Government Operations Committee on March 4th, 2008

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

With all due respect, Madam Chair, this side asked that the witnesses be brought forward early so that we could get on with the witnesses presenting their material so we could follow this. This is just another attempt to allow them to sit here and waste taxpayers' money. This has been obvious all through this exercise, and not just with this motion but with previous motions. It's trying to use this committee for purposes that it wasn't established for. This committee was primarily set up to review estimates and to look at government operations.

As I said earlier, this has nothing to do with the priorities of this committee. Our officials have been here. Our ministers have been here on many occasions to answer the questions of this committee. This is just another attempt to get us off our duties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have three thoughts on this issue.

This committee worked really well when we had a steering committee. When the steering committee meetings were held, none of this happened. None of these issues came before us in an absolutely partisan context.

Madam Chair, we have not had a steering committee in a long time. When we had one, the meetings were structured. We planned our work and then we worked our plan. It worked effectively and efficiently and we served the public good. As soon as we went away from the actual planned structure of where we were to be taking this committee, we ended up on all these ad hoc wild goose chases, and once again the committee is totally circumvented.

Madam Chair, with all respect, may I suggest that the chair ASAP resume the steering committee meetings. That is the purpose and the way committees are generally handled, so that we can work on an agenda. For most cases, both in public accounts and government operations, we generally end up with unanimous submissions and unanimous reports because we're working for the common good. By just taking motions off the floor like this all the time and getting away from the steering committee purpose, we're circumventing our actual role and direction.

The second point I would like to make, Madam Chair, is that I've sat on both the public accounts and the government operations committees. I'm sad to say that I have witnessed the estimates, well in excess of $200 billion, come before these committees. And really, what examination has taken place on these estimates of over $200 billion worth of taxpayers' money? Just a cursory passage and sometimes in one meeting. There are just nods of the head, with no serious reflection on whether a department's spending is up 1%, 2%, 20%, or if it's down. We have a situation, Madam Chair--

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Holland.

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

On a point of order, we talked about whether or not we should have a steering committee meeting. We are now talking about government estimates. These matters do not have to do with the motion before us. Can we restrict the debate to the matter in front of us, please, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp, let me tell you, for one thing a steering committee answers to the full committee. This committee does have a work plan and we've all agreed on it. We have the sheet here before us.

Normally, if you don't have a committee of the whole, you have a steering committee and then the whole committee debates it. The steering committee doesn't change the fact that motions can be brought forward. They have been. We are now debating a motion despite the fact that, yes, we do have a whole list of things that we have agreed to do. This motion says something very specific. We either vote for it, or we vote against, or we sit here all morning.

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

Madam Chair, could I finish my point?

You've actually made a very strong point. I agree. We have a work schedule before us. We've had a number of work schedules before us. We should then follow the darn things. That's what they're there to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp, it is the authority of the committee and any member to bring forward a motion to alter that work schedule, and that's what's happening.

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

I understand that reality. There's nothing carved in stone, and I recognize that flexibility has to exist to be able to go off on particular tangents, or whatever. We have that latitude.

Madam Chair, instead of that being the exception, that now is the norm. The regular operation of business doesn't exist any more. On our regular method of going through and trying to come up with the purpose of what we have done, we have circumvented the entire process, which brings me to my third point.

Whether it's this issue or the issue that Madame Bourgeois wants to bring up regarding calling the minister in yet again, we seem to have a continuation of witnesses called who have been here before and before. The minister in question who Madame Bourgeois happened to talk about has already been here six times now, and we've had a number of our committee meetings in addition to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Kramp, we're not dealing with Madame Bourgeois' motion now. We're dealing with the motion that we bring Minister Baird here before this committee for one meeting.

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

And although the government voted against it, the motion that came before was passed, at the will of the committee, to go ahead and have a meeting. The witnesses were called for that meeting. The witnesses were called, the witnesses came, the witnesses answered, and we left here with, actually, time left over for the witnesses. And no further questions were answered.

Now here we are again. But let's not just accept that. Let's head off and try it again and again. Well, how many times are we going to keep on doing this kind of thing? We are circumventing the use and the purpose of this committee.

Madam Chair, this committee, quite honestly, if it continues this way.... This is disappointing. This committee is an absolute waste of taxpayers' money, because we do not stay on an agenda that's important to this committee. Quite frankly, it's out of control.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and I saw how it descended into a very despicable display of partisanship. With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side, I've been hearing a lot of huffing and puffing, but I think we need to move on. They know how this vote is going to go down. Let's just get to work. Canadians expect better of us. We can sit here and we can play games all day, and you can filibuster, but the fact is, this motion is going through. Let's get it over with.

I agreed to make the amendment so we could actually get on to other business. We have other business. I think we have to start looking at the issue of the government appointments commission. We have witnesses here.

So we can sit and discuss this all day. We can discuss this all next week. But it's not going to change anything other than that our role as a committee is rapidly deteriorating. Let's just come together, move on, and get down to the business for which we're here, which is to hear our witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

On the main motion, as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

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

Madam Chair, I'd like to present another motion, subsequent to that and similar to it. I would like to move the following motion. It is that once again this committee suspend their partisan games and spend our next few meetings finishing our report on accrual accounting. Then after we finish that, we'll do our regular business. If issues like this come up and the committee feels they want to deal with them, fine. But let's finish our regular work first.

I would suggest that we just finish our report on accrual accounting, hold our next four meetings on that, and then at the end of that time, when we've done our regular work, carry on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

I think we need 48 hours.

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

Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Technically, it is okay, because it is future work of the committee. We already have a work plan.

We'll go to Mr. Angus and then Madame Bourgeois.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Chair, we're just going back to what I said two minutes ago. How many more spanners can we throw in the works?

We have a work plan. That's one of the reasons I said I wanted Mr. Holland's motion held off, because we have a work plan. I didn't see in that work plan that the next four meetings were to do with accrual accounting. I don't know why Mr. Kramp is throwing more spanners in the works. We have a work plan. Let's just get down to business here.

We have witnesses. They can sit and listen to us throw sand in the sandbox for the next hour, but I think we've pretty much run out of road here. Let's just get back to work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Ms. Bourgeois.

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

Mr. Kramp is right to want to move on. But we cannot move on if we have not completely dealt with the matters we are presently studying. That is one thing. Another thing is that we have not rebuilt the trust that should exist among the members of a committee that has to work together. That is why I am offering Mr. Kramp a friendly amendment, if it is possible and in accordance with the rules.

Would Mr. Kramp agree to us working on the subject of his motion outside committee hours, so that we can finish all the motion items before us at the moment and dispose of them in a regular session? We could meet outside to continue the work. I know that the accrual accounting is extremely important for Mr. Kramp. It is for me too. If he accepted this friendly amendment, we could do that outside.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

My understanding is that it would be asking that we meet as a steering committee to look at future work and to set the agenda, but I'm not absolutely clear on Madame Bourgeois' amendment.

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

What I mean, Madam Chair, is that several of our meetings have to deal with amendments. I am thinking specifically about the meeting for Mr. Holland. The Bloc Québécois has already asked for a meeting on another motion. Charlie also has one or two motions. I am interested in those other matters. Mr. Kramp has another proposal. So my suggestion to Mr. Kramp is that we work on accrual accounting at another time, outside normal committee hours. Is that possible?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

What she's essentially asking for is that the subcommittee meet, and if you are in accord with that, because it substantially changes your motion, then we'll call a subcommittee meeting and deal with future business as quickly as possible.

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Chair, I don't feel very comfortable with this line of reasoning that's suddenly come forward. We have a work plan and that work plan includes the three meetings on the public appointments and how it happened with AECL, because the public wants some clarity. This isn't a fishing expedition. This is us doing our job so that we can actually get some clarity about how these issues are decided so that we can restore some confidence to the public. So we have that.

We had agreed we were going to take up Justice Gomery's challenge that no committee had looked at...two years from the Gomery report...and what recommendation is still needed. We've agreed to that. I understand that is in our work plan.

I don't remember anything about suddenly having to jump on accrual accounting until this morning. If Mr. Kramp wants to put it in the queue, certainly, but I don't think we need to have a special meeting to jump it to the head of the queue or anyplace else in the queue. We already have a number of motions coming forward, including Mr. Holland's, which is now on the list. If Mr. Kramp wants to bring accrual accounting somewhere down the road, I can't think of a subject I'd be more fascinated in spending some time on, but I just don't think in the next three weeks I'd be really keen.