Government Operations Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Lee.

For my first question, I want to go back to the International Development Research Centre and the vacancies on their board. Have these vacancies been consistent over the last years? Have there always been a number of vacancies, or is this a new development?

[John Wiersema]

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Flageole was responsible for the special examination of IDRC, so he's quite familiar with the content of that report.

[Richard Flageole]

Mr. Chair, IDRC is quite a particular crown corporation. Based on their legislation, there are 21 seats on the board, and 10 of those seats are reserved for people from other countries. So they need to have 11 Canadian members and 10 foreign members. When we did the special examination, we didn't have the 11 members because of the delays in making appointments to the board of the IDRC. Again, the composition of the board was not in line with the legislation.

Mr. Wiersema mentioned the chapter we just published on GIC appointments. I think IDRC is an example of what can happen when there are delays in making appointments. They were for a period of about almost one year. I think our understanding is that this has been fixed—but that was the situation when we did the special examination.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

What does it mean for the board when they're not in compliance with the act? Does it mean they cannot continue to function, or what problems flow from their not meeting this requirement of the act?

[Richard Flageole]

Well, I guess the worst situation would be if they didn't have a quorum, meaning they could not make official decisions. In the case of IDRC, the legislation says there needs to be a majority of Canadian members. So with 21 people, depending on who's there or not there, there's probably a way to manage the attendance at the board so that you have a majority of Canadians. But it doesn't make the situation easy in specific cases.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Has the situation today changed at all? Have any of those appointments been filled?

[Richard Flageole]

My understanding is they have been filled. But again, with board memberships, people come and go. So that was a snapshot at a point in time for a year. Again, if we had a Canadian member whose term expired last month, it would be important to replace that member, because new members are coming in and terms are expiring on an ongoing basis.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Do you know how long the IDRC wasn't in compliance with the act?

[Richard Flageole]

The period we referred to in the report was from March 2007. So it was almost a year.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Is the appointment process more arduous here than for other boards? Is there anything that should be looked at to expedite the process, or is it similar to other GIC appointments?

[Richard Flageole]

It's similar to other GIC appointments. Again, we have 11 Canadian members who are appointed by the Governor in Council.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

The other question I have is about VIA Rail Canada. One of the comments made was that they were experiencing difficulty in meeting revenue and ridership objectives.

In terms of the ridership objectives, do you believe there is any relationship between the level of investment in trains in Canada and the difficulty in achieving the ridership objectives? For example, if you look at the GO Train in Ontario, both the provincial and federal governments have put significant investment into the GO Train, introducing new routes and, in many ways, competing with VIA Rail. How has that aspect affected VIA Rail's challenges?

[John Wiersema]

Mr. Chairman, one of the challenges for VIA Rail is the reinvestment in its infrastructure and a high-speed rail network. I'm sure with additional funding the corporation would be more successful in meeting its targets for ridership and its financial targets. It's all linked to the concern that we identified in our report in that this corporation is facing some important unresolved strategic challenges dealing with its funding, its access to the tracks, and unrealistic targets set in past corporate plans.

In light of the size and importance of this corporation, this would be a particular candidate for this committee, if it's interested, to pursue further, in terms of VIA's progress in addressing some of these important challenges.

[Patrick Brown, Conservative, Barrie, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Ms. Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

If I could, I'll raise a matter of privilege.

I hope our witnesses don't take this in the wrong way. This is very interesting, but we did have a motion that was passed at a last meeting, to which we have had an insufficient response from the government. As such, given that our responsibilities are what they are, and given the insufficient response, I would like to move that we move to a new order of business to rectify the situation of the insufficient response from the government and to move a revised motion to get the information we had originally requested.

My apologies for raising this, but we are also under time constraints.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

At this point, I'll ask the witnesses to stand pat and bear with us as we go through this.

As I understand it, one can't simply move to another item of business just because a member wants to, but the committee is able to move to another item of business if the committee agrees to do that, either consensually or by vote. Keep in mind that we still have witnesses in front of us and we haven't closed that off yet, although we could.

You've mentioned privilege as an issue. An item of order and an item of privilege normally take precedence over other business of the committee. If there's a privilege matter or a matter of order, then I could, as chair, entertain that. We have about ten minutes of the normally allotted time, although we're not constrained precisely to a one o'clock adjournment. That's where we are now.

You're urging upon us now a matter of privilege or order. Maybe you could provide some particulars. We have to substantiate that.

I'll let Ms. Hall Findlay finish, but Mr. Warkentin is looking to be recognized as well.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will repeat that this is pursuant to a motion that was passed by this committee asking for specific information from the government, to which we have received an insufficient response. It is our obligation to pursue this. If, in fact, we need the committee to vote to go to a new order of business, then I can submit a revised, materially different, motion from the last one, but it's pursuant to our obligations as a committee to get this information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I'll hear from Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I understand the interruption came as a result of an issue of privilege. My understanding from the original motion was that there was a flaw within the motion in that it was asking for information from a department that didn't actually have that information. Now there's been an effort, a little bit of a fishing expedition, to find the correct department or some folks who might be able to acquiesce to the suggestion.

I don't think it's actually relevant to a motion of privilege. We as a committee asked a particular department for information they don't have. My understanding was that the response came. No one is trampling on our privilege. It was our lack of asking the right department for the information. That's my understanding. Am I wrong in that assessment?

Mr. Chair, I'd like you to consider that in ruling on whether we should move on to the consideration of privilege simply because we have a flawed motion, rather than because somebody is declining to respond with correct information.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Would I actually be able to speak to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

The chair is of the view that if the matter being raised is a matter of the privileges of members and, by extension, of the committee and, by extension, of Parliament, then I'd want to hear some discussion of it, with it concluding with some kind of a motion that would allow us to take the matter to the House. This committee isn't empowered to deal with matters of privilege; we would have to take them to the House.

So for whatever bundle of issues Ms. Hall Findlay is raising, if it does involve privilege or order, if it's an order thing we'll settle it here, and if it's a privilege thing, we would have to conclude in some way as a committee with a report to the House on that issue of privilege--it's possible--and debate that a motion directly or indirectly related to that could get raised. That's how I view it right now.

Ms. Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Then, Mr. Chair, I will ask my colleagues to be patient with perhaps my lack of understanding of process if it is better characterized as a question of order. The point here is that this committee approved a motion asking the government for information and asking specifically Treasury Board for information.

Our understanding, from many discussions with various departments--and I want this on the record--is that we have been told that this information we asked for is readily available to people in Treasury Board, Public Works, and Finance. So the fact that it was not forthcoming from Treasury Board, and the reason we were given was that it should have been requested of Public Works, do not, in my view, mean that the motion was flawed.

My concern is that there is information that is being hidden. We feel it's very important as a committee and in our obligation in government operations and estimates, that we have an obligation as parliamentarians to obtain information, that we have asked for that information, and that this effort now, as a question of order, is to put forward a new motion, based on the response we got from Treasury Board, to ensure that we get the information we are rightly entitled to receive.

So whether it's a question of order or privilege, I don't think we need to report anything to the House at this point. This can be dealt with here in the committee. So if it's a question of order, I would ask that this committee now entertain a new motion that is materially different from the last one, but in order that we as parliamentarians can do our job properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay.

I'll hear from you, Mr. Warkentin, but could we extend the courtesy to our witnesses at this point of letting them go? Or would you prefer to keep them here until one o'clock?

This may or may not have procedural implications. I haven't thought it through.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

My understanding, Mr. Chair, is we that have not changed the committee business. We started because of a point of privilege being raised. Our witnesses are still--