Government Operations Committee on Feb. 12th, 2008

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I don't have it.

Have we contacted any of these folks? If we don't have the assurance that they'll all be there, will we then move this? I'm just curious. Having already set up the federal government's real estate plan and having the witnesses available already, is there a challenge in ensuring that everybody is going to be available a day and a half from now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

There may be a challenge in that. It is always a challenge, as you know, because we try to get people and sometimes they can't come when we want them to. It can be a challenge, believe me. Ask the clerk. He spends a lot of time trying to get people to come to committee.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Chair, I'm just looking for some direction. If there is difficulty, or if we're not able to get all the participants, I'm not sure that it would serve the committee well to go forward with that meeting.

Seeing as we already have a committee already planned, with witnesses arranged, I'm wondering, for the sake of planning, if there isn't some better--

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

On this exact same point, we're saying that for February 14, this Thursday, we're asking Mr. Housakos, Mr. Fortier, Mr. Loiselle, Mr. Rosenberg, Mr. Lemieux, and Mr. Soudas to come before the committee. For the following Tuesday, Mr. Holland has his list: Wouters, Wessel, Kirkpatrick, O'Connor, and Chartrand. That's the Tuesday after the break. Then in the meeting after that we will have Public Sector Integrity. And all these things are going to be cemented in now. So this Thursday.... Is that what I am to understand? Is that basically what you are saying?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Yes.

I don't know--

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I just want to understand. We said that for Mr. Holland's meeting, because there is litigation, the meeting with the folks from Ottawa city council would be essentially in a room without counsel, in camera, but on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

If Mr. Holland's motion passes, I'd like us to move in camera so we can discuss which way we go. We have here our legislative clerk for exactly that reason. I want to make sure that everything is done right if this goes forward. That's really why Mr. Tardi is here. It is to address some of these issues. It is important, if this amendment passes, that we go in camera to discuss this before we move forward.

Did you want to speak again on the amendment, on Mr. Holland's amendment?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm just seeking clarification from you, Madam Chair.

In terms of the lists before us, if the clerk finds it impossible to get the witnesses, what do we do with them? Is it all or nothing? Is it two out of...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We don't know what will happen. If we don't get all the witnesses, or if we don't get some witnesses, or if we don't get any witnesses, I'll be very happy to bring in the pay and the other things that I'd like to report, if you give me the flexibility to do that. If we really can't get anybody or if the meeting is shorter, I really want us to try to fit in some of these issues.

If we are going into an election, we owe it to public servants to make that kind of a report. I've asked our analyst to start writing something.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

On that point, could somebody tell me, are we having an election? I've heard it batted around.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We are. Mr. Warkentin, let me tell you that either way there will be an election. When, I couldn't tell you. It could be any time. It could be in two years.

Let's go back.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Can we call the question?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

All those in favour of Mr. Holland's amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Now we have to vote on the main motion as amended. All those in favour of the main--

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Excuse me, could we have the main motion as amended?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I'd like to get the clerk to read it. I just made my own notes. Maybe we can have it officially.

[The Clerk]

It reads as follows:

that the motion be amended by replacing the words "6 meetings" with the words "5 meetings" and everything that follows by: February 14: political interference by the Prime Minister's office February 26: light rail transit project February 28: governor in council appointments March 4: governor in council appointments March 6: federal government's real estate plan.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

For lack of a better explanation, starting Thursday we're going Faille, Holland, the Linda Keen issue on two days, and the real estate.

[The Clerk]

Yes, for the next five meetings.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you very much, everyone.

I would suggest that we take a short break and move in camera. I would like us to discuss with the legislative clerk what we can and can't do.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

The meeting is once more in public.

Ms. Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

If I brought this up at the start of the meeting, it is just because the subcommittee met and did its work. I saw that the chair of the ad hoc committee was very open to the matter of accrual accounting. His assistant attached the Auditor General of Canada's letter, which I did not agree with at all. That letter has been sent.

The subcommittee had no decision-making power, it was a working committee. Before I arrived, the members of the committee had already begun to study the accrual accounting. The budget will soon be tabled. So I feel that it is very important that we be able to use accrual accounting. However, I notice that it is mainly the departments that are having a little difficulty in applying it.

I would like you or the members of the committee to tell me two things.

First, since accrual accounting is already used in reports presented by the Treasury Board, does it mean that the work done by the subcommittee and by our committee will be of no use because the departments will be required to use the accrual method?

Secondly, on many occasions, I tried to show the committee that you cannot have accrual accounting without strategic planning. Each time, it was like I was jumping out of a box of Cracker Jack, but that is fine. Strategic planning means the three-year planning we are used to. It does not mean much to us, but it requires time and performance indicators.

Is our committee now going to hold off asking for planning that will be just like it normally is so that strategic planning and accrual accounting can be combined?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I do not have it in front of me, but, as I recall, the report we tabled in the House recommended that a key contact in the Treasury Board would be appointed to make sure that all departments complied. Am I right? Yes.

Frankly, it is up to the Treasury Board to decide if it wants to go ahead and make sure that the government as a whole does it.

That said, we could make another motion would highlight the results of our study and the letter that we sent to the Treasury Board. That it all I can tell you.

Mr. Kramp.

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

On the issue of accrual accounting, I'd like to thank all of the members who participated in the working committee. Although it was at some times testy and difficult, I do believe that all of our intentions were admirable and actually very similar, to such an extent that we did come out with a general consensus. Subsequent to that, we still had a concern that the Auditor General had not played the final significant part in our submission. However, subsequent to our report, the Auditor General did report back to us, and we accompanied the Auditor General's concerns, along with our report, to Treasury Board.

The general focus of the Auditor General's report seemed to be two areas. One, she was concerned that there wasn't enough focus on the long term. In order to get the proper benefit, the accrual process definitely had to be over an extended period of time rather than simply a one-year cycle, and I think that was well registered. The second point, of course, was going back not to the checks and balances but to the instruments by which we were able to assure that we were getting the results on a step-by-step basis and the accountability that would go with that.

With that having now been presented to Treasury Board, it's my understanding that Treasury Board has an obligation to respond. I don't know how they are going to respond or exactly when, but it's my understanding that some time in March, whether it's the end of March, they will have received this, and they have some process by which to be able to.... I don't know where they're going with this. I don't know whether they're going to say yes, we accept everything 100% and this is what they're going to do, but my expectation is that they are going to be coming back.

I would suggest that it would be right and deemed to be responsible if, as a committee, we were to personally ask them to respond to this committee with their recommendations, although it's going to have to go to Parliament as a whole at some point for the decision on what recommendation will go forward. As a committee, because we have been studying this issue for so long, whether it's through the public accounts or the government operations committee, I think we have a little bit more knowledge per se on this issue, and I think we could pass some short-term judgment or critique or offer an assessment of what they have put forward.

If we do that, then I think we really will have fulfilled the real genuine value of this committee, which is to suggest how government can be run more effectively and more efficiently so they can make good decisions. This is a crucial issue that at some point, when this committee gets beyond our other topics, I hope will be brought back to this committee. To me it's a priority. This is one of the things that we should be dealing with that not only justifies our existence but definitely would give good value for the Canadian taxpayer.

Those are my thoughts on this issue, but that's just a personal thought from one of the people who was working on that committee. Once again, thanks to everybody who did participate, because I think we did justice to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

My understanding is that the President of the Treasury Board has said he would be responding by the end of March. I think Mr. Kramp is perfectly correct when he says maybe our response should be after that.

Madame Bourgeois.