44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO.
I table the seventh report, in relation to Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act. The committee has studied the bill and, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(1), requests a 30-day extension to consider it.
I also table the eighth report, in relation to the motion adopted on Wednesday, May 17, 2023, regarding the consideration of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 7:41:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join the debate today on amendments to the Standing Orders. I am very pleased to represent the people of Edmonton West. I am actually the ninth MP representing the riding called Edmonton West since the First World War, in 1917. At that time, Edmonton West actually took up one-third of the entire province of Alberta. Now, West Edmonton Mall actually takes up about one-third of the size of Alberta.
The area has been served by various distinguished MPs over the years. In 1917, the MP's last name was Griesbach, and one of our ridings is named after him right now. William Griesbach was an MP for Edmonton West.
We had MP James MacKinnon, who served as MP during the Second World War. Unfortunately, he died in office, which is hopefully a precedent I will not repeat.
Marcel Lambert, who served after the war, was the longest-serving MP in Edmonton West. He served about 28 years. He was a World War II veteran; he landed at Dieppe, was captured there and spent three and a half years in a prisoner of war camp before liberation. He ended up being elected and served as Speaker of the House. We can see his painting in the hallway, the gallery of speakers' portraits. He was the minister of veterans affairs.
As well, serving the area was the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who served as our party leader for a while. Also serving part of Edmonton West, but at the time it overlapped what is now Edmonton West, was a friend of mine, Laurie Hawn, who was an MP for 10 years. Laurie was the very first Royal Canadian Air Force pilot to fly the CF-18, and then he served here for 10 years. Before I ran, he always provided lots of advice for me, but he told me that the best part of being an MP is serving people, and the worst part is the travel. Both are right.
I am blessed in that I inherited Laurie Hawn's staff, Oula Sanduga and Linda Lo, who still work with me today. They are amazing ladies, who have incredible empathy and who know everything about helping people. On my very first day in our office, we were able to help a new Canadian who had to have some paperwork finalized that day; otherwise, he would have lost out on his planned surgery the next day. It was a young boy getting cleft palate surgery. Our office was able to help him.
Laurie was right: The best part is helping other people, and the worst part is the travel. I bring that up because it relates to what I am going to get into about the Standing Order changes, and the main part, which is the hybrid Parliament.
We have all heard about, and we have all experienced, the horrors of airline travel in Canada, especially recently. There has been lost luggage. We have all had missed flights. I have had missed flights and delays; I have gotten stuck in the wrong cities. I thank Air Canada and West Jet. Part of the problem is that we have a near-duopoly, and that allows Air Canada and West Jet to treat Canadians the way they do, which is not very well.
The thing is that I knew about this in advance. The huge majority of us knew about that before we got into this role. We knew that travel was bad. We knew it was part of the job. We accepted that when we ran. Just as we knew that helping people would be the high of the job, we knew that travel would be the low of the job.
It is funny to sit here in the House and hear members talk about how the travel is bad now. It has always been a bad part of the job. To claim that, all of a sudden, it is bad, but it was not bad in 2015, 2019 or 2020 before COVID, strikes me as a bit dishonest, to be blunt. It is almost as if some members showed up here and were shocked to find out that coming to Ottawa 26 weeks a year is part of the job; therefore, they want to mail it in through a hybrid process.
It was bad before, but it was worse for poor Mr. Griesbach, who had to come out by train in 1917. It has been proven that it is still bad now. What has changed, of course, is the access to Zoom. Zoom is very convenient, I admit, but just because Zoom is available and convenient for members of Parliament does not mean it is something we should switch to as a matter of hand. I do not think it is good for democracy or for the health of this place. My preference would obviously be to not have a permanent hybrid process, as the government and the NDP enablers are suggesting.
In 2015, we heard from the government, and we heard earlier today, that we want to make it family-friendly. I always find in this place that whenever the government talks about reforming Parliament to make it family-friendly, it is a code word that means, “We're going to take away accountability. We're going to take away powers to hold us to account from the opposition.”
I want to talk about the main problem that I see with a hybrid Parliament, which is the accountability issue. Many times, we have seen elected officials, bureaucrats, show up only by Zoom in committee. A couple of months ago, on the public accounts committee, which I am also a member of, we had 13 witnesses from the public service. Every single one of them was based in Ottawa. Every single one of them decided it was too much to come in person to the public accounts meeting; it was too much to show Canadians respect by showing up in person. Every single one of them Zoomed in. We heard them with delays because of problems with mikes, computers not working and bad sound. Here we had a very important public accounts committee trying to seek answers on behalf of Canadian taxpayers, and we had 13 public servants who did not show up.
We have had committees where ministers would only attend by Zoom. We see Liberal MPs showing up in committees, and I recognize their backdrop, because they are in the Confederation Building. However, they cannot come to West Block downstairs to join the committee.
The reality is that the opposition members, including the Bloc and the NDP, are here to hold the government to account. The Liberal members who are not in the cabinet and are not in the government are here to represent their constituents. That is why we are here. To switch to a hybrid Parliament takes away that accountability for us to hold the government to account; it takes away the accountability of the Liberal members when it comes to serving their constituents here in Ottawa.
Canadians deserve more than just having a minister Zoom in their appearance to committee. They deserve more, they need more, than just having public service bureaucrats, officials, Zoom in to committees. They should be there in person.
We have a hybrid-driven lack of resources in this place right now. Yes, we are sitting late, but even before we started sitting late, we were running out of resources. We are losing committees because of burnout of our translators. We do not have enough translators, and we do not have enough people to run the committees so we can operate.
In the operations and estimates committee, also known as OGGO, or as I call it, “the mighty OGGO, the only committee that matters”, since May 3, we have had three committees cancelled. In just a month and a half, three committees have been cancelled because of a lack of resources.
On May 3, we had the President of the Treasury Board set to appear to defend the main estimates. A lot of people at home, all five of them watching on CPAC and all five of them in the House right now, are probably unaware, but the estimates are why Parliament exists. It goes back to 1295 and the model parliament, where Edward said, “What touches all should be approved by all”. That is the basis of what our Parliament is: the approval of spending, raising taxes and spending them, which is the estimates process. However, here we have the President of the Treasury Board, representing the government's billions of dollars of spending, and we have to cancel the meeting that she was to attend. The Conservatives, Bloc, NDP and even Liberal members were deprived of the opportunity to question the President of the Treasury Board on the main estimates. What touches all should be approved by all, unless one is in a hybrid Parliament in Canada. In that case, things get cancelled, and the money just gets approved without oversight.
On May 10, also on the estimates process, we were to have two departments come in, but the meeting was cancelled because of a lack of resources, and this lack was driven by the demands of hybrid Parliament. There were two departments. We had Defence Construction Canada, a small side department that does not get in the news much. However, it is the only department I have ever seen noted by the Auditor General as specifically at risk for fraud. I have done public accounts for years, off and on, and I have done the operations estimates for eight years.
Billions of dollars of taxpayer money is at risk. The Auditor General notes that it is at risk of fraud, and the meeting was cancelled. MPs were not able to question the departments on what they are doing to address the Auditor General's concerns, because of a lack of resources driven by hybrid.
At the same meeting, the Transportation Safety Board was supposed to come before OGGO to explain its estimates request. The Transportation Safety Board is as it sounds. It is the safety board that ensures the safety of air, marine and pipelines, and it reports publicly. If Canadians want to freak out, they should google the watch-lists for the Transportation Safety Board.
The Transportation Safety Board was supposed to come before us, and it has several times. We always ask if Transport Canada is responding to its concerns, and the answer is always, “No.” I challenge members to look it up on the website. They will see that this goes back through eight years of incompetence by the government and the Minister of Transport, the same one who is leaving Pearson Airport a mess and leaving other airports a mess.
We can take a look at the watch-list. There are a couple of items from the watch-list here. Keep in mind that we were deprived of our ability, on behalf of Canadians, to address this issue. This is from the watch-list, just the air watch-list: “Runway overruns continue to pose a risk to people, property, and the environment.” That is wonderful. The next one is, “Runway incursions lead to an ongoing risk of aircraft colliding with vehicles or other aircraft.” Runway incursions have doubled since the current government took power. Think about that, Mr. Speaker.
Members can remember Air Canada at Los Angeles, LAX. A couple of years ago, due to an error, an Air Canada flight almost landed on and collided with another plane. The loss of life would have been in the hundreds and hundreds. That is what a runway incursion is. They have doubled in the last eight years. We were deprived of our opportunity to question them to make sure they have enough resources to do their work.
Also on the watch-list is, “Some transportation operators in the air, marine, and rail sectors are not managing their safety risks effectively.” Does the Transportation Safety Board have enough resources and people to follow up? We are not going to get a chance to question them and perhaps adjust the estimates for that.
Another issue is, “Crews often work long and irregular schedules, which poses a significant risk.” What Canadian out there wants to read this and know we could not ask questions about it, examine it or look at the departmental plans on how they are going to address this, because we have a lack of resources because of hybrid?
The TSB also wrote, “Regulatory surveillance has not always proven effective at verifying whether operators are, or have become, compliant with regulations and able to manage...safety”. If I go to its web page and actually read through the watch-list for marine as well, I would not be looking to fly in Canada. I think most of us in this place would be hiding in our basements, Zooming in like the Liberal government is, if we read what is going on.
I joke about that a bit, but this is a serious thing. This is a result of our not having the resources to examine this and make sure the Transportation Safety Board has resources or that its departmental plans reflect the ability to address that.
The next meeting that was cancelled was on June 7. Again, it was the operations and estimates committee. We had departmental officials called to explain why they were refusing an order of Parliament to produce documents. It is right in our rules and procedures that committees can order any document they wish. In fact, the Speaker, who is with us right now, ruled on this about a year ago, regarding the Winnipeg lab, that the committees have the power to order any documents they wish. The government cannot withhold them for privacy reasons or for any reasons. We have the ultimate power.
OGGO, with the support of the governing party, requested documents from McKinsey & Company. We asked McKinsey and we asked the 19 departments that had done business with McKinsey. Guess what? McKinsey approached us and said it would give us everything unredacted, but the government had asked it to redact some stuff. It asked if it could redact that, and we said, “No. The order is for unredacted.” It provided that. However, of the government departments we ordered documents from, 19 out of 19 refused to hand over redacted documents
The Liberal government blocked all ability to report it to the House, so we invited the departments in to explain why they were refusing an order of Parliament. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We did not have the chance to talk to them, because of a lack of resources.
Here we have bureaucrats deciding what laws they will follow, what rules they will follow, not based on what Parliament decides, not based on what the Canadians who elected us decide, and not based on what Canadians want. We have bureaucrats deciding what they will hand over.
We had departments saying that the access to information law trumps Parliament, trumps what this very Speaker said our powers were. We had departments saying that the Constitution forbade Parliament from asking for these documents. We had one department actually claim that releasing the documents it had, that McKinsey had already provided us, would cause people's pensions to be at risk, even though McKinsey said it would hand them over.
We would have liked to ask the departments why they were blocking Parliament, but we never got to that, because of the lack of resources.
We like to say that Canada is a country of rules, and that the Constitution sets out the powers of Parliament and gives us the ability to make laws for peace, order and the good government of Canada. That is generally the case, unless the bureaucrats do not want that, in which case we cannot hold them accountable because we do not have the resources, because the virtual Parliament is burning out our translators, depriving us of this.
One of the more interesting ones that could not be brought before us was ESDC. It actually tabled redacted documents, despite the order, but it did not provide them in French. It was about 1,000 pages in English and 600 pages in French. We all know that, generally, if there are 10 words in English, it is about 12 or 13 in French. It tabled it, despite our Official Languages Act, despite issues that we have in this country, despite it being stated that we have problems with virtual Parliament drowning out French in this place. The government department did not table it in French. “Do not worry,” they said, “We will get back to you with it again in a week.”
The next week, they retabled it with English mixed in with the French, once again violating our rules. I would sure like to bring them before us, but of course we cannot.
We asked the Liberals if we could perhaps bring this to the House, to talk about why the department was violating the privileges of parliamentarians to have the documents in French. Liberals, with the help of the NDP cohort, blocked that as well.
I had the privilege of serving on PROC as well when we were studying some of the issues, and we heard from some of the translation bureau folks. They were telling us that it was like having popcorn going off in their ears when there were bad connections. We are still seeing, to this day, committee members showing up, Liberal committee members showing up without headsets. We have translators who are going on sick leave.
Again, think about that, the sound of popcorn going off in one's ears. That is with regular headsets.
We have a problem with this. I understand that there are some needs from time to time, when parliamentarians cannot get here. I accept that. I accept, perhaps, in the House, that there should be ways around it, so that we can ensure that our translators are protected, while also ensuring that we have accountability, that we can hold the departments accountable, that we can hold the government accountable, that we can do our jobs.
With how it is proposed right now, under the extension of the hybrid, I do not think we are getting that. I do not think Canadians are getting what they want out of parliamentarians. Parliamentarians are not getting what they want out of this system.
3126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:02:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my colleague had so much difficulty following regular straightforward stuff.
The reality is Canadians from all walks of life can be elected as parliamentarians. It is offensive for this gentleman to state that perhaps a person of colour cannot fly to Ottawa like anyone else. That is outright offensive. As to regular Canadians being part of Parliament, this place is full of regular Canadians.
If the government had suggested perhaps a system of the House being hybrid but committees being in person, committee chairs needing to meet in person and witnesses having to be in person, certainly I would be open to look at some solutions. A straightforward hybrid for everyone if they wish, including ministers at committee, any time they want does not work for accountability, it does not work for Canadians and I do not think works for parliamentarians.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:05:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it has been over year, but I congratulate her on the birth of her child.
There are ways we can deal with this. Certainly we can make adjustments for those who are sick and those who have babies, etc. We can certainly work around that, but we should look toward consulting members about how we can address that. We should look at all sides, and not just at what we are seeing from the government, which is a blanket hybrid for all.
If it was simply on the honour system and everyone showed up in committee when they were in town but we had the hybrid for other reasons as a backup, as the colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke explained with his situation, I would be fine with that, but we do not see that.
In the committee I chair, I see often one member of the government there and I see the faces on the screen of the others sitting in their offices on Wellington or in Confed, or I see ministers Zooming in, or officials. If the system is set up to ensure we can have accountability and those who could be here are here, I would be supportive of that, but this system as it is, without consultation from all the parties and without a real sincere attempt to try to address very valid issues about accountability or caring for families, has not been seen, so I cannot support what the government has proposed.
251 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:08:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague keeping it to two questions and not going on for a full 10 minutes, as she had commented.
To the first issue, I would say that those in glass houses should not throw stones. I sit on the operations committee, and I watched the NDP join the government in a filibuster to block our ability to bring a privilege motion to the House. Our rights and responsibilities had been taken away by bureaucrats who refused an order of the House, and we had the NDP filibuster it. Therefore, I can understand the member's frustration with voting, but it is no different than filibustering to prevent members of Parliament from exerting their privilege.
With respect to the comment on privilege, Canadians do have equal access to be able to run. People are in different stages of their life and in different circumstances. Certainly, we should encourage everyone we can to run. I agree that, if there are ways we can improve access, that is wonderful, but it should be decided among the parties, not just the by the government, with its enablers in the NDP, forcing these changes down our throats.
It used to be tradition that changes to the Standing Orders were done through a consensus in the House. If one person said no, the government would back away. We are not seeing that. At the operations committee, we saw the government try to change the process with the estimates to allow it to have access to I think it was $7 billion of spending on vote 40. When Scott Brison was the president of the Treasury Board, he tried to change the Standing Orders on the main estimates, which is the reason Parliament exists, to suit himself and the government. Again, it is moving away from consensus to deciding and ramming it down the throats of others, and I do not think that is right.
323 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:11:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is all of the above.
8 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
