Information & Ethics Committee on June 4th, 2024

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

As I said in my opening statement, we made our ruling on the basis of the information disclosed to us. He disclosed to us that he owned 50% of GHI through his numbered company. That's all we know about GHI.

All of this now is what GHI did, who was involved, who actually ran it, who this Randy is who is being mentioned, did he actually do..., etc. To all of this news, all I can do is say that we will look into it. I cannot make a decision on any of that because I really have nothing more than the report, which you have, too, from Global News and the testimony that you heard this morning from the minister.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I appreciate that response.

I want to ask a quick question on another subject, if I may.

The Auditor General released a report this morning. I'm not sure if your office gets those as well. In it there were 90 instances of undisclosed conflicts of interest and 96 instances of disclosed conflicts of interest. The 90 instances of undisclosed conflicts of interest are in matters of $76 million being handed out by individuals who were appointed by the NDP-Liberal government.

Are you aware of this finding by the Auditor General?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No, of course not. She makes her findings public today. She is under confidentiality provisions and obligations, the same as I am.

As you know, I undertook to give a ruling on the conflict of interest of Madam Verschuren and Mr. Ouimet before August 1, and I will do so. Clearly, we will deal with conflict of interest there.

I don't know what these conflicts of interest are that she refers to. I haven't read the report, either. I'm like you. This morning it came out, and I managed to read the executive summary.

I really don't want to speak any further about it, because maybe there's something in the report that will illuminate some of these points.

It's very troubling to hear that there have been that many conflicts of interest. Obviously, that's an area that concerns us primarily. She is more or less, as the Auditor General, looking at the whole operation and—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Commissioner.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

—the effects, the value for money, etc. There's a different focus that she has from what we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett and Commissioner.

Mr. Housefather, I have you for six minutes. Go ahead, sir.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, thank you for being here, as always.

Do you remember anything momentous that happened on September 8, 2022, Commissioner?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No, I'm sorry.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

It was striking to me, because I was reading this text that was ostensibly sent on September 8, 2022, from somebody named Randy. It was at 13:14 MST and 15:14 EST. We all know the rest of the text.

Something struck me that the date was very familiar. I looked back, and I remembered that was the date when Queen Elizabeth II died. Then I remembered that it was the date when there was a cabinet retreat in Vancouver, because all of the members of cabinet were wondering what they could wear and whether they had black or not in their wardrobes.

One of the things that everybody was earlier pointing out in this text was about eastern standard time. Mr. Boissonnault, on September 8, 2022, was in Vancouver on Pacific standard time and busy in a cabinet retreat. The idea that he was leaving a cabinet retreat to deal with an issue like this strikes me as even more fanciful.

Commissioner, you would acknowledge, I'm sure, that this is something, as you said, that you're going to look into. The fact that there's a text from somebody ostensibly named Randy doesn't immediately lead you to a conclusion that this Randy is Minister Boissonnault, does it?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I deal with facts, not with allegations, assumptions or conjectures, etc.

I don't know who the author of this article is or what knowledge she has of the facts. When we look into it, we will state the facts as we find them.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Commissioner.

I think that's exactly the right way to do it rather than conducting meetings that make allegations with no basic knowledge of what happened.

You apply the ethics guidelines. I know as a parliamentary secretary that I fill out forms. I work with your office and so do ministers. You will ask questions when you believe something on our forms is not exact or is not detailed enough. You will then form your own conclusions. Is that correct?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Absolutely. As you know, each one of you gets appointed a personal counsellor who then looks at your disclosures. They ask questions and try to make sure that they're understandable, that everything is there, that nothing is left out and nothing is overlooked. They basically guide you to make a complete disclosure. It's an ongoing process.

You basically have an ongoing conversation with that person, especially since you also have the obligation to update the information should there be a change. Hopefully, through that relationship between the counsellor and the elected or appointed official, we make sure that all relevant facts are presented to the extent that the law requires it. They will be disclosed and put on the public record.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I agree.

I find that iterative conversation with the counsellor is incredibly helpful in making sure that, on both sides, there's clarity, and you avoid ever having a conflict or being perceived to have a conflict.

One of the things that's been raised is the issue of monies being allegedly paid from a company to the minister after the fact of assuming cabinet. You are, of course, familiar with the concept of closing a deal while you're with a company and thereafter obtaining money that was due under the initial contract, even though you're not working any longer for the company.

Is that something that's a process that's understood under the act, recognized and could be worked through with the counsellor?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

If there is a payment that, in effect, you earned prior to being elected and it has not been paid, that becomes an outstanding debt, which you're entitled to collect, and it's not in violation of any part of the act.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Sometimes that time is uncertain, because it's based on actual sales being made after the fact.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Maybe a certain event has to happen or a certain thing has to be achieved before the amount becomes due. Still if that amount or event happens subsequent to your election, it still becomes, at that point in time, in effect an outstanding debt, which you're entitled to collect.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

There are a lot of things here. You can use words to distort the actual facts of what happened and make things look bad when actually they're perfectly normal and covered under the disclosure reforms and the ethics act. Unfortunately, I think this is one of those cases in which there's an attempt to make something look unkosher when it actually may very well be kosher. I trust you, Commissioner, to be the right person to look at that.

Thank you very much.

If you have anything else to say, that's fine. Otherwise I'll turn the time back.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Commissioner, we have 40 seconds. Do you have anything you want to add to that?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No. All I can say is that the documentation that was disclosed to us shows that there is an outstanding amount owed to Mr. Boissonnault for works that he conducted prior to being elected, and that was being paid to his company subsequent to his election.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Again, for the benefit of members, the lights were going off. It wasn't a vote. It was a quorum call. We just checked on that.

Mr. Fortin, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Commissioner, I would like to thank you and Ms. Robinson‑Dalpé for being with us today.

I heard your testimony and that of Mr. Boissonnault. So I understand that you studied his statement and that everything seemed to be in order. I also understand that you were surprised, as were all of us here, to read this morning's article.

I agree with you that it's too soon to comment on this article, and the office will have to check the facts before commenting on it, I imagine. My questions will be more general and will deal with the commissioner's work.

We, as parliamentarians, are often very demanding of the Ethics Commissioner when it comes to statements or situations related to members of the government. I think we're right to be demanding. I also think that someone who sits as a member of the government must behave and act ethically beyond a reasonable doubt. I also believe that your reputation is excellent, and that you do an impeccable job in this area.

That said, I would like to know whether you think the tools you currently have are sufficient to conduct reliable audits, or whether the Conflict of Interest Act should be improved to help you do more adequate research on the various issues submitted to you.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I believe that the tools we have to conduct investigations, to determine the actual situation or to force the disclosure of the information that's necessary for our investigations are sufficient.

As you know, we can launch an investigation. We can ask people to come and testify. We have the power to require that it be done under oath.

Not only can we have the main witness testify under oath, but we can also demand it of the other people who are involved. I think we can really get all the facts that are needed. The act is a bit old. It's 30 years old and has been modernized very little. It has some provisions that are a bit difficult to enforce, but the powers to investigate are adequate.

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

Your tools are adequate, but do you think the level of reliability that we require is adequate as well? Do you sometimes get the impression that we ask you to go too far in your investigations or, on the contrary, that we should ask you to dig deeper?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

We have to start with what our goal is.

As I said before, our goal is not to find culprits. In fact, we try to facilitate interactions between the public and private domains. Anyone could have conflicts of interest. Generally speaking, people who are elected or appointed are experienced. It's likely that they've made investments and know a lot of people, and so on. Our job is to help those people find solutions to ensure that they declare what needs to be declared, or sell what they can't keep, or put it in a special system, for example.

If there are doubts, if someone raises allegations because there seems to be something hidden, then I have the power to begin an investigation, and I have the necessary tools to understand what happened. If there is a violation, I will expose it to the general public. It will be up to the Prime Minister or the Speaker of the House of Commons to act, if necessary. We only investigate when something doesn't look right. Our main activity is to help elected or appointed individuals avoid a conflict of interest.