Government Operations Committee on Nov. 27th, 2023

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Mr. Scheer.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I'm not shocked at that.

I want to reinforce a point that my colleague Mr. Genuis made, that this is about protecting the interests of taxpayers and safeguarding their hard-earned money.

On the idea that it's somehow the nuclear option to report this to the House, I utterly reject that. Procedurally, what that would mean is that the House would be advised. Should the government fail to abide by this duly constituted, properly passed motion, in the event that the committee adopts it, there needs to be a “what if”. If the government looks at this motion and says that the committee has asked for something and they can just ignore it, then they will. They've done that in the past.

The reporting mechanism is very straightforward. It would inform the House that an order of the committee is being ignored. It would then be up to the House as to whether or not to adopt and concur in that report, at which point the powers of Parliament kick in.

That's really the crux of this matter. In order for the government to be forced to do something, it needs to be elevated to that level. Otherwise, we would have to wait. If we adopt this amendment, the NDP member is suggesting that this committee would then have to become seized with this issue again. The genius behind this motion is that it all gets done in one step. It orders the production...and includes a mechanism that if the will of the committee is not respected by the government, there's then an enforcement mechanism to compel them to do so. Otherwise, this would be an expression of opinion with no actual follow-up.

The reason that this is important is because Parliament is not somehow a backdrop for the Prime Minister. It's not a set in which he plays his role. We're not extras in his movie or in his productions. We have a constitutional duty to hold the government to account. That's the purpose. That's why we're all here. We're not here to enjoy the November weather in Ottawa. We're here to do a job. We're here to pore through the books, bring out the magnifying glasses and go through every detail. That is our role.

This isn't just wanting to get a few exchanges of emails from somebody. These are multi-billion dollar contracts, in which the government seems to have failed to ensure protection for Canadian workers.

It's hard to think, other than with national security issues, of other types of issues that would rise to this level of importance for parliamentarians. Poring through the books to identify how tax dollars are being spent and the impact on Canadian workers are the top two or three jobs that members of Parliament could think of having to do throughout the parliamentary day.

I don't see the problem in reporting it back to the House. In fact, I see the problem if we don't do that, because then we'll likely be back here in a few weeks.

Let's just take that off the table. Let's think of every possible scenario to get a one-stop shopping type of motion to ensure not only that we pass this motion compelling the documents, but that there's an enforcement mechanism to ensure the government respects the democratic will of this committee.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Chair, on a point of order, I wonder whether Mr. Johns can clarify this.

He moved an amendment. My understanding, looking at the motion, would be that his amendment proposes to remove paragraph (g).

Just so we know what's on the table, is the amendment to remove paragraph (g) or is it something else?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Johns, do you want to answer Mr. Garnett to confirm that it's removing paragraph (g)?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

It is just to remove the words in the motion, wherever they're stated, “to the House” with “committee”. That's it. All it would be doing in paragraph (g) is saying "present a report to the committee”.

If I could, when I get a chance, I'd like to respond to my colleague Mr. Scheer's comments.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. We need to know what we're debating. It's to replace the word “House” with the word “committee” in paragraph (g). That's the amendment.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Yes.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's Mr. Sousa, then back to you, Mr. Johns, then over to Mr. Genuis.

Go ahead, Mr. Sousa, on the amendment.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the amendment, I'm a little shocked that we have an opportunity here to continue to enable foreign direct investment. These are confidential matters. The members opposite appreciate that, and I appreciate members' desire to review the contracts and determine—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm going to interrupt you, Mr. Sousa. We're discussing the amendment.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

It's on the amendment. I understand.

This is why it's important that we maintain the confidentiality of these contracts in enabling us to continue to track these investments. For us to provide them, then expose them to others, puts at risk.... It jeopardizes the very existence of the enablement of these investments coming to Canada.

I would ask us not to make this...to the House, as a result. However, I'll allow the members the opportunity to review it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Johns.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

First of all, I can't imagine how that would play out, if we start doing that at this committee—ordering all documents directly to the House. We're starting from a position.... If we send it directly to the House, we're just stating that requests we make at OGGO will be ignored. I don't know why we're assuming this. Going through the House can also be slower. The committee can order the documents today. Kicking it to the House means reporting to the House—perhaps later this week—and debating it sometime next week, or whenever.

I think this is a starting point. Getting the documents to the committee is the normal procedure. If we don't have positive results, I'm happy to entertain having conversation about taking it to the next level. From a procedural standpoint, I think that, if we start doing this with our committee, it is going to be a big problem for us. It's undermining...as well. It's just bad faith to start with. I don't believe in that.

We need to start from the position that the request needs to be honoured. That's where I want to start on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks, Mr. Johns.

It's Mr. Genuis, then Mr. Housefather and Ms. Vignola.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I see where this is going.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather, on the amendment.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'd like some clarification, as well, because I think this is a bit confusing.

Paragraph (g) says, “the Chair be instructed to present a report to the House”. It is clear Mr. Johns is suggesting this be changed. I don't know that you would need to present a report to the committee, because the committee is aware this would be adopted. I think the right intention would be to remove paragraph (g), but I leave that to Mr. Johns.

Then there's paragraph (h), which refers to the same thing. It talks about what happens in the event the documents are not produced as ordered by the committee, then states this would then go to the House. It sounds to me as if Mr. Johns would like to reconsider this, in the event it is not done—not have it in this motion right now. There's also the amendment Mr. Johns proposed. It would also have to deal with paragraph (h).

I'd ask my colleague Mr. Johns to reread paragraph (g) and paragraph (h), and to provide some clarity as to what the amendment would do. It makes no sense to me that we wouldn't also be amending paragraph (h), because he was globally amending it to remove references to the House at this stage. We're not supposed to presume the documents won't come as the committee requested.

I leave that, again, to Mr. Johns to clarify.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mr. Johns, do you want to take a stab at clarifying that?

Then we'll go to Ms. Vignola and Mr. Genuis.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

It makes more sense—I think Mr. Genuis raised this, as well—to remove paragraph (g), because it won't be necessary.

Looking at paragraph (h), I think we could look at.... I would be open to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, Mr. Johns. We can't change your amendment. I think Mr. Housefather was looking for clarification from you on what you were trying to do, originally.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

What I was trying to do was get the documents produced and reported back to the committee. I was hoping we would have the conversation from there.

I'm open to a friendly subamendment by Mr. Housefather to paragraph (h).

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

A friendly amendment to the subamendment....

We're going to go to Ms. Vignola and then to Mr. Genuis.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's on the original amendment, please.