Government Operations Committee on May 28th, 2026

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses here today.

A number of good questions have been asked today. I'll take the liberty of asking a question that goes into a bit more detail. Your remarks really inspired me to ask this question. You spoke at length about the need for monitoring and the measures that should be implemented when the government is facing a precarious situation. You clearly described the international geopolitical situation.

Given that a number of government departments need to speed up requests, can you reassure Canadians and this committee by describing the measures in place to maintain effective oversight and to properly respond to government requests?

[Annette Ryan]

I think that some protocols remain in the government realm. I won't go into these mechanisms now.

However, I'll use your question to talk about transparency for parliamentarians with regard to budget initiatives and their implementation in the main estimates. In this particular situation, I think that developing the ability to track government promises and initiatives in the budgets for each department, agency or organization makes a great deal of sense. This would give parliamentarians the opportunity to ask ministers and deputy ministers questions when these officials speak about the main estimates and to ask for updates on these promises and commitments to achieve specific and concrete results for Canadians. I want to build this type of information base for you, the parliamentarians, together with—

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Good.

I'll pick up on the comments made by my colleague, Ms. Gaudreau. She clearly demonstrated the highly precarious situation that the government is facing. On that note, I would like to understand your analysis. At the start of your remarks, you said that we needed to prioritize certain areas. However, given the current situation, the federal government's priority should be to ensure greater preparedness for a possible future crisis.

Do you have any mechanisms in place to reassure us in the event of further setbacks? Obviously, we aren't in an easy situation, as you told us. We aren't in a bad position either, as you told us. Ultimately, there could be other setbacks. Let's not forget the actions of the president of our neighbours to the south. Do you have the resources to deal with a future crisis?

[Annette Ryan]

I would answer your question by saying that I received a range of similar questions yesterday evening in the Senate committee. We're trying to figure out how to make sure that we're on the right track.

These discussions, along with the discussions held on the sidelines of the meeting, focused on the need for more measures to identify our strengths and weaknesses, as well as the emerging risks, in order to pinpoint the areas that require attention.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

So you have indicators in place. I think that your team is ready to carry out analyses.

Do you have examples of indicators that help you project costs to some extent?

[Annette Ryan]

I think that the idea is to bring together indicators that show the factors that affect household debt, as well as measures of debt structure, as your colleague discussed. The idea is to enhance certain measures so that we don't just determine where the deficit stands by considering a percentage of GDP or by taking into account the debt‑to‑GDP ratio. I think that this limits the debate and the context considered.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Ryan.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Madame Gaudreau, go ahead, please.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I really enjoy each meeting. I was going to ask you about the next steps, but my colleague beat me to it. I'll use my turn for a different purpose.

Mr. Chair, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is responsible for overseeing procurement contracts. You and I both saw it. On May 12, we identified a concern regarding contract awarding by the National Capital Commission. I sent out a notice of motion on this topic. I would now like to move this motion. You received it in both official languages. The motion is as follows:

That the committee undertake a study of at least two meetings on the practices of the National Capital Commission with respect to procurement, contract awarding and compliance with obligations under the Official Languages Act; that the study examine, in particular: procurement and contract awarding processes; equitable access for Quebec and French‑speaking businesses to federal public contracts; translation and bilingualism mechanisms within procurement processes; the impacts of administrative practices on competition and fairness among bidders; oversight and accountability mechanisms applicable to federal organizations; that the committee invite, among others: Honourable Joël Lightbound, Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement; Maryse Gaudreault, chair of the board of directors of the National Capital Commission; Kelly Burke, Commissioner of Official Languages; Alexander Jeglic, procurement ombud; and any other witnesses deemed relevant by the committee; and that the committee report its observations and recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Before I get to our speaking list, just quickly, if this passes, we might be able to squeeze one in.

I also see a tiny bit of overlap with some of these witnesses with buy Canada, and I'm going to suggest that perhaps instead of having, for the sake of argument, John Doe for one hour with buy Canada, if this passes, maybe we can do an hour and 20 minutes to kind of combine questions, just so that we're not calling the minister or anyone back many, many times.

We'll start with Mr. Danko.

Go ahead, sir.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We're generally supportive of what is included in this direction here. There are a couple of things that are a bit problematic, though. Number one, as you just mentioned, on having the minister appear again, we want to make sure that we're as efficient as we can be with the minister's time. Also, with regard to the scheduling, we already have a number of studies that are ongoing. If this can be fit in, that's fine, but our preference would be that we do this work once the studies that are already under way are done.

If you'd be amenable to making those changes, we'd be happy to move forward with it now. Otherwise, we could adjourn debate and have some additional discussion off-line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Generally, it has been the history over the decade I've been here that we'll often do several studies at the same time, mostly around availability of witnesses, so I think we could probably do the same with this and accommodate, because we're going to have the minister in, probably, on buy Canada or the supplementaries.

I'm getting nods that we'd agree among ourselves that we will adjust it for that.

We can pass it as is, but we will know that we're not going to call the minister for PSPC separately on this if we have them in for buy Canada, the supplementary (A)s or something like that, and probably it will be in the fall, but we might be able to squeak out one before June, depending on witness availability for buy Canada.

Go ahead, sir.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

On that, just to make sure that we get the wording correct, I'm going to ask that we adjourn debate, and then we can have a finalized direction at the next meeting. We have a really busy second hour in this meeting as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's a dilatory motion.

I will say we do have the time if you want to. We'll bring it up in the next meeting, but I figured we'd do it now because the next hour is in camera for the CER, which is not going to bump other witnesses for other meetings. If, for the sake of argument, at the next meeting the PBO is here, this won't take up the time of the PBO. It's just delaying in camera.

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Yes, please. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We'll have to vote on the motion to adjourn debate.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You voted to adjourn debate on your own motion.

The motion carries. The debate on that is adjourned.

We'll now go back to our regularly scheduled meeting.

We are done now.

We've excused our witnesses, or they can stay for the exciting vote on the main estimates.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'll be honest. I understand English, but I listen patiently to the interpreters. Sometimes, I miss some bits. In all seriousness, in the last minute, I misunderstood and it's my fault. I thought that we had consent and that we were voting on the motion. I admit that there was a language issue. Do you really think that I would vote against my motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We all knew your intent. It doesn't matter. You will see that we will record your vote as a no. Is that fine? It doesn't change things.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Okay. Otherwise, I'll speak to you in French quickly and you won't even be able to understand me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I think we kind of understood, but we'll change it for official reasons. Thank you.

You're welcome to stay, but you can go.

We have the votes on the mains.

As we normally do, can I have UC to combine all the votes into one, please?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Wonderful. Thank you. I will accept that as a yes.

Would we like a recorded vote on these lumped together, or will they pass on division?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

On division I would think is fine, because we know the result.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I just want to make sure that I understand properly, given the slight delay resulting from the interpretation. Can you repeat what we're voting on? Help me, please.