Evidence of meeting #67 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 asked.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Now we have to get to Mr. Laforest's motion:
That, pursuant to Standing 108(2), the committee address the report by the Auditor General of Canada presented on June 12, 2007, and undertake a study of the issues it raises by inviting the following to appear: the Auditor General of Quebec, Renaud Lachance; Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada; Lise Thibault, the former Lieutenant-Governor of Québec.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
A point of order, Mr. Chair. I just note that it says “public broadcast”, and I think we're supposed to be in camera.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
I said at the start that these motions didn't need to be in camera. They're regular motions. We'll go in camera when we get to the issues that need to be in camera.
Mr. Laforest, it's your motion.
4:45 p.m.
Bloc
Jean-Yves Laforest Bloc Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe everyone is aware of the fact that the Auditor General's last report shed light on the clearly exorbitant expenses of the former Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec. As this is a report by the Auditor General concerning Canada's finances, this issue is a direct concern to the Public Accounts Committee. I think we should deal with it within the framework of this committee.
It is important to understand that we represent Parliament and if we want to play our role fully, we must hear from these people, so that the committee can report to Parliament and make recommendations. There are still Lieutenants-Governors, whether they are in Quebec or in the other provinces, and this kind of situation should never happen again from this date forward. However, we must not forget that the Auditor General also pointed a finger at the federal department, that is Canadian Heritage. She talked about profligacy, and certain measures that were set aside.
Furthermore, I think this raises serious questions about the role that the Public Accounts Committee should play in such situations. How is it possible that it was a journalist from the Journal de Montréal who raised the issue of the exaggerated expenses of the former Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec for the first time? That is what lead the Auditor General of Canada and the Auditor General of Quebec to audit her expenses. It was journalists who therefore raised the issue, whereas the Public Accounts Committee did not do so. I feel that we have to take back the control of certain aspects, particularly this one. That is why I am tabling this motion.
In conclusion, I would say to you that the population is asking itself a great many questions on expenses of this nature, which are exaggerated and unjustified, as the Auditor General said. People have the right to hear the questions we ask these people and the answers that they must give us, whether it is the two Auditors General or Ms. Lise Thibault.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Help me to understand something. I don't recall us receiving this report. I thought all reports were tabled to this committee and were kept confidential until such.... I don't believe I have this report, so how is it that we're dealing with something that hasn't actually been tabled in front of us?
4:50 p.m.
Alex Smith Committee Researcher
This was a special report that was asked for by the Governor in Council. So it was not part of the Auditor General's normal reports that were tabled with the Speaker, and so forth. This report was made public yesterday. The Government of Quebec asked its auditor general to also do a study, which was also tabled yesterday. Both of these reports are now available on their respective websites.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
The Auditor General is accountable to this committee for her work, so it seems to me that for any work she generates, even if it's for another place or entity, the process would begin here; this would still be the official starting point. I'm not arguing whether that's right, but that's my understanding. I'd like to be educated as to where I'm getting it wrong.
June 13th, 2007 / 4:50 p.m.
Committee Researcher
The Auditor General, through section 7 of her act, tables several reports in Parliament during the year. She also has, through section 11 of the act, the opportunity to be asked by the Governor in Council to do a special report. So this is out of that ordinary tabling method. She was asked by the Governor in Council to do a special report; that's why it wasn't tabled with the committee.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay, this is my last question. I won't pursue it, but at the end of the day we are responsible for the work she does. We are the civilian oversight, and we would be accountable for her work on that report, as we would for anything else. So again, why wouldn't anything she generates have to go through this committee to enter the public arena?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
I think Mr. Smith has answered the question. She can be seconded by other departments.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But Alex talks about the reporting mechanism of actual reports she tables. I wasn't even seeking that we be given some priority, even simultaneously. I'm having some trouble understanding how we were out of the loop.
There's an AG report. People who know I'm on the public accounts committee might come to me and say something about it when they see a report. I would expect to be able to reasonably respond. I've never even seen the damn thing. Yet now we're into our normal work to maybe bring people in, or maybe not, but we don't even have a report.
First, how can we act on something we don't have? Second, I'm still not sure I got a clear answer as to why there isn't a requirement for any report by the AG to at least be simultaneously tabled with this committee to be deemed to be in the public domain.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I have a point of order. Perhaps we can ask the legal staff here--
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
As far as I understand, if I can answer Mr. Christopherson's question, the report was requested by an order in council. She reports to the government, not in her normal course to the Speaker and Parliament and by the Standing Orders, where it's deemed automatically referred to the public accounts committee.
As you know, when she tables a normal report you don't walk in here and have one sitting in front of you. You can pick it up at the briefing, and so on, because it's deemed automatically referred.
I expect that the special report would also be tabled in the House and be automatically referred here. Therefore you have the opportunity to bring the issue before us, as Monsieur Laforest would like. We were not denied the opportunity to deal with the issue; it just came to us via a different format.
The last time this was used was on the first three contracts on sponsorship. That caused the Auditor General to want to do a full sponsorship-wide investigation, which she tabled in the normal course. That became the sponsorship investigation.
The first three contracts were tabled and given to the government because the government requested them under section 11 of the act.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But the request for one is not necessarily a guarantee of the process for it becoming public. It may be, but that alone doesn't--
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
It's the government that makes it public. It's not tabled in the House and made public that way. It's a different process.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Through you to Mr. Williams, Chair, this section 11 of the act, actually.... She is an independent officer of Parliament is my understanding, and this portion of the act actually circumvents that, and she can report directly to the Governor in Council, for all intents and purposes bypassing Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
No, she doesn't bypass Parliament, Mr. Chairman. The government may through order in council ask her to do a special investigation into a special issue, and in response to that request by the order in council, by the government, she therefore has to respond back to the people who commissioned the report in the first place, being the government. Normally, as an officer of Parliament, she is given statutory powers to conduct her investigations and report to the House, but there is also specific legislative authority to respond to requests by the government.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I have a question. Is she obligated to report it to Parliament? She's reporting it to the government, but is she obligated by this section 11 to at the same time report to Parliament? In fact, is she obligated to make that report public, or through an order in council can a request be made for reports that do not end up being made public and without coming to Parliament?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
We'll let Mr. Williams respond. He's quite knowledgeable on this.