Public Accounts Committee on May 26th, 2009

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Why don't we go in order, with number one?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We can deal with them all. Do you want to deal with one first? Okay, go ahead.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, I do, Chair.

I just wanted to ask, having been there when we made the recommendation regarding the issue of the crown corporations--I don't know if my colleagues on the steering committee made any notes--I was looking for two, and I was thinking we could do that in one day. I don't know if there is any reference there, and I'm just worried it's going to fall off the table and disappear, because we're now picking which ones we're going to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, that will be done, Mr. Christopherson, but it will be done in the fall. The only slot we have is June 16, and we decided we would have a hearing, or we would deal with this issue on June 16.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The first part of your answer is cool. There was nothing here, and I just thought the next report would come, and this would be forgotten as an issue there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There is no scheduling done yet for September. That will be at the next steering committee.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Did you want to explain the supplementary estimates, or do you want the analyst to do it? I just want a 30-second explanation on the record.

[Sheila Fraser]

I'd be glad to, and perhaps the analyst can add something if my answer is not complete.

We mentioned, I believe, when we came for our report on plans and priorities, that we had established what is called a national professional practices group with the provincial auditors general. So my office will be providing to them technical advice, training on accounting standards, and analysis of exposure drafts, and helping them with some of their accounting or auditing issues.

We are charging the provincial auditors for this, and we asked for and obtained from the Treasury Board approval for what is called “re-spending authority,” because otherwise we would not be able to keep those moneys coming in. They would go into the consolidated revenue fund, and then we would have to ask for a supplementary estimate to get them back. Because we were very uncertain about how much money could be involved, we asked for re-spending authority, so it simply means when we charge, the office can keep that money and use it for our own expenditures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Are there any questions on that issue, or on any other issue on the minutes?

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, I have a question on another issue.

I draw Mr. Kramp to number five. At the steering committee today we had a discussion about whether it was subject to the approval of the committee. Initially, your concern, well-placed, was that if we're going to tinker with anything before it goes forward, we need to give approval, but at the end of the discussion it was clear that the reports, the action plans, are all being generated by the departments, and therefore there really was no need for us to say anything.

I only raised it because if we're going to provide for that process, why build in a step that's not needed? That document is not ours. It's generated by the department. It's an action plan. It's a request from people in the community across the country, who themselves, on the website, want to monitor what plans are in place, and we're facilitating that. So I would just suggest that we don't need that step, given that, again, Mr. Kramp, it's not a document we're touching. It's generated in government, through our clerk and chair, and then it goes onto the website, and everything else we do has to come back here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

So you would like to see the elimination of the words--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would amend it to remove the “subject to approval of the committee.” I think it's redundant.

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

Mr. Chair, I think it was Ms. Faille's point that we put a disclaimer. So if it's understood that a disclaimer will be put stating that this is the action plan of the department and has nothing to do with us.... Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. Is there any discussion?

First of all, is there agreement on the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

Is there agreement on the minutes as amended?

(Motion agreed to)

Okay. The motion is carried.

The last item is the motion of Mr. Saxton. Let me say at the outset that I reviewed this and had some chats with the clerk. We'll circulate it.

Let me make a few comments. I've reviewed it with the clerk and I would be inclined to rule it out of order. I'm willing to hear any arguments, but there may be a way around this.

First of all, it's in the negative. It's argumentative. It's talking about breaking the law. I would suggest--and maybe Mr. Saxton can amend it--that a motion really should just be a statement. If he were to keep the first eight words, “That, notwithstanding the motion adopted”, and then go right to his last sentence and put a specific time there, the motion would be very simple, and I think we could move on to debate the merits of the motion rather than getting into who broke the law.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, first of all, there was no intent to be argumentative in the motion. It was intended to be factual and to relay what actually took place, but if you found it to be argumentative, then I would be amenable to making some changes.

What you are proposing, then, is the first eight words, “That, notwithstanding the motion adopted on May 12, 2009”, and then taking up where...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

You could continue on with the sentence, stating: “That, notwithstanding the motion adopted on May 12, 2009, in relation to the deposit of audio cassettes requested at the meeting of March 24, 2009, the Department of Public Works and Government Services be given”, and then I would encourage you to put a time instead of it being open-ended.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

The difficulty with putting a time is that the purpose of this motion is to give them the ability to respect their obligations under the Privacy Act. I don't think putting a time would be appropriate, because what if they have not satisfied the Privacy Act by a certain date? We have to leave it somewhat open, to the point where they have the time necessary to respect the obligation under the Privacy Act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If you insist on the time needed, what your motion would read, just to be absolutely fair, is: “That, notwithstanding the motion adopted on May 12, 2009, in relation to the deposit of audio cassettes requested at the meeting of March 24, 2009, the Department of Public Works and Government Services be given the time needed to respect its obligations under the Privacy Act”.

That would be the amended motion. Is that okay with you, Mr. Saxton?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

That sounds exceptional.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Now, it's a little late in the day, so we'll go to Mr. Saxton, and then perhaps four or five interventions, and then I'll put the question.

Mr. Saxton, for one minute.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

First of all, Mr. Chair, I think it's very important that this committee respect the Privacy Act. I do have a copy of the Privacy Act here. It states: “Personal information under the control of a government institution shall not, without the consent of the individual to whom it relates, be disclosed by the institution except in accordance with this section”. There are 12 subsections that relate to circumstances under which information could be relayed. This particular request doesn't fall under any one of those 12.

I just want to point out that we don't have a problem agreeing to the provision of the tapes. That's not the issue here. The issue here is the usurping, for lack of a better word, of the Privacy Act. We feel that we need to abide by the Privacy Act and not force a department to do otherwise. That is the purpose of this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Before I go to the next intervenor, I do want to point out to the committee that our legal counsel was of the opposite view.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I want a ruling. Is this not contrary to a decision we've already made?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It's not contrary; it's allowing sufficient time.