Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Yes, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Yes, I believe we passed a motion a couple of years ago in the committee that documented this. What witnesses agreed to provide us was to be done in 21 days.

It's very clear the witnesses did not commit to that. I think this motion is for UC to ask that they provide it, properly redacted for privacy concerns. However, very clearly, there was no agreement from the witnesses that they would provide it. In fact, one of them very clearly gave us a no to that, so I think we require a proper directive from the committee as an order—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let me speak to this quickly. The committee can certainly make that decision.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I think that's what we're asking for.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We, as a committee, do take it on good faith that witnesses will respond, and after 21 days, we can act again and then press it. I didn't see the head nodding or anything like that. That's all I'll say.

Mr. Drouin, did your hand go up again?

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

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

We could wait the 21 days and then pass a more stringent motion.

However, we're currently focusing on something that isn't important. With all due respect, no one here told us about this. So, no, we aren't giving our consent.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's fair enough.

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

I don't see the connection.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

May I ask whether you submitted the motion to the...?

[A voice]

It's been distributed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Members like to have copies, and now that copies have been sent out, we will continue to debate this.

Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

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

I moved this motion on the spur of the moment. I thought that it would be a no‑brainer and a faster process, since these are important documents. So there was no unanimous consent. The answer that we received…. Ms. Hamoui shook her head “no”. Ms. McClymont said that they would see, after their conversation with the lawyers, whether they could give us the letters.

I think that it's important for our study and for the coming weeks to get the letters before the 21 days are up.

Mr. Drouin, I'm speaking to you too. I'm answering your question, but your telephone seems more appealing.

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

[Inaudible—Editor]

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

Did you say two heads? I can't find the second one.

So we didn't get a clear answer. However, I think that we need to receive these documents before the 21 days are up. We'll be hearing from many witnesses over the coming days if there isn't any prorogation. We need to receive these documents as soon as possible.

Why wait? We aren't skipping any steps. This committee needs to send a clear message that we absolutely must receive these resignation letters.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Drouin, did you want to speak?

The floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, once again, the witnesses are being accused of perhaps doing certain things or…. I personally haven't seen any of that. However, I did hear Mr. McCauley talk to you about the 21 days. You answered that, here, documents are normally requested within 21 days. You repeated that to the witnesses, and they said they were going to see what they could do.

Before we alert the police, can we just let the witnesses do their job? We can then return to committee to debate these issues. Then, if necessary, we can take stricter measures. That's all we're asking for.

I have no idea…. In the big picture of Sustainable Development Technology Canada, I don't think the letters of resignation are going to provide very telling information.

That being said, I would remind you, Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné, that you asked the witnesses for the documents, and they said they would take care of it. The chair repeated it at the end. You didn't mention the 21 days, but the chair did.

However, before we take drastic measures, can we just continue our work?

Also, I won't let you move motions without consulting us first. Start by consulting us first. Have a little respect for committee members, like last time.

You've blindsided us with this motion, and we don't agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Drouin.

Ms. Khalid, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'll echo the sentiments of my colleague. I also want to talk a bit about the precedent that we set in committees.

First and foremost, if we've been told 21 days, then I'm not sure why we're not waiting for that time. I say that because we are transitioning with SDTC. They are transitioning to a different model—to the NRC. That will happen in the coming year.

Yes, accountability is important, a hundred per cent. I think I've said multiple times in this committee and in other committees that accountability is very important.

I think that when we're working within the timelines and constraints of not just the House, but also departments, etc., if we've been told it's 21 days, then we should wait for those 21 days before we go into the production of documents.

That leads me to my next point, which I alluded to earlier, with respect to setting a precedent.

I have been in this position for nine years now. Over this past year and couple of months, I've noticed that we are calling more and more for the production of documents, without giving time to the agencies and departments we're asking for the documents to do their due diligence in producing them.

It's creating a strain on our House resources. It creates a strain on translation and interpretation to make sure that those documents fulfill the timelines of the motions that we are passing left, right and centre in all of the committees and in the House, etc.

It's a really bad precedent to set, I think, when we don't allow witnesses, experts and departments the time to actually produce the documents that they have said they're more than willing to provide within the timeline that they're offering.

For me, I think a 21-day timeline is quite reasonable. Pushing towards doing it sooner—doing it right now—is a really bad precedent for us to set. Quite frankly, it's disrespectful to House staff, to the people who support us on committees, and also to departments that have made commitments to provide...and have been actually quite forthcoming as we go deeper into this study on SDTC and its transition to the NRC.

I think that allotting them 21 days is the most practical way to go forward on this. If we're not willing to be even that forthcoming, where it's literally three weeks, then I think there's something completely dysfunctional with how we're operating here as parliamentarians on this multipartisan committee, where we've all made a commitment to put our partisan politics aside and come together to hold people accountable for how government dollars are spent.

I take the point and the value of what my colleague has brought forward. I think it's absolutely important for us to get to the bottom of what's happening here. At the same time, I recognize that there is a path forward over here as well. There is a transition to be made. There is not an urgency or a deadline to be pushing forward any document production order. When a department or agency counsel tells us that they will produce a document within a certain number of days, it is only respectful for us to respect the timeline they asked for. If we're not waiting for them and allowing them that timeline, I think we are doing a disservice to our public service.

Absolutely, accountability is why we are here. Accountability is why we sit on this committee for hours and hours on end and why we are diving into this study. That doesn't mean we put a rush on.... What is the purpose? Absolutely, we are transitioning from SDTC to the NRC. There is work happening. Canadians have the right, a hundred per cent, to know what happened that brought us to this point. However, if there is a timeline, we should respect it before we push for the production of documents, which puts further strain on our House resources and departments.

I think waiting the 21 days is the best way forward. I am more than happy to revisit this motion after those 21 days have passed. It would be very disrespectful to our House staff, who support us on a daily basis, to move on this beforehand.

I'll park my comments there, Chair, but I would like to be put back on the bottom of the list again.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. McCauley, you have the floor next. Then I have Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I would accept that if we'd had agreement or a positive response to the request from our witnesses. However, they made it very clear that it's, “We'll see,” not, “We will provide.” The motion we passed a couple of years ago requiring departments to provide documents or responses within 21 days had a positive response. It's not, “Get back to us in 21 days whether you bother to respond, or whether you will acquiesce to what the committee asked for.” The committee asked several times for these documents and the answer was, “We'll see.” It wasn't, “Yes, we'll get back to you.” It was, “We'll see. We'll consider it.” One of the members very clearly indicated to the other member, “No, no.” There was no, “We will provide it.”

It's pointless if they say, “We'll get back,” and we wait 21 days, when the witnesses made it clear they have no intention of giving it to us. “We will see,” is not, “Yes, we'll provide the documents.” That is why my colleague from the Bloc put forward this motion. It's very clear. The witnesses stated repeatedly that there was a high bar for terminating an order in council, “good behaviour” appointment. Very clearly, these people—several of them—violated the rules of conduct. It's very clear, as well, that they all submitted their resignations after the Auditor General made her views clear on this whole scandal.

I think it's a very reasonable request that the PCO provide us with resignation letters, perfectly redacted for privacy reasons. It has to come as an order from this committee, because the witnesses made it very clear. They did not say yes. They did not say, “Oh, of course we'll provide it.” They said, “We will see.” I understand what both Ms. Khalid and Mr. Drouin are saying. However, it's very clear the witnesses did not agree to provide us with those documents. That is why we have a very straightforward request to make an order for the production of the documents.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Erskine-Smith, you have the floor.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thanks very much.

My confusion is that I think, Chair, you said to the witness and restated at the end that there were 21 days. My intervention was a bit less clear, I think, in terms of whether I was asking for something specific or not...to actually come back to us with. I was saying they should, but I wasn't being prescriptive about it, as in, “I'm demanding that you do something.”

Then you clarified, so they understood their obligations, saying the expectation is that they would come back within 21 days with those mandate letters. That is my understanding. Is that your understanding as well? You did say that to the witness, I thought...unless I misheard it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I don't like to enter into the debate, but I did that to—

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I just want to clarify whether I misheard.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No. I think you have it right.