Evidence of meeting #7 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was office.
A video is available from Parliament.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
No.
The grapevine says they've completed their report—
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
I have no idea where it is or what's in it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay. Maybe it's something we can follow up on internally among ourselves.
Thank you very much for your time. It's nice to see both of you here again.
I am going to excuse both of you as I go on to some quick committee business regarding the budget and the schedule.
Thanks very much. Leave the water behind, please.
Commissioner, Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner
Thank you very much. It's always a pleasure.
If there is a need for more information, don't hesitate to reach out.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Perfect. Thanks, again.
I'll get to Mr. Patzer in a minute.
The clerk has distributed three budgets that we need quick approval for. As always, these are maximums and we probably will not spend anywhere close to it.
The first one is $500 for the study of the two PBO reports that we've already done. One was for water only.
Can we get approval for that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The second one is for today with the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. It's $500 for the water. I'm sure we'll come in quite a bit below that.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Mr. Chair, you have to look at me to see if I give you a thumbs-up.
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
To get a consensus, you need to look at me to see if I give you a thumbs-up.
There's a delay with the interpretation. Otherwise, we'll just speak French.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I usually look for nods or thumbs up for something as simple as the budget.
The other is for the study regarding the consul general in New York, which is $1,000. Again, we will not come anywhere close to that.
Are we all fine with that?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
That's wonderful.
Very quickly, I'm just updating everyone on the back-and-forth between ministers. Minister Lightbound has made himself available on October 23 for the first hour, for Canada Post, which we had requested.
That leaves the second hour. I originally suggested we move back some of the studies because neither the minister nor Canada Post would be available. Now that he is, I figure the second hour will be for witnesses. I had said we'll move the request for witnesses back because I thought we'd do the study later, but now it looks like we'll start it so I'll ask everyone to get witnesses in by next Tuesday for three o'clock.
Some have already been submitted. Just resubmit your list, please, with your priorities.
For the 28th, then, we'll also fill in from that witness list.
The President of the Treasury Board has made himself available for the 30th, at the same time, of course, that Minister Lightbound on PSPC is going to be available. We're going to take the first one who said yes, which was the Treasury Board, so they'll be here on the 30th for about an hour and 20 minutes. That gives us just enough time to get through appropriate rounds.
We've asked Minister Lightbound to find another time for us, and he's agreed to reappear on his mandate. The original request was for the mandate but he's doing Canada Post first. He will get back to us, hopefully in the first week of November, for one hour on his mandate briefing and everything else with us.
That is what I have.
Mr. Patzer.
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Since we're in committee business, I would like to move a motion, if I may.
I will get my staff to circulate it to the clerk.
You'll get a copy of it so you'll get to see it, but I'll read it here quickly anyway:
Whereas the government recently announced a Defence Investment Agency housed within Public Services and Procurement Canada, which is overseen by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee study the creation and planning of the Defence Investment Agency for no fewer than two meetings; that at least one meeting be scheduled no later than October 28th; that the committee invite officials from Public Services and Procurement Canada, the Secretary of State (Defence Procurement), and the CEO of the Defence Investment Agency to appear for two hours; that the committee also invite officials from the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Treasury Board Secretariat and any department involved with appointments made for the Defence Investment Agency.
That's the motion I would like to move.
I think, given that there's this new defence investment agency, and there's been a gentleman appointed to it, we have called for him as the CEO. I think it would be good to have him come to talk about his vision for defence procurement. We know the government has created this agency as a chance and an opportunity to streamline procurement. I've read several news articles on the next steps and what the next phase is for the government when it comes to procurement versus purchasing versus, also, our defence strategy here in Canada as well.
I do think, for the sake of this new agency, it would be helpful to have the secretary of state and CEO appear. I have a few other names listed here, as well, but I think this is a very friendly motion in line with other typical motions that this committee does by inviting either ministers or government officials to talk about what their mandate is.
Has it been circulated, Chair?
Conservative
Jeremy Patzer Conservative Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK
Okay, right on.
I would turn it over to the committee to read it. I'm happy to answer any questions on it but I do think this is a pretty simple, straightforward motion.
Conservative
Liberal
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Simply, I'd like to understand the difference between this motion and the one that our colleague, Madam Gaudreau, made with respect to Canada Post, where she had to give notice.
My impressions were that when Madam Gaudreau brought forward the motion for Canada Post, she had to give us notice. Tonight there's no notice.
I'm uncomfortable with a motion being brought forward like this without having had a chance to read it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We went into committee business to discuss and get the budgets approved.
Conservative
Liberal
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Then why was she not allowed to bring a motion when she had one a few weeks ago? Was there a difference?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but we're discussing the motion at hand right now.
Liberal