Public Accounts Committee on April 4th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mrs. Shanahan, there is a Liberal slot next, so you will have a chance to respond however you like.

I would ask you to mute yourself, Mrs. Shanahan, because right now we're just hearing a lot of laughter, which is rather odd.

Mr. Nater, you have three minutes and 50 seconds.

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

Thank you, Chair.

There are a lot of odd things going on with this Liberal government, so I'll just leave that there.

Mr. Nijjar, how many KPMG resources did you personally have working on the cybersecurity assessments?

[Hartaj Nijjar]

There were a number of resources. I don't have the exact figure, but I can get that to you, no problem. There were a number of individuals of various levels of seniority and experience.

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

Perhaps you could get that information to us.

With respect to the various levels of seniority and experience of those individuals, was that information communicated specifically to GC Strategies?

[Hartaj Nijjar]

We identified the individuals to CBSA, and those individuals were on the engagement.

I do not know if GC Strategies was aware of those individuals. I believe it was. My understanding is that GC Strategies knew the names of those individuals. Those individuals worked on the execution of the engagement.

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

Can we be sure that the individuals and their experience were correctly identified both to GC Strategies and, through GC Strategies, to the government? We've heard before about GC Strategies falsifying résumés, falsifying information and providing that information to the government. Can you be sure that the information you provided to the government was correct?

[Hartaj Nijjar]

I cannot speak to the information that GC Strategies shared with the government.

We provided the names, the experience levels and the security clearance levels of the individuals who were going to be on the project. They were on the project, and they executed on the completion of the work.

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

Thank you for that.

In my remaining time, I am going to move a motion.

That the committee invite Mr. Imraan Bashir, KPMG's National Public Sector Cyber Leader, to appear for no less than two hours on the committee's ongoing ArriveCAN study and that the witness be scheduled to appear within seven days of the adoption of this motion.

This motion has been shared with the clerk. I believe she will send it out.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to suspend the meeting for three minutes.

I'll explain what's going on here. We have a motion now. We will move right into this motion. It is a matter related to these committee hearings.

Witnesses, I'm going to suspend for three minutes. Either this can be wrapped up quickly or it's something that will take a little bit of time. For now, I'm going to ask—

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

I'm sorry, Chair, but I want to clarify something.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Khalid, hold on a second. I'll hear you in a second if you have a point of order.

I'm going to suspend now—

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

Why are you suspending, Chair? I have a point of clarification, just because I think it would impact other—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

As a practice, Ms. Khalid.... The motion is with the clerk. It will be sent out very shortly. It's going to be a three-minute suspension. I'm going to come right back. I want to give our witnesses a chance to stand up, and I want to explain what's going on. I'll come right back.

Is that your concern, Ms. Khalid, or is there something else you wish to ask?

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

No, Chair, it's something else that I wish to ask.

I don't know why you always talk down to me, Chair. It's not nice.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Khalid, I'm wrapping things up with the witnesses, and you're interrupting me.

I'm happy to hear any points of order at any time. It's odd to ask why I am suspending, because I've actually started to make this a practice as motions come up, to give members.... In fact, often it's at the request of the Liberals that I suspend. I'm trying to continue that practice.

I don't mean to speak down to anyone, but I would ask that at times when I'm addressing the witnesses, the members hold off. I will get to everyone in due course.

Are there any points of order before I suspend?

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Are you formally suspending the meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to suspend the meeting for three minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I call the meeting back to order.

On the speaking list I have Ms. Khalid, Mrs. Shanahan and, I believe, Madam Sinclair-Desgagné.

Ms. Khalid, I want to apologize. You felt I was speaking over you; that was not my intention. I heard you in my earpiece as I was speaking to the witnesses. I wanted to wrap things up with them.

For members who are wondering, we have ample resources here to consider this motion.

Ms. Khalid, the floor is yours.

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

I'm sorry, Chair, but my hand has been lowered.

Mrs. Shanahan is next, I believe.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Oh, pardon me, Ms. Khalid. Do you want to be put on the list at a later moment? If you do, I'll look for your hand.

Mrs. Shanahan, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I will speak to my private member's motion at a later time.

On this, I don't understand the purpose of this motion. In fact I'd like you to consider that it is redundant in view of the motion we adopted yesterday—with a deadline set by you, Chair, with the consent of the committee—about submitting a list of witnesses. We received an email from you and the clerk yesterday inviting us to submit the names of our witnesses prior to April 10, which provides ample time for all parties. I do appreciate that.

I would ask the chair to provide us with justification as to why this should not be considered redundant. I question why Mr. Nater is presenting this motion at this time.

We were all getting along so well, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I agree. This was a remarkably well-run meeting today, I think, no doubt owing to the testimony of our witnesses.

I'm going to stay out of this debate, but I will respond briefly, Mrs. Shanahan, because you asked about the conduct of business.

While yesterday's motion certainly re-establishes some protocols for witnesses, I don't believe it in any way deviates from the rights of members to bring business before this committee. Obviously, if this motion passes, I would take that as a fulfillment of the desire of the majority of the committee members to proceed, which I think is in keeping with the spirit of yesterday's motion.

I don't believe yesterday's motion...nor do I think it would be lawful for it to cut off avenues that members have to bring business before this committee. On that, I will attempt to stay out of this debate and to direct it.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would support this motion, although I think Mrs. Shanahan is right that we could simply request that this witness appear by submitting the list of witnesses to the chair.

I have a question about that. When we submit the list of witnesses, we meet as a subcommittee and we select the witnesses together, as indicated in the wording of the motion. The subcommittee has to accept each witness. If the subcommittee doesn't agree to call a witness, that witness may not be called. The motion moved here by Mr. Nater is therefore intended to ensure that this witness is on the list. Did I understand my colleague Mr. Nater's intention correctly?

How did you interpret the motion, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Nater since it's his motion. If necessary, I will then answer your question.

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

Very clearly, this is a motion about how we want to see this individual testify. We want to ensure that it happens and that it happens relatively expeditiously.