Government Operations Committee on April 17th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Please address your questions to the chair.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, I'm not certain. This seems like an unnecessary delay tactic. We asked them three times for these documents, but there is the sincere possibility—as we've seen with many other witnesses we've invited—that they will take the decision to not even show up. They will make the decision to not come. It seems as though we are giving one lifeline after another to these organizations when, really, they owe us the documents and what we requested. I don't see why that isn't clear, frankly, to all of my colleagues.

My colleague Mr. Barrett referred to an adage he learned when he was young. You know, we all learned some. What I learned is, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” We're definitely getting to the stage where we have to be clear to these departments and agencies that we had very clear expectations: “This is what we want to receive and what we expect.” I don't understand why this isn't.... Actually, it is clear to me why it isn't clear to people, because, as I said, I genuinely feel as though they're not in favour of transparency for Canadians. I don't deny this and I won't. I feel this. Anyway, we'll say it's very clear. In an effort to have the clearest transparency for this study and government, we require these documents. We asked for these documents three times, as I indicated, and this is what we want. We want the documents.

You can only allow someone to explain something so much. Sometimes, you just have to ask them to put up what you asked for. You know, we're talking about expenditures here today. You know the saying, “Show me the money,” in popular culture. It basically means, “Show me what I'm asking you for”. I think that is what we have come to expect here. It's so very clear. If we want to talk about money and expenditures, this is a very good case. We're having endless conversations about something that should have been very straightforward. In fact, it was made straightforward to these departments and agencies on more than one occasion.

I guess I'll say, in closing, that there's no need to ask them another time or ask them to come and explain themselves. It's very clear. They don't want to hand the documents over. They're unwilling to, as we've determined through this motion.

Mr. Chair, you have exercised the highest level possible of your authority. It's time to refer this to the House. That's what I'll say in closing.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to summarize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Johns.

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

I'll try not to delay this thing any longer.

It's unacceptable that these documents are coming in redacted, but I also want to recognize that a lot of the redactions are likely personal information and whatnot.

We started this study with a focus. For us, certainly, we wanted to know what harms were being done to the public service and to taxpayers around outsourcing, and I was excited about us pursuing that. I'm worried about where the scope of this study is going right now.

We know something has to be done around outsourcing—certainly around these redactions as well—but it can't be at the cost of getting answers to Canadians about what the initial intent is. We've learned a lot from these documents and we need to talk about them. We need to not delay the conversation that needs to happen around outsourcing. I'm really concerned that's what's happening now. We're not talking about the problem.

Having them come and testify here, getting the answers from those violators and having them explain themselves so that we can move on.... Whether we move forward with this motion...and I hope this motion can wait until we've had them here. We can make that decision after we've had a chance to hear from them, but I really want us to get back to work on outsourcing, what we're doing here and the broader situation.

I hope that we can have them appear here, get some answers and then start to proceed. I'm not at all afraid to revisit this conversation on this motion by Ms. Kusie so that we can bring it back and have a more detailed conversation after we've had them here. I think it's beneficial to this committee to have them here to ask them, “Why are you doing this?“ and say, “We can't have this happen again.”

Have them here so that we can ask questions here at committee. I think that serves Canadians and our democracy even better, because we can ask direct questions to them here at committee that can't be asked of them in the House. That's what I would hope for.

I hope that Ms. Kusie will consider that. I don't want to vote against this motion today. I want us to try a different path and then bring it back. I know there's more time. I know that's frustrating. I appreciate the frustration. I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are we ready to call the vote? I think we are.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

I won't add fuel to the fire—and I will get to you, Ms. Vignola and Mr. Johns—but I will note that I think concerns about this issue spreading are valid. We saw earlier today in public accounts that PSPC refused to provide or follow a direct motion from the public accounts committee, so I express my great concern that this is a great victory for the bureaucracy and the public service in defying Parliament. I hope we will get back on track to where Parliament is supreme, not unelected people within the bureaucracy.

I have Ms. Vignola and then Mr. Johns.

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

All members received in an email the text of the amended motion on Bill C‑290, an act to amend the public servants disclosure protection act. The motion has been submitted in both official languages. I will read it out:

That, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 15, 2023, concerning Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, the Committee invite the following witnesses to appear regarding the protection of federal public servants who disclose wrongdoing: a) Pamela Forwards, President of the Board of Directors of Whistleblowing Canada; b) Joanna Gualtieri, lawyer; c) Luc Sabourin, former employee of the Canada Border Services Agency; d) Julie Dion, former employee of the Canada Border Services Agency; and e) Tom Devine, Legal Director, Government Accountability Project; That the Committee allocate Wednesday, April 19, 2023, and Wednesday, April 26, 2023, to hear these witnesses.

It's basically the same motion that we started to discuss a few weeks ago, and we seemed to have a consensus.

The only difference of note is simply that the dates have changed for the witnesses. The witnesses are aware that they may be summoned in the very near future to testify before the committee. They are looking forward to it, and many of them will propose solid amendments to the bill.

This act is very important in terms of protecting our public servants, citizens and employees, as well as the quality and integrity of government services provided to our citizens.

I hope that the consensus is still there, given that only the dates have changed somewhat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Block.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just have a question in regard to the last point that Ms. Vignola made in regard to the calendar and how this might impact the calendar going forward.

Can you give us some idea about what fitting in the witnesses appearing on April 19 and then again on April 26 does to the calendar?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It works with the calendar that we have open. The only thing I would suggest is perhaps someone offer a friendly amendment to allow other witnesses to be added as well, if Ms. Vignola is good with that.

Mr. Johns.

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

That's exactly where I was going.

I totally support the motion here. I just want to clarify whether this is all the witnesses to the bill or if we have an opportunity to submit some further names.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

If so amended, yes. Otherwise, no.

Can I assume that's your offer of an amendment, Mr. Johns?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

April 19 I think is already set, so can we set perhaps Wednesday, for added witnesses for the April 26, at noon to keep our clerk happy? A couple of days is fine. As always, we'll be as flexible as we can.

Mrs. Block.

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

I have not dealt with very many private bills in committee in my time. If members wanted to have witnesses appear, would we have had to submit our own motion to have members appear on this study?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

No. Usually the motions have “and other witnesses as desired” added onto motions. That's how we usually—

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

Okay. I'm thankful that Mrs. Vignola has agreed that this is a friendly amendment to add witnesses. I was just wondering how we would have gone about requesting witnesses to appear on this piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have Mrs. Vignola, then Mr. Johns and then Mr. Jowhari.

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

I agree with a friendly amendment that would mean that we would add any useful witnesses that my colleagues may suggest for the purposes of our study of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have Mr. Johns.

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

I think you already did. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Now I have Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We support the motion for moving the dates and the friendly amendment that we invite other witnesses. I believe that once all the witnesses come we may be in a position to need to consider more than two meetings, so I'd like to keep that option open. One meeting is already gone with the number of witnesses, and if we need other witnesses to come in we may get into the third or fourth—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Nothing on this committee is ever done in two meetings, Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I didn't want to say that, but I just want to acknowledge that, as the witnesses are going to come from all other parties, we may be in a position to look into a third or fourth meeting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, we have a possibility.... We have to approve this first. Then, when we get to other items on the line-by-line and amendments to it, there is a possibility, if that's still the case, that, as we have that day set aside for the GG recommendations, we can move that back. I'm sure we can accommodate, as we normally do with OGGO.

I have Mrs. Vignola and then Mr. Johns.