Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #145 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 parliamentary.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #145 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 parliamentary.
A video is available from Parliament.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
As I said, I'm surmising. I don't know—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you. That is the time.
Going back to Mr. Cooper, you have the floor for five minutes.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to probe your findings in the “Ouimet Report”.
You undertook an investigation into green slush fund board member Guy Ouimet. You looked more specifically into allegations of conflict of interest when Mr. Ouimet voted along with the rest of the board to approve $38.5 million in taxpayer dollars in so-called COVID relief payments, $38.5 million that the Auditor General determined went improperly out the door. At issue with Mr. Ouimet is that he had a 1% interest in a company called Lithion, a company that received nearly $400,000 from the COVID relief payments that Mr. Ouimet improperly voted to approve. You found that Mr. Ouimet had a financial interest when he voted to approve this funding. Is that correct?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
You found that when Mr. Ouimet participated in voting to approve the so-called COVID relief payments, he knew that Lithion, a company that he had an interest in, would benefit. Is that correct?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, yes, yes....
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Therefore, he had a private interest in those decisions.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That is correct.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
As a result, it was your conclusion that Mr. Ouimet's conduct fell short of the Conflict of Interest Act, and more specifically sections 6 and 21, which, taken together, require a public office holder such as Mr. Ouimet to recuse themselves on matters in which they have a conflict of interest.
Is that a fair conclusion?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Okay. Thank you for that.
Nonetheless, you dismissed the allegations against Mr. Ouimet on the basis of the principle of de minimis, in that his 1% interest in Lithion was “of a trivial nature”. That's at paragraph 144 of your report.
Did you ask Mr. Ouimet the dollar value of his 1% interest in Lithion?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Michael, can you answer?
Legal Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes. It was a $1,200 interest.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
That's correct. It was $1,200 at the time, but in the three short years after Mr. Ouimet voted to funnel nearly $400,000 from the green slush fund into Lithion, his 1% interest in Lithion increased by nearly 900%. It went from $1,250 to $11,000.
That's quite a return, wouldn't you say?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Well, let's start at the beginning.
Mr. Ouimet, like everybody else, voted on the COVID payments. Two quotes were taken, and at the time there was absolutely no reference to conflict of interest at all, because the advice from the corporate counsel who was at SDTC.... It was not “corporate counsel”; what was he called?
It was “reporting counsel”. The reporting counsel said there was—
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Sir, I don't want to interrupt you, but bad legal advice doesn't excuse one from following the Conflict of Interest Act.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Did I say it did?
Conservative
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I'm trying to give an answer.
Everybody who voted on that, if they had a conflict, was in conflict. Mr. Ouimet's conflict of interest was in this tiny little sliver of a company. I don't know—
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
I find it interesting that you looked at $1,250, but you didn't look at the fact that it increased by 900% in value after he voted to funnel $400,000 to a company that he had an interest in. He knew he had an interest in it at the time, and all of a sudden, his so-called trivial 1% interest increases nearly 900%.
How is that a conflict of interest is too small to matter? It is a fact that Mr. Ouimet, with the greatest of respect, profited handsomely in part because of his conflict of interest at the green slush fund.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
He had a 1% interest. He could have lost that 1% interest.
The vote was not on his 1% interest; the vote was on a number of companies, all the companies that SDTC until that point had supported, and whether they needed emergency funding before COVID. He, like all the others, voted. As I've said in my report, it was totally wrong to—
Conservative
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No. He voted for his 1%.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
He profited handsomely from that, and I would submit that this isn't a trivial matter.