Government Operations Committee on Sept. 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Block, go ahead.

Then I'm going to have our clerk read what we think Mr. Sousa has suggested.

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

Mr. Chair, I think it might be good for you to read that for me. What I think I heard is that we are going to keep in the letter that proper vetting wasn't done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, that's right.

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

I think that is drawing a conclusion rather than leaving it open-ended. As my colleague Mr. Genuis said, it's one or the other. They need to figure that out. I think Mr. Sousa's amendment is actually more limiting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mrs. Block.

I'm going to have our clerk just read out what Mr. Sousa is proposing.

You can let us know if it's correct.

[The Clerk]

Sir, I do believe the word “either” might need to come out as well in order to make it make sense.

If you'll just allow me, I'll read from “Friday, September 22”: “Friday, September 22, and that proper vetting was not done; that the chair of OGGO write to PROC to suggest that they create a subcommittee”, and it goes on from there with the language that has already been agreed to by the committee. It would strike “either” and then strike “or this individual's military record was ignored”, and it would be closeted by a semicolon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Is that correct, Mr. Sousa?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Is there anyone else, colleagues?

Can we vote on Mr. Sousa's amendment, please?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

On division.

(Amendment agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are we clear on the final motion, or should the clerk read out what we think is the final amended motion?

[An hon. member]

We're fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're fine. All right.

Can we vote on the final amended and subamended motion?

(Motion as amended agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will do up a letter and I will make sure everyone receives a copy. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Block, you were waving at me. Then it's Mr. Johns or Mrs. Vignola. I didn't see who was first. Let's go to Mrs. Block first, and then let me know who was first of the two of you.

Yes, Mrs. Block.

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

I assume this is the time at which we have the opportunity to table motions that were circulated to our committee members as a result of the conversations that we had at subcommittee. We said that once we established an agenda for dealing with the current studies that are ongoing, we would then look to members to put motions on notice for future studies they would like to see this committee undertake. With that, I would like to table a motion that was circulated to committee members on Tuesday.

The government recently announced that it was probing multiple companies that have allegedly been using Uyghur forced labour somewhere in their supply chain. These companies have allegedly been continuing to import goods that have used slave labour in their production process. Despite the international outcry and the condemnation from the Parliament of Canada, it seems that the Government of Canada has not taken the proper steps to ensure that goods produced using the products of forced labour are barred from entering the country.

Additionally, at recent hearings of this committee, members learned about government contracts with companies that engaged in unethical conduct but were still allowed to obtain sole-sourced contracts from the government and be cleared for multiple standing offers. I will note that the company in question, McKinsey, has recently reached yet another settlement of $230 million U.S. to resolve more lawsuits due to its role in the opioid crisis. This is in addition to an earlier $641.5 million in settlements paid out to resolve lawsuits. That a company such as McKinsey has access to exclusive government contracts is unacceptable.

The two issues I mentioned, which should be violations of the integrity regime, have occurred under this government. Whether this is due to a lack of effectiveness of the current integrity regime or a lack of enforcement, neither is acceptable.

With these issues in mind, I would like to move the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(c), the committee undertake a study of the integrity regime to review the effectiveness of the current rules and regulations to ensure that:

I. The government of Canada is not entering into contracts or real property agreements with suppliers which are conducting unethical business practices and

II. Businesses which engage in unethical business practices, are not able to undermine the fair competition and integrity of the Canadian economy.

III. The use and expenditure of public funds is protected and safeguarded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

The motion is in order. Does anyone wish to speak to this?

Yes, Mr. Johns.

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

I'll be really quick.

I think this is a great motion. Does Mrs. Block want to include this, though, in the McKinsey study? There's a lot of stuff that could be woven in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Block, Mr. Johns is asking if you're including it.

I didn't understand it that way. This is a stand-alone study.

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

I'm good with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I think this is a great study as well. It would be worthwhile for the committee to incorporate into this study evidence gathered from other studies. When we're looking at the integrity regime specifically, there probably are specific issues we need to look at structurally around the integrity regime that are quite distinct from one particular company. If it's the will of the committee, we can take that evidence and use it in the work we'll do on this study as well.

Canadians expect that when the Government of Canada is purchasing products, it's not contributing to slavery, violence and injustices around the world. I think most people would expect the government to try to stop those things but, at a minimum, that the government isn't complicit in those things through its procurement. There have been a lot of credible concerns raised that we're not doing nearly enough in this regard, so I would very much welcome the study.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes, Mr. Jowhari.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I have a couple of clarifying questions for Mrs. Block, if she can share her thoughts with us. How many sessions, and when are you thinking about launching this?

I ask that question because you were part of the subcommittee when we talked about outsourcing. We talked about PPE. We also talked about the fact that we have ministers coming and that the supplementary estimates (B) are coming. We also talked about the fact that for our next study, which we had prioritized before but then delayed over and over again, there were four sessions on procurement and diversity. I am very much interested to know how many sessions you're thinking about, and the timing of this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I will interrupt just quickly before we get to the question of how many meetings. Maybe we could just address the question of how many meetings. Then I'm going to suggest that, perhaps, if we can get to it and decide on it, we could look at the schedule among ourselves, at the subcommittee. I think there are a couple of other motions we want to get to.

I don't know if it has to be decided immediately, but maybe we'll go to Mrs. Block to answer how many meetings she is thinking of.

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

Mr. Chair, through you to my colleague who, of course, is part of the subcommittee, I recognize absolutely that we have most of our meetings already established until Christmas, perhaps, and that there are other items we would probably want to wrap up within this year. Without precluding any other conversations that we would have at the subcommittee, I would suggest that this come before this committee in the new year. I hope it will be a priority study for us when we get back in 2024.

I did not put the number of meetings in. I'm open to negotiating that. Perhaps it's something the subcommittee could even discuss when we next meet to look at the calendar going forward, once we've completed everything that's on our agenda. I know that's not definitive, but I'm very much open to negotiating the number of meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are we fine with that? Thank you very much.

Mrs. Block, I want to thank you for bringing that forward. I think a couple of you were on the committee when we looked at Nuctech, which actually has a long and wide history of violating laws internationally but still got a contract. I am looking forward to that one.

Colleagues, can we all agree to this?

(Motion agreed to)

Mrs. Vignola, I'll go to you and then to Mr. Johns.