Evidence of meeting #141 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was daly.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much, Mr. Genuis.
I'm going to Mr. Erskine-Smith in one second.
Mr. McCauley, did you want to speak as well? If you do, put your hand up.
Mr. Erskine-Smith, you have the floor.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
Thanks.
Look, I think we should get through it. As folks have said, let's adopt the budget.
I think what might be helpful, though, is this: I'm new to this committee as well, so I don't know how much the subcommittee is used to set an agenda going forward. I would be genuinely interested in sitting down with colleagues from the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP. We could do it in a setting like this. It's already late, so I don't think now is the exact time. However, I'd be curious to know what more we want to get out of this. How much evidence have we heard? Is it sufficient? What more do we need to hear? Who do we need to hear from?
Obviously, there's a proposal to hear from certain witnesses, but I outlined some things that I think are gaps. Maybe it's already there, but there are some gaps in my understanding. I've started to read a bit more about the missing emails, for example, that Mr. Brock was mentioning. I have to fill in some gaps on my end. To the extent that we need to fill in additional gaps across the board in order to get to the bottom of what we want to get to the bottom of, both on Sustainable Development Technology Canada and ArriveCAN, there have been a boatload of meetings already. It might be helpful to have a subcommittee meeting at some point in order to get folks to drill down, work across the aisle and say what more we want to get out of this—shared goals, accountability, who else we need to hear from, what documents we need to request and how we conclude this thing collectively. That's how I've operated on other committees where we tried to play that kind of accountability function, I think, successfully.
Otherwise, yes, let's adopt the budget. However, I think there's a more constructive way to be on the same page, going forward.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you.
I appreciate that we have new members on the committee. Cross-dialogue happens.
There has already been a subcommittee meeting. There are also a number of motions with predetermined witnesses that are outstanding and that have been set by this committee. That is the work plan. The clerk is working as hard as she can to line up these witnesses as quickly as possible.
I'm not sure how to guide you, because I don't know how things work on the governing bench. I think your first point of contact is the whip's office and then the vice-chair on the government side. Then you can bring back things through her. It's not the normal practice for the committee as a whole to discuss these things. That takes away from committee investigations of Auditor General reports.
I'm happy to talk, and I'm....
Pardon me...?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
There is coordination, which is why, when people come to me and say they have to leave, I reply that it is a whip problem and not a chair problem. That is just fair warning.
Anyway, let's call the question on this. Is this budget for $1,500 approved?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Now, Ms. Yip, I appreciate your patience in allowing us to get through this. I will say this was a clever move, because you put in the notice of motion during the other meeting, which normally requires 48 hours, but then you brought it up again during community business. That is a good move.
The floor is yours.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Have you submitted the motion to the clerk? Yes.
Is it in both official languages? Yes, thank you.
It's going to come in just a few seconds. I'm just going to hold for a second.
While members are reviewing the motion in both official languages, I will turn the floor over to Ms. Yip. I'll then see you, Mr. Genuis.
Ms. Yip, you have the floor.
Liberal
Jean Yip Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
As I said in my previous comments, I think it's important that we receive the evidence the whistle-blower alluded to in his letter. We've agreed to extend our study on SDTC. If there's any evidence that the whistle-blower did not provide us during his testimony last week, I think we should request it.
In addition, I asked the whistle-blower for evidence to back up claims that the minister was manipulating the McKinsey report, and the whistle-blower refused. Given that the whistle-blower has now volunteered to provide this type of evidence and more, I think it would benefit our committee to request this.
I think it's a fairly straightforward motion, and I would appreciate everyone's support on this.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
For clarity, Ms. Yip, could you just explain—and this is, I think, a general question—the need to have it in camera as opposed to a public meeting?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. Genuis might ask it as well, although perhaps with different motives.
Mr. Genuis, you have the floor.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to assure you that my motives are always to advance the common good, as I see it.
I want to just observe very pointedly that this motion makes a judgment about the claims the whistle-blower made. It says that claims made with respect to the minister are “unfounded”. We are certainly not prepared to pass a motion that slaps onto a request for information words that characterize the claims of that witness. What is the point of even requesting the information if the government has already come to a conclusion about the nature of it?
Therefore, I would propose an amendment that simply strikes all of the words after “within 14 business days of the adoption of this motion”, so the motion would read:
That given the committee received correspondence from the whistleblower who appeared before this committee on September 18th, 2024, as part of the committee’s study of the Auditor General’s report into Sustainable Development Technology Canada; given the whistleblower alludes to key evidence of a grave nature, that has yet to be presented to this committee; As part of its study into Sustainable Development Technology Canada, that the committee request the whistleblower send all evidence alluded to in their correspondence of September 23rd, 2024, within 14 business days of the adoption of this motion.
Period.
It requests the documents but removes this editorial characterization of the nature of the claims and the idea of having two in camera meetings. Once the evidence is received, the committee can decide how to proceed. Maybe it will be with public meetings. Maybe, if necessary, it will be with in camera meetings. That will be up to the committee at that time.
I think this amendment maintains the request for information, but removes the political editorializing the government is using to try to defend the minister.
That's my amendment. Is it clear to the chair and the clerk?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Yes.
We have an amendment to the motion to remove everything that follows “within 14 business days of the adoption of this motion”.
Turning to the amendment, then, I'll start a new speakers list. I will go to Mr. Drouin first and then Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.
Mr. Drouin, go ahead.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
This is simply a precaution.
First of all, asking for documents in both official languages is not in any way an editorial comment. I want to point out that today is Franco-Ontarian Day. I expect that we will receive the evidence, especially since it is in the form of recordings. I don't know if they are in English or French, but I believe it is customary for the committee to receive evidence in English and French.
I know the witness has offered to comment on what was said. Without knowing what was said though, we have no way of knowing whether that is appropriate. We don't know who is on those recordings. I don't know what other evidence or testimony will be submitted, apart from the letter we have received. So I think we should receive that evidence before we allow the witness to comment on it. I need the evidence and proof that it has been provided in both official languages. Then we can decide whether a public meeting is needed.
The reason we wanted to meet in camera is precisely because we don't know what's coming. Out of respect for the individuals who may have been recorded without their consent, we have to be careful. Since we are not in the majority on the committee, the opposition may in any case do what it wants. Regardless, we have to be careful initially, out of respect for those who may have been involved in all of this, whether they wanted to be or not.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
The amendment to the motion is being sent around as I speak.
Would you prefer, Mr. Drouin, that I pause for a second while it's sent out? Otherwise, I'll go to the next witness.
I see that you prefer a pause. Okay.
We'll wait for the 10 or 15 seconds, then, after which I have Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, Monsieur Genuis and then Mr. Erskine-Smith.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
I have you on the other one. This is speaking to the amendment.
Would you like to be added to this list as well, Mr. Desjarlais?
