Evidence of meeting #3 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was general.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
It's in camera; a recorded vote is not actually made public.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
It is on the public record concerning the way that people did vote. I think there is clear indication that people were not all in favour of that.
On a point of order, Mr. Bruinooge.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, on another point of order, if you could indicate in your letter that there was some disagreement or that the government side didn't support the motion, it would be appreciated.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I think now it's part of the public record that the government side did not support that motion. That will be duly noted by those who look into it.
I'm on the point of order. Are you commenting on the point of order?
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
--to make any orders to the Auditor General.
Mr. Martin.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
On the same point of order, just for future reference, no recorded vote was asked for. Therefore, I don't think it is in order to say that the committee recommends this but some members didn't agree with it. That's not how it works. If you want a recorded vote, you have to ask for it before the vote takes place, or else the permanent record should only show that the committee agreed on something.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
In terms of the minutes of proceedings, it will indicate there were a certain number who were opposed and a certain number who were in favour. If anybody is interested in who they were, I think by reading the transcripts of these meetings it will be no secret as to who voted for and who voted against.
If there is no further discussion on that, we can proceed.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The second motion that I'd like to propose is a modified version of one that I had originally proposed. Due notice has been given. This has to do with the economic stimulus package and the report.
At a prior meeting there seemed to be some confusion or lack of understanding about the fact that the economic stimulus is, in fact, a two-year plan, that we're just finishing the first of two years, and I wanted to clarify that in the discussions of the report, the one we're referring to now is an interim one. We're not capable of doing a final one of course until a year hence.
Because it was changed, I will reread it in English:
That the Committee resume its study of the implementation of the Economic Stimulus Package from the Second Session of the 40th Parliament, that the evidence and documentation received by the Committee in relation to the said study be taken into consideration in this session, that the draft report prepared by its analyst in respect to this study be considered for presentation to the House as an interim report as soon as possible, and that the committee continue to hold hearings on this issue in order to present a final report to the House.
Mr. Chair, I will also add that this would simply not be necessary had we not prorogued Parliament. This is, in fact, what we actually have to do to continue the study that this committee had agreed to do in the last session.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Ms. Hall Findlay, just on a technical aspect, there was an agreement at least to proceed with the report itself. Are you suggesting that we make any changes to what was conceived in terms of proceeding with that report, or are you saying let's proceed with that and let's do additional meetings down the road on the stimulus package?
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
That's a very good question, Mr. Chair.
I note we had already agreed, as a committee, that we would set aside some time to deal with the draft report. The economic stimulus package is a two-year package--and so, absolutely, an interim report, with the continuing ability to investigate it. We have not asked for a specific time. We've already allocated much of the next two months to sessions, so I'm happy if we do it later on. It is a two-year program, but absolutely, because it's a continuing study.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Perfect. That gives clarification, I think, to the clerk in terms of what was conceived.
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
Yes. There seemed to be a bit of confusion at the beginning, so thank you for that clarification.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Is there any dialogue or discussion with regard to this?
Mr. Martin.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I simply wanted to say that I think it is fitting that we as the oversight committee, the government operations committee, should continue our scrutiny of this stimulus package. Billions and billions of dollars flew out the door with unprecedented, breakneck speed. We've been asked to accept it on more or less blind faith that it's achieving what it's set out to achieve, whereas as Madam Hall Findlay has pointed out many times, there have been no hard, concrete numbers as to the benefit of this spending. It's up to us to provide the oversight and scrutiny that we're charged with. This is our very mandate.
I couldn't agree with her more. I would go further and say that if and when this motion passes, a study of the stimulus spending should take precedence over other items we've already agreed to study. As information comes forward we should drop what we're doing and go back to what I think is the most important thing this committee does, and that is providing proper oversight of the stimulus spending.
That brings me to a point we passed at the last meeting, the motion that the government must release all its paperwork, all the numbers it's received from the Province of Ontario. If it doesn't have them, give us a legal opinion.
In the context of debating this motion, I'd like to know what happened to that motion, because that's the first order of business, I believe. When those numbers come in we should drop everything else and give a good, hard look at the concrete numbers we received from the Province of Ontario.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
I'm just going to jump in here for a minute.
The motion from the last meeting regarding the Ontario numbers--do we know anything on that? It's schedule H.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Marc-Olivier Girard
Do you mean did we receive the information, or...?
Conservative
The Clerk
I requested it on either Monday or Tuesday of this week. I had some contact with Infrastructure Canada. They are already working on providing the committee with the information.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin
Very good.
On this, Mr. Martin, you asked about allocations of time. We have March 24 and 31 allocated for the consideration of the draft report. You talked about the necessity to update the information as it's available.
Actually, having spoken with the analysts, we do have additional information, which has already come forward, that would be pertinent to this report including the fourth and fifth report cards that could be incorporated. There may be some consideration of that, and we may want to give instructions to the analysts at this point to consider what they could compile before we do the draft report consideration.
Is that something the committee wants to do?
