Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The challenge was upheld, if you recall, Ms. Fortier. Mr. Barrett has indicated to the committee that he intends to move another motion, which is fine. He can have a preamble to that motion not unlike the preamble you had when you moved the motion to adjourn the meeting when the RCMP was here.

As chair, I'm giving Mr. Barrett some latitude on the preamble, and I expect that he is going to move that motion.

I asked the clerk to clarify this, and she did. I'm quite comfortable with the position that we're in right now based on the information I received from the clerk.

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

On that same point of order, Chair...?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

You have the floor, Mr. Barrett, on the same point of order.

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

Standing Order 116 clearly speaks to this issue. It says:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

End of debate.

(2)(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.

(b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.

Not only does it not speak to a limit of time for the member to speak, it specifically says that, once I move the motion, until I'm done and then until everyone who has indicated that they subsequently want to speak are done, the matter is the one that the committee is seized with.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you for that, Mr. Barrett.

As I indicated in speaking with the clerk, I am prepared to give some latitude in the event that you are going to move a motion. You have indicated to the committee that you are going to move a motion.

I'm going to give Mr. Barrett the latitude to speak in advance of moving that motion. That time may or may not be limited, Mr. Barrett, so I want you to consider your time wisely.

Go ahead, please.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I have a point of order again, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Ms. Fortier, on your point of order.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you.

With your explanation, may I ask maybe to better understand? I read at page 607 in chapter 13 of Procedure and Practice, third edition, that:

If a Member moves a motion during his or her speech (e.g., an amendment or a motion to adjourn debate), the act of moving the motion will normally terminate the Member’s speech.

Therefore, I'm trying to understand how we continue discussing this if I have read this part at page 607. I'm trying to understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Give me a second.

I think I clarified it at the onset when we came out of the suspension. The previous motion that was presented was deemed inadmissible by a majority of the committee, which is fine. That's the committee's prerogative to do. The debate on that particular motion ended.

The issue now before us—and this is where the chair does have some latitude—is that Mr. Barrett is intent on moving another motion, so in advance of moving that motion, he has the right to speak on that motion. As the chair, I'm giving him some latitude, which is my right to do, and I'm going to ask Mr. Barrett to continue.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett, please.

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

On November 16, 2023, I received a letter from the interim Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The commissioner was responding to a letter that I had written.

In the letter, I laid out how Ms. Verschuren, who is the chair and chief executive officer of NRStor and a beneficial owner of the company, moved a motion at a meeting of the board of directors for Sustainable Development Technology Canada to provide COVID-related emergency relief payments to a number of companies, including her company. Further to the motion being adopted by the board, the company received $106,000 in 2020 and $111,000 in 2021.

Her participation in making these decisions, which provided an opportunity to further her own interests, is contrary to subsection 6(1) of the Conflict of Interest Act. She used her position as chair of the board to influence her fellow directors in reaching a decision with respect to the motion that she moved herself, which furthered her private interests, contrary to section 9 of the act. She failed to recuse herself from a matter in respect of which she had an opportunity to further her private interests, contrary to section 21 of the act.

This is what the Ethics Commissioner was looking at. He said, “I have considered your request and am of the view that it satisfies the requirements set out in subsection 44(2) of the Act. I am therefore commencing an [investigation] under subsection 44(3) of the Act into the matter you raise and I have informed Ms. Verschuren accordingly.”

This has come out of having a whistle-blower bring forward the information that this committee has and that Canadians have. The Auditor General launching an investigation comes from the information that Canadians have.

Now, did we get fast action, and were executives, the CEO, the board chair and the board fired for their role in these things that were known to the government? No, because the whistle-blower.... It didn't even rise to the minister's attention, apparently, for several months.

We heard from the CFO for the industry minister, in recordings of him that were played in the media, that the minister was to be briefed within the first few months after this, before the final RCGT report was issued. However, the minister says that's not what happened, so this didn't even land on the minister's desk until the end of September.

What we know is not because of due diligence from the government. What we know is from a whistle-blower kicking “at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight”. That's why we know what we know. The 300-page slide deck that the minister hasn't read gave rise to the concerns that now have the Auditor General investigating this.

It was a struggle to get this off the ground at the committee, but we can't have a situation where there's a whistle-blower who is speaking to the media and speaking to parliamentarians and the committee is not going to entertain a motion, like we just had, to have them come before the committee. The invitation should be furnished. That's the minimum standard that this committee should be willing to abide by—for us to pass a motion to have a whistle-blower come before the committee. I won't speak to the accommodations that I described in it, because the motion was defeated, or your decision to find the motion admissible was defeated. That's why I'm going to move another motion.

We find ourselves in a situation where we have a standing committee that has interested whistle-blowers begging for the opportunity to have accountability in an organization that, the committee would learn, is very important to them. The sustainable tech sector is the life's work of these people who work at SDTC. They want the confidence of Canadians restored in it. Their expressions, to me, have been that, if this doesn't get sorted out, it will undermine investment in their life's work in the sustainable technologies sector. I think it's fair that they're concerned about that, because we've seen rampant corruption at this organization.

The Auditor General came before a different committee—public accounts—and the representative from that office said that this is a new phenomenon at SDTC. The Auditor General had previously audited this organization through to 2017, so we're not talking about ancient history. We're talking about the recent development of conflicts of interest, the lack of fund-stream compliance, recipients who are not compliant, a flawed and corrupted project approval process with ineligible payments being made, and of course rampant issues with their human resources practices.

With respect to the importance of my motion, this is the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. In the RCGT report, one of their key observations is that “A backdated declaration of conflict of interest between the CEO and the expert reviewer was made under the direction of the Corporation's external legal counsel.”

They hired outside counsel, and outside counsel's recommendation to the CEO was, because she didn't follow their conflict of interest practices, to backdate them and then she'd be compliant. That's what we're dealing with here. There's no other organization where that would be acceptable, and it can't be acceptable at an organization that is supposed to be stewarding a billion Canadian dollars.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I find the member's comments to be really all over the place right now. He's debating—

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

This isn't a point of order.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I would like to know when the motion will be moved.

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

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

That is debate, Ms. Fortier, and I appreciate your comments.

I'm going to ask Mr. Barrett to come to the point where the motion is presented, but I am going to give him a little bit of latitude.

Go ahead, please.

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

I appreciate it's uncomfortable for government members to hear what's happening and that their government failed to take action. I understand that it's extremely uncomfortable when there's going to be a whistle-blower who wants to come to the table and talk about how PCO was given this information nearly a year ago and didn't take strong action, didn't protect employees at the organization and didn't appeal for protection for the whistle-blowers. I understand that's uncomfortable.

Getting to the bottom of this is more important than the comfort of members. The lack of understanding was demonstrated by the minister when he came before the committee. He hadn't read the 300-page deck. He claims he wasn't aware of this until the end of September, even though we have his ADM on tape saying that he was made aware of it in the spring and that he was going to be briefed on it in the spring. Then he comes before the committee and says that they took it so seriously that they ordered a forensic audit. No, they didn't. In the forward of the report, the fact-finding exercise that they did order is called just that. It's not a forensic audit. That's why the Auditor General is going to look into it.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I know I have arrived rather late to this monologue, but there's nothing uncomfortable about what happened. I thought Mr. Barrett was moving a motion. It sounds like he's preparing a Facebook clip here, rather than actually preparing to move a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I've already ruled on this, Ms. Damoff. He has already indicated that he is going to be moving a motion.

The chair could give him some latitude. I'm giving him that latitude. We've already discussed this.

Thank you.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Does what he says though, Chair, have to do with his motion? We don't even know what the motion is. I don't know how you can do the preamble like this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

This is why I've asked Mr. Barrett to expedite the process of introducing his motion, because I have given a fair bit of latitude at this point.

Go ahead, Mr. Barrett.

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

I'd say a fair bit of latitude has also been given with the “non points of order” points of order that are being offered. It's good to see that such latitude is being evenly applied around the committee, Chair.

The report we got from RCGT is, of course, filled with redactions. A standing committee of the House is looking for information on this massive scandal that may represent up to $150 million in misappropriated funds, and I'm looking at page after page of redactions.

We don't know what we don't know. This is why you would expect that it would behoove members to have the whistle-blower come before committee and that they would want the full information.

Ms. Damoff said there was nothing uncomfortable about it. Well then, I would expect that there would be a sense of urgency for this person, who has put themselves at great professional risk to speak to the media and to speak to parliamentarians. We have an opportunity to potentially have them speak to us if the committee makes a favourable decision on a motion to call the whistle-blower and invite them to appear in the future.

The one that I just moved was spiked. That's incredibly concerning. The context of the situation is that, in a period from 2019 until 2022, we have, in just one example of the many findings by RCGT, $17.5 million of ineligible funding. That's just one example from this report. This is the stuff that's not blacked out.

For the committee to not undertake a fulsome review of this in a timely way.... This is a time-sensitive issue. They still have money. The same board is still in place. The chair resigned after outing herself accidentally at committee, thinking that she hadn't broken any rules in giving herself a couple of hundred thousand bucks. That's the casual incompetence at work in this organization. The CEO quit because the Auditor General launched an investigation. We can't continue to have taxpayers' dollars managed by an organization that is in such a state of disarray that each week people are resigning. Those same people should have been fired by the government weeks before.

The minister said there wasn't cause for these people to be fired. I think it's evident in the redacted version of the report that the government commissioned...but it is certainly in the evidence that the whistle-blower provided to them. The assistant deputy minister said he believed them. There is three hundred pages' worth of this. That information, again, doesn't come from an internal audit. It comes from people who are putting themselves at risk.

The non-compliance that was evidenced by RCGT—and this was with their having the opportunity to control the information that was being reviewed. I have great confidence, now that the Auditor General is investigating, but that's not a function of the government having done its job. That's a function of these folks having been caught.

They enjoy the protection, for now, of being able to redact these documents. If I were to give the full presentation of my motion, Chair, you'd hear me read the entire document and include every single time there were redactions. That would be theatre. That would be something worthy of TV. They're very worried about people seeing this for what it is.

I'm looking at one single page, and three-quarters of it is blacked out. We don't know. We don't know which companies associated with which directors received money, and we don't know.... As I look through it, I can't help but scoff in disbelief because, on tables that are supposed to list project numbers, fixed amounts, variable payment conditions and total funding approved, the tables are empty. They're redacted.

This is why it's so incredibly important that we're going to have the opportunity to debate a motion that speaks to the issue that has developed here at this committee. I think that when we have a question of conflicts of interest, which is the raison d'être of this committee.... We can also talk about access to information. The access to information committee can't get access to the information that speaks to conflicts of interest. It is ironic.

The examples are bountiful in this document. I think we know why we wouldn't take this matter and be seized with it as a committee. We've heard that from the interruptions to my presentation, and we've heard that from the attempt to ensure that we don't have a motion that calls for the whistle-blower to have the opportunity to come before the committee.

It's also interesting because we had members of all parties who were contacted with this information. When the minister responsible won't even take a look at it, that's a problem. That's scandalous in and of itself.

In the report talking about conflict of interest policy not being followed, it talks about, “the results of testing 21 samples (inclusive of the planned 19,”—redacted—“which were found to be of interest during testing) for compliance against the Conflict-of-lnterest Policies.” It continues, “The”—redacted—“did not consistently declare conflicts as part of the Corporation's conflict of interest processes. lt appears that”—redacted—“did not formally declare conflicts for”—redacted—“during the time of the project assessment and” it's redacted.

Section 1 is fully redacted. Section 3 is three-quarters redacted.

It's really tough for us to be able to do our job if we don't have someone who was in the room, because we're not going to get the information from RCGT. We're not going to get the information from officials.

We have one official from the government, Mr. McConnachie, who said.... First of all he didn't know that he was being taped, which is probably when you get the most honesty out of them, I suppose, but he wasn't speaking for the government. He's the assistant deputy minister. He's the CFO at ISED. Of course he speaks for the government. He's the one who said that he didn't have confidence in the board. He's the one who said that he believed the whistle-blowers, but that's not borne out in the actions of the government.

It then becomes incumbent on us to actually address the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm going to remind you, Mr. Barrett, that at some point you're going to have to move your motion.

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

Yes, absolutely.

The Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Auditor General, independent reports, 300-page whistle-blower dossiers—I don't know what's enough for government members to think that maybe we should hear from the whistle-blower on this issue.

[An hon. member]

We did...in camera.

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

We're hearing that we did. For those of you following along at home, no, we didn't hear from the whistle-blower. The opportunity to do that, before you got here today, was defeated. The committee voted to silence a whistle-blower, and I can't abide that. I am incredibly concerned that—