Public Accounts Committee on Aug. 8th, 2024

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

We appreciate that we had a chance to look over the revisions that were done to the motion, but the essential problem with the motion is still there, which is that listening to a recording that was recorded unknowingly to other third parties and is part of a private investigation being duly undertaken by the proper authorities risks potentially sabotaging and compromising that investigation. I know that we have experienced members on this committee who are very, very much aware of this.

Again, Chair, this is public accounts, where we pride ourselves on being objective, on doing that oversight and on making sure that other people are doing their jobs. I do question why we are going after this. It's a three and a half hour recording, if I'm correct. I'm also wondering just how that recording will be shared with the committee, whether we'll sit and listen to it for three and a half hours or we'll have a transcript or however it will be.

I just want it on the record that, unfortunately, once again we have members of Parliament seeking to duplicate and possibly compromise work that is being done by other duly authorized investigators.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Clerk, could you please call the vote on this.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you all very much.

I'll now return to our witnesses, who both appear to be ready. I thank them both for their patience.

I'm looking at the time on the clock. I believe we go to Mr. Barrett.

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

I think it's Mr. Genuis.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Genuis, is it back to you, or is it over to your colleague?

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

Yes, it's back to me.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Pardon me.

We'll go back to Mr. Genuis.

Ms. Khalid, is this a point of order?

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

Mr. Chair, this is just a point of clarification. My understanding is that, according to the Standing Orders, once somebody moves a motion, it passes to the next speaker in line. I just wanted to confirm that. I'm not 100% sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll check on that. It has not been the practice of the committee, but I'll check with the clerk on that one.

I'm informed that it's not in the Standing Orders. It is at the chair's discretion, and my practice has been, for all members from all parties, to suspend the clock when we move into a debate and then return to that once the debate has concluded.

Mr. Genuis, you do have five minutes and 30 seconds now. The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Chair.

This is just to say, first of all, I'm very glad to see that motion passed. I will say Ms. Shanahan's comments are totally incorrect, and I think they ignore Ms. Daly's testimony. She made very serious allegations about intimidation of her as part of an internal government process, a process that clearly is compromised and subject to criticism. After hearing those two hours of testimony, for Ms. Shanahan to say that we should just trust the internal process doesn't make much sense to me.

We're parliamentarians. Our job is to hold government accountable, and that's what the passage of this motion, which clearly had the support of the opposition and, in the end, passed unanimously, allows us to do: get to the bottom of what happened.

To the Ethics Commissioner, thank you very much again for being here.

Clearly, there are major ethical issues involved in the arrive scam scandal. You've talked about your jurisdiction and that it is applying to certain people and not others. I just want to dig into that.

Some of the facts we have heard at this committee, as well as at the government operations committee, are serious allegations about Minh Doan deleting emails, as well as a conflict of interest issue involving Mr. David Yeo, who was a contractor while he was working for the government. He was essentially double dipping.

We have dug further into that. We have looked for further information about this practice of people double dipping as government employees and as contractors. We put forward a motion calling for the end of this double dipping and it passed with the support of all opposition parties, although Liberals opposed that.

Could you help us understand whether or not these issues involving David Yeo and the double-dipping questions, as well as the deletion of emails allegations involving Minh Doan, would fall under your jurisdiction to deal with, and why or why not?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No, they do not fall under my jurisdiction.

Basically, my jurisdiction is to deal with issues of conflict of interest by elected officials like yourself or by people who are what the act calls reporting public office holders, who are basically people appointed by Governor in Council and have senior positions.

In this case, none of the people you mentioned fall under either category.

There are obviously other institutions that deal with this, primarily the Commissioner of Public Sector Integrity, and there are provisions under the Public Service Employment Act, etc.

These activities, like double dipping, etc., are clearly not ethical and should be pursued, but they're not part of my mandate.

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

Thank you.

On the double-dipping front, you said it is “clearly not ethical”, but it only triggers your involvement depending on what level.

If we had a case where a member of Parliament or a very senior public servant was involved in this double dipping and they owned a company that was bidding on government contracts at their own department even, perhaps, while they were also holding this position, that would trigger your involvement. However, it's not a question of the activity itself. It's a question of the level of the person who is doing that activity. Is that correct?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

I can only deal with issues that involve senior public servants appointed by order in council or elected members of the House of Commons.

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

Thank you.

I guess a way of getting at this issue would be to ask a hypothetical. If you had a senior public servant or a member of Parliament who owned a company that was bidding on government contracts, presumably you would have concerns about that. Is that right, or would you? I don't want to put words in your mouth. How would you respond to that?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

First of all, that senior public servant in your hypothetical would have to disclose all of this in his report when he's appointed or, if it happens during his tenure, when he acquires it. We would deal with, then, whether this creates a conflict or not, and what the remedies are. Do you have to get rid of the company? Do you have to put it in a public trust, in a blind trust or whatever? Second, a member of the House of Commons can ask me to investigate.

In either case, I would look at it. If I find out there are reasonable grounds for there being a breach of the act, then I will launch an investigation. If I come across something that is criminal or potentially criminal, I have to refer it to the RCMP and cease my activity so that the criminal aspect, if there is any, can be resolved.

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

In the last 10 seconds I have, sir, in comparing your description of what would be appropriate to what happened with, for instance, David Yeo, it's clear that, based on your expertise, there are serious ethical problems because there was a lack of disclosure in the case of David Yeo. Again, it's not within your jurisdiction to investigate him specifically, but I think the information you're providing about what would be considered ethical or not in the case of people you would investigate is very helpful in the area of double dipping.

Thank you for that testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. von Finckenstein, could you either move your microphone forward or stand back a little bit? Your proximity is creating a little bit of feedback, which is difficult for the interpreters. Maybe say a few words so that we can double-check it.

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

Is this better? Can you hear me clearly now?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm getting a thumbs-up.

Thank you very much, Commissioner.

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

I have 10 minutes left. Is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, you don't.

Mr. von Finckenstein, do you have any comments for Mr. Genuis?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

No. I answered his question, I believe.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I didn't think there was a question there as well. I just wanted to double-check with you.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today and for their patience while we dealt with the motion.

For Canadians at home, Commissioner, what is the role of an ethics commissioner?

[Konrad von Finckenstein]

As I mentioned, the title is Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It really is primarily to deal with conflicts of interest. Obviously, when you do that, you look at ethical considerations.

The main thing is to make the act quite clearly provides that people who are in an elected position in the House of Commons, or people under the code or under the act, if you're an appointed official to a senior public service commission, you have to behave ethically. You can't further your own interests, the interests of your friends or of your family, etc., or you can't use your job in a way to favour somebody. That's what I concentrate on.

The way this system works is that, in effect, at the beginning of your appointment, you make a report. We look at it and say that there is a problem here or there is a problem there, and we suggest ways it can be remedied. Then, throughout the tenure, the person annually makes an update of that report.

Our job, as I mentioned many times before, is to ensure that the best talent can come into the public service and can go out. If you are talented, you will have conflicts. There's no doubt about it. The question is how to manage this. My job there is to manage it and to try to avoid conflicts.

In instances where there is behaviour that seems to be suspicious and that gives reasonable grounds for an investigation, I can either do it on my own initiative or do it if requested by a member of Parliament.

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

Is your office part of the House of Commons or of the government?