Evidence of meeting #135 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was appointed.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Brock, I want to push you back in your lane. The witness is here at the invitation of the full committee. You're welcome to raise his relevance, but he is a committee witness. Nudge back in, if you could, on that. There are no—
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Let's get to your report, the “Verschuren Report”.
We've heard from my colleague Mr. Perkins that she somehow benefited from the decision-making, which she either made or abstained voting on but didn't recuse herself, by upwards of $10 million. You found her guilty of breaching two aspects of the act.
I want to know, and I'm sure Canadians watching this want to know, what is the penalty for her?
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The penalty for her is, as the act provides right now, basically exposure.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Exposure.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Yes.
If you have a conflict of interest, we expose it. If you get it certified, it does damage to your reputation. That's how the act works. The act does not have any penalties, except for minor penalties on reporting things.
The consequences are to.... Obviously, the person who appointed her has resigned, but if not, for instance, one option would have been for the government to ask her to resign, etc., if they felt that the breach we pointed out was severe enough, etc.
As my colleague pointed out, we went through every single vote of hers. These allegations here that she supposedly voted on issues of up to $200 million to benefit herself.... As I said, we looked at every vote she did. She recused herself when required. At least that's the evidence.
Michael, do you want to elaborate on that?
Legal Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
That's correct.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The whole focus was the emergency votes. That's what Mr. Barrett's letter asked me to look at, and we looked at it.
In the process, we also looked at votes that she did with regard to incubators and we found that she violated.... She should have recused herself—not abstained because there's no provision for abstaining in the act, except if you're a member of Parliament or a minister voting on something.
The whole process is essentially.... If you want to put it bluntly, we investigate, we expose and to some extent we do damage to your reputation. That's all we can do. The person who appointed them—we're talking about a reporting public office holder—can decide if they want to take other actions.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you. I'm afraid that is your time, Mr. Brock.
We'll turn to Ms. Shanahan, who has the floor for five minutes, please.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you very much, Chair
I thank you for correcting the record earlier when Mr. Brock was claiming that we had called the witness, that we were wasting time and that we were having these meetings that are wasting members' time.
Thank you for correcting the record because as a member of Parliament and as someone who takes this committee very seriously, to see it being used time and time again to push the Conservative narrative—a false narrative and a narrative that is going down rabbit holes, witch hunts and God knows what else is going on—and not allowing the duly appointed independent officers of Parliament to do the jobs they have to do....
If it was the case that those officers of Parliament—I'm very glad to see the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner here—were not doing their jobs, then indeed parliamentarians would be called into action. However, when they are doing their jobs—the RCMP, the Auditor General or anyone else who is doing their investigation—we must let them do their work.
I want to read now, for the record, from the letter from the commissioner of the RCMP. This is the letter we were sent on July 25. It's a letter that is directed to the law clerk, Michel Bédard. It says:
The RCMP has also reviewed the implications of the Motion—
This is the motion of June 6.
—in a potential criminal investigation. Before taking any investigative steps to access documents that may give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, the RCMP must comply with applicable legal standards to preserve the viability of any potential criminal investigation or prosecution. The Parliamentary production order does not set aside these legal requirements.
I'll repeat, “The Parliamentary production order does not set aside these legal requirements.”
It continues:
For the reasons set out above, the RCMP's ability to receive and use information obtained through this production order and under the compulsory powers afforded by the Auditor General Act in the course of a criminal investigation could give rise to concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is therefore highly unlikely that any information obtained by the RCMP under the Motion where privacy interests exists could be used to support a criminal prosecution or further a criminal investigation.
How much time do I have, Chair?
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Excellent.
I'll continue:
Given the risks associated with receiving information under the Motion or other compulsory authorities, practices need to be put in place to identify the nature and the source of the information, with a view to determining whether it contains Charter-protected information—
I'll repeat: “Charter-protected information”.
It continues:
Any information obtained through the Motion or other compulsory authorities would need to be segregated from an RCMP investigation. There is significant risk that the Motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.
I'm going to repeat that, Chair: “There is significant risk that the motion could be interpreted as a circumvention of normal investigative processes and Charter protections.”
I'll continue: “The RCMP will continue its review of available information” and so on and so forth.
I'd like to hear the commissioner's views on what I just read out.
Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
The commissioner states the law. He points out that there could be possible challenges based on the charter, which is a fact. Whether there will be or not and without anything more, I think nobody can argue with him that the charter comes first and we have to protect it.
If you have information that you gathered in an investigation and furnished here, you have to be very careful about how, when and where you use it. As far as I can tell from the letter you just read, it seems to me he's just pointing out normal legal concerns.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
Thank you for that, Commissioner.
Indeed, the government has taken corrective steps in order to ensure better oversight and accountability to the personnel and finances of SDTC, because, yes, stuff happens. Stuff happens, and we need to have the processes in place in order to investigate and to make corrective action, which has been done in this case by transitioning this program to the National Research Council.
Liberal
Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC
But we're not looking for solutions here, are we? We're just looking to muckrake.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
We will certainly come back to this, I expect.
Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Commissioner, all my colleagues have brought up Sustainable Development Technology Canada, since that matter—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Order. Order in this chamber, please.
Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, could you start over, please? You have the floor for two and a half minutes.