Go ahead, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné.
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.
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.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I'll repeat my question. I have in front of me the minutes of the two board meetings where the COVID‑19 payments were approved. The COVID‑19 payments are not in line with the contribution agreement, not in line with what is called for, required in the contribution agreement. You were present at the two meetings where these payments were approved by the board of directors.
Since you said you knew about the contribution agreement, did you say something?
As an Individual
I was aware of the decision made, obviously. I was there. I did inform the deputy minister when that decision was made. I am also aware of the fact that SDTC wrote the minister at the time to inform him of that decision.
The decision that was taken was taken with great urgency and with a view that companies were in the process of collapsing. The advice that was given, which I think many now would believe is faulty—the legal advice that was provided—was that this could be done through an extension of existing contracts and that it did not create any specific issues around conflict of interest. On that basis, I accepted that information at face value and I—
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Just a moment, Mr. Noseworthy.
More than $38 million was granted without projects going through the project review committee in a diligent manner, even though it's required in the contribution agreement. You were at that meeting, and you had that information in hand.
If you understand what is written in the contribution agreement, that public money must be treated with caution and that projects must be reviewed separately, that you participated in the meeting and that you allowed projects to be approved as a group without having been assessed on a case-by-case basis, that's not normal.
We know that many of these projects belonged to and directly benefited members of the board of directors. You were there. Conflict of interest declarations were even made at that time.
So you didn't say anything?
As an Individual
I believe, Mr. Chair, that the discussion around the COVID payments was taken with a great deal of urgency and concern. The approach that was being taken was that the projects that were being approved were extensions of existing projects—
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Okay, Mr. Noseworthy, but that's not the case.
Several of the projects that were approved at that time benefited board members. It had nothing to do with existing projects. Did someone mislead you? Did anyone tell you that this was the case when it wasn't? Be clearer. Right now, it looks like you were a tourist in the room. According to the deputy minister, it was part of your job to be in the room and to be his eyes and ears. You were paid for that.
Now you're telling me you're not too sure. Frankly, a little rigour please. Did you say anything? It was clearly a breach of the contribution agreement. You should have at least mentioned it.
As an Individual
I do not recall any discussion of specific projects. I do not recall any discussion—
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
That is precisely the problem. We agree on that point: There were no discussions on certain projects.
Yet the contribution agreement requires that every project be reviewed. It's pretty simple to understand.
As an Individual
My understanding is that the decision that was taken by the board was the extension of existing projects that had been previously approved.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Mr. Noseworthy, what was your understanding of your role?
You were getting paid. You are a public servant, so your time is paid for by the government and therefore by taxpayers.
When you were on the board, you were working. What was your role, if not to be the deputy minister's eyes and ears, as he said?
Did you at least inform the board that the requirements of the contribution agreement were being met?
Frankly, what was your role?
As an Individual
As I have since said and indicated in my opening remarks, I saw my role there exclusively as at the invitation of the board to talk about policy coordination issues and matters of that nature. I did not see my role there as having any type of policing function over the activities of the organization or its decision-making.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
I'm going to move on to another topic.
How long have you known Ms. Verschuren?
As an Individual
As I think I indicated in my opening remarks, I believe I met her somewhere around 2017.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Since you've been working or carrying out duties at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, the Verschuren Centre has received over $8 million. In many—if not all—cases, it had to do with bioreactors, the same project that had been submitted to Sustainable Development Technology Canada, for which costs had been estimated.
We know that the bioreactor cost $6.5 million, yet ACOA alone, where you were, gave over $8 million to the Verschuren Centre for the same project. That's more than the total cost of the bioreactor project.
Did you have anything to do with that?
As an Individual
I am not familiar with the details of that project. I never spoke about that project with Ms. Verschuren. I am not aware of the arrangements that were made around its financing, nor did I ever advocate on that project.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Next is Mr. Cannings.
You have the floor for six minutes, please.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Noseworthy, for appearing before us, despite the fact that you're in Newfoundland in terrible weather, but that's fine.
I won't press you on this, because you've been asked many times, but your function seems to have been a dual role, whether you saw it that way yourself or not. The deputy minister, as many have outlined here, has said that you were his eyes and ears.
You saw yourself in the function of a liaison with SDTC's board—there to answer questions if they brought them up. You gave a list of some of the topics that they might ask you questions on. One was the evolving policy that the ministry had. We've heard here that some of the projects that were funded didn't line up with the criteria that the fund was designed for. Is that something that was the result of evolving policy?
Did they ask you questions about that? If so, were you there for those discussions?
As an Individual
I do not recall any discussion on policy that would have had any direct reflection on a specific funding decision about a project within the organization. Those decisions would have been made by SDTC on their own.
My role, as I saw it, was around coordination and briefing. I believe that, when Deputy Minister Knubley spoke to you last week, he indicated that he saw my role as eyes and ears specifically on issues coming out of the management action plan of 2018, which focused on policy and coordination.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
If you were there listening and observing these meetings, even though you didn't see yourself as an observer.... I'm not sure I really understand the semantics of that part.
Were there discussions around policy? Did you go back to the deputy minister and talk about those things just to report back to say that they had questions on these policies and to ask what you should be doing? Was there any back and forth?
I'm just trying to get a handle on what you said to the deputy minister. Personally, I can't believe there was no reporting back in some way, even an informal way.
As an Individual
There was regular reporting back when there was a need to do so.
When discussions came up, for example, around issues related to the management action plan about how you track emissions reductions, how the organization was looking at doing things in that manner, of course, because they related back to how I saw my role, I talked to the deputy minister about them. I did not see my role as one of talking about projects or administrative decisions within the organization. That was not how I saw my role when I attended board meetings, and I did not talk to the deputy minister about those issues.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
You also said that you had no way to assess whether any of the board members were in a conflict of interest over a decision, yet they were self-reporting on that, from what I understand. At the start of the meeting, they'd say, “I have a conflict of interest in this project because my company is involved.” Then, they went on to recuse themselves from the discussion on that, or they just didn't vote.
There are two steps to that. What did you observe about that? Did they just leave the room entirely for the discussion? Did they stick around for the discussion, even to hear it, and then just not vote? I'm just curious as to what you saw in that regard when people admitted that they were in a conflict of interest. What did they do?
We've heard that, numerous times, different board members did different things. Some recused themselves, didn't take part in the discussion and didn't vote. Others might have stuck around for the discussion but didn't vote. Others took part in the discussion and then they voted. I'm just wondering if you saw a pattern there.
As an Individual
I do not recall, sir, any circumstances where an individual didn't recuse themselves and leave the room. It is quite possible that it occurred, and I was not aware of it.
In the cases where I saw people recuse themselves, they left the room. I should also mention, sir, that in my experiences with SDTC, at no time did SDTC staff raise with me a concern about the application of conflict of interest rules by board members. I would have thought that, if there were a concern that board members were being inconsistent or if there were an issue, they would have raised it with me for discussion.
NDP
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
People who have since raised these concerns never brought them up to you, even if you were there in the room with them.
As an Individual
I can say honestly, sir, with the exception of the conversation I had with Leah Lawrence at the time of Annette Verschuren's appointment as chair, where she raised concerns about conflict of interest issues, I don't believe I ever had a conversation with any other SDTC staff member or board member about a concern about conflicts of interest.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you. That is your time.
Beginning our second round, which will consist of six members posing questions for varying times, Mr. Cooper, you'll lead this round off.
You have five minutes, please.