Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Right.

In a particular case like this, this isn't a friend of the minister's, to our knowledge. I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. This is an individual who was the former head of Home Depot Canada, who started the Michaels store, who has a lengthy history in business, who sits on any number of private sector boards and who sat on boards appointed by the former Conservative government, the Harper government.

Was there any reason to think, from the PCO's perspective, that there was a problematic relationship with the then minister?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, to the member's question, I would say, for myself, that when I look at the candidacy on paper, it is very solid. This is an Order of Canada recipient who ran a number of businesses. Ms. Bradford also made the point that she was appointed in other capacities as serving in government, so it would seem, certainly on paper, that she would have been a very strong candidate, absolutely.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Okay.

The application is submitted, and you and your team are responsible for reviewing that application. The PCO team is certainly responsible for reviewing it.

Did PCO flag any concerns at all with Ms. Verschuren's candidacy?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, I wouldn't want to speak in terms of any kind of personal information we hold, but what I would say is that the Ethics Commissioner has been clear in his report that she was referred to his office and that there was a lengthy discussion, so I do think that is absolutely a best practice.

There are cases sometimes, as I've said, where the mitigation cannot be accomplished and the individual cannot be appointed. This was not the view of the Ethics Commissioner's office in this set of circumstances. If the rules for public office holders had been adhered to in terms of recusal and the act had been respected, I think that the commissioner's office thought it would be quite possible for her to serve in the chair role.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

That's because of her role and stake in NRStor, I assume.

The second line of inquiry is in relation to the disclosure of documents. There are two questions that I have. One is in relation to.... I'm going through the document and I see the redactions. The redactions, in many cases, are obviously related to individuals who are not Ms. Verschuren. I mean, there are other people who are applying, and I have no interest in that. I would like to know, though, with respect to any of the redactions that have been made.... I want to get to the letter separately, but specifically, with respect to the redactions and to the applications that were submitted—and I see there are pages 12 to 30, 48 to 66, 78 to 84, 97 to 103—there were not just redactions within a page but certain pages that were fully redacted, in accordance with section 19 of the Access to Information Act, specific to a privacy concern that you flagged.

Are those privacy concerns related to other individuals, or related to Ms. Verschuren?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

Mr. Chair, it would have been a combination of individuals. We were asked for the applications of individuals. That would be considered personal information. That is a good chunk of—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I understand that, but I do think we should treat them differently. I think it would be useful for this to make sure that it's absolutely clear there's nothing hidden here. I think it's very important that.... I have no interest in information related to anyone else. I do not care.

My colleagues are right. We are Parliament. If there's any personal information related to Ms. Verschuren that you are concerned about and we're redacting because of the Access to Information Act, that is improper. Whether we hold this in camera or we determine amongst ourselves whether it should be public, we can, as a committee, discuss this. However, I think you should separate these and you should come back to the committee and say, “These particular instances have nothing to do with Ms. Verschuren, and these other instances do.”

My last question, then, relates to the letter that was held back, based on the confidence of the Privy Council. What's the rationale for that? How can that be justified, given the parliamentary request?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

If you don't mind, I'd like to clarify the question. The letter that was held back...?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Yes, for communications between the Privy Council and Minister Bains, there was, I think, one piece of communication that was held back because of confidence of the King's Privy Council. That was the document that we received, but that seems like an inappropriate withholding, I think.

[Donnalyn McClymont]

On that document, it was cabinet confidence, so that would have been advice to cabinet. You can take what you will, in terms of the appointment itself, why we would withhold that document.

To the member's question regarding the documents that we provided, I note that we did redact Ms. Verschuren's personal information. I think it's important to redact the personal information of all the individuals in question, but you do know, by deduction, that Ms. Verschuren was on the May 19 letter. She qualified for the chair position. There was one individual who qualified for the chair position, so it is, to me, pretty clear—and we were clear with her on that point—that the information we provided would, grosso modo, reveal her candidacy, if you will.

As I said, Mr. Chair, I think we've been extremely forthcoming while trying to respect the personal information of not only Ms. Verschuren but all of the candidates, and as forthcoming as we can be in terms of her overall application.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Erskine-Smith, your time has elapsed. Do you have one last question to wrap things up, or are you satisfied?

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I'm satisfied. I have one comment, perhaps.

I appreciate how forthcoming you've been, especially here today. I do think, though, that in the interest of ensuring that all air is cleared.... If you're saying this information could be found out some other way, then why redact it? I think full disclosure, as it relates to Ms. Verschuren, would be welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. McClymont and Ms. Hamoui, for your testimony and participation in relation to this study.

I have one question, which is about the resignation letters that Madame Sinclair-Desgagné requested. I want to be clear about what the request is and whether you think you'll be able to provide that. I believe Madame Sinclair-Desgagné understands redacting any personal information. I think you said you were going to endeavour to get them back to us in a format that would allow us to consider the contents. Is that right?

[Donnalyn McClymont]

We will endeavour to see if we're able to provide those, but as I said, we may have to redact certain information. However, we will check to see what is in the realm of the possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay. The committee might take that up.

I know there have been requests for a number of pieces of information. Could you present those to the clerk in due course? We'll certainly look for that information.

It's not within 24 hours, so it is—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

It's 21 days.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes. We typically like to have the information within 21 days as a courtesy, so we look forward to that.

I am now just going to.... Hold on. I have committee business here, but I'm not there yet. I will see hands shortly.

I'm going to suspend for two minutes while the witnesses excuse themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We're back.

You can both put your hands down. Thank you very much. I see you both.

We'll now proceed to have a quick discussion regarding committee business. Depending on you, this shouldn't take a whole lot of time.

We are expecting the public accounts for 2024 to be tabled in the next couple of weeks. It could certainly be before the end of October. That will probably trigger a subcommittee meeting to discuss how we want to incorporate those into our upcoming business.

We have motions to get witnesses through. I'm working on them. That is something this committee will be tasked with reviewing over two or three meetings. Again, it will be decided at the subcommittee.

In regard to our study on report 6, SDTC, I'm not necessarily proposing any action today, but I want to update you on a couple of witnesses who are pending.

The motion adopted to invite Mr. Navdeep Bains and reinvite the witnesses who were here today also proposed to invite Ms. Hilary Leftick. She previously worked in the PMO. She left PMO in 2022 and is not working in a similar capacity in the Government of Canada, so her information is not publicly available.

The clerk is doing everything possible to track her down in order to invite her to a future meeting. I was hoping to have her here today with PCO, because I am cognizant of the witness list in the calendar and thought they would have paired nicely together. Having said that, I think the witnesses today from PCO provided a good deal of information. That one is still pending, but it is proving to be difficult.

Then, with respect to the two ministers, Minister Champagne and Minister Guilbeault, invitations have been sent to their offices. We provided dates through to December, and we're hoping for positive responses.

On the upcoming Monday, we'll have Andrée-Lise Méthot as a witness.

I'm now going to recognize Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

You have the floor.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My motion should be dealt with quickly.

I'm asking for unanimous consent to urge the Privy Council to send us the board members' resignation letters. Obviously, the personal information would be redacted, but only information of that nature.

Can the committee give its unanimous consent?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, let's slow things down here a bit.

I'm curious. Have you submitted a motion to the clerk? I realize you're looking for unanimous consent—yes, I will come to members—and to the committee to order the production of the two resignation letters, with the agreement that personal information can be removed. I suppose by that you mean addresses.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Did you say that there were two—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Pardon me. I misspoke. It's the resignation letters, yes.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

There are more than two.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

It's a motion. It's not really UC. We could pass it quickly if we had UC, but I know Mr. Drouin wants to speak.

Ms. Khalid, I know you had it down. You're next on the list, once we deal with this matter.

Mr. Drouin, do you have something that you want to say about this?

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Maybe I misunderstood.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, I think that you asked for this during the meeting. Mr. Chair then specified that the letters must be submitted within 21 days.

I find it hard to understand why we would need this motion.