Public Accounts Committee on Sept. 25th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good. That is a motion. Have you submitted it to the clerk by any chance?

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

Yes, I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Just hold on. I see a few hands already. We're going to consult with the clerk for a second.

The clerk is going to send it out. I have on the list Mr. Drouin and then, after that, Mr. Desjarlais. Then I'll go back to you, Mr. Genuis. You sounded like you were done, and I'm going to Mr. Drouin so that we can move things along. You, of course, will have the right to come back. We'll come back to you if you so indicate.

Would you like to wait until you have the copy?

That's fine. I'm just going to suspend for—

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

Did he move the motion or is it a notice of motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

He has moved the motion.

I'm suspending right now, until you have it, and then, hopefully, will bring you back.

It will just take 30 seconds or a minute at most.

I'll suspend for that time and come back in one minute.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to bring this meeting back to order.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

After that, I have Mr. Desjarlais and then.... Okay. We have a few people.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for putting forward this particular motion.

We are on report 1 of the Auditor General with regard to ArriveCAN. I don't see how this is related to the matter at hand, so 48 hours' notice would be required to put forward this motion. I would look to you, Chair, for a ruling on this particular matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I can deal with it. Both in the consultations with the clerk and the analysts...it is a matter at hand, a motion. I'm going to rule it in order and I'll continue the debate.

Mr. Drouin, I'll give you the floor. I'll go back to you for consideration of that.

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

Can you explain to me why is it in order with report 1? If it were specific to one particular company within report 1, then I would be more inclined to say this has to do with report 1, but it does not. It is a very general motion.

I would challenge the chair if it's so, but I will wait for your rationale as to why it is in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Actually, I rarely do this, but I'm going to turn this over to one of the analysts to speak to it, to just generally why they felt it is in order. I'm relying on them for my reasoning. Of course, you're welcome to challenge it after that fact, Mr. Drouin.

[Dillan Theckedath, Committee Researcher]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good evening to the members of the committee.

In examining the words that were laid out for the motion in question, it was my understanding, through the analysis of the words as it pertained to indigenous procurement and the study of that and given that part of the ArriveCAN application was developed and procured using a vehicle that was a set-aside for indigenous procurement, that the spirit of the motion tangentially does touch the topic and study at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor again.

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

Again, it's a very broad analysis in terms of.... Anybody could make that particular argument.

If it were specific to a company that was mentioned in report 1, I would be more inclined to say, one hundred per cent, I agree, but it's just a general line. I mean, I could have made a motion to say that “we support the recommendation to support procurement in Canada”. Well, obviously, I'm going to find the word “procurement” in report 1.

Again, it's very general and not related specifically to the matter at hand. I don't see the conclusion and the relationship between what we are studying right now and what Mr. Genuis has proposed, so I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

The chair has been challenged.

Clerk, would you take the roll call?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Are we going to debate this?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

There's no debate when the chair is challenged.

My ruling is that the motion is in order.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 4)

Mr. Genuis, you have a point of order only, I hope, because I have been overruled and this matter is....

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

I understand, and I'm disappointed, but let's make the motion a notice of motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You can come back. I'm sorry. This matter is dealt with. Your time is up.

I'm going to go back to the witnesses, which is really where we're at. Mr. Genuis's time is up.

Sometimes these go on forever, and sometimes they're quick. This was relatively quick.

Ms. Yip, you have the floor for the last five minutes, please.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Before I begin my questions, I wanted to put a motion on notice that we can hopefully discuss in committee business today related to the recent correspondence from our anonymous witness on the SDTC study. It reads:

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; that this include all records and evidence pertaining to their unfounded claims that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, manipulated the findings of the McCarthy Tétrault review into SDTC, which was mandated by and submitted to the Department of Justice, and; once the evidence has been provided to members in both official languages, that the committee hold no more than two in-camera meetings, to examine the evidence, at which time, it may decide to invite the whistleblower for further testimony at the committee.

I think it's important that we get this type of evidence. We've already heard from the whistle-blower, and I think it would benefit our committee to receive this evidence in both official languages. This motion is the best path forward, which will benefit our extended study.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you. That was a notice of motion only. That's very good.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

That's right.

I'll go back to my questions for the witnesses now.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes. That's very good.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you for your patience.

I'll direct this to both of you.

Why do you suppose Ms. Daly's version differs from your version of the events that happened?

[Lysane Bolduc]

Thank you for the question.

I'd rather not speculate.

[Thomas von Schoenberg]

Likewise, I'd rather not speculate into Ms. Daly's motives.