Public Accounts Committee on June 9th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I found a contradiction. This contradiction is between the motion and the letter that the standing committee sent to Mr. Monette, signed by the chair. In the third paragraph of that letter, it says:

Thus, the Committee would still like to receive weekly reports of what expenditures are being supported by Vote 35, even if those expenditures are incurred against other votes.

Mr. Chair, that's a contradiction, because our motion did not say “even if those expenditures are incurred against other votes”. That was not part of the motion, so there is a contradiction between the motion and your letter of May 27. I think that we still need to go back and clarify the motion.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

That's just not an editorial change; that's a very significant change.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If I may respond, whatever the motion is, we can't change it. That speaks for itself. The motion is addressed to Mr. Monette. The motion talks about expenditures, and that brings it within the mandate of this committee. We don't normally deal with the estimates process, but if they took the money from vote 35 and transferred it to another vote or program and spent it in the program, they still spent it under vote 35.

The $3 billion was allocated to vote 35 and it was either spent or not spent. If it's not been spent, the $3 billion is still sitting there. If you took it from vote 35 and moved it over to the Canadian Tourism Commission, which they did in some cases--I know for a fact they're spending it, because I'm watching the TV ads--then it's been spent.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I don't agree that there's no confusion. We're talking about expenditures. Mr. Monette may be quite right, and if there were no expenditures then he should have respected the motion and filed a weekly report saying there were no expenditures under vote 35. Maybe you're quite right that the motion was wrongly worded, that it's wrong, but I really haven't been shown that clearly from Mr. Monette.

Did anybody else want to speak?

Okay, let's call the vote on the report from the steering committee that was tabled this morning.

All in favour of the minutes, as amended, raise your hands. All opposed?

It's tied. I'm going to vote for the minutes as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I want to make one statement or qualification that I alluded to at the steering committee this morning, and that is on the Royal LePage situation.

I don't have a major problem calling in the deputy briefly to just give us an update or an explanation, but if there are those on the committee who think we can write a report and embed ourselves into the workings of Public Works and Government Services, and change the RFP or somehow adjudicate the process that's going on, I think we have to exercise a lot of caution in that, because this process has started. It's under way. As many people have said, we're a committee of accountability, not management. We can hear from the deputy, but if there are those who think we're going to somehow change or amend the process, I think we'd have to think long and hard about any such action, because that's normally not how this committee works.

Before we adjourn, there's one other issue I want to talk about. On Thursday this week we have a very interesting and I think important issue--I'd urge all members to brief themselves on it--and that is the report on Governor in Council appointments. The Office of the Auditor General has written a report and made certain recommendations. The Office of the Privy Council has indicated that it's their opinion that the Office of the Auditor General has exceeded its mandate.

I've asked for letters from the Office of the Auditor General and from Privy Council. In addition, I've asked for a legal opinion from Mr. Walsh. I think two of them have been circulated. I just urge all members to read it, think about it--it is an important issue--and come with an open mind, because we're not duty bound to follow the advice of the Auditor General, nor are we duty bound to follow the advice of Privy Council.

This is an important academic issue, and I do hope that all members of the committee give it the consideration it deserves.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, on that, is it your intention to deal with that as a separate item, or do you see that woven in?

For what it's worth, I really see these as two distinct issues--one dealing with her jurisdiction, and then the other with the findings of the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I think we'll weave it in. We'll hear from both parties on Thursday. That will be a vital part, because I assume the Privy Council is going to come and say, no, she has no mandate to do this, and they're going to present us with their side of the argument.

We have, in written form, the statement by the Office of the Auditor General--as for Mr. Walsh--but again, all I'm asking is that the committee members give it the attention it deserves.

If there's nothing else, we will adjourn.

The meeting is adjourned.