Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[Charles-Antoine St-Jean]

No, there's not.

On order of magnitude, when you look at the public accounts, you see $200 billion worth of expenditure and $1 billion worth of materiality. Is the materiality half of 1%? In the industry, it has changed to between half of 1% and 1.5%. It's in that range. But again, to the point, even though they would be below the dollar threshold, some transactions are significant, so it should not only be a question of dollars, but the significance of the information to the reader or the stakeholder. That's what a good auditor, a good financial manager, or a good manager must take into account: not only the dollar threshold, but the significance for the decision-makers. So it's a half of 1% or 1% order of magnitude, but with this caveat that there might be some stuff that is below that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sweet.

Thank you, Mr. St-Jean.

That concludes the time we have allotted for this section, colleagues.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Monsieur St-Jean, Mr. Fonberg, Mr. Moloney, and of course Mr. Morgan. We weren't too hard on him today.

Again, if I can summarize this study that we're doing, it arises from some of the comments from Gomery and some of the issues we had to deal with. Just to clarify our own relationship between the public accounts committee and the Treasury Board Secretariat, basically we have very similar roles. The Treasury Board Secretariat is the oversight arm of the executive and we're the accountability arm of Parliament. Certainly if the thing is going to work properly, there has to be a very strong relationship between the Treasury Board and the Treasury Board Secretariat.

Also, with the reinstatement of the Comptroller General and your position, there are again a lot of issues that this committee is unclear about in terms of how your office will fit into the present arrangement, and also going forward with the expected enactment of the Federal Accountability Act. Again, as Mr. Williams quite rightly pointed out, we see that as a major change going forward, and we hope we're right.

Mr. St-Jean, just to conclude, we gave you four questions in writing, and we would like very clear answers. I don't think the committee would feel it's appropriate that the answers would be that these issues are under study. I think we'd like very definitive answers to these issues.

[Charles-Antoine St-Jean]

No disrespect was intended, Mr. Chairman. My apologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, there was none taken.

Thank you very much.

[Charles-Antoine St-Jean]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There's a motion I'm going to deal with, and then we will go in camera on the reports, colleagues.

Colleagues, the first motion I want to deal with goes back to the motion we passed at the last meeting, dealing with the engagement of Dr. Ned Franks. I really didn't quite appreciate how complicated this was going to be. Anyway, according to the clerk, we now have to pass another motion with the budget presented, and that then goes to the Liaison Committee, which is meeting next Thursday.

The Liaison Committee is a committee of parliamentarians. It's chaired by Dean Allison, and it comprises the chairs of all the various House committees.

I'll read the motion in English:

That, in relation to its study of the Review of the Roles and responsibilities of the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Committee approve the proposed services contract budget in the amount of $24,965.00 for the period of November 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007 and that the Chair present the said budget request to Liaison Committee.

Attached to that motion is the actual budget. To go forward, that will have to be moved and passed by this committee. I don't want to borrow words, but I point out that we did have a fairly robust discussion on this issue the last time.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question, if I may.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Laforest is first.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, in our discussions at the previous meeting, was it not mentioned that a service contract could be for a maximum amount of $25,000, whereas at the moment, the motion indicates that the contract would be for the precise amount of $24,965? It seems to me that this is not what we had agreed on. Indeed, it seemed to me that we had even allowed for latitude in contracts so that they could vary between $18,000 and $25,000, but I see here a firm commitment of $24,000. I don't recall that this was what had been agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I have been informed by the clerk that this is a budget only, Monsieur Laforest. I had no idea how much the per diem was—I know now—and this would depend on how many days we would need him, how many days he would work for us, and where it went.

This is not a set contract for $24,965. It would depend on the number of days. Concerning the expense budget, we have no idea whether it would be $4,000 or $2,000. All we know is it cannot exceed $4,000.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

It does not say, Mr. Chairman, that the maximum amount is $24,965.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

This is the absolute maximum, yes.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Then it should be stated; it is not written down. In any event, not in the French version.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We can write in the maximum amount; that's no problem at all.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

All your details are here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I have no problem. But first of all, let's get the motion on the floor.

Mr. Christopherson is prepared to move it.

Is there any further discussion?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

The only question I have, Mr. Chairman, is that I thought we were hiring Ned Franks, and there's no indication of his name showing up in either the contract, budget request, or the motion. Is that appropriate?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

To a point, Mr. Williams; I would have thought it would be here somewhere.

Again, you're quite right, but this is much more complicated than I ever dreamed when I started this.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I just want to point out that this is why we have accountants. And you're a lawyer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Anyway, there's no name on it; that's right. But the clerk tells me the name will be on the contract.

Is that right?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Georges Etoka]

Yes.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

I'm sorry, I was first, but then Mr. Williams.... He always bumps people off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

My apology.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

This is where we have to be careful; you have to write it down. It's a motion we approved last time, and the words have changed. What's going on here? You had his name before; you had “not exceeding $25,000”; you're saying it won't exceed $24,000.

Could we have it properly prepared and sentenced, so that we know what we are doing? You made us vote for it last time on this basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If I may, I will ask Mr. Christopherson for his consent for a friendly amendment: after the words “proposed services contract with Dr. Ned Franks“, it would be “for a budget amount in the maximum amount of $24,965”. Everything else would remain the same.

Mr. Christopherson accepts that amendment, and I think that clarifies Mr. Williams' issue. And of course, he's quite right.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.