Government Operations Committee on March 14th, 2024

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair. That's good news.

I want to propose one more change. Traditionally we have heard from the ministers on the supplementary estimates and the main estimates separately. I think that the efforts to bundle together the supplementary estimates, the main estimates and the departmental plans really aren't respectful of the processes the committee should follow.

I would propose that we remove the text that says, “the 2024-2025 Main Estimates, and the 2024-25 Departmental Plans”. The effect of that amendment would be that the hearing on March 20 would be on the supplementary estimates, in keeping with the traditions of this committee and, I think, the reasonable expectations at all committees of accountability in relation to each set of estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

You're proposing that we'd be striking “Main Estimates” with the intent, I assume, that the main estimates will be reviewed at a separate time, as has been done in the past.

Mr. Sousa, are you speaking on Mr. Genuis's proposal?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but just to clarify, it's striking “Main Estimates” and the reference to departmental plans.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have Mr. Sousa and then Ms. Vignola.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We were trying to extend some time to provide for both ministers to appear, to do what was requested and what we require, and now we're suggesting that we have multiple engagements, in essence. Am I right?

We've added on another member, Ms. O'Gorman, and now we're requesting that instead of providing some efficiencies to the work by allowing extended time for the two ministers to appear concurrently in regard to these matters, you're asking for separate engagements and now separate meetings relative to each of these and the time that we require for them.

Are you then, supposedly, reducing the time of each minister's appearance? I'm not sure that's being amended here. I'm just looking for some guidance and clarity and concurrence with other members of my team and staff. Of course, we're all virtual here, so it's even more difficult to attend to. I'm looking at how we can proceed without having further discussion in regard to some of those amendments. I'm actually quite concerned about proceeding without having the ability to have concurrence with some members of my team. I'm looking for some guidance in that regard.

I would prefer to see what we have put forward to expedite and facilitate the meeting and extend the meeting accordingly to provide for a more thorough discussion relative to these issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll go to Mrs. Vignola. While she is chatting, I encourage you to perhaps chat with your team. We could certainly go back to the traditional way we've done it in the last eight years that I've been here, which is one full separate meeting with TBS and one full separate meeting for PSPC.

Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Indeed, we normally hold two separate meetings for the Treasury Board and for Public Services and Procurement Canada. Generally, ministers come for one hour and we have the officials for the other hour.

What I understood from Mr. Genuis’ amendment is that we would have both ministers for two hours, which boils down to our usual process, meaning one hour with the minister, one hour with another minister, then one hour with officials. I would like confirmation that I understood correctly, please. Otherwise, we are not asking for the same thing.

Is Mr. Genuis asking for us to have both ministers for two hours each and to do so twice, or even three times, to talk about the departmental plans that just got thrown at us? I voted for us to dedicate two hours to study both plans, taking into account that it is usually one hour per plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

As it is, the amendment is amending the original motion, which is for the ministers together for an hour and a half, with the officials there for two hours, in one meeting. The amendment is to change it to the estimates only. The amendment is not to go back to our normal process, which is one minister for an hour and the officials for the full two hours, and then, for the second meeting, the stand-alone minister for an hour.

This is just amending what's in front of us, which is an hour and a half with the ministers side by side. We would require to perhaps defeat all of this and then try to re-book a minister and a minister, in separate meetings, to go back to what we've traditionally done here in the past.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I would like Mr. Genuis’ amendment in writing, please, so that everything is very clear for me and my team.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I don't think Mr. Genuis has the amended motion in writing. How about we just have the clerk read back the amended motion as Mr. Genuis proposes? It's basically just taking out main estimates and departmental plans, with the intent, I'm going to assume, to do the main estimates at a separate time, as we have done in the past. That makes sense.

I'm going to have the clerk read it.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

So, do we need to table a new motion for the main estimates, another for the plans and a third for the budget on April 16th?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We traditionally have not needed a motion to have the minister show up for the main estimates or for the departmental plans. We have just booked them, because the ministers have always agreed. It's part of every minister's role to attend their committee, defend their estimates and justify why they're asking for x amount of dollars. I will assume that we won't need a separate motion to have them come to do the main estimates, as they should be doing. We've never in the past had a separate motion to have them show up to do the supplementary estimates either. We book them; it's their role to defend.

I can have the clerk read back for you where we are right now, though. It's a very short one, actually.

Then I have Mr. Genuis and Mr. May.

Go ahead, sir.

[The Clerk]

To date, we have amended the original motion by Mr. Sousa with the amendment proposed by Madame Vignola. It was subsequently amended as well by the amendment put forward by Mr. Genuis.

Now we are on a second amendment by Mr. Genuis. This is the text I have, based on the second amendment that's currently being debated by the committee: “That the Committee invites the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada and the President of Canada Border Services Agency, Erin O'Gorman, to each appear separately for one hour and a half each, as well as officials, regarding the 2023‐2024 Supplementary Estimates (C), and that the meeting take place on Wednesday, March 20, 2024.”

Again, the current amendment would remove the main estimates 2024‐25 and the departmental plans. This is the amendment proposed by Mr. Genuis that is currently being debated by the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have Mr. Genuis next. Then we have Mr. May and Mr. Bains.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Briefly, Mr. Sousa said we need a bit more time and discussion on this. I mean, Mr. Sousa's the one who moved his motion in the middle of witness testimony. I'm working with the text of a motion that he put forward. That's why we're in this situation.

The chair has in the past—and quite rightly, I think—asked ministers to appear before the committee on those different aspects of their responsibility. The intent of this motion seems to be to do something irregular—that is, to bundle together ministers and accountability events. Normally, we hear from a minister on the supplementary estimates, a minister on the main estimates, another minister on the supplementary estimates and another minister on the main estimates. He wants to have all the appearances of all the ministers on the supplementaries and mains and departmental plans to happen all at once. This is an attempt by Mr. Sousa and his government to limit accountability and to limit the need for ministers to respond to questions. That's quite obvious.

Given that he has, in the middle of witness testimony, put forward this motion aimed at limiting accountability, we are seeking amendments to go back, within the parameters of ministers' schedules, as we understand them, to the normal thing.

To the question about the effect of this second amendment—I think this is the last amendment, and we'd be happy to see the motion pass with this amendment—this would be the supplementary estimates. The main estimates can be dealt with in the normal fashion.

That's really all that needs to be said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have Mr. May and then Mr. Bains.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Originally, my hand went up to ask a question that my Bloc colleague got a clear answer to, because it was getting a bit confusing in terms of what we were amending and how we were amending it.

With regard to Mr. Genuis's comments, I find it amusing that we moved a motion to bring the ministers to be accountable for their ministries and now he's accusing us of somehow protecting the ministers from that accountability.

I'm a guest here—I'm covering for my honourable colleague Irek Kusmierczyk—so I regret that I don't have a clear line of sight of the norm of this committee. However, I can speak to the traditions of other committees.

As the former chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I was very honoured to take on that role for four years. Quite often we would have ministers appear together just out of pure necessity. We have limited time in the calendar to have ministers appear before committee before the estimates are through the process. This question should be asked: Do we want to have the ministers here to actually speak to these measures after the fact, after they've been processed? Of course we don't. We want to be able to speak to them before the process is wrapped up.

I understand the comment from my colleague Mr Genuis and where it's coming from, but to be blunt, I think we have very limited time to go through these measures. Bringing them together is not always the easiest thing to do, and we also don't know that it is possible to have them appear together, so we'll have to wait to get responses back from the ministers and their schedulers, but I think the motion from my colleague Mr. Sousa is more than reasonable and I think we're getting very far from the actual motion that was tabled. It's become something completely different.

With regard to that, I will vote no on this amendment.

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. May.

I will point out that we have until May 31 before the main estimates are deemed reported, so we do have a fair amount of time still.

Go ahead, Mr. Bains. Then we have Mr. Sousa.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Steveston—Richmond East, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if I can get the motion, as it is now, in writing, please. I know the clerk read it out, but it's tough to follow. Can we get that in writing and emailed to all of us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The clerk will send that out.

Mr. Sousa is next.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are trying to provide the ministers' availability.

While I have not been on any of these committees prior to the year I arrived, it is my understanding that the invitations to the ministers are made via a motion. They're not unilaterally made, to my understanding, by the chair, so we're trying to take that process in hand and we're trying to make the ministers available accordingly. We're also trying to extend the time of the joint engagement of both ministers to expedite the matter and to facilitate the issues that are being looked upon.

I won't be supporting the motion from Mr. Genuis, because we're trying to facilitate and get the individuals before this committee to do what is necessary on our behalf.

I look forward to reading it once it comes forward. I look forward to seeing exactly what is being suggested or proposed. I'm also trying to make certain that we have the ministers available for our purposes, and that's why we've extended the time to have them appear jointly.

That's it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

I'm going to suspend for two minutes so that everyone can get the written copy and we can move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I call the meeting back to order.

Everyone, we are back. The clerk has sent out the motion as it's been amended and agreed upon. Written into what he has sent out is the inclusion of Mr. Genuis' amendments.

Mr. Sousa, your hand's still up. Are you still speaking on this, or can we go to a vote?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

No. I need to review this, Chair. We're just reading it now. We just got it, so we're taking some time, if we can just have a moment, and we'll—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I will do 60 seconds maximum. There aren't a lot of changes, so we should get to it, please.

Mr. Bachrach, do you wish to speak on it while it's being reviewed, and then we'll get back to Mr. Sousa?