Information & Ethics Committee on June 4th, 2024

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, to be clear, that's not my assertion. I am not suggesting that you—

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No, I understand, but I want you to understand—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We're at the end of the time.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

—that you're talking about internal procedures here, where something can very easily be achieved.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Green.

That concludes our first round. We're going to five-minute rounds.

I'm going to start with Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Commissioner, for coming back to the committee.

One of the challenges we have here is that there are questions about who this Randy is. You mentioned those questions. I know that was certainly the conclusion of the last round. It is still an outstanding question. It seems to me that, in this question about who Randy is, if the principals involved in this company, who exchange accordingly, thought they were in fact referring to a minister of the Crown, or even if that minister wasn't involved in it, and there was benefit derived from that, are there some ethical challenges you would have with that?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

The task of the officer is to ensure there's no conflict of interest and to help people avoid conflict of interest. In the situation you mentioned, the question is: Is there a conflict of interest here somewhere? There is this exchange using the name Randy. Does that by itself create a conflict of interest? No. If the Randy is the minister, and he is actually involved in running a company, then, of course, it's a totally different issue.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

If he benefited from the perception he was the one who was passing along that message, would that constitute a conflict?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

It's very difficult with all of these hypotheticals. It depends very much on the facts. Without having the total facts, I can't answer your question.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I appreciate that. I think that emphasizes the fact that we need all the facts involved here, because there are many outstanding questions.

I'm just curious, Commissioner. Did you or your office have a chance to review the deferred compensation agreement that Minister Boissonnault received as a result of work he didn't do well as a minister? Did your office have a chance to review that?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I don't think it was a deferred compensation. It was for the amount of service he rendered for which he had not been paid.

Lyne, do you know the details of this?

[Lyne Robinson-Dalpé]

I can only confirm that we saw the information of what is owed from Navis to the numbered company, but we did not review an agreement per se.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Okay. I appreciate that.

Thank you, Commissioner. I know you're always willing to come before this committee, and I do appreciate that. It's appreciated. As we get more facts, I know you and your office will be hard at work looking at that information.

Mr. Chair, it's clear there is some outstanding information that is required in order for us to be able to effectively evaluate this, whether it's the question about who this Randy is or whether it's the whole series of challenges associated with what this committee has agreed to study here today. Therefore, I would like to move a motion. I hope there would be support for what even the Liberals have suggested we need, and that is to find out the facts.

Mr. Chair, I hope we can find agreement amongst this committee for the following motion:

That, in light of today’s media reports and Minister Randy Boissonnault’s testimony, the Committee call on Stephen Anderson, Kirsten Poon, and representatives of the Ghaoui Group to appear before the committee individually and testify forthwith for no less than one hour each on or before June 20th, and that the committee seek additional resources to facilitate these meetings if needed.

Chair, I would just make a brief comment on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Let me just stop you there.

Have you circulated the motion to the clerk, Mr. Kurek?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

It's on its way.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

The motion is in order.

I'll give you the floor for some brief comments.

I'm going to ask the clerk to circulate it as soon as she gets it.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I hope there's agreement because certainly what the Liberals have suggested, while making some pretty outlandish accusations about.... Quite frankly, I've never seen a minister be so partisan before a committee as Minister Boissonnault was this morning, and certainly there's concern about that.

You'll note in this motion, Chair, we are not calling back the minister. We want to get the facts. We want to ensure that Canadians can find out exactly what happened. Certainly if there is further information that requires the minister to be recalled, I would hope we could find agreement amongst the committee. This is simply to further ensure that Canadians are in fact getting the answers that are deserved when it comes to this matter. I know Mr. Green, as well, had mentioned there's some follow-up needed, and I know the commissioner is always very willing to work with this committee.

With that, Chair, I would simply conclude my remarks by hoping that all members of this committee would support the simple request to get to the bottom of the very clear and outstanding questions that come about as a result of the discussion we've had here today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Kurek.

The motion has been moved.

I do see your hand, Mr. Green, and then I have Ms. Damoff's hand.

Commissioner, I'm going to ask that you hang on for a few minutes until we deal with this.

The motion is in English only.

I am going to suspend for a few minutes while we distribute that.

We'll distribute it in both official languages, Mr. Fortin.

I'll suspend the meeting for a few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We are back from suspension.

I would just advise all members that the motion has been shared

in both official languages.

We have a motion that has been moved.

I'm going to advise the committee members as well, because I know the question of resources came up, that we have until 1:30, and that is a hard stop.

Mr. Fortin, do you have a point of order?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Actually, Mr. Chair, I would ask you to suspend for five minutes so that I can discuss the motion with Mr. Villemure, who isn't here right now.

I think this is an important motion, and since we've just received it, I would like to take the time to look at it with Mr. Villemure.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We will suspend the meeting for five minutes. Then we will begin debate on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

We are going to resume, having given time to look at the motion. When we left, the motion had been moved by Mr. Kurek. Everybody has the motion at this point. We are resuming debate on the motion.

I have Mr. Green followed by Ms. Damoff.

Mr. Green, go ahead, sir.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

You'll note that in the past, as an opposition member of this committee, I have supported deeper dives into government dealings. I certainly support a greater inspection of what has happened here and a better understanding, and a request for having these witnesses, to me, makes sense.

However, what I will tell you is that one of the biggest frustrations I've had with this committee, as has happened in the past, is where you, sir, have booked meetings without consulting the other parties, and I would reference the Bloc, the NDP or even the Liberal side when it comes to the committee work.

While I'm supportive of this motion, what I'm not supportive of is the caveat that says, “that the committee seek additional resources to facilitate these meetings if needed.” To me, having learned from past mistakes, I'm going to go on the record and say that I am no longer in support of a committee structure that allows a chair or the official opposition to direct the course of our work without consultations with the other parties.

For that reason, I'm going to amend this and I'm going to move that, after it says, “forthwith for no less than”, we strike from there forward and we put in “for one two-hour regularly scheduled meeting”. The reason I do that is I think we can have all of the witnesses arrive, provide testimony with five-minute openings, have the ability to question, examine and cross-examine, and only use one regularly scheduled meeting so we're not in a scenario where you all are booking meetings, without consulting the other parties, at your convenience and your will.

That is the amendment that I am moving. I'm in support of pursuing this, but I'm not going to just give you the ability to do it at your own leisure or prioritization.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Mr. Green.

Just so that I'm clear, you're moving “for one two-hour regularly scheduled meeting”, and I assume that you are keeping “before June 20th”. Is that correct?

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think, Mr. Chair, what needs to happen at this committee is we need to have a subcommittee that plans work in accordance with the courtesy of including the other parties on the work schedule. If we have a subcommittee that plans the work, and this is prioritized by way of a regular motion that is directed by committee, then yes, it would be before that.

However, what I do not want to do is give you the ability to determine when that's going to be without consultation with us. I would state the obvious, which is that we're 25 members in our caucus without the infinite resources that both the government and the official opposition have, so we have to take our scheduling, our timing and our staffing into account when we make commitments for additional work.

This notion that when we don't concede to the whim of you as the chair that we're somehow complicit in the cover-up is a cockamamie way of impugning what our work is here as New Democrats. We even heard it today with these ridiculous references of an NDP-Liberal government. I'm not on for that. However, what I am on for is holding this government accountable, and what I am on for is using the traditional courtesy of our committee to have a planning committee that allows the committee to direct the work and not just the Conservative Party, or you, sir, as chair.