Public Accounts Committee on May 30th, 2024

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

That's not accurate, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Pardon me—

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

Are we having a roll call?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll turn it over to the clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Naaman Sugrue]

The vote is on whether the chair's ruling shall be sustained, which is to say, shall the chair's ruling be upheld? If the chair's ruling were upheld, the motion would be admissible and be allowed to be moved.

Shall the—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, that's not right. If my ruling is upheld, we get back to the meeting, and the motion can be....

[The Clerk]

If the ruling is overturned—

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

For clarity, Chair, the motion would then no longer be able to come to this committee. Is that correct? That was your ruling, if my understanding is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

The clerk said an identical motion could not be moved again.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

On a point of order, is it possible, by unanimous consent, to just deal with the motion that was presented by Ms. Shanahan, dispose of it, and then get back to the meeting that we're having right now? Can we not do that?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Desjarlais, I can tell from my speaking list that will not happen.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll turn it over to you, Clerk, for the roll call, please.

[The Clerk]

The chair's ruling is that the motion is inadmissible. Shall the chair's ruling be sustained? That is to say, shall the chair's ruling be upheld?

It's a tie, so the chair votes.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Beginning our third round, Mr. Nater, you have the floor for five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I have a point of order.

I apologize to my colleague.

Just in terms of the time now, will our time be recovered, or will the last round of our questions be eliminated?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

It is my intention, Mr. Desjarlais, to recover your time.

We are beginning the third round. I plan to do three and four, so you will have two more slots, subject to the willingness of the committee. Is that okay?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

That's very good. Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Nater, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for ensuring that some members get their time despite the obvious obstructionary tactics by the Liberal national caucus chair.

Through you, Chair, thank you to our witnesses.

Mr. Bashir, Mr. Utano indicated to you that you should submit two proposals, one through GC Strategies and one directly to CBSA. Is that correct? Am I interpreting that correctly?

[Imraan Bashir]

I'll make just a small clarification: It was the same proposal. Initially we were asked to submit it to Mr. Utano, which we did. Subsequently we met with Mr. Utano to discuss the details of it, and it was at that subsequent meeting that he asked us to send a copy of it to Mr. Firth at GC Strategies.

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

It was exactly the same proposal for exactly the same amounts in both submissions.

[Imraan Bashir]

That's correct. It was a PowerPoint presentation, to be specific, but it was exactly the same presentation, yes.

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

Could you remind the committee what dollar figure was attached to that submission?

[Imraan Bashir]

This is going to be a little long-winded, so I apologize. There were originally going to be two separate task authorizations, the first being more of a technical control review. That was in the amount of $255,000. The second task authorization was more procedural in nature, reviewing policies and procedures of the sort, and that was for $145,000, for a grand total of $400,000.