EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Public Accounts NUMBER 015 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, November 18, 2025 Le mardi 18 novembre 2025 Standing Committee on Public Accounts CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE November 18, 2025 Committee NUMBER 015 NUMBER 015 NUMÉRO 015 15 18 11 2025 2025/11/18 15:35:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent des comptes publics Standing Committee on Public Accounts PACP Chair John Williamson 1 45

(1535) [ Translation ]

The Chair (John Williamson (Saint John—St. Croix, CPC)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 15 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts. [ English ] Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room, and I know we have one witness who's appearing remotely via the Zoom application. I'd like to remind participants of the following points. Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. This, of course, will apply more to the second half of the meeting when we're discussing some committee business.

We all have speaking orders for the moment, and of course I'll organize any comments that are to be raised in the order I receive them.

If you're on Zoom and wish to participate—although I don't think any members will be on Zoom—it's the same thing; just raise your hand. [ Translation ] Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), the committee is resuming consideration of report 5, professional services contracts, of the 2024 reports 5 to 7 of the Auditor General of Canada, which was referred to the committee on Tuesday, June 4, 2024. [ English ] Unfortunately, before I introduce the witnesses, I'll let you know that we had one witness who was, in the end, unavailable today, so I have cut the committee time for this a little short.

I think I'm going to do two rounds, which will give members of the government three slots. The official opposition will have two, and the Bloc Québécois will have two. If there's a desire, we might go into another half-round, but we're going to see how it goes. Without further ado, I'll just introduce our witnesses today. From the Trans Mountain Corporation, we have Mr. Todd Stack, chief financial officer. It's nice to have you in today, sir. As I said, we will not be keeping you here for the two hours. We'll just run through some questions here.

From the Office of the Auditor General, we have Andrew Hayes, the deputy auditor general; and Josée Surprenant, director. It's good to see you both. Mr. Stack, you have the floor for an opening statement of about five minutes, and then we'll hear a few words from Mr. Hayes. Without further ado, the floor is yours, please.

Todd Stack (Chief Financial Officer, Trans Mountain Corporation) :

Thank you. I hope the audio is coming through okay. Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'm pleased to appear today on behalf of Trans Mountain Corporation. My name is Todd Stack, and I'm the chief financial officer at Trans Mountain. I've been in my role since October 2024. I'm joining you today from Calgary. In the spirit of respect, I honour and acknowledge the traditional territories and the people of the Treaty 7 region in southern Alberta, which include the Blackfoot Confederacy, the Tsuut'ina Nation and the Stoney Nakoda Nations.

Calgary is also home to the Métis Nation of Alberta, the Calgary Elbow Métis District and the Calgary Nose Hill Métis District. I'm pleased to be with you today on behalf of our organization, which was listed in the Auditor General of Canada's 2024 report on professional services contracts. The Government of Canada purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline system and the expansion project in 2018. We are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Canada Development Investment Corporation, governed by an independent board of directors, with a mandate to operate in a commercial manner.

Today, we operate Canada's only pipeline system transporting oil products to the west coast. Trans Mountain began operations in 1953, and we began operation of the expanded system in May 2024. The pipeline is delivering on its potential to reach offshore markets, generating revenue for regional and national economies. In 2025, the first full year of operating the expanded system, Trans Mountain is on track to return over $1.7 billion to the federal government in interest payments and other disbursements.

With regard to the study at hand, we welcome the additional oversight and recommendations we receive from external experts, including the Auditor General and this committee. The Office of the Auditor General reviewed one contract with McKinsey that Trans Mountain entered into in late 2022 and completed in late 2023. The contract was issued during the construction phase of the expansion project. A guiding principle of our project execution was the duty of project management to maximize shareholders' return by optimizing costs and meeting scheduled milestones.

The contractor was retained based on their unique experience in the implementation of cost and productivity programs. We agree with the Auditor General that two key components of a procurement program are, one, to ensure that the federal government receives value for money from external contracts and, two, to ensure that contracts are awarded in accordance with procurement policies, which includes ensuring that appropriate conflict of interest safeguards are in place. With regard to the first component, I can attest that Trans Mountain received value for money from this work.

With regard to the second component, the Auditor General's report provided a single recommendation: for departments to proactively ensure that there are no real or perceived conflicts of interest among those involved in the procurement process. We have acted on this recommendation, as reflected in the action plan filed. We have implemented a more proactive conflict of interest declaration process, which includes an in-depth questionnaire to identify all potential types of conflict of interest, and we've instituted annual, mandatory conflict of interest training.

The annual training reinforces the requirement to declare any potential conflicts of interest when they arise and not to wait for the annual declaration process. In addition, the company maintains a robust whistle-blower program, which further enforces and identifies potential conflicts. In conclusion, Mr. Chair and committee members, we have acted on the recommendation received, and we are committed to working diligently to uphold our procurement standards and policies.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. Mr. Hayes, I understand you have a few comments you'd like to make. The floor is yours, please.

Andrew Hayes (Deputy Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General) :

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our 2024 report on professional services contracts. I want to begin by acknowledging that this hearing is taking place on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. Joining me today is Josée Surprenant, a director in our office. (1540) [ Translation ] Since we appeared before this committee in October, I will not reread our opening statement. I understand that it's been redistributed to members. It should be noted that Trans Mountain was not part of the sample of 33 contracts reviewed to assess value for money.

To better support the committee's work, I'm going to yield the rest of my five minutes of speaking time to you. [ English ] We would be happy to answer any questions the committee may have.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. I'll now begin the first round, which will consist of three members for six minutes each. [ Translation ] Mr. Deltell, you have the floor for six minutes.

Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, colleagues. It's always nice to see you in committee. Greetings to the representatives of the Office of the Auditor General. Mr. Stack, welcome. Thank you for participating in this democratic exercise of testifying before a parliamentary committee. My first questions are for you. Was Gerald Butts hired, in any capacity, to recommend or facilitate using McKinsey's services for Trans Mountain?

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

No, there was no recommendation from Mr. Butts or any government in the hiring of McKinsey.

[ Translation ]

Gérard Deltell :

Was Dawn Farrell, who heads the federal government's major projects office, involved in recommending that McKinsey's services be used for Trans Mountain?

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

The decision to hire McKinsey was approved by the executive level. At the time, Dawn Farrell was the chief executive officer at Trans Mountain, so she was part of that decision-making process.

[ Translation ]

Gérard Deltell :

Mr. Stack, would your company agree to submit to the committee all communications that took place between the management team of Trans Mountain when Ms. Farrell was there, regarding the hiring of McKinsey?

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

I'm not sure I'm able to make that commitment at this point in time. However, I would commit to get back to the committee with a response and provide that to the committee clerk.

[ Translation ]

Gérard Deltell :

I would remind you that Trans Mountain is a federal government company, and Ms. Farrell is still in a federal government position. We would like to know why your company, Trans Mountain, awarded a major contract to a private firm, McKinsey, that is under investigation. From our perspective, Mr. Stack, it is very much to be expected that Ms. Farrell's communications on this specific issue would be detailed. We're not asking for corporate secrets, we want to know how such a major contract could have been awarded to this firm and what role Ms. Farrell may have played in that.

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

Our board.... The discussions at our board are minuted, and there are members of the Department of Finance, as well as CDEV, sitting on the board of directors, so they would have that information as well.

[ Translation ]

Gérard Deltell :

We understand that the Trans Mountain project is very important. We also understand that an astronomical budget was allocated to it, without any serious spending controls. In 2017, this project was valued at $7.4 billion, and in 2023, it grew to $34 billion, almost five times the estimated cost. We're not talking about a small overrun here. We're talking about a flood, and taxpayers had to foot the bill. Ms. Farrell took up her duties in August 2022, two months before McKinsey was awarded a non-competitive contract worth nearly $33 million. Why did you offer a non-competitive contract when the rules are very clear?

(1545) [ English ]

Todd Stack :

Let me just touch on a couple of items there. First of all, the overall costs of the projects are currently under review with the CER as part of our ongoing rate process. It has access to all of the documentation associated with the costs and the cost increases over time in order to assess those as part of our toll. With regard to the sole-sourcing, direct assignment of the contract to McKinsey, at the time.... Look, the company had a lot of cost and productivity initiatives under way right from the beginning of the project in order to manage the

schedule and costs. When McKinsey was hired, it was mid-project; it was about halfway through or even a little bit more than halfway through the project. Just in the ongoing desire to continue to look for ways to continually improve both the

schedule and the costs, it was decided that we needed to bring in somebody who had very unique and specialized skills to help us look for opportunities that weren't already under way.

[ Translation ]

Gérard Deltell :

What you have to understand is that Ms. Farrell is currently in charge of the Major Projects Office, which is going to invest billions of dollars. However, according to the Auditor General's report that we are currently considering, Trans Mountain's budget reached astronomical proportions, and contracts were awarded without following the basic rules for contracts that Crown corporations award to private companies. What should Ms. Farrell do to improve her record at the major projects office, based on her experience with Trans Mountain?

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

Yes, I think the Auditor General's report was actually very comprehensive in some of the key factors associated with good procurement practices, and we would endorse those as well. I'm sure that Ms. Farrell would also take those on to her new role in the Major Projects Office. First of all, having good policies in place and requesting competitive bids are definitely preferred practices. In our particular case as a stand-alone corporation, sole-sourcing is an approved method of assigning work, but we do look to use RFPs for as many projects as we can or as many contracts as we can.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Deltell. Next is Ms. Tesser Derksen. [ English ] You have the floor for six minutes, please.

Kristina Tesser Derksen (Milton East—Halton Hills South, Lib.) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thanks, Mr. Stack, for joining us today. I have some questions of a more general nature. I understand that the amount spent so far—as of September 30, 2023—was $32 million or in that range. It's a non-competitive contract that's the subject of the meeting today. As far as the Auditor General's report goes, I think the concern there is that the non-competitive contract was granted without a justification that was clearly linked to your own policies or one of the exceptions in the competitive procurements contained in the policy, if I'm getting that correct.

I want to start with a kind of obvious question here. Your department made a decision to contract out. As I understand, that's up to the department. You have deference to determine that. The question I have is with respect to what you were expecting, what benefit you were expecting to realize by contracting out, as opposed to keeping the work internal.

Todd Stack :

There are a couple of items that maybe I'll just put in there. As reported in the Auditor General's report, the cost was $32 million. The final cost was actually $33 million—just for reference and for a bit more background. The initial engagement with McKinsey was estimated at about $18 million for a six-month contract. Then, because of the success and the value created in the project, it was decided to extend that contract, which ended up with the ultimate cost of around $32 million. It was extended to about 12 months, as opposed to the six months originally contemplated. I apologize, but was the remaining part of the question the justification?

(1550) Kristina Tesser Derksen :

Yes, well, I mean, the Auditor General was pointing to the.... I don't think there was necessarily a concern with your decision. It was a concern with the justification for your decision to contract out. What type of benefit would your department expect to realize by contracting something like this out rather than by looking internally?

Todd Stack :

As I mentioned, project controls, innovative ideas, and initiatives to increase productivity were some things that were initiated in the project right from the beginning, in the planning phases. However, as has been mentioned, the project did see ongoing pressures on both the cost and the schedule, so it was decided to bring in an outside party. Again, it was to try to generate new ideas and new momentum in the company to both meet the

schedule and drive costs down. You—

Kristina Tesser Derksen :

I'm sorry to interrupt, Mr. Stack. Just on that point, would it be your opinion that you may have actually found some efficiencies by contracting out, or am I taking it a step too far?

Todd Stack :

Absolutely, we did. One of McKinsey's big skills is bringing in cost and productivity improvement initiatives, and the entire purpose is to get multiples of value from what their costs are. The process that McKinsey brought in, and then the initiatives implemented by the team, gave multiples of the $33 million spent on their services. That is the measuring factor in deciding whether.... Again, we kept them for six months. We extended it for six months. That would not have been done if they were not generating value through that first six-month period.

Kristina Tesser Derksen :

Thanks very much. Moving on to some other concerns that the Auditor General's report raised with respect to the conflict of interest policies, I note that you did respond to the Auditor General's recommendation. You noted that all employees are required to affirm their compliance with the conflict of interest policy and to identify conflict of interest situations to their supervisors. Can you talk to us about the training? You did mention training, and there may have been a recent review of the training that employees receive. Talk to us about the type of training employees undergo with respect to identifying those conflicts of interest.

Todd Stack :

It's an annual training program. There are quite a number of programs in the company around business ethics and procurement and conflict of interest. It would be a dedicated session just on conflict of interest—what it is, how to look for it and where it might be a challenge. We also talk about what to do if there is actually a conflict of interest, which there occasionally is, and what the mitigating factors are.

When I say that there are conflicts of interest, quite a number of employees have spouses who work for professional companies, auditing firms, financial institutions and even construction partners or suppliers. Those types of conflicts are highlighted. You mentioned identifying them to the supervisors, but the program is also managed and administered through our internal audit group, and any potential conflicts are reviewed by them.

If there is a real conflict, then they will identify a remediation plan or an action plan to ensure that no conflict actually goes through and that the person responsible is not actually put into a conflict position.

Kristina Tesser Derksen :

I'm pretty sure that I noted in there that the onus is actually on the employee to take the initiative to identify and report those conflicts of interest as they develop. Is there onus on supervisors or managers to ask? Are they supposed to be proactive in monitoring for these types of things?

Todd Stack :

I think if supervisors are aware of a conflict, they will certainly raise it and discuss it with the employee. I mentioned in my opening remarks that we do have a whistle-blower program, and it is a good additional check if something should happen. It's a very active program. Particularly during the construction period, it was a very active tool. Again, that routes through to our internal audit group, which is very adept at managing those relationships. I think there have been a lot of ongoing discussions across all levels of the company, so I'm confident that the conflicts of interest have been identified.

The Chair :

Thank you. That is your time, Ms. Tesser Derksen.

Kristina Tesser Derksen :

Thank you.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Stack, we know that the federal government spent at least $25 billion on the Trans Mountain pipeline to benefit the oil industry and that we won't be able to recover that money through the proposed rights of way. The Government of Canada will not be able to recover these huge amounts of money, and taxpayers will pay the price. So it's a competition between Trans Mountain and the Liberal government, with its current budget, which will create a generational deficit, to see which will record the biggest loss of public funds in federal government history.

To help me figure out who's going to win, can you tell this committee how much money your company is going to make taxpayers lose? Will it be to the tune of $25 billion, $35 billion or $40 billion?

(1555) [ English ]

Todd Stack :

As I highlighted in my opening remarks and as one of the other members mentioned.... The total project costs were around $34 billion. I mentioned in my opening remarks that even in our first year of operation, the company returned $1.7 billion or was on track to deliver $1.7 billion in 2025. One of the reasons I joined Trans Mountain was to ensure that the government and Canada recover their investment in Trans Mountain, and I have a lot of confidence that this will happen. Our five-year plan has been provided to CDEV and has been made publicly available.

In it, you can see the forecast of what will return to Canada over the next five years, and that number is in excess of $10 billion between now and 2030.

[ Translation ]

Sébastien Lemire :

If I apply the rule of three, that represents almost all of Quebec's deficit. Let's not forget that Quebeckers pay a very large chunk of this bill, with no benefit to them—quite the contrary. The Canadian dollar is on the rise in the middle of a forestry crisis, and that's hurting our exports. Those are the federal government's choices. Phase 3 of the project involves the sale of Trans Mountain assets. How much taxpayers will lose depends on the government's ability to sell those assets. The Parliamentary Budget Officer already told us in 2023 that the assets would be sold at a loss.

It remains to be seen how much of a loss it will be. What are the prospects for the sale of a $40-billion pipeline? Do you have any potential buyers? When will this sale take place and what will the price be? Can you shed some light on that for us, please?

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

The Trans Mountain Corporation and its staff are not actively marketing the company, so I can't really speak to buyers. As the owners of Trans Mountain, Canada and CDEV really are in the place to go out and decide if they do want to monetize some or all of a portion of the company. In some of the work and the valuations previously done, various government authorities put the value somewhere in the range of $30 billion to $35 billion, I believe. I would note that those results are relatively stale and don't include any of the expansion opportunities the company has ahead of it. Really, the purview to sell the company is up to the government and CDEV, at the end of the day.

[ Translation ]

Sébastien Lemire :

Thank you for having the courage to appear before us today, because these are questions that Quebeckers are asking. In February 2022, the government committed to providing more subsidies to the Trans Mountain project. However, the government recently stepped in to guarantee the repayment of private loans by granting an additional $18 billion from taxpayers, through Canada TMP Finance. This funding was approved on December 13, 2024, by then finance minister Chrystia Freeland. It was called a refinancing loan and it came from the Export Development Canada account.

In response to an information request, Trans Mountain confirmed that only $3.3 billion is recorded as debt to be paid back. The rest, $14.8 billion, was apparently provided with no obligation to repay. Is that really the case? Can you confirm that you're going to pay us back that $18 billion?

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

Absolutely, you are correct. Back in December or early January, the government advanced additional funds to Trans Mountain in order to retire third party bank debt. That third party bank debt had been extremely costly during the risky parts of construction, so the refinancing occurred after the expanded system was up and running and operational. We absolutely intend to return the entire amount of funds that the government has advanced to us in the form of both debt and equity.

In my opening remarks, I mentioned that the $1.7 billion was partially in the form of interest and partially in the form of other disbursements. Predominantly this year, it's all been equity dividends that have been sent back to the government. The intent is that we will send back the $34 billion that the government has advanced.

(1600) [ Translation ]

Sébastien Lemire :

Thank you again for the clarifications. I think it does take a certain amount of courage to be here. Your composure is honourable, under the circumstances. I just want to mention to you that the federal government has never put a penny into the Hydro-Québec project, which aims to produce clean and renewable energy. I would add that we Quebeckers are being forced to pay a quarter of a bill that will yield no benefits for us, if not a lot of inconvenience. Thank you for answering our questions.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. [ English ] We will begin our second round. We will have five members for various times. Mr. Kuruc, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

Ned Kuruc (Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, CPC) :

Thank you. My question will be for Mr. Stack. I'll begin with you. Ms. Farrell assumed the role of president and CEO of Trans Mountain Corporation in August 2022, just two months before the $32.9-million non-competitive contract was awarded to McKinsey & Company for professional services in October 2022. Was she involved in any way in recommending or facilitating the McKinsey engagement?

Todd Stack :

I do not know if she was the originator in recommending McKinsey, but as I mentioned earlier, the sole-source contract to McKinsey was approved by the senior leadership team, including the CEO—who was Dawn Farrell at the time—the CFO, the chief project execution officer and the chief commercial officer. It was reviewed and approved by the senior levels at Trans Mountain.

Ned Kuruc :

Under Ms. Farrell's tenure, the cost for the Trans Mountain project ballooned from an initial $7.4 billion to $30.9 billion, and by March 2023, it was over $34 billion. That's over five times the original estimate. Why?

Todd Stack :

I think that is the case that's in front of the CER at this point in time, and I would say that there is in-depth evidence given into that process. That's still an ongoing rate case hearing. There were a number of contributing factors. I don't want to go into too much detail, because it is really the purview of the CER to assess all of those reasons, but it was a very unique period of time in the regulatory development. A lot of natural events occurred, force majeure events, and there were a lot of contributing factors overall. I would say that we really need to defer to the CER process on that.

Ned Kuruc :

For me personally, the reason I ask is that I find it very concerning that she is the head of the new Major Projects Office. With her track record of going five times over budget, I personally don't think that Canadians would be delighted to hear that she got a brand new $700,000-a-year job. That's why I'm asking these questions. I'll move on to another question. The Auditor General highlighted that Trans Mountain failed to properly follow procurement policy rules. In your view as the CFO, how did Ms. Farrell's leadership contribute to these failures? Has there been a review into the decisions made under her leadership to make sure that this kind of problem doesn't happen again?

Todd Stack :

I would focus it in to the procurement decisions of Dawn Farrell. She has been in business for an extended period of time. She is very familiar with procurement policies. As you mentioned, she came into the company well after construction had started and well after that $7.5-billion number was in place. As far as the procurement strategies go, the decisions to sole-source are absolutely appropriate—not appropriate, but acceptable, or they're an allowed practice within our company and within our policies.

At the time, we were spending significant amounts of money, hundreds of millions of dollars per month, on construction, and McKinsey brought very unique and specialized skills into the company. I know that's what would have been discussed at the leadership level at that time, and—

Ned Kuruc :

I understand that, but can you understand that when Canadians look into this and see that we're five times over budget and that a $32.9-million non-competitive contract was given out, it's a big concern? Now it's an even bigger concern that she heads the Major Projects Office. As the CFO, can you tell us what oversight of financial approvals and what kinds of guardrails and checks were in place in the contract to make sure that value for money was achieved in this $32-million contract?

(1605) Todd Stack :

Certainly a contract of that magnitude would have to go right up to the executive level for decision-making approval. As I mentioned, it was originally let as a six-month contract under various terms of fixed price and cost recovery, as well as value for delivery, so it was an ongoing measure that the contract would be extended only if value was being delivered.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Kuruc. Up next is Mr. Housefather, please, for five minutes.

Anthony Housefather (Mount Royal, Lib.) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Mr. Stack, for being here. I just want to clarify a couple of things. First of all, you started in October 2024 as the CFO. Is that correct?

Todd Stack :

That's correct.

Anthony Housefather :

Ms. Farrell had already stepped down as president and CEO of the company in September, when she became the board chair, so you never worked there while she was president and CEO.

Todd Stack :

That is correct.

Anthony Housefather :

Okay. You worked with her only in her capacity of board chair.

Todd Stack :

At Trans Mountain, that is correct. I have worked with Ms. Farrell previously in another role.

Anthony Housefather :

I assume you believe her to be competent. Is that correct?

Todd Stack :

Absolutely.

Anthony Housefather :

Thank you. I guess for some reason I'm getting the impression that somebody is trying to prove that she is not. I don't know why. Let's get to this contract itself. There were implications before that people from outside the organization influenced the decision of Trans Mountain to move forward with this contract. Do you know that to be false?

Todd Stack :

That is false. There was no outside influence. It was an internally initiated engagement.

Anthony Housefather :

That's as you would expect. At Trans Mountain—and I know you weren't there, so you're only reconstructing what actually happened from the contract and perhaps from board minutes—is it your understanding that within the policies that Trans Mountain had at the time, the contract was correctly approved by the entities within the company that should have approved it?

Todd Stack :

As I mentioned, sole-sourcing and approvals can be done, and they were done at the appropriate level. As the Auditor General noted, there was a lag in the documentation required for that, but it was completed after the fact.

Anthony Housefather :

You've talked about approval by the executive management team. In my past life, I was a general counsel at a multinational. A contract of this magnitude, in my experience, would also have at least been mentioned to the board of directors in a report, if not approved by the board of directors. Was this contract brought up at a board meeting?

Todd Stack :

I don't have direct knowledge of that. I apologize. I can follow up with that and get back to the committee. However, you're right. An initiative like this is not costly just in a dollars sense; it's also costly in internal resource allocation and dedication. It is a distraction and an extra piece of work, so these types of engagements are thoroughly thought through in terms of the effort that will be required from internal people, as well as in terms of the potential value generated.

Anthony Housefather :

That's right. This is why I suspect that this was probably brought up at the board. You would want to understand why you'd be hiring somebody from outside to advise on how to streamline operations and how to more effectively manage the resources of the corporation. One would assume that this was brought up as a concern at the board of directors. If there was a feeling that there needed to be improvement as part of a continuous improvement process, moving forward in that type of direction, which is a resource user, would have been thought through, at the very least.

Todd Stack :

I would agree. That's correct.

Anthony Housefather :

Okay. You'll come back and let us know if it did, because that would mean that more independent eyes were on this and approved the idea of doing it. In terms of what you've changed in the conflict of interest policies.... I see that you've replied back to the committee that there have been changes. Can you just walk through the changes to the conflict of interest training and policy?

Todd Stack :

Conflict of interest has been embedded in our business code of conduct for a long time, but it was embedded in the code of conduct, so the sign-offs and the approvals were done as a larger policy. Since this report, the change to the policy is that conflict of interest was actually removed or segregated from the broader business ethics sign-off and made into a stand-alone training program and a stand-alone declaration, so it's education, declaration and sign-off. It was really brought out to a stand-alone item.

(1610) Anthony Housefather :

The recommendations from the Auditor General didn't apply simply to Trans Mountain. There was a discussion within the Auditor General's report of modernizing conflict of interest policies, but the Auditor General never implied that there was a violation of Trans Mountain's own conflict of interest policy. Is that correct?

Todd Stack :

No, they did not, not to my knowledge.

Anthony Housefather :

I didn't see that anywhere.

Todd Stack :

No.

Anthony Housefather :

It seemed that, again, for some reason, there was some implication that there was a conflict of interest somewhere. Are you aware of any conflict of interest whatsoever at Trans Mountain that related to this specific contract with McKinsey?

Todd Stack :

No, I'm not aware of any.

Anthony Housefather :

Has anyone internally, a whistle-blower, ever voiced concern that there was a conflict of interest related to the awarding of this contract?

Todd Stack :

Not related to this contract, no, absolutely not.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Anthony Housefather :

Thank you very much.

The Chair :

I gave you a little extra time. Of course, just to remind you all, the Office of the Auditor General is here. If you have any questions directly for them, they are more than happy to answer them, I am sure. [ Translation ] Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

Sébastien Lemire :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Stack, you awarded a $32-billion contract to McKinsey on the pretext that it would reduce costs, but it seems to me that's your employees' role. However, as is often the case in the public service, people turned to McKinsey instead of trusting the staff or, in this case, you. Why did you use McKinsey? Can you give us an example of one instance where McKinsey reduced costs? Was it worth $32 billion?

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

As I've mentioned, cost-saving initiatives were being generated internally by employees, but given the size and magnitude of the project, and because we have finite capabilities and ability to execute, bringing in somebody like McKinsey gave additional arms and legs and new generation of ideas going forward. A broad range of initiatives were created and led through the various project managers and the various teams: everything from utilization of standby equipment to where to source materials for particular work and how to mobilize crews to and from sites in a more efficient manner. McKinsey has dealt—

[ Translation ]

Sébastien Lemire :

Were you aware that McKinsey also had contracts with Canadian oil companies at the time you awarded it the contract?

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

No, I didn't, not specifically.

[ Translation ]

Sébastien Lemire :

In case you haven't checked, it's interesting to see that oil companies like Suncor Energy, Cenovus and Canadian Natural Resources are all opposed to a higher toll. Those three companies are on McKinsey's client list. According to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, taxpayers could be on the hook for nearly $18.8 billion if there are no new tolls. In order to reduce costs, why don't you consider increasing tolls for oil companies?

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

I'm not sure how to answer that question. McKinsey is well known to a lot of the large corporations for the value it brings. I don't know specifically if the companies you mentioned have used it in the past, but it does bring a good history of working on megaprojects and large projects to get the efficiencies required, at the end of the day. Asking the oil companies to pay the fees really forms part of the overall rate process, which is in front of the CER at this time. It will be up to them to help adjudicate on which costs are allowed into the toll.

[ Translation ]

Sébastien Lemire :

Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you. [ English ] Up next is Mr. Stevenson. You have the floor for five minutes.

William Stevenson (Yellowhead, CPC) :

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to go to Mr. Hayes, just to mix it up a little bit. In light of yesterday's budget, where we've had some changing

definitions of what is an operating expense versus a capital expense, did you notice in your audit that there were some deviations or changes in how some of these rules were being defined in regard to conflicts of interest?

(1615) Andrew Hayes :

We didn't see that there was a change in

interpretation or anything like that. Our findings were really focused on the importance of pursuing the conflict of interest declarations by everyone who is involved in the procurement processes early in the process so that decisions could be made knowing full well that everybody is independent.

William Stevenson :

In your review of TMX, you found that the conflict of interest rules were not any different from what they were previously; it's just that some of the rules were not always followed up on in the sense that, as we've talked about in the past, if you don't have proof, then you can't say that they actually did it, or if there was proof, that they just didn't do it.

Andrew Hayes :

I want to make sure that I'm clear on this. The statements that we made about conflict of interest were general in nature and were based on the sampling that we did across both departments and Crown corporations. It was a general finding. We found strong practices all the way through the process in only a few organizations, which is why we made the recommendation. I wouldn't want to make a comment specifically about Trans Mountain Corporation's ethical practices here, because I don't have that level of detail in the way we did this audit.

William Stevenson :

Thank you. Just ignoring necessarily Trans Mountain, in the overall government process, have you noticed a change or a lack in following through, and is it just this department? I seem to see a theme in some of your audits that a lot of the rules are not necessarily being followed, so I'm wondering whether you can compare that to some of your other audits and whether conflict of interest has been an issue in any other areas that haven't been proven or shown.

Andrew Hayes :

Thank you. Indeed, we've done, now, a series of audits on procurement practices over a number of years. Granted, they have been looking at the same period of time, so our findings are consistent across those audits. What we've been finding is that there's a frequent disregard for the rules, and that's important when you look at what these rules and policies are there to achieve—fairness, transparency and the best use of taxpayer dollars.

Whether it's on procurement practices or on conflict of interest rules, basically what we have been saying to the government is this: Moving forward, make sure that everybody understands these rules and applies them. That's how you're going to get the best outcome for Canadians.

William Stevenson :

Just to follow that up one step further, could we say that this set of rules should be applied to every single government department on every single project going forward—to have the same rules so that there are not different

interpretations when they go to different departments?

Andrew Hayes :

Herein lies the difference with Trans Mountain in particular. When we look at government rules, those would apply to government departments and agencies. The next level, of course, is Crown corporations, which are at an arm's length. In the case of Trans Mountain Corporation, this is a wholly owned subsidiary of a parent Crown, CDEV. As you get further and further from a government department, the latitude that these organizations have is a bit different. When it comes to conflict of interest and ethics, I think the fundamental principles should be the same.

When it comes to procurement practices, we recognize that there will be variations. The government's procurement policies will not apply the same way.

William Stevenson :

Going one step further in that, would you suggest that perhaps we should have the same rules as for the government departments extended all the way through to the Crown corporations?

Andrew Hayes :

That is a question that I don't think I am equipped to answer. That's a matter of policy. I think what's important is to recognize that, as the government relies on Crown corporations or wholly owned subsidiaries to carry out some of these functions, it is aware of the operating environment for these organizations.

(1620) William Stevenson :

I have one question for Mr. Stack. You were mentioning the information that was coming from McKinsey as reports from my colleagues as to suggestions and whether.... I'm just wondering if we could actually get some of those reports. You talked about them, but I don't think we necessarily saw some of those details. I don't know if we could maybe get those submitted to the committee.

The Chair :

I'm just going to stop you there. Is that clear, Mr. Stack?

Todd Stack :

No, I'm not clear on which reports the member is referring to.

The Chair :

Do you want to clarify that, or should I come back to you?

William Stevenson :

There was some written advice about including any memos and presentations from McKinsey to Trans Mountain on how to proceed on savings and that sort of thing. I don't know if you have those so that we could, if it would be appropriate—

The Chair :

Mr. Stack, go ahead, please.

Todd Stack :

I would say that the engagements with McKinsey were very extensive over that 12- or 13-month period, with regular meetings and long laundry lists of initiatives compiled and sent up to management through the committee. I believe those have all been filed as part of the CER process and are a matter of public record there.

The Chair :

We'll investigate that. Thank you. Before we go to Mr. Osborne, just so everyone knows, I'm going to do another half-round. After Mr. Osborne, we'll hear from Mr. Deltell and Monsieur Lemire. Then, finally, I have Ms. Yip, but of course it can be anyone on your side. After that, we'll wrap things up. Mr. Osborne, you have the floor for five minutes, please.

Tom Osborne (Cape Spear, Lib.) :

Thank you so much. I'll start with the Auditor General's office. Mr. Hayes, the Auditor General has outlined a couple of times now that there are rules in place; they exist. The solution isn't necessarily about creating new rules but rather about making sure that the rules are well understood and properly applied.

Further to that, I know that the Treasury Board, based on the Auditor General's findings in several reviews, has updated the manager's guide, introduced new mandatory procedures for procuring professional services, published the directive on digital talent to build internal capacity—and ensure that if there is internal capacity, there's no need to go outside—and completed a horizontal audit, examining the governance, decision-making and contract controls. I would think that the Treasury Board has gone even beyond that.

Knowing that the rules were there and that if they had been followed, things would have been very different with your reviews.... The Treasury Board, with the rules it's put in place, has gone even further. Can you talk a little bit about the rules that have been put in place? If more stringent rules are followed, how can we avoid situations like those the Auditor General has found?

Andrew Hayes :

Yes, we are aware of changes and adjustments that Treasury Board has introduced. I would also say that Public Services and Procurement Canada has also introduced some elements that are intended to strengthen both conflict of interest and procurement rules. Our audits are always backwards-looking. When we're talking about things in the past, it's difficult to look at how these rules would change things. I can say that, as we move forward with future audits on procurement, we'll be looking at exactly how those rules have been implemented. It's great to have rules.

I think one of the messages from the Auditor General is that there were rules in place, but maybe they weren't always followed. We'll be looking to see whether the new rules have been applied by public servants.

Tom Osborne :

Thank you. I'll move on to Mr. Stack. I know that the more arm's-length you get from central government, sometimes the less the rules that are put in place apply. With the new rules that Treasury Board has put in place, is there a commitment from Trans Mountain that you will look at those rules with a focus on adopting those rules as well?

(1625) Todd Stack :

I'm not familiar with the new rules put in place by the Treasury Board, but I can commit to reviewing those and looking at them to see if there are applications for Trans Mountain.

Tom Osborne :

Okay. Going beyond the review by the Auditor General, I would like to get some understanding of the benefits of Trans Mountain for Canadians and for the treasury. With the changing landscape for trade with our partner south of the border, can you talk about Trans Mountain and how the focus has shifted for projects like Trans Mountain? What is the need for avenues outside of the relationship south of the border?

Todd Stack :

I think you raise a good point. When I originally joined Trans Mountain, I was expecting a lot of opposition to the company as it was online and was moving more oil liquids. That has changed significantly in the last six to eight months with the focus and the understanding that having a single trading partner causes challenges for Canada. Trans Mountain has allowed about 600,000 barrels a day to be exported off the docks and into foreign markets, whether they be Asian markets or even some other markets globally.

Tom Osborne :

Can you advise us of the overall benefits of the project to Canadians, to the treasury and to the economy in terms of direct jobs, indirect jobs, and Canadian goods and services that Trans Mountain has procured and acquired. As well, what are the spinoff benefits? You talked about revenue to the government. Can you elaborate on that, please?

Todd Stack :

I would not do it justice. There have been a number of reports done in the past, and others are being updated. I think I would not be doing it justice by trying to recall numbers off the top of my head. Those are large discussions. I tend to focus more on the operations of Trans Mountain. It's really up to CDEV and others to understand the broader country or national interest being generated. You are right that the production of an extra 500,000 or 600,000 barrels of oil creates billions of dollars of follow-on benefits to Alberta and to Canadians through taxes and other avenues. There are more comprehensive reports out there.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. We all believe in piping oil now, pumping oil. It's wonderful. We will begin our third round. [ Translation ] Mr. Deltell, you have the floor for five minutes.

Gérard Deltell :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to go back to what is at the heart of the report that we, as parliamentarians, commissioned from the Office of the Auditor General, which is the contracts the government awarded to McKinsey from 2011 to 2023. There are two graphs on page 9 of the Auditor General's report. We can see that there were no major variations until 2016. We're talking about contracts worth approximately $2 million that were awarded by the federal government. I would remind you that, at the end of 2015, Justin Trudeau brought in the Liberal government.

However, we can see that from 2016 to 2023, the total value of contracts increased quite dramatically. Let's just look at the years 2016 through 2022. The contracts awarded by the federal government to all companies are going from $5 billion to $8.5 billion, a 70% increase. That's huge, especially because the government hired tens of thousands of public servants during that period. Normally, if there are more public servants, there is less need to enter into contracts with private companies. However, there was a 70% increase.

For those who are watching us at home think that's a lot, it's nothing compared to the contracts awarded to McKinsey. In 2016, it was awarded $2 million in contracts, and in 2022 it was awarded $55 million. The value of the contracts awarded to McKinsey ended up being 27 times higher. Mr. Hayes and Ms. Surprenant, did it not catch your eye that a company that was getting $2 million in contracts year after year was suddenly getting 27 times more?

Andrew Hayes :

Thank you for the question. Value for public resources is important. In other words, it's essential to examine the reasons why contracts are being considered. We also have to see whether the work could be carried out by federal public servants before awarding a contract. Our audits and reports raise value-for-money issues. A significant amount of taxpayer dollars are spent on professional contracting. It's up to the government to examine the reasons for awarding the contracts and the results obtained.

(1630) Gérard Deltell :

That's a very cautious answer. That's to your credit, Mr. Hayes. However, the people watching us are outraged to see that a company saw the value of its contracts increase astronomically. It was multiplied by 27 times in a relatively short period of time, from 2016 to 2022, when the government had increased the value of its contracts by 70%. That's a 27-fold increase. I dare not say it as a percentage for fear of getting it wrong, because that would be a lot of zeros.

From our perspective, that's completely unacceptable, especially since, in this report, we learn that 97 contracts were awarded to 10 departments and 10 Crown corporations for a total of $209 million. The problem isn't so much the number of contracts or the amounts involved, it's the quality of the work that was done. Seventy per cent of these contracts, totalling $118 million, were awarded without competitive bidding. In many cases, the contracts didn't comply with procurement policies and didn't demonstrate value for money invested for the good of taxpayers.

The justifications were lacking, and there were no delivery confirmations. In short, just about every aspect of this was done wrong. How do you explain that, Mr. Hayes?

Andrew Hayes :

Thank you again for the question. This is an example in this report of another message that the Auditor General has already conveyed. There is a glaring lack of respect for basic management and contracting practices. In preparing this report, we found a few organizations that were doing good procurement work. There was one department and two Crown corporations that did good work.

Gérard Deltell :

Mr. Hayes, I just want to conclude by giving our opinion on all of this. From our perspective, your work shows that the rules exist, but that they weren't followed when the time came to award contracts to McKinsey. You said that if the rules are followed, there are no problems. Problems happen when the rules are not followed. We don't need new rules or all sorts of new auditing mechanisms, we just need to properly follow the rules, and there won't be any problems. Thank you very much to you and the Auditor General for your work.

The Chair :

Thank you very much, Mr. Deltell. Mr. Lemire now has the floor for two and a half minutes.

Sébastien Lemire :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Stack, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis published a report in September 2025 entitled “Canada should learn from the Trans Mountain Expansion Pipeline's fiscal issues”. This means that public financing of Trans Mountain and the use of public funds to finance major oil pipelines could exacerbate Canada's already growing public debt. How can you address the concerns about the fiscal impact of this type of project on Canadian public finances?

[ English ]

Todd Stack :

Thank you for the question. Look, I can't speak broadly about future projects in the oil industry or the report that you mentioned specifically. I can say, again, that the funds advanced to complete the Trans Mountain pipeline are well invested. The company is committed to returning significant capital to the Government of Canada and paying that debt back over time. Maybe I'll leave it there.

[ Translation ]

Sébastien Lemire :

Thank you. Since I have a bit of time left, I'm going to ask Mr. Hayes a question about public contracts. As you know, I'm the indigenous relations critic. According to a survey by the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network, or APTN, 60% of contracts reserved for first nations are obtained by companies located in the federal national capital region, in Ottawa and Gatineau. However, the majority of first nations live elsewhere.

The journalist Patti Sonntag wrote, in particular, that the procurement program for indigenous suppliers largely benefited a small circle of firms that identify as indigenous and are located in the Ottawa area. Almost all of them are in the technology services consulting business. Would that be an angle to study? To what extent is indigenous identity verified when it comes to contracts? Have you ever verified whether the contracts were really awarded to first nations, Métis and Inuit businesses? Is identity sometimes self-declared but falsely claimed?

(1635) Andrew Hayes :

Thank you for the question. Yes, this topic isunder the radar of our office. This is an issue that we raised in our audit of ArriveCAN. We could look into it in the future.

Sébastien Lemire :

Thank you. Meegwetch .

The Chair :

Thank you again, Mr. Lemire. [ English ] Next, it's Ms. Yip for five minutes, please. You'll close us out. Thank you.

Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the witnesses for coming today. Mr. Hayes, the report notes this with respect to Crown corporations: “Each corporation is responsible for developing and implementing its own procurement policies and procedures.” Also, they are essentially “responsible for safeguarding their resources.” Would it be fair to say that, by virtue of managing resources, additional oversight would be redundant? For example, public servants are already required to follow the values and ethics code and the directive on conflict of interest. Do you think this internal safeguarding of resources is enough of an oversight mechanism to keep Crown corporations accountable?

Andrew Hayes :

Again, I think this is one of the examples where the Crown corporations, being further away from government departments, have a different operating structure. There's a board of directors that oversees the activities of the Crown corporation. Those directors are appointed in different ways, depending on the Crown corporation. There's also, of course, the management governance that applies in the corporation. I don't think that in the context of Crown corporations we would expect the same application of policies and rules that exist in the federal government.

However, there are some fundamental principles that should be followed, whether that's relating to conflict of interest or to good governance and controls of funds. With Crown corporations, we are talking about organizations that, by virtue of being connected to the federal government, are dealing with public funds. To me and to our office, that brings a higher level of responsibility in terms of the way Canadians would expect these organizations to operate.

I think it's easy to forget, when you're in the throes of a business challenge, that you are also supposed to be keeping the taxpayer at the top of your mind.

Jean Yip :

Mr. Stack, would you like to comment on that?

Todd Stack :

I would concur and agree. I don't really have too much to add to what Mr. Hayes said.

Jean Yip :

Okay. Recently, the Treasury Board updated the manager's guide and put in place new mandatory procedures to support stronger procurement practices. In your view, how do these instruments help meet the standards required of your office?

Todd Stack :

Is that directed to me?

Jean Yip :

Yes.

Todd Stack :

I think we are always looking for ways to improve our procurement practices. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we appreciate input and any new advice we can get to consider adding it into our procurement practices.

Jean Yip :

You mentioned that there is a whistle-blower program and that it is a good check. Has it been effective? Has it been a good check?

Todd Stack :

It has. In particular, during the construction of the projects, there were thousands of contractors and employees out working on behalf of Trans Mountain to complete the project. There was regular usage of that line to relay a number of different conflicts or other issues associated with it. It's a good program that people have. If they see something that looks wrong or feels wrong, they have an avenue. They can come in as anonymous or not anonymous, however they choose, in order to raise any issues to senior management.

(1640) Jean Yip :

Okay. Mr. Hayes, was there anything you wanted to add?

Andrew Hayes :

Just taking the opportunity with Trans Mountain Corporation here today, I would say that the big finding we included in our report about Trans Mountain was the importance of connecting a sole source justification—I use the words “sole source” because that's what's in their policy—or a non-competitive justification to a contract of this magnitude. Questions arise when you have a big contract that you haven't gone out to market with to see whether there's a way to get best value for money.

When the auditors come in and are looking for direct links to why management determined that a non-competitive contract should be used, it raises questions about transparency, fairness and best value for money. Again, though, it's important to recognize that we're talking about a subsidiary of a Crown corporation. It's a few levels of arm's length away from the centre of government policies. That's important.

We've talked in this committee in the past, in previous Parliaments, about how difficult things get as you get further away from government in terms of the expectations that apply to regular departments and agencies. Thank you.

Jean Yip :

Mr. Stack, how can you reassure Canadians about what Mr. Hayes just said about how, as a Crown corporation, you're further away from the government? How can you reassure Canadians that the standards will still be there and will be complied with?

Todd Stack :

Again, as in our opening statement and our response, our detailed action plan, I think a lot of the findings within the Auditor General's report apply to both Crown corporations and government offices. There wasn't anything in there that we don't already see in our processes. We appreciate the feedback. We do endeavour to continue to improve our procurement practices and our policies associated with it.

Jean Yip :

Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Yip. Thank you all very much. Mr. Stack, I just want to loop back around. You had some requests for information. One request, from Mr. Stevenson, about some information that you say is publicly available, was dealt with. I appreciate that. Monsieur Deltell asked for some information that you'll endeavour to get back to us on. Could you do so in the next three weeks? I'd urge you to be as transparent as possible. The committee can always come back to you to ask for additional information, so I would urge you to be as transparent and as forthcoming as possible, if you wouldn't mind. Could we get that from you within three weeks, please?

Todd Stack :

Absolutely. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. If you have any questions about that, or if anything is unclear, you can come back to the clerk on that. She and the analysts will endeavour to help you, and if they have a problem, they'll talk to me. I'll present your submission to the committee member in a couple of weeks. Again, I want to thank you, Mr. Stack, for appearing here today, along with the Office of the Auditor General, in relation to the study of “Report 5: Professional Services Contracts” of the 2024 reports 5 to 7 of the Auditor General of Canada. The witnesses are excused. Thank you very much. This meeting will be suspended for about five minutes. Thank you.

(1640) (1645) The Chair :

Thank you, everyone. I call this meeting back to order. I wanted to take a couple of minutes to deal with a couple of matters. I think that in every Parliament it's worth reminding committee members—and, I suppose, our partners, our witnesses and our audience—of some of the expectations around committee work. In the last couple of weeks, I've noticed a kind of laxness when it came to some witnesses and even securing some witnesses. It's something that I take quite seriously. I want to deal with two issues. One is, when this committee looks at auditor reports, who is to appear.

Number two is the requirement to appear when an individual or entity has been summoned. I'm not planning to name anyone today. I wanted to send the signal, because I know that in public there will be many people who will be reminded of the obligations of appearing before committees and to come in. First of all, when this committee looks for a witness to come in to appear for an audit report, it is to be the accounting level officer. I want to turn to the analyst to state clearly what the expectation is around that. Can you cite that, please, for the record?

(1650) Dillan Theckedath (Committee Researcher) :

Thank you very much, Chair. Good afternoon to the members. In the Financial Administration Act,

section 16.3 defines “accounting officer”. With respect to departments, it's the deputy minister, and with respect to the other parts of the public service, it is the person identified. The titles can be different—whether it's commissioner, president, etc.—but it's a person occupying the senior-most position within the non-department types of entities, like agencies and boards and such that are part of the government. Within the framework of ministerial accountability, the act also speaks to the accountability of accounting officers.

In particular, subsection 16.4(1) states that they are to appear before the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of Commons for “measures taken to organize the resources of the department to deliver departmental programs in compliance with government policies and procedures”. There are other matters relating to the keeping of accounts, keeping effective systems of control and “the performance of other specific duties”.

Within the framework of ministerial accountability, in the same sort of area, it states that accounting officers are also to appear before committees of the Senate and the House of Commons. There is an obligation to appear to answer questions put towards them “in respect of the carrying out of the responsibilities and the performance of the duties referred to in subsection (1) or (2), as the case may be.” Thank you, Chair.

The Chair :

Thank you. This is important because it does arise, from time to time, that an entity will confirm and we expect the accounting officer to show up, and then we're told, sometimes at the last minute, that it won't be that person. It could be the individual who knows the program well and can speak to it. Now, it's fine for that person to attend, provided the accounting officer also attends. I'm raising this because, as your chairman, I try to

schedule meetings so that the work continues in an efficient manner. What I always do is ask the analyst, straight out, whether this person is able. Sometimes there are rare exceptions when a number two is, but it's actually our analysts who are usually the firmest in terms of ensuring that we have an accounting officer here to answer questions related to the auditor's recommendations, so that we can make recommendations and then hold them to account. There's no other action on that. If you have any questions, I'm certainly open to them, but I just wanted to get that on the record to empower the clerk.

When that comes back, she can respond very firmly that, as the chair has instructed, as this committee is aware and as the law states, this is not just a recommendation. This is the Financial Administration Act, and the law states who is to appear for auditor reports. Are there any questions on that? [ Translation ] Mr. Lemire, you have the floor.

Sébastien Lemire :

Mr. Chair, I want to acknowledge your leadership on this issue. I think you very astutely raise a very important point. It should be noted that the budget was adopted by a minority with the support of a minority of parliamentarians in the House. The role of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts becomes all the more important, given such a large deficit. We have a key role to play, and we have to call the right people if we want to get answers to our questions. Thank you for doing that.

(1655) The Chair :

Thank you very much. [ English ] The next item is around accepting invitations—which are loosely defined as invitations. There's a great line in the movie Top Gun: Maverick about Maverick accepting the “invitation”, and someone reminds him, “They're called orders”. We have different levels of orders in this Parliament. We always ask nicely at first. Then we can pass motions, and ultimately we can summon witnesses. I've just noticed in the last couple of weeks a bit of laxness when it comes to getting back to the clerk quickly and giving us dates.

Actually, I think I will have the clerk just go over the process to summons a witness. I'm not suggesting that we do that. I know it is a high elevation, and we don't do this lightly, but I do want witnesses, when they receive an invitation from this committee, to respond to it and give us a date forthwith. I am flexible, and the clerk is as well, but I want to tackle this early in the session so that when departments, as well as Crown corporations, are asked to come, they take it seriously and recognize the powers that this committee has to ultimately summons people.

I don't like to do it by email; I like to send the bailiff. We've done one in my three years. Again, we don't do it rashly, but it is something that we do reserve. Would you mind just going through that, Madam Clerk, so that committee members are aware of it? It might be instructive for new members, as well as for our broader audience, that we do have powers to compel people to come in should they not work with you to

schedule a time.

The Clerk of the Committee (Natalie Jeanneault) :

The committee has the power to send for persons—so, to summon—according to Standing Order 108(1)(a). A committee exercises this power by adopting a motion to summon one or more individuals to appear before it, either in person or by video conference, at a set date, time and location. This is done by way of a motion, so a motion is moved. If it is adopted, a summons is then signed by the chair and served by the bailiff, as the chair has said. A summons applies to any person on Canadian soil except for House of Commons or Senate parliamentarians. That's how it's done; it's by way of motion.

The Chair :

Thank you very much. I'm not looking for any action from the committee today. I am going to open up a couple of other dates for some witnesses to get back to us on with firm commitments to come in. If that does not happen by this time next week, then I might look for your support to take action. At that point, I will, perhaps, begin to name. That's where we are. I just want to be up to date on that. There are no actions to take. Are there any questions around this before I wrap things up? Okay, that's very good. I think many of you, or some of you, are familiar with this.

Lastly, there's no meeting this Thursday, so enjoy your half day; you'll have time to get caught up in other areas. A week from today, we're going to go back to draft reports. That list will come to you shortly. Then, at the end of next week, it's the Canada-wide early learning and child care systems. That's where we are. Yes, go ahead, Mr. Lemire.

[ Translation ]

Sébastien Lemire :

I would just like to ask you, Mr. Chair, if there is a connection to be made between cancelling Thursday's meeting, studying committee reports and the fact that we haven't heard back from witnesses after we summoned them.

The Chair :

No, that wasn't the reason for the cancellation this Thursday. There were discussions—I don't know if it was among all the whips—about a witness in another committee. They thought they needed our time slot for next week. [ English ] At one moment, Mr. Housefather suggested, I think, two meetings on the professional services contracts. I thought that was a bit tight. It has turned out to be three, and it is now going to be four. Mr. Housefather, I am aware of the committee's time, and while I endeavour to fit everyone in, sometimes it goes over.

For example, today we had one witness, and I'm certainly glad he appeared. For this report, we have numerous witnesses. It has been my intention to bundle them in. (1700) [ Translation ] We could agree to two or three for one meeting, for example. [ English ] It's just to get things done. I need to get back to that and get people a little more focused on some time. We will get back to the draft reports. We do have them outstanding. Ms. Yip, of course, is fond of reminding me to get them done, and she's right to do that. We're going to get them done, Ms. Yip. We'll come back to those next week.

Because these reports hang over us from a previous Parliament, I realize that some of you members have not been engaged with them, so I appreciate your willingness to get this done. We will soon be into our own reports from this Parliament, and you'll be much more engaged with those, I'm sure. Are there any other questions or comments? Okay. Without further ado, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you very much. Enjoy your Thursday. We'll see you next week.