Evidence of meeting #133 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Mr. Généreux, here, suggested that I speak in English, but we Bloc members do not do that. In Ottawa, we speak French, of course. We're not Conservatives.
Ms. Verschuren, to be perfectly frank, I was shocked by your opening remarks. Any normal, intelligent person who reads the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's report can only interpret it as a harsh criticism of you, your management and your judgment. The end result is an erosion of public confidence in government management, which is very serious.
You said that you accept the recommendations and the report as though it was somehow congratulatory, as though you had acted in good faith, and so on. You found about three lines in the whole report that said something positive. You broke the law 24 times. The Montreal Canadiens won 24 Stanley Cups. Should you get a trophy?
I'll tell you why I'm asking. You started the conversation by telling us that you accept the findings, that it was actually a positive thing and that you acted in good faith in all this. You seem disinclined to accept that you did anything wrong.
So I will ask my colleagues' question again. Did you breach the Conflict of Interest Act at least 24 times?
I'm not asking you what your intention was, because it seems your judgment is questionable.
Did you breach the Conflict of Interest Act at least 24 times?
Annette Verschuren
Mr. Chair, I accept the findings of the commissioner's report, absolutely. It was clear that in a number of cases I abstained when I should have recused myself. In another situation, with the COVID payments, I relied on legal advice that was not, in the view of the commissioner, appropriate. I certainly accept the fact that I should have done better, or could have done better.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
In his report, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner states that your decision to abstain from voting without recusing yourself was based on an incorrect legal opinion.
How many years of experience do you have in administration, management, and business?
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
How often have you violated the basic rules of conflict of interest based on an incorrect legal opinion? Does it happen a lot?
I myself am from an academic background, but in your world, in business, does that kind of thing happen a lot? Is it a common practice, or is this a one-off?
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
So, despite all your years of experience, you decided to simply abstain from voting.
I have, on occasion, been absent from a vote in the House of Commons after taking part in the debate. As a taxpayer, as a voter, as a member of the public, and as a person who pays the taxes used to fund Sustainable Development Technology Canada, or SDTC, how can I be sure that, even if you did not vote, you didn't try to influence how others voted?
As someone with three years' experience in politics, I've already figured that out. How is it possible that you don't understand how that works?
Annette Verschuren
The commissioner indicated he did not see any areas of influence or communication among the board in terms of not—
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I'm going to politely interrupt you, because I only have one minute left. I think this is an important question. I mean no disrespect.
As I understand it, it was not possible to demonstrate that based on the tangible evidence the commissioner was able to verify.
I'll reiterate the preamble to my question.
Can I—as a voter, as a citizen and as someone who pays taxes, who sees that a third of a billion dollars has been used to fund board members' companies—can I trust you, Ms. Verschuren?
Why should my constituents believe that you did not try to influence the decisions even though the minutes show that you did not vote?
How can we trust you, Ms. Verschuren?
Annette Verschuren
Mr. Chair, I would never influence the vote of any other board member. It is how I operate. It's how I hold myself accountable.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
Mr. Masse, you have the floor for six minutes.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm trying as well to get an idea as to what took place in the boardroom there.
Ms. Verschuren, you said you've taken responsibility in the sense of accepting the commissioner's report. At the same time, you repeat in your answers what the commissioner said in the report—and I'm sure you can do that again—but you also said, “I followed established SDTC Board practices that pre-dated my tenure.”
Please expand on that. Is that the practice that was taking place? Is the conflict of interest issue you have taken responsibility for learned behaviour you got at that board when you came onto it?
Annette Verschuren
I always took responsibility. I declared the conflicts judiciously, and in some cases I abstained when I should have recused myself and left the room. I did not know that this was the case. I took the advice of management and legal counsel here, and I followed what the practices were.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
I want to follow up, but please go ahead with what you were saying. What practices were you referring to?
Annette Verschuren
I followed the practices that management and legal counsel advised me of in terms of how we were to deal with these conflicts of interest.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Can you explain the inconsistencies of your voting versus that of somebody else? In the boardroom, you're spending enough time together that you're familiar with each other in your own lives. I understand, from previous testimony that I asked for, that there was actually social behaviour going on with the board, so I assume, then, that you all knew each other fairly well.
You said you were following practices that predated your tenure. What information did you have about the previous board, their members and their voting practices? Where did you get that information? Was that shared by other colleagues on the board, or was it something that was brought to your attention?
Clearly, you're here for a reason, and clearly the Ethics Commissioner has a report that had its conclusion, but what's not clear is the overall practice on the board.
Again, I think some people like me, who are not privy to these private, privileged positions, have a hard time understanding that basic rules were not applied, whether it was just you as an individual or whether it was the collective. My concern is how far this reaches back. You have already identified what predated your activity there.
Annette Verschuren
When I joined the board of SDTC, of course I met with the Ethics Commissioner. I obviously disclosed all of the conflict I had in the project that was approved in the previous year and a half. I continued; there was no indication, and I never saw a situation, of board members talking about specific projects. There was governance. The project and review committee would meet after an extraordinary amount of due diligence. That would be analyzed. The management would make a recommendation to the board. We declared conflicts.
In my case, in terms of abstaining and recusing myself, I made a number of mistakes.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Did you learn that behaviour from decisions that predated you, or was it you on your own? You mentioned that you followed practices that predated your tenure. It seems odd that you would be the only person doing this and that nobody would say anything in any place or at any time. It seems odd that you claim you were consistent with regard to your practices but that they went into the abyss on this particular matter.
It concerns me, because the Ethics Commissioner was here and said that your model is actually a good model. That's what he said when he was here. The bigger concern I have, then, is the governance system in place in general across these boards in appointed positions and places of privilege.
If you could just be really clear here, was this learned behaviour that you got from SDTC? You mentioned that it predated you. Was it just this lapse at this point in time? Are you isolated and alone in being the only one who did this?
Annette Verschuren
I followed the practices that were communicated to me in the transition as the chair of the board of SDTC. I was responsible for the governance of that organization, which included four committees. That committee structure was critical, and among the board of directors that I worked with, I genuinely thought I was following all of the conflict of interest guidelines.
The commissioner clearly indicated that I made two mistakes: the technical mistake of not recusing myself instead of abstaining, as well as listening to the advice of legal counsel that he felt was flawed.
NDP
Liberal
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Ms. Verschuren, the commissioner's office just testified, just to be clear, that there were 24 conflicts of interest, not two.
However, I want to go back to my question on how you were appointed.
You said that you didn't apply and that the Liberal minister of industry approached you, and you had two conversations with him to do that.
However, we also have testimony here from the Liberal minister of industry, who said that he was given a list by the Privy Council Office, and that's who he contacted. The head of appointments for the Privy Council Office, who was in place when you were appointed, said that she supplied six names to Minister Bains. When asked if anyone had ever been appointed without being on that list, she said no, not that she was aware of. However, you didn't apply, so I have no idea how you could have been on the list that Minister Bains then went and checked out.
Who, then, misled the committee—Minister Bains and the Prime Minister's department, the PCO, on appointments, in saying that you applied, or you in saying you never applied?