Public Accounts Committee on May 16th, 2024

[John Ossowski]

My responsibilities as the accounting officer are laid out in section 16 of the FAA. With respect to some of the findings that you're referring to, those are delegated down into the organization. Ultimately, the person who signs off on section 34 of the FAA is attesting to the fact that the goods or services have been received. Whoever has that delegated authority and the manager who oversees that person are the people responsible for those decisions, based on the delegations that have been given to them and the requirements under the FAA.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Here's my last question.

I've worked on the executive side. What kind of pressure were you and your department under from the Privy Council Office to get this done? I can certainly see how the non-partisan Privy Council Office would be tremendously worried about cross-border relations, given what the U.S. administration was signalling on border travel. What kind of pressure was the department under to just get this done? “Damn the torpedoes—we need to have this done immediately.” Did that have an impact on rule-following internally? That's my last question.

[John Ossowski]

I don't recall any direction from the Privy Council Office to get this done. It was really just us trying to help the Public Health Agency do their part.

Obviously, we were a key lever in terms of advising them about what was operationally possible at the border, because we are the experts on how the border works, but in terms of the information they wanted and how they chose to proceed with the orders in council, there was no pressure on us. There were times when they wanted to do something more quickly, and we told them it simply was not possible to do it that quickly, because of the complexity the changes would require.

It was very co-operative, but it was done very quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ossowski, for your testimony today and your participation in relation to our study of “Report 1: ArriveCAN”.

You can provide additional information to the clerk. If you have any questions, please consult the clerk.

I'll suspend for five minutes before we bring on our next witness.

The witness is excused. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let's resume the meeting, please. We are back in order.

I made a commitment to keep this very brief and even, subject to everyone's agreement, to proceed with it. This is an issue that Madame Sinclair–Desgagné raised to me. I'll speak to it and then turn things over to her.

This is in regard to information provided by TBS on April 15. We received media requests to have these documents shared. The documents were distributed to members and, as they themselves are not confidential, we can choose to publish them on our website or look at adopting a routine motion in regard to how to treat these types of requests, given the number of documents we received. Maybe we won't have a long discussion unless members want to.

Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, would you like to address this, since I know you raised it with the clerk and me?

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

Yes, of course.

In light of the article that appeared in The Globe and Mail on Monday morning, it seems quite obvious to the people following the ArriveCAN file that the newspaper received copies of the documents sent to the committee on April 15. To be clear, these documents contained written answers to questions put to witnesses by MPs during public meetings. Those responses were provided to a journalist. Consequently, the information in these documents became public without the committee's consent, which I find unfortunate. I'd like to correct this mistake on behalf of the committee by making these documents public for a number of reasons. I'm talking about the documents from April 15 only.

First, this article was published in English. I believe that journalists representing the francophone media should also have access to the Treasury Board documents translated for the committee. That would be normal.

Second, this is about fairness to the media, the fourth estate of a healthy democracy. When documents are shared with a newspaper, the least we can do is to make them public, so that there's some transparency in this democracy.

I'd like the committee's opinion on this matter. It's important to right this wrong. I suggest that these documents be simply published on the committee's web site. Again, I'm speaking specifically about the April 15 documents sent to us and made available to the committee members. This is the Treasury Board document on conflicts of interest, as well as the amounts allocated to Dalian, Coradix and GC Strategies over at least 15 years. This includes years spanning two successive governments. I'd like those two documents made public, now that the most of the information has been disclosed to a single journalist.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just to summarize, then, there is a motion to have these documents, which were shared with members, put on our website. My view is that when they are made public, they should be released to anyone who asks for them. The clerk recommended that I hold on and bring it back to the committee, but it is something that I think should be addressed.

Ms. Khalid, you have your hand up. The floor is yours, please.

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

Thanks very much, Chair.

I really appreciate Madame Sinclair-Desgagné's raising this very important point.

I, for one, would really like to know who in our committee is leaking these documents, and who in any committee is leaking documents that are supposed to be confidential. We are supposed to maintain respect and decorum in our committees. I'm hoping that we can find the answers to those questions. If Madame Sinclair–Desgagné has those answers, I would love for her to answer them.

However, I think this is a very important point: We must always maintain the decorum of our committees, Chair. I know I have raised this with you, in many ways and at many different points, to ensure that each and every one of us is respecting how our committees are operating, because if we don't operate effectively and respect the democratic values that govern our committees, then we're not doing our country much of a service, to be honest.

I would love to understand exactly what happened here before we go into the depth of Madame Sinclair-Desgagné's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the representative for the Bloc Québécois, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné. I'm fairly certain that she's not responsible for leaking the documents. If that had been the case, a French‑speaking journalist would have written this article.

We need to respect the rules of the committee concerning the documents we receive. I support what Ms. Khalid said. Someone should find out how these documents were released to an English‑speaking journalist. I'm not accusing anybody. However, English‑speaking and French‑speaking journalists should have the same rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

I would just like to answer Ms. Khalid's question. We don't know who leaked these documents, and we'll probably never know. In any case, that isn't the point of my motion. The point of my motion is for the committee to do the honourable thing and make these documents public. I absolutely do not want to start a witch hunt. We can resolve this issue quickly by putting these April 15 documents on the committee's website. That way, we can quickly settle this fairness issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Ms. Yip, I saw your hand up. Do you have a comment to make?

Just in the meantime, Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, could you read out your motion, please?

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

Yes, of course. The French version reads as follows:

Given that the information contained in the written response from the Treasury Board Secretariat, which was transmitted to committee members on April 15, 2024, appears to have been disclosed to a Globe and Mail journalist, as per the article titled “Three firms tied to ArriveCan app got $1‑billion in federal contracts, Ottawa reveals”, published May 13, 2024, That the committee make public on its website the said documents sent in the written response from the Treasury Board Secretariat dated April 15, 2024.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I'm not seeing more hands. I have Ms. Khalid and then Monsieur Drouin.

Our regular clerk is not here today to maybe give us an update on what happened, at least behind the scenes. I'm not in a position to do so either.

I guess I'm looking to the committee on how to proceed. Do we want to deal with Madame Sinclair-Desgagné's motion to release these documents?

Should we also ensure that these documents are available in French and English? These two points have been raised today.

Then, of course, we can come back and have a discussion another time about a protocol, because it did put the chair in an awkward position when documents were available to some but not all.

Ms. Khalid.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I am very agreeable to the main motion. I think it is unfortunately lacking a big aspect, which is why we are in this position right now. I think we should amend the motion to investigate who released these documents and give discretion to the chair to deal with the repercussions accordingly.

I think this is a very serious issue. We abide by very stringent rules as to what is in camera, what kinds of sensitive documents are presented to us and how we study them. I used to sit on the international human rights subcommittee, where the release of documents or the release of the names of witnesses would often have severe impacts on the security and safety of the witnesses who came before our committee. I think protecting the sanctity of what is presented to our committee is very, very important. As the public accounts committee, I think it is incumbent upon us to really investigate this matter and figure out why this happened, who did it and what the consequences are.

I sincerely believe, Chair, that there should be consequences to this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I have a point of order.

Did Ms. Khalid move a specific amendment, or was she making suggestions? If she moved—

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

No, Chair. I moved a specific amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm in a position where I am certainly open to hearing more about this. I consulted the clerk on it. I don't want to speak for her, so I'm going to nudge the committee to push this off and deal with it when the clerk is here to speak to what is considered in camera, confidential information and what is not.

From my point of view, both in discussion with the clerk and as a matter of practice, a response to a public question is certainly not in camera sensitive. Now, having said that, there's no doubt that information provided to members is committee business, but this is not at the level of a report being made public.

Having said that, we can discuss this, but I think we should hear from the clerk before we proceed too far down this path.

I have Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

Ms. Khalid, is your hand up again, or is that a previous hand?

Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné now has the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I think we're getting bogged down in the details. The motion is clear. If it's approved, having the documents on the website isn't a problem. I don't think the clerk will have an opinion to share. Actually, she doesn't. I think we need to move forward on this issue as quickly as possible. If there's a procedural issue here, any clerk can speak to it. The clerk currently with us could answer any general procedural questions.

I'm not particularly supportive of the amendment. I'll wait to hear from the Conservatives on the original motion before I decide how to respond to this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Barrett is up.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Thanks very much, Chair.

On the main motion, we support the motion. With respect to the secondary issue raised by Ms. Khalid, having heard your comments, notionally, that's fine. I'll defer to the chair's suggestion, so I want to put that off as a separate issue until the clerk returns.

Generally speaking, however, on the issue of the chair reporting back to the committee following an investigation of the particular circumstances, that's fine, but if we could deal with the main motion and then, if we have consensus, direct the chair and the clerk to be prepared to report back to the committee at its next sitting, that would be great. It would achieve both objectives. It would satisfy exactly Madame Sinclair-Desgagné's motion, but it would also then chart us to the right place.

We'll hear from the clerk, through the chair, at the next meeting. If more steps are required, generally speaking, we'll be supportive of that, but let's deal with the main motion. We'll support that.

The spirit of what Ms. Khalid is asking is fine, but if we could hear from the clerk and then vote on that as a separate issue, that would be our preference.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Genuis, and then I'll see Ms. Khalid after that.

Mr. Genuis, go ahead.

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

I'll strike, Chair.