Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2011

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I just wanted to express my support for what Jean-Claude D'Amours said. Some of the things that were said at the beginning of today's meeting are completely inaccurate. I had more questions I wanted to ask at the meeting. My name was on the list, but we ran out of time. And since we had already agreed on the possibility of holding another meeting, I supported the motion to that effect.

As for the people on the witness list, I am especially interested in hearing from the head of DND and the Treasury Board officials, in light of the conflicting statements. I would like to ask them about that. This seldom happens, but it seems that I did not see the Auditor General's letter. In the last paragraph, she offers some suggestions on specific issues the committee may wish to look into further. I would readily submit to the Auditor General's suggestion that we question the witnesses regarding these costs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay.

We'll go to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

As I said at the steering committee, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in that I wasn't here for that actual meeting. I was at another committee. One of my colleagues was subbing in.

I also want to say that I feel very strongly about Mr. Kramp's making reference to the integrity of this committee. He and I started on this committee together way back in 2004. I believe that I'm now the longest continuing-service member on this committee, so the integrity of the process means a lot to me. I have a lot invested in it, and hopefully I will as we go forward.

We don't do this lightly--redo or do follow up--but we have done it, and there have been examples. Again, my friend Mr. Kramp knows well those examples. In some cases, it was four or five steps after the initial hearing, up to and including afterwards. I'm saying that after the hearing and after subsequent meetings, we still did video hookups with people who were in Miami and with former cabinet ministers.

We have done it, but Mr. Kramp is absolutely correct in saying that we have to be very careful when we do that. Those are my words, but I think they're his sentiment. Certainly integrity is important. It means a lot to me, and I think it means a lot to everyone. I believe that it should.

Having said that, I stated at the steering committee that in this case I would err on the side of my fellow opposition caucuses on the call. That's what it would have been, erring on their side. I don't really know--because I wasn't there--whether there should be another or not, so if I'm going to make a mistake in calling it, I'm going to call it on the side of my opposition colleagues, who have questions and claim that this is one of those times when we need a legitimate second go-round.

However, I have to tell you--and I'm not predicating my decision on this--that if I'm reading this document correctly, DND officials were saying that there was only a 10% increase between the two submissions. I'm assuming that means the initial submission in 2006 and a follow-up submission in 2009. It was only about 10%. The AG is saying that it's true, but when you go on, you find out that the way they got there was by reducing the number of aircraft from 16 to 15 and by reducing the number of operating bases from two to one. Further, they talk about how they're going to have to take measures that are ultimately going to reduce the number of flying hours.

Well, that's not the same contract. If you contract for a fleet of cars at a total dollar amount, and you're way over, and the way you tell your customer that you stayed under the budget was by delivering them fewer cars, that's not the same contract.

While acknowledging that my decision is based on erring on this side, if I have to go one way or the other, I do want to add that I think there are some really legitimate questions here about how changing the number of aircraft bought, the number of hours to be flown, and the number of bases to be built constitutes staying within a 10% range. There needs to be a question asked and an answer given as to how that is supposed to be okay and how it's within 10%, because they changed it.

That's pretty big, in my eyes, but I'll listen to that when it comes out. I've stated what I'm going to do and why, and that's that.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I accept Mr. Christopherson's assessment, but I believe that his assessment is wrong. I would ask him, between now and the next committee meeting or whenever we have these people here, to take a look back at the blues of that particular meeting. I think he'll find that the solution is in there. Clarification on his point right there was offered by both Public Works and the Auditor General. I just offer that for his consideration.

If we do go into this thing, at the end of that meeting I would like to see if my colleagues on the other side of the table say, “Did we get bang for the buck?”

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay, fair enough.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

And you'll acknowledge that we should have had it if we have good questions.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I will.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough. He will. He's an honourable man.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I need a motion to adopt this.

It is so moved by Madame Faille.

It is seconded by Mr. Bains.

Do we have agreement to adopt?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

We have a vote, then.

All in favour, please raise your hands.

Those opposed, please so indicate.

It's a tie.

As I did last time, when I voted with the status quo, this time I'm voting again with the status quo, so I'll be voting yes. It's very consistent.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

So tentatively, if I can, I advise colleagues that—

[Terence Young, Oakville, CPC]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, could you clarify “status quo”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

You maintain what has already been determined. The steering committee made a decision to present here, so I'm supporting the steering committee's decision.

We had tentatively put down February 15, so the clerk will take measures to bring the witnesses to the committee on February 15.

As the second item, you have before you an invitation to the 11th biennial conference of the Australasian Council of Public Accounts, taking place in Perth, Western Australia, from April 27 to April 30, 2011.

I believe the steering committee felt that we should distribute this invitation to all colleagues prior to making a decision as to whether we should go ahead and prepare a budget for this and present it to both the liaison committee and then the House.

Mr. Kramp, I don't know whether you had a chance to discuss it with your colleagues, but some of you have probably glanced at it. We gave it some attention. I hope I'm conveying the discussion accurately. This is an invitation to go as observers; it isn't anything else. We can say yea or nay to asking the clerk to prepare the appropriate presentation. If there aren't enough people who want to go—I don't know whether it's worthwhile or not—the clerk could go ahead and make something for our consideration, and then we'd make a decision.

Go ahead, Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, when you say “make something for our consideration”, does that mean prepare a budget? What is it exactly? There's no harm in preparing a budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

That would include everybody, but I thought initially we'd make it easier for her. If there are those who don't want to go, she would make a different budget. I wasn't interested in going, so....

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Why don't we decide who's interested in going?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

We can do it later and do it on a per capita basis, or we can ask around the table. It would make it easier for her.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

In the interest of saving taxpayers' dollars, should we not put a cap on who goes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Saxton, we could do all of those things. I've just given you an indication that I'm not interested in going; however, knowing who might be will facilitate the making up of a budget. Then you either don't have to worry about a cap or you may have to worry about a cap. If all colleagues were to give the same reaction I just gave, we wouldn't have to answer that question.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I think it would be helpful, Mr. Chair, if we had a budget so that we would know what costs are involved.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can we make a budget based on all the members, and then maybe half, and then a budget for one from each, with supporting staff? Then we can make a determination whether this is something we want to move forward on, and if so, whether we want to go with plan A, B, or C.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

We'll make it easier for everybody, Mr. Christopherson. The clerk is prepared to go ahead and put out a plan that includes every member of the committee. It will give us a grand total, and then we'll make a decision—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But give us the option, too. Do the quick math on what it would be to have one from each caucus, and then maybe half the delegation. Give us different numbers to look at.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Include a “per head” cost so that we know the cost per person.