Government Operations Committee on Feb. 29th, 2012

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Well, we want to try to make it better now.

[Kevin Page]

This is not a partisan comment; this is a public service comment.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Our goal is to try to make it better.

You mentioned a couple of changes with regard to the estimates, the reports on plans and priorities. What would be an appropriate threshold, then, as far as moving towards voting on program activity is concerned?

[Kevin Page]

I think it would obviously depend on the department. There's a big difference between, say, National Defence and the Food Inspection Agency in terms of outlays, obviously. The materiality would depend on the department. I don't think you want to be overburdened with hundreds of activities. In the nature of 10 to 15 activities would be very manageable, because deputy ministers, cabinet ministers, ministers of departments manage at that level.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Ron.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Page.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

John McCallum. You have five minutes, John.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, I'd like to move the following motion, which reads:

That the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, as part of the study of the Estimates Process, report the following to the House: That the Committee is deeply concerned by the decision of the Treasury Board to delay the reports on Plans and Priorities until the week of May 7 and to withhold any information about the Strategic and Operating Review from those documents.

I won't speak for very long about this, but I will just speak briefly as to why I'm proposing this. I think this issue goes to the heart of what we are studying, because in what we are studying, we are trying to find ways for parliamentarians to improve their control over public spending. If the government has major cuts but doesn't tell us, then obviously we have no control over what's going on.

I would also point out that some seven years ago the Liberal government did a similar exercise, and all of the detailed cuts were reported in that year's budget. I don't think technology has regressed since 2005.

In response to Kelly Block, I cannot believe for one moment that bureaucrats alone would decide such a major change in how the budget was to be communicated. I think it has to have gone through the minister's office or the Prime Minister's office.

Finally, I would just say to the government side that I don't think it's necessary for you to make your usual move and move in camera.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

This is not a future business item.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

This is a motion I'm presenting now.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That's right. That's why we're not going in camera. We're going to defeat it right now.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay. Well, that's what I'm suggesting, because then we can go on with the witnesses, and we don't need to go in camera.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You are the one interrupting the witness, not us.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I'm asking for it to be a brief interruption so that we don't have to go in camera.

Anyway, that is the end of my comments, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

John, we are interviewing witnesses, and you have a five-minute block of time allocated to the Liberals. You chose to use two minutes of it to table a motion, which the clerk advises me is in order because it's the subject matter being debated. It's unorthodox to use your witness interview time to move a motion, but it is in fact in order. We have stopped the clock now, and I think maybe we should deal with the motion.

Are there any further speakers on the motion?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I think we need to be on the record on this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Do you want a recorded vote? Is that what you're asking?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

No. They produce blues of everything that's said here, right? So I want to be on the record, Mr. Chair, that what is proposed by the Liberal member—this has happened in the past when they have inaccurately expressed an opinion—which is the speculation that this came through the Prime Minister's office or the minister's office, is absolutely erroneous. The minister was clear that this was not a directive from the minister. We will not be supporting this motion going forward because it doesn't reflect the truth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Go ahead, Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify. Mr. McCallum said that we wouldn't be moving in camera. We don't go in camera when there are motions. We deal with future business in camera. That's when we move in camera. I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I've heard no one ask that we go in camera. We're in public.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. McCallum referred before to going in camera, and I said no, we were dealing with this publicly.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Are there any further speakers?

Mr. McCallum. I'm sorry.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

But I've noticed a tendency of this—

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Excuse me, John. It's actually Alexandre Boulerice next, and then I'll give you an opportunity.

Alexandre.