Government Operations Committee on May 6th, 2022

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Chair, the vote has been called.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Order.

We are going to a recorded vote. I asked for consensus to do raised hands or whether someone wanted a recorded vote. There was a request for a recorded vote. Therefore, we're moving to a recorded vote at this point in time. I've asked the clerk to call that out.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Paul Cardegna]

Mr. Chair, we have five yeas and five nays. It is a tie vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

The chair votes yes.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

We'll now discuss the motion as amended. That is now on the floor.

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I've also sent an amendment to the clerk that I would ask him to circulate, if it's okay, after I put mine forward.

Basically, my issue is the frequency of reporting. This is not something that would be simple and easy for the department to keep putting together, certainly not on a monthly basis. My amendment would read as follows.

In line number three or the end of line number two in the English version, I would change the word “monthly” to “biannual”, so that would mean every six months. In the fifth line, I would delete the words “a monthly basis, by the 15th of the month from May 2022 to May 2023 inclusively” and change that to “on a biannual basis from June 30, 2022, to December 31, 2023”.

To be fair to my French-speaking colleagues, here is the amendment I suggest be made to the French version:

In the third line, I propose that the word “mensuel” be replaced by “biannuel.” In the sixth line, I propose to replace “mensuelle au 15^e jour de chaque mois de mai 2022 à mai 2023 inclusivement” with “biannuelle commençant le 30 juin 2022 et finissant le 31 décembre 2023.”

Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to explain it when you judge it receivable and everybody has a copy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Go ahead, Ms. Vignola.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can we start the debate?

[The Clerk]

I need to explain something to the committee first, if I may.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

I'm going to ask the clerk to speak first, and then we will go.

Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

This is to explain something to the members of the committee. In the version of the amendment that I have from Mr. Housefather, the text is correct; however, the version that he had sent to me was the original version of Monsieur Paul-Hus's motion.

You may notice that the text that's been modified is, in fact, the original version of Mr. Paul-Hus's motion. However, the amendment that Mr. Housefather read would still apply in the same way to the motion by Monsieur Paul-Hus that has now been amended.

I just wanted that explained to the members of the committee so that it is clear.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

We will now go to Ms. Vignola, who is followed by Mr. Housefather and then by Mr. Paul-Hus.

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

Reporting on a monthly basis can certainly represent a significant workload for the officials. I understand that my colleague is suggesting that the report be submitted on a biannual basis. If it is, the collection of data will not represent a huge workload for the officials.

Is there not a way of splitting the difference? That way, officials would not have to spend their time collecting data and would not have to collect a massive amount of data. So I ask my colleagues if they are willing to find a balance between “monthly” and “biannual.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola.

Now I will go to Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I thank my colleague for her comments.

I could have proposed that the report be submitted annually, but I tried to cut that in half by proposing that it be submitted every six months. Quite frankly, data is provided on a regular basis in the four-part tables of the Department of National Defence. The forms related to this data are rather informal.

If you're providing information to a parliamentary committee, you have to do it in a very formal way with a lot of checks and balances. As far as I know, it represents quite a heavy workload for a small team. All the data is already provided. Of course, the committee always has the right to ask the Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Public Services and Procurement or officials to testify before the committee.

Every six months we will get data, and over the next two years we will get data four times: once in June and once in December of each year. I think that is a sufficient amount of data.

I rely on the members of the committee. I hope that we will be able to agree on this. If we can't, we'll see what we do three months after the vote on the biannual reports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

We have Mr. Paul-Hus, who is followed by Mr. Kusmierczyk and then Mr. McCauley.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Housefather has just said precisely why we need to get this kind of report. Right now, the information is extremely scattered.

Mr. Housefather says that in order to provide a report to the committee, a lot of cross-checking has to be done. This is exactly what we need to ensure the effectiveness of these contracts, which are the largest Government of Canada contracts in history.

That's why, by getting reports on a regular basis, we can really know where we're going with offshore patrol ships, Canadian warships, and offshore ships. If all departments of the Government of Canada consolidate the numbers and data into a report that is then provided to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, it may give everyone a better idea of where the government is going with respect to these major projects.

Should the report be done on a monthly or biannual basis? I think that if we provide a monthly report, from the first report onwards, it will be enough to make updates, which should not be very complicated to do. Each department will simply have to provide its report, which will be consolidated.

Am I prepared to see if this could be between one and six months? I can have some leeway, I'm not completely crazy. That said, I think that the need to proceed efficiently and to obtain those reports on a very regular basis will give the Government of Canada and taxpayers a chance to know where we are going.

I thank you, Mr. Housefather, for recognizing the usefulness of all this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

We'll now go to Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the amendment that my colleague has put forward is sensible. It allows us to have both—to be able to check in and see how the ministry is progressing on this work and at the same time allow them to also focus on the task at hand, which is procuring these ships and fighter jets for us. That's where the focus should be as well. I think the six months balances that.

I mean, we could ask that a report be sent to us every 24 hours, every day, yet there probably wouldn't be a material difference between a Monday and a Tuesday and a Wednesday. It would be the same thing, I would argue, with a monthly report. Having it every six months balances the need for the ministry to focus on the task at hand and to keep us informed and provide us with actionable information that actually provides us with trend lines.

Again, in a spirit of collaboration, which is what's terrific about this committee, I think that strikes an excellent balance that is sensible and that is pragmatic. I would support my colleague's excellent amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

Go ahead, Mr. McCauley.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Thanks, Chair.

Mr. Housefather, thanks for your comments, and thanks to Mr. Kusmierczyk as well.

I would think that maybe we could settle at three. The issue at hand is that this is going to be well over $100 billion of taxpayers' money. We've seen repeatedly in this committee.... I mean, just last week or the week before we were asking about the F-35s, yet PSPC's saying, DND told us three years will be for delivery...when PSPC is not even aware.

We've seen this repeatedly for six and a half years on this committee. We've seen delay, delay, misinformation and non-information about the ships. If you look at the old blues, you will see that the icebreakers should be in the water by now, and the first CSC would be arriving next year. I don't think we're even cutting steel yet. I think we owe it to taxpayers and to parliamentarians to get a lot more information out on this. As I said, it's going to be well over $100 billion, when all is said and done.

I understand where the Liberals are coming from, and I understand my request. I'd be very happy with Ms. Vignola's suggestion of perhaps every three months. We can see it for a year and go from there. I think waiting every six months will mean further delays and a further disservice to taxpayers and other parliamentarians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Mr. McCauley, are you proposing that as a subamendment?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

If the committee agrees, yes. I'm putting it out there for discussion, but I can make it a subamendment if it will move things along faster.

[The Chair, Conservative, Robert Gordon Kitchen]

Thank you.

Is there any debate on the subamendment of Mr. McCauley?

Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would have thought that perhaps we could have done this differently, such that if the six months were defeated, we could have put forward another amendment for three. I'm going to vote against the subamendment in favour of my initial amendment without the subamendment. If there are no other hands up, I would request a recorded vote.