Evidence of meeting #110 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was spending.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Jenica Atwin Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Looking at the time, I would move to adjourn.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
On a point of order, Chair, can we not get this finished?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It's a dilatory motion.
Are you looking to adjourn the debate on the motion or are you looking to adjourn the meeting?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I have a point of order, Chair.
Can you clarify that we would have resources to continue if members wanted to continue and finish this discussion?
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We have to get to the vote, but we do have resources to continue.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
March 18th, 2024 / 1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are two issues that I have fundamentally with this motion that's been put forward. In essence, we're asking the PBO to look at and utilize its scarce resources and its office to focus on studying what are, in essence, staffing agencies.
Staffing agencies are a $10-billion sector here in Canada. There are literally hundreds of companies that secure resources, that secure assets. The folks who own these businesses don't actually do the work themselves, but they recruit and assemble teams of folks who actually do work. That's their purpose. We see that in the IT sector. We certainly see that in the health care sector, with agency nursing. It's something that we see growing in use across the country.
I think we've missed a step here. Before asking the PBO to spend its resources on this particular study, I think that if we want to look at staffing agencies and the use of staffing agencies, it would be more appropriate to have that be part of the witnesses we bring forward here to committee first. We should study that first and get testimony from the staffing agencies, from the people who hire the staffing agencies, and from outside commentators who have been following this issue. We should get them to talk about the pros and cons of utilizing staffing agencies.
Again, I believe there is merit in looking at this issue, but I believe that the proper venue for that is first the committee before we task the PBO with looking at this.
The second issue I have is this. I noticed a steady pattern of reporting what we're doing here directly to the House of Commons. I do understand that the one purpose of the Conservatives is to slow down the work of the House of Commons and the work on delivering programs that are needed, whether it's dental care, child care, fighting climate change or debates in the House on making investments like the ones in my hometown of Windsor that brought a battery plant and two and a half thousand jobs.
We know that the Conservatives consider it a win every time they spend the time of members of Parliament in the House on motions like this one here. That is sort of their intent and their purpose.
Again, I would ask our colleagues this: If we want to look at this issue, before we spend time in the House and before we spend the time of the PBO on this particular issue, why don't we bring witnesses to committee to actually have the conversation in this venue? I think this is the place to begin, as opposed to asking the PBO to look at staffing agencies, which are, again, a commonplace industry and sector across Canada.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm sorry. Before we continue, I just want to say that we have resources until 1:15.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
I'll be short.
Since this is a task that we are asking the PBO to take on, I have two questions; Does the PBO have the bandwidth? Is it a priority, and can it be done by June 1, 2024?
I'd personally like to remove the deadline. I completely trust the PBO office and its staff to be able to do a very comprehensive job. I'd like to leave the priority up to them and I'd like to remove reporting to the House.
As such, I'm moving an amendment to remove the date of June 1, 2024, as well as remove the reporting to the House. We should leave it up to the PBO.
I'd actually like to hear from the PBO on whether this is something.... What does it take for the PBO to be able to do something like this?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We really can't request of the witnesses if we're debating a motion, but we have an amendment put forward. We can ask afterwards.
Colleagues, can we agree to the amendment put forward by Mr. Jowhari, which is to basically keep it as it is, change the date—because, obviously, the PBO has work in its other studies—and also delete the part about reporting to the House?
We have Mrs. Vignola and then Mr. Genuis.
Please be brief.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you.
I just want to respectfully propose a friendly amendment to my colleague, one that is in line with what I said earlier. In other words, remove the part asking the committee to report to the House as well as the words “and that this report is completed by June 1, 2024”. We've never set a date and we've always received our reports very quickly, which is greatly appreciated.
That's the amendment I propose to my colleague.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Mr. Jowhari has put through an amendment already, suggesting to remove the date, so we're debating Mr. Jowhari's amendment, with which there seems to be agreement.
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
We don't agree with the amendment, but we're happy to move forward. If there's committee agreement to adopt the amendment and the main motion on division, we can proceed and we're done.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Can we agree to the amendment on division?
Just to be clear, we are removing the date. The PBO will have their other work, and we're removing “report to the House.”
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On the amended motion, is there agreement?
(Motion as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Before we break, we have 30 seconds. I want to get to the supplementary estimates (C) very briefly.
Do I have unanimous consent to call all the votes together?
1:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........36,215,793
Vote 5c—Capital expenditures..........200,000,000
(Votes 1c and 5c agreed to on division)
PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE
Vote 1c—Program expenditures..........14,170,551
(Vote 1c agreed to on division)
SHARED SERVICES CANADA
Vote 1c—Operating expenditures..........62,821,171
(Vote 1c agreed to on division)
TREASURY BOARD SECRETARIAT
Vote 1c—Program expenditures..........8,967,667
Vote 15c—Compensation adjustments..........1,171,701,202
Vote 20c—Public service insurance..........179,303,530
Vote 30c—Paylist requirements..........200,000,000
(Votes 1c, 15c, 20c and 30c agreed to on division)
Shall I report the votes on supplementary estimates (C) 2023-24 to the House?