Public Accounts Committee on Aug. 8th, 2024

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, you have two minutes and 15 seconds.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner, you just confirmed that you are further investigating Randy Boissonnault in relation to the infamous other Randy affair. A partner at Randy Boissonnault's company sent many text messages claiming to be in communication with Randy Boissonnault and receiving direction from Randy about the work of the company. If he was given that direction, then that would clearly be a violation of the law. By his own admission, the partner lied by claiming that there was another Randy at the company. He also absurdly claimed that in every case Randy was mentioned, it was autocorrect.

You told us that your previous investigation looked at September 8. Now you're looking at other dates. I certainly welcome the further investigation you're doing in this regard.

I want to clarify something from Mr. Brock's testimony. It sounds like, in seeking information from Mr. Boissonnault and in seeking text messages across all apps and all possible phones, you're essentially using the honour system and that you're expecting honourable members to be honourable in handing over all of the information you've requested and not hiding anything. Is that correct? Is that the way you operate?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I will correct your terminology. We're not investigating. We were looking first to see if there was enough grounds and credible reasonable evidence to allow us to commence an investigation. We have come to the conclusion now that, no, there wasn't.

Now that the further emails have come out, we have asked for further proof of whether there was communication between Randy Boissonnault and Mr. Anderson.

Once that comes out, I will have to see the information and, on that basis, make a decision about whether there are reasonable grounds.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I have a very specific question—

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I can't answer your question now because I haven't got the evidence in front of me.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay, but I just want to clarify one piece.

In your request for this information, you're using the honour system. You're asking Mr. Boissonnault for the information, and you're assuming that he's going to give you the information, and you're only using the information that he gives you. It's the honour system. Is that correct?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I wouldn't call it the honour system. I'm asking the person directly implicated to give me all the information that he has. On that basis, if I do launch an investigation, I can put him under oath, and I can put Mr. Anderson under oath. They would commit a criminal offence if they committed perjury. All of this is—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

In the initial stage—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Genuis. That is the the time. You'll be able to come back to this if there are further questions.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I would like to return to the issue at hand. We are not questioning the powers of the House. The question is not about what parliamentarians can or cannot do. It is about what they should or shouldn't do.

I would like to go back to the letter and go back to the concerns shared by the RCMP.

The RCMP warns there are risks and implications of documents produced by the House motion in a potential criminal investigation. They warn that these materials will need to be set aside from an investigation and that there is significant risk that the House motion could be interpreted as circumvention of normal investigative processes and charter protections.

This should bring pause to all of us here. The RCMP and the Auditor General are warning parliamentarians—and I'm looking at the Conservatives here—of the risks and implications of a House order like this one. By clearly implying that there is criminality, the legislative branch led by Conservative manoeuvres is looking to direct or to influence the RCMP to investigate and to lay charges, infringing on operational and police independence. That is concerning in a democratic society.

Don't get me wrong. Our fact-finding work as parliamentarians is important, but when our work starts to enter law enforcement, institutions and parliamentary officers with the risk of jeopardizing the very values and trusts underpinning these institutions, then we have a big problem on our hands.

Besides the RCMP, the Auditor General has also raised concerns.

Commissioner, how many times have you sounded the alarm on parliamentary manoeuvres compromising your independence? Is this a normal occurrence since you took on the role?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No. I've never had any reason to make that kind of statement or to sound an alarm.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

In your view, what are the ramifications of a compromised independence for an officer of Parliament?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I think you have to look at it holistically.

There are three different principles at play here. One is the supremacy of Parliament. Nobody questions that. Another one is the independence of the RCMP to, at their discretion, decide whether there's evidence for criminal prosecution or not. Third, there's a Charter of Rights, which is overriding and protects Canadians. You have to make sure that those three, when you administer, don't interfere with each other and that they work together harmoniously.

What a letter to the RCMP says.... When you ask Parliament to use its rights to ask for information and to furnish it to us, etc., we have to be very careful how we use it so that it doesn't either violate the charter or impinge on our independence.

That's the problem that exists, and it's a perfectly valid reason to state that it's an issue. How they will resolve it, I have no idea. I'm not involved in that. It would be the same if it involved my office and our investigation. We would have had the same problem of trying to reconcile these three principles that govern our system.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

How would you use your office as an educational tool to educate the public in situations like this?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

In situations like what?

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

It would be with respect to the concerns that were just raised.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I'm not so sure that it's the function of my office to do that.

If we had a situation where we are investigating and where Parliament is ordering somebody to furnish it, etc., I would do the same. In my final decision, I would be very carefully walking through the various steps, saying here is this information and that information, and there are these Charter of Rights concerns, etc. The way to come to a final and fair situation, respecting all three principles, would be A, B, C. That would be my approach. Without having the facts in a situation, I really can't elucidate any more than that.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Do you think it's responsible of a member to predetermine the outcome of an investigation and to publicly share this view?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

It's freedom of speech. They can do what they want. I guess the electors, finally, will have to decide whether that was appropriate behaviour or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Ms. Yip.

That is the time, unless you have a short question.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

No. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to say something. When it was my turn to speak in the last round, I was interrupted by two parliamentarians from two different parties—the Liberals and the Conservatives—who were muckraking. I find it ridiculous that the Conservatives are now accusing the Liberals of being undemocratic, when it's their members who heckle during question period under a leader whose every word is a lie pretty much. I think it's ridiculous. Nor will I defend the Liberal party, which has shown time and time again that it's incompetent and incapable of governing. I find it unfortunate that the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are slinging mud at each other. Canadians deserve better. Quebecers certainly deserve better. It's really a shame. I wanted to point that out, because our committee is supposed to rise above the fray and not be partisan. Yet this committee is consistently dominated by two parties yelling at each other, and that's inappropriate.

Commissioner, I would like to come back to my last question. Based on your report, why did you assume that Ms. Verschuren was acting in good faith? After all, she was appointed chair of the board of directors, which implies a certain level of competence. It was clear that Ms. Verschuren had taken what she believed were the right steps to manage her conflicts of interest. However, she didn't meet the requirements of the act, which she should have known since she was the chair of the board of Sustainable Development Technology Canada and had received training. By not recusing herself, even by abstaining, she was able to influence a vote. That's absurd to me and I don't understand why we're acting in such good faith with her.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Your question is about the difference between “abstaining” and “recusing oneself”.

When people recuse themselves, they leave the room. If they aren't there, they can't influence the discussion. Other people are free to make comments without offending anyone or say that there's something inappropriate about the relationship between the chair and the company. For that reason, recusal allows the board to make a decision on the matter.

If someone says they are in a conflict of interest and simply abstains from voting, they remain in the room. However, their presence alone can influence the decision or affect the free flow of discussion. For that reason, the act requires that people recuse themselves.

For some reason that's unclear to me, Ms. Verschuren didn't do that. Sustainable Development Technology Canada allowed her to abstain from voting, but didn't insist that she recuse herself. The board held a general vote on resolutions as a whole, to settle everything, and that included Ms. Verschuren's companies. She voted for that. That's not possible: Someone can't say they are abstaining from voting on a specific thing due to a conflict of interest, and then vote on the resolutions as a whole, including the company presenting the conflict of interest. That was a technical breach of the act. I don't know, it may be the result of ignorance on some level or a lack of information, but the act is very clear: Ms. Verschuren was required to leave the room, but she didn't.