Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 9th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Let's direct it to the chair.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

In addition to her regular questions, she was given supplementary time. She chose to use part of that time to ask about an aircraft that wasn't part of the report, so she obviously didn't get an answer on it. She did have ample time to ask questions; she had supplementary time.

Let's face it, anybody who didn't get a chance to ask their questions, it was their own fault, because there was ample supplementary time available to every member of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage. I wasn't at the hearing, so I'll try to act accordingly.

As of this moment, I'm probably the longest-serving member on this committee. We don't normally bring people in to do a fishing expedition, particularly because of the cost and everything else. If we did that with everything, we'd never get through our work. However, it is not unusual for us, on complicated, big issues, to do some follow-up work.

Just from a fair-minded, if you will, and practical point of view, it would seem to me that if members have specific questions in certain areas that they either didn't get to go into or want to go into further, given the size of this report and the importance and the attention that the public is paying to it, I think it makes sense to call them back.

But I do agree with the notion that it would be on a selective basis. A holus-bolus fishing expedition on a second round--we don't normally do that.

I guess I'm probably not far off from where Mr. Saxton is, except that I'm leaning to, if people have those questions, supporting their opportunity to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Monsieur Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, my thinking is quite simple. We are talking about a total of 43 helicopters and between five and seven years to deliver the goods. If we had had to wait five to seven years before having combat aircraft in World War II, I don't know where we'd be now.

So, this raises some legitimate questions. I think we need to have another go at this. Everything that needed to be said was not, nor were we able to ask all the questions that needed to be asked.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay. Thank you very much.

I hope this has been a fulsome discussion.

I think Mr. D'Amours has said that there be additional hearings scheduled in relation to the study of chapter 6, “Acquisition of Military Helicopters”, of the fall 2010 Report of the Auditor General.

Those in favour...?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]...everybody?

I just want to be clear. I'm not debating, I'm asking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

No, it just simply says, I think, “additional hearings scheduled”. In his presentation, I thought I heard that we'd make an effort to see if we could get people by December 16. If not, then we'd have to do it at the earliest possible time in February.

I thought the debate tried to narrow that focus--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It did, but the motion didn't reflect that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

No, but I'm saying the debate tried to narrow that focus. I don't want to interpret the debate. I'm just reading out what the motion said.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I don't agree with Thursday, by the way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

No, but I think he said let's go to Thursday, and if it's impossible, go on beyond that.

I imagine that took into consideration what happened at the beginning, where we said we've really left that free. We probably won't be here on Thursday—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, that's it. There's a 50-50 chance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

--which means it will go on. Okay?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Can I have just one second, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

It's always one second.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

It was Mr. D'Amours who proposed the motion--

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

That's what I said.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

--and Mr. D'Amours made it absolutely clear that he wanted every single witness back again.

That's to answer Mr. Christopherson's question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I think Mr. Christopherson knew that from the very beginning. He also followed the debate. It's just my role to just summarize the debate, that's all.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]...is still the broader one. If you want to do it as a one-off, and then the other, that's fine. But I don't think there's consensus. I don't think there's a majority vote here to bring in everybody--although maybe there is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'm glad that everybody wanted to intervene. It's my task to make sure we understood what it is we would be voting on and to give you an indication of where the debate went. And I could ask Mr. D'Amours if he wanted to make an adjustment to his motion or whether it adequately reflects what he wants to do, notwithstanding the debate.

Now that I've said that and gotten it off my chest, Mr. D'Amours, before I call the question on this.... I'm not going to entertain further interventions, because they're all repetitious, quite frankly. No offence; there's value sometimes to repetition—sometimes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Bringing the witnesses back is repetition too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Yes. You're right.

Mr. D'Amours, does that motion reflect what you want to do, and do you want to condition it as a result of some of the debate you heard over the course of the last...couple of seconds?

No jest intended.