Industry Committee on Sept. 16th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Can you tell me if my understanding of the difference between abstaining and recusing oneself is correct?

Sometimes, even if I don't vote, I may influence how other board members vote if I stay in the room. Therein lies the conflict of interest. Is my understanding correct?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Yes.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you.

Mr. Masse, you have the floor.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm trying to understand a little bit about the responsibility and the culture of the board. I'm not very familiar with some of the corporate boards and structures. I'm a New Democrat, and we don't get appointed to those positions, so we have to live with the folklore that we hear.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the ability for people to be excused from knowing what should be there. In your opinion, would it be a basic thing for all the board members to understand in terms of the rules and obligations about absenteeism, or were they all abusing this? Did some do it, or was it a mixture, a dog's breakfast, so to speak, of behaviour?

I find that hard to accept, because a lot of times these are political appointees, and you would think that there would be some type of understanding and appreciation of public responsibility at the end of the day.

Can you walk me through what happened in the boardroom? What do you think happened there, and do you think those individuals abstained from their job of conscientiously overseeing taxpayers' dollars?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I can't tell you what happened in the boardroom. I can just say that as it is, it's a company. It has its own code of conduct and conflict of interest rule—a very good one—which, by the way, incorporates the act and says that they have to comply with it. There is a corporate secretary who informs all the members when they're appointed that there's a code of conflict that they have to comply with, and please sign, etc. If they want to, they can ask us to give a presentation on the act, and we'll gladly do that.

Don't forget that they are business people. They sit on other boards, and this is nothing new to them. They know that if there's a conflict, they have to declare it, and if they have been properly instructed, not only declare it but get out of the room. They presumably assumed, as with other companies, that they could stay there as long as they abstained. It depends on what the internal rules are.

I really don't know to what extent they were briefed or were taught and reminded of it. Strangely enough, this outfit did not have a corporate secretary; they only had a recording secretary. I don't know how you run a company without a corporate secretary, because that person usually calls the meeting, brings the documents together, and informs everybody, but that's how they operated. I don't know to what extent there was emphasis on conflict of interest.

Michael, you looked at all the minutes. Please help supplement this.

[Michael Aquilino]

To the extent that the issue or the decision involved start-up funding or the more important financial decisions, the board by and large recused. It properly recused. It was noted in the minutes. They left the room.

I think the commissioner's report showed that there was a fundamental misunderstanding in two key areas. One was involving the consent agenda, which also included spending items. Those should have been voted on independently, individually. That would have allowed the conflicted board member to properly recuse on those as well. Instead, they were treated as a bulk vote.

On the matter of the COVID votes, they were instructed incorrectly. That was the source of the conflict there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Cooper, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, at committee in July, you indicated that you had in your possession, and were reviewing, nine text messages from Randy Boissonnault's business partner, Anderson, nine of which name a “Randy” and one of which places this Randy in Vancouver at, coincidentally, the very same time that the Liberal cabinet was meeting—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order on relevance. Come on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Cooper, a point of order that has been brought has been discussed before. I would encourage you and I will ask you to stay on the topic we're discussing.

However, if this topic is of interest, you can always bring it up at other committees or through Standing Order 106(4), just as was done for this committee to meet on SDTC.

I find it a little disrespectful to the time of the committee that you would be—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Well, with the greatest....

Perhaps I may reply to the point of order. I haven't even had a chance to pose my question. If I had been given that opportunity, it would have been apparent that it was in fact tied to the issue before this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Okay. Please tie it to the matter at hand.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Yes.

Commissioner, now that you have the nine text messages naming Mr. Boissonnault, or a Randy, we have not one smoking gun but nine smoking guns. Since July, have you opened an investigation into Randy Boissonnault contravening the Conflict of Interest Act?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, that is not relevant to the topic at hand.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

With the greatest—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It has nothing to do with SDTC, which is the topic of the meeting today.

I know that Mr. Cooper and his Conservative colleagues have a hard time reading the motion, perhaps, but this is on SDTC.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Turnbull, the commissioner said—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you. This is not—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I know that Mr. Cooper doesn't like hearing from me because we've had many battles at many committees, but this is not relevant.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I know that Mr. Turnbull wants to cover up Liberal corruption—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Cooper, you don't have the floor.

I listened to the point of order brought forward, and it's again the same thing: It goes to relevance. I'm very liberal in how I interpret the topics that are discussed. I'm generous. However, I can't tie it to the subject at hand.

Mr. Perkins with colleagues brought us in during the summer under Standing Order 106(4) to take three hours of committee time to discuss SDTC. I'd like for us to discuss SDTC.

Please, Mr. Cooper, can you—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Commissioner, are you investigating Mr. Boissonnault for violating the Conflict of Interest Act?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No.