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.
Legal Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes.
Without necessarily coming to Ms. Verschuren's rescue, I will say that the Commissioner's report found that in most cases involving start-up funding, she did recuse herself—
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I'm going to interrupt you, if I may. You know the value of time in a committee like this.
In your report, you establish that there were 24 violations of the Conflict of Interest Act. Ms. Verschuren came to testify before the committee and, in her mind, there had been no violation of the act. Sometimes you have a memory lapse and don't remember certain things. However, don't you think that 24 times is a bit much in parliamentary committees, where we have an obligation to tell the truth?
I'm asking you for your opinion on the standards involved. Is it possible to make such a mistake 24 times before a parliamentary committee?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
You'll have a chance to ask Ms. Verschuren that question—
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I can only tell you what we've done. We interviewed her and we looked at the documents.
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Thank you.
I would like to come back to the department's role. The current minister and the previous minister have said that this was federal funding and that the organization was not managed directly by the department. They only appoint half of the board of directors and are therefore not responsible for the other appointments. As soon as they found out something was going on through the Auditor General, they did the right thing, froze the funds and so on.
However, it seems to me that, under the Conflict of Interest Act, the previous minister and therefore the current government could have triggered audits, made verifications and ensured that public money was managed in full compliance with the act.
Don't you think that these government investigations, whether by the Auditor General or you—this is not a criticism of you—and especially by the department, came a little late? Don't you also think there was a deficiency on the part of the Department of Industry itself, which should have done some of these checks at some point?
That leads me to ask an even simpler question: Could this all be smoke without fire?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
You're asking me to pass judgment on the activities of the department and the minister. That's not part of my mandate. These are political measures. You are the judge, and the voters are the judge.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I will rephrase my question.
You produced this report because of the Auditor General's work. That's what happened. At one point, assessments were done.
Do you think the department could have done some of these verifications in advance so that you could have done your job earlier and perhaps prevented misappropriation and mismanagement of public funds?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It depends. It started when the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology, or SDTC, was established. People were appointed, and it was decided not to appoint them as reporting public office holders. They wanted people who had expertise. For that reason, it was decided not to appoint them as reporting public office holders, but only as public office holders. That means they have no contact with us and no obligation to show us their financial situation. That was a decision made by the government. It could establish more specific monitoring, but that was not the decision made. Why is that? I have no idea. I'm not involved in the appointments. Only when someone is appointed do I have to judge them according to the rules.
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.
The first thing I want to go to is that on November 17, 2023, a news report revealed that you were investigating Ms. Verschuren's conflict of interest. On November 20, she resigned.
When did you officially begin your investigation into Ms. Verschuren?
Legal Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
We received the complaint on November 10 and we wrote on November 16 to launch the investigation.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Would Ms. Verschuren have known about that? Was she notified that she was subject to an investigation?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The process is that we write to her and we say we're starting the investigation. We point out that we want to interview her and hear the issues and we say what we want to discuss with her.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
That would have been done shortly after November 10 or November 16.
Basically, she gets the letter and then she resigns. Does it happen often that you write to somebody and say, “We're going to investigate you,” and then within a matter of hours, they resign from their position?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I've only been in the position for one year, so I can't tell you. Maybe my colleague has a better memory.
Legal Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
To my knowledge, I don't think it has happened in the past, but I don't know what would have precipitated a resignation in this case either.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
No, and I'm not asking for that.
I haven't seen such a rapid response to something like that in my past. I could be wrong. We could easily go and find out, I guess, if we looked at the detailed information of other cases.
One of the things I'm concerned about is that she declined.... Let's go through the things she did. She declined the conflict advice. She didn't leave the room. There was a whole series of different things.
With all those things in the SDTC boardroom at that point in time, were there any consequences for her or for her colleagues who knowingly saw this behaviour and said nothing? Are there any actual consequences for those board members and/or her for failing to report that or point it out?
There can be wilful consent by people just not saying anything. I've been in lots of rooms where people know other people have said things, done things or acted the wrong way, and people have just let it pass and go by. It could be over an issue of sexism, racism or inappropriate behaviour. It could be, in this case, about voting.
What were the consequences for the board members with the system that was set up in place?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The way the system works is that, in effect, when there is a violation and we are made aware of it or we investigate on our own, we can expose it and make it public. That is the penalty. It is that your reputation essentially is damaged by the report that shows that you have done that.
In terms of the interaction among the board, etc., all we have is a record of what happened and the testimony of the people we interviewed, so I can't answer your question. I don't know whether there was wilful looking away, as you suggest, or benign ignorance or what.
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
This is where some of the concern for accountability that I've had about this file is, because this was set up over 20 years ago, and it's lived through a number of ministers who have left here in disgrace, including Minister Bernier, Mr. Clement and others. We still have a system in place that potentially allows for this type of conduct and behaviour consistently, and there's an opening there.
I think I would agree that we would still want to shed light on the truth. To answer the question from Mr. Perkins, the reason I believe it needs to be followed through is that otherwise, how do we show the public the actual full damage of the malfeasance, often on purpose, from these corporate boards and agencies that are set up at arm's-length distance?
As well, I want to point out that the staff are fully funded by federal taxpayers, but they didn't enjoy the same privileges of protection for whistle-blowers or the benefits of a union and so forth in the workplace.
How can we dispense with everything that happened when we don't know the full damage that took place as a result of the actions of this board?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
When you say “the full damage”, to the extent there was damage, you have the report of the Auditor General. If I investigated these people, all I could prove is that they had—assuming you're correct—on various occasions violated the Conflict of Interest Act. What would that add in terms of what the public knows right now? The report is out. It's a very damaging report. The whole board resigned. As you know, it's been moved to the NRC. There have been consequences.
I don't feel there would be anything added by my going over past activities of people who have resigned, who are no longer in those positions, and saying, “While you had that position, you misused it.”
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
From my perspective and from lay people's perspective, there is more here than just the exposure of an individual and her behaviour, and then the others who were around her. Obviously you've ruled on that, but it's maybe a structural problem with some of these boards and operations.
I think a full, continued, thorough examination of this situation should expose some of that, because I'm willing to bet that this isn't the only situation in which we'd see malfeasance, irregularities and boardroom minutes that aren't completed or not reflective of what happens with taxpayers' money. I would prefer to see this finished for those reasons, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Thank you, Mr. Masse.
I will now yield the floor to MP Barrett for five minutes.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Commissioner and Mr. Aquilino, it's good to see you.
I have a hypothetical question for you. If a designated public office holder like a minister had a financial interest in a company like Telesat, which received a loan of more than $2 billion from the government just days ago, would that minister have needed to recuse themselves? What would that look like for that minister with that interest in Telesat?