Evidence of meeting #154 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.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Noseworthy, I'm new on this committee, so forgive me if this has been asked before and presented by other witnesses. I'd just like to get an idea of how decisions were made at the board level at SDTC.
First of all, here's one side question. We're talking about COVID project decisions. Were these meetings during COVID held in person, or were they on Zoom? How did that work?
As an Individual
My memory is that the board meetings during COVID actually initially started as teleconferences and graduated into video conferences as our collective technological capacity increased. Yes, that was how those meetings were specifically handled at that time.
I do recall that the discussions on the COVID payments were a bit unique. The calls were made on a more emergent basis than we saw. They weren't part of our routine weekly or—I believe they were—monthly meetings. It was a bit of an exception, and it was based on, as I indicated earlier, some of the concerns that were being raised within the community around collapse.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Okay.
Again, just to get an idea for myself about how involved these discussions were around the board table about whether to fund a project or not, I've sat on boards that sound similar, where staff would prepare a report on different projects. In my case, these were big projects worth millions of dollars, but then they were brought to the board, and we would have long discussions on each one to make sure that the money was being well spent even though the staff was recommending this over that, etc.
How did those conversations take place in SDTC? Were they kind of rubber-stamping what the staff came up with? You said there was the project review committee. I don't know who sat on that, but for the parts you saw at that stage, were there long, involved discussions on the pros and cons of each project?
As an Individual
It varied. I would say there's no doubt that virtually all of the substantive discussion on the pros and cons of a project and the real substantive work around due diligence was done at the project review committee. It was the project review committee that brought projects to the board.
Generally speaking, projects were reviewed in some measure of detail for the board. There was a presentation by a vice-president of SDTC, who would walk folks through the content of the project, what was ultimately involved and what was hoped to be achieved by funding it. It was not unusual at all to have a number of questions from board members as part of that process.
I do not recall at any time a board member calling fundamental concerns about a project that had been recommended by the PRC, but sometimes the discussions on projects could actually be quite lengthy. It could be up to maybe 20 minutes or a half hour.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much. That is the time.
Up next is Mr. McCauley for five minutes, please.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Thanks, Chair.
Mr. Noseworthy, how long did you work with Mr. Knubley when he was deputy minister?
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Just give a simple answer, please. How many years, please?
As an Individual
I'm just trying to work it out in my head, sir. I apologize. I believe it was about five years...four or five years.
November 27th, 2024 / 5:30 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Let me ask you, he stated that you met often and that you were his eyes and ears on the board. Did you bring up the issue of the conflicts with him at all? You obviously worked together a long time. You met many times together. The whole public service operates under the basic and guiding principle of risk-aversion and CYA, and you know what the A stands for—basically, it's cover your backside.
Did you bring up these conflict issues with the deputy minister?
As an Individual
If conflict issues had become apparent to me or were made apparent to me by SDTC, I would have immediately raised them with the deputy minister.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
You didn't raise anything.
We had Ms. Kolbuc, who's the vice-president, with us on Monday. She, like you, Mr. Knubley and everyone else, seems to be completely, like Tommy in the rock opera, blind, deaf and dumb to the conflicts of interest, accepting no accountability or responsibility. However, she did state that conflicts were minuted during the board meetings you were at, yet you seem to be saying that there were no conflicts that you were aware of.
Could you explain that to us, please?
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
No, it's not your understanding. I'm asking a simple question. The vice-president, Ms. Kolbuc, stated the conflicts were minuted during the meetings you were at. You were at all the meetings. She stated the conflicts were minuted. You were at this meeting, so conflicts were discussed.
What did you do with those conflicts?
As an Individual
When I became aware of the conflicts that were minuted and they were dealt with in due process, I saw no need to bring them further. It was a matter within the purview of the organization and its conflict of interest—
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
You talked about your role being to ensure the administration of the contribution agreement. Article 20.03 of the contribution agreement states very clearly that conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interests have to be reported to the Minister of Industry. You were aware of these conflicts. You were there to administer the oversight of the contribution agreements.
Did you report these conflicts, as you were required to under article 20.03 of the contribution agreement, to the minister?
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I'm not asking for your understanding. I'm asking, did you do your job? You stated you were there for the administration of the contribution agreement. The contribution agreement states very clearly that conflicts of interest have to be reported to the minister. Did you—
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Right, so you thought, “Oh, it's someone else's job.” Even though you stated you were there to ensure the administration of the contribution agreement, that's not your job. You knew about the conflict, but it's not your job.
As an Individual
I saw my responsibility as I have stated here. If I had seen any deviation from conflict of interest obligations, as I've indicated, I would have reported them. I saw it as the obligation of the organization to report to the minister, because that's what the contribution agreement says.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
It's not his job to do it. It's $400 million of taxpayers' money, but it's someone else's job to do it. You were aware of it, but it's someone else's job.
I mentioned before to Ms. Kolbuc that we had a lower-level person in the public service brave enough to be a whistle-blower and to come forward to you as well, but you didn't have that bravery or see it as your job for oversight, even though you stated earlier today that part of your role was to ensure the administration of the contribution agreement. I guess, not necessarily....
As an Individual
No one ever.... The whistle-blower never came to me. I'm not aware of the work of the whistle-blower, and I never spoke to that person.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Don't you think it was your role, as an ADM who has fiduciary duties under the Financial Administration Act, to act on this? You just thought it was someone else's job. Who should have done that, then?
As an Individual
As I have indicated, I saw the responsibility of reporting conflicts of interest—