Industry Committee on Nov. 28th, 2023

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

The committee hadn't had a deliberation on that, so I don't understand a summons, given the fact that any invitation was premature because the committee hadn't deliberated on it at all. I don't know why Ms. Verschuren was invited, but seeing how it is moot at this point if she's available and has gotten back to the committee and said December 12 works, then why wouldn't the committee just take her up on that offer rather than summoning her, which is completely unnecessary at this point?

There are two good arguments there for.... What's the argument for why members think that we need her to come to this committee, when she's already testified at another committee? I don't really hear a good rationale for that from my perspective, but I would invite other members to provide that rationale.

My understanding is that she has resigned from the board, and the minister has accepted her resignation. If that's in effect as of December 1, what can be gained?

Anyway, regardless of that, in terms of the timeline, I think there are two arguments that I've made here for why this committee would have to justify the invite to have her come and appear here, given the first motion that we all agreed to.

I'm just abiding by what the committee agreed to, and we haven't had a deliberation on why Ms. Verschuren should be invited. I certainly would say that a summons does not seem necessary from any perspective that I can entertain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, you have the floor.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

On MP Turnbull's latter item, to tell you the situation we're in, Ms. Verschuren refused to return any of the contacts from the committee until I tabled my notice of motion of a summons on Friday. It was after that, she decided to start communicating with the committee.

Second, I will not share with you or any committee members at this stage the line of questioning that I need to ask of the chair, who is the chair of this organization and is accountable, through the estimates, to this committee. I will not share with you or anyone else the line of questioning, but I can tell you, from my perspective, that it is not the focus, the narrow focus, that was followed by the ethics committee around COVID funding and the top-up. That was the main issue that they dealt with. It's much broader than that. This will not be a duplication of anything that the ethics committee did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Before I turn to Monsieur Lemire, I'd like to say thank you to our witnesses. I think, given the time and the nature of the discussion, we're not necessarily near a vote on this motion.

I want to thank you for your testimony today and for sharing your insights with this committee on Bill C-27. Feel free, if you want to listen to this debate.

Otherwise, you are free to leave the meeting. Thank you once again for making yourselves available to the committee today.

I now turn the floor over to Mr. Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, the second part of the motion refers to a request for a declaration of conflict of interest.

The Conservatives have an annoying habit of making a lot of requests to many committees. I think this declaration of conflict of interest would be relevant in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

Can anyone confirm for me whether, yes or no, this request has also been made to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics? If so, what was that committee's response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I don't have that information.

Mr. Perkins, do you want to intervene on that?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Yes, I attended the ethics committee meetings on this. The issue of the tabling of the formal conflict of interest documents that you have to do as a director was not an issue that was raised at the ethics committee. It's not a document that the ethics committee asked for.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

My understanding from reviewing the testimony from the ethics committee is that the conversation about conflict of interest was a very large part of the questions that were asked of Ms. Verschuren when she appeared before the ethics committee.

My point is that it was taken up at the ethics committee. It is a part of the testimony that she gave. I'm reading here questions from MP Green between MP Green and Ms. Verschuren, and it pertains to conflicts of interest and some of the board policies around that. It is the case that it was taken up at the ethics committee. We also know that the Ethics Commissioner is doing an investigation.

I'm still not sure what the rationale is, if that's the main concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins, the floor is yours.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

On the second part, I'll just explain, because clearly some of the members don't understand.

There's a difference between a discussion in the ethics committee about a conflict of interest in the investment committee process and board process of approving investments versus—and I'm sure MP Turnbull is very interested in this—the formal thing you have to do as a director on a corporation board. I have been on boards of Crown and private and publicly traded companies. You have to declare.... It's a formal declaration, on paper, of a conflict of interest of companies that you have an investment in.

This is asking not for a debate on the conflict of interest, but for those declarations, those forms, that the Crown foundation has from directors and is accountable to this committee for. It's just asking for those documents. It's not about the debate on the conflict of interest.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Lemire, the floor is yours.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, the verb “summon” is a loaded term. I would like my Conservative colleague to explain the use of that word.

Can we invite her again, more insistently this time? Can we suggest that she come and testify on December 12 since she has expressed an interest in appearing before the committee and isn't free before that date?

There may indeed be a whole series of parliamentary procedures that follow from a refusal to testify. Is this really the path we want to take at this stage, since a provisional date, December 12, has been proposed?

I think that somewhat changes the way we should address the situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, MP Lemire.

The witness was already invited. She was invited for this Thursday and she is around this Thursday. She's in the country. She leaves on Friday. She was already invited and has refused to come.

She's available, but she hasn't said whether she's coming on the 12th. Frankly, at this stage, given the lack of response and her refusal to even acknowledge an invitation by the committee until my Friday motion for the summons.... Yes, it's a powerful tool that was tabled. All of a sudden she remembered that she had to phone back, or her assistant had to phone back, and said, “Oh, maybe I should come, now that you're going to use your power to summon a witness.”

At this stage, I'm not feeling comfortable that the witness who is proposed here is going to comply unless she's summoned.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Respectfully, I don't think we can confuse not responding with a refusal to appear before the committee. I want to make the point that I made before. Those are two very different things. An email can get lost in an inbox or someone can be unavailable. I think there could be a very reasonable explanation, other than what Mr. Perkins is assuming, which is the most negative interpretation that we could give.

Being a little bit more charitable in our interpretation, she has now responded and said she's available on the 12th, so perhaps the word “summons” is not necessary.

Chair, I want to go back to the point that I made earlier, which is that Ms. Verschuren shouldn't have been invited at all until our committee deliberated on whether that witness was necessary. How did she get invited twice when the motion itself, the letter of that motion and the agreement that this committee made, was not to invite witnesses but to use their testimony and then deliberate on whether those witnesses needed to be reinvited to this committee?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That's what the motion reads, Mr. Perkins, so don't tell me that it doesn't. I have it right here and I can read it back to you on the record. I know you don't need that—you're a smart enough guy—but the point is that she shouldn't have been invited before this committee had a conversation about it.

To then imply that she's somehow refusing to appear is not the case. It's just not true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

If I can just jump in on that, I'll take some of the blame.

The motion wasn't particularly specific about the list of witnesses in the text of the motion. I asked the clerk to invite the witness, so I'll take the blame for that. You're absolutely right that the text of the motion doesn't necessarily specify that the committee would invite that witness. It's a discussion that this committee should have had.

I guess it's hard to have it now, given that there is a motion on the floor that needs to be voted on. That's also, to some extent, an opportunity to have the discussion about whether we feel it's necessary.

I had some members come up to me and make the case that they felt we needed to invite that witness, so I instructed the clerk to invite the witness. However, I didn't have the instruction from the committee. I'll grant you that, Mr. Turnbull. You're correct.

We still have that motion with “summons” that Mr. Perkins presented.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

If we can all agree that a summons is not necessary, then perhaps we could agree to reinvite the witness for December 12. To me, that's perfectly reasonable, given the fact that we're all acknowledging—and the chair is acknowledging—that, in essence, following the letter of what was agreed to at committee, that motion didn't imply that this witness needed to be reinvited without the deliberation of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Are there any more comments? Otherwise, we'll put the motion—

Monsieur Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

In the constructive spirit of this discussion, would my Conservative colleague agree to change the date to December 12?

That would result in a consensus around the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Mr. Lemire proposes that it take place here on December 12—

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It's just a thought for the moment.