Public Accounts Committee on May 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, Mr. Nater is not actually asking to spend more money. I've already said that there will be a meeting next Thursday, so I'm asking.... I am calling this committee back next Thursday, period.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

How much will that cost? That's an extra cost, Chair. How much is it going to cost the taxpayers for that extra meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let's agree on some wording, Mr. Desjarlais. Your amendment is that the committee provide members with an estimated cost of the meeting.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Yes, that would be great. I think that would go a long way to show just how important these meetings are and to try to balance our decisions with the cost breakdown for Canadians, because Canadians expect us to be frugal. They expect us to be reasonable. They expect us to use money for really good reasons.

I appreciate the Conservative motion. I'm going to support it, but we have to be more reasonable. We have to actually look at the bottom line for regular people here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay, I'll just pause for one second, Mr. Desjarlais. I'm going to make sure that the clerk has my words, which you, I think, agreed with, and then we can keep moving. I have a list here already. Ms. Khalid will be next.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll just say that we are now debating the amendment. Pardon me.

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

That's exactly what I was going to talk about, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your pre-empting me.

Again, I really take Mr. Desjarlais' point here. We are talking about costs, but we're also talking about members' time and time in our constituencies. Yes, we do spend significant amounts of money in coming here, but then there's also that aspect of having surprise meetings. On this one, we had an opportunity to discuss this in the subcommittee meeting, and then we had an opportunity to discuss this in the surprise Monday meeting we had, which was a very short one, yet here we are, on a Thursday evening, planning our weeks out in our constituencies and now being told that we have another surprise meeting on a Thursday.

We are facing five back-to-back sitting weeks in Ottawa after this constituency week, and we will be here. We should, Mr. Chair, be using our allotted resources in a responsible manner.

I agree 100% with what Mr. Desjarlais is saying, which is that responsibility is fiscal. It's about taxpayer dollars and how much work we are able to do here for two hours, just so that you're able to have these surprise meetings that, completely honestly, could be scheduled during the sitting weeks as well, while we're here and while we're doing the work.

You have the opportunity to schedule extra meetings while we're in Ottawa as well, but you're choosing to bring us back during a constituency week. I really find that to be a misuse of the resources of the House of Commons and of taxpayer dollars in transporting members, especially the Conservative members, back here to Ottawa for those meetings.

Therefore, I absolutely agree with Mr. Desjarlais' amendment. I think that should definitely be there and that we should make that a consistent thing as well, so that we do recognize that when surprise meetings happen, taxpayers should know what the cost is to them to have an hour-long meeting when we're bringing in people from all across the country to sit here and do the work we could have done during a sitting week.

This is not a Standing Order 106(4) meeting. This is a meeting called by you at your discretion, Mr. Chair, and I completely respect your discretion, but I would appreciate it if you could be a little bit more judicious with taxpayer dollars in the discretion you're taking to call meetings, especially as a surprise.

I've said this time and time again, Mr. Chair: Can we please be a little bit more collaborative when we're scheduling meetings? Can we please be a little bit more efficient while we're here in Ottawa to get that work done? You called a surprise meeting for Monday afternoon. It was a very short one. It used House of Commons resources, yet here we are dealing with another surprise meeting.

I will leave that there, and I am absolutely in support of Mr. Desjarlais' motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Just so we don't keep bringing it up, I will just gently.... The refusal of these witnesses was not known to me on Monday. This has happened over the course of this week. I believe the clerk has been sending the correspondence to you, as we've received it—right away, if it came in both official languages, or as soon as possible, once it was translated. I've addressed the issue of trying to get additional resources during the weeks. It is very difficult. I'll say nothing more on that because I don't want to become part of the debate here.

You're on the list, Mrs. Shanahan.

Mr. Nader, go ahead.

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

I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair.

Actually, I was going to make the point that resources during sitting weeks are incredibly difficult to come by. We've seen committee meetings having to be cancelled because of lengthy committee meetings in other committees, so it is difficult to make this....

I will make that point first. We all have things we need to do in our ridings, and there's no question about that. It is a challenge. That said, we are parliamentarians and we are legislators, so committee business and committee work are a key part of our job. We do have the option of hybrid settings, for those who prefer not to travel.

Briefly, to Mr. Desjarlais' point about the cost, I would just indicate that I would hope the cost analyses would be the incremental costs of an additional meeting, not the costs that would already be baked in, whether or not the House is sitting on a break week.

Obviously, some costs are borne by each of our individual MOBs, our members' office budgets. Some costs are borne by our TSEAs, our travel status expense accounts. Obviously, I would be looking for the incremental costs for an additional meeting on a break week.

That's all I'm going to say. I really don't want to waste too much time of the committee's work here.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Stewart, do you wish to speak? You have the floor.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I agree with Mr. Nader on the incremental part.

I think it's unfortunate for all of us when people decide at the last minute that they don't want to show up to committee. It causes disruption to clerks, analysts and chairs. It causes disruption in all of our lives.

This is a unique project. We know that it cost over $60 million. We know that some of the individuals who are declining our invitations to come here were specifically named in documentation and were believed to have aided GC Strategies in receiving these big scandalous contracts. As a committee member, I feel that it's very important that we get to the bottom of where that money went and how it was arrived at, regardless of which party affiliation we have here today,.

I don't think it's the fault of the chair or of anybody in here. People simply don't want to show up because they've been named. That's too bad. We have a role to play to keep people accountable, and it shouldn't be any different for them.

That's what I have to say. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Desjarlais, Ms. Shanahan and Madame Gaudreau.

Mr. Desjarlais, you have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I agree that ArriveCAN has been brutal. Since 2011, there have been a billion dollars of contracts, according to the most recent supply from our request for information. That's Conservatives and Liberals.

I'm very concerned about this. As a member of the New Democratic Party, I'm concerned about this, so I really want to investigate this issue, but I'm concerned about the underlying nature of extreme expenses being borne by our government to do this work.

It seems ironic and in conflict to me. On the one hand, we tell Canadians that we care so much about taxpayer money and how important it is. I agree with that sentiment, but I also practise that sentiment, which is not what I've been seeing in this committee so far. What I've witnessed that we care when it's convenient.

Look at the motion itself. Mr. Nader's motion speaks specifically to a time when we're not even sitting. It names a date out of the blue when we're not sitting, when we're in our communities.

I appreciate his comment on aggregate costs, or whatever that was. It's important that we be transparent with all the costs associated and borne against taxpayers. It's not my MOB. This is taxpayer money at the end of the day, no matter what.

For the extra meetings that the Conservatives and the Conservative whip's office have asked for, I want every single dollar accounted for. This is because this is a big party thing. The whip's office has asked the Conservative members of this committee to not think of these motions in their own mind but to think of this as a matter of partisan interest. That's the part I'm upset about. I'm upset that we're spending money for partisan interest, and Canadians are being tricked by that.

Look at the motion. It was moved by Mr. Nader to spend a bunch more money to fly everybody in next week when we're not even sitting.

My God, I want every single dollar accounted for. If members fly in, I want to know the costs of those members flying to Ottawa on taxpayer dollars to have a meeting that we have resources for today, we had resources for on Tuesday, and we had resources for on Monday. We have scheduled two more meetings in two weeks on Tuesday. We have two more meetings after that. The week after that, we have two more regularly scheduled meetings. The week after that, we have two more scheduled meetings. The week after that, Mr. Chair, we have two more scheduled meetings. Actually, I missed one. The week after that, we have two more scheduled meetings.

Canadians are fed up with this. They're fed up listening to parliamentarians spend all their money because the Conservatives' whip's office really wants that.

It's a shame that you're spending money and playing games with Canadian taxpayers' dollars. Come on, guys, let's get serious here, honestly. I'm trying to work across the aisle here to get value for Canadians.

Mr. Chair, I hope you can take this seriously. I'm honest about this. Stop spending a bunch of money. We have all these meetings. We have over a dozen meetings scheduled on our calendar. They're all empty right now. Half of them are empty meetings. Let's schedule one of those.

Mr. Nader, I'm happy to support your motion, but please think about the Canadian taxpayers. This stuff is serious.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Desjarlais.

Ms. Shanahan, you have the floor.

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

I have to thank Mr. Desjarlais for this amendment. I don't think it's lost on us. We're here, we're the public accounts committee, and we rail against government departments week in and week out for accountability on how they spend their money and making better choices, etc., yet here we are in this situation, and it's not the first time or the second time. There have been multiple times now.

Up until a certain point, we've been working together, either through the subcommittee or the committee, to come to ground on our calendar, on how work would be allocated. On ArriveCAN, I think there have been something like 15 meetings and counting, and over 65 witnesses. I have the calendar that I asked for this Monday, and I was very happy to see it. I was thinking that we were going to have new reports from the Auditor General. We were going to be able to deal with those reports, hopefully. Certainly I'm looking forward to getting some reports out the door, but that's not happening.

I am definitely supportive of this amendment. I think that the public needs to know. I think the public accounts committee needs to be transparent and say exactly how much it costs, and I think it's going to shed some light on some of the other work or some of the mismanagement, let's say, of committee work that we can see across Parliament. I think Canadians would be very surprised at the duplication of work, because when I see the list of witnesses—and thank you for giving us a summary—I was wondering why we were calling these witnesses when the ethics committee is running its own studies with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the Ethics Commissioner.

I don't see the letter from Paul Girard. You said that it had to do with medical information. Maybe it's in translation, but then, how is Mr. Nater able to make a motion? How is it that some members here have privileged information before other members? It's very concerning, and again, I for one certainly support the amendment that has been brought to this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, with regard to the subamendment, taxpayers have a right to know where their money goes. They are probably wondering if we are going to vote, and if we are going to have to start counting the time we spend filibustering in committee.

I am the only one here who is not forced to act in a partisan manner and filibuster. If we agree, let us vote. Then there will be a result and you can do what you like with it. I will let you have fun.

On the other hand, when witnesses do not show up after being summoned, there is obviously a scandal. I think that in five minutes, we could adopt this proposal.

I came here to look at the reports and get things moving. So when you repeat yourselves, as I am doing now, you should know that it costs money too. Think about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Stewart, do you have your hand up to say something?

Okay, go ahead.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, it seems that ArriveCAN is causing some random health problems among some of the most unruly, unco-operative and disruptive witnesses, who clearly don't want to be held accountable by this committee. I think we spend dollars on behalf of the taxpayer to find out why 60-some million dollars of their money went to people who disrupted their lives, people got contracts from the very people who are declining our invitations. I think that speaks volumes.

Again, I'll support the motion as long as it's incremental, as Mr. Nater said, but I want to repeat this again: These are unruly witnesses, and there's a very good reason that they're declining our invitation. It's because they're guilty of something, and everybody knows it.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just one second, Mr. Stewart; I have a point of order.

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

Yes. I'd like to hear Mr. Stewart on the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, you can add yourself to the list. That's not a point of order, asking for a clarification.

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

It's to relevance.