Evidence of meeting #14 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was audits.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Thank you very much, Ms. Fraser.
Going back to the motion, I'm going to read the composite motion, and we'll ask for a mover.
Shall vote 15 in the amount of $75,103,833, less the amount of $18,775,958.25 granted in interim supply, carry? The second part of that motion: Shall I report the main estimates to the House?
It is so moved by Mr. Saxton. Is there any discussion on that motion?
FINANCE
Auditor General
Vote 15--Program expenditures..............$75,103,833
(Vote 15 agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I guess that would be one way to get on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen, if you're....
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
We seem to have found another way. Don't worry about it.
Liberal
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
There are two things. First, could I just hear your thoughts on what the process might be, assuming colleagues are in agreement, about identifying what our role is earlier on? I'm not looking for a bigger role. I just want to identify what it is and then make sure it happens. Second, with regard to our being kept informed of updates vis-à-vis the information glitch, shall we say, that the AG ran into....
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay. That concludes this part of the meeting. I just want to thank you, Ms. Fraser, Mr. Wiersema, and Ms. Sachs, for your continued excellent work. We will be seeing you, I guess not Thursday, but in the next two weeks.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The next item on the agenda is the minutes of the steering committee held Wednesday, May 5. That was circulated to everyone.
Before we get into the actual minutes, I just want to point out to members that the copy of the draft agenda has been circulated. You pretty well know that this Thursday we're dealing with the selected departmental performance reports. I do want to highlight to the committee that it's an important issue, but it's an issue the analyst has done a lot of work on, and there are a lot of materials in preparation for that particular hearing.
We go into break week and then we have a four-week session. We are going back to the CIDA issue we had before us for one hour, and at that time we do have some visiting auditors general from both Africa and the Caribbean.
On May 27 we will have draft reports, although that meeting may have to be abbreviated because of the visit of the President of the country of Mexico. On the week of June 1 we have two hearings: aging information technology systems and electronic health records. Then the week following we have draft reports at both meetings, and then on June 15 we have rehabilitating the Parliament buildings.
If there is agreement, I want this as part of the minutes. Because of the scheduling with the Auditor General, the working lunch with the members of Parliament—you see it there on June 2—we'd like to move that to June 1, if that's okay. I know full well that all members of Parliament will not be able to make that because of other commitments, but we do have a visiting delegation and we will have a lunch. Whoever can make it, we will host these parliamentarians. So that's the schedule.
On the minutes, I want to speak to item 1; item 2 is just routine. On item 1, this was discussed at the steering committee. It arises as a result of certain questions posed by Madame Faille at the hearing on chapter 5. I went over the transcript, and there was considerable confusion at the end. She wanted some internal memos on the acquisition of these vehicles, and Major-General Leslie indicated that it was fine and they would be forthcoming, but then the deputy minister got involved and he made a statement that he guessed what we were looking for is the process, and that's what they filed with us, just an organizational flowchart as to how an acquisition would come to be.
This was discussed at the steering committee. Madame Faille, on second reflection, didn't really want the memo; she just wanted the dates as to when these steps happened, so we worded the motion to reflect that. Perhaps before any debate I will ask Madame Faille for her comments and anything that she wants to add.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
In fact I think that the motion is explicit here. I had insisted on having the notes; there did not seem to be any ill will on the part of National Defence in providing information to us. However after a three-, almost four-week delay, they finally gave birth to a mouse.
As a compromise, in order to have a good understanding so as to be able to carry out the fall audits for similar types of purchases, I simply wanted to see added the dates upon which each of the steps of the process was completed, quite simply.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Is there any other discussion?
All in favour of the minutes of the steering committee as circulated, with the amendment of moving June 2 to June 1?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The deadline probably doesn't make a whole lot of difference. I would suggest June 30 would be plenty of time.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Just a second, my interpretation got flipped around.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
It includes the tour, yes.
(Motion as amended agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]
I should have pointed that out. The tour is going to be offered as part of our study on the age of the Parliament Buildings. The clerk will make arrangements, and you'll be notified if you want to have an organized tour. She's going to keep it to as short a time as necessary.
Is there anything further to come before the meeting?
If not, the meeting is adjourned.