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
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
That is your time, Mr. Nater.
Next is Mr. Erskine-Smith, who is joining us online.
You have the floor for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks very much, Chair.
This committee has been marked by a series of Conservative fishing expeditions from what I can tell.
I want to start with the first one, which is this assessment by my Conservative colleagues without any clear evidence—but they keep asking questions on this front—that there's some cozy relationship between you and former minister Navdeep Bains and that you weren't appointed because of your experience, your background and on merit. What was your relationship to Mr. Bains before your appointment? Were you friends?
Let's start with that. Were you friends?
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
How many times would you have spoken to him in the course of your life?
How many times would you have spoken to him before you ultimately applied?
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
You speak to this person four or five times. He's not your friend. You know him in his official capacity as the minister, and I'm supposed to believe, sitting here, without any additional evidence, that there's some cozy relationship and he's installing you there for some corrupt purpose. That's what I'm supposed to believe.
What am I to make of that?
As an Individual
When I was asked to become the chair, I really reflected on this. I think I wanted to do what's right for the country and for this sector.
Whether or not it was another minister wouldn't have made a difference to me. It wouldn't have made a difference if it was a Conservative minister or an NDP minister. I work for my country.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Let's get to the second fishing expedition that we've seen at various points in this committee, which is that there's some kind of corruption at issue, that you are self-dealing.
Now, you have acknowledged, and the Ethics Commissioner has found, two ethics violations. One was in relation to the failure to recuse. You abstained, but you failed to recuse yourself in relation to the Verschuren Centre. Of course, though, there was no pecuniary interest, so there's no self-dealing. There's no financial interest on that front.
On the second front, there was the blanket COVID payments. There was an improper decision there as well, on the basis, as I understand it, of incorrect legal advice that you were relying upon for counsel.
Is there any other instance that I should know about, that this committee should know about, that the Canadian public should know about, where you have financially benefited from decisions made at SDTC that you involved yourself in?
As an Individual
I have not benefited financially.
As I stated in other appearances, I accept the findings of the Ethics Commissioner—I really do. He accepts that I properly sought legal advice, guidance, to ensure my compliance. What he saw is that at the time—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
You should have had a better lawyer.
I want to get to the third and most recent fishing expedition. It's the first time I've heard it in countless hours of testimony. The first time I heard it was just a minute ago from Mr. Cooper, where he basically accuses you of criminal conduct and insider trading.
He might not know that insider trading is based on confidential information, not public information. However, regardless, are you aware of, at any point in time, any insider trading that took place at SDTC by the board of directors or by any of your colleagues on the board?
As an Individual
I do not recall, or I never saw, that there was any insider trading.
One of the things that the commissioner brought to my attention in the report was that he said there's no evidence that I attempted to influence the decisions of my colleagues on SDTC boards, which was—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
We've received no evidence of insider trading. It's the first I've heard of it—and from a guy who doesn't even know what it is.
My last question to you is this. You've served for Conservative prime ministers. You've served for Conservative finance ministers. What do you make of the fact that a whole slew of current Conservative MPs have sought to besmirch your character, engage in character assassination, accuse you of corruption, accuse you of insider trading? What do you make of this?
You've served your country. You've served Conservative prime ministers. What do you make of this current Conservative rhetoric?
As an Individual
I can't comment on that, but I go back to the fact that I believe all office-holders owe Canadians a commitment to accountability.
I've been accountable. I resigned. I accepted responsibility. I immediately accepted the report of the Ethics Commissioner. I've appeared five times at committees like this one. At every step, I've made decisions that have demonstrated my commitment to accountability. I don't know what else....
November 20th, 2024 / 5:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Before continuing, I'd like to remind everyone to speak slowly.
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, let's go back to your relationship with Mr. Noseworthy.
How many years have you known Mr. Noseworthy?
As an Individual
I would have known Mr. Noseworthy for perhaps 10 years.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
All right, thank you.
Mr. Noseworthy played a role in your appointment as chair, since he was the one who told Ms. Lawrence about your candidacy. In fact, he was the one who announced to Ms. Lawrence that, despite her reservations, you would become the chair of the SDTC board of directors.
If we take a closer look, we can see that a number of government expenditures are linked to Mr. Noseworthy. The specific amounts you would have received from government agencies where Mr. Noseworthy works total nearly $6 million. These agencies include the National Research Council Canada, or NRC, and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA. Mr. Noseworthy works for these organizations and also attends board meetings, making him the government's eyes and ears.
What can you tell me about the fact that a close connection exists between you, Mr. Noseworthy and the funding received by the Verschuren Centre, which bears your name?
As an Individual
I've known Mr. Noseworthy for a number of years. I have worked with him on various reports and committees, and I have given him advice over the years.
I have never talked with him about the Verschuren Centre or about any projects to do with the Verschuren Centre. That, again, is something I just did not do.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Mr. Rahme mentioned that you were not entitled to receive direct SDTC funding for Verschuren Centre projects—since you were on the SDTC board—but that he was going to give you access to SDTC resources. This access would help you find direct or indirect funding from ACOA, the NRC and Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, through the strategic innovation fund, as well as from NGen, which receives money directly from the same department.
Do you stand by your statement that there is no connection between you and the department, and that you never communicated with Mr. Noseworthy in order to receive these funds? Will you continue to say that the funds just appeared in the Verschuren Centre account?
As an Individual
I never talked to Andy Noseworthy about any financial support for the Verschuren Centre. The CEO and management of that organization would have pursued that. That's all I can say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Verschuren, this is the first time I've spoken to you, but I can't help but say how much your action or inaction has plunged us into an unprecedented crisis in the Canadian Parliament. The saga you started, which led to a scandal, has us grappling with a procedural stalemate caused by the stubbornness of the Liberal government and the official opposition. All Canadians are paying the price today.
Nothing has been happening here for weeks. We can no longer discuss any bill or any budget. I just hope you're aware of that.
On December 14, in response to my colleague Brian Masse, you stated:
The project would be at the board level. The vice-president of investments would be making a recommendation. Those people would leave. We would all leave that meeting when that discussion happened and that decision was made.
Then we'd be invited back to come in once the decision was made. We wouldn't know what that decision was until the SDTC announced those decisions the next day.
But the whistle-blower, Witness 1, said:
The second one specifically was the Verschuren Centre application. Employees complained multiple times, even by email to executives, that this was an obvious conflict of interest, yet not a single one of those issues was heard by executives. We were continually ignored up until it went to the board and other board members finally admitted this was an obvious conflict of interest. Even after it was rejected, the executives then forced employees to personally go to other federal or provincial funding organizations and use SDTC's reputation to see whether they would be willing to give the Verschuren Centre funding.
Either your testimony is wrong, or this whistle-blower is telling us nonsense and lies.
How do you reconcile these two statements? They can't both hold true.
As an Individual
I think the process the member described certainly was that. I declared a conflict with the Verschuren Centre immediately, in writing, to all those involved, so I never had a discussion with management about that because I had to recuse myself. It wasn't until I got a call that the board had decided that project was not going to be going forward.
The board made the right decision by—
NDP
Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC
This employee said the exact opposite of what you're saying. He said that employees were pressured by executives. That completely contradicts your own statement that everything went well and was done according to the rules.
As an Individual
I did not know about these accusations and these comments. Again, this was something that I think management was dealing with.