Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 20th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Erskine-Smith, this is not a point of order. There is a Liberal member up next. If you feel the need to rebut what Mr. Perkins or anyone else is saying, you're free to do that. However, these are not points of order. These are light pokes I'm hearing from all sides, and they're certainly well within—

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

I understand, Chair, but I'm on record as saying I don't approve of ethics violations. Mr. Cooper's on record as saying he doesn't understand—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. Yes. You made your position clear in your turn. If you'd like another turn, you're welcome to speak to your whip. These are points of debate, not points of order.

Mr. Perkins, you have about 30 seconds left.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

As a board of SDTC, you used the staff to find funding for the Verschuren Centre that you couldn't get from SDTC. You got twice as much from the government as you asked for. That centre then invested in an organization that you have a financial interest in—Sandpiper, DeNova and the bio-creators.

There is a clear link between your efforts to get money for the failed Verschuren Centre so that they could give money to a company you had a financial interest in. That's a direct conflict of interest and it's personal benefit by you, which is what the minister set up when he appointed you and knew and was warned that you had conflicts of interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Verschuren, I assume that you have no....

[Annette Verschuren]

No comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's fine.

Up next is Ms. Bradford for five minutes, please.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With the Auditor General's report, which is the real reason we are here and studying this today, showing that there were conflicts of interest, and the Ethics Commissioner reporting that you indeed did break the Conflict of Interest Act, how did you navigate these inherent potential conflicts of interest that you must have faced?

[Annette Verschuren]

Unlike the Auditor General report, the Ethics Commissioner did specifically review my conduct. He found that I took what I believed to be the proper and necessary steps to manage conflicts at the time, that I was misled by incorrect legal advice and that I did not attempt to influence the decisions of my colleagues on the board.

I accept his conclusions, including that I acted in what I genuinely thought to be compliance with the act.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Was the purpose behind your non-recusals because you believed them to be insignificant or because you did not see any returns—or was it simply a matter of not truly recognizing the scope and impact that your not recusing yourself from the funding decisions would have on the SDTC, the board and you?

[Annette Verschuren]

In the majority of projects, I recused myself. There were some where I didn't. I abstained, but at all times I did declare. The Conflict of Interest Act basically says that you can't abstain; you have to recuse yourself. That procedural issue was something that I have to take responsibility for.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Recusing yourself means that you should actually leave the room so that you're not privy to the discussions, because your very presence could perhaps influence the decision that the board may take. Do you agree?

[Annette Verschuren]

Yes.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay.

Given your dual roles at the Verschuren Centre for sustainability and the MaRS Discovery District and the Ethics Commissioner's findings that you participated in decisions that furthered their private interests, do you acknowledge that such actions could undermine public trust in institutions like SDTC ?

[Annette Verschuren]

Again, the Ethics Commissioner did specifically review my conduct, and he found that I took what I believed to be the proper and necessary steps to manage conflicts at the time. He found that I was misled by incorrect legal advice and also that I did not attempt to influence the decisions of my colleagues.

I accept his conclusions, including that I acted in what I genuinely thought to be compliance with the act.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

What measures do you believe should be implemented to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future?

This has been terribly disruptive, as we've alluded to previously. What would you suggest so that this never happens again?

[Annette Verschuren]

I think the recommendations of the Auditor General report are addressing some of those issues and stronger procedures on perceived conflict, actual conflict and potential conflict need to be established. I believe that those recommendations are under way and are now part of the new organization.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Ms. Verschuren, we've heard a lot about how your tenure as chair of the SDTC board began. Can you please elaborate on how and when it ended?

[Annette Verschuren]

I am just trying to remember. December 1, 2023, was my last day with SDTC. I indicated to the minister of ISED that I would be leaving, I think two weeks before, but I wanted to complete the Raymond Chabot report and recommendations of management and deliver that to the ministry, which I did. These were accepted, and changes were made to improve processes in the organization.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Just to clarify, you advised the minister in December 2023 that you'd be leaving, or two weeks prior to that you advised him that you would be leaving as of December 1. I'm confused.

[Annette Verschuren]

No, December 1 was my last date with SDTC, so I advised him the previous two weeks before.

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay. I have just one last thing. Can you explain how an advisory panel is different from a board with oversight of SDTC itself?

[Annette Verschuren]

An advisory.... I'm not quite sure what context that was in. Can you clarify?

[Valerie Bradford, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

In my first round of questions, I went through your great history of the very many roles that you've had before with government, and some international. I'm just wondering if you could help clarify how an advisory panel's role is different from that of a board with oversight, which is what the SDTC had.

[Annette Verschuren]

I'd say the big difference is that an advisory panel would give advice to ministers, to prime ministers, to those who want to contribute to looking at policy and making changes to it. An advisory panel doesn't have the same accountability as a board of directors does.