Public Accounts Committee on May 14th, 2009

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for taking such an exhaustive approach to looking at all the elements within this motion. I appreciate the details that you have gone through.

If it is not part of our mandate, I am agreeable to removing “the number of jobs projected to be created by the funds expended”. I am agreeable to removing that portion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The clerk has pointed out that the amendment should be agreed to. You're moving the amendment, so this is a housekeeping issue.

Is it agreed that she can amend the motion as she stated?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Carry on.

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

Okay. Thank you,

This is really the purpose and the intent of the motion. The stimulus package was an extraordinary measure, and the Comptroller General is the only person, as you've mentioned.... Had Natural Resources been on a timely basis.... The Comptroller General can tell us, when he reviews the proposal, what has been drawn down, how much has been drawn down.

I was looking at the supplementary estimates, and they have allocated; the Treasury Board has approved. But the purpose of the stimulus package was to ensure that we stimulated the economy, and if we have stimulated the economy and departments have drawn down the money to do shovel-ready jobs or whatever, that the government claims it needed the money for, that's the reason why we have it.

We are a public accounts committee and our job is to ensure the efficiency, economy and effectiveness of public dollars. I think it behooves the committee, being accountable and being transparent for the taxpayers' dollars, that we agree, because we gave the government that $3 billion in a very short window. That short window was to try to create jobs. In our own ridings, we are facing a lot of issues for people who are losing their jobs, losing their lives, because they cannot seem to manage.

So I would like to ensure that the committee supports this, because all it requires is the Comptroller General giving us his analysis of what has been drawn down.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

As I indicated, I can entertain eight interventions of up to a minute each. Is anybody prepared to speak?

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

First of all, Mr. Chair, I want to point out this is a highly unusual matter to be coming before this committee. This is not the correct committee for this. Perhaps the government operations committee would be the correct one--maybe not that one, either--but certainly not this committee.

The government has made it clear that our commitment to Parliament is to report on vote 35 on a quarterly basis. These reports will be done through supplementary estimates and through regular reports to Parliament on the economic action plan.

This morning, the president of the Treasury Board tabled the 2009-10 supplementary estimates (A) in the House of Commons. I happen to have a copy right here. In these supplementary estimates, it clearly points out where the initial funds of $1.187 billion have gone in the period from April 1 to April 30.

So we're talking about two weeks after the end of the period. We already have a detailed explanation of where these funds have gone. This is the normal procedure that we will report it in. I think it's highly unusual that it would be reported on a weekly basis. It would be an onerous exercise for the Comptroller General, and I am firmly against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Kramp, one minute, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I have a very serious problem with this. One is political and the other, to my mind, goes right back to the purpose of this committee.

This committee works really well when we stay away from the partisan nature of politics. With all respect to all my colleagues at this table, this motion is a strictly, straight partisan issue that has a very obvious intent. There isn't one member sitting around this table who doesn't recognize the reality of the motion, what it's for, and what it's intended to do.

Probably one of the most disturbing things that I find about being a member of Parliament is having to go through this kind of a...well, I won't throw a word to it.

I have two or three points, though, Chair. I have some points that I need to make on this. Quite frankly, we received the letter to you that was dated April 27. That's wonderful, but we're only just receiving it now. It clearly illustrates the response that was requested from public accounts, with an idea of deadlines on that, from the Comptroller General, which is a clear response to what this committee had asked--obviously not in line with the vote, but in line with the request from.... So there's no move by the Comptroller General to not comply with the means of accountability.

In your opening statement, Chair, you were referring to Marleau and Montpetit, subsection 108(3). You said that the mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts includes “among other matters”.

Well, it doesn't say that; “among other matters” is not included in that. What it says is that the mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts includes the “review of and report”.

I'm not wishing to get into wordsmithing. I find it really disturbing that we're heading down this road. I think it's a shameful abuse of the purview of this committee, I really do--particularly when it's already been reported elsewhere and investigated in other committees, as we stand right now.

We had the Auditor General arrive today, doing the classic thing that the Auditor General does: presenting reports to us for evaluation, so that we can make.... We have a ton of work to do.

Third, and as perhaps the last point, in that one program alone I think there were over 3,000 applications just for Ontario to administer. Would you say that it's just nothing to come up with these reports? Well, quite frankly, there are thousands and thousands of reports and program expenditures that would have to be reviewed every seven days in working through to meet that. That is absolutely over the top, preposterous, and unnecessary.

There's no attempt to dissuade anybody from finding out what's going on. If it's already been reported in the estimates, the estimates are being reported on a consistent basis at the request of all of the opposition members of Parliament. If we were to go through with this, quite frankly....

Chair, with the greatest respect, I would challenge the chair and ask that this matter go to the Speaker for judgment. I don't want to go there, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Kramp, you can't discuss the ruling. You can challenge the ruling of the chair, and I take no exception, but that's....

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

Then, Chair, I do. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay, that's fine. That's your prerogative, Mr. Kramp.

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

As I said, I am sorry; I regret this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It's not a debatable motion, and I'm going to ask the clerk to conduct that vote.

We do have a motion from Mr. Kramp. The wording of the motion would be this: Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?

All those in favour--

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, can we ask for a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'll ask the clerk.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

So this is non-debatable?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes.

Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?

[The Clerk]

There is an equality of voices. It is a tie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The clerk has informed me that should there be a tie in the vote, the chair does not vote and the ruling is sustained.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 5; nays 5)

The motion stands as amended.

We're going to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have just a couple of thoughts. I might have been one of the first to ask whether or not this was in our purview, not because I suspected anything political. Really, if you want to play politics, you can go all the way back to the origin of the vote. It's all been highly political.

I would also say to Mr. Saxton, he used the term “highly unusual” for this, but the whole vote 35 process is unusual. That's why an exception makes sense.

My only question was whether or not this was actively for us to look at or someone else. I was hoping someone would, but were we the right ones? You've made your ruling, and we've now sustained that.

Given the extraordinary nature of the vote, I'm feeling compelled to support it because there's no reason not to. It is unusual, but so was that whole process and the setting aside of money and the way it was going to be accessed.

I can appreciate the concern that there's partisan politics, but other than the usual layers of partisanship that exist, I'm not sensing, there's no particular case here, that this is going to segue into, or you're backing into, an issue you couldn't get in through the front door. There's nothing like that.

Yes, it's going to be political, but so is the whole setting aside of that money and spending it the way we did. So I'm feeling comfortable there are no games at play, beyond the usual tensions that exist anyway, and I don't think it's extraordinary enough that we wouldn't go ahead and do this. It's over in a short period of time. It's Canadians' money, they're entitled to know where it's being spent.

You've now said it's in order, Chair, and we've sustained that, so I'm in support of the motion. I can't see a good reason not to be at this stage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

Mr. Young, briefly, and Mr. Weston, briefly.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My concern is--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

May I interrupt you for a second? I apologize; I had meant to bring this up.

Mr. Kramp talked about Marleau and Montpetit, but I took my quote right from the Standing Orders. It does say, “Public Accounts shall include, among other matters, review of and report on”, right in the Standing Orders.

I'm sorry, Mr. Young, please continue.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My concern is that I'm not sure how useful this whole process is going to be. I don't think it will be useful at all, in fact, and it's redundant.

For example, this committee doesn't meet every week, and it certainly doesn't meet every week throughout the summer. I'm trying to understand the benefits and the logistics of how this would work and the benefit to the people of Canada if committee members who are doing other work throughout the summer, or travelling with parliamentary committees, are going to get an e-mail that lists a bunch of projects that have been approved. Probably many of them are going to be announced with press releases anyway.

With a word to redundancy, here's supplementary estimates (A) 2009-10, just published today, which lists allocations for Treasury Board central votes. There are pages and pages of exactly those kinds of expenses.

For example, under “Department, Agency, or Crown Corporation”, Environment--Parks Canada Agency is allocated $9.9 million; Trans-Canada Highway twinning through Banff National Park is allocated $2.1 million; and under Health Department, health facilities and capital programs are allocated $10 million.

So this is a totally redundant effort. I view it as a partisan effort and totally redundant. I don't think logistically it provides any benefit to the people of Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Weston and back to Ms. Ratansi.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

One thing that concerns me, that brought me to Ottawa, and I think it concerns all of us as MPs, is the efficiency of expenditure of government money and government resources. We're here on the payroll of taxpayers. For us to duplicate the efforts of another committee that is more narrowly focused on the very thing that Ms. Ratansi proposes to review, strikes me as a horrible waste of time and money. Therefore, I'll be voting against this.

The mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts includes a review of and report on.... Well, we've heard about that.

The mandate of the operations committee, and that's the other one I'm referring to, is this.

I'm reading from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates archive: The Committee's government operations mandate includes primarily the study of the effectiveness of government operations; expenditure plans of central departments and agencies, commissions, selected Crown corporations and organizations; new and emerging information and communications technologies (ICTs) in the government; and statutory programs, tax expenditures, loan guarantees, contingency funds and private foundations

Therefore, it's no coincidence that Alister Smith of Treasury Board has appeared no less than ten times already before this other committee to deal with these things, Ms. Ratansi. And John Baird, the minister, was there today already.

So they're way ahead of us. They're more narrowly focused. I don't propose to sit and waste taxpayers' money by doing what someone else is already doing.