Public Accounts Committee on March 9th, 2023

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

I'll add some comments on two things. One is on the date, just to begin. I can trust the chair and the clerk to find a suitable time for us. The sooner the better, though. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc.

On the presence of the members who'll be invited from these companies, it might also be important, considering the nature of their attendance, that we also invite the Parliamentary law clerk. It could be of benefit to our committee to have the law clerk present as a witness as well, in order for us to better understand the circumstances in which these companies may provide information, or lack thereof, on which we may seek some advice.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I echo Mr. Desjarlais' comment that we should maybe have the law clerk here, just to avoid a “he said, she said” situation and a delay of things and be able to settle it all in one day.

Next week is wonderful. I would just ask that it be either Thursday afternoon if some of us out west are catching the red-eye in, so that we can get a bit of sleep, or earlier Friday, so that those of us out west can actually get out at a decent hour.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Next week's a break week. Is that right?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Next week's a recess week, yes.

Does anyone want to say anything on the presence of the law clerk specifically?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Yes, sure, although I've done a lot of talking.

I don't know if my colleagues have a view on it, but I see no obvious issue with what Mr. Desjarlais has suggested with respect to the law clerk appearing.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I just want to ask the clerk. Do you think inviting the parliamentary law clerk will be an issue?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Cédric Taquet]

No. I will ask him.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Very good.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Chair, I apologize.

One other thing I was going to mention is that if we're able to pull it all together, we strongly request that the folks in the pharmaceutical companies be here in person. I realize the difficulty. However, it's just so much more conducive to—

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Yes, that's my default. Of course the Standing Orders give the individuals the ability to choose, but witnesses are encouraged to attend in person. I've been doing that and will continue to do that. The clerk will tell you that I've asked him to go to the limit on that already in every meeting, and I can't go any further.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Desjarlais, go ahead.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

This is just one comment to Mr. McCauley's point about being in person. For your reference, Mr. Chair, my preference—and I think the preference of some of my colleagues—would be to make sure that we have their presence in person.

I know that it's going to be difficult for the clerk and for the chair to find a suitable time for this to happen next week. If they can't be present in person next week, I'm of the position that if they offer another date that is in person, I would accept that date in favour of having them appear virtually next week.

Do you know what I'm saying?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You've hit the conundrum.

That's why I think two weeks will give us time for people to clear their calendar and get here. One week will do that less so. You're in the same party that I am. You want to have your cake and eat it too, so on that aspect, we're ideological soulmates.

Mr. Desjarlais, the challenge is that at the end of the day, if a witness wants to appear virtually, there is nothing that this committee can do about it.

Go ahead, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

I appreciate that, and it's difficult, because we're going to have maybe four or five. However, that being said, if they've managed in the short time that the motion's been in front of us to gather enough pressure to have so many letters written from a high level and it's important enough that they can do that, I'm sure it's important enough that they can get themselves here by this week.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'll overlook the obvious speculation.

My goal—and I think our goal—is to ensure that we have people here who can speak to these issues and not that they just send someone in who meets a deadline that is early and attractive.

I will say this, and I'll consult with the clerk afterward: The absolute earliest I would want to do this is a week from tomorrow, which is March 17. However, I'm going to consult with the clerk. Unless you all direct us to act on this next Friday, I'm going to talk to the clerk about some of the logistics and discuss settling on either the 17th or the 23rd.

Go ahead, Mrs. Shanahan.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I must object to the 17th. I'm sorry, Clerk. Come on. Have a heart. March 17 is St. Patrick's Day.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We can do it Saturday. You'll feel twice as bad.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I've offered in the past to work weekends, but apparently that doesn't happen.

Of course, we are open and available.

I think we'll get a better sense of those things once we contact the companies. I see there's a willingness to accommodate the committee members and the witnesses, so that we can hold a productive in‑person meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

All right. Very good.

Are there any other comments? If not, I'm going to summarize where I think we're at. I'll do that right away anyway, and then you can comment.

We're going to invite the seven pharmaceutical companies, with an emphasis that they appear in person, but recognizing that your chair is constrained by the Standing Orders. We'll also include the parliamentary law clerk, who will be here as well.

I am going to consult with the clerk and set the date for either the end of next week or the Thursday two weeks from today. We will proceed in this meeting as we normally proceed. There will be an opening statement from each of the witnesses, and then we will turn to committee business.

Does that sound like a good summary of where we're at? If so, you can send me on my way.

First I'll turn to the motion's sponsor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that it would be good to schedule a bit of a longer meeting, not just two hours. We're asking representatives from seven companies to come here to meet with the committee, so it's only appropriate to schedule enough time to hear what they have to say.

I think we should schedule at least three hours, if not four, to meet with them and leave 15 minutes at the end to vote on the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm going to take what we've agreed to and put that in my pocket.

Now you can talk about the time and whether it's two hours or three hours. I'm sure government members will have something to say about this, and perhaps others will too. The request is that we attempt to have a two- to three-hour meeting. I'm going to consult with the clerk on this before I seek your opinion to make sure this is even possible. Hold on.

I'm told that if we want to do that, it is possible.

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

In principle, we're not opposed to more time, but I think that we can also get the meeting done in the usual time frame. If more time is needed, then I suppose we can reserve that right. Of course, all of this depends on the availability of the resources of the House of Commons. That aspect is completely out of our hands.

I think everybody's being co-operative, so we'll keep working together on it.

Mr. McCauley just said, “Three hours if necessary, but not necessarily three hours.” It's a famous Mackenzie King line, I think. Anyway, we don't need to get into that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I'm seeing head nods on this side, but I just want to confirm that it's okay.

All right.

What I will do is set the meeting up. Again, I will seek your approval to do this, but at the two-hour mark, if there are still questions, we can either continue with rounds or members can defer to those who still have questions. That way we'll just continue this process.

All right. Could I have agreement to adjourn the meeting, please?

No, hold on. Before that, we're going to look at budgets. Hold on a second.

Could I please get your agreement here? These are just our requests for budgets, and they have been sent to you. You might not have them in front of you. The clerk can send them. In the meantime, I'll just read them out. It's end of year, and our clerk has been very persistent and persuasive in wanting to get these done.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Look, the optimism has been beaten out of me. We're prepared here.

Did you want to send them out, clerk?

Okay. They just went out.

Could I get your approval for $1,100 for headsets, dial-in phone lines and working meals? I'm sorry. I don't have my notes in front of me. This is for a meeting on “Report 4: Systemic Barriers—Correctional Service Canada”, of the 2022 reports 1 to 4 of the Auditor General of Canada.

Could I have your support to pass this?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The next one is for $1,625, again to cover the same items for the upcoming “Report 7: Cybersecurity of Personal Information in the Cloud”, of the 2022 reports 5 to 8 of the Auditor General of Canada

Could I have your approval for that, please?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Good. Thank you.

Next is “Report 9: COVID-19 Vaccines”, of the 2022 reports 9 and 10 of the Auditor General of Canada. The amount requested is $1,100 for the same items.

Can I have your approval for this budget, please?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you.

Finally, we have “Report 10: Specific COVID-19 Benefits”, of the 2022 reports 9 and 10 of the Auditor General of Canada, for $2,375. This is two meetings, and hence the higher amount. Again, it's for the same items—dial-in phone lines, headsets and working meals.

Can I have your approval for this, please?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you. The clerk is very happy.

I will now explain this to keep opposition members aware. I'm not pulling a fast one. I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Because we have an upcoming meeting on March 20 with the Minister of Indigenous Services, I need to adjourn this meeting so that I can roll that meeting in.

The schedule is now set. We will have this meeting either at the end of next week or on March 23. Nothing's going to derail that, Madame Sinclair-Desgagné.

The committee has agreement, so I can safely adjourn this meeting. We will come back to this issue, as I outlined earlier today.

Do I have agreement?