Government Operations Committee on May 22nd, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Mrs. Vignola.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't disagree with the facts. The testimony the committee heard from Mr. Doan, Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Utano was contradictory. We've heard a number of contradictory statements that may very well warrant clarification. Some claim that they're being scapegoated, and others who appear before the committee will probably say the same thing. They can pass the buck until the cows come home. That's a possibility. If memory serves me correctly, Mr. Doan said he had a health issue having to do with an anxiety attack, a panic attack or something like that. I may be wrong. I could be completely mistaken about that. I may be out in left field. Who knows?

I want to stress the importance of seeing the big picture, getting explanations and asking whether we'll be able to get to the bottom of the situation. Bear in mind that we are neither judge nor jury. Our goal is to ensure that, if there was some sort of wrongdoing, it doesn't happen again. Our goal is to make sure that the processes are strengthened, so that public servants can do their jobs solely with the public interest in mind, not their own. I'm not referring to all 340,000 public servants, only if the shoe fits.

My fear is and remains crossing a line that we mustn't cross. We must set the example for everyone. We mustn't cross a line that verges on bullying or harassment. Never. We must lead by example. The public is looking at us. If we cross that line, people will think it's okay for them to do the same. It will lead to a situation we all find appalling, a situation none of us wants. That is my fear.

Mr. Doan may stay on sick leave. He has 27 sick days banked, and after, he could take unpaid leave or claim sickness benefits through employment insurance. That's a possibility. If that happens, will we compel a sick person to appear before the committee? Will we again use our exceptional power to order a witness to appear at the bar of the House? If we routinely use that power, what makes it exceptional? There is nothing exceptional about imposing the same consequence 15,000 times. This would be three times in two years. That's not exactly exceptional.

Those are my thoughts, the things I'm wondering about, the questions that must be considered.

Of course, I want answers and clarifications, but I don't want to be labelled a bully. I want to make that clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

It's Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move an amendment, which is that we strike, delete, or remove all of (b) from the original motion. That is part (b), which reads, “if Mr. Doan does not appear as ordered, the chair be directed to report the material facts of the matter to the House forthwith.”

If I can speak to that, I would appreciate the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Is it just eliminating (b)?

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Is there a speaking list on the amendment?

Are you going to speak on that? Go ahead, sir. I thought you had stopped.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

No, I just wanted to say that obviously, as a committee, we have important questions to ask Mr. Doan. The next logical step in this progression in the investigation and the work of this committee is to hear directly from Mr. Doan. Obviously, we're trying to be sensitive to the fact that there are some serious medical issues that have come to light as well. However, we do believe that is the next logical step, to hear directly from Mr. Doan.

Therefore, we support the motion to bring Mr. Doan here to committee.

I don't believe that part (b) is necessary at this stage. Let's take this step by step, which is, let's hear from Mr. Doan himself. Let's obviously communicate at the meeting what the repercussions are. If there is additional co-operation, that can be clarified during the meeting, but I do believe that at this stage we should take this step by step.

The next logical step is to call him to this committee, but there is no requirement at this point to include section (b) in this motion, so I'd like that section to be struck.

At the same time, we know that there is important work that Parliament is doing at this point, especially in relation to debating the budget and debating important legislation, and we don't want to tie up the work of the House, which is laser-focused on those issues.

Again, we are supportive of calling Mr. Doan to testify in front of this committee. We think that is the logical next step, but I would ask that part (b) be stricken from the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I see Mr. Genuis on the amendment.

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

Thank you, Chair.

In terms of the proposed amendment, I think it's important to be clear about the process. We're proposing that the committee order Mr. Doan to appear, and it seems that there's agreement on that in principle, which is great. The question is, what if he doesn't appear?

I think if we have a clear consequence in there, which is that we would report on the matter to the House, that increases the chances that Mr. Doan will appear. If we don't have part (b), the chances that the committee could get simply blown off are much higher. With part (b) in there, I think almost certainly he will appear, because we've already established that there is a path for a consequence.

I don't think it's very likely that consequence will be triggered, because with (b) in there, it's a clear message that he needs to appear. If (b) is out of there, then it's ambiguous as to whether there would be any kind of follow-up next step.

Let's also be clear in terms of the nature of that process that would follow.

It's always up to the majority, right? The reason Mr. Firth appeared before the bar was because the majority—in fact, as the case was, it was unanimous in the House—agreed to a motion to bring him before the bar. The outcomes are always going to be controlled by the majority. It's not up to us as one party to determine what the next step is. However, I think (b) is valuable because it establishes what happens if Mr. Doan doesn't appear, and establishing that means he's much more likely to appear.

If we pass this motion without part (b), I think the chances are higher that he simply doesn't appear, and then we're back here all over again, so, on that basis, we would suggest leaving (b) in and that the amendment not be supported.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I see no one else, so we'll go to a vote, Clerk, on the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3)

The amendment passes, and we have an amended motion, which is just the first part. Does anyone wish to speak to it, or can we go to a vote on that?

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)

Thank you very much.

I'm going to go to Mr. Kusmierczyk, but keep in mind that we have about five minutes, so please speak quickly.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

I'd like to put a motion forward. The motion is the following, and it's going to be distributed to the clerk to distribute to the committee. The motion is this:

That, given the recent media reports that Conservative Party of Canada members used taxpayer funds to benefit themselves, their spouses and their staff by expensing hundreds of thousands of dollars to attend partisan events, the committee condemn the hypocrisy of Conservative members' flagrant disregard for taxpayer money and demand a commitment to cease such practices.

I'm happy to speak to that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I bet you are. Go ahead, Mr. Kusmierczyk. You have about four minutes.

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

Chair, I have a point of order I'd like to raise.

I'd like for you to rule on whether this motion is in order. If you'll bear with me, I have a couple of quick arguments I want to make with respect to whether it's in order.

First of all, the mandate of the government operations committee is to deal with operational matters involving the Government of Canada. It sounds like Mr. Kusmierczyk would like to have a discussion about House of Commons operations. We have a procedure and House affairs committee, which is responsible for dealing with matters involving the procedures of the House of Commons.

From what I know, the government is trying to bring this up at multiple committees, which is a tactic I've never heard of being used before by any other members of the House.

[A voice]

Except by you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Please continue. We're taping this.

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

This isn't being recorded, is it?

Chair, I appreciate the levity from other members, but in all seriousness, there are mandates that the Standing Orders prescribe for specific committees. The government operations committee is responsible for government operations. We don't have an opposition operations committee, but we do have a procedure and House affairs committee, which is responsible for dealing with matters related to procedure and House affairs.

We also have a Board of Internal Economy, which governs the rules of the House of Commons, and it includes representation from all parties. The Board of Internal Economy is a place where the rules of the House are established and where, if there is an allegation that the rules of the House were broken....

I don't think there is an allegation here that the rules of the House were broken. There's maybe an allegation that the rules shouldn't be what they are. If members want to change rules or study rules as they relate to House of Commons activities, then the Board of Internal Economy would also be a place where this matter could be studied.

This committee does have a clear, specific mandate. It's looking at operations of government. We look at the activities of Crown corporations. That's one area, Chair, in which I would appreciate your reflecting on and ruling on whether this motion is in order.

Secondly, there are rules around the use of parliamentary language in the House, in committees and in motions that have been put forward. I would also suggest that although we do criticize each other from time to time, in the context of parliamentary committees there are certain words we cannot use. Members aren't able to accuse each other of lying. They're not able to cast other kinds of aspersions, use profanity and those sorts of things.

I think that Mr. Kusmierczyk's motion.... I'm not suggesting that he wrote these words himself; it was probably some poorly paid government staffer. The language in there is not in keeping with parliamentary rules and orders.

On the basis of the mandate of the committee, Chair, as well as on the basis of unparliamentary language, I wonder if you could just reflect on whether this motion is in order. If it's in order, I welcome hearing Mr. Kusmierczyk's comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Maybe I can get to it.

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

I'm sorry. Go ahead. Those are my comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

This motion, while enjoyable amusement for partisan reasons, is clearly out of order. This is something for the Board of Internal Economy. We really shouldn't have been debating it, but I appreciate it being brought forward.

It's 6.30, so we are adjourning.