Evidence of meeting #122 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was randy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
—because I moved to adjourn debate. It is a personal plea to my colleagues.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
You're out of time, Ms. Damoff. Thank you.
Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
1:15 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The subject has already been covered, but I'm going to take the liberty of coming back to make sure.
From what I understand, Mr. Commissioner, you're going to conduct additional verifications on the alleged facts, which were presented to us this morning, concerning Mr. Boissonnault's former company. I believe it was Global News that put out that information. Is that correct?
1:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We'll look at those facts and determine whether or not an investigation is necessary.
1:15 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay.
The debate on the motion that was tabled by our colleagues in the Conservative Party was adjourned. I'm not going to decide that, but I assume we'll come back to it at a future meeting. If so, we may be interested in the results of the audits you are going to conduct.
Do you have any idea how long it will take for your office to get to the bottom of this?
1:15 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It's very difficult to give a precise date, because I don't know all the facts, and there can be complications. After examining the facts, if we deem an inquiry to be necessary, a whole process must then be initiated. Notify people, give them time to prepare, and so on.
As you know, we have two ongoing investigations into two individuals from Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, Ms. Verschuren and Mr. Ouimet. We launched those two investigations three months ago, and we'll complete them in August. Generally, an investigation of this kind takes a few months.
1:20 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Am I to understand, then, that it would be unrealistic to ask you to table a report before June 20?
1:20 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I don't think that's possible.
1:20 p.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, Mr. Fortin and Mr. Commissioner.
Mr. Green, you have two and a half minutes. Go ahead, please.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
Mr. Commissioner, pursuant to subsection 27(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act, public office holders must divest each of their controlled assets within 120 days after the day on which they were appointed as a public office holder.
What does your office do to ensure this divestment has taken place?
1:20 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We are in contact with the registered public office holder. Let's assume we have identified certain issues, such as things that have to be put in blind trust. We give them the information. We tell them we will pay for the lawyer. We will pay for the blind trust, but they have up to this date to do it.
If we do not get a response in a reasonable time, we will say, “Look, you're already in day X or whatever, and there's only this much time. Get on with it. Get it done.” We remind them and push them slightly. Everybody is interested in complying. Nobody wants to be offside of the requirements of the commissioner.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
What about the 120 days during which a public office holder is still in possession of the controlled assets? Do public office holders have to take any temporary measures to avoid conflicts of interest during that period?
1:20 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
If they are controlled assets, you have to dispose of them or put them in a blind trust. Obviously, during that period of time, you don't deal with them. It goes without saying. You have been appointed. We have identified these things. We say, “These are controlled assets that you are not entitled to hold. Get rid of them, or put them in a blind trust.” You're doing it. If, in that period of time, you would be acting with them, you would be acting, essentially, in bad faith.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Just for the purpose of my very short time, it's your testimony here today that, the moment somebody is appointed as a public office holder, they cease to be able to have any contact or control, despite the fact there's a 120-day window.
1:20 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
No, that's not what I said at all.
What I said is that they have been appointed. We deal with them. We identify. We deal with their disclosure and identify a certain asset they are not allowed to hold.
You then have the choice of selling them or putting them in a blind trust. From the moment we tell you that, I don't think you can deal with them, because it has now been made clear. You know you can't hold these and can't deal with them. You have up to the end of 120 days to either get rid of them or put them in a blind trust. You're certainly not dealing with them in the meantime.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
If a deal was made during that time, would that be in contravention?
1:20 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It has never happened. I don't suspect it to happen because why would you do that? You have just been told by my office that these are things you shouldn't own, to get rid of them or put them in a blind trust. If you're then dealing with them, surely you're not acting in good faith.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Green.
Mr. Commissioner and Ms. Robinson-Dalpé, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank you for your appearance today. We appreciate the time that you've taken and we always appreciate the expertise and the work that you do. I want to say thank you to your staff as well, Mr. Commissioner.
Before we conclude, Mr. Bains brought up an issue at the beginning of the meeting regarding the question of privilege. I'm going to remind the committee that it's not up to the committee to determine whether a question of privilege happened. It's whether it touches on a question of privilege. A motion was moved to report this to the House. The motion that was presented is debatable and amendable. We were in the middle of the debate last time.
The meeting was adjourned, which therefore means that the debate of the motion was adjourned as well.
There are several options. Obviously, I'm going to seek committee guidance on this.
The first option is that a member can move a motion to continue debate when they have the floor at the next meeting, at which point the debate would resume if a majority of members decide to resume debate.
The other option.... The plan, frankly, was to try to get to this report that we have, consideration of the draft report on the data collection technological tools, because I think it was the will of the committee to have this presented before Parliament rises. We haven't even started that at this point.
We can certainly go in that direction or we can resume debate on the motion that was presented to report this to the House.
I'm seeking some feedback from committee members on where they want to go in the next meeting.
Mr. Barrett, go ahead.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Chair, I would like to proceed with the consideration of the draft report. However, at our last two meetings where we attempted to do that, we were unsuccessful.
If the committee is going to be dealing with committee business, I would like to deal with the business that Mr. Kurek put forward today and debate was adjourned on it. I think there is interest from members to consider that matter as well.
If we're just going to be looking at what committee business we can be seized with, I think based on the bombshells that dropped today, I'd be very interested in pursuing debate on Mr. Kurek's motion.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I'm seeking guidance. I'm going to ask for quick interventions here because we do have a 1:30 hard stop.
We'll go to Mr. Fisher and then Mr. Brock.