OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 9, 2003

¹

1545

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.))

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

¹

1550

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.)

º

1600

The Chair

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

The Chair

º

1605

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 030

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1545)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): This is the 30th meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and we're here considering the clause-by-clause amendments to Bill C-25.

    Mr. Valeri.

    Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): On a point of order, I'm just wondering what happened to the motion that was passed by the committee requesting additional information from Mr. Savoie. Has there been a response to that, or has there been any reaction? I'm interested in where that is at the moment.

    The Chair: I'm sorry, I broke my glasses, so if I'm looking a little askance at you.... I didn't want to put a big ball of tape on them.

    I'm informed by the clerk that we've had no official response to that request.

    Does anyone have any other information on that particular subject?

    We've not had either affirmation or denial. Is that what you're saying? We've had nothing.

    Mr. Valeri.

    Mr. Tony Valeri: I thought the purpose of getting that information was to assist us in our work as we proceed in our clause-by-clause analysis of the bill, to understand the thinking behind the bill and the whole process, how we're approaching this particular exercise. So without that information, I don't know whether we should be continuing this or waiting for that information.

    Are you suggesting we don't have an answer, or that the answer is no?

    The Chair: Well, I'm a little torn. Our communication on these items is through the clerk. She has approached the Privy Council Office. She has received no response. I asked her to call just before the meeting, and there's been no official response.

    I have been told by others that the information will not be forthcoming.

    Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I wonder if you could just remind me of what witnesses we're referring to specifically. I think one was Mr. Savoie.

    I'd just throw this out as a possibility, that if we can't get that written evidence, maybe we could have them back to the committee as witnesses before we proceed to clause-by-clause.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: The information that was requested was the report, letters, or advice on Bill C-25 by Mr. Donald Savoie, commissioned by the human resource modernization task force, and any other reports, letters, or advice commissioned by the task force regarding Bill C-25, in particular the reports of Mr. Jim Mitchell and Mr. Nicholas D'Ombrain. That was the request.

    The official response from the person this was directed to, the access to information officer in the Privy Council Office, is “no response”. The unofficial response is “no”.

    Madam Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): When we started our deliberations, was Mr. Savoie not one of the people we had asked to see at the committee?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: What happened that we didn't see him?

    The Chair: His wife was ill and he indicated it would be difficult for him to come, and I'm led to believe then there was an indication that there was...he had already made.... Whether he said that or whether.... I didn't have personal communication with him, but the reason he did not come was the illness of his wife.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: And we've gone into clause-by-clause, so we've cut off, up until now, that opportunity anyway. We have decided to go into clause-by-clause.

    The Chair: Well, it's up to the committee to decide what it wishes to do.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Right, but up until that time, when we went into clause-by-clause, he was unavailable.

    The Chair: Right.

    I'll go to Mr. Mahoney, and then back to Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I think most of us probably know Mr. Savoie and have the utmost regard and respect for him. It's unfortunate that he was unable to come, and I am sure that all of us wish his wife a recovery to better health, but frankly I don't see how we can stop the committee because of it.

    We've started into clause-by-clause, and a lot of people at this end of the table and the staff end have done a lot of work to try to get this thing going. We've a legislative agenda of our own as a committee and a lot of things that we want to do. If there are problems that have not been spoken of here about information coming from PCO, or anyone else, perhaps it is something that this committee would be prepared to undertake in the form of inviting some witnesses to come before us after we've dealt with this.

    We really have a very critical bill here, dealing with some very important stuff. I don't know, but perhaps because of the fact that it is somewhat cumbersome for those of us not involved in labour management relations and the civil service, the bill doesn't get the urgency that we might put on Bill C-17 on security, or other issues. But it's an important bill, and there are a lot of people waiting to see the outcome of this—the staff and the representatives of the unions being referred to.

    So I think that we have an obligation to get through the clause by clause, and I regret that we're unable to have Mr. Savoie here, but we're facing a two-week break for Easter. Coming back from Easter, we're going to get more witnesses, perhaps two or three witnesses besides Donald Savoie, which is going to eat up another couple of meetings. Where does it all end? I think we have an obligation as parliamentarians to get on with this.

    The Chair: The bill has been 32 years in the making, and the report two years. I think we have an obligation to review the legislation also.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, I'm not interested in the 40-year anniversary.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): It would appear unlikely that the clause-by-clause is going to be completed before we rise for the break. That's fairly obvious from the discussions we've had.

    I think it's relevant that the genesis of this significant bill really funnelled through the task force, and one of the principal coming-togethers of the thinking behind the bill was through Mr. Savoie. I gather that the reason we passed the motion at the last meeting was it was considered relevant and necessary vis-à-vis the clause-by-clause consideration. If we want to reverse ourselves on that motion, then we should just carry on with clause-by-clause. But if it is still our view that the information could be relevant to the discussion and consideration of the important recommendations made from all sides of the House, then we should sustain that motion and call the witness.

    Maybe we ought to just broach this. I would move that we follow through with the motion—accepting the informal response that, no, we're not going to get those reports—call the witness, and suspend clause-by-clause until we discharge those informational requirements.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Are you putting that forward as a motion? Could you repeat your motion, Mr. Szabo?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I move that we suspend clause-by-clause consideration, pending the receipt of information and/or hearing of the witnesses referred to in our motion of the prior meeting.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Tirabassi, Madame Folco, and Dr. Bennett indicate that they want to speak.

    Mr. Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I believe that the committee is aware that the dilemma we find ourselves in is, first, that we haven't received a response from the PCO. Is that correct?

    I don't think their intention is not to respond. The request was made yesterday morning. It's been a hectic week, including Monday, Tuesday, and yesterday morning. I can say that I've spoken to the minister who has this bill before the committee, and in all fairness, the dilemma she finds herself in is that, of course, the whole decision about documents and cabinet confidentiality is much bigger than any single minister, so we're looking at tying up an entire bill while we are trying to address another problem.

    I'm just wondering if the committee would consider trying to find some way to move ahead with the bill. If the problem is that there's a refusal to release documents or parts of documents, could the committee make this part of its agenda when we reconvene after dealing with the entire bill? I throw this out as a suggestion. I believe that this motion should be made on principle, but again, we have this bill in front of us and we're looking for a way we can maybe proceed with it, and deal with the other matter at another time.

    The Chair: Madame Folco.

[Translation]

    Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Speaking immediately after Mr. Tirabassi, I too think that it would be unfortunate if this bill, which is after all an important piece of draft legislation, the end product of a great deal of effort and time, were used as a vehicle to promote something that could ultimately prove to be a very serious fundamental problem.

    Instead, I would suggest, and Mr. Tirabassi and I are in complete agreement on this score, that we continue the task we have undertaken, that is our clause-by-clause study of the bill, and that we turn our attention to this problem once our task is completed. This may be of little consequence, but then again, it may not be unimportant. This would allow us time to examine an issue that concerns the role of members, in particular members of a standing committee of the House of Commons.

    Therefore, I propose that we continue the task at hand, but that once we are finished, that the committee turn its attention to this next item of business, namely serious consideration of your request to Privy Council, of the response provided, and of our reaction to that response. Thank you.

º  (1600)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Dr. Bennett.

    Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I hear what my colleagues are saying. This is a matter of principle.

    I don't know how else, as parliamentarians, we are able to get our point across, other than by the work of committees where we explain that if we aren't to simply rubber-stamp, if we do need the information with which to make decisions, we have to have the documents with which to make those decisions, or we have to have people come and tell us why we won't be getting the document, or which bits they've decided it's okay for us to have.

    Donald Savoie did an extraordinarily exhaustive study of this. We understand some of his ideas are reflected in the bill, and some of them aren't. I would like to hear from him as to what he thinks would be the next steps, or what is missing in the bill.

    I also have asked, on a number of occasions, why we haven't heard from Jocelyne Bourgon. The Canadian Centre for Management Development is actually in the name of the bill, yet we haven't heard from her.

    I don't think we do Parliament any good by ramming this through, no matter how important it is. There has to be a point where the buck stops, and it has to be with parliamentarians. We either get the information we've asked for or we don't--and somebody's then going to have to explain to us, and to the people of Canada, why we're not allowed these reports that Canadians have paid for.

    I was very disturbed at the last meeting to hear that documents we can't have exist. I am very disturbed to know that somebody's going to give us the bits someone's chosen, even under access to information. The idea that parliamentarians have to ask for access to information has always bothered me.

    What is the matter with transparent advice to a minister when we take the political consequences of doing some bits of it and not others? The original document should be there. Then somebody should have to come before us and explained, we know Mr. Savoie asked for X, Y, and Z; we've decided to do X and this is why we're not doing Y and Z at this time. That's what grown-ups do: they say they're only ready to do X right now.

    I think it's a really important point. I can't go out and talk about parliamentary reform and democracy between elections and all of that to every frigging high school in my riding and then sit here letting this happen. So I won't.

    I'm very clear that I have been asking for Donald Savoie to come for a long time. I have been asking for Jocelyne Bourgon to come. I am not prepared to move to clause-by-clause unless I hear from those people and I see the full document, or I have somebody come and tell me why I can't see the whole document.

    The Chair: Mr. Cullen.

    Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    These are not incidental witnesses who reinforce each other's positions or whose testimony sometimes tends to become repetitive; these are fundamental witnesses who are involved in the building of this bill.

    I understand the comments of Mr. Tirabassi and Ms. Folco, but the difficulty I have is if we go through clause-by-clause and clauses are approved, and then we have the witnesses before us and they raise some issues around some principles or points that would have changed our view of what the clause-by-clause consideration should be, it's a bit too late to go back.

    I'm supporting my colleague Ms. Bennett and others in asking to have those witnesses come before us and pause with the clause-by-clause until we've had their testimony.

    The Chair: Are there any further comments?

    Mr. Forseth.

º  (1605)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Well, it has been very interesting to sit and listen to this.

    I'm just wondering if Mr. Quail could provide some technical information or at least his understanding of why, in view of Ms. Bennett's concern about getting some documents and not others.... I wonder if he could just help us at least with a technical opinion. Just for the record, there are some explanations out there, whether they will change opinions or not.

    The Chair: Mr. Quail, do you wish to speak for the information officer of the Privy Council Office? You're welcome to defer, sir.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Just a minute, Mr. Quail. To whom is the letter addressed?

[English]

    The Chair: The letter is not addressed to Mr. Quail. The requests go to the director of access to information in the Privy Council Office.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's right. I know that Mr. Quail is capable of answering questions, but the letter is not addressed to him. I'm not interested in knowing what Mr. Quail thinks. A request was submitted to Privy Council and an answer has not be provided. It really doesn't matter if Mr. Quail is the Deputy Minister or the director of whatever. The letter isn't even addressed to him. That person to whom the letter was addressed should have responded and handed over the documents requested.

    We're proposing certain amendments and we should have these documents in our possession in order to rework the amendments as well as some important principles. We need to have these documents in our possession. We shouldn't go ahead with the clause-by-clause study and then find ourselves in the position of having to rework every single amendment. We need all of these documents in order to to a proper job. We have time. In any event, we won't be doing the clause-by-clause study of this bill before the Easter break. I totally agree with Mr. Cullen, Mr. Valeri, Ms. Bennett and Mr. Szabo. We need to have all of the documents, not only a select few. This is an important piece of legislation, as members opposite have stated. Therefore, the committee's actions should reflect this fact. We need to have all of the documents in our possession before we proceed further with this bill. Thank you.

    Therefore, I'm not interested in hearing Mr. Quail's opinion.

[English]

    The Chair: Shall I call the question?

    An hon. member: What is the language of the motion?

    The Chair: Would the clerk read the motion, please?

    The Clerk of the Committee: The motion is that the committee suspend clause-by-clause proceedings pending the receipt of the requested information and/or hearing from the witnesses mentioned in the motion.

    An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote, please.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

    The Chair: Clause-by-clause is suspended.

    We have a meeting called for tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. I suggest that we turn that into an in camera business meeting to sort out how we're going to proceed, who we are going to call, the process we're going to use, and the timeline. Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: That's tomorrow morning at nine o'clock in this room.

    We're adjourned.