44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 19, 2023
- 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
