Government Operations Committee on Nov. 9th, 2017

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Right, so in spite of no dedicated resources or new resources, there are efforts being undertaken.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

We usually like to see people retool themselves before asking for money.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

That's fair enough.

I'll just change tack a little.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Be very brief.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

One of the things that happened when there was a clampdown on the temporary foreign worker program was that subscription to the international mobility program went up a fair bit. One of the issues with the IMP is that there is a lot less documentation in terms of workers' skills and labour market demand within Canada for the occupations that they're coming here to work within.

There's about $83 million being allocated to the TFW and the IMP program. Will some of the money that's being allocated be dedicated to providing better data on workers who come in through the IMP so that we know what they're doing, what their skills are, why they're being brought here, and why it was that the Canadian labour market wasn't able to provide for the positions that they're here to fill?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Unfortunately, Mr. Blaikie, we'll have to pass it over to Mr. Drouin, who might want to follow up on that question, but we're completely out of time with you.

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

If the minister wants to answer, sure. If not, maybe you can ask the minister responsible for that particular department.

I want to go back to the rationale for changing the way we do the estimates process. Minister Brison, you've been around for longer than I have.

[A voice]

Longer than anyone.

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

Without mentioning years, you've been in the opposition, you've been in government, you've been back in the opposition, and now you're back in government. In your previous experience, was there any effort to make those particular changes?

I know everyone on this committee has read the 2012 study. At the time the study was done, I believe the chair was Mr. Martin. Was there any move or any consensus built with all parties in Parliament to get this moving?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

There was a lot of discussion around that in the past. InfoBase was a significant step forward in terms of transparency, but in terms of the sequencing of budgets and estimates, that's something we've seen a demand for, for a long time. Part of my mandate letter was to actually address some of the issues around estimates reform. I'm awfully pleased that we were able to get that done. Now I want us to make it work really well and I want us to do more over time.

One of the things we're doing now is the departmental results frameworks, which will enable your committees to actually have a better line of sight into what a department is doing and how it is doing, how it's achieving its functions, with better explanation and better indicators to help measure the effectiveness of departments in terms of delivering results. I really feel very strongly about this. I've been part of two governments but I spend most of my time here, and you were kind enough to mention how long I've been around.

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

I didn't say how long.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Part of my DNA after being around as long as I've been is that I think very strongly of the importance of Parliament and of members of Parliament in all parties.

Members of Parliament on the government side have a responsibility to hold their government to account as well as members of the opposition, and strong committees provided with good information transparently is an essential part of a strong democratic system. So I feel good about this.

This is significant progress. Brian has been around longer than me probably. Let me tell you, within the public service they are as excited as you can be about things like estimates. But the people within the public service actually are excited about having greater transparency and logical presentation of these, because as public servants they want to make a difference. They want to be able to show that they are making a difference and to explain that they are making a difference.

I think this is good for the public service as well as for Parliament.

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

You have mentioned the DPRs. I think they were presented in the House today.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes. It was earlier today.

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

Do they reflect the new changes we're talking about?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes. We have meetings with the Treasury Board cabinet committee where ministers and their senior officials come in and present their departmental results frameworks. The old system was so complex and difficult to understand that neither public servants nor ministers.... It was really tough.

This new approach is so much more understandable, transparent, and logical that there's a lot of enthusiasm with public servants around this.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

And ministers....

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

And ministers too. It's good for accountability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you.

Mr. McCauley, you have five minutes, please.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Because the minister mentioned his daughters, I'm going to take the opportunity. I know my wife is probably listening intently. It's her birthday today, so happy birthday, Sasha.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

I'm going to frame that from Hansard and give that to her as a gift.

As much as I enjoy sparring with the minister over estimates, I want to introduce, please, my motion from December 8 that we put on notice.

I'll read it out:

That the Committee invite the President of the Treasury Board of Canada to appear before the Committee by December 8, 2017, to provide an update on the progress made as well as provide a detailed plan to implement the recommendations made by the committee to strengthen the disclosure and protection regime under the Public Servants Disclosure Act....

I know we're running very short on time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I'm going to suspend for about a minute while we distribute a copy of that motion, Mr. McCauley. I want to consult with my clerk. I believe it's in order, but I want to make sure of that.

The motion is in order. I will entertain anyone who wants to put their name on a speaking list. I, obviously, have Mr. McCauley to speak to it first. Is there anyone else?

Mr. McCauley, it's up to you.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thank you.

I have to express my disappointment that we're not seeing more action from the government on this unanimous report. We all worked very hard. We had a lot of witnesses come forward telling us stories about how governments—all governments, not just current but previous and the government before that—had destroyed their lives for daring to come forward to be whistle-blowers.

We put through a very important document that was well received by a lot of the witnesses. Duff Conacher, I'll comment for him, said that the committee report was robust and that if they put in everything they put in the report, “We’ll have a world-class system if they implement this.”

Public Services International rates Canada among the very worst for whistle-blowers behind Zambia, Uganda, Serbia, South Africa, Malaysia, and Kosovo, so I think it's incumbent on us to follow through on our unanimous report, and that we actually put some teeth into it.

I think 25 of the 34 recommendations we put forward require legislative amendments, so it's not just the internal programs that have been suggested in the minister's letter to us. It needs a lot more than that. I assume you will put through a motion to adjourn. I would like to have a vote on this. I will take—and I think I speak for the NDP and the witnesses as well—a motion for adjournment as an outright rejection of this motion and a rejection of the unanimous report we put forward from this committee.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Are there brief remarks?

Seeing none, we will now go immediately to a vote. That is non-debatable.

Mr. McCauley, do you care to have a recorded vote?