Government Operations Committee on Sept. 17th, 2024

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's right. They are TBS officials, as Mr. Kusmierczyk said, and TBS answers to the government operations committee. That's why we have Minister Anand here at a minimum twice a year. You're right—it is a TBS issue and therefore it should respond, and that's why this should go to this committee.

As the chair pointed out, grants and contributions are approved through the estimates process. We review the estimates process twice during the year, with the estimates and then the supplementary estimates. Therefore, this motion should go through this committee, be passed at this committee and be studied at this committee.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Again, I really do appreciate the fact that my colleague wants us, as MPs, to investigate and look into this issue. No one opposes that. What I'm trying to highlight is that this belongs in the public accounts committee. We all know that. This is outside the purview of OGGO. This belongs in public accounts. That is the proper venue for this investigation.

Furthermore, none of the officials listed in the motion are TBS officials. What I'm trying to emphasize here is that if you want to get to the bottom of this, if you want to get the right answers, you want to have the right people brought before committee so that we can get to the bottom of this issue.

My recommendation would be that this belongs in the public accounts committee, and let's make sure the motion has the right officials who can provide the right answers to these very important questions.

For that reason, I recommend that we circle back. I'm happy to have a conversation with Mrs. Kusie and other colleagues around this table, including the chair, and to bring this motion back on Thursday to make sure that it has the right officials, that it is surgical and that we get the answers we're requiring.

I'm just asking Mrs. Kusie if we can please revisit this on Thursday, after having the opportunity to discuss this off-line as a committee. We want to get this right, with the right people and the right venue.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Well, you are opposing it. You said no one opposed this. You are opposing this.

Your main argument, which you yourself recognize...which was incorrect, was that this is not a TBS issue. This is a TBS issue. Annie Boudreau is a TBS official. She is listed on this motion. Therefore, both the subject matter and the witness list are relevant to this committee.

This is relevant to this committee. It's very clear to me that this is a TBS motion, and this is the committee that has oversight of TBS. Therefore, we should pass this motion at this committee and study this $625-million issue at this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Again, the only official of relevance here is the comptroller, as was mentioned. The other officials who are listed would not be able to provide the answers we're looking for.

I again want to emphasize, let's get the right venue, which is the public accounts committee, and let's get the right people, who are the officials from TBS. The motion does not have the people we want to answer those questions, the folks from the Treasury Board Secretariat, from TBS. Those are the right people who have carriage of these files on this issue.

To my colleague, we're simply asking for an opportunity for us to meet as a committee off-line to make sure we have the right people. Let's come to an agreement. When Parliament looks at this issue, let's make sure it's the right venue and the right people who can answer the questions and help us get to the bottom of this important issue.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Well, the TBS didn't complete the audit, but it is being brought in, as is listed in the motion. These are the right people. Madame Boudreau, I'm sure, would appear with her officials as well. I'm not sure why you are so adamant about not studying this at this committee when, clearly, as you recognize, this is a TBS issue. The TBS is responsible to this committee. We have on this witness list the comptroller, the DM, who has oversight for the TBS, and she did not do the audit, so it just makes sense that we would have those who completed the audit attend as well to get some answers and some clarity.

As I said, we have sent a number of invitations to witnesses when there have been poor audits—and there have been many—witnesses who have sat in those seats and who have responded to this committee on audits. It's just, unfortunately, another example, another news story that we have today of this most recent one, but we have to evaluate that as well.

It's true that there are other committees that study things in tandem. The public accounts committee has also studied ArriveCAN. It's my understanding that the motion we just passed relative to Canada Post was evaluated by the official languages committee as well, so, yes, it's possible that these motions can be in tandem at more than one committee. However, this is the committee of audit and evaluation of the spending of federal funds. Fundamentally, we are those who are held responsible for the oversight of these funds in this committee. Therefore, we should start here.

If you don't believe that we should start here, then I think, in fact, you do oppose the evaluation of the $625 million. I don't blame you, given the dismal record of this government: of this government's spending, of this government's waste, of this government's unethical mismanagement of funds and of this government's systematic flaws with procurement. There are a lot of things that have been revealed through our audits of audits, through the testimony of those who have conducted the audits, but this is another one that we need to undertake at this time. It starts here. It doesn't always end here, as we see with ArriveCAN, which has gone back to the House today, but this is fundamentally the committee where these things are uncovered.

I recognize that this is a heavy burden for the government to carry, for the government members to carry in this committee. My goodness, when we're in government, I really don't want to be on this committee at that time.

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

There won't be any scandals.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

That's right; there'll be no scandals. Right you are, Mr. Genuis.

Nonetheless, this is where we find ourselves. We are facing another $625-million scandal here, so let's stop trying to pass it off. Let's not delay the pain. Let's rip off the band-aid. Let's not delay it until Thursday. Let's not pass it off to another committee. No one can have your baby for you, right, Kelly Block? You have to go in there and deliver that thing. I see Julie smiling. This is the same situation. We have to start this process and go through this process here.

I don't like reading these news stories any more than you do, Mr. Kusmierczyk, especially given your leader's ambitious agenda, but clearly it's not working. It's not happening. You've made your points. I perceive them to not hold water, to be inaccurate. This is where it starts. Let's get this done. Let's get the study of this audit started to find out where things went so terribly wrong. My goodness, if you have any path forward, it's through green initiatives, so you would be doing yourselves a favour in starting it here.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'll conclude this. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

We have Mrs. Vignola and then Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I’ll be brief and try to be as concise as possible.

The subject of the motion is important. It would not be the first time that the committee has looked into surprising expenditures.

We must keep in mind that anything to do with past spending falls under public accounts, while anything to do with future spending and budget forecasts falls under our committee. Anything to do with public services falls under our mandate. This applies, for example, to awarding contracts and the procurement process.

The amendment I’m very kindly suggesting is intended to clarify something. I’ll read the beginning of the motion again:

Given the environment department has failed its Audit of the Administration of Grants and Contributions for poor oversight of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on green subsidies and the “potential legal and reputational damage this represents”, the committee dedicate at least 3 meetings…

After this passage, I would replace “to this matter” with “to the grant and contributions process”.

We could then replace “and call on the following witnesses to appear” with “and call on relevant witnesses to appear, as decided by the committee”. That way, we can be sure that the witnesses we invite will actually be the people we want to hear from.

Those are the two amendments I suggest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

To be clear, we'll take out the named witnesses, so it will be just “witnesses as decided by the committee”.

What was the other item?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

It was “three meetings”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

There was the “three meetings” bit, and there was one other thing.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

After “the committee dedicate at least 3 meetings”, instead of writing “to this matter”, I would write “to the grant and contributions process”. That’s part of our role, in fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay, so you are proposing to dedicate at least three meetings to the grants and contributions process and invite witnesses as the committee wishes.

Is that clear?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, I accept the proposal.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

There’s a consensus.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

If we could get it in writing, that would be terrific. Thank you.

Can we just take a minute's suspension? Again, we're getting motion after motion thrown in without any notice of motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, we can.

I will note just quickly that a lot of the witnesses noted are actually listed in the audit, as the recommendations are to be sent to them for action. It refers back to the whole estimates cycle.

We'll suspend for about a minute, and we'll get the proper wording.

Just to confirm, Mrs. Vignola, the idea is to eliminate the noted witnesses in this motion.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We are back, colleagues.

Everyone has received the updated, amended motion.

Does anyone else wish to speak?

Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I know that my colleague Madame Vignola had put forward an amendment that I believe wasn't accepted. I'd like us to have an opportunity to actually vote on her amendment. I think it focuses on the grants and contributions writ large. It also focuses on process.

Again, I maintain that the proper venue for that concerning audit is the public accounts committee. We want to make sure that we have the right officials being summoned, but I am interested in the grants and contributions process writ large. I would actually prefer that we vote on Madame Vignola's amendment.

Am I correct that what she brought forward is an amendment?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's what we're at right now. It's Mrs. Vignola's amendment.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Perhaps I could add a subamendment to that, if that's okay.

What I am putting forward is a subamendment that simply rewords the first sentence to say, “Given the 'Audit of the Administration of Grants and Contributions—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you. That's not concerning the amendment. You can only amend her amendment. You're amending the first line of the motion.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I think that's Madame Vignola's amendment, is it not?