Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 30th, 2024

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

You were introduced to her in the capacity of a Harper government appointee.

[Navdeep Bains]

I'm sorry. Could you repeat that again?

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

You were introduced to her in her capacity as a Harper government appointee.

[Navdeep Bains]

That is correct. As was mentioned before, she was appointed by Stephen Harper, Minister Flaherty and Minister Paradis.

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

Right, and she was a Conservative donor at that.

I think Mr. Cooper said “conflict-ridden”. He might not know what that means, because when you actually read the Ethics Commissioner's report, you see that it goes through just a single conflict with respect to NRStor. The fact that she's on the board of the Verschuren Centre and the fact that she's on the board of MaRS are not a pecuniary conflicts in the same way that we would understand a conflict.

Regardless, she seeks formal advice. I don't know if you've read the Ethics Commissioner's report, but in the end, Ms. Verschuren was advised that her conflict with NRStor and other potential conflicts would not prevent her from accepting the appointment as long as she followed the rules set out in the Conflict of Interest Act.

To your understanding, this is not the first time someone would have had a conflict in being appointed to a board. That's why we have the Conflict of Interest Act to manage it, and if this was “conflict-ridden”, surely you wouldn't have appointed her. However, in your view, should her roles at NRStor, the Verschuren Centre and MaRS have precluded her from being appointed, given her credibility otherwise and given that the Ethics Commissioner said the conflict could be managed?

[Navdeep Bains]

There are a couple of components to that question, Mr. Chair. One is that this was all public knowledge. Two, as I've indicated, os that it's not uncommon for individuals to seek the advice and counsel of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. Three, as the member has indicated, she can pursue the opportunity as long as she follows the rules.

I think the key take-away for committee members today is that the onus is on the individuals to follow the rules, as the member has indicated.

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

Let's talk about following the rules in relation to Ms. Verschuren, because she is being cast.... This has been cast by Conservatives as criminal conduct. Effectively, it's to refer the matter to the RCMP, and yet when you read the Ethics Commissioner's report.... I don't know if you have, but you should know, Mr. Bains, that the allegations here and the conflicts that the Ethics Commissioner has found....

One, Ms. Verschuren followed a practice to abstain from votes instead of recusing herself, but these were votes that she had no financial interest in, just so we're absolutely clear. She was abstaining as opposed to recusing as she should have, because of her role at the Verschuren Centre and MaRS. In the one area where she did have a financial interest, in the words of the Ethics Commissioner, “This oversight was compounded when the Board was presented with incorrect legal advice justifying this course of action. ”

The report goes on to address the idea that she attempted to influence the decisions of her colleagues, which I know is another allegation. In the Ethics Commissioner's words, “There is no evidence that Ms. Verschuren attempted to influence the decision of her colleagues on SDTC's Board. I find that she did not contravene section 9 of the Act.”

It is astounding to me that you're now at the committee for a second time and that there are allegations that you're somehow tied up with Ms. Verschuren, even though she was a Conservative donor and Conservative appointee. It's an arm's-length corporation, and the actual conflicts that we're talking about have nothing to do with you.

Do the conflicts have anything to do with you?

[Navdeep Bains]

Mr. Chair, to answer the member, the answer is no.

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

Then let's stop wasting our time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. I'm afraid that is the time.

We're now beginning the third round, starting with Mr. Stewart.

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

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Bains, for reappearing today.

We received the disturbing report from the Auditor General last June, in which she found that the Trudeau government has turned the once legitimate Sustainable Development Technology Canada into a slush fund for Liberal insiders. The Auditor General made it clear that the blame for this scandal falls—

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

I have a point of order.

I'm just curious. As a point of clarification, when a member misstates an official document, as he just did, is that to be corrected at some point?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Erskine-Smith, I'm here to move the meeting along. There is flourish on both sides, and as I've stated before, a government member will follow Mr. Stewart, and there will be the right to reply at that point.

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

So he is allowed to misstate an official document from an official—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Erskine-Smith, this is not a point of order.

On the same point of order, Mr. Cooper, I will hear from you.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I'll just put on record the complete picture, which is that Ms. Verschuren said that the minister spoke to her, as did his policy adviser, and Leah Lawrence said that she talked to Mr. Bains three times before she agreed, and she said that he did know that she had a direct conflict.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Your point has been made, which I think is why we're here and why we're doing this study. There are many statements out there that contradict one another.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor on the same point of order.

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

Thank you, Chair. I just want to clarify, because this is actually quite concerning, and more in a broad sense as opposed to on the specific topic at hand.

Is it okay for members to outright lie or to put misstatements on the record that cannot be corrected? I mean, I could come to this committee today and say, “Hey, the sky is red.” Would that be something that would not be corrected?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You are certainly entitled to say that, Ms. Khalid, and—

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

I'm not sure why, then, we are—

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

You can say it when you get the floor.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's right. Ms. Khalid, you'll have the floor right after Mr. Stewart to address any concerns you have about things that were said previously.

To reiterate, yes, it is your right to say the sky is red.

I'm sorry. Mr. Cooper, is this a point of order?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

It's on the same point of order.

For Ms. Khalid to impugn the integrity of members of this committee when I am simply reading verbatim from transcripts of committee testimony—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, I know.

Ms. Khalid, I will—

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

—and she says the testimony is lies....