Public Accounts Committee on March 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

One at a time.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

--without cutting them off like you normally do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

The first one I have is Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I wish now that I'd spoken up earlier when the ruling was on. As most of you know, I try not to play partisan; when I'm being partisan, I put it on the table, say I'm about to be partisan, and away I go. To Mr. D'Amours, I am not here.

I'm having some real difficulty understanding the interpretation that the chair is holding based on the advice from the clerk. My understanding is that when we're in business and dealing with a particular file or a particular report, if somebody says, “I move that we have a system of dealing with that document in the following way”, that motion wouldn't need notice because we are seized of that issue at the moment and we're trying to work it through in the way that we make decisions and motions.

The line of demarcation is whether it's a substantive motion or not. This is not related to any matter in front of us. It's a policy matter of the committee that one of the members is asking us to consider changing. That seems to me to fit clearly in the notification period.

I can give you what the substantive parts are and why I have some difficulty with this. I can relate it to other officers, other reports, other things that go on. I have some feelings about it, but I'd like to do a little work on it.

Anyway, I would deem this to be a substantive motion, a stand-alone motion that affects the policy of the committee. It's a change in policy, and I think this does require notice. I would say that whether I was supportive of it or not, but I clearly think that this is brand new and it's big. Therefore, it needs to be given the 48 hours' notice, in my humble opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

Go ahead, Madame Faille.

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

I have spoken little since the beginning, but I have listened to what others have said.

Mr. Chairman, you drew attention to the fact that the Auditor General was coming to the end of her mandate. I believe that the courteous thing to do would be to allow her to table her final report. This is why I am going to support this motion. It is important, out of courtesy to the Auditor General, that we apprise ourselves of her reports. She works very hard and has already given notice of her intention of tabling reports in the spring, as she has done every year. Unfortunately, we are facing a reality, and if an election were to be held in the near future, we would not have the benefit of those reports. You mentioned this during committee business, and I am of the view that this motion is in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I think we're now going into discussion on the merits of the item, and I think Mr. Christopherson began by saying that he might not think that this motion, despite the interpretation I gave, would be in order. I did consult with the clerk beforehand, so I think we are in the process of discussing whether this motion is in order. I said I would hear everybody on it, so let's maintain the discussion in an orderly fashion on whether you accept that this motion is in order. Let's leave the substance of it aside.

I have Mr. Saxton and Mr. Kramp.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move that this particular document be required to have 48 hours' notice, as would be normal. When it comes to the Auditor General, she can certainly come back. She has an office that supports her and deputies who can certainly come back and bring reports to us, so I don't think that's a justification for changing the procedure of this committee.

I would move that 48 hours' notice be required for this particular document and that we attend to it at the very next opportunity that this committee sits.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Go ahead, Mr. Kramp.

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

Chair, I'm certainly no constitutional authority, but we have to operate within rules no matter who the witnesses are or what the topic is.

The understanding I have is actually very similar to Mr. Christopherson's. If we are dealing with an issue here, it wouldn't matter what that issue is or whether we are prepared or not to deal with a motion; if that motion is presented in both languages during the period when we are dealing with that subject, that motion would be in order.

However, this motion brought forward today has nothing to do with our topic of conversation. We're not into an investigation, we're not interrogating witnesses, and we're not dealing with the subject, so it is not substantive to our discussion today and it is absolutely and unequivocally out of order.

Either we have a set of rules here that we follow or we don't, notwithstanding the issue. We are playing politics again here, and we have to get away from politicizing this committee. We have a set of rules. Let us follow them, because once we start going down this path, Chair, we have a very serious problem: this committee ceases to function when we do that.

Based on those terms and conditions, Mr. D'Amours is just not in order. It has nothing remotely to do consistent with the substantive discussion we're having here today, so how can it be presented without notice? It absolutely cannot be. It wouldn't matter what the topic is; we have to follow our rules of order, because otherwise this committee either ceases to function or just carries on in the paralysis that it has had for this last little while.

If you wonder why we're going to an election regardless of the positions of any of the parties and with this Parliament becoming pretty well dysfunctional, it's because of crap like this. We have to start dealing with reality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Stay on topic, Mr. Kramp.

As I read the mood here, we can do one of two things: either we can adjourn the debate on the motion and have it brought up at a further discussion, or Mr. D'Amours may wish to withdraw it and move it again at a later date. I'm going to ask the latter question first, and I'll ask it of Mr. D'Amours.

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

Mr. Chairman, my question is clear.

Furthermore, it is not up to us, as members sitting around this table, to decide if the motion is in order. We can provide our opinion as to whether or not we think that it falls within the committee's order of business. You are the chair, we have a clerk, and we have documentation containing the information needed to verify if the question is in order or not. I believe that that fact has been well established.

I do not understand why certain members of Parliament refuse the principle of transparency. We talk about accountability, and I believe that we are in fact here faced with a refusal of transparency. One must also ask why certain members are trying to prevent things from moving forward. What are they afraid of?

We have senior officials in the House, independent officials who do their job. We ask them to ensure that all of the work done within government follows the rules. The only thing I am asking is that there be transparency, that we ensure that any reports completed by the Auditor General be presented to the public.

What is the problem with transparency? What is the problem with certain members who do not want the public to know certain things? What are people afraid of? Perhaps the report will be a positive one. Why be fearful of having the Auditor General come with a report and recommendations? Unless someone is trying to hide something.

Those members who refuse the principle of transparency should now think twice about it before making that kind of comment.

Mr. Kramp, we are talking about transparency and

accountability, it was supposed to be from your government, and you said that it's crap? I hope that next time you will think about those words before mentioning it.

Mr. Chairman, my motion is there, it remains, and I am asking that we deal with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay.

Well, I have Mr. Saxton, who has made a motion. For the purposes of the clerk's being able to keep us all on track, would you just simply put--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, could you just hear my point of order? It will take ten seconds.

It seems to me that the easiest thing is for you to either reaffirm your decision or to alter it. If you make a ruling, the way it normally goes is that the question is asked, I challenge it because I think it's out of order, and you make a determination. When there's debate, the committee then has the right to determine by vote whether we want to sustain the chair or not. That ends the matter.

The easy thing would be for you to make a ruling, and then the next step would be for this committee either to sustain your ruling or to overturn it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Well, I'd—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But I leave that with you. That's just my suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Maybe that will avoid the other thing.

I'm going to sustain the ruling, and if you want to challenge the chair, then we can get it reversed.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

But Mr. Chair, you asked Mr. D'Amours a very simple question, and he responded that he's not going to be withdrawing it, so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

If he doesn't want to withdraw it, I'll just say that it's still in order and you can challenge me and we can deal with it with a vote.

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

Then I would challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you very much.

Those of you who would sustain the chair's decision that it is in order, please put up your hands.

(Ruling of the chair overturned)

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you. The chair's ruling is defeated 6 to 4. The motion by Mr. D'Amours is withdrawn. He can always bring it back at another time. It's defeated.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, no, Chair, what was defeated—

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'm sorry, it's deemed inadmissible. That's the correct language.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, again, I disagree with that. I don't think it's inadmissible. It's just that it's now been tabled and Mr. D'Amours, after 48 hours, has the right to move it at any subsequent meeting. That's not inadmissible. It's still tabled with the committee. We still take it in.