44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023
- 04:22:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I call this meeting to order.
Colleagues, good afternoon. Welcome to meeting number 73 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
Pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House on Wednesday, February 15, 2023, the committee is meeting for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-290, an act to amend the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
Colleagues, I'll remind you that, when you're speaking, make sure you keep the earpiece away from the mike to avoid feedback for our valued translators.
Last meeting, I mentioned we had to address the issue of the nominee for the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. If we have consent, I'm going to propose that we meet with the nominee on Wednesday for a five-minute opening statement, and then one six-minute round with each department.
Are we good with that, colleagues?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: So be it.
I'll get to you, Mrs. Kusie.
Are those bells? We have a vote in 30 minutes.
Colleagues, do we have unanimous consent to continue until five minutes before the vote?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Great.
Mrs. Kusie, do you have something? Go ahead, please.
204 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:24:33 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I hope we can come to a fast resolution on what I'm about to discuss here today. This is a matter that has been before this committee several times before. It is on what I believe is a potential breach of privilege.
Mr. Chair, I would ask you to listen to what I'm about to go over in an attempt to demonstrate how this has been breached, not only for me but for all members within this committee. As I said, I hope we will have the support of the NDP and the Bloc as well as the government in this recognition, so that we can move swiftly on to Bill C-290 and get that bill—I know the Bloc is very anxious to do so—back to the House for the next step.
The breach of privilege, Mr. Chair, is a result of several things.
The first relates to our repeated attempts to get documents from the different departments. As of today, I believe, six of 21 organizations, who have been asked three times. The first was on January 18 and the second was on March 5 by you, Mr. Chair. My goodness, March 5—what month are we in now? We're in June, so this was three months ago. Again, this was after discussing it in this committee on March 8, for a third time, yet they haven't completed their submissions. In fact, 16 submitted redacted documents, when in fact McKinsey themselves have provided unredacted pages.
That is certainly the first reason. We've asked for these documents on several occasions. We certainly want to hear from all the departments. We've heard from some of the departments. I have further information here that tells me it probably isn't even necessary for us to hear from the remaining departments that exist. There seems to be some type of lack of will to move forward on this.
I recognize that we want to get to Bill C-290. We want to get it passed through the House. The Conservatives are committed to doing that. I'm hoping everyone else is as well, understanding the important testimony we've heard.
That would be the first one. We've asked three times for these documents. We have not received these documents.
The second reason obviously has to do with official language rights. It's really important that the committee receive the documents in both official languages. We've seen that some of the documents were redacted. That's not good enough, because we need the documents in both official languages.
Of course, Mrs. Vignola was a good spokesperson. She showed why we had to have documents in both official languages. Furthermore, a member of our party, Mr. Godin, demonstrated why the Conservatives felt it was important for all documents to be translated into both official languages.
I will now talk about the third reason.
I said that it was very important that we receive everyone from the departments to explain to us why we did not receive the documents. However, I believe I have here a communication that moots that, Mr. Chair. It is a communication with the Privy Council Office, from Maia Welbourne to Mr. Paul Mackinnon and cc'd to Erin Mather, Linda Nguyen and Jean Cintrat. Mr. Mackinnon asks Ms. Welbourne if she thinks that....
He writes, “Good morning. Remind me”—and this is on June 6, so around the time that we had the first group—“If passed, it's not binding on government to produce documents. Sent from my iPhone”—as we all do in this day and age, Mr. Chair.
Now, the next part I'm going to read out is very shocking. It's actually contrary to what the legal specialist who was in there visiting said. It, in fact, reads, “The government considers it non-binding if Parliament does.”
According to this communication, according to the PCO, it does not have to listen to the will of this committee or the will of Parliament. It just has to listen to the government. If that is not a breach, I cannot think of what type of breach of privilege might exist. If the PCO, the acting body of this government, is saying that what we decide here, what all parties on this side of the House—in the opposition, I should say—decide, or in fact what we as a committee decide, is not movable and is not actionable enough to produce documents.
I'll finish the communication. It says, “The government considers it non-binding”—that's just so insulting it's difficult to read—“if Parliament does. If government doesn't produce documents as ordered by the House, then the matter can be escalated in a number of different ways, including as far as finding the government is in contempt, a minister or official being called to the bar, a non-confidence vote”.
This is the same kind of scenario as last June with Iain Stewart's being called to the bar, and regrettably, we remember how the government hid behind that event. I think it was truly an event in the House of Commons. However, this is where it gets even juicier, unfortunately.
I'll quote again: “Main difference now being the supply and confidence agreement with the NDP.” This document goes on to say, beyond the insult, that our deciding as a parliamentary committee is not enough for this government to produce documents because it is supported as a result of the supply agreement between the NDP and the Liberal government.
It is for these three reasons.... First is the denial of the documents in redacted form.
Second, we did not receive full versions of them in French and English.
Then, finally, there is this insulting communication that I have in my hands whereby this government actually believes that it is not their responsibility, and who knows who the PCO has been instructed by. We've tried to pull this information from them in the past regarding other matters, but they have been instructed that they are not required to follow the will of Parliament. They are not required to follow the will of this committee and bring these documents to us.
Why need we even listen to these other departments if the PCO has been instructed that these documents need not be supplied to this committee? It's more than enough, I believe, to consider it a breach of privilege.
Perhaps then, Mr. Chair, I will read the motion that I brought forward here today. You can certainly take the time to determine if you agree with my assessment as well.
1148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:35:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Yes, copies have been distributed, or they are being distributed to all members. I will now read this into the record if we're ready.
Again, before I read it, Mr. Chair, I hope we can come to a fast resolution that this is, in fact, a breach of privilege, so that we can move forward to Bill C-290, which is of paramount importance, certainly for the Bloc and of interest for the Conservatives as well.
With that.... Pardon me?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:35:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
I'm reading it now. I move that further to the evidence received by the committee subsequent to the motion adopted on Monday, April 24, 2023, in relation....
By the way, I should say that if the member of the NDP feels so strongly about moving on to Bill C-290, as we do, then he'll vote in support of this motion and we can just move forward to Bill C-290. I think that would be the best way he could show his support for Bill C-290 right now.
I'll continue reading. Actually, I'll start again. I move:
That, further to the evidence received by the Committee subsequent to the motion adopted on Monday, April 24, 2023, in relation to the redactions and improper translation of documents ordered for production by the Committee on Wednesday, January 18, 2023, the Committee is of the opinion that there is a potential breach of privilege which must be reported to the House, and therefore, notwithstanding the decision of the Committee on Monday, April 17, 2023, the Committee adopt the report drafted by the analysts, entitled “Question of Privilege on Providing Documents to the Committee”, as amended, instruct the Chair to present this report to the House forthwith....
I'm going to pause here again, Mr. Chair, and say that we don't want to hold up any of the House business. We just simply want this referred to the House. We don't want to mess up the schedule any more. We are all anxious to get home to our constituents and serve them over the summer, but we feel this has to be dealt with prior to leaving. We just want this referred to the House. That's all we want, Mr. Chair. I believe we'll satisfy the breach. Again, the motion says:
...adopt the report drafted by the analysts, entitled “Question of Privilege on Providing Documents to the Committee”, as amended, instruct the Chair to present this report to the House forthwith, and that the Committee request a comprehensive government response pursuant to Standing Order 109.
Yes, I hope that this committee will take.... I'll wait for your ruling, but I would hope that should you potentially decide it is a breach, this committee would take it seriously, pass this motion and send this off to the House, so that we can swiftly move on to Bill C-290.
Thank you.
411 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:40:38 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
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.
502 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 04:44:44 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
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.
566 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:15:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
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.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:17:21 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
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)
The Chair: We're on clause 33 starting with NDP-15, which is page 35 of the package.
Go ahead, Mr. Johns.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:23:18 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
[Technical difficulty—Editor] requires the gathering and annual publication of client satisfaction as a direct performance indicator. There is a lack of direct performance indicators for the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner.
Multiple reports by the Auditor General and judicial review decisions show that PSIC incompetence, gross mismanagement and failure to provide due process, etc., always disadvantages the whistle-blower, so in consideration of PSIC's performance, the voice of whistle-blowers is completely absent and unavailable. This amendment would make data available and make public servants feel the protection and support, which would serve as an important direct indicator of PSIC's performance.
The purpose of the PSDPA and Bill C-290 are to protect and support whistle-blowers, so whether or not public servants feel protected and supported is obviously absolutely central to whether the PSDPA is functioning as it needs to. Any review of the act that doesn't consider these metrics is an incomplete review, and if public servants don't feel supported and protected in making disclosures, far fewer of them will report wrongdoing and wrongdoing will continue to fester unreported, damaging the public interest.
The reporting of this data would also motivate integrity commissioners and their staff to ensure due process for whistle-blowers. This would not require additional funds, because the evaluation of the performance matrix for the PSDPA requires measurement of whether employees feel supported and protected when reporting a wrongdoing under the act. In fact, the PSIC promised to conduct but has never conducted a client satisfaction survey of whistle-blowers.
I'm hoping we can just vote on this too.
270 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 05:43:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do have difficulty with this. I would like to thank Mrs. Kusie for making the change and removing some of the confidentiality parts of it. However, in regard to NDP-18 as a whole, as you can see at the very beginning, it says, “(2.01) The Commissioner must conduct an annual survey to determine”, and then it goes on for now three provisions.
That annual survey has to happen. I mentioned that to survey all public servants in relation to the way they feel disclosures are managed under this act would be analogous to the public service employment survey, which does cost a considerable amount of money, probably in excess of the entire budget for the commissioner's office as it stands now. That is a significant expense.
There you go, Mr. Chair. I think it would be better off for this amendment not to happen to Bill C-290.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 06:18:26 p.m.
- Watch
- Read Aloud
Mrs. Vignola, I'm going to suggest, seeing as we're past our hard stop of 6:15, that perhaps you put that in writing, and we will address that at our next meeting.
Colleagues, before I adjourn, I'm going to seek some resources to see if we can fit in some time tomorrow. I'll advise everyone late tonight, or first thing tomorrow morning, if we can continue Bill C-290.
If there's nothing else, we will adjourn, and I will see everyone on Wednesday, or perhaps tomorrow. I'll let everyone know first thing in the morning. Watch your emails. Thank you very much.
Thank you again for your help, Ms. Laroche, Ms. Stevens and legislative clerks.
The meeting is adjourned.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
