Government Operations Committee on Oct. 7th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ladies and gentlemen, could I call this meeting to order, please?

It's meeting number 29 of the committee on government operations and estimates. On the orders of the day, we have Madam Barrados, from the Public Service Commission, and other committee business.

If I may for a moment ask the indulgence of the committee, I'll ask whether they would entertain the notion of changing the order of business from Madam Barrados first to committee business first to dispose of the motions that are before us, and then call Maria Barrados for the balance of the time.

May I see an interest on the part of the committee to do that? The primary reason is that I'm unfortunately going to have to leave the chair in about one hour. I'd prefer to be in the chair, if I may, during the motions, and then call on Mr. Warkentin to be in the chair for the balance of the time for the witnesses.

May I see, from the committee, whether there is any appetite to flip? Is that fine? Okay.

So if I may move to that, I believe there are three motions before us: two by Mr. Warkentin and the first one by Madam Coady. Again, I should ask whether members wish to go in camera at this point or if they're fine being in public. In public is fine...? Okay.

All the motions are in order, in my judgment. The order of precedence would be Madam Coady and then Mr. Warkentin with the next two.

Madam Coady, please speak to your motion.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We did take some time at the last meeting to consider my motion. I withdrew it to give committee members time to consider the G-8/G-20 motion. I think it's very important and incumbent upon us as the government operations committee to review the expenditures of G-8/G-20. I have asked for support on this motion so that we can get to work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I would like to limit debate, but I'm entirely in the committee's hands. We did have a pretty extensive discussion at our last meeting—two meetings ago, sorry—on this matter. Is there anything else that members wish to add?

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My only reservation with the motion the other day was that it could be that other committees may be undertaking a similar study of the G-8/G-20. I believe the public safety committee is to some extent, and the Auditor General has a study under way to review the overall spending.

But I've recently learned through our whip's office that the Auditor General's report won't be coming down for months and months and months. It isn't on the plate of the public accounts committee at all. Therefore, with that knowledge, I'm inclined to support the Liberals' motion, in that I think there's benefit in us doing a review of those aspects of the G-8/G-20 that we can, in parallel to--and complementary to, I believe--what the Auditor General is doing in a more fulsome way.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I just would reiterate probably the reasons: that we would be working to undertake something that would be redundant, in that the Auditor General is doing her study and the public accounts committee would review that, and I'm certain that they'll undertake a study on this as well. As well, the public safety committee is engaged on this at this moment. So I don't see any reason that this committee would take our time....

I think it's incumbent upon this committee to undertake things that wouldn't be done by other authorities or other committees. We have a responsibility to oversee the estimates process. We have a lot of work to do. There's a lot of money that's being spent these days and I think it's incumbent upon us to undertake the responsibilities that fall into our bailiwick, because while we do have the ability to go into other people's jurisdictions, they don't have the same opportunity to come into our jurisdiction. Our job won't get done if we start doing other people's work. That's I guess my rationale and my reason for voting against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madam Coady.

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you very much.

To address those concerns, the public safety committee is only studying the security aspect of the G-8/G-20.

With regard to the Auditor General, she has an awful lot on her plate. As you know, this will not be done this fall; her report indicates that. She won't have an opportunity to get to this for some time next year and then post her review, then the public accounts.... So it could be upwards of one and a half to two years.

This was $1.5 billion spent over a three-day summit, and I think it's incumbent upon the government operations committee to review that spending.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Not seeing further debate, may I call the vote?

Shall we go on division, or do you want a head count? On division...?

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The motion passes.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The second motion, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Chair, in terms of Bill C-429, I know that there's been a lot of interest expressed from a number of different stakeholders. We have compiled a list of the folks we think are important to have as witnesses. Obviously, I think it's important that we as a committee come to an agreement as to how to move forward, but I think it's important that we have this discussion as to how we want this to work.

Today is the day that we need to do this because Tuesday and Thursday of the week we return, I expect we will be having hearings, so I do propose this motion. I'm amenable to changes, to include witnesses that people feel are essential, but clearly I think it's important that we do give a say to people.

As you know, there have been dozens and dozens of people who have contacted all of our offices in an effort to get the attention of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The chair recognizes Madame Bourgeois.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask that Mr. Warkentin withdraw his motion.

First of all, it shows a total lack of respect for parliamentarians. Bill C-429 is actually a private member's bill, and nowhere in his motion does he mention the person who introduced Bill C-429 in the House. I think that the member who sponsored Bill C-429 should at least be one of the witnesses we hear from.

Secondly, the motion includes groups that were on the list that our clerk sent to us. As far as I can tell, Mr. Warkentin's motion does not include any of the names of the witnesses proposed by the Bloc Québécois. I find that pretty disrespectful towards our party, given that Bill C-429 was put forward by the Bloc Québécois. If Mr. Warkentin says that it was an oversight, that he forgot to add those things to his motion and that he is prepared to amend it, I would accept that he not withdraw his motion. As it stands now, it shows a complete and total lack of respect for us.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'll take it as a friendly amendment. Why don't you propose it?

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

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you accept that?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Chair, I think I was clear in the beginning that I'm happy to amend the motion to include other witnesses that people feel are essential to the discussion.

I know that there have been a number of people and groups who have contacted the clerk's office, as well as my own office, since I composed this. There are clearly other people who should be added. I have no question about that, and, madam, I'm happy to include those people.

I'm amenable to having people amend the motion. I just think it's important that we undertake this work today, so we can undertake this study starting Tuesday and Thursday of the week we return.

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

In that case, Mr. Warkentin, I accept your amendment suggestions. Rest assured that right now Quebeckers are making arrangements to come and meet with the committee members. If they have not already done so, I think there will be more people contacting the clerk very soon, and that is why we need to remove the October 28, 2010 deadline.

I understand that we need a deadline and that we will eventually need to conclude our work. I already indicated at the beginning of the session that we would probably need more time. This is important; my colleagues at this table need to understand how important it is to Quebec that its industries be heard. Therefore, we need to allocate the time necessary. Is that clear?

So the first amendment would be to immediately remove the October 28, 2010 deadline. We need to give everyone an opportunity to be heard. That does not mean I want us to spend an excessive amount of time on this, but I want us to at least remove the deadline. Then we need to say that we will accept any other witness who wants to be heard. Please, members of the committee, this is paramount for Quebec.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ladies and gentlemen, I am conscious of time here, and I don't want this part of the procedures to extend too much further.

Perhaps I can suggest this as a proposal. First of all, Mr. Warkentin moved a motion. Madame Bourgeois had some objections to it. Mr. Warkentin has amended his motion.

At this point, I have about 25 or 30 witnesses on a one-paragraph bill. May I suggest that we call Mr. Asselin, the proponent of the bill, and we dedicate one of the two days that we have in the first week back after Thanksgiving: he and his proponents would take the first hour and those who are opposed would take the second hour. At the end of that first day of witnesses, the committee would make a decision as to whether it wishes to hear further witnesses.

May I further suggest that among the four parties, they group the witnesses in the most advantageous way possible so that they can give instructions to the clerk and people can be called and witnesses be made available to the committee.

Is that a reasonable approach? Is that...?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. Given....

Yes, Madame Bourgeois.

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

I would say that Mr. Warkentin has given his opinion, and so have I. I have made it clear to everyone that right now witnesses are making arrangements to be heard. I think it is too soon to say that we are going to spend two hours, two meetings or four hours on this.

First, can we have a list of witnesses? Second, based on the wink Mr. Warkentin gave earlier, I am going to meet with him to explain clearly and thoroughly the implications of our approach on Bill C-429. Even though it is just a paragraph or a sentence, it is critical to the recognition of Quebec's needs and the expression of those needs. I am prepared to meet with Mr. Warkentin to come up with a motion we are both satisfied with.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

This is progress.

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chair, the committee will meet 16 times between now and Christmas. That is not a lot considering how much we have to do. I would agree to allocating two days to hearing from witnesses on this single-paragraph bill. We need to keep in mind, however, that even if it makes it through the House of Commons, there is very little chance—perhaps none—that it will make it through the Senate, where the Conservatives are in control. We still have other very important business to attend to, and I think we should group the witnesses, as you suggested. We need to hear from people who support the bill and from those who oppose it. Given that we have only 16 days of meetings, we should not spend more than 2 days on it, in my opinion.