Evidence of meeting #12 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was committees.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We'll get the witnesses' view.
If we got more resources, what form would that take?
Is that what you're getting at, Mr. Williams?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I don't know how we could supplant the Auditor General doing her work, with her budget, her staff, her professionalism, her non-partisanship, and so on. I don't know that in any way, shape, or form we could supplant that, except if there were this nexus--the term I used--that is getting close to policy.
I used the concept of longevity of deputy ministers. I don't think the Auditor General would ever go there, because it's getting very close to the prerogatives of the Prime Minister as to who sits where and for how long.
Now, we may want to do an investigation on that, because--
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
But she got pretty close to it in the last Indian Affairs report. She called it “sustained management attention”.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Yes, but I'm not sure she would do a whole chapter or investigation on the issue.
So on these issues that are perhaps, if I can be blunt, too sensitive for the Auditor General, not because they're sensitive in other ways but because they get close to policy, we may have a role to play there. Therefore, the witnesses' comments would be appreciated on that.
I think it has been agreed by everybody that we should stay away from bringing in ministers. In my term as the chair, three times we brought in ministers, and the committee immediately went totally and completely partisan.
The fourth time, actually, it stayed the course. That was when we brought in the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, because the whole committee was incensed at the Auditor General's report and the lack of commitment by the department to address the issue of education. The committee actually stayed together the fourth time, but on the first three, we just broke down. So I think there is general agreement that we stay away from ministers.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Perhaps I will ask for the witnesses' comments on those points, but again, also--if you don't mind addressing this question--the Gomery report made the recommendation that this committee receive more resources. Have you any thoughts or views as to what form they would take?
12:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Carleton University, As an Individual
As I said before, it doesn't do much good for this committee to have its own investigatory team, such as a team of forensic accountants, who would do the sort of work the Auditor General does in terms of so-called strictly fact-finding.
Where I think more resources would be useful for this committee, and for other standing committees as well, is more in terms of the digesting of the information, particularly the Auditor General's reports, and frankly, in the preparation of the committee, in preparation of members for hearings.
As I keep saying, you're very ably served by the staff you have, and generally, in fact, in speaking to members of the previous incarnation of this committee, I didn't find any great sense from those members that the committee needed to have a lot more staff. So there doesn't seem to be great demand. But I do think this committee and other committees could be much better served with staff that can help, not so much necessarily in the accounting and other so-called technical or professional matters, but in some of the things that Mr. Williams has been talking about, about preparing the committee for navigating political waters. It is quite possible to have very competent non-partisan committee staff that can assist the committee in that regard.
Those are the things that I recommended in my report to the Gomery commission. I believe that's what Justice Gomery had in mind in his recommendations, rather than simply duplicating the investigatory professionals that the Auditor General currently has at her disposal. I don't think it should be the job of the committee to duplicate that, but it is in this nexus of more political matters where the committee and the members could be perhaps better served.
12:50 p.m.
Prof. C.E.S. (Ned) Franks
The recommendation of the Gomery commission report that this committee should have more resources should be read in the context of his general recommendation that all committees should have more resources.
Just to make a point on that, the Gomery commission did not recommend a parliamentary budget officer or parliamentary budget office. A proposal to have that was made in one of the research reports for the committee by the Parliamentary Centre, but Justice Gomery felt that a broader kind of support for all committees was more important.
I think the real challenge is not just to heap resources onto the committees, but for the committees to want those resources and to know what they want them for. It seems to me this committee has a job to do that, because my impression is that the government would be quite sympathetic to that kind of proposal, and Parliament would be, but you'd have to justify what you want them for.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
[Inaudible--Editor]...the issue of witnesses, as we have basically agreed. Does anybody have a comment to the contrary, Mr. Chair?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I certainly agree with that recommendation. You're talking about the reluctance--
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
My view was that unless there's clear and cogent evidence that the minister was involved in the misappropriation or the maladministration, we don't call the minister. The deputy or the senior officer is basically the person we're looking to have before the committee. That's the way I've always approached it.
I agree that any time we get a minister here we're just getting a whole parade of people. They just give the line, and it's not helpful to the committee's investigations--or it hasn't been, anyway.
Professor Franks, Professor Malloy, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you very much for your presentations. We've always enjoyed our relationship with both of you people, and we've always benefited extremely by your advice and your insight. You give us a bird's-eye view from the outside. I think it's beneficial to do this periodically and to get these comments and views.
Geoff, I want to thank you also for joining us here. We certainly look forward to a relationship with your foundation.
Before we adjourn, are there any closing comments you want to add, Professor Franks?
12:50 p.m.
Prof. C.E.S. (Ned) Franks
In line with my previous comment, I hope your bird's-eye view is not a gull's-eye view.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Since this is the last day of Parliament, colleagues, I want to wish everyone a very good summer. I look forward to resuming meetings in September.
This meeting is adjourned.