Public Accounts Committee on May 2nd, 2024

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

Well, I don't see it, especially if we're able to divide up time more or less equally among us.

We're not questioning the witness as part of our mandate. It's an educational thing. Everyone benefits from the questions that are asked and the answers that are given. Really, it's one or the other: one hour in public, or if people prefer, one hour in camera. I really see that one hour is more than enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good.

I saw Mr. Desjarlais first. Then I'll come to you, Mr. Genuis.

Go ahead, Mr. Desjarlais.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I think that's maybe a bit too far, to be frank. What I'm trying to suggest is that we should be wary of the potential concern that we could prejudice an investigation, but I also know that our committee's mandate is to gather information. It's the RCMP's job to find guilt. Our committee's job is information and evidence, and that's something that I think we do really well, but we have to be certain of that line.

There is a place, I think, Mr. Chair, between the calling of a vote to go in camera, where we can, at the time of the meeting and the hearing, discuss that potential, under the advice of the RCMP. I think that if the RCMP suggest to us that there could be prejudice based on their testimony, at that time I would suggest that the committee entertain a motion to go in camera for the purpose of receiving that information, but until such time, I do think that a public meeting for two hours, for the purpose of transparency to the public, is important to this process.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's what I was thinking, Mr. Desjarlais: not to prejudice the comments. It gives us flexibility and it gives the chair flexibility to hear an appropriate amount in public and then shift gears if necessary.

Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.

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

Mr. Chair, I hope we're moving towards a consensus.

I have a couple quick points. I agree with what Mr. Desjarlais is saying in terms of the time distribution. Let's have them here in public, and let's see how things unfold. The proportions may be different in terms of what's proposed. Maybe it does make sense to have a portion in public and a portion in camera. However, let's start in public, let's ask the questions we can and let's see where we are.

In terms of questions and what they can or cannot answer, I think it should be very clear that the RCMP will know exactly what questions they can and can't answer. Both things are true: Committees have a right to demand information when they choose to, but committees can and should be reasonable in their exercise of that power. If RCMP officials are earnestly telling us that they're not able to answer certain questions, I think the committee will be reasonable in response to that.

I don't think we need to be the ones deciding what they can and cannot answer. I think they will be able to tell us. We can ask the questions, whatever questions, and they will respond to them in a way that's appropriate to their professionalism and their mandate.

I think the motion works as is and that things will unfold in a proper way.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mrs. Shanahan is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to understand better what we're looking for from the RCMP.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, are you really seeking to obtain information on the processes and procedure? Is it a kind of basic course on how to lead an investigation, amongst other things? In other words, no names would be mentioned. No names and no situations. Some members of the committee are experienced lawyers. I'm sure we don't want to interfere with the investigation.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I would say to my colleague that the objective is indeed more of an information gathering one.

However, there are two things I would like to point out.

I agree with what Mr. Genuis and Mr. Desjarlais said. Everyone here knows that if we take the opportunity to ask a question that is too specific, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would be justified in saying that they cannot answer the question. It would be a waste of time. Everyone here is aware of that, and no one wants to waste their time. We are therefore going to ask questions related to the processes, so that we can fully understand them.

During our study on ArriveCAN, we were often told that we could not talk about several aspects because an RCMP investigation was under way.

I would like to understand what the RCMP looks at in cases such as this one. What is within the scope of an RCMP investigation in a case like this?

That's important to know, because unfortunately, there is a big cone of silence over what is happening with ArriveCAN, due to the RCMP's investigation. Understanding the scope of the RCMP's investigation will help us to continue our work and get an overview of what happened in the ArriveCAN case.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Next up is Ms. Yip.

Go ahead, Ms. Yip.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

You're proposing two hours, then, and it would just be a regular session. We would just do the regular rotations.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

There would be one exception, which is the carve-out for possibly going in camera if the committee feels that this should happen. Otherwise, yes.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

It would be the same as with every other witness, with the rounds and so forth.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes. Thank you.

Mrs. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

With all due respect, the way the motion is worded may lead us to believe that we are once again asking the RCMP to appear before us on ArriveCAN, whereas we are actually seeking general information. We should instead be asking that the committee invite the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to appear for at least two hours to explain to the committee the procedures surrounding an investigation such as the one on ArriveCAN.

Am I on the right track?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes.

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

The answer is simple: Each motion must pertain to one of the committee's current studies or propose a new one, which is not the case here. It is really about getting information on everything that is being done on ArriveCAN. Even if we don't ask specific questions about the ongoing investigation—and in any case the RCMP wouldn't be able to answer them—the motion still has to be related to the ArriveCAN study, because that's what our questions are about.

As you know, we have to make sure that the motions we put forward relate to committee business. Had I not done so, you would have been the first to tell me that it was not germane to the committee's work. So the motion has to be based on a report by the Auditor General.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.

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

I agree that the hearing should take place as part of this study, but I don't want us to start questioning the RCMP about the testimony we've heard at other meetings on ArriveCAN. I wouldn't want us to ask these witnesses what they think of certain comments made by a particular witness.

I'm spitballing here, but we could ask the RCMP to appear before us to explain the procedures surrounding an investigation of this kind, or something like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Any comments?

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor. Perhaps you could wrap things up.

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

I think the intentions of the members of the committee are very clear, including mine, obviously, since it is my motion. We can count on the fact that the RCMP knows what they can and cannot say.

The motion is simple and straightforward, so we can vote on the motion if everyone is in agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Could you call the vote, please, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

Shall the motion by Madame Sinclair-Desgagné carry?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I will work with the clerk to set that up as per the parameters passed in the motion I heard today with respect to the in camera portion, as well.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to be here at the public accounts committee on this fine Thursday afternoon.

Chair, there is a very important motion that I'm going to move in just a moment to highlight how important accountability is.

We have seen something unprecedented. According to some reporting that La Presse has done, it appears the extreme challenges associated with arrive scam are not isolated. La Presse has revealed that there are up to 30 instances of federal government employees who could very well be double-dipping. Many of those individuals are in conflicts of interest. It is quite astounding.

Chair, I'm going to move a motion. I would like to reserve, if I could, the right to speak very briefly on it.