Public Accounts Committee on April 3rd, 2024

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Hold on a second, Mr. Desjarlais. Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné has a point of order, and I think I know why.

Go ahead.

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

We did not receive the motion in both official languages. I'd like us to be able to read it before we debate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, I'm going to suspend the meeting until all members have the motion. It was sent to the clerk and I know the clerk is busy working on it.

If you could just hold on for a minute or two, I'll come right back. I have a list of people who wish to speak to it after you. I have Ms. Khalid and then Mr. Nater.

As for our witnesses, if you could just hang tight for a couple of minutes, we'll see how this goes.

We'll suspend.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll bring the meeting back to order.

The motion has been sent out in the two official languages.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In looking at the motion, I believe it's important, particularly for my party and our smaller representation at this committee, to have input on our witness lists and to have consent—the standard convention of policy across most committees in the House of Commons. I think it's quite consistent with existing procedure. I'd be happy to dispose of this when we can in order for us to return to the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Desjarlais.

Ms. Khalid, you have floor.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

Very much like Mr. Desjarlais, I believe that it's imperative for us to have full sway and full consensus as we work on the important matters this committee deals with. Over the past number of months that I've been part of this committee, I have had the privilege and honour to work with all members, regardless of party, to come together to build that consensus and find ways to move forward to tackle the issues that public accounts is tasked with in our government and our Parliament. Time and time again, I have had to remind you, Chair, and remind committee members, that we are willing to play ball here.

Can we please have a say in when meetings are called and have an understanding as to who the witnesses are? We are trying our very best to work with the committee to ensure we are doing what taxpayers—Canadians—want us to do. It is getting increasingly difficult for us on our side. I won't speak for members in other parties, but it's becoming more and more difficult for us, when we are in our constituencies trying to do important work for our constituents, to have a say in when meetings are held and which witnesses are called when that's done without any regard for what the rest of the committee wants.

I would not have wanted this motion put forward, because I personally thought there was a general understanding as to how we operate as a committee. In fact, it's sad that we have to put this motion forward. However, I fully support it because that's the nature of how parliamentary committees work. We should be able to operate with consensus while ensuring that every party has representatives and an equal say in which witnesses are called and when meetings are held.

Trust me, Chair, it's not just you. We all care about what issues are discussed in this committee, and we want to work with you. I'm really hoping that all members of this committee support this motion, because it is important for how we function as a non-partisan or multipartisan committee that cares about the public and the issues the public is interested in.

I'll stop there and express my support for this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Ms. Khalid.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I'll be exceptionally brief so this can go to a vote.

I'm old enough to remember when parliamentary secretaries weren't supposed to be on committees. That was the Liberal platform promise, but here we are with the Liberal parliamentary secretary carrying water for the PMO and with the Liberal national caucus chair moving this motion. Obviously, they're not happy with the damning testimony they're hearing about incompetence and corruption within the government related to ArriveCAN—

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

I would raise a point of order, Chair, but I think I'll let it pass.

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

But you didn't.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

There's no point of order that Ms. Khalid can raise. Obviously what they're doing is trying to disrupt the work of this committee in getting to the bottom of the arrive scam.

I look forward to this motion being passed in every single Liberal-chaired committee as well. It's unfortunate that the Liberals don't have the dedication to log on to Zoom for two hours during a constituency week. I know that on the Conservative side, we're ready to do work on behalf of Canadians and get to the bottom of and get answers on the arrive scam.

Those are my comments, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, over to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of the wording of Mrs. Shanahan's motion, I see a problem more specifically with point (a), which is to set a deadline to have a final witness list.

First of all, who sets the deadline? I'd like Mrs. Shanahan to explain that further.

Second, does that mean that once the deadline has passed, witnesses can no longer be added to the study? I think that would be problematic because it's as a study progresses that you can determine who the relevant witnesses are. That's the case in this study on ArriveCAN. The more stones that are turned over, the clearer it becomes that new and worthwhile elements can be added to the study.

Basically, I understand the idea of wanting to know in a more predictable way what we're going to do in committee. However, tying our hands at the beginning of a study isn't a good idea. The committee must be able to have a minimum amount of flexibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Madam Shanahan, would you like to respond to that?

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

I'll answer very briefly, because I already said what I had to say about this at the beginning of the meeting.

That's the normal process that's followed by committees when it comes to calling witnesses. Things are different here at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. For a long time, the usual practice of this committee has been to invite the Auditor General as well as the deputy ministers and officials of the departments concerned in the report of the Auditor General in question.

Here we are with about a dozen meetings on ArriveCAN, which is also being studied by other committees. Witnesses are invited left and right. In this context, it's normal to have a work process that respects the will of all members of our committee. It's fine for the date to be set by the chair, but the committee members must certainly be consulted, as is the usual practice.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let me ask for clarify from the chair's perspective.

In point (a), Mrs. Shanahan, you are looking to set a deadline for witness lists, with the explicit consent of the committee. Do you envision a standard deadline that the committee will approve once, or would it be done meeting by meeting? Could you give me a sense of how many days you think would be adequate?

There's an issue with point (b), of course. Often, for the bulk of our reports, we're on autopilot when it comes to witnesses; we have the Auditor General and the subjects of the audits. Are you talking about extraordinary meetings? How do you propose that would work given the typical work this committee does?

Point (c) reads, “no witness be invited without instruction of the committee.” Would this negate the witnesses being proportional? Would the committee have to approve all witnesses, or could witnesses be invited based on whatever ratio is agreed to, if that was, say, four, two, one and one? Do all witnesses have to be approved by the committee, giving some members the ability to veto witnesses a party might want to hear from?

Could you respond to those questions, please, to give some clarity?

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

Mr. Chair, you're an experienced member and many of us have sat on other committees. We know that when we are faced with a study the committee has already agreed to undertake and we are inviting witnesses outside the normal scope of.... Public accounts is a committee where we have guaranteed witnesses—the Auditor General and officials from the department—who are directly concerned.

It has come about in this session of Parliament that we are being confronted with the unilateral invitation of witnesses, which is outside of our normal way of functioning. This motion speaks to the practice that other committees have, which is that there's consultation with the members and the chair proceeds in consultation with the members. There is an added caveat that in public accounts, it has been the normal practice that this be done by consensus, but in the least, we should have the consultation done in good form, as we say.

I think the motion is clear. I, for one, am ready to vote on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor, and then I'll have another question.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I just want to add to everything that Mrs. Shanahan has said, which I one hundred per cent agree with.

There is no veto power. As it is with all committees, every party submits their witness list, and those witnesses are invited to appear before the committee. We're not talking about whether a party can veto. This is not the United Nations Security Council. We are trying to be as inclusive as possible here. I don't anticipate any veto power.

I think members should be given the opportunity to invite witnesses in a consensus format, to have a heads-up and to have some say in and some consultation on when meetings are held. We all lead very busy lives in our constituencies, doing important work for our constituents, and in Parliament and this committee as well. We want to build that consensus and work together. This is really the purpose of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Could I get a sense from you, Mrs. Shanahan, on how you see...? I'm serious about this. The subcommittee had a meeting and laid out priorities, and there was broad agreement from the opposition to continue the ArriveCAN study. If the motion passes, do you see this as immediate and tomorrow's meeting needs to be rescheduled, with the same thing for next week? Are we going to put a freeze on the work the clerk has done to arrange things, under my instructions, based on what I received coming out of the subcommittee meeting?

Could you respond to how you see this motion? Is this immediate or a go-forward?

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

This is a go-forward, Chair, and I'm ready to vote on the motion. I think we all understand it.

I'm not going to prejudge what other members would say, but we're ready to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's very helpful, Mrs. Shanahan.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thanks.

To give greater clarity to point (a), after hearing from my colleagues around the table, about a witness list submission deadline set by the chair, I agree that you can determine, Mr. Chair, when that happens because of that portion. That's just to answer that question from my perspective.

Also, where it says, “the explicit consent of the committee”, I don't think it means the consensus of the committee. I think consent happens largely by a majority vote. I think a majority vote of the committee is the “explicit consent”, as I understand point (a) to read.