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.
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
We are reviewing the projects independently to assess their eligibility, as recommended by the Auditor General.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I asked specifically with respect to conflicts of interest, wrongdoing and so on because the Auditor General found 186 conflicts and $330 million that went out the door involving conflicts, including 76 million tax dollars, in which board members actually deliberated and voted on approving funding that went into companies they had interests in.
Is that part of the reassessment process? That is a yes-or-no question.
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
If fraud or wrongdoing is found as part of our review of these projects, the board will take appropriate action.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Ms. Morgan, how is it possible to identify fraud and wrongdoing if that's not part of the reassessment process?
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
There are strengthened conflict of interest provisions that have been put in place, and no funding will be restarted without those conflict of interest issues also being taken into account.
We're looking at the eligibility reviews by independent assessors, and we're looking at all of the issues before we restart. Should we find any evidence of fraud or wrongdoing, of course the board will take appropriate action.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Why is that not part of the reassessment process?
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
The reassessment process that we're talking about vis-à-vis eligibility is what was recommended by the Auditor General. We've put that in place with two independent reviewers per project to assess eligibility.
Conservative
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
That was the recommendation that the Auditor General made.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
It's very clear, or it seems to be clear, that a priority is to get funding out the door. What's much less of a priority is rooting out the corruption and conflicts involving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
Now, Ms. Doyle stated, “If we find any evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the recipient...the board will take action on recovery.” What action has been taken to date to recover monies that improperly went out the door where there was wrongdoing? We already know of instances where that has been clearly established. What steps have been taken?
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
The process of reviewing the projects for eligibility is really at the beginning stage. We've started to review those projects. We are looking at a process to restart funding that will address issues of eligibility and conflict of interest for previously approved projects.
We will restart funding only in cases where these projects have been approved for eligibility independently and the board has had a very close look at them, as the Auditor General has recommended.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I asked Ms. Doyle about this, and I didn't receive a satisfactory answer. In the case of Annette Verschuren, the former chair of the board, $220,000 went improperly out the door, funnelled into her own company. This was identified in the Auditor General's report. Ms. Verschuren has been found guilty by the Ethics Commissioner of violating the Conflict of Interest Act with respect to those payments.
It's been months since Ms. Verschuren was found guilty. What is the interim board doing to recover those funds? What is the interim board waiting for in that clear, black-and-white case of corruption and conflict?
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
It's very important that we follow a clear and transparent process. That is what the board has put in place. We will have independent reviews, two independent reviews per project, and we'll assess each project for eligibility.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
You'll assess for eligibility but not for conflicts and corruption.
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
We're conducting these reviews as per the Auditor General's report.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you. That is your time.
I'm sorry, Ms. Morgan. Were you still speaking?
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
No, that's good. Thanks.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I just wanted to make sure.
Up next is Mr. Erskine-Smith.
You have the floor for five minutes, please.
October 7th, 2024 / 11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I guess I want to start with the fact that if one were listening to this meeting, one might be confused. I just want to make sure I have some things clear in my mind.
When McCarthy did its review of the workplace, there's been some suggestion that employees could not be forthcoming. They were unable to speak to the issue due to NDAs. My understanding, though, based on the evidence we've received, is that NDAs were not a barrier to employees' being full and forthcoming with that review.
Can you just clarify that for us, once and for all?
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
When McCarthy Tétrault did its independent report, it had complete access to all current and former employees. All confidentiality provisions were waived. The purpose of the—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
That seems fair enough. I appreciate that. That should be clear for everyone at this committee, I think.
Again, I'm sorry for the confusion, but there were some questions about why you're undertaking this reassessment. My understanding was that the Auditor General had specifically recommended that there be a reassessment of every single project.
Again, just for clarity, that is the recommendation, and that is why you're undertaking the review. Is that right?
Board Director, Sustainable Development Technology Canada
The Auditor General did in fact request that every project be reassessed. I think it was recognized in the Auditor General's report that there could be more information that hadn't been available at the time of approval or that there wasn't, in some cases, proper documentation. I can't really speak to the Auditor General's rationale, but it was a clear recommendation of the Auditor General to review every project during the period of the review.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I appreciate that.
Just so I'm clear, you're on the board now. Were you individually involved in any of the previous approval decisions that the Auditor—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Okay. Thank you.
In the course of the conflict of interest challenges and in the course of the approval decisions that have been made, do you have a personal stake in any company that is subject to approval?