Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 12th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Good morning, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 91 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The Committee is meeting today to discuss Committee business.

We have a motion before us. I'm going to recognize Mr. McCauley in a second. There's also an amendment to that motion.

I'll recognize Mr. Desjarlais after that.

This portion of the meeting is in public. If it goes well, we'll go in camera to return to the line-by-line.

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to move that we resume debate on my previously tabled motion on GC Strategies that the NDP had presented an amendment on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Desjarlais, are you ready to speak to your amendment, which was actually moved by Ms. Ashton? If you are, I'll recognize you.

Then I have Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné.

You look like you're ready, so it's over to you, sir.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am deeply troubled by what evidence has come out in relation to GC Strategies. In relation to that, I understand that my colleague Mr. McCauley has tabled a motion and has given notice of that motion.

Toward that end, under a review of that, there are three areas that I'd like to amend. You all should have a copy of that amendment.

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

I have a point of order.

I'm just wondering, was that a dilatory motion for resuming debate? I'm not sure where we are. I'm just looking for clarification here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. McCauley has resumed debate on the motion, and Mr. Desjarlais.... You will recall that in the previous meeting Ms. Ashton had proposed an amendment. That is what we are now discussing. It is the amendment to the motion on GC Strategies.

Yes, we have resumed debate on the motion, if that's what you're asking.

Do you have a point of order, or are you good?

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

My question is, do we need to vote to resume the debate? That's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, we don't.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I stand corrected. We do need to vote to resume debate.

Let's call the vote, please, to resume debate.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Cédric Taquet]

We have five yeas and five nays.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good. I will vote that we resume debate.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor again.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Folks should have a copy of the amendment, further to Mr. McCauley's motion.

There are two aspects of it that I would like to expand upon. My biggest concern, as members of this committee may recall, is the practice of outsourcing, the contract outsourcing of government services. We know from many accounts, including the Auditor General reports, that outsourcing has a direct impact on the cost, operation and maintenance of projects.

We heard just recently, for example, that the federal government's barn—the very expensive barn that ended up being an $8-million compound for vehicles—was in fact a process that was outsourced; much of that work was. That outsourcing was more recent, as recent as 2017-18. They also spoke about the incurred costs. The reality is that taxpayers' money is going to have to go towards the profit motive of these corporations.

This practice of outsourcing—the creation of a shadow public service, if you will—is a problematic and troubling reality that's facing Canadians. We get less for our money, while simultaneously having less transparency. These are two issues that we should be focused on in the public accounts.

However, this is not a new occurrence. It's not just under the Liberals in the last eight years that this has been ramping up. Under review of information...it actually accelerated in 2006. You will see a portion of my amendment speak about moving the documents secondment to 2006. That date is specific to what is also a very large and rapid increase in government outsourcing.

I'm concerned with government outsourcing. That is why that amendment is positioned there. I hope to get support from my colleagues in order to see that, if we're going to have an investigation on GC Strategies, which has seen one of the grossest and largest levels of misconduct related to an outsourced contract, we truly get to the root of this evil, which is the practice of dismantling our public service, outsourcing government work and seeing these problems increase. These sorts of problems began in 2006. In terms of the first amendment, Mr. Chair, I hope that we can speak about the importance of that.

In addition, we also thought it was important to remove the list of ministries. I spoke with Mr. McCauley about this, because it's his original motion that is being amended. I think it serves us better, and it's likely better in our interest, to ensure that we don't limit who can be summoned. We don't know where this investigation will largely go. This is a list of ministries and departments that is exhaustive. I'd like to make it non-exhaustive by collapsing it into all ministries that we deem acceptable.

Those are the largest amendments that are included in my amendment to the original motion, which I hope members will support.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

I have a speaking list already.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I would also like to thank my colleague Mr. Desjarlais for his amendment, to which I’d like to move a subamendment.

Let me explain why. Essentially, the Bloc Québécois’ position is to wait for the Auditor General’s report. As we speak, she is in the process of reporting on GC Strategies and the whole saga that has indeed shocked us, along with many taxpayers. We’d like to wait until the Auditor General’s report is tabled before proceeding with this study.

However, we’d still like to obtain the documents originally requested by Mr. McCauley. I see that Mr. Desjarlais is continuing the effort. For us, that part is crucial. We want to obtain the contract documents between GC Strategies and the various government departments. That will help us prepare for the Auditor General’s report.

In the hope that this subamendment will bring about a compromise that can lead all MPs to adopt the same position, I would like to submit the subamendment to the Clerk, in both official languages.

I do support my colleague Mr. Desjarlais’ amendments, meaning the second point that was added and amending the witness list. Those witnesses can only be called once the Auditor General has tabled her report, and when we see, with the help of the Auditor General’s Office, what happened with GC Strategies.

It will be important to review the contracts to carry out this study, but this will be done in due course, after the Auditor General’s report has been tabled.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That’s fine. Thank you very much.

We have received your proposal, your wording. The advice I'm getting, and I share it, is that we should deal with Mr. Desjarlais' amendment first, and then yours. There are aspects of what I'm going to call your amendment to Mr. Desjarlais' that are problematic, in that one impacts the other, so I would prefer we deal with Mr. Desjarlais' first, and then come back to yours.

Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Isn't it a subamendment? I amended Kelly's, and then it came to mine. If you amend mine, does it go to yours?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

In a nutshell, the reasoning is that Madame Sinclair–Desgagné's amendment actually amends the original motion and not only the amendment.

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

If I reword the text in order to amend Mr. Desjarlais’ amendment, I think we could debate the subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You’re quite right.

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

Very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

This is just a reminder that it is always helpful—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

What if I accept her amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, it's now before the committee, so it's not that simple.

This is just a friendly reminder to always consult with the clerk beforehand. His advice proves to be invaluable.

You're welcome to work on that, Madame Sinclair‑Desgagné, but for now I'm going to return to Mr. Desjarlais' amendment.

I do have a speaking list for that. It includes Mr. McCauley, Mrs. Shanahan and then Ms. Khalid.

Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné, I will let you work on your subamendment with the clerk. Alternatively, we can debate your current amendment after debating Mr. Desjarlais’ amendment.

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor. Again, this is speaking to Mr. Desjarlais' amendment to your motion.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I was going to do a subamendment to the subamendment. No, I'm just kidding.

I want to thank Mr. Desjarlais for the clarity of his motion. Although I like our original form, I'm quite happy to accept what he has proposed.

Getting ahead of ourselves, I understand the intent of Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné's motion as well. I think I'm probably perfectly happy with moving it afterwards, but Conservatives are fine with Mr. Desjarlais' motion.