Government Operations Committee on June 14th, 2023

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

We could reverse the order of business and continue our consideration of Bill C‑290 because I think could complete it. We could hear from officials on Wednesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The issue with that is that we've invited the witnesses already, and I think this will be the third time for them. One of the options, of course, is.... This was a concern when the original report came up. We tried to table it at the House. Mr. Johns, and I think someone from the Liberal side, suggested that we hear from some of the departments about why they're not obeying the order for documents from the committee.

We have heard from them. We can hear from a couple of others and then report, if we can get support to report the report to the House, as the analysts have done it, and then we can get on to BillC-290. Otherwise, it is the department heads on McKinsey, and then the 21st is open.

Mr. Housefather has his hand up, and then we have Mr. Johns.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the priority should be legislation. I would think that finishing Bill C-290 on Monday and getting it back to the House before the House adjourns for the summer should be the priority. My recommendation and preference would be to do Bill C-290 in the first hour of Monday and try to get it back to the House.

I also want to raise the issue of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and suggest that we try to put an hour aside next week to hear from the nominee who's been presented to the committee.

If it was possible to at least try to deal with Bill C-290 for an hour on Monday, it would be appreciated. Also, if we could put aside an hour for the nominee, that would also be appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Johns.

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

Our preference is that we do Bill C-290 on Monday. I want to get this thing done and presented to the House. I want to get rolling on it.

I would like to see the commissioner come on Monday. If we get done with Bill C-290, even if it's half an hour or we stay later.... We can negotiate to see if we can get the interpreters later.

On Wednesday we can come back and do the department heads. They've been pushed three times, so it's not the end of the world if we ask them to come Wednesday. It's Wednesday now, so that gives them a week's notice. It's not like we're saying on Friday afternoon that we don't want them to come. They work for us; they're public servants. If we ask them come back on Wednesday....

Really, what they're doing is part of the report anyway, coming here and reporting. That's a conversation. We've spent a lot of time on this report, and I think Bill C-290 should get priority, given that.... I don't know how many meetings we've had on McKinsey. We haven't even started on the other study, the bigger study. I'd like to deal with Bill C-290 on Monday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk.

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

Mr. Chair, it does appear that a majority of committee members want to see the Bill C-290 legislation. Of course, that is the priority.

Then it's the PSIC, because that is a statutory requirement of this committee—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

No, it's not.

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

—to get this discussion—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Let me just address a couple of things before you filibuster out the time. I think we can come to a solution here.

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

It seems like that's the will that I'm sensing from the committee on both of those.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I can get to that, if we can get to it rather than filibustering.

There are a couple of things. If that's the will of the committee, then obviously that's fine.

I will note a couple of things. On Bill C-290, we have gone well past the number of meetings we had planned, mostly because the government has constantly made many changes, despite promising not to. I understand and I appreciate what you're saying, but we would have had this done in May if the government had fulfilled its promise and its commitments. However, we can certainly switch to C-290.

The issue about the bureaucrats refusing is not an issue with McKinsey. The bureaucrats are refusing an order of this committee that the big green book states they have to follow.

We'll certainly do the will of the committee, which sounds like it's Bill C-290, but we should not forget that this is an important issue, in that the department heads are deciding what the laws should be and what rules they should follow, not Parliament. We could certainly take care of it by doing a very quick vote to send the report to the House. I've promised that it's not going to be used as a concurrence vote or anything else. It'll be a simple report to the House. If that's the will of the committee, that is fine.

On the issue of the public sector integrity person, we have options. One option that's provided in the book is—I think it's option (c)—to do nothing. It's not a statutory requirement for us to review orders in council.

I have spoken with the parties about this. There might be a chance on Wednesday for this, but if we want to do Bill C-290, then we can do Bill C-290. We will not get through C-290 and put aside time for the nominee in the same time. We still have quite a bit further to go.

Go ahead, Ms. Block.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that the time has come for us to determine the path forward.

My question is, what was the purpose of passing a motion in the House today to add 30 sitting days so that we could actually continue to deal with Bill C-290 when the House resumes in September?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It was a backup, just in case. I'll be blunt: I don't see that we'll get through it, seeing how long it's taken, but if that's the will of the committee, then that is the will of the committee.

Go ahead, Mr. Johns.

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

Well, then let's spend two hours on Monday on Bill C-290. Let's get through it. Let's do this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm saying that if that's what we wish to do, then we'll bump the bureaucrats.

Go ahead, Mr. Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I would just point out that I don't think you ever want to create a precedent such that in the future some department might say, “Don't worry about sending the documents; nothing happens to you anyway.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Well, we've created that in this committee already, unfortunately. It's to the detriment of Parliament, I can tell you. That's what the government wishes.

We will do Bill C-290 on Monday. On Wednesday, we will move the department heads and we'll still consider the nominee for the public service integrity commissioner.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a motion I'd like to put forward for a vote, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I don't know if it's on the matter at hand.

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

Actually, the motion that I'd like to put forward is that the committee continue considering Bill C-290 on Monday, June 19, and provide one hour for PSIC on Wednesday, June 21, to hear from the PSIC nominee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I have a couple of things.

First, Mr. Kusmierczyk, I don't think the motion is in order. We haven't switched to committee business. If we do that, are you talking about Wednesday to do PSIC or Monday?

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

I'm suggesting to do two hours of Bill C-290 on Monday, and then on Wednesday, do one hour on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I would prefer that you put the motion in writing. We'll do it on Monday.

I will rule it out of order right now because we're not in committee business. I'd rather we put it in order and do it on Monday.

We have the departments that we're bumping repeatedly. We're only going to get to.... We have about eight departments.

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

Mr. Chair, we are in committee business, so I would ask for a vote to overrule the chair on that.