Public Accounts Committee on May 7th, 2009

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

We're in some uncharted waters, in that we're trying to resurrect things that the majority of the committee has never seen or heard before. In total frankness, the majority of the committee could have made a really good argument to not deal with it because they weren't there. It probably would have held, and all that work would be lost.

I've been very appreciative of the fact that especially the government members—and members of the previous government—were willing to allow us to take a run at this. I'm a little concerned about going to another hearing as a way to resolve this, because it does set a precedent. I'm willing to think about this and listen as we go along, but I offer up as a thought, what if the majority of the committee—hopefully everyone—agreed to allow the government members a two-page update that they could attach?

I see the chair's kind of worried about that.

I'm recognizing the element of disconnect and how easy it would be to start playing politics with it if they wanted to. I appreciate that the members haven't, but we need some way of acknowledging that it has been a fair bit of time. Normally, we don't let that much time go by. I don't want to go to another hearing. I'm a little concerned about that setting a precedent, but I'm wondering, Chair and colleagues, if there's room to allow some kind of an addendum report. Assuming that we get through the report without any big problems, as we have before, then the quid pro quo for the rest of us, if you will, is to allow something in there--you can put in what you want in terms of update. We'd get two pages, and you can update all you want.

I'm saying that predicated.... I don't want to make it a total quid pro quo, but that becomes easier for us to do if we get through the report and we all agree with the report--assuming it's not too partisan or inflammatory. That kind of give-and-take would be good. If we can get through the report and give life back to a lot of work that has been done by some current and some former parliamentarians, that would be great.

To accommodate that, I'm prepared to allow some wiggle room. If there's another idea, Chair, I'm open to it. The idea of a hearing, however, makes me a little nervous, because that does set a precedent that will come up again and again when we want to re-hear something and sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. It depends on the nature of what we're dealing with.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson, just to clarify, what you're saying is that under the Standing Orders it would have to come in the form of a supplementary opinion. That's very clear in the Standing Orders. That would have to be at the consent of this committee. It would follow the signature of the chair. It's no more than one page? It's up to the committee to decide, but that would have to be decided—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can we avoid a minority report? That has a certain political connotation to it. That's why I was thinking of an addendum or an update.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I don't think the Standing Orders would allow anything else. And it's not even called minority; it's called a supplementary or dissent.

Ms. Crombie.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think this is a really slippery slope. I think it sets a very bad precedent and is completely revisionist as well. New information and whatever light it sheds is completely irrelevant. These audits were done. They were a snapshot of a certain period of time and what was occurring in those departments in that period of time.

To introduce new information now is completely irrelevant. We don't allow it now when we have current audits and we talk about what the government agenda is and what the new policies are. We don't allow those to be inserted into reports for the very same reason. It's irrelevant to what was captured by the Auditor General at the time.

As well, the committee has time and money invested in these reports. We have to act on the reports as they stand. I would not be willing to entertain a new hearing, a new report, or a new anything, frankly. I don't think that's the purpose of what we're here to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

Ms. Ratansi.

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

I think I echo what Ms. Crombie has said, because if we look at it, committees change in every Parliament. In the changing nature of a committee, if we go down this route with new members, because they're not familiar with it and because a report was in the past Parliament, where do we stop? Where do we start and where do we stop?

While I appreciate there is progress being made, I am trying to figure out how we balance. I am willing to listen to how you want it balanced, but an audit, as has been pointed out, is an historical picture. The audit is done after the fact. After the fact, in 2007, when the audit was done, these were the facts. If you wish to put in a supplementary report to say what progress was made since then, I'll have to hear the pros and cons, and whether we would set a precedent, and how it might lead to other committees following this. I don't want to open a Pandora's box if we don't have to, unless it is absolutely critical--unless you found the report to be too damning. I didn't.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Oh, it was very damning.

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

Well, it's security of information. Departments do new things. When you put an addendum to the report, then that addendum to the report will have to be audited to say that this is the truth or not. It really creates something I'm not comfortable with. As an accountant, I say I believe in facts. If the facts are there, then I'll follow through on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Here are just some personal thoughts. I don't care how damning the report is. If it's really damning, then what it is, it is. My concern is the relevance of the report. How beneficial is the report? How helpful will the report be to the government, whichever that may be, to be able to address concerns? Are those concerns still relevant? Are those concerns accurate?

I don't need to go back in history and rewrite history. I just want to be able to make recommendations from this committee that make sense, that are going to address a problem should it exist, and then offer solutions for the future. I'm suggesting, and I think very strongly, that we cannot afford to lose the institutional testimony that was in these reports. A lot of work went in, and I really do believe that should be there. However, my concern is are the conclusions, as an example, still relevant? Have there been modifications? Some of this dates back to 2006, not six months ago.

Are they still relevant today? I certainly wouldn't have a clue if they are or if they aren't, and I certainly wouldn't want to sign off on a report if it is not relevant. Now, we're not talking about going back one, two, three, or six months. We're talking about two or two and a half years, when the Auditor General reported on this. I think somehow, some way.... I don't know the vehicle, and I don't want to get into a precedent of opening up, but could we even ask the department? We could say, “There are the conclusions of an interim report. Can you give us an update?”

There's no sense in our making a recommendation if it's already completed. I don't know. I wouldn't have a clue. So somehow and some way.... If it is an addendum letter, I don't know, but I don't want to lose the institutional depth of the report itself, and I certainly as a committee don't want to make a recommendation that is out of whack and not relevant to the circumstance of today.

How do we move around that, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We could put a paragraph in the report acknowledging that the audit was completed--and we'll give the specific date--by February 2007, and that the testimony of the committee was heard in March 2008. We could say that the committee is cognizant of the fact that there could have been many changes and developments since then, but we will deal with them as we heard them from the record. Then, as we do in most reports, we could call for progress reports and progress action plans. It's a difficult issue.

Of course, one other option is to forget the whole thing and not do them at all. You could just acknowledge and point out that you are operating under a disadvantage, and move on. But to get into a situation where you're looking for future developments.... Even with the audits we do now....

On Tuesday we're going to get six reports from the Auditor General. Under the process, that work would have probably been done last year anyway. Then they go to the department with a draft report and it's finessed. Then they have it translated and tabled in Parliament. So there will probably be a five- or six-month lag in the ones we get on Tuesday.

But in this case there is certainly a difficulty. I know what you're all saying. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's a tough issue.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'm not looking for another hearing, and I don't think anyone here is. You mentioned that the reports are five or six months old, and we understand the process. We have one that's two years and five months old, and one that is almost two years old.

Whether it's through a supplementary, or whatever, I'm fine. I'm not asking for a full hearing. But in fairness to the committee members and where we are, most of these issues happened prior to 2006. So this audit is not about us.

For the committee's benefit, and for the committee to be thorough and move ahead, I'm not looking for a full hearing on it. I wouldn't mind just being able to know where we've gone in the last two and a half years. If there's something we can put into this report that will be either damning or non-damning, that's not my issue; it's that this committee be a lot more fulsome in the information we're going to be signing off on. I think that's only fair to the committee, the Auditor General, and these departments--for the good and the bad.

I'm not very happy about signing something that's two and a half years old without having some updates to know what has actually happened. We're trying to get that evaluation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I had a discussion with the analyst. One thought he had--and I kind of like it myself--is to write the deputy minister of the department and ask for a report on the future developments from that audit. We could include them in your deliberations. But to have a hearing you need the auditor, because they always conflict with each other.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'm just asking for an update, not a hearing.

[An hon. member]

We want a timeframe. We don't want this done next year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Saxton.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

We have an opening on the 16th to do it. We could be prepared and come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If you're going to do it, you could write the deputy minister and give him or her four weeks, or some specific deadline. If they don't respond within the four weeks, they obviously don't want to respond and you can proceed without the response. If they respond, you take it into consideration.

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think the proposal you just made is a workable one.

I think Mrs. Crombie made a very good point when she said these reports are a snapshot in time from a long time ago, and even though these reports are two or two and a half years old, they are probably the result of work that was done over three years ago. So I would say that one would have to question their relevancy due to the length of time that's passed since then, and we need some sort of an update. So perhaps what you just proposed is a position that would help us update these reports.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mrs. Crombie.

[Bonnie Crombie, Liberal, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

I'm still fundamentally opposed to this, for a couple of reasons. There is an historical context here that needs to be captured, and it needs to be on the record and it needs to be in the institutional memory.

If for no other reason, there will likely be a follow-up audit done in about two and a half years, and there needs to be a basis for comparison to see if the recommendations have been implemented, if the action plan has been implemented, and what changes there have been.

That's the proper place for it, to do a follow-up audit in the next two or two and a half years. But this has to stand, because this is an historical record, and it has to be put on the historical record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

It's a good debate, a good discussion.

Mrs. Crombie continues to make good points, which is what I would say to my friend Mr. Saxton and others. I have to say that of the options put in front of us, I like the one about the paragraph the best. Even though I was open to the idea, I thought the comments about the historical snapshot are very well taken. Those are good, strong points.

The only thing that's unique about this, really, is not so much the length of time. I thought about it after I made the comments. That Place Victoria thing practically became a department unto itself in terms of our work on it forever. So it is not really the time that's the issue per se; it's actually the fact that the committee is dealing with something where the majority weren't even here to hear it in the first place. To me, that's what provides some room to do something by exception— hopefully without prejudice—without setting us up for future problems.

Again, I come back to Mrs. Crombie's points. I think she is making excellent points, and I don't think they're partisan. I think if you stand back and look at those arguments, they serve the committee well in terms of the work we're doing.

So I have to say that so far I'm leaning back to the chair's original suggestion to have a good healthy paragraph acknowledging that some time has gone by, and making the point that the majority haven't heard this and therefore that we're acknowledging—or whatever way we want to word it.... I like that suggestion the most. It allows us to provide something, but it doesn't take us away from our usual way of doing things and we haven't set a precedent that we can't always keep in proper context.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Saxton.