Finance Committee on June 5th, 2012

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I just want to finish, if I may, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes, sure.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Having said all of that, Monsieur Boissonneault, I thank you for the clarification.

I would ask opposition members to seriously consider taking this respected and trusted Auditor General at his word and to not try to put words in his mouth or make assumptions about any potential reason this might have occurred, other than to take the reason he's provided at face value.

Those would be my comments.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Brison on the list.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Just on this, the reality is that the government is reducing the budget of the Auditor General. The Auditor General has to reduce oversight somewhere. This is where, given the choices, he has identified areas where he would remove his oversight.

I'm not attacking the Auditor General for doing that which he had to do, but it is a reality that it was in response to cuts to the Auditor General's office, and as such a reduction in oversight, scrutiny, and accountability of government on both a performance and a spending basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Can I go to a vote, then, on...?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Last comment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A last comment, Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I just want to put on the record for Mr. Brison's benefit that he actually has the cart before the horse. All departments and heads of departments were asked to submit 5% and 10% plans to find inefficiencies in their departments. It was only after these proposals were made that the government came up with the deficit reduction action plan decisions.

So again, Mr. Brison actually has the cart before the horse and is wrong when he says that's the way it happened, because in fact it happened the other way. The submissions were made and then we took the Auditor General's recommendations and accepted these as being duplicative, unnecessary, and ineffective.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I have a growing list here.

Monsieur Caron, and then Ms. Nash, please.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Like Ms. Glover, we should also state in writing that, before making his decision, the Auditor General received a letter from the Minister of Finance asking him to comply with the spirit of fiscal restraint that the government was going to enforce. That has certainly contributed to the Auditor General's decision to drop those 12 or 13 audits.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

Ms. Nash, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I have just two points.

If every department and agency was asked in fact to prepare a list of cuts that they thought made the most sense for the government's plan to cut spending, then I have to ask again, what was the consultant doing for $90,000 a day? Were they just compiling these lists of recommendations that civil servants had already compiled? I guess I'm contrasting the spending for this outside consultant with the austerity measures taking place within the government.

Second, if there weren't the government cuts, would the Auditor General have left this oversight in place?

I guess I ask Mr. Boissonneault that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Boissonneault.

[Gordon Boissonneault]

Just to clarify, the Office of the Auditor General was not included in the formal part of the—

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I understand that. He did it voluntarily.

[Gordon Boissonneault]

It was voluntary. The letter the minister wrote was to all heads of departments and agencies that were not included in the review, asking them to conduct an internal evaluation of their expenses and costs. The responses to those letters varied considerably.

So it's unclear to what extent the Auditor General was motivated by that letter or if he'd already done his own internal assessment.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Just to follow up on Ms. Nash's question, you're saying that if the Auditor General had said, “I've reviewed our office's operations, and we are satisfied that all the operations conducted currently are satisfactory, are respectful of taxpayer dollars”, if he had responded that to the government, the government would have said, “We appreciate that. We respect that.”

[Gordon Boissonneault]

I can't speak on behalf of the government, but I can say that other organizations did respond in that manner.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

And the government accepted their...?

[Gordon Boissonneault]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

We've had a good discussion here.

Can I call clauses 170 to 204—I suspect on division?

[An hon. member]

Yes, on division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 170 to 204 inclusive agreed to on division)

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Boissonneault.

I will now go to division 2, which deals with life annuity-like products. This deals with three clauses, 205 to 208. I do not have any amendments for these clauses.

Does anyone wish to address this specific division?

Okay.

(Clauses 205 to 208 inclusive agreed to)

It is unanimous.

I will now deal with division 3, which deals with PPP Canada Inc., clauses 209 to 213.

Monsieur Mai would like to speak to this division.