Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's review the timeline of events. The Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton firm tabled a preliminary report in May 2023. You read its preliminary findings, which were quite devastating. After that, nothing happened at all between May and September, when Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton tabled the final report. Nothing happened again until October when the Auditor General announced that she was starting a study. Unlike the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton study, this study would be public. At this point, the resignations began to mount. They all took place between the Auditor General's announcement and the day that she tabled her report. The CEO resigned first, in November 2023. The last board member, Mr. Ouimet, resigned the day before the Auditor General tabled her report. I think that there are few coincidences here. However, I'll ask you to answer these questions.

Did people wait for the announcement of a public report before resigning? Did you ever intend to ultimately make the decision to remove people or conduct investigations? Did the Auditor General's decision to release a report speed things up in the end?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I can't speak to the motivations for the individuals in question and why they may have chosen to resign.

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

Haven't you read the resignation letters?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?

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

Have you read the resignation letters?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I don't remember seeing them directly myself. We would have received them, because any Governor in Council appointee who—

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

Could you please send us the board members' resignation letters?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, we'll check to see if it's possible to provide those letters. I will warn the committee that, unfortunately, they may come back redacted, given potential personal information.

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

You can remove the addresses. They don't interest us.

However, the information regarding the reason for their resignation remains highly relevant to our study. I would be disappointed if the committee were unable to access these resignation letters given that they play a key role in this study.

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, we'll have a look to see what's in the realm of the possible and what we have in our records that we can provide to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 30 seconds left.

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

Okay.

I want to pick up on the excellent questions asked by my colleague, Mr. Boulerice.

An Osler partner who gave Ms. Verschuren poor advice bears the blame. However, we learned from current board members that this firm continued to give them advice.

Does that make sense to you?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I wouldn't be in a position, really, to comment on that. I know that other witnesses have been here from the board and have given explanations.

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

Have you seen the findings of the Osler report?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Sorry, but your time is up.

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

I would just like to hear the answer. Is it yes or no?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

If you want to provide a yes-or-no answer, go ahead.

Please repeat your question briefly.

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

Thank you.

Have you seen the findings of the Osler firm and compared them to the findings of the Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton report?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

I personally have not seen the Osler report or had an opportunity to do a comparison.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Boulerice, you have three minutes.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask for the witnesses' indulgence and patience as I go over some facts.

We have a Conservative colleague here waving around redacted or incomplete documents. He's taking exception to this, perhaps rightly so. I'm not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing.

I just want to remind you that the end of Mr. Harper's Conservative government was marked by a contempt of Parliament, the first in Canadian and Commonwealth history. Why? It refused to give parliamentarians the costing documents for certain measures. These include tax cuts for big business, the purchase of fighter jets and repressive measures tied to its law‑and‑order philosophy.

I find it quite ironic that a Conservative is getting all worked up when a Conservative government under Stephen Harper was found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to give documents to parliamentarians. I don't know whether this amounts to hypocrisy or forgetfulness.

I apologize to the witnesses for this tangent. However, I wanted to bring up this fact.

When you spoke in September, you said the following:

“We do one last check again, of course, before the appointments”.

What do you mean by “one last check”?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

We send to candidates a confirmation of their terms and conditions of employment, and we do one last verification in writing—as I said, it's part of our five touchpoints—just to reiterate that it's important that they adhere to the obligations they are held to under the Conflict of Interest Act.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I have one more question.

At the end of this process, do people need to sign a document or swear an oath to say that they'll abide by the law?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

We absolutely require that individuals attest that they will adhere to their obligations throughout the course of their appointment.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I don't have any more questions.