Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2024

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

I appreciate that, because I thought maybe I misheard it, and you didn't say 21 days. If that's the case, I have no issue with passing a motion that says 14 days is probably improper, because you directed a witness already, on behalf of the committee, as to what her obligations and the expectations are. I'm perfectly comfortable, though, with your following up with the letter to say, “Further to my instruction, the expectation of the committee is that you provide us with these documents.” It can say along the lines of...although it should say 21 days because that was the original instruction.

Anyway, that would be my preference and comfort level as opposed to, within minutes, contradicting the direction we already gave them. I don't think the original direction was untoward at all. It made sense. I think they agreed with what you were saying, because they didn't contradict you. That would be my “in the ordinary course” preference, because it's typical practice, I think.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Boulerice, go ahead.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Initially, when Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné moved her motion and asked for unanimous consent, I thought it was a good idea. It was in line with the request that the committee, including the chair, made to the witnesses.

However, the committee chair then spoke up and said that we had to assume that the witnesses were acting in good faith, which I quite appreciate. I think the motion is reasonable, but it's rushed, given the circumstances. I would prefer to give them time to do legal checks before agreeing to this request. It's prudent for them to say that they're going to check to see if they can send us the requested documents within 21 days.

It's always good practice to assume the good faith of witnesses. Therefore, I would wait a bit before supporting such a motion, even though I agree with its substance.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I really do appreciate all of the comments from my colleagues on this, because I believe that when we put forward motions within committees, we are setting precedent. A lot of the work that we do, especially when it's procedure-related, ends up in that big green book that we then rely on for decades afterwards. If we give deference to a witness and allow them a certain amount of time, then I think we should maintain that. That has been your ruling, as my colleague pointed out, and that is your discretion, as my colleague pointed out.

I want to address something that my colleague across the way, Mr. McCauley, brought up, when he presumed that the witness had no intention of providing those documents. I think that really speaks to exactly what Mr. Boulerice was saying and what colleagues across this table have said about the good faith aspect, the powers of a committee and the respect that witnesses give when they come and testify at a committee and make commitments to that committee.

Absolutely, the powers of the committee are outlined in convention, in our Standing Orders, in the way that the Speaker operates and in the way that you, Chair, operate within our committee. For a colleague to automatically assume that a witness is going to disrespect the rules of a committee or disrespect the values of a committee or the commitments made before a committee is a bit presumptuous. I think we owe it not only to the witness but also to the rules and regulations that govern our committee to respect the chair's discretion and to respect the timelines that have been provided to a witness before we get ahead of ourselves.

I'm a person who likes to operate in good faith until I'm proven wrong. I would like, Chair, for us to give that deference to any and every witness who comes before our committee—for them to be given the chance to respect the rules of the committee. I, personally, would like to have faith in every witness and in every expert who comes before this committee before I make presumptions as to what their intentions are. In this instance, given also the points I've made before—I won't repeat them, Chair—this motion is pre-emptory. It's premature, and it is, at this point, I feel, unnecessary. I think that we should revisit this after the timeline has passed.

I'll park my comments there, Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Drouin, go ahead.

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

I would like to hear the opinion of my colleagues who are now discussing the issue raised by Mr. Boulerice. We're talking, but I don't see how this approach will move us forward or produce results this evening or next week.

I move that perhaps the debate be adjourned and that the matter be revisited after the 21 days, as we requested—

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Can I just clarify something, because the translation...? Are you proposing or are you actually going to move to adjourn?

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

No, I said “perhaps”.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Okay. Thank you. I wasn't sure with the translation as it came through.

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

To make the chair's proposal clear for the witnesses, I suggest that we send a letter directly to them. That's along the lines of what Mr. Erskine‑Smith was saying. That way, it would be clear that we expect a response as soon as possible. Once they have consulted the lawyers or the Privy Council Office and they have given us a response, we can make a decision. I think that's reasonable.

I'm not saying that we don't agree with Ms. Sinclair‑Desgagné's proposal, but it's a draconian measure. It's just not necessary at this time.

Like Mr. Boulerice, I would like to believe that the witnesses are acting in good faith. Let's give them a chance to prove it to us by sending us the information. If they don't, we can take stronger action.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to attempt to summarize where you're taking us, and then, if you like my summary, you can move your adjournment motion.

Mr. Drouin is suggesting that the clerk and I follow up with the officials who were here today from PCO, clearly outlining what we're looking for, and then we will adjourn this meeting. If you are in agreement with that, please say so.

I have a motion to adjourn the meeting. I'm seeing some glum faces, so why don't we take a roll call?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

We are adjourned.