Industry Committee on Sept. 16th, 2024

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

It was a company in which he was an owner at that point. He is no longer an owner of that. As just an owner in a company, he had no involvement in the operation of the company.

We have looked, as you know, at his involvement—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Were you aware at the time that this had occurred?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No. It came out.... I read it in the press, like you. Elections Canada was buying, I think, masks or gloves or something like that for $30,000, through a—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Is it not a violation of subsection 13(2) of the act?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

How is it a violation? He's not running a company. Can he not...? You can—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

It says they can't “have an interest in a partnership or private corporation that is a party to a contract with a public sector entity”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. That's all the time you had.

I would now yield the floor to MP Turnbull for five minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Getting back to SDTC, Commissioner, what is the effective difference between abstention and recusal? I'm kind of interested in this.

Did Ms. Verschuren actually influence the decision-making of the board when they were approving funding decisions for her benefit? To me, that would be a serious violation. Did you see any evidence of that?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

First of all, the distinction between.... The idea is that while you are in the room, people may not always speak openly about the pros and cons of a motion or may not want to vote and therefore incur your disfavour. Therefore, when you have a conflict, the idea is to get out of the room. If it's virtual, get off the web so that you cannot participate and the people can freely vote. That's what the act establishes.

Here, there were a couple of times when she voted after abstaining. She still voted. Did she benefit from it? No, we don't have any evidence of that. I would call it more of a technical violation. She was supposed to recuse, but she didn't; she abstained.

I made it quite clear in the report that it was a contravention of the act. It was no more than that.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It wasn't intentionally manipulating or influencing the board for her own personal benefit. I think that's what the Conservatives keep claiming. I want to get from you your perspective on whether that's what the evidence actually suggests in this case.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No, it did not suggest that.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

Let me ask you another question.

During your appearance at the public accounts committee, one of my colleagues filled you in on a recent letter from the RCMP commissioner to the House clerk on a Conservative House motion that was adopted on June 10, 2024. With this letter, the RCMP commissioner sounded the alarm, saying that the House order is interfering in operational and police independence.

Let me read this quote from this letter—

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Hold on for one second, MP Turnbull. I have a point of order from Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

I appreciate that in your previous ruling you provided a very narrow scope on what we're to engage in with respect to exactly what was in the Standing Order106(4) meeting and the motion that was adopted.

We don't need to look very far to see that Mr. Turnbull is going to go down a path that's not consistent with that. We'd look to you to apply the same ruling to what we're particularly here to discuss.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

You have powers I don't have, Mr. Barrett. You can read the future, saying Mr. Turnbull will go down that path. I'm not entirely sure he will.

Also, you misread my ruling. I've told you I'm pretty generous in the leeway. You're new to this committee, but members around the table know—I'm looking around the table—that I'm pretty generous in how I interpret questions and with the leeway I give members to ask questions that sometimes deviate from the motion.

Considering that under Standing Order 106(4), members came back in the middle of the summer to discuss this specific issue, I'll still ask members to try to focus on SDTC, which is the reason we're here.

I've been very generous with your line of questioning, Mr. Barrett, as you will have noticed. I'll ask Mr. Turnbull to keep in mind the judgment I just made a couple of minutes ago.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I will.

This letter particularly pertains to SDTC. It refers to the Auditor General's report and it's from the RCMP commissioner, Mike Duheme.

I want to quote from this letter. He says, “There is significant risk that the Motion”—i.e., the Conservative motion—“could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.”

He goes on to say in the last paragraph:

I would like to emphasize as well that the RCMP is operationally independent and strictly adheres to the principle of police independence. In a free and democratic society, this ensures that the government cannot direct or influence the actions of law enforcement and that law enforcement decisions remain based on the information and evidence available to police.

I wanted to get your perspective on this, but I will also reference that the Auditor General has sent a similar letter with a similar reaction. The concern is that agents of Parliament—in this case the Conservatives, in their motion—are essentially eroding the independence of key officers of Parliament and independent institutions.

Mr. von Finckenstein, I would like to get your perspective on this.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

The commissioner of the RCMP, of course, is very concerned about making sure that any evidence he presents can be used in court and won't be thrown out for whatever reason—principally that there's a violation of the charter or that it was not obtained properly, etc.

On the other hand, of course, you have the principle of Parliament. Parliament is supreme and can look into things if it wants to.

What I think he's pointing out in this letter is that what the committee has asked for could potentially cause problems down the line. He wants to, in effect, alert you to it.

He's quite right. These are two difficult principles to reconcile. They can be reconciled, but you have to be very careful. He wants to make sure that nothing impeaches his duties as independent law enforcement. On the other hand, of course, he's very careful in not wanting to tread upon your privilege as a parliamentary committee to ask for whatever you want. If both parties are aware of the problem and act carefully, these actions can be reconciled.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Are there other scholars—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I'm sorry, Mr. Turnbull; that's all the time you have on your five-minute round.

I'll now turn it over to Mr. Garon.

Mr. Garon, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, I know that your role is to look at the entire situation and determine whether there have been violations of the Conflict of Interest Act. I understand that role very well, but this is a more complex situation. The government, as it has done on a number of occasions, particularly in the case of SDTC, creates these kinds of companies or businesses without appointing the entire board of directors. As you said, it's a government decision. The people who run these businesses are not public office holders. According to your mandate, you should systematically investigate them, as is done for members of Parliament, ministers and so on.

That said, I would like to know your opinion on the following. In your opinion, did Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, ISED, or the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry have the means within the department to prevent these practices before we heard about them from whistle‑blowers?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Naturally, the minister can ask what he wants of a company that is accountable to him, he can conduct an audit, and so on. It's in his hands. I don't know if he conducted any audits or, if he did, why. The fact remains that, since he basically owns that company, he can tell it to do whatever he wants.

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

Again, it comes down to the integrity of the work we do as parliamentarians. When we had the former minister here at committee and I asked him that same question, his answer was succinct and very clear. He said he had no tools at his disposal that would have enabled him to prevent this situation.

So, in your opinion, that is a lie.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

The government is a shareholder in that company. Managing those activities is primarily the government's responsibility.

I'm not familiar with the testimony you're referring to, but my understanding is that he did do audits.

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

He lied.

Mr. Chair, do I have time for a quick question?