Government Operations Committee on May 15th, 2020

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Mr. MacKinnon. My own comments are somewhat aligned with yours.

Colleagues, it has certainly been my experience, and I think the experience of clerks and others, that ministers are very reluctant to appear with non-government witnesses, so on the suggestion, which I think came from Mr. McCauley, that perhaps we schedule Minister Anand with representatives from Canada Post or Amazon I just don't think is in the cards. I doubt very much if the minister would accept such an invitation.

I'm inclined to agree with Steve that we have a work plan that has been suggested. I haven't heard anything suggesting that we radically change the work plan and schedule that Raphaëlle has so carefully put together. My suggestion is that we follow the work plan as proposed, and if there are any serious differences of opinion, or if there are additional witnesses that one committee member would like to see who have not been included in the work plan, then submit those to our clerk. Between our clerk and our analysts, I'm sure we can come up with some sort of an amended schedule.

My feeling right now is to try, as I said, to ring-fence this and get moving forward unless there's any serious objection. We can just conclude this discussion and go forward with the work plan as proposed.

Mr. Clerk, I don't see any other interventions, and so I'll turn it back over to you.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, the next scheduled meeting that we know of for the committee is Friday, May 29.

If we look at the next meeting in the proposed work plan that the analysts have put out, that would be the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General's office. It could be that the committee may wish to adopt that now and then wait and see if other suggestions come in from other MPs for future meetings. That would allow the analysts to put out a revised work plan and allow the committee to continue updating what it wants to do. I suggest this as an option.

If the committee wants to move forward, it may wish to adopt for May 29, but then leave provisions open for new suggestions to be made in the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Paul, thank you for that. I am inclined to agree with you.

One other reason to support that idea is that we now know that the government has put forward a name for a permanent Auditor General. I have not yet seen an order of reference referring that appointment to our committee or any committee. I don't know the process. I should, but I'm sorry to say I don't.

I would defer to Paul because I would not like to see us have a meeting with officials from the Auditor General if the new Auditor General might be available.

[The Clerk]

Mr. Green raised his hand at the same time I did, so you may wish to hear from him before—

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm on public accounts and so I know the wheels are in motion there, but you probably have better details.

[The Clerk]

I was going to say yes, it was referred to the public accounts committee. The public accounts committee will be meeting on Tuesday to consider the person who has been nominated. I'm sorry, but I don't know the person's name. However, the nomination of the Auditor General has to be approved by both the House of Commons and the Senate after the committee considers it. I could not give you a timeline as to how long that will take.

I would suggest we ask the interim Auditor General to come in, in the event that the new Auditor General has not been named. This would allow him to provide the information he has for the committee without asking the new Auditor General to pronounce on things he or she might not be aware of, because that work has been ongoing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I think what Paul has suggested is a very sensible way forward. If we find, as we're getting closer to the end of this parliamentary session, that there still has not been an official appointment of an Auditor General, then of course we can invite officials from the interim Auditor General's office to appear before us if we wish.

So that we're all on the same page, Paul has suggested we continue with the work plan up until and including the May 29 meeting of OGGO, and before the conclusion of that meeting we will have a discussion to determine meetings and witness lists as we go forward.

In the interim, if anyone has any suggestions as to potential witnesses, I would ask that you get them to our clerk, who can then share them with the analysts as quickly as possible. Does that make sense to everyone?

All right. Having said that, Paul, I don't know how we proceed. Do we need a recorded vote to approve this?

[The Clerk]

Yes. The order adopted by the House that regulates our video conference meetings does require a recorded division.

My understanding is that for the meeting on May 29, the committee would like to invite those witnesses identified in meeting number 10 on the draft work plan circulated on May 8. They, of course, would be the Parliamentary Budget Officer and representatives of the Auditor General's office.

If that is the proposition you wish me to put, I can put that to the committee now, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I believe we see some concurrence for that, Paul. Why don't you go ahead with the recorded vote?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Thank you very much, colleagues.

We're a little over time, but I want to wish you all a very happy Victoria Day weekend, a long weekend. I hope it's healthy and safe. Stay with your loved ones, and we will see you back next Friday.

Have a great weekend, everyone. We are adjourned.