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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Konrad von Finckenstein  Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner
Michael Aquilino  Legal Counsel, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Okay, I'll start again. I got thrown off by the disorderly conduct—

11:40 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Williamson

I understand. I'll reset the clock, and when you're ready, you will have the floor for two and a half minutes.

Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner, a number of my colleagues have talked about Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

You released the Verschuren report, and a question comes to mind: In one part of the report, you mention that Ms. Verschuren probably acted the way she thought she should act to avoid a conflict of interest, that is to say that she abstained from voting rather than recusing herself. Is that correct?

11:40 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Konrad von Finckenstein

Yes, your summary is correct.

Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Okay, thank you.

One thing I'm curious about is, don't board appointees receive training on conflict of interest and how to deal with potential conflicts of interest?

11:40 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Konrad von Finckenstein

It depends on the organization. Generally, organizations have legal counsel who explain the rules. Companies have a code governing things like conduct and conflict of interest. If an organization asks us to do a presentation on conflict of interest, we do it.

Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC

In the very specific case of Ms. Verschuren, when she took up her duties, did she not receive training on what to do when faced with a potential conflict of interest?

11:40 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Konrad von Finckenstein

We didn't provide her with any training. I don't know what she did—

Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC

I'm asking you the question in a general way, because it's pretty important. If no training was provided, that's a major issue, because we know that these individuals administer public funds.

However, if she did receive training, as many people must, how can we assume that she's acting in good faith? How could someone appointed to a position so important that it includes a spot on the board of directors of an organization that provides funding not understand their training? Are they worthy of that position?

Either way, this is a major issue.

11:40 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Konrad von Finckenstein

Obviously, I'm not familiar with the standard practice at Sustainable Development Technology Canada in terms of training new board members. I assume that training was provided. If not, it should have been. I find it hard to believe that Ms. Verschuren did not receive any training, because it's common practice in all organizations.

I only know what happened at the various board meetings. On a few occasions, she declared her potential conflict of interest as a member of the board of directors of the incubators MaRS and the Verschuren Centre, but she did not recuse herself. That was the problem. It was a technical violation with no consequence, but the law required her to recuse herself and not vote. She declared her apparent conflict of interest, but she still voted.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Williamson

Thank you very much.

Up next is Mr. Desjarlais.

You have the floor for two and a half minutes, please.

Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again, Commissioner, for being present to answer questions related to SDTC.

I know that you were likely not given notice about these questions, so I do appreciate your comments on the topic.

It was earlier identified, and my colleague Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné mentioned an aspect of the question I wish to pose. It is related to Ms. Verschuren denying claims of conflict, saying that she got legal counsel or legal advice and that she did not have to recuse herself because her firm was a group of 100 companies that received the same level of additional funding. We obviously know now that is not the case and that it shouldn't have happened. Can you respond to her claims and tell the committee why her case is still relevant under the Conflict of Interest Act?

11:45 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Konrad von Finckenstein

It's relevant, I think, as a lesson to other companies. Follow the rules that are set out for you in the act and in the company's own code of conduct. If you follow them, there's no problem.

If you have a situation like we had with COVID and you say that because it's an emergency now and because all the companies get it, not only the one company in which you have interest, therefore a conflict never applies, follow your own judgment. Look, you're going to benefit from it, so let's get out of here. Let's not vote on it. In that case you're clear and free. That's really the message from all of this.

No matter what, you have the rules. Follow them, and you're clear and free. If anybody tells you it doesn't apply in this case, look at it with a great deal of caution.

Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB

Thank you very much for that, Commissioner. I think that's the most important lesson from this situation. It's that for the conflict of interest, regardless of whether one attempts to avoid accountability, the recusal portion of that admission is most critical in ensuring that the person, in this case, Ms. Verschuren, could understand directly that conflict. Isn't that correct? That recusal process, doing that, is the most important piece to understanding one's own conflict or perceived conflict. Is that correct?

11:45 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Konrad von Finckenstein

Yes. That's correct.

Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB

I also know that there has been training and that there are ways this information gets to public servants or even to others. Is this something that you think your office could enhance its work in doing, ensuring that officials like Ms. Verschuren, and others in like positions in these boards of management, to understand these rules of recusal better?

11:45 a.m.

Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Konrad von Finckenstein

You can always improve on what you do, obviously. What we do right now, for somebody like Ms. Verschuren, when she gets appointed, first thing, she gets a letter from us saying, “Welcome. Please fill out this very extensive questionnaire so that we can sit down with you, find out if you have a conflict and find out what has to be done.” That happens, and there are certain steps taken, most usually either establishing screens or insisting on blind trusts, etc. Then, we say, “This is your adviser, and she is there for you. If you have any problem, call her, and she will tell you if it's okay.” Then, if there is an issue and she calls them, we will help her resolve the issue. We do that.

Also, if the organization asks if we can do a briefing session on conflict of interest for their board members, we'll gladly do that. We'll send somebody over to walk them through it.

We're trying to do as much as possible, but the main thing is that you have to be aware of it. If you are in these positions, these are public trust positions. The rules apply, and they will be enforced. If you are in doubt about what it is, call us, or don't vote. If you think there's a possibility of a conflict of interest, there usually is.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Williamson

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Desjarlais, that is your time.

I'm going to suspend for five minutes for a health break. We'll be right back.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative John Williamson

I call this meeting back to order.

Just so everyone is aware, we have two more questioners to finish the third round. Then I will do a fourth round and call it a day, unless there is UC to continue.

Mr. Barrett, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

11:55 a.m.

Conservative

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

Chair, I want to take a minute to quickly respond to Ms. Shanahan's very animated opinions on what Parliament can and can't do.

A majority of members of the House of Commons passed a motion. That's important. It was a majority of members of the House. The Liberals want to act like they have a majority, but certainly they don't. A majority of members saw the corruption of this Liberal government and passed this motion. The motion calls for documents to be sent to the RCMP.

Ms. Shanahan read a letter. I just want to share a quote from the parliamentary legal counsel in his letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons: “The power to send for documents is absolute and unfettered—period. It is a constitutional parliamentary privilege not limited by statute. As such, the House is not constrained by statutory obligations contained in legislation such as the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. I also note that the order did not contemplate that redactions be made to the document or that information be withheld.”

It's without limit. It's absolute. They may not like it, and they certainly don't seem to understand it, but it's the law. A majority of members of the House, democratically elected, made that decision. We know that their Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, favours a dictatorship, but that's not how our system works.

The commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police does report to a minister in Justin Trudeau's cabinet, as per section 5 of the RCMP Act, but the RCMP, of course, has full and final discretion on the investigations they launch. That's not going to stop Parliament from doing its job. We'll make the information available. The RCMP can choose to investigate or not.

Much to the chagrin of Mr. Trudeau and his Liberal members, this is a democracy, not a dictatorship. A majority of members of the House made a decision. They can call independent officers of Parliament here to get them to opine on it, but it doesn't change the fact that it's legal and it's the right thing to do, especially after nine years of the most corrupt government in history. That's what we have with these members and that Liberal government.

Commissioner, I want to move on to yet another Liberal scandal. Did you have an opportunity to review the testimony of Mr. Stephen Anderson, who's the business partner of Justin Trudeau's minister from Edmonton, Randy Boissonnault? He recently appeared at the ethics committee. Did you have an opportunity to review that testimony, sir?

Noon

Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Konrad von Finckenstein

I read about it in the paper. I did not watch it personally.

Noon

Conservative

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

New evidence was presented of business-related text messages between Mr. Anderson and a client of Mr. Boissonnault's company. Now, in these messages, Mr. Anderson refers to Mr. Boissonnault nine times, saying that there's going to be a partner call. He went on to admit that there was only one Randy at the company. We even saw in these text messages that Randy—Randy in the text messages—was in Vancouver at the same time that Justin Trudeau's minister Randy Boissonnault was in Vancouver at the cabinet retreat.

The evidence of Randy Boissonnault being involved is quite heavy. It's contained in the text messages that were presented at the ethics committee. Does this new information require a further look into the matter by you? Give a brief answer, if you could, sir.

Noon

Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Konrad von Finckenstein

I'm sorry. I can't give you a brief answer, but I'll give you an answer.

Noon

Conservative

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

We're both limited by the time here.

Noon

Commissioner, Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner

Konrad von Finckenstein

You raised this issue with me before. I looked into it and saw whether there were reasonable grounds to start a.... I became convinced that on September 8, which was the issue and day in question....

I'm waiting for you—I'm talking to you—because we have to make sure that we both understand each other, that it concerned September 8.

On September 8, there was no way.... Mr. Boissonnault offered to give me all the information on September 8—of his conversations, telephone conversations, emails, whatever. We looked at all of that. There was absolutely no way there was contact between him and Mr. Anderson.

Now this new stuff has come up, which I was unaware of. I wrote to Mr. Boissonnault again yesterday. I said, “I'm concerned about September 6 and 7. I know that there was no communication on September 8, because you were in a cabinet lock-in and I have all the documents. Mr. Anderson's email suggests that he was in contact with you. Would you please provide me the same information for September 6 and 7 as you've done for September 8?”

When I get that, I will determine whether Mr. Anderson was using the name in vain or whether there were actually conversations.