Government Operations Committee on March 5th, 2013

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Excellent.

I'm going to have to close it there.

Gentlemen, thank you again. On behalf of the committee, we reserve the right to invite any or all of you back as we conclude our study.

We'll give you a moment to excuse yourselves. We have two issues that members wanted to raise. First, Ms. Duncan wanted to serve notice of motion on a future item of business. If you could just quickly table that, Linda, it would be great.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's been brought to the attention of the committee that there are three more appointments. One of our mandates is to review appointments. I have three motions. The first is:

That the Committee, pursuant to Standing Order 111, invite to appear Timothy Sargent, appointee to the position of Acting Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Operations), Privy Council Office, and that the Committee examine his qualifications to perform the duties of the post to which he has been appointed.

For the second one, do you want me to read the whole thing for the record?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Maybe just the name would be all we need.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

The second is to invite Daniel Tucker, the appointee to the position of part-time Commissioner of the Public Service Commission.

The third is to invite Graham Flack, the appointee to the position of Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet (Plans and Consultations and Intergovernmental Affairs), Privy Council Office .

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Linda.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Those three motions go to those three officials, whose appointments we would normally review.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you. We'll just take that as a notice of motion. It's non-debatable at this time.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have copies for everyone.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We'll deal with it at the next planning committee meeting.

John McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I have a motion I'd like to move that I tabled some weeks ago. I'll read it:

That the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates strike a sub-committee to study partisan communications and the communications policy of the Government of Canada, including related policies, laws and regulations, provided that—

Do you want me to read the whole thing?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

No, I don't think that's necessary. You served notice of this a number of weeks ago, on January 16. The committee members are aware of it. You could speak to it briefly.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I'll just say one thing. There are many examples of why I think this is needed. I'll just give you the two most recent ones that I'm aware of.

The CMHC website contains matters on the NDP proposal and costs, without explanation. There's the Fantino partisan comments on the CIDA website. I think there are a number of others, and I think it would be a natural function of this committee to find out what the rules are on this kind of issue and prepare a report on it.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you very much. Your motion is in order.

Is there any debate?

We only have two minutes.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Are you looking for a decision today, John, as opposed to this being discussed at subcommittee? That's certainly fine if that's what you're looking for.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I wouldn't mind discussing it at subcommittee, if the alternative is saying no in one minute.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

It's your choice.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

The motion is on the table now.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay, we could vote on it now.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Very good.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Linda.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I think we discussed that before and when we went through it, essentially it came down to being a committee and our objection was why a subcommittee? It just means that some people have to do double duty, and we're already pretty busy. Our recommendation was that we don't object to the review, but we don't see the sense of having a separate subcommittee.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mathieu.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I actually think the study is a really interesting idea per se. It is something that would be interesting to look at, but again, I agree with the view that why not do it in committee as opposed to a subcommittee?

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Peter.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Given that we're discussing committee business, we should be in camera, so I move that we go in camera.