Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 5th, 2024

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

That's not good enough, Mr. Chair.

I'll remind you, ma'am, of the supremacy of Parliament and the supremacy of this committee. The issue of privacy does not apply. I'm not asking for names. I'm asking for individuals who were mentioned in this referral letter that went off to the PMO and the minister's office. That is not a privacy issue.

If you claim privacy again, I will seek direction from the chair, because we have a right to demand that number and the documentation that flows from that. I'll ask you this again, out of respect: What is that actual number? I will not accept “under 10”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let me interject here, just to assist the witness.

Mr. Brock is correct about privacy. We're a long way from asking for any information on that, but I do think he is within his rights to ask for a number. If you need to come back to us with that number, we'll accept that, or at least that would be my recommendation.

I do think you need to provide a little more specificity, if you would, please, because there are lots of numbers under 10.

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate your intervention. Our standard is that we don't divulge when it's less than 10. I appreciate your offer for us to assess that and come back to the committee. We will do that. We will check with our counsel and see if we're able to provide the number of names that were provided in the chair advice letter.

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

Mr. Chair, that answer is unsatisfactory to me. She's taking this request under advisement and obtaining legal counsel as to whether or not she can release that number. I repeat that this is not a privacy issue that can trump the supremacy of Parliament and the supremacy of this committee.

I will be asking this witness again to provide that information to this committee. I'd like the actual number of individuals who made it onto the referral list.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Again, I will function at the direction of the committee now.

It is my view that if you have that number, you should provide it to this committee. From this committee's point of view, there is no legal obligation for us to wait for a response out of courtesy. If you don't have it, that's one thing, but that's not the answer you gave.

It is also unusual for the PCO to appear before a parliamentary committee like this. These are unusual circumstances because of this board. I would urge you to provide Mr. Brock with that answer. It does not violate any privacy considerations that you might be under, but we are not under.

Again, in doing so, you would be forthcoming to this committee, which I think you should be. It would also steer us away from the committee taking additional steps to require you to provide that information, so I would urge you to provide the number to Mr. Brock, please.

[Donnalyn McClymont]

To be completely honest, I'm not sure I have the exact number with me.

Mr. Chair, if it is possible to verify that, we can get back to the committee with the number, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just for clarity, is that something you can verify in the next hour, or are you seeking—

[Donnalyn McClymont]

We could verify that quickly. Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay. That would be helpful. Thank you.

We'll look for that and we'll deal with this before noon, Mr. Brock. I'm afraid your time is now up. You'll have another opportunity, I believe.

Turning now to Ms. Khalid, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As I continue to participate in this committee, I always see witnesses, who spend their time coming in and sharing information in good faith with this committee, put through the wringer. It's unfortunate. I would, obviously, continually encourage my colleagues to please respect witnesses and the legislation under which we are governed. I understand and appreciate the relevance of Parliament in how we operate, but I also want to stress that there are branches to how we operate as a democracy, and we should act responsibly with the powers and privileges we are given within our Parliament.

Ms. McClymont, you made reference to the production of documents. As you may know, there was a Conservative motion that was adopted in the House requiring the production of documents to the law clerk related to SDTC, with the intention of providing these documents to the RCMP. The Conservatives are egging on the RCMP to start criminal investigations, and I don't think that's fair. It is quite an abuse of the powers they're privileged to have in our democracy.

If I'm not mistaken, as you indicated, the PCO plays a central role when it comes to production orders of this type, leading the process and providing guidance to departments. With regard to this production order, multiple offices implicated have raised some serious alarm bells. Earlier this summer, the RCMP commissioner raised the alarm, saying there were risks that this motion compromised its investigative processes and police independence.

In your experience, have you seen a production order from Parliament that compromises institutions' independence in this way?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I would again preface that by saying I am a senior official from the PCO. To be sure, we are focused on the appointment side of the House. I would say, for our part and consistent with my previous comments, we take very seriously our obligations under the Privacy Act, and we redact information that is of a personal nature to protect appointees so that they feel they can come forward and put forward their candidacy and be protected.

That is absolutely what we did in this context, for our part, in senior personnel.

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

What are the dangers of information? For example, what happens if the candidates' names are released or their general vicinity is released?

What are the consequences for those people, having seen the kind of dirt and mud that are slung at everybody in our democratic system, in terms of applications and in terms of pushing forward the agenda of SDTC and the PCO?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I would say that we really try to encourage people across the country to apply to these processes. Over my time in this job, I've heard some very heartwarming stories of people who want to serve very much and are very grateful for the opportunity through an open process to do so. If that is breached, then we betray the confidence of people who have put themselves out there, who may not be successful getting these positions and who come with a very high stature across the country. It would be very disappointing; it would cast a real chill on people to serve.

There's a lot of public commentary these days about people not wanting to serve for a variety of reasons in this kind of heightened public and social media environment. I would be very disappointed if we were to take steps that would in any way risk confidential information and that would hamper or cast a pall on people's interest in applying for positions.

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

However, at the same time, we see that there has been an issue here. There's been a disconnect between the Ethics Commissioner, the AG and the PCO, and a candidate and their lawyers. How do you that this transition to the NRC is going to help with increased oversight, for example, of these kinds of appointments?

What is your office doing to make sure these kinds of disconnects and the general mistrust in the entirety of candidacy don't have an impact?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I would say that, for our part, we will continue to look at ways to strengthen people's understanding of their obligations under the act. I have spoken to the Ethics Commissioner about whether there are more things we could do in partnership to make sure that people do understand their obligations, as one member pointed out, not from the beginning but through the duration of their appointment. I know the commissioner does have tools in place to make sure that people are reminded of their obligations, and he offers training and other outreach. It's quite important, and it's something that we'll absolutely have to reflect on to make sure that people continue to understand their obligations under the legislative frameworks they operate in.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have time for a brief question if you have one.

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

It's not brief, so I'll pass.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Then I'll hold off. I appreciate that, Ms. Khalid.

Mr. Perkins, I heard you laugh. That's a lesson you could abide by, as well, I think, at times.

Mr. Perkins, you have the floor for five minutes and the clock has started, so—

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

That's not the first time I've heard that.

Thank you.

I just want to be clear. Former minister Navdeep Bains testified before committee that he got a letter from the PCO with two names. Former CEO Leah Lawrence testified before committee that she was told by the minister to vet the two names that the PCO had given. Both had conflicts. One chose not to put their name forward when asked. The other one said, “Sure, no problem.” That other one was Annette Verschuren.

I'm a little unclear on—since we've had a lot of testimony—what the reluctance is to say that two names were given. We've had a lot of testimony from the former minister, from the chief of staff of the former minister and from the former president that that's what was given to them.

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, that's fair. Like I said, we will check on that, as you've offered, and we will come back and clarify on the names. I would say that it's a pretty standard process, when we put the names forward, that the minister may decide to meet with individuals. It is unfortunate that sometimes people decide to back out if they feel that they are not going to be able to meet the ethical wall obligations.

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

I appreciate that.

I just want to help understand.... Besides what MP Brock said, I think it's really important to understand that when Ms. Verschuren was appointed with her “managed” conflicts, as a testimony, Leah Lawrence, the president, said, “There was a board member pre-2019” who had “stepped back from the organization” to recuse himself. “Later...[when] Ms. Verschuren was appointed—it was about a year after she was appointed—that individual came back and said, 'Well, given that direct conflicts are now allowed, I'm going to go on the board of this organization'” that was funding a company he was going for.

Now, I asked her who that was, and she said that it was Guy Ouimet, who was another PCO recommendation, presumably. He was a GIC appointment. Guy Ouimet loved the conflict allowance so much that, while he was on the board, $16.2 million of taxpayer money went to companies he had a conflict of interest in and an investment in. He even admitted that he voted for one of them—in committee. He voted for $4 million to a company he owned, so it doesn't seem like the process that the Prime Minister's Office has set up in it's clear and transparent way works when trying to prevent people from abusing taxpayer dollars in this way.

Why is it that the PCO doesn't seem to monitor conflicts of interest once they appoint these people to the board who declare they have a conflict?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I would again reiterate our role in appointments. We launch the selection processes. We run the selection processes. We provide advice ultimately to the minister. When an appointment is made, as I think has been explained to some extent, and a Governor in Council...becomes part of an entity, they then fall, as I would argue, under the responsibility of the organization and ultimately the minister.

I would say that in this set of circumstances, from what I understand from the testimony that's been provided to the committee and from what the organization itself had done, they had put in place some robust processes. They were trying to respect, I think, the Ethics Commissioner's direction—

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

I'm sorry. They were so robust that.... There's no obligation on your appointment process afterwards to see whether or not those who have been identified as having a conflict of interest actually live by the rules.

The robust processes were that 82% of the transactions that the Auditor General looked at.... Out of 226 projects, a small sample of what this $22-billion organization has given out over the years, 186 were conflicted. That's 82% of the GIC PCO-recommended appointments voting money for companies they had a conflict of interest with. There was no obligation....

The minister said he didn't have any obligation before that—he said PCO told him to do this, which of course means PMO—but there's no obligation to actually follow up when it's an identified conflict of interest to make sure they're not breaking the conflict of interest law.

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I would again reiterate that our role is to make sure that people understand their obligations under the act. It is the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, as set out in statute and passed by Parliament, who is responsible for interpreting, administering and adjudicating. That means he does undertake efforts to ensure that appointees understand their obligations under the act. If there is a problem, as we've seen in this set of circumstances, he will investigate and he will make findings.

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

Well, let me—