Public Accounts Committee on May 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to start with a speaking note.

We are here in committee to discuss the motion of Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, which includes an amendment from Ms. Khalid. You've heard this, but I'm going to read again the information that has been provided to this committee to put it on the public record: “Written responses provided to the committee are not considered to be confidential. Examples of confidential documents include in camera blues; draft calendars; logistics items—

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

Could you start from the top? I know that we had our discussions, but people who are watching may not remember what the motion and the amendment are about.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to turn it right over to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné. I'm just setting the table here on this, and then I'm going to hear from members. I want to inform members of the facts, I suppose, as understood by the House of Commons and committees, and then we will hear from members to review the issue at hand.

I'm going to begin at the top: “Written responses provided to the committee are not considered to be confidential. Examples of confidential documents include in camera blues; draft calendars; logistics items such as contracts and catering forms; notices of motion—”

As I said, though, a member is, of course, free to make public their motion any time they see fit—“draft reports and dissenting/supplementary opinions..., witness paperwork, witness lists and any summons.”

Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank my colleagues for agreeing to make this meeting public. It is of general interest that a unique situation has arisen in this committee and that fairness be established between the various media, which serve as the fourth estate in Quebec and Canada. I'll read the motion again for those listening.

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 & 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.

I've already expressed the reasons why I'd like to see this issue resolved quickly, so I won't expand on it too much. For questions of fairness, particularly with regard to French-language media who didn't have access to information in French as they should have, when this information and the documents were passed on only to a journalist from an English-language newspaper, it is important that the documents be officially made public. Moreover, since these documents constitute an answer to a question that had been asked in public, there is no problem with their being made public.

I hope my colleagues will agree to this motion so that this situation can be made, shall we say, acceptable and we can move on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Ms. Shanahan, please go ahead.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank you for the additional information you have provided to the committee regarding which documents are considered confidential and which are not.

I must confess that I, too, was disturbed by the documents being leaked in this way. It's not at all the committee's habit to do this sort of thing. We may have to review our rules at some point. Given the importance of our reports and the way in which we write them, the disclosure of documents that were not necessarily discussed in public and that were provided in writing to the committee may have been detrimental to the committee's good work.

In my opinion, we should vote on the motion shortly.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

There is a little procedural bump that I have to address.

Ms. Khalid, I'm going to turn to you right after hearing from Mr. Desjarlais, because you have an amendment to the motion and I have to deal with that first, I believe.

Mr. Desjarlais, I believe you asked to speak. You have the floor.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I agree with our Bloc colleague and with my Liberal colleagues that we do need to ensure that the public has access to information. I hope we can get unanimous consent here to ensure the information that is shared with the public is done in an equal and equitable fashion.

There are different media outlets in Quebec, Alberta and across the country. It's important that we make the distribution of these documents fair and equal. It's not okay, to the point of the amendment of Ms. Khalid, that there seems to be a perception that certain documents are given to certain journalists. The question is, in exchange for what? Why do only certain journalists have access to this information for the purpose of a story? It seems to me that it's for a preferential outcome in a story.

I think this nips it in the bud by making all documents related to this issue public and available. I also think it's incumbent upon us now to try to understand what happened here, what took place, why, and who is pulling the strings behind this.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor for anything you'd like to say, but I hope you'll address the amendment as well.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I believe it is the amendment that is under discussion right now, as per committee procedure.

I don't have much to add to what my NDP colleague, Mr. Desjarlais, has said and what my Liberal colleague, Mrs. Shanahan, has said as well.

I agree 100% with the main motion, but also the amendment, because we do need to understand and appreciate the precedent that we set when documents like this are leaked. We want to make sure the rules by which we govern ourselves are maintained, because ultimately what happens is that witnesses would then be hesitant to come and share information with us, sensitive documents that we, as a committee, may or may not agree to, that then clearly jeopardize what happens among communities in Canada, etc.

I will keep it very brief and end right there, Chair. I would appreciate it if we could go to a vote on the amendment and then the main motion right away.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, go ahead.

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

I would just like to be provided with the text of the amendment, which we have not received. It would be pertinent, I think, if it were in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very well. Right now, we're trying to figure out the exact wording of the amendment.

In the meantime, Mr. Nater, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

To briefly address the first part, I agree 100%. Conservatives agree 100% to all documents being posted online.

As for the second part, these weren't confidential documents. I'm not sure where Ms. Khalid is coming from with her amendment to instigate an investigation into something that couldn't be leaked, because there was nothing to leak if it was a public document. As our able clerk has distinguished and identified, a written response to a question is not considered confidential to this committee, so if all of a sudden we're going to have an investigation into something that wasn't prohibited, it just seems a little strange. If you want our clerk and chair to waste their time investigating something that was not prohibited, then have at it, but I think it's funny to go that route.

I support the main motion 100%, but I think the amendment is irrelevant. These weren't confidential documents, so the fact that they were provided elsewhere...and frankly, I think we should be more proactively providing these documents more broadly. The questions are asked publicly. We ask witnesses questions. I think we often find that they say they'll get back to us with a written response as a way to avoid answering, and sometimes they don't come. If we have a question that's asked publicly, the response should be provided as publicly as possible too, so that Canadians who I know are tuned in and are eagerly watching our committee on a regular basis have all of the information.

I support 100% putting things online, but to the second part, nothing was confidential, so there was no leak that happened.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Khalid, you are next to speak, but I might suspend just for three minutes. It's a suspension so that you, as the sponsor of the amendment, can work with the clerk on the precise wording.

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

It's very simple language, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Would you like to share it with us?

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

Yes. It's “and (b), ensure that the committee investigates how these documents were leaked into the public....”

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

I am going to suspend and, Ms. Khalid, you're going to speak with the clerk.

I want the amendment to be well written and well understood.

I'm going to suspend to get clarity on this and overcome any hiccups.

Thank you.

We'll back in a few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I will bring the meeting back to order.

The amendment in both official languages has been sent to your emails.

Clerk, why don't you read it so that everyone has it, and then clarify which part is the amendment?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Hilary Smyth]

It reads:

Given that the information contained in the written response from the Treasury Board Secretariat that 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; that the committee order the chair to work with the clerk to investigate the divulgation of these documents without prior committee consent; and, if appropriate, that repercussions be taken.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor if you have anything to add to that.

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

I think it is very well drafted. I am more than happy to go to a vote so we can conclude this matter as soon as possible.