Evidence of meeting #73 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 amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this.
I want to say that I think my colleague Mr. Housefather, again, as is his standard, has gotten to the heart of the matter. Even though we take this matter of privilege seriously—of course we want to get to the bottom of the reasons why the documentation wasn't provided by the various agencies unredacted—the concern here is that it will open up an opportunity for our colleagues on the Conservative side to simply delay the work being done in the House of Commons. That work is absolutely too important. We see, for example, in other committees, questions of privilege being raised by the Conservatives that tie up the work of those committees for multiple meetings.
I was elected to this committee and this House to get work done. What I'm seeing in this committee is a tremendous drift in its work. We have drifted off course. We have eight studies—eight—that have been opened up: McKinsey, the GG expenditure, outsourcing, diversity and procurement—do you remember that one?—ArriveCAN, air defence procurement, the national shipbuilding strategy and Bill C-290. These are all paramount. All of these are important studies. We opened all of these and have not finished a single one.
I look at the McKinsey study and see the mountainous production of papers—hundreds of thousands of documents and millions of words submitted. I think the PBO estimated that's $9 million in translation alone. If halting the work of this committee and delaying the work of Parliament are the goals, I have to say that's disheartening. We see these tactics time and again.
I weigh those concerns against the seriousness with which we take the question of privilege—this issue before us—but, again, let's call a spade a spade here. We've seen this before. This is not new. There's nothing new under the sun. We've seen this before. We know how this plays out. There's too much at stake. There's too much work, especially in this last week. Canadians expect us, in this last week, to buckle down, work together and get legislation passed. They are looking for us to demonstrate leadership. For that reason, I can't support this. I support the principle of it, but I see the door this will open. It would only delay the work of this committee. Again, we have been blown way off course already. It's time to rein this back in.
I'm turning to my colleagues across the table among the NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives: Let's right this ship. Let's get it back on course. Let's get these committee studies passed and do the work Canadians expect us to do, especially in this last week in Parliament.
For that reason, I don't think I can support this.
Thank you.
Conservative
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Thanks.
We heard from Matthew Shea from the Privy Council Office. He appeared at this committee. He's the assistant secretary to the cabinet, ministerial services and corporate affairs.
He brought to the attention of this committee.... When we grilled him about the redactions, he cited the “Open and Accountable Government” document. He cited that, in “Accountable Government” from 2011, the previous government issued the following guidance to ministers in the public service, and the same guidance was issued by the current government in “Open and Accountable Government” in 2015:
Public servants also have a duty to hold in confidence some of the information that comes into their possession in the course of their duties. There is a tension between that obligation and the request of parliamentarians for disclosure of that same information. When appearing before parliamentary committees, public servants should refrain from disclosing that kind of confidential information, for instance because the information is confidential for reasons of national security or privacy, or because it consists of advice to Ministers. Accounting officers should not disclose confidential information, including advice to Ministers, even where that information pertains to matters of organizational management. In practice, officials should endeavour to work with Members of Parliament, in cooperation with Ministers and their offices, to find ways to respond to legitimate requests for information from Members of Parliament, within the limitations placed on them.
This policy was brought in by the Harper Conservatives. We should be looking at this policy and having a conversation about that. If we have more questions about these redactions, we should be bringing Matthew Shea back here in front of this committee.
I appreciate Mr. Kusmierczyk's talking about being adrift in this committee. We haven't gotten a study done. In fact, the Conservatives keep bringing forward motions that could be included in the reports, whether it be on the Governor General, on McKinsey.... We have nine studies going right now. This could be included in the study on McKinsey. We have 220,000 pages so far. This is what this committee has received.
I want to give an idea. It would take 30 seconds per page to look at it. It would take 1,833 hours and 20 minutes to review these documents. That's 52 full-time weeks. Since it's only been a few months, it would probably take about four full-time staff to go over the documents we have gotten so far. I don't believe anyone around this table has done that, unless you somehow have a budget that I don't have in my office or have a pile of volunteers who want to go through 220,000 pages.
I suggest that we include this in our final report—that would make sense to me—so that we can get to Bill C-290, or we can get Matthew Shea back here and can ask him more questions because I have a lot more questions before I want to send this to the House.
I hate redactions, and I hate this policy. I think it needs to be reviewed. Clearly, it's a problem for this committee. I don't believe that sending this nuclear approach to the House is the right approach. I think we should be doing some work here in this committee before we do that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We'll have Mr. Barrett really quickly, and then we'll suspend for voting.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
First, this is looking for a comprehensive government response so that concurrence is not moved on it in the House.
Second, we would be happy to see this moved on Wednesday. The House is going to rise before the Speaker would return, but then it's in possession of the House. There's no intent to delay. I can have that assurance made by the opposition House leader to the government House leader: that there will be no question of privilege raised by any members of the official opposition.
Third, the agreement was, by government members and by the members of the NDP, that if we gave time and if we heard from these witnesses, they would refer this to the House. If someone wants to amend this so that it's reported as soon as Wednesday's meeting is over, then that would be consistent with everyone keeping their word. Anything less than that is a complete bait and switch.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks.
We are going to suspend until after the vote, colleagues.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, we are back in session.
Mr. Barrett, you have the floor.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
In spite of conversations we had the last time the subject was raised, there's obviously not going to be any agreement on this today. We have business in Bill C-290 to deal with.
I move that we adjourn debate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Can we vote on that, colleagues?
It looks like we have unanimous consent to adjourn debate.
(Motion agreed to)
Thanks.
Give us a couple of seconds, colleagues, so I can excuse our analysts and bring in our legislative clerks.
Mr. Housefather, you had your hand up, and you put it down.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I did, Mr. Chair. I'm so sorry.
I know you adjourned debate, but I think a request had been made by Mr. Jowhari to get a copy of the email that Mrs. Kusie read into the record when she intervened previously.
Thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
No, she read an email from the Privy Council Office dated June 6, 2023, which she used to argue for the motion. Since none of the rest of us had seen it—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'll ask if she wishes, but I'm not sensing a desire to at this moment.
I'm sorry. The answer is no.
We will get to Bill C-290.
(On clause 33)
We're on clause 33 starting with NDP-15, which is page 35 of the package.
Go ahead, Mr. Johns.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This requires the publication of routine.... Currently the information provided in annual reports provides little insight into operational performance and no basis for monitoring, evaluating or improving the system. The statistics provided can reveal all serious anomalies, such as cases remaining dormant or receiving little or no attention for several years, and averages do not reveal this. Such cases have thus far been uncovered only incidentally by other means, such as the release of PSIC's case management data following Christiane Ouimet's resignation in 2010 and investigations of two specific cases by the Auditor General.
Under this amendment, the information provided in the annual report, which sheds some light on operational performance, would provide some basis for monitoring, evaluating and improving the system, knowing that information on the duration of cases would reveal whether any cases are taking an unreasonable length of time to process.
It's a no-brainer. This information was already captured in the commissioner's case management system.
Mr. Chair, to save time, could we vote on this now?
Conservative
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Johns, I really appreciate where you're trying to go with this amendment. Unfortunately, I have two important concerns with it, and I think you would agree with me. It's not what you brought up, which I think was important. It's a matter of confidentiality.
Mr. Johns, as you know, there are people's health records, especially in the case of some people who might have faced reprisals, and they might have had some mental health issues caused by the reprisals. This is something that you don't want to have tracked. How can you secure the confidentiality of that information?
Then there are larger issues. These are cases that the commissioner at PSIC has seen or that have been brought to his attention. I'm sort of offering the opposite side of this, but what about the cases that have been resolved internally without PSIC's involvement?
On one hand, I understand what you're trying to get at, but I think you're opening up a whole can of worms regarding people's health records, the safety of how we pull those records and how we dispose of them after three years in a way that doesn't cause any problems to the people who are involved.
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I apologize, Mr. Johns. I think someone was debating a different amendment.
Do you have anything on amendment NDP-15, Mr. Fergus, or can we go to a vote?
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay. Shall NDP-15 carry then?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment NDP-16, we have Mr. Johns.
