Public Accounts Committee on March 7th, 2024

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

On a point of order, Chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay.

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

We heard yesterday from witnesses that ministers don't have anything to do with procurement.

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

That is not a point of order.

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

When we hear testimony from witnesses, we need to respect it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Shanahan, you are down as third.

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

She's completely out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Shanahan, you are down to speak. This is a very valid debate. Allow me to speak to it now.

The deputy minister has come in today and, frankly, made the minister sound like he is a passenger in this voyage and not steering the ship. That is why I think the opposition is raising this issue, but it is valid.

You're welcome to debate the merits of ministerial accountability in your turn, but not as a point of order. It is not. You are third on the list. I always welcome points of order to guide me, but I ask that they be points of order.

Mr. Genuis, you have the floor again.

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

Mr. Chair, this Liberal member is helpfully assisting me in precisely demonstrating the point I was making. She is saying that the minister is not actually involved in making any decisions that have relevance to the procurement process. Perhaps the title “Minister of Procurement” is purely decorative.

However, Mr. Chair, Canadians expect better. Canadians expect ministers to take responsibility for things that happen within their department. Of course, we understand that ministers aren't involved in every specific decision that happens within their department, but they're responsible for establishing the culture, setting the policy frameworks, giving broad direction and, certainly, insisting on remedial action when things are clearly starting to go off the rails, as was obviously happening for a long time in the case of the arrive scam scandal.

We've had four ministers of procurement in the last four years under these Liberals. I wonder if they should just formalize the process by designating a potted plant to be the fifth minister. A potted plant could receive briefings, could be present in the department, but would ostensibly have as much to do with actual procurement as the last four ministers have had.

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

On a point of order again, Chair, I would go to language. I would go to the language being used to describe other members of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Come on, Ms. Shanahan.

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

Does “potted plant” offend you?

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

It's called delegated authority. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Shanahan, you will be welcome to set the record—

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

Chair, on that point of order—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just hold on, Mr. Genuis.

Ms. Shanahan, that's not a point of order. You're interrupting. I try to avoid having members interrupt one another. We can sit here all day. No other committee is sitting today. We have infinite parliamentary resources to sit here. If you're going to interrupt, you're going to hear more from me, and we'll take away from your time.

Mr. Genuis, if you have point of order, I would like to hear it. If you don't have a point of order, I would like you to get back to your time.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I don't know if there's any history of the term “potted plant” being found unparliamentary.

I will underline the point that in our system of government, the public expects ministers to take responsibility—not to be specifically involved in the minutiae of every small decision, but to be responsible for the policy direction, the culture, the frameworks, the rules and the adherence to the norms that the public expects, so if the Liberals' best defence of what happened in the arrive scam scandal is to say that the ministers don't have anything to do with what happens inside of government, I would submit that this is also a problem. It is a problem either way.

That's to the general point around ministerial accountability. Of course, we need to hear from Minister Anand specifically in reference to an announcement she made yesterday about her work as President of the Treasury Board and the steps the government says it is taking in this regard. I think it's very clear and particular in the context of what we heard yesterday, both at committee and through the media, that hearing from Minister Anand is of particular importance.

This is why this motion was put forward today. I don't doubt that some members will not agree with some aspects of my commentary, but I hope that they won't get in the way of supporting a common-sense motion to invite the President of the Treasury Board to appear before this committee to speak about her work, the work of her department and the announcement and actions she has spoken about.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis.

I will just remind members that my comments on points of order apply to all members.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor. Go ahead, please.

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

My apologies, Chair, but I thought Ms. Kusie was first.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

The hands went up, and it was a photo finish, so in the interest of fairness I decided to go.... I can move you down one if you like.

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

I'd be pleased if you could. I would love to hear what Ms. Kusie has to say first.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay. It's Ms. Kusie, Ms. Khalid and then Ms. Shanahan.

Ms. Kusie, it's over to you.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I believe my colleague Mr. Genuis has indicated the reasons for the President of the Treasury Board to be present in front of this committee to account for not only her announcement yesterday but also for her implication in the oversight of ArriveCAN, or the arrive scam.

I would also like to get the President of the Treasury Board in front of the committee on another matter that was brought up here today by the deputy minister. As was indicated yesterday, we found out that an individual who is working with the public service has received $8 million from the arrive scam scandal. The deputy minister today said herself that she has seen, in her oversight, the firing of five employees for failing to disclose conflicts of interest.

Mr. Chair, you may remember that LifeLabs was granted millions of dollars for COVID testing, and the President of the Treasury Board did not disclose this conflict to the Ethics Commissioner. She did disclose other things, but prior to the pandemic, as you'll be interested to know, Mr. Chair, LifeLabs, the company on whose board the husband of the President of the Treasury Board sits as a director, received only $150,000 in contracts. It was only three contracts. During the pandemic when, I will remind the committee, the current President of the Treasury Board served as Minister of Procurement, LifeLabs received a contract for—and this number goes beyond the number we've been discussing here in arrive scam—$66.3 million dollars on June 23.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm sorry, Ms. Kusie. I have a point of order from Ms. Yip.