Public Accounts Committee on Aug. 8th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Desjarlais, this is your last round. You have two and a half minutes, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses again for being present.

I want to thank my colleagues for their good questions and to reiterate the comment made by my colleague Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné in calling for some order and decency in our work.

It has troubled me, Chair, in the last while that it seems as though truth and decency are oftentimes taking a back seat to partisanship. I think it's important, as we prepare to come back to session, that we try our best to unite on what is true. It's clear that there are problems in the government. It's clear that there are issues with procurement. It's clear that there should never have been or should not be conflicts of interest that misalign or damage our institutions.

I just wanted to make the point very clear that I do certainly agree. I call my colleagues' attention to what I perceive to be an issue that is impacting our work here in a negative way. I hope we can continue to co-operate in finding truth and recommending real solutions to ending the systemic issues that are present.

I do want to turn, Commissioner, to the report of the OAG in relation to the SDTC. One of the issues we investigated when we received this report was roles. There was no clear definition of roles or terms of reference that would define roles, particularly when it came to an issue of the assistant deputy minister attending meetings of the board.

You may be familiar with this. It's section 6.74, as follows:

An assistant deputy minister of the department regularly attended meetings of the foundation’s board and received all board materials. But neither the department nor the foundation documented what they expected from this role. We found that the directors’ understanding of the assistant deputy minister’s role did not align with his own. This ambiguity led the board to believe that the assistant deputy minister’s presence at meetings provided an implicit agreement by the department for any decisions that the board made.

It's deeply disturbing.

Can you comment on how that could affect the perception of or even the very real conflict of interest that could be present when there isn't a clear definition of those board members' responsibilities—particularly when it came to even having a department member present, especially when the department member who was present had a different or conflicting understanding of their role there? The board perceived it as consent when in fact the ADM did not.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Desjarlais. Your time is up. I will allow the commissioner to respond. I would just ask that you not interrupt, because that will end it.

Commissioner, you have the floor for a response. Then I'll turn to our next member.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

The assistant deputy minister is not a reporting public office holder. Any conflict he has doesn't fall under my regime, first of all. Why he was invited there, I don't know. That was up to the SDTC to decide. If they saw his presence being there as consent, etc., that is troublesome, because they are supposed to make their decisions on the basis of their best judgment, not because it suits the department.

As I say, that's an observation from the Auditor General. It really has nothing to do with us at conflict of interest. A good government requires that in a meeting of the board of directors, you have the people who make their decisions based on their best understanding and judgment and you have resource persons there. You do not have persons there whose influence or whose position or something could be seen as tacit approval or disapproval.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Perkins, you have the floor for five minutes. You have the last Conservative spot.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Commissioner. I would like to follow up briefly on Mr. Genuis's last question. In the mysterious Randy emails and documents and the request to access that you had, just so I'm clear, it's on the honour system, I think you said. He is not compelled legally under oath or anything to provide you with all the documents. It's just an honour system. Is that correct?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Actually, he came forward. When this thing first erupted, he wrote to me, “I'll do anything I can to clear my name. What do you need?” I said I needed regarding September 8 any kind of communications he had on that day with Anderson. He gave me that.

Now there's September 6 and 7, and I'm saying, “This is totally new information. Would you please provide me every kind of communication you had on those two days with Mr. Anderson? The issue, obviously, is whether you had dealings with him or whether your name was used in vain in order to enhance the position of Mr. Anderson.”

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

He was supposed to provide everything. He didn't, and you went back to him.

You have no way of knowing whether or not you actually have every document.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

My capacity to investigate him is based on me being able to have reasonable grounds to believe.

The mere fact that his name was mentioned in an email on September 8 and nothing else—it was “Randy”; it didn't even say Boissonnault—is not enough to launch an investigation to constitute reasonable grounds to believe that something is wrong.

Now we have two more days and suddenly seven times the name Randy was used. I want to know, first of all from him, what were his communications, if any, on those two days. Once I have that, I will have to decide whether I have reasonable grounds to believe that an investigation is warranted.

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

That's even though he was a 50% owner in the ultimate company that had very few employees.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

He's entitled to be an owner of a company. That's as long as he's a silent one.

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

There were very few employees. There weren't many Randys there, unless you believe one of the Liberal MPs who may have said it was “Randeep”.

I'll move on to SDTC. Part of your investigation was the MaRS accelerator fund. Ms. Verschuren chairs MaRS. Did you go further into that?

For the period the Auditor General audited, from 2017 to 2023, did you investigate the fact that MaRS received almost $22 million from ISED? About a third of their funding comes from the federal government. Did you investigate at all the conflicts that she is in with regard to funding from MaRS to her companies, NRStor and others, as part of that?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

How does it constitute a conflict of interest if MaRS receives funding from the government on a different program?

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

She chairs an organization that receives federal funding. She then has that organization vote for money for companies she has ownership interest in.

You didn't look at that. The answer is yes or no and you didn't look at that yet.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Michael.

[Michael Aquilino]

Again, I just want to make sure.

Is the allegation that MaRS directly receives funding from SDTC or is it that they facilitated the funding of other companies through their role as an accelerator?

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

Look, I thought it was pretty clear. They received money. She chairs it. That fund that has federal government money has given money to a company she owns, but since you haven't looked at it, I'll move on.

I think what's needed is a little more investigation, in my mind, by the Ethics Commissioner into this whole scenario. Every time we do an investigation there is more uncovered, so I'm going to move the following motion which has been given to the clerk, if the clerk could circulate it.

The motion is:

That, given the Auditor General's audit of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, and given that the government-appointed board members approved:

$330 million towards 186 projects (44%) in which nine Order-in-Council board members had conflicts of interest in violation of the Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology Act; and

$58 million towards projects that were outside of SDTC's spending restrictions outlined in its contribution agreements with ISED;

the committee therefore express extreme concern with the blatant disregard of taxpayer funds, call on the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry to recoup these funds for Canadian taxpayers within 60 days following the adoption of this motion, and request that the Ethics Commissioner investigate all 186 conflict of interest votes and the culture of conflict of interest at the SDTC Board.

I put that forward, Mr. Chair. I believe you have—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Perkins.

We are just going to make sure what you read is similar. It has been sent.

I'll turn the floor back to you in a moment, Mr. Perkins, and then I'll look for other speakers.

I am going to excuse our witnesses because I believe this is not going to be a quick discussion.

Commissioner, thank you very much for appearing. Of course you are welcome to sit and watch the debate unfold since it does touch on your office, but you can also check the notes afterwards.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Aquilino, thank you as well.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor for a point of order.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I don't think we need to excuse the witnesses until at least you've ruled that the motion is in order. I know we have one more round, for the Liberals at least, to be able to ask further questions of our witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I view the motion as in order as a matter at hand motion, and I'm going to turn the floor back to Mr. Perkins.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As members know, this came to light a little over a year ago as a result of whistle-blowers providing hundreds and hundreds of pages of documentation to the Department of Industry. They then had a couple of months of private discussions with the CFO of the Department of Industry, who called the—

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Perkins, I have a point of order from Ms. Shanahan.