Evidence of meeting #60 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 documents.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Thank you very much, Ms. Block.
Yes, the departments were contacted on a couple of occasions.
There was a first volley of letters that were sent, and all the responses have been distributed to members of the committee. There was a volley of letters in the name of the chair, and then a volley of letters in the name of the committee after the motion was adopted, I believe. I'd say March 6, but I'd have to verify the date. All of those responses were distributed to members of the committee. There were a variety of different reasons given, but they all followed the same pattern of—I don't want to put words in the departments' mouths—protection of personal information, contracts and confidentiality.
I'd be happy to redistribute the letters to the members of the committee, if you like. I've written over 90 pieces of correspondence for the committee, so there has been correspondence sent to the various departments. When I say departments—I'm sorry—I also mean Crown corporations and agencies. Just to be clear, there are 21 departments, Crown corporations and agencies that are tagged in this motion.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
April 17th, 2023 / 4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Okay.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
If I recall, one of the departments, off the top of my head, claimed that it was the Constitution—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Mr. Chair, I have a quick follow-up.
Did you say that there were over 90 pieces of correspondence that you had sent to departments, agencies and Crown corporations?
4:05 p.m.
The Clerk
Specifically on this study, yes. That would also include correspondence to McKinsey for the study.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
The Clerk
No, there were 90 different pieces.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Given that it is rather unusual that we would submit a report to the House of Commons, I have a few questions for you. When we submit a report, what rules of procedure apply to the debate that follows, if there is such a debate? Do the rules allow for a never‑ending debate, or do they state a set number of hours?
Thank you.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Are you referring specifically to this motion? If so, the motion can continue generally forever, unless we vote on it.
4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
When a report is submitted to the House of Commons, will a debate follow? What are the rules concerning a debate at the House of Commons?
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm going to refer to our clerk for that, because she's a bit more knowledgeable. We'll put her on the spot.
4:10 p.m.
The Clerk
I'm very on the spot.
I apologize. My knowledge of procedure in the House is not at the level where I'd want to give you an answer at this moment. I will happily look into it.
I can tell you that the act of submitting a report is not a sufficient enough reason for there to be a debate. Someone must raise a question of privilege in order for the House of Commons to be seized. That would be the first step.
I can come back to you with more precise information if you would like, Mrs. Vignola.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My colleague Mrs. Block asked how many times we had asked for.... I want to thank the analysts, because it's outlined very clearly. The first time was in the initial response. The second time was when you personally went back and gave them that reminder. As well, it's been reported in the media that you chastised witnesses for not having responded in full. The third time was in the March 6 correspondence. That's three times already.
All parents use the three strikes, you're out: “I'm telling you once. I'm telling you twice. I'm telling you three times.” I know, as a mother, I sometimes use this.
The time for chances has run out. In my opinion, there's no question about it.
As for Mr. Johns' comments regarding the cost, did he not know what we were requesting in the first place? Did he not anticipate the magnitude of documents we would receive? Did he not appreciate the value that those documents would have in shedding light on not only this study but, in fact, democracy and, in fact, the entire way this government and the Government of Canada conduct themselves? We've seen in many other formats that the government is really trying to hide things. This is no different.
Mr. Johns, I'm incredibly disappointed in you today. It's very evident to me, and to my colleagues, what you're doing. You, like you do in all other places, are going with the government again. I'm not sure what it has promised you, or what it said you should do. In fact, it would actually be better for us to pass this motion, have it go to the House and get the documentation, so we could finally finish this study. We could uncover, not only for this committee but for Canadians, what this government is trying to hide, but today you have changed your mind. You have decided that something else is more important than that. It would actually be to your benefit to vote on this motion—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I have a point of order. This is ridiculous, Mr. Chair.
A member is upbraiding another member in a way that is totally unacceptable. Please call this to order.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Let me speak. I appreciate what you're saying, Mr. Housefather. I have not heard any upbraiding. I've heard—
4:10 p.m.
NDP
