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.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Chair, I did confer, after you instructed me to perhaps consult the notice of motion, to confirm that it hasn't changed. The direction that Mr. Cooper went, which deals with the analogous situation between what Mr. Perkins raised, the response from the commissioner and the comparison to another decision of the witness, is what we are looking at. I checked. The notice of motion is exactly the one that was passed in the summer. It's based on the motion that was passed at the Standing Order 106(4) meeting in the summer, so you can rest assured that I did read it.
I understand that the Standing Orders are the same at all of the committees, so I appreciate the guidance and being welcomed here. However, with respect, Chair, the analogy that Mr. Cooper draws is absolutely not any further than the analogy that Mr. Turnbull drew to SDTC in the House, which did not deal with the conflict of interest that we're talking about with Ms. Verschuren. Equal opportunity to draw analogies or deal with related subjects would be appreciated. That's all we're looking for.
I can assure you that we were well consulted, and Mr. Perkins briefed us very well on the standard operating procedures here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
I appreciate that.
Mr. Masse, do you have something to add on this point of order?
NDP
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Yes. It's just clarification on how much time we have left. I know the Conservatives are filibustering each other at the moment, but at the same time, we have the witness here for only a certain amount of time. I want to confirm how much time we have left for that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Well, it depends. We have until about 4:35 with the witness. The points of order have eaten up a lot of time, but I can still give a minute to Mr. Cooper or to Mr. Brock if he wants.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joël Lightbound
Well, it depends. The time we're taking with the commissioner will eat into the time we have with Madam Verschuren, which I think is of interest to the committee.
Mr. Brock, go ahead.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Commissioner, thank you for your appearance.
I want to drill down, setting the stage for Ms. Verschuren's appearance, on the issue of her knowledge of recusal versus abstention. She said quite proudly, when she testified on December 12 and December 14, 2023, that she had been a board member on various boards since she was 38 years of age. She's extremely familiar with conflict of interest policies. She recused herself on numerous occasions. Then, she said very proudly, “I am sure that I didn't break ethics laws.” That was on December 14, 2023, before the release of your report.
I know that she spoke with a compliance officer in your office on June 4, 2019. Obviously, the issues of recusal and abstention were discussed. Clearly, Commissioner, you weren't the compliance officer she spoke with. Is that accurate?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That was not accurate.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Are you satisfied that your compliance officers would have explained consistently, in simple language, the clear distinction between abstention and recusal?
September 16th, 2024 / 4:30 p.m.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
I cannot answer. The only record we have is that she called and spoke to one of my officers. Unfortunately, that officer has since left, and the email in which she reported what her conversation with Ms. Verschuren was is no longer there because we erased it once she left.
I honestly don't know what she discussed, to what extent she explained things to her or what they talked about. All I know is that it was a very short conversation between her and one of my officers.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Okay, but you have no reason to suggest that, for any particular reason, the compliance officer would have deviated from your office's policies in terms of having that discussion with order in council appointments.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
If Ms. Verschuren had asked what recusal means, she would have been told that it meant to leave the room. There's no question about it. Did she ask? I don't know. I have no evidence regarding what the conversation was about and what it concerned.
When a public officer is newly appointed, they may have all sorts of concerns, and that's why they phone us. Unfortunately, I have no record of what was discussed.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
I'm referring to paragraph 141 on page 30 of your report. There you talk about the distinction between the two terms, as explained in the “Morneau II Report”.
Speaking of very simple language, I think, moving forward, that you might want to, as a suggestion—it's obviously entirely up to you, Commissioner—for future discussions with these appointees, have that simple language explained, in light of the classic examples that she demonstrated in taking legal advice, as opposed to stating to you that she understood not only that her compliance with SDTC policy but also with the Conflict of Interest Act was paramount. She was now relying upon extremely poor legal advice.
I think it would be helpful in the future if that distinction were to be made known to all of those appointees.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
As I mentioned in my opening remark, we just issued an information notice to everybody exactly on that point, in plain language. Recusal means to leave the room, physically or virtually. I can't say it more clearly than that.
Liberal
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner, for appearing before the committee.
I wanted to ask about your role more generally.
We know that SDTC is an arm's-length, not-for-profit foundation, as created by the Government of Canada.
In your purview, how do you keep an eye on not-for-profit foundations, other arm's-length organizations and bodies within the Government of Canada?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
It's not the body; it's the people appointed to it.
I look at MPs, elected officials, ministers, their assistants and the people appointed by order in council. When the order in council is issued, it will qualify them as either reporting public officers or public officers. “Public officers” means that you have to comply with the act, point final. “Reporting public officer” means that you have to come to me and you have to fill out a long questionnaire. I tell you what to do or not do; you have to report to me if anything changes, and you may have to sell certain things. A person in my office is appointed to be solely responsible for you, and you can call that person and get advice at any time.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
As MPs, we also have to fill out the same questionnaire, so I'm very familiar with it.
Do you look only at reported cases of conflict, or does your office engage in anything proactively?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
There are two things. Cases can be referred to me, especially by members of Parliament, or there has to be a reason to believe that a public office holder or former public office holder has contravened this act. If I have reason to believe this, then I can say that I want to make an investigation. If there isn't, or if there are just some vague suspicions or allegations that come out that don't amount to a reason to believe, then I don't do it.
It's a discretion vested in me to decide whether there is reason to believe.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
I'm a lawyer, and I think many members of this committee are lawyers as well. I'm just wondering what amounts to reasonable grounds to investigate. Is that a “more than likely” standard?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes, it's more than a mere suspicion, and it's short of reasonable grounds. The act is vague because there is more than.... I think your definition was probably about the right one. It is that there's a likelihood there.
Liberal
Iqwinder Gaheer Liberal Mississauga—Malton, ON
Do the parties who are being investigated by your office know they're being investigated?
