Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 10th, 2011

[The Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, colleagues. We'll begin this meeting number 44 with orders of the day and committee business. I note that our witnesses are here. After some discussion with government members and others, I want to thank them for taking a seat in the back. Typically we would take about five minutes to do our pre-business, but the chair has been given an indication that we might actually be engaged in discussion of a motion that would take us well beyond five to 10 minutes.

We don't know that for sure, but it might happen, so thank you very much for being understanding. We may be here for a little longer than we had anticipated, but once again, to all of our witnesses, thank you for taking those seats.

Secondly, I think we have before us a group of journalism students from Carleton University who have been assigned to cover a committee meeting.

Just wave. Thank you. Welcome. I think you've already had your first lesson: we never know what's going to happen in committees. So we plan and plan and plan.... And was it Robbie Burns who said that the best laid plans of mice and men—he didn't include women in that—often go astray? So here we are. Anyway, you're all welcome.

Let me try to deal with the easiest things first, if you don't mind, colleagues. Then we can go on to other issues.

First of all, we have the seventeenth report of your subcommittee. Your subcommittee met on Wednesday, February 9, 2011, “to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendations”.

Of those two recommendations, there is an additional document that has been distributed to everyone regarding item 2. That has to do with the invitation to attend the biennial conference of the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees taking place in Perth, Western Australia, from April 27 to 30, 2011.

There were three options. I believe the committee gave us an indication to think of the one that's before you.

Mr. Saxton? No?

Mr. Kramp.

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

Mr. Chair, we've had some discussion, of course, amongst all the members. We discussed several of the options and a number of considerations were given. It would certainly be the government's position right now--and certainly my own personal opinion--that at this particular point, during a time of obviously anticipated restraints, etc., we not take advantage of the opportunity to go. Also, the fact is that we would not be active participants; we would simply be observing.

If we were active participants, I think we would have a responsibility to be there and, quite frankly, our interests would be well served, but we should not do during this particular period. I've listened to my colleagues across the table who have also expressed a fair bit of hesitation, for a wide variety of reasons. I just throw that out to the floor in suggesting that we should not entertain it at this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay. I guess the report will show that the committee has declined to accept the offer provided to us under item 2. Agreed? Thank you very much.

On item 1, everything is okay? Thank you very much. So we approve that report as amended.

Thank you.

Just before I go into the notice of motion, I'm very conscious of the fact that some people asked me the other day about some communication.... We had a little bit of a problem and I didn't want to embarrass anybody. We have received from the clerk information that has come to us as a result of questions that arose in committee meetings from some of the witnesses. There are two documents from the Auditor General, one from Transport Canada, another from the Privy Council Office, and another from Treasury Board. I just caution all colleagues that you do have those; they all should have been in your offices. They may form part of the discussion we have here.

Just before we end that, I should tell you as well that pursuant to the meeting we had on Monday regarding another issue, which may come up again in a moment, my office has received a series of inputs of information, and there's at least one that has gone to the clerk's office. When I receive information, whether it comes by mail, e-mail, or telephone, my practice is that it be identified and that we know who it's from. Once I verify these issues, I share them with the committee.

I'm especially conscious of the situation that on occasion people send Hotmail-addressed e-mails. My first reaction is to find out the source. If it's a legitimate thing, then we share it with the committee. If it's not, I either throw it in the round file or establish a file that committee members can see in the clerk's office if they so wish.

Now, Madam Faille, are you ready to move your motion?

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am ready to table my motion. I read it last Tuesday so that it would be on the record. I sent it in writing to the clerk.

I am asking that the departments involved in the study provide us with the correspondence they exchanged with Ms. Ouimet and her office concerning the Auditor General's report and investigation, so that we can study this file and have in hand all of the documents concerning the Auditor General's report. Strangely, in the list of organizations involved one finds the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Status of Women Canada, because they have shared services and offer services involving human resources and financial activities. The report in fact mentioned concerns in that regard.

I want to discuss a small amendment to the motion. I would like the committee to receive these documents by February 24 so that we have them in hand when we meet these organizations or departments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Madame Faille, thank you very much for making that change so that it does indicate that you really mean, for example, in the English at the bottom, in both official languages by February 24.

It will be the same for the French version.

Debate?

Mr. Kramp.

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

Chair, with the greatest respect to my colleague across the table, who I've worked with on committee for a number of years now and who I know is diligent in her work, I think we have a procedural dilemma here. I'm asking you to declare this motion out of order at this time, for the simple reason that the issue at hand was discussed by our committee in various forms, but the committee did not come to a conclusive agreement on either the scope or the direction of the motion.

To seek to expand the terms of reference of this motion to something we still haven't even come to an agreement on initially is I think really presumptuous, and of course it's definitely premature. You can't go down the road until you turn on the key in the vehicle. In other words, first of all, we have to have a motion passed by this committee to agree to the terms of reference for the study, in order to see whether that's expanded or it isn't. If this committee were to agree to expand the terms of reference, then Madame Faille's motion would be in order.

But the committee has not come to an agreement yet. Should we come to that agreement, we could go down that road with the order. In other words, I believe we really can't expand the scope--which is the request of this motion--if we haven't even authorized the original motion.

That's why, Chair, I would ask you to rule this motion--at this time--out of order. I say that with the greatest of respect for Madame Faille, because I understand her intent, and quite frankly, the government agrees with her intent, and I agree with her intent personally. If we were to proceed down the road with the issue, we have to do it properly, and “properly” says that we can't go ahead with an expanded agenda when we haven't even really first of all come to an agreement on that agenda, period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. D'Amours?

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]...point of order?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, he's asked that it be ruled out of order. That's different from a debate that it ought not to be passed--

[An hon. member]

That's right.

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

That's correct.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

--so I'd like an opportunity to comment on the point of order, Chair, before you rule.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'm going to let the argument go on the point of order.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think Mr. D'Amours is indicating that his point is on the point of order too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Yours is on the point of order as well?

And yours as well?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. D'Amours, and then Mr. Christopherson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, I want to comment on this. I was ready to make a few comments, but I think we have to understand that in the past--and the clerk may confirm this--we have some precedents on an issue like this one. Not a long time ago, we talked about the West Block document, if you remember.

This allowed the committee to adopt a broader approach than we had in the beginning. The committee is master of its own decisions. Moreover, this motion was discussed and was submitted over 48 hours ago. So you can't simply say that it is out of order. There are precedents, and the clerk can confirm that. I think that this motion is entirely in order. And on this topic, I would like to read Standing Order 108(g). I am going to read it in English so that everyone understands me.

It states:Public Accounts shall include, among other matters, review of and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada, which shall be severally deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately after they are laid upon the Table;

I said at the last committee hearing that we had to move this matter forward. I don't understand why once again we are being prevented from having access to these documents. The same thing happened in the case of the West Block issue. This is very important with regard to the public's trust and that of the public servants who work for the Canadian government. In addition, we are told that you would like to set this motion aside to study it more closely. I don't understand why we, the members of the committee, don't have the right to have access to this information.

I do not understand why some try to make sure that we don't have access to those documents. I think the public accounts committee can do its own job. If the public accounts committee thinks we should have these documents, I don't understand why we should wait.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate being able to comment on the point of order. For what it's worth, I think the point of order is in order. In other words, I don't think this has already got any kind of a clear passage. I disagree with Mr. D'Amours that the 48 hours suddenly means that it's in order. My opinion is that it's in order to challenge whether it's in order.

Having said that, either to you or through you, Chair, if you'll permit, I'm just a little unclear on Mr. Kramp's usage of saying “expand the terms of reference”. Again, before we get to the substantive part of the motion at hand, I'm on the point of order. Mr. Kramp believes, if I'm understanding correctly, that it's outside the existing terms of reference, and therefore, in the absence of a motion expanding it, it's therefore out of order. That's his case, Chair.

Again, through you, Chair, if I might, to Mr. Kramp, I don't understand what the initial terms of reference are that would require a motion to expand. Pretty much what we deem to be relevant to our work is in order, if decided by a majority.

Help me understand what you mean by “terms of reference” and that therefore we need a motion to go outside them. I'm not getting that part of it.

If you'll permit, Chair....

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Of course, I'll permit you. I'd rather do this thing as best we can.

Mr. Kramp, do you want to just respond? I guess it's just for clarification--

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

Yes, I would, just for clarification.

Our original focus, of course, is to respond to the report of the Auditor General. The Auditor General's report was supposed to be on the conduct and/or the office of Madame Ouimet. As such, that was a clear sense of direction. Now there has been some discussion as to expanding beyond that and going into other officers of Parliament, calling other extensive witnesses, etc. I'm not going to suggest that shouldn't happen, because, quite frankly, I think there's a great deal of anticipation that more information would potentially be required.

But what I'm suggesting.... And the government is certainly not against hearing further information, but we have to do it in a procedural manner, and the procedural manner says that if we are going to deviate and go into areas that are not ordinarily within the context of the public accounts committee and/or we are going to go in directions that do not respond to the original report of the Auditor General, then so be it, but first of all, we would have to pass a motion that suggests that we are going in that direction.

If we pass that motion, then Madame Faille's motion would clearly be in order. Then we can debate the merits of it, the how and why, and I'd be prepared to do that at length and prepared to make amendments that would be reasonable and that I think most members would find accordable. But I do believe that it's important that we do not move beyond.... If we are going to move away from our own procedure, we have a problem, because an issue isn't automatically...just because it's tabled doesn't mean that it's automatically in order. We have to go through a procedure.

That is my only concern: it's not the content and it's not hearing from witnesses. I'm quite delighted to do that. That's our job. I'm as eager as anybody else, but we first of all have to dot the i's and cross the t's before we go on. We haven't done that. That's why I've suggested this is out of order.

Should this committee pass that sense of direction to expand our scope, which we have the latitude of doing, arguably...we would discuss that, but if the committee decides that, then we go in that direction. But I really think that to just automatically accept this right now, we're really getting onto dangerous ground, because where do we go? Then are we going to accept any motion on the floor whether or not it pertains to the actual working of the committee...which would be debatable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp.

One moment, please. I want to keep things in order.

You asked for clarification on a point of order, Mr. Christopherson. Let me just finish one at a time.