law firm.

The same associate advised Active Impact Investments, which also funds projects funded by SDTC.

That means Mr. Vandenberghe, an associate at Osler, was advising SDTC on which projects to fund. He was also involved with Active Impact Investments at Osler, which funds the same projects as SDTC.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ask your question, please.

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

Did you know that?

[Marta Morgan]

The individual in question does not provide legal advice to the board of SDTC.

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

The law firm did.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

You'll have another opportunity to ask questions, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor for two and a half minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to return now to the issues presented to us relative to a whistle-blower; namely, Witness 1's report to this committee for the purpose of our study.

In that testimony, which not all members of this committee were subject to, there were many serious and damning concerns worth this committee's investigation. Part of those concerns were serious issues related to racism, sexism, homophobia and real issues of systemic violence within SDTC. These are serious, and they require serious investigation.

We need to talk about this, how we speak about whistle-blowers and how we work with whistle-blowers. Just this morning, for example, we had the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner asking for more money because of the sheer volume of concerns related to the Liberal government and the serious issues within the public service. We do need to make more credible the real concerns of those who work in the public service when they come forward with concerns. It's a very legitimate and regular part of being a government. You should be able to investigate these with more serious concerns.

The McCarthy Tétrault report was rejected by the whistle-blower, Witness 1, as you may know. It was rejected because of the specific issue of NDAs. You mentioned that all confidentiality was waived.

Did that include non-disclosure agreements by SDTC employees, yes or no?

[Marta Morgan]

Our focus is on—