Evidence of meeting #152 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.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Is that because you don't have an answer or you don't feel comfortable?
As an Individual
I disclosed all my documentation to SDTC, to the Ethics Commissioner and to the Auditor General.
November 20th, 2024 / 6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Brock, I'm afraid that is the time. I know your side will have one more opportunity.
Mr. Drouin, you have the floor for five minutes.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, I feel very generous today, and I will cede my time to Mr. Erskine-Smith.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Erskine-Smith, you have the floor for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Ms. Verschuren, we had the Ethics Commissioner before us, and I asked him, in all of his review of documents, his interviewing of witnesses, the Auditor General doing the work and then his pursuing this further, if there was not a single piece of evidence, not a single bit of testimony, that caused him to pause and say that maybe he should refer this matter to the RCMP. He responded by saying that, no, there was nothing.
We put a similar question to the Auditor General when she attended to ask if she came across any evidence such that she was concerned that there was criminality that should be referred to the RCMP. She responded that, in the course of her audit, they did not uncover anything that they felt was potentially criminal in nature. They leave that decision up to the RCMP and they would have referred a matter to them, but they did not in this case.
However, even today, criminal conduct has been alleged yet again, including against you personally. What do you make of that?
As an Individual
Mr. Chair, there were procedural problems that I accept needed to be changed. There certainly weren't any indications of wrongdoing, in my opinion.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
How many more times do you think we should we have you back, five times?
I ask facetiously because five times is an incredible number of times for an individual to attend. We had real wrongdoing when grocery store executives colluded amongst each other to lower the wages of low-income workers; we had them attend once. We had Pornhub executives, who failed to protect women on their platforms, in once.
Yes, you have two improprieties, two ethics violations, and you resigned as a result of that—taking accountability, as you say. In both cases you were following a lawyer's advice. I'm at a bit of a loss as to why we would have individuals attend once when there is very serious wrongdoing, and we would have you attend five times. What do you make of that?
As an Individual
That's a lot of times, but I take this seriously, and it's my responsibility to respond to the committees that have asked me to be in front of them.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
I'm trying to make sense of Mr. Perkins' last round here. He said that you went to SDTC for money for the Verschuren Centre. You said that it wasn't you, but regardless, collectively the organization came to look for money. The so-called green slush fund wasn't enough of a slush fund, so you couldn't get the money. You went somewhere else to get the money, and now I'm supposed to be concerned about that.
Why am I concerned about the Verschuren Centre getting money from ISED, not via SDTC?
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Yes, it's hard to figure that one out. It's as if the slush fund wasn't a slush fund after all. It's as if now we're on another fishing expedition, not in relation to SDTC but in relation to ISED funding completely unrelated to SDTC.
What I've learned today is that Mr. Cooper doesn't know anything about insider trading and doesn't understand the very concept. He's accused you of criminality, improperly, and I wonder whether he's going to say the very same things outside of the parliamentary privilege that he enjoys. What I've learned a couple of times....
Mr. Perkins, why I get so frustrated when you engage in character assassination is that, frankly, I just thought you were better. Here we have a situation in which Jenni Byrne is looking over your shoulder, and you're acting entirely differently from the person I thought I was going to work alongside at this committee—yet, here we are.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Verschuren, I want to ask you a very specific question.
During your time on the board of directors, when did you become aware that the Office of the Auditor General was planning to open an investigation into SDTC?
If you can you give us a specific date, I'd really appreciate it.
As an Individual
Yes. I think it was a couple of months earlier before my...because I went through the whole due diligence process with the Auditor General. I think it was—I'm not sure—in May or June when I heard that the Auditor General was going to be investigating.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Please do, because the dates do not seem to match.
I would like to know the exact date you were told, even informally, that the Auditor General would proceed with an investigation into the situation.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Thank you.
In your letter of resignation, you mentioned that you took the major allegations against the SDTC board of directors seriously. Nevertheless, you defended yourself by saying that the board of directors had commissioned two studies and had concluded that there were no problems. That's what you wrote in your letter of resignation.
Today, however, you say you accept the Auditor General's findings. That's a major contradiction, since the reports from the firms McCarthy Tétrault, and Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt draw different conclusions from the Auditor General's report.
Which conclusions do you accept?