Public Accounts Committee on June 19th, 2025

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

If you have a last question, you're welcome to ask it.

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

Sure.

Going back to the sustainable development report, Mr. DeMarco, it was good to see that Parks Canada monitored 100% of planned actions. How can the other organizations improve the monitoring of their planned actions?

[Jerry V. DeMarco]

Thank you for the question.

In the critical habitat report, exhibit 2.4 shows that only 57% of the conservation actions on federal land were clearly monitored, but as you pointed out, the average isn't a very good measure. Parks Canada is batting a thousand at 100%, while both Fisheries and Oceans and Environment and Climate Change are only in the teens.

A simple answer would be for DFO and Environment and Climate Change Canada to copy a little bit of the success story from Parks Canada. They have a database that tracks all their actions on federal land and consolidates that information. That's why they got the check mark from us.

The simple answer would be for Fisheries and Oceans and Environment and Climate Change Canada to take it as seriously as Parks Canada does and consider employing the same sort of tracking and database system that Parks Canada employs. It's not the only solution, but it would be the simplest solution.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you, Ms. Yip.

I think we're spot on time, or maybe a minute over.

Ms. Hogan, I want to thank you and your team for coming in today on relatively quick notice and for tabling your report so promptly when Parliament got back to work last week. Thank you. We will see you again soon. Have a nice rest of the day, and a good weekend as you head into the weekend.

You are excused.

Members, I'm going to suspend for five minutes so that we can let everyone who is leaving clear the room. The next meeting, though, is in public, and I'll bring us back in five minutes.

Thank you.

This meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I will bring this meeting back to order for what I am going to call some routine committee business.

First, I just want to say, “gold star”. I think everyone demonstrated how a committee should operate. There was some to-and-fro with the witnesses on both sides, and there were no volleys coming in from the opposite side of the committee.

Obviously, the time members have is their time, and they're allowed to listen to the witnesses or challenge them or stop them. That was well done, but importantly, it's the member's own time and it is not to be interrupted by another member. I know it happens. I don't like it when it happens and I will scold those who do it, not only repeatedly but when they do it. Today it was a model committee, for those who are watching, so I thank you. I hope that continues.

Could I just run through a couple of items that I really consider routine business? If there is any discussion, of course we will have it.

First up is a budget item that was sent to you for today's meeting. Just as a point of clarification, which I learned as chair—but not right away—we have a requested amount here for $500, which includes some of the coffee and some of the items we need to run the meetings. Whatever we don't spend comes back to us, so even though it's an allocation for $500, we will not spend anywhere near that today.

Do I need to have someone move it, Clerk? Could I have agreement that we will approve this budget? I'm seeing hands up.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Next up, there were three proposed routine motions.

I understand that I caused a bit of a flurry with some of the whips when I proposed one last week that was not previously indicated. I want to assure members here that it was a routine motion from a previous PACP committee. It was not my intention to move ahead without consulting members, but I think we handled it well.

Today there are three more that were sent to you, which I tabled last time. They needed a little investigation. I want to stress that these are motions that are coming from the clerk and the analysts, so if you have questions, I'm going to defer to them. These are motions that were adopted at the start of the 44th Parliament and probably in the Parliament before that.

I'll open things up with Mr. Housefather.

You will address these through me if you have those kinds of questions, but I'll probably have the analysts answer as to why they're structured this way.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, my only question is related to the first motion. I've been in a lot of committees, and I've never seen this adopted as a routine motion.

I've seen us, with respect to specific witnesses, give a shorter time period or a longer time period, but I don't really understand why we would have an equal time period for every single issue and every single witness. I don't think that's reasonable. I'd rather do it case by case.

I just want to understand. Do you know of any other committees or many other committees that have this? I have not seen it as a routine motion on any committee I've ever sat on.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Could I just interject, Mr. Housefather, and ask them why it's here? We'll get an answer, and in the meantime, we can find out what other committees do. We're not bound by what other committees do, obviously. This is a unique committee in that it's an oversight committee that looks at public accounts.

Would you like to hear the answer as to why? Then we can examine what other committees do.

You're indicating it's okay.

Go ahead, please, analysts.

[Mahdi Benmoussa, Committee Researcher]

Thank you, sir.

Here at public accounts we have a very specific process for the study of the reports. The answers that are received are needed in order to write the report and to follow up on specific recommendations. This is why we gave this timeline of three weeks in, I believe, a couple of Parliaments ago.

We just keep the same structure so that departments are aware of the three weeks and can follow up on this regularly. Whatever the reports, whatever the issue, they have the exact same framework in order to avoid confusion, mistakes, miscommunication and that sort of thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Housefather, I don't know if that question about what other committees do was anticipated. I will see if the clerk can provide some direction or an answer on that.

Yes, apparently she can, so I'll turn things over to the clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Natalie Jeanneault]

I did a quick search while the analyst was speaking, and it looks like the government operations committee adopted a similar motion in 44-1. PACP and OGGO had this motion in 44-1 as a routine motion. There was no other committee that I could find in my quick search.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I think it's probably obvious, Mr. Housefather. In the 44-1 session, your members were in the driver's seat of this committee, so that's a motion that would have been brought up in the 41st Parliament, which is when the Conservative government was in office. This routine motion has obviously existed since then.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I thought, Mr. Chair, that the clerk mentioned that it was the 44-1 session.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Did you say “44-1”? Oh, pardon me. I heard “41”.

Excuse me, Mr. Housefather; I'm sorry about that. I will have my hearing checked.

I undercut my argument, so there you are.

Again, it is always my intent to try to bridge the divide whenever I can to make these motions as palatable as possible, because I know that sometimes motions come along that are more difficult, so....

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regarding the routine motions we received this morning, I want to inform you that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the first motion, for the same reasons mentioned by my colleague Mr. Housefather. We believe the time period should be determined case by case.

In my experience, particularly when it came to Hockey Canada and Canada Soccer, we sometimes have to set much shorter time periods to ensure that the committee's work runs smoothly. If we constrain ourselves with a motion that specifies a date, it could be more harmful than beneficial to the committee's work.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Okay. Are there any other comments?

All right, then, let me just give some background.

When I took over in the last Parliament, I actually was not aware that there was a kind of explicit motion like this. The practice was that witnesses are given three weeks. Generally, the vast majority of the time, they comply with it. One thing I never did was just call them up on my own if they didn't comply. We always, as a committee, returned to it and discussed it, and sometimes the witnesses would get a nudge from this side of the table. If that was not deemed sufficient, a more formal letter might come from me, and ultimately a motion would be proposed from members.

I wouldn't deviate from that. Whether this motion passes or not, I would still continue to use my discretion. I don't think we go from Defcon 5 to Defcon 1 in a single blow, particularly when witnesses do come before this committee and we try to work with them to get answers. However you decide to vote on this, I want to put that out there.

This motion is not going to change the way we've operated up until now. If there are witnesses who don't provide answers, we will discuss that.

Again, I would never just hit the three-week mark and call a witness in on my own. I don't think that would be appropriate, because sometimes things happen.

Ms. Kusie, do you want to make a comment?

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I think the spirit of this is fine. I think it's to show a form of accountability for those who indicate they will provide further information or a written response, and then a mechanism to follow up if this is not the case. I am fine with this as a standard practice, but more importantly, I do not think that eliminating it as a routine motion stops, prohibits or does not allow the committee to provide for shorter time frames for documents to be provided, as well as for the process and severity of the process to demand a follow-up for these.

Certainly, while I am fine with the disposing of routine motion one, I do not think it does dispose of our ability to demand documents in a series of different time frames and to escalate the demand for these documents in a manner of different formats.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Ms. Tesser Derksen, you have the floor, please.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

If you and the committee will indulge me as a new member, you mentioned that there were some rare instances in the past when there was some follow-up required, but generally, do we see a problem with witnesses providing their undertakings in a reasonable time? Is there a pattern of problematic behaviour among witnesses that would require this motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

I wouldn't say it's a pattern, but it has happened.

Of course, there was the explosive testimony of one witness who appeared before the House of Commons for failure to provide information. It does happen, but it's usually something that is resolved with some push-and-pull, and ultimately, if a motion is passed, the information comes quickly. I don't think we've had to call witnesses in to explain why they haven't provided information, with the exception of that one, but I don't think that was even at this committee. It's more something....

This motion is here, I think, as a fail-safe measure, if you like. It signals to everyone who has agreed to provide information to the committee that they will do so and be bound to do so. This is generally understood, which is why I'm not too fussed by this motion one way or the other.

Ultimately, if we feel the information provided is not sufficient—even if they give us information and we don't think it's correct—we can still call them in. We can still request more information. I think this is just a signal to everyone at the outset what our powers are. Whether this motion passes or not, we still retain them.

Go ahead, Mr. Osborne.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Can I move a motion that we vote against it and dispense with it?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Why don't I just call a vote? All right.

I think I'll do a roll call vote, since I'm hearing yeas and nays.

Clerk, proceed with the roll call, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Housefather, you have my word that in the next Parliament, when you're in opposition, if I'm on this committee, I will vote to bring this motion back with you.

Let's go to the second routine motion, which you have before you. I'll see if there are any questions or comments. I'll give it a couple seconds, and if I see none, I'll move to a vote.

Mr. Lemire, do you have any comments?