Public Accounts Committee on May 2nd, 2024

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

I referred earlier to my regular committee assignment at the ethics committee, so I'm relatively familiar with the Ethics Commissioner, and his office does very good work.

This information is not that complicated. If we had wanted to play politics, we could have said tomorrow or by Monday or something like that. No, I think the the 21 days and 35 days are very reasonable. These are forms that are filled out, a process that all MPs are relatively familiar with in our roles and obligations under the Conflict of Interest Act.

I think the timelines laid out in the motion are very reasonable. It's my understanding, Chair, that the documents are in most cases already bilingual. Often translation ends up being a a bottleneck in especially large document production orders, but it's my understanding that the vast majority of these documents are already bilingual and therefore would not have to face that hurdle, which, to Mrs. Shanahan's point, can cause delays. That is certainly not a major issue in this regard. I hope that we can find support.

I will share a concern that I have.

We see with the arrive scam scandal that when the Auditor General and others attempted to get answers on an approximately $60-million project that started off as something that was only supposed to cost a little bit of money and then just ballooned unbelievably.... We saw contracting and procurement and history being made. It was the first time in a century that somebody was called to the bar, a contractor who had lied to a committee, and on and on and on.

Forgive me if I'm hesitant to give too much time, because we saw when time elapsed between the contracts being made and the demand for accountability that documents disappeared. That is not only unprecedented but quite possibly illegal. There is this definitive need to ensure that while being reasonable—and I think we can do that—Parliament has the right and, I would suggest, the moral obligation to get to the bottom of this stuff.

This motion is very reasonable. We have a system in the Conflict of Interest Act that is designed to help mitigate some of these things. Where there have been breaches, where information is needed so that we can look into what could very well be double-dipping, the timelines are reasonable. The request is more than reasonable. We've taken care to ensure that the names of individuals can be redacted, again a very reasonable request. That way we can get to work on accountability.

I would suggest that the motion as originally written is already more than reasonable. I would encourage the committee to acknowledge that. I do say that because of my role in the ethics committee. This is something that I think we can pass as it was originally written.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Desjarlais is next.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

After listening to our colleagues, I don't think there will be unanimous consent here. It doesn't look like it. I don't see the Conservatives being willing to budge on this. For those purposes, my work in trying to get a serious review of this and consideration of this, given life by the consensus offered by the Liberals, is obviously not manageable here today. For those reasons, I think we'll have to rely on the very good work of our public service to meet the very short time frames.

I understand those time frames are short. We'll have to just rely on that, because of the requirement for the production here. For those reasons, I support this motion and would call for a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I have to run through the speaking list first.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

We also support this motion. I think it is very important that we have these documents before the end of the parliamentary session, that is before the summer. However, with a 60‑day turnaround time, we would receive them during the summer. For that reason, I support the motion as it stands.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good.

Clerk, could you call the vote on the “60 days” amendment, please?

First, I have a point of clarification. This is very small. There are two dates here, and I believe Ms. Shanahan is looking for “60 days” for both of them. For the sake of efficiency, because otherwise I expect we'll be doing this again....

I believe that's what you meant.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes.

Then it's not just “21 days” but also “35 days” that would be changed to “60 days”. It's consistent. I was not clear on that before.

Please call the vote, Clerk.

We have a tie.

I vote no on the amendment to the motion.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

We now return to debate on the motion as written.

Go ahead, Ms. Shanahan.

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

Chair, I will rely, then, on the good judgment of the clerk and you that when it comes to the timely production of documents as requested, if there's a need for some leeway, it will be accorded. However, I understand the will of the committee here. We want to get them as soon as possible.

With that, I will call for the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Seeing no other speakers, I will ask the clerk for a roll call vote, please.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

Mr. Desjarlais, I will say this: Your timing is off. It has not been 100 years but more like 150 years, if you go back to John A. Macdonald's CPR scandal. You've underestimated by a good 50%.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I agree with you, Chair. It's been a long time.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Is there any other business here?

We'll see you back here Tuesday afternoon. The meeting is adjourned.