Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to testify today.
With me is Michael Aquilino, legal counsel at the Office of the Commissioner.
As Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, my role is to help elected and appointed public officials manage conflicts of interest, as well as investigate possible violations.
We administer the Conflict of Interest Act for appointed officials, such as ministers, their staff, heads of Crown corporations, deputy ministers and members of various boards and tribunals. We also administer the Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House of Commons.
Our work has two main purposes. One is to help elected and appointed officials recognize and manage their conflicts of interest. The second is to facilitate the movement of qualified people into and out of the public service without issue.
The committee invited me to discuss the Verschuren report that the office issued in July 2024. In fact, we conducted two investigations of two officials with Sustainable Development Technology Canada at the request of MP Michael Barrett. One was Annette Verschuren, former chairperson of SDTC. The other was Guy Ouimet, former director of SDTC.
Ms. Verschuren and Mr. Ouimet came under the act as public office holders without reporting obligations. They were covered under the general conflict of interest rules, but they were not required to share with our office the kind of information that you see summarized in our public registry.
On appointment, the office assigns each reporting public office holder an adviser who can focus on their individual needs. This opens an ongoing dialogue that lasts for their time in office. In contrast, public office holders like Ms. Verschuren and Mr. Ouimet are not assigned advisers. However, they can always contact the office if they need our advice.
In my report, I found that Ms. Verschuren failed to comply with two sections of the act: subsection 6(1) on decision-making and section 21 on the duty to recuse.
Ms. Verschuren had declared a potential conflict of interest to the board of directors of SDTC with respect to companies named by two organizations with which she had close ties. She abstained from voting on a number of decisions that benefited the companies, but in none of those cases did she recuse herself, even though that is what the act required.
There is a difference between abstaining and recusing, and it is not always well understood. Recusal is more than simply staying silent during a discussion or refraining from voting; it means stepping away entirely, so that your mere presences does not influence another participant. To put it another way, “Get out of the room.” To reinforce this, last week our office issued an updated information notice on recusals.
Ms. Verschuren also contravened the act when she participated in two decisions to give COVID-19 emergency relief payments to all companies funded by SDTC, including one in which she had a private interest. In so doing, she followed incorrect legal advice that there was no need to address her conflict of interest, because all companies would be given equal treatment.
I found no evidence that Ms. Verschuren used her position as chair of SDTC to try to influence other board members in those two decisions when she moved motions for the payments. This, after all, was part of her role as chair.
In the other SDTC investigation report, I dismissed allegations that Mr. Ouimet had contravened the act by participating in the decision to give COVID-19 emergency relief payments to funded companies, including one in which he had a private interest.
I found that his interest was so negligible that it did not constitute a conflict of interest. Therefore, I applied the principle of De minimis non curat praetor.
On that note, I'm happy to answer your questions.
