Public Accounts Committee on March 26th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That was included in the thing.

Mr. Williams.

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

On a point of order on the motion by Mr. Sweet, Mr. Chairman, I actually think you should get the advice of the clerk or someone as to whether it's actually in order.

As a committee, we have certain responsibilities. We can report to Parliament. Beyond that, there's very little else. I do not think we actually have the authority to direct somebody to go and meet with the President of the Treasury Board.

Remember that we had a motion a few months ago about involving the RCMP or reporting to the RCMP. That was out of order. I actually think this may be out of order, too. Can you consult with the clerk or someone else to find out if that's correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm not going to make a ruling right now, but I'm going to ask Mr. Sweet to comment.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

It's a much different circumstance if we have a paid consultant to the committee and ask him to fulfil a responsibility for us, as opposed to us directing a police organization. I would therefore respectfully and most humbly disagree with my colleague.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

He works for us.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

He's our employee on this job.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We can always change the report, but I don't think it's out of order.

I hear Mr. Williams' comment.

Mr. Williams, I consulted with the clerk. I appreciate some of what you're saying. Again, the Treasury Board doesn't have to meet with Mr. Franks, but Mr. Sweet is entitled to put the motion.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, just to put it on the record, the first point I made earlier was just my personal opinion about a committee mandating a hired person to meet with a politician, a minister, and to negotiate one on one. We did send Dr. Franks to meet with the staff, which is the appropriate way to go. It seems to me that it has been reported to us that Dr. Franks can't get further meetings and that they won't talk to him any further.

It's not as if we haven't given the opportunity for any other point of view to be there. We have already approved the protocol, we've done our homework, we've done due diligence, and we've had a democratic vote that has adopted it. It seems to me that voting in favour of this just stands on the toes of what we have already approved. For substantive reasons and procedural ones, then, it seems to me that a majority vote against this is the right thing to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'll hear three additional interventions, from Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Sweet, and then I'll call the question.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I find it interesting that opposition members say we can't direct individuals who are not part of this committee on how they should behave, but that's exactly what this protocol proposes to do. It proposes to direct deputy ministers, who have no fiduciary relationship with this committee, on how they ought to behave. This is done without any collaboration with the executive branch of government, for which those deputy ministers work.

Make up your mind, friends. Either you think you can direct others by this committee or you can't.

Furthermore, we did direct Mr. Franks to meet with members of the government. He says he wasn't successful in obtaining those meetings. Well, I can assure you that the President of the Treasury Board is ready to meet with them. He's also ready to testify in front of this group.

I suppose there are some people who do not believe their arguments will stand up against his and they have therefore avoided having him here in the first place. Now we're stuck with a protocol that will undermine ministerial responsibility, and opposition members will have to explain that to their constituents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Fitzpatrick, Mr. Sweet, and then I want to call the question.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You know, in my life experience, communication between people who have power makes a lot of sense. I think common sense would tell you that. There are things that were in the guidelines that I personally didn't agree with. The Treasury Board guidelines suggested this committee should be well behaved when we're dealing with accounting officers before us. Well, everybody on this committee knows you don't get before this committee without having stepped out of line somehow, and you're going to hear about it on this committee.

To me, there are things on both sides that I think would make the meeting constructive. We say it's an ongoing process. If our committee is going to be opposed to having the people who have power getting together to discuss things, how in the world are you ever going to get anything resolved? It seems to me it's a strange argument to say we do not want to meet with the President of the Treasury Board because maybe they might just resolve some of these differences. Some of the points, quite honestly, I think are words, and we're talking about how many angels are dancing at the end of a pin.

I think there could be a lot of merit in these two individuals getting together, and we could all save ourselves a lot of hot air in this committee. But if you don't want communications with government, so be it. You may have what Mr. Christopherson didn't want--a clash between what Treasury Board is telling their people and what we understand it to be here. I think that would be unfortunate.

So I think common sense should dictate that we should try to take that extra step to have the ongoing process in place to improve the guidelines we're using here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm going to ask Mr. Sweet, the mover, for the last response.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I can remember at least half a dozen cases where we've had witnesses who have told this committee that the interplay between the Treasury Board and this committee is a vital one. The relationship is a critical one in the accountability process. I respect my colleague's comments--Mr. Christopherson's--but the point isn't to have Dr. Franks meet with the President of the Treasury Board and have there be some negotiating aspect. The point is to have all the players involved in the outcome of this document. Dr. Franks said himself that this was a living document in process, and to live up to the same spirit of what he said, there's absolutely no problem with still having him go and meet the President of the Treasury Board on this issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

I'm prepared now to put the question. I'll ask the clerk to record the vote.

(Motion negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That concludes the business today.

If I can make one comment, I do believe in Mr. Sweet's comment that there has to be further dialogue. We can't forget, people were explaining here.... Mr. Toews said, “I would like to explain in broad terms the government's reasons for not pursuing a joint protocol”, and he went on. But we're both in the same business and I think we have to develop a joint dialogue. I will certainly be trying to do that, and I'm going to put that on the agenda for our next steering committee, which is the 16th.

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

I have a comment. I'm a little bit concerned that there's documentation floating around that we really haven't tabled. I think you just made reference to two letters from the President of the Treasury Board, one dated March 12 and one dated March 13.

Were these formally tabled at the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If they weren't, they should be, Mr. Williams.

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

Can you tell the clerk to make absolutely sure that any documents that come before this committee are tabled by you at a committee meeting, because we are losing a lot of the background and supporting evidence for our deliberations. If we go back later on, we don't know what we're talking about. So make absolutely sure these documents are tabled and circulated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Point well taken, Mr. Williams.

The meeting is adjourned.