Public Accounts Committee on May 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes.

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

It is also possible, if you've invited somebody for the Thursday of a constituency week, to move that witness to any of the other open slots we also have from now until the end of June. I don't think we need to go through all that trouble, as Mr. Desjarlais outlined, for just four days. It really doesn't make sense to me. I'm hearing from my colleagues as well that it is quite perplexing as to why we're doing this.

I would move that amendment to strike out the date and to replace it with any sitting date from now until the end of this session.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let me just comment, because both you and Mr. Desjarlais mentioned this.

I think you're overstating the days that are open. On June 4, the Auditor General will be tabling three reports. That's why I've been working to try to get reports done line by line and to free space in June for those three audit reports.

This is where the committee kind of pulls and pushes at the same time, wanting maximum meetings on studies—we have to catch up line by line—but also rejecting recess sittings, and now potentially turning what I viewed as one meeting into two. That is the committee's right to do.

I will say this: If this motion passes, certainly I'll find space for it, but it will be at the expense of one of the meetings currently scheduled, and we'll still be here on Thursday of next week. It's well within the committee's right to decide and to dictate to the chair. I do find it unnecessary, because it means having not one meeting with individuals but two.

On that note, it is your choice how we proceed.

Your amendment is to strike the date altogether and to add “to have these two members not sit in a recess week”.

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

Chair, I will again reiterate that I think you have the discretion—just as you had the discretion to try to schedule this meeting during a constituency week—to also move the one witness you have appearing for the two hours to come during a sitting week as well to save the taxpayers their dollars and to save all of us the four days that you're trying to....

I'm really not sure what the objective is here, Chair. I am looking at the calendar. I am looking at the work plan. I see that it is manageable. It is doable. I would appreciate and would encourage you, although we are talking specifically about what Mr. Nater has proposed, that if you do have something scheduled already, which we're learning about kind of at the last minute, to move that into a sitting week as well, so that you don't have to do the two meetings. You have the ability and you have the flexibility to do that. We are here to work with you on it.

You called a special meeting during a sitting week anyway this week. Why can't you do that for the five upcoming sitting weeks? It would be a lot more convenient, I think, and a lot more efficient for not just members in this House but also for the witness who is appearing and for the House administration, who are putting in all this extra work so that we can do the work that we do in public accounts.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I'm not sure if.... Is the amendment to strike the date and for these two to sit in a sitting week?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay.

Is that clear, Clerk?

I have to suspend for a few minutes. We're looking for some procedural guidance here. Typically, summonses have specific dates or the word “by” in them. Of course, I want to be guided by the best parliamentary practices we have. Our clerk is looking for an answer to this right away.

I will suspend for a few minutes. Please don't go too far. I will call the meeting back to order once we have an answer.

This meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Having consulted the clerk, I'm going to rule your amendment out of order, Ms. Khalid, because the committee exercises its powers by adopting a motion to summon one or more individuals to appear before the set date and time, and what you propose does not do that.

I will recognize Mr. Desjarlais. We're back to debating the motion as amended by you, sir.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In consideration of the schedule—I'm looking at the 21st, when we have spring cleaning, which I know is probably not nearly as important as the work on ArriveCAN—I suggest we actually move that meeting to the four days from the date on which Mr. Nater moved to summon them during a non-sitting week, when it would cost taxpayers thousands of dollars to ship Conservatives back to Ottawa at taxpayers' expense.

Instead of doing that, I suggest that we have the regularly scheduled meeting, at which we'll all be sitting, on Tuesday, May 21. It's a reasonable date. It saves taxpayers spending thousands of dollars to have Conservatives sit in Ottawa for the two hours, and we will get what we need to ensure that we have accountability on what is an extremely serious situation for consecutive Liberal and Conservative governments that have spent nearly a billion dollars on outsourcing.

I think it's reasonable to suggest, Mr. Chair, that four days past the date Mr. Nater has recommended is soon enough to have the level of work that we need done, and it's a free day.

I'm happy to do that in co-operation with my honourable colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I can assure you that the analysts do not view that as a free day, because, as you know, we spend that time following up on departments. That being said, we can do anything the committee decides.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I guess we'll have two ArriveCAN meetings. We'll have a meeting next Thursday with the witnesses that are already confirmed for that day, and we'll have another ArriveCAN meeting on the following Tuesday on—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

On a point of order, Chair, did Mr. Nater just confirm that there's a meeting you've already declared before this motion has even passed?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, at the top of this meeting, to bring things into focus, I said I was working with the clerk right now to have a meeting next Thursday. Regardless of whether this motion is approved or rejected, there is going to be a meeting next Thursday at 10:00 a.m.

If the committee decides to break it up.... I'm trying to be as efficient as possible with witnesses, to have—

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

You've already spent the money. Is that what you're saying?

I'm curious about the money. Who is spending the money? Who spent the money? Did you spend the money? If you have spent the money already, because Mr. Nater—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You had a point of clarification. I'll come back to you.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

As you mentioned at the top, you scheduled a meeting for next Thursday with the witness you've already confirmed. It was going to be more efficient to have these two called for that date. I think that's the most efficient option.

I'll jump in my little Hyundai Elantra and get here. I don't fly across the country. That's the option. There's also the Zoom option for those who would rather do that. I think this is about accountability. Taxpayers expect us to do the work 365 days a year, regardless of when the House of Commons is in session.

I go back to the fact that additional resources, whether they're interpreters or House staff, are more available during weeks when the House of Commons is not sitting. We've seen meetings cancelled on a number of occasions when the House has been sitting because of the extreme demand on staff. I think it makes sense to do it. If there's going to be a meeting anyway, let's make sure we get it all done at once.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor again.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.

I just wanted to confirm something. I know that you are going to get back to Mr. Desjarlais, but you said there has been no witness confirmed. You're going to have the meeting on this constituency week regardless. You're saying there's no witness confirmed.

Mr. Nater is saying there is a witness confirmed and he was trying to be more efficient by calling in this motion to schedule in meetings when the rest of the committee members, other than the Conservatives, did not know anything about this at all. Am I right? I just want to clarify that this is exactly what I heard. That is what committee members are trying to get to you.

I want to add to that, Chair. This agenda for today's meeting has had so many changes. In fact, the last-minute changes are unreal. The original notice of meeting for today's meeting actually had witnesses on it. We went to committee business. Then we went to draft reports. Now we're in a public committee business setting. The draft reports we were supposed to review today are dated February. We received them yesterday. There are over 50 pages here that members have reviewed over the past evening.

I'm just really perplexed here as to what exactly is going on. Do you have a witness for Thursday or do you not? Are you just trying to have a meeting for the sake of having a meeting? That calls into question what Mr. Desjarlais was saying: Are you just spending taxpayer dollars for the sake of it? Why can't we be more efficient in how we're scheduling these meetings? We keep moving things around. Quite honestly, the way it seems, with the 15 ArriveCAN meetings and all of these others that we've had, with seven during constituency weeks, I'm trying to understand this.

You know, Chair, I thought in a public accounts committee we were trying to do the non-partisan thing and really make sure we were being fiscally responsible in how the government spends money, working with the Auditor General and working with all members of this committee, so what exactly is happening? Why is it that certain members of the committee have information before other members of the committee? Why are we waiting constantly? Why are we continuing to have to change our plans at the very last minute in terms of how things are going to progress?

I'm not sure if it's at your whim or the whim of your whip or what's happening here, but I really would prefer some clarification here, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I will let the clerk address the timing of the reports. It wouldn't surprise me if you received documents only yesterday. I will let the clerk, if she's able, just touch on the witnesses who were previously in this slot.

I will just remind everyone that at the very top I said there would be a meeting Thursday. I have secured an understanding with a witness who was approved by this committee. I do not have the papers for that yet, so I'm not in a position to announce it, as these calendars are all confidential.

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

Then why are we having a public meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

It's because we're adults and we can talk about things that we can keep confidential.

I said that right off the top. Mr. Nater is just repeating what I said. That's where that came from. I said it right off the top to help focus attention.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor—no, sorry. I was going to give the clerk a chance to speak. Pardon me.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

In regard to the notice of meeting, it was originally published on Tuesday at 5:59 p.m. with the three draft reports on it. Any indication for witnesses would originally have been on a draft calendar that was shared with the committee.

In regard to reports 7 and 8, they were only distributed yesterday. That was an oversight on my end. Because of the reports, we wanted to make sure we were studying them soon before distributing them to ensure that members had them readily available. Of course, this was an oversight on my end, and for that I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you, Clerk, for that. I really do appreciate your apology. It's a level of accountability that I think we can all learn from on this committee when being accountable for our actions.

Mr. Chair, you've already taken the action of spending taxpayer dollars. You've already asked us to come to committee during a non-sitting week, and it's a Conservative-controlled committee. I understand this is a Conservative-controlled committee, and they get to spend how much money they want, so I feel I'm outnumbered and out-gunned here.

For those reasons, I'll have to submit, as well as taxpayers, to the Conservatives' demand to continuously spend their money. I don't see the logic in it, trying to investigate $60 million and spending $60 million to do it. It doesn't make sense to me and it doesn't make sense to Canadians, but I'm happy to have the meeting since it sounds like, Mr. Chair, if you can confirm, that you've already spent the money. The money's been spent for next week, and we have to have that meeting no matter what, so I'd say let's just call a vote.

I really do think my amendment to the motion is a good one, and it should have us reflect on the kinds of ways we're spending taxpayer dollars, particularly in this Conservative-controlled committee.

I'm happy with going forward, Chair, with next week. You've already spent the money. Let's do the meeting, but let's really be serious about this going forward. Let's be serious about how much it costs taxpayers to have these meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.