Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 5th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let me pause the clock.

You have a minute and a half left, Mr. Brock. You can continue down this line or the committee can deal with this. We are going to committee business after the witnesses to propose steps for the committee to take.

To me your question is within the bounds. We can compel an answer. I would say go back to questions. It's your time, of course. You can act however you like. I'll turn things over. You have a minute and a half. Go ahead, please.

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

Canadians want answers as to why the government saw fit to hire an anti-Semite and did not do any appropriate background checks. Canadians want to know how much taxpayer money went to this Mr. Dattani while he was on leave. He resigned in disgrace. Most people, when they resign, do not receive a severance package or a compensation package.

I understand that, in this case, the Government of Canada saw fit to offer him a compensation package. Canadians want to know how much, and I'll be asking the Privy Council Office to provide details on how much the compensation was and how much he received while on leave.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have 40 seconds.

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

Will the witness provide me with that information?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I will just continue to reiterate that I am not in a position to provide personal information. I would say, on the question on leave, that what was in the public domain—that the individual in question was on leave—would have been approved by the organization itself. That is really the utmost that I could offer, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead briefly, Mr. Brock. The keyword is “brief”, please.

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

I will iterate the supremacy of Parliament and the supremacy of this committee, which trumps and outweighs any privacy concerns that you are articulating. We will be pushing for those figures.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid. I'd like you to cite the point.

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

I absolutely will. This is with respect to your obligations as chair. The green book cites that:

The obligation of a witness to answer all questions put by the committee must be balanced against the role that public servants play in providing confidential advice to their Ministers. The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be.

I think, Chair, as I have said before, this line of questioning is absolutely against the convention within committee practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

I have another point of order from Mr. Perkins.

You have the floor, sir.

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

It's on the same point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I realize that. I figured it was.

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

Members will know that the law clerk of the House of Commons recently wrote to the Speaker with regard to the House order for the production of documents and the House's demand that the law clerk be provided with all documents regarding SDTC, which would then be transferred to the RCMP.

In that letter, the law clerk made it very clear that the supremacy of Parliament on document production clearly means that no law of Parliament, including the Privacy Act and Access to Information Act, can override a demand of the House or of a committee for the production of documents—not the Privacy Act and not the Access to Information Act as PCO instructed in the case of the House.

That obviously will be the subject of debate when the House comes back, but I would point out that the government members are incorrect when they cite the references they do and ignore the fact that the supremacy of Parliament over the acts that Parliament passes exists. I can show you the law clerk's letter if you haven't read it, just so you're familiar with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Why don't I make this easy? I will hear another point of order. You've actually made this easy for me as chair. You're both, in fact, right.

Ms. Khalid, officials—public servants, that is, witnesses—are not to be put in a position where they would violate that requirement. The committee here has asked some questions, but I have not compelled the witness to answer because I do understand that she is under a privacy obligation. We as a committee can ask for that information at a certain time should we decide to do that.

Mr. Perkins, you are also correct that this committee and Parliament have broad powers to call for documents should they choose to do so. I would—

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

On a point of order, Chair, I'd just like to point out that it is in chapter 20 under “Committee Proceedings”.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes.

Again, I am not here asking the witnesses to violate that, Ms. Khalid. I am well versed in that. I understand the obligations thereunder to protect information. Having said that, the committee can, at a certain time, seek that information should it choose to do so.

Next is Mr. Weiler.

You have the floor for five minutes, please.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'd like to get back to the subject matter of the meeting today. It seems to me that the crux of the issue we're talking about today is that Ms. Verschuren decided to follow her own legal advice rather than turn to the Ethics Commissioner's office.

What are the consequences for appointees who do not follow the rules under the act?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.

I think we've seen the results of that. The commissioner has investigated and found that she was in contravention of the act. I would say that in an extreme set of circumstances, if someone is found in contravention, it would be a breach, in our view, of the terms and conditions of employment. That could lead to action on the part of the GIC in the extreme termination of the appointee.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Of course, Ms. Verschuren has resigned from her position. Do you believe there should be further consequences, or does this abide by the rules under the act?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, to the honourable member's question, she has resigned from the position, which I think is the ultimate separation from the Governor in Council. That's the extent of the action, I think, that would be taken on her part.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

Is it the responsibility of the appointee to abide by the rules under the act, or do you believe the Ethics Commissioner's office could have done more to ensure that Ms. Verschuren abided by the act?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

As I mentioned, it's quite clear in the context of the legislation and in terms of the advice we provide that the obligation is on the individual appointee to understand and to abide by the Conflict of Interest Act.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'll take a bit of a separate line here. In your opinion, what changes now that SDTC is transitioning to be under the NRC? Do you think it will mean increased oversight?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

I wouldn't want to give a view myself, but certainly the minister announced that through the contribution agreement there would be increased oversight of SDTC while the transition is taking place. As I mentioned, my colleague was here from the NRC. As I understand it, the intention is absolutely to make sure that they have the tools in place to administer the program and the funding and that the appropriate conflict of interest rules are respected in that context.