Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 9th, 2010

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I've got a whole bag full, but this is the last one for now.

If we decide to go ahead with Tuesday, and it sounds like we will, I request that consideration be given to our doing this in camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Can we deal with these one at a time?

First of all, we had an in camera discussion this morning. I don't even want to say what happened, because that would be a breach of parliamentary confidence.

I think the question on the table is whether we should go ahead with an attempt to do this on Tuesday.

Those in favour?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Seeing no objections, I'll direct the clerk to make all the appropriate presentations. Thank you.

I have a second concern that has come up—no, a third one; I think we dealt with Madam Faille's and Mr. Christopherson's. Mr. D'Amours raised a different issue, and that was the issue of what transpired on Tuesday, and wanting to bring witnesses.

I won't speak for you, Mr. D'Amours, but I thought I heard you say that you wanted some or all of the witnesses to appear before this committee again on the helicopter issue. Obviously it's not going to happen on Monday.

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I'd like to briefly respond. Yes, that is what was requested. The idea would be to bring back all the witnesses who had appeared. I understand the constraint with respect to Tuesday. We scheduled the Auditor General's report for Tuesday's agenda. I would just ask that we postpone that invitation to Thursday. I hope we will still be in the House and able to continue our parliamentary work on Thursday morning. The idea would be to make arrangements to invite all the witnesses back who appeared on December 7.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

You are suggesting we start that Thursday?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Yes, on Thursday the 16th. If something were to happen—we all know that often we're here until the last minute because that's our job—as I say, if something were to happen, it would just be postponed to the first meeting following the holidays and the few break weeks during which we can attend to matters in our respective ridings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay.

Mr. Kramp.

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

Mr. Chair, we had all the witnesses here. We all had an opportunity to ask them what we wanted. How many times do you bring the same people back because someone thought of another question, and another question? That's not the way a committee should function.

I am against drawing the witnesses back. If it goes further and there's a particular response that was deemed to be unsatisfactory, wasn't clarified, wasn't proper, or could be disputed, and we wish to bring a witness back based on that particular testimony....

To have everybody back again--quite frankly, it's not the way a committee should operate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Kramp, just for clarity purposes, we had four groups of people with us on Tuesday. You're not against bringing one or two groups, but you don't think we should--

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

What I am suggesting is that we demonstrate the reason for it. If there is an inadequacy in testimony, or if it is believed that an area was problematic or disputed, that should be brought to either the steering committee or the committee of the whole to demonstrate that and provide the reason to bring another witness back. There is no difficulty there whatsoever.

But just to call someone.... I think the committee should have some indication as to why that person is coming back, so that we could all prepare. Just to start calling the witness back based on any particular member's thought that they wanted more information is not enough. It should be shared with the committee and then we move forward. If we wish to call them back, we will, but not ad hoc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

I have three intervenors on this.

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Chair, I thought it was a fulsome meeting. We had a lot of opportunity to ask questions. We had all the parties there that we could ever want. They were the high-ranking people, the right people. I actually learned a lot in the meeting, and I don't see any need to bring them all back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with the comments made by my government colleagues.

First of all, we used up the entire two hours the last time, when we actually needed to continue. We had agreed that, if there was a need, we would hold additional meetings. I can still recall the comments made then by certain members, who seem to be moving in another direction today.

Why am I so intent on bringing back all these witnesses, Mr. Chairman? Well, it's quite simple: you only had to be at last Tuesday's committee meeting to understand. An official from one department said he was sorry that he couldn't answer because the Treasury Board Secretariat was responsible for that particular matter. The other one said he couldn't answer because Public Works and Government Services Canada was responsible for that particular aspect.

So, if we don't bring them all back, they will again say they're sorry but they can't answer. One will say that it's a third department that's responsible. Another will say that he can't answer either, because it's the second department that's responsible for one part of the question asked.

That's why I say we have to bring them all back again.

If the meeting on Tuesday had not turned out the way it did and everyone had answered the questions when we asked them, I would have been happy and we could simply have had one department appear at a time.

But that is not what happened. I remember that, at one point, the official with the Department of National Defence was asking the official from the Treasury Board Secretariat what the policy was regarding something that was his responsibility. I don't want to be given half answers once again.

My point was clear: the idea is for us to be more productive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Ms. Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I'd like to add my voice to that of Mr. D'Amours.

My view was that only some of the witnesses should be recalled. However, I believe Mr. D'Amours' argument is an important one. They just kept passing the buck. To illustrate what I mean, just remember what happened when we put questions to officials from Public Works and Government Services. The Auditor General's reaction was quite the opposite. She didn't agree with what was being said.

Furthermore, when I asked who had taken responsibility for the issue when Mr. Fonberg left Treasury Board, the answer we were given was not satisfactory, in my opinion. I know for a fact that someone at Treasury Board has the same responsibilities that Mr. Fonberg had. We were told no, that no one had replaced him. So, I think there are some questions that need to be asked again.

Unfortunately, I didn't have time to make my usual comment: can you provide that in writing?

So, there is good reason… I know there have been discussions on this. On several occasions, I myself raised the fact that, when we have a meeting with so many witnesses appearing, the time allowed to question all the witnesses is fairly limited.

I don't intend to take up any more time. Actually, I just wanted to say that I agree with Mr. Kramp in terms of issues we want to explore in greater detail. Since we will have a little bit of time to prepare that meeting, I would suggest that the executive meet and set certain parameters with respect to the questioning. Like Mr. Kramp, I think we should have a more precise idea of what we are looking for from the witnesses when they appear a second time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to remind Mr. D'Amours and Madame Faille that there was so much time available for questions when the witnesses were here that the chair even asked if anybody had extra questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

The chair was just being polite.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Well, you're very polite.

Look, we had so much time with these witnesses that there was even extra time. You both had ample time to ask questions. You had ample time to ask follow-up questions.

The cost and inconvenience to bring back all of those witnesses—I've been on this committee for two years, and I can tell you that was probably the biggest group of witnesses we've ever had—I cannot support.

I think you had ample time to ask them questions. There was extra time, where the chair even asked if we had any supplementary questions. You had all the time in the world. I think if you have questions for one or two of the witnesses, then perhaps we bring back one or two of the witnesses, but I cannot support bringing back the entire group of witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Chairman, before the end of last Tuesday's meeting, I did make it known that I had other questions. But we didn't have enough time. You asked me to mention it at the committee's next meeting.

Since we had already discussed the fact that there were several witnesses appearing and that I had a right to ask to question the witnesses further, I agree with Mr. D'Amours: we should bring these people back again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

That has been noted.

Mr. Kramp.

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

I just have one quick point.

In most cases we're here to ask questions and to get responses. But on this particular one, I can recall the first line of questioning: the first questioner spoke for probably six to seven minutes right off the bat, without even asking the question, and then, at the end of the entire seven minutes, asked a question.

At some particular point, we're either here to listen to them or ask a question and get a response. But to sit there and run off with a verbal diatribe of thoughts or processes rather than getting to the witnesses, obviously.... You know, we weren't very effective or efficient as a committee on that particular day. Maybe that's just a little lesson down the road.

I'm against bringing them all back again. I just think that's a terrible waste of time, effort, resources.

And I thank Madame Faille for recognizing that we should have a context to our meeting and at least a purpose and a sense of direction so that we can all prepare.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I just want to reiterate that there was ample time. I remember Madame Faille even had supplementary questions.