Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 9th, 2024

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

I have a point of order again, Mr. Chair. I believe the debate is on the amendment.

I don't actually remember what the amendment is, so perhaps Mr. Nater can start there.

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

I would be happy to focus on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Why don't you start start there, Mr. Nater?

You know, I'm going to excuse the witnesses.

Thank you very much for coming in. We will see you likely in the new year.

I have a long list here.

Let the festivities begin, Mr. Nater. Please refresh everyone's memory on where we're at with the amendment to the motion.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Perhaps I'll wait a minute, Chair, while the commotion dies down. I notice that there are now no Liberals at the table. I don't know if we have quorum or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll suspend for a second.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll bring this hearing back into session, please.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor. Please begin by just reminding the room of the amendment to the motion.

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

I have a point of order.

Mr. Chair, I'd like your ruling, because I think the amendment is no longer receivable.

I hope Mr. Nater doesn't have the power to go back in time. December 5 has come and gone. It's irrelevant now. I'd ask for your ruling on that. Can you check to see if it's still in order?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Let me consult the clerk. I suppose Mr. Nater can get ready to prepare a new date.

Mr. Drouin, it was set in time. We've moved beyond that time, but it hasn't changed the objective of Mr. Nater's amendment.

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

If we adopt the amendment, Mr. Chair, we can't act on the amendment itself. It says, “December 5”. It's gone. It's in the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

It's for any further meetings taking place “after December 5”. That could be tomorrow or the next day. It doesn't say “on”. It says “after”.

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

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay. I'll ask the clerk to call the vote.

This is unusual, because normally challenges to an amendment don't happen when we're midstream, but on a technicality, I will allow it.

The challenge is that Mr. Nater's amendment is out of order. Of course, he will just pose another amendment, I'm sure.

Let's have the roll call, please.

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

Mr. Nater, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

That's rather disappointing. I thought that was a rather reasonable amendment—not a reasoned amendment, but a reasonable amendment. That's fine. I'm not too worked up over it. The day is long, and much can be said on this original motion.

This now frees me up to speak to the entirety of this Liberal guillotine motion. Let me highlight a few points about this motion. There's a real effort here to prevent this committee from doing its work.

I did hear a heckle from my colleague about what a guillotine motion actually is. I think we don't use the term “guillotine motion” enough in the Canadian Parliament. It's far more common in the U.K. A guillotine motion is basically any motion that ends debate. It prevents Parliament or its committees from doing their work. We see that all the time in the House of Commons, with closure motions or time allocation motions. This is effectively what this is. It is a guillotine motion on steroids. It guillotines not only one particular study but multiple studies, and it prevents us from doing our work.

Mr. Stewart wishes to have a historical definition of guillotine. We'd have to go back to the French Revolution for that. Maybe at another time and in another place, we can have a more enlightened discussion on that.

To the motion at hand, I want to point out a few key challenges with this motion. First of all, we have point three, which says, “At the conclusion of the meeting on Report 1, ArriveCAN, no more meetings be conducted to hear from witnesses in relation to Report 1, ArriveCAN”.

It says, “no more meetings”. We're done. We're finished. We'll wipe our hands of it. Even if something else comes out in the media, even if there are some new issues and new things to decide, no, we are preventing ourselves from having any more meetings on ArriveCAN—period, full stop.

It's not as simple as something that we could potentially be agreeable to, such as that after that meeting we give drafting instructions. I think we could probably live with that, but no, it's a matter of there being no meetings to hear from witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Nater, actually, you raised a good point.

I want to get clarification about that from the motion's sponsor.

On point nine, is it in fact your intent that even a 106(4) would not trigger a meeting?

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

Chair, as I said in our last meeting when I was speaking on this motion, absolutely, a 106(4) is a right of the committee. This motion does not take away the right to call a 106(4).

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

That's a problem you're going to have to address, Ms. Khalid, because, in fact, it does just that.

It says, “Notwithstanding a meeting called pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), no meetings of the committee or subcommittee be held during Parliament’s adjournment from December 18, 2024 to January 26, 2025.” In fact, the way this is written, a 106(4) would not be permitted.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor again.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I also thank you for your learned comment on that, because I think it is a good point. You obviously have the experience, as a skilled parliamentarian, and I appreciate your wise counsel on this matter. It goes back to the point of this motion, which will prevent this committee from doing its work. That's the reality. This is preventing it.

I'll go back to the specific points in this motion.

The first is “no more meetings” on ArriveCAN. We'll have one more meeting. You'll note that this actual motion doesn't say which witnesses we'll hear from for that meeting. I think we have a pretty good indication of who we'll hear.

First of all, I think we should be hearing from CBSA president Erin O'Gorman, who reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live sketch where O. J. Simpson tries to find the real killer on the golf course. Ms. O'Gorman came before this committee and claimed she has no clue whatsoever about how ArriveCAN went down—no idea, just can't figure it out, doesn't know what happened or who did what.

She even pushed back against Minh Doan's emails disappearing, saying she didn't know all the information about how that might have happened. Minh Doan, who is the chief technology officer of Canada, couldn't replace a battery on his laptop without conveniently losing all of his emails during the time of the ArriveCAN scandal. No, Ms. O'Gorman can't figure out who gave the order to deliver this contract through GC Strategies—two guys working out of their basement, who, I might add, were required to appear before the bar of the House, which is something that has not happened very often in our history.

The previous time was for another Liberal scandal, the Winnipeg lab scandal. The president was required to appear at the bar and was admonished by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It's interesting, in this case, that the Liberal government took the Speaker, who was elected as a Liberal, to court over that matter.

However, here we have a motion for “no more meetings” on ArriveCAN, regardless of what may happen—a motion that, carte blanche, will prevent us from going further. That's point three. I have a real issue with the guillotine of “no more meetings”.

The next one is interesting because, obviously, when the Liberals were drafting this, they weren't entirely paying attention to which witnesses we've heard from and which witnesses we haven't heard from. “Two [more] meetings be dedicated to...Sustainable Development Technology Canada [to hear from] Zoe Kolbuc”—again, we're happy about that—“Andrew Noseworthy”—we're happy to hear from him—“and the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry”.

I would note, though, that the offer to hear from Minister Champagne has been on the table for several months. We have five Liberal MPs on this committee who sit in caucus with the minister. Surely one of them, at some point, could have pulled him aside and said, “Minister, this committee really desires to hear from you on this important matter. Could you find it in your schedule to come to the committee?”, especially since the original mandate letters to each minister in the Liberal government said they ought to make themselves available to committees—not just as a one-off but as a regular course of practice, so they can appear before the committee and be held accountable for the actions of their departments and agencies.

However, what's interesting about point four is who the Liberals left off this list. First of all, Mr. McConnachie, who was deputy minister during the period of the scandal, is left off.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I want to clarify that I tried to seek unanimous consent to include Mr. McConnachie. My dear colleague decided not to allow the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Ms. Khalid, that is not point of order.

If you would like to be added to the speaking list, just put your hand up.

Go ahead, Mr. Nater.

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

It's a point of truth.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

What is truth? That is a question of the ages. I'm sure it's one that Parliament will not settle.

Mr. Nater, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

That has given me an opening to go further along this line. The Liberals did try to—I don't know if it was a mistake, or they didn't realize it—to change it at the last minute, but they actually wanted to take out another witness. They wanted to take out Andrew Noseworthy, which is why we, obviously, denied that, because there's a lot more we have to ask Mr. Noseworthy.

Just to remind our Liberal friends across the way, Mr. Noseworthy sat in those board meetings. I don't know if he was eating chicken fingers at the time and not paying attention, but there he was in those meetings not paying attention. He was not paying attention when all of these conflicts of interest were going down, when Liberal appointees were enriching their friends, enriching themselves in some cases, and voting on matters that they themselves benefited from. It was quite shocking.

Mr. Noseworthy was at that meeting as the assistant deputy minister. We've heard many interpretations of his role there, but the most important one was from the deputy minister himself who said that he was his “eyes and ears” on the SDTC board. He was the eyes and ears.

Obviously, he had neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak, because he did not report. We don't know. It appears that he didn't report these matters back. One would have thought he ought to have reported as the eyes and ears. You would have thought there would have been reporting structures. This is why I'm not entirely sold on his testimony or what, frankly, were the testimonies of others related to this matter. You had a senior official, number two only to the deputy minister, sitting at these SDTC meetings.

It was interesting when we heard from Ms. Verschuren, who was chair of the board. One of the comments she made, when I questioned her about the role of Mr. Noseworthy, was that he was actually to bring the viewpoints from the department. I think that was quite interesting and quite fascinating, that the department was actually using the opportunity of having Mr. Noseworthy on the committee to bring the point of view of ISED, the deputy minister and, potentially, the minister. Of course, that would have been Liberal minister Navdeep Bains at the time, but I found that interesting.

Point number four of this is that the Liberals would hear from Andrew Noseworthy, which we agree with. Obviously, we think it should be amended to include Mr. McConnachie, who was here for a meeting but was unable to testify at that point.

There is an important person who isn't there. It's another minister of the Crown, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, the Hon. Steven Guilbeault. Why would Minister Guilbeault be pertinent to this testimony? My friend, Mr. Stewart, has many commentaries, and perhaps he'll get his name on the list to provide his commentaries on the record.

Mr. Guilbeault was a lobbyist and a shareholder in an entity called Cycle Capital. Why is that important? Cycle Capital was receiving funds from SDTC. While SDTC was making these funding decisions, guess who was lobbying the Government of Canada. It was Steven Guilbeault. Not only was he actively lobbying the Liberal government—for which he would later run as a Liberal candidate—he was a shareholder. To this day he still discloses on his ethics declaration this matter about his financial interests in a company that was being funded by a conflicted board of the SDTC.

Obviously, we as the official opposition demand that Mr. Guilbeault appear before this committee. It was agreed by this committee that he be on the witness list. He has failed to appear. He failed to grace us with his presence.

I'll be honest. I always prefer witnesses to attend in person. That's why I thanked our friends from Finance Canada for appearing in person. That's a show of respect. Do you know what? If Mr. Guilbeault actually wanted to appear virtually, I would take it. If he's willing to appear virtually, I would accept that. I wouldn't even force it to be done in person. He could appear by Zoom at a meeting of the public accounts committee. I'd take it.

That would be a fair compromise. We do have a couple of meetings left. I know they're currently designated to committee reports. However, if we could find extra time here or there, it would be super if he were able to appear. We cannot complete our study of SDTC without hearing from both those ministers.

Perhaps my friends across the way could take that message back to Liberal caucus this week and encourage Mr. Guilbeault to respect the accountability of the public accounts committee. We don't have a moniker like “the mighty OGGO”, but the public accounts committee is nonetheless one of the important committees of this place.

Point four then flows into point five of this motion, which says, “At the conclusion of the second meeting on Report 6, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, no more meetings be conducted to hear from witnesses in relation to Report 6, Sustainable Development Technology Canada”.

What I find interesting here, Mr. Chair, is that they want to guillotine this study before the House of Commons has even pronounced on the question of privilege related to the disclosure of documents to the law clerk in an unredacted form. It really begs the question of what could be coming down the pipe. What are the Liberals are so afraid of regarding what could be determined on SDTC and the scandals that are behind these unredacted documents?

They would rather allow the House of Commons to be paralyzed since September of this year than simply handing over the documents in the proper format, as ordered by the House of Commons, to the law clerk so that those matters could be referred to the RCMP. The RCMP can do with them what they wish. The RCMP can look at them. They can not look at them. They can put them in the shredder. They can lay criminal charges. They can do whatever they wish because the RCMP has that discretion, that authority and that independence.

No, rather than simply doing what is required of them by the House of Commons, they have decided to paralyze the House for, now, over two months.

It's interesting because we had the finance department here. If we'd had the chance to question them rather than have this Liberal guillotine motion, I would have had some questions for them as well as about the status of their enterprises specifically related to the fall economic statement, which we have not yet been given indication of. This is despite, I would note, the willingness of our official opposition leader to provide time this very afternoon to deliver said statement. It was not accepted. Even on opposition day we were willing to allow the Liberals to stand in the House of Commons, so that the Minister of Finance could tell us and tell Canadians just how bad the deficit numbers really are.

We are obviously seeing news reports about how they have blown through their deficit projections and blown through whatever fiscal guardrails may or may not have been left at this point. Obviously, with this particular Liberal government and this particular Liberal Minister of Finance, those guardrails have been long gone.

The Liberals aren't even taking us up on a fair option to come before the House and do that, all because they are bound and determined to prevent the lawful order of the House of Commons from being fulfilled related to Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

This is an enterprise that simply didn't have any care whatsoever for proper governance or management of taxpayers' dollars. It's just really unfortunate and it saddens me that we would have an enterprise of government that would not have that respect—but not for the Liberals. No, they're happy with just shutting this down and hearing from no more witnesses on SDTC, regardless of what may or may not come out of things.

This brings me to point eight of this motion. It's an unamended motion at this point, since the Liberals threw out my thoughtful amendment. It says, “The Chair schedule at least two meetings for the consideration of draft reports”.

I often hear from Liberal colleagues about how important it is to get draft reports done, yet a notice of meeting has already gone out for this coming Wednesday for a full two hours of draft reports and again next week for another two hours of draft reports. The Liberals, I guess, can't take “yes” as an answer and instead have come forward with this motion.

Of course, that leads us to point nine, the final clause of the motion.

It reads, “Notwithstanding a meeting called pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), no meetings of the committee or subcommittee be held during Parliament’s adjournment from December 18, 2024 to January 26, 2025.”

That's about six weeks, give or take, that this committee will be on ice and unable to operate, unable to fulfill our mandate as entrusted to us by the Standing Orders and also by Canadians. We will effectively handcuff ourselves, preventing us from meeting and preventing us from undertaking studies or anything, whether it's an emergency situation or not.

Mr. Chair, as you rightly pointed out, it actually puts us in a bit of a sticky situation if a Standing Order 106(4) is requested, in terms of whether that could actually be fulfilled, or, if the 106(4) meeting does happen, whether any outcome of that meeting could be fulfilled.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I just want to inform my colleague that the fall economic statement will be published on December 16. I'm sure he'll be happy.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you very much for that update. It's not a point of order.

Mr. Nater, you have—

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

On the same point of order, could Mr. Drouin just clarify whether he thinks we'll be happy about the date or happy once we see the economic statement? I suspect Canadians will not be happy.