Government Operations Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Good morning, colleagues.

Our witness has not arrived and he is not yet in the building, so we'll try to track him down.

Meanwhile we have a bit of committee business. As you know, the last day for supply is December 10. If we are to report on those supplementary estimates (B) that have been referred to us, we have to do it by today. I'm assuming that the government members are quite happy with the supplementary estimates (B) as presented.

The other difficulty I have, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, is that I would have to leave the chair at 10 o'clock in order to report any report that this committee would wish to make, because routine proceedings on Tuesdays start at 10 o'clock. Without getting into any kind of lengthy debate, is there any appetite to deal with the votes as requested on the supplementary estimates (B)?

Mr. Regan.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that before we determine the outcome of the estimates we ought first to pass a motion. I move:

That this Committee deplores the failure of government departments to provide basic, necessary information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer needed for him to assess the government's plan to have a freeze on spending and the impacts on departments and the means by which it's going to carry out the reductions that are listed by the government in relation to those reductions.

That's a long motion. I hope that's clear. I hope somebody noted it down.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Regan, do you have anything in writing to that effect?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

No, not as such.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Not as such.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

That's why I was noticing that no one was writing down what I was saying.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes. I see. I don't think there's any restriction on your ability to be concerned about the process, particularly the process with respect to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the response that Madame Bourgeois received from the Treasury Board, and the first set of witnesses as sent by Treasury Board.

There's nothing to prevent you presenting that motion, but I think in order of precedence, the issue is whether we proceed with the votes on Privy Council, Public Works, and Treasury Board. Do we do it now, do we let it go, or do we want to have another vote altogether, which would be some yes, some no, I suppose? Those are the alternatives.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, there's no motion before the committee at this point in relation to the estimates, and I've put a motion before the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's true. There was no motion here. You're correct about that.

Is there any debate on the motion?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Speaking to the motion, it is important that we recognize a number of facts. First, the President of the Treasury Board has met with the PBO to affirm his full support in getting the documents that can be made available to the PBO in a timely fashion. That is being undertaken. The President of the Treasury Board could confirm that undertaking.

Second, it is important for us to recognize that there are certain documents subject to cabinet confidence. This isn't a novel idea. It's something that every government has done since the creation of Parliament.

Third, we were given a significant amount of information with the letter requested by the President of the Treasury Board, and we haven't even reviewed it. It went to PBO, but we haven't undertaken a review of that documentation, so I'm not certain that this is reflective of the facts. Obviously the opposition is here simply to make a political statement, and they're able to do that, but we should move on with the business of this committee's responsibility, and that's to move the estimates that are deemed to be considered by this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, I don't want the record to show that this committee feels that we dealt with the supplementary estimates (B) in a satisfactory way and are now reporting to Parliament that we agree with these estimates and that therefore these estimates should be allowed to go ahead. Because that certainly wouldn't be an accurate reflection of what took place around the committee table.

In fact, the motion Mr. Regan put forward would be a more accurate reflection of the fact that we were very dissatisfied with the cooperation we got. I put it on the record that I'm dissatisfied with the process, period. We got a couple of hours to deal with proposed spending worth billions of dollars. No objective third party could ever view that and say that it was a thorough, robust treatment of the estimates process. It's a farce.

I think, at the bare minimum, that the report back to Parliament should be that the government operations committee tried, on behalf of Canadians, to do an in-depth analysis of the proposed spending of the government, and we were unable to do so due to a lack of cooperation by the government. We are frustrated, we are angry, and we are not satisfied. In fact, if it were to go to a vote, I would vote against the approval of these supplementary estimates. So at the very least, you could say that the committee is not unanimous in its approval of the estimates process.

In terms of Mr. Regan's motion, which is what we're speaking to now, I would wholly support that motion, because it at least begins to address how frustrated we are by the sandbagging by the government on the simplest, most straightforward of questions. We don't even have the elemental details to be able to decide whether we should approve this spending.

They come to us asking permission to spend $4 billion. That's what the government is doing. The government comes cap in hand to Parliament to get our permission to spend money, and we get about an hour of questioning of some stonewalling bureaucrats. We get ministers who won't come.... The public should know that this process is a sham and that we have not reviewed the spending proposal by the government to anyone's satisfaction.

Mr. Regan is correct. I'll support his motion.

If you are going to report anything today, you should report how wholly dissatisfied we are with the sandbagging and stonewalling by the government in terms of sharing the most fundamental information with the very committee that gives them permission to spend money.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues, I'd just point out that any other reports, such as Mr. Regan and Mr. Martin have been talking about, can be presented at a later date. However, we do have a timeline, which indicates that the supply period ends Friday. We can simply not deal with them, but I suppose we do have to deal with these votes one way or another.

Mr. Warkentin, and then Mr. Harris.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

On a point of order, Chair, I want to get on to other business. We'll have Mr. Prud'Homme here, right? But if we are going to spend the whole morning on this, I'd be prepared to withdraw my motion, though I'm still looking for a way to express our dissatisfaction with the government's action.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We could proceed that way. If you withdrew your motion, then the only thing that would be on the floor would be the votes themselves. Then you could come back to your motion, if that's what you wish.

Apparently Mr. Prud'Homme is about 10 minutes away.

I'm in the hands of the committee. If Mr. Regan wishes to withdraw his motion, he needs unanimous consent. We could then move the votes or pass them on division.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Well, if you're passing them on division—

[An hon. member]

It means they would pass.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

—it means they would pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes.

Just to keep things moving along with some level of order, are you asking for a withdrawal of your motion?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do I have unanimous consent to have Mr. Regan withdraw his motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

(Motion withdrawn)

The second question is on the votes themselves.

Do you want me to do them all together, or do you want me to do them one at a time? All together?

PRIVY COUNCIL Department Vote 1b--Program expenditures..........$1,403,190

(Vote 1b agreed to on division)

PUBLIC WORKS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES Vote 1b--Operating, contributions and expenditures..........$123,369,630 Vote 5b--Capital expenditures..........$3,432,287

(Votes 1b and 5b agreed to on division)

TREASURY BOARD Secretariat Vote 1b--Program expenditures..........$1,237,952 Vote 15b--Compensation Adjustments..........$137,119,071

(Votes 1b and 15b agreed to on division)

Shall I report these to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Harris.