Government Operations Committee on March 29th, 2023

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

My suggestion, Chair, was not worded as a motion. Mr. Kusmierczyk and Mr. Housefather had asked if the departments could have more time. In the interest of getting this resolved, the committee would set a date, let's say two weeks from today, which would be April 12. If any respondents have not complied with the committee order by April 12, the report would be referred to the House, or something to that effect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That actually cleans up the language that I was going to suggest.

Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate my colleague compromising on this issue and trying to find an accommodation. On April 10 we won't be here, obviously. We won't be sitting as a House and we won't be here in committee. I'm wondering if my colleague would entertain the possibility of simply allowing us to have a meeting as a committee on the Monday we come back, which would be April 17. At that point, we will see what the status is of our ultimate request and then make that decision.

It just allows us to get information and to see what the final situation is. I don't feel comfortable if we're making this decision that a trigger point happens when we're not sitting and we are not aware of what the status is of that request.

Would my colleague accept the fact that we would simply make that decision on April 17? I think you would get unanimous support behind that motion. Again, it underscores just how serious this issue really is.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

In fairness, we were looking for this to happen today. We've given the departments multiple chances. Giving them another two-week period to comply.... If everyone says it's inappropriate for departments not to comply with an order of the committee, that will be true tomorrow, and it was true yesterday. So if we're just giving a second and third chance, there's no more information they can provide. They must provide the documents unredacted. If this is simply a misunderstanding and they didn't realize that we were going to refer it to the House, well, now they know. In terms of us coming back and burning more time on it, nothing will have changed between today and then.

Just to be clear, I think referring this to the House is overdue. I think we promote what we permit. By not having dealt with this already, we're encouraging more bad behaviour. I think the time is nigh.

If it would give comfort to other members of the committee that a week is sufficient.... Two weeks drew disorder from some of my colleagues, saying it was too long. I don't think we need to come back to when we're sitting. The first day the House is back, the chair of the committee has the opportunity to inform the House.

I think that's reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mrs. Vignola.

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

I'm usually quite a patient person, but how many more times are we going to let the departments slap us in the face before we say enough is enough? It feels as though the committee is being treated like one of those doormats that says “Welcome” where people wipe their shoes before coming in the house, and I don't like it.

You can vote on another compromise. Would it be the third or the fourth? I can't keep track. Usually I'm the one who finds a compromise we can all agree on, but not this time. This has to be reported to the House of Commons. Enough is enough.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Jowhari, go ahead.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Madame Vignola, we 100% support the addition of the language you talked about to the report. I think that will be communicated one way or another.

What I would like to suggest to my colleagues is, let's keep the date of the 12th, and let's have the subcommittee meet on the 12th for 10 or 15 minutes via Zoom to ensure that, yes, we are ready to send this out to the House or no, we are not. Upon the outcome of the subcommittee meeting, we could decide to move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The subcommittee can make recommendations, but it still has to be adopted on the 17th by us.

Mr. Kusmierczyk, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to reiterate that we absolutely support both pillars of the motions that were brought forward here. The seriousness of the situation in terms of making sure that there is appropriate bilingual translation of all documents is absolutely critical. It's fundamental, and it's foundational, not only to the work of this committee but to the work of all Canadians, as a bilingual country.

At the same time, I absolutely do take seriously the need for us to send a message to make sure that departments and ministries comply with our requests to make sure we see all the information that is unredacted. That was the original request that we made. We're serious about that.

I do think we're missing one step, which is sending a final letter to ministries and departments to make our intent clear to all ministries and departments. The intent of this committee is to send a report to the House of Commons underlining that certain fundamental rights of this committee have been breached.

What I would like to see, and what I think would give that letter additional force and meaning, is having unanimous support behind it and making sure we can say that, at every turn, at every step, the ministries and departments were informed of our intent, informed of our plan, and given every opportunity to comply with that request.

The reason I'm saying Monday.... I know it's a couple of days' difference, but it does two things. One, it gives 10 business days for the ministries to comply, which means that at that point they have absolutely no excuse. They know full well and with full knowledge that they were not in compliance with the request, that they were in breach of the request.

It also gives this committee an opportunity to sit, to view the request, to see which ministries actually did not comply and discuss the outcome of this final correspondence in open session for all to see.

I think that's what it does. It provides maximum accountability. It provides maximum transparency. It allows us to make that decision as a committee, and hopefully unanimously, to send a real, strong message to the House that such practices are unacceptable. I think there is unanimous support here.

I would like to give the ministries, as I said, 10 business days. The House is not sitting. We come back on Monday. We see what the results of that letter are. Then we make that decision unanimously as a committee. I think that would only highlight and emphasize the seriousness of the situation for all members of Parliament, for all committees and for the House of Commons.

Again, I want to recognize the flexibility—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Can I interrupt for a second?

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

—of my colleague, but I want to emphasize that if we could just make that small accommodation, I think you're going to see unanimous support for his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to interject. I will give you back the floor.

Just very quickly, I'm seeking everyone's permission to give the analysts the ability to make formatting changes and provide contextual info on the motion. I'm sure we'll agree to that.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I apologize, but we are running out of resources, and Mr. Johns has to leave. Can we finish this up really quickly?

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

Mr. Johns can go ahead.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

From what my understanding is—I'm having some conversations over here—we're willing to support Mr. Barrett's proposal reluctantly—very reluctantly—given that Mrs. Vignola has been violated in terms of her privilege. I think that if we can all agree to support what Mr. Barrett is putting forward, we can carry on. It's a compromise that he's put forward.

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

Monday is all I'm asking. That's it. We would support that 100%. You'll have unanimous support.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'm sorry. The one thing that is different, I think, is not necessarily the date. It's the fact that the committee will be unaware on the 12th of what happened.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Because you don't get emails....

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Right, I don't know how to read emails. That's exactly it, yes.

No, it's the fact that we wouldn't have the opportunity to discuss it. We would just have to take somebody's word for what was there. I believe it is important that we come back to the committee and have an understanding at the committee of what has happened over that period of time—who has complied and who has not complied—and then I'm fine to go ahead, but I want to know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'll turn the floor over to Mr. Barrett.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

A compromise has been offered, a full-on compromise. You know what? We should just vote down.... I'm prepared to vote against my own motion. Just vote for this to go to the House right away.

This was offered in good faith, and then to have another meeting, to have an additional meeting to discuss this issue.... If we take the issue of Mrs. Vignola and other members' privilege seriously, if we take the issue of this committee's privilege seriously, it should be referred to the House forthwith. Delaying is...simply to expedite this and to remove any doubt on whether or not there was a filibuster, but it looks like we're just going to talk it out. If this thing doesn't come to a vote before we run out of resources, it's because government members did not want this to come to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

Mr. Chair, that is misrepresenting our position here. We are in support—