Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 5th, 2011

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

--is indeed a public notice.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Mr. Byrne--

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

The whole world knows of my motion.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

You've made your point, Mr. Byrne. Thank you.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Byrne has made it clear that he wants to go into committee business. I would propose, if that's the case, that we allow our witnesses to go so that we can move into committee business. That's exactly what he's doing.

You made a ruling earlier that we're not going to go into committee business until 5:15. Mr. Byrne is ignoring your ruling and wants to go into committee business right now. All he's discussing is committee business. If that's the case, let's allow our witnesses--

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Order.

It doesn't help when a lot of people talk at once.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Let's allow our witnesses to go and let's go into committee business. That's what Mr. Byrne seems to want to do at this time.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

All right, now here's my ruling. The government is concerned, Mr. Byrne, that you're about to comment on things that were previously debated in camera. You know you can't do that.

Please hear me out.

However, Mr. Byrne, in wanting to talk about public accounts, is asking a question about a public accounts procedure. As long as he's not repeating something that was said in camera, he has not violated anything. His notice of motion is merely a notice of motion. I don't see that it carries any protection. But I do caution Mr. Byrne that it would be easy to slip into commenting on things that were talked about in committee, and at that point he would be in serious trouble.

I would also remind Mr. Byrne that his time will be the same, whether he talks about public accounts or his summer vacation. His time will expire.

With that caution, I will allow Mr. Byrne to resume his question.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I appreciate the opportunity to reply to the points of order. Perhaps if we continue to do that, there will be fewer points of order offered by the government.

Madam Cheng, thank you again for appearing before us.

My line of questioning on public accounts is a correctional measure. The Office of the Auditor General found that spending on the G-8 legacy fund was unlawful, was contrary to the Financial Administration Act, because money was spent for purposes--

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to know where Mr. Byrne got that information.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

That's not a point of order; that's a point of debate.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

“Unlawful”--I don't think that word was ever used. I would like to have evidence--

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Mr. Saxton, please. You have a habit of running over when I'm talking, and it's annoying me. Please stop.

Pardon me?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I am stopping, but go ahead.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

It's as if I'm the Speaker: when I talk, you don't; when I'm done, then you can speak.

Your point was not a point of order. And if you do this again, you'd better have a real point of order. And I know that you know the difference.

Mr. Byrne, you have the floor, and I hope you have the uninterrupted floor.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

The reporting of expenditures is really what the public accounts is. It's an after-the-fact reporting of how funds were spent, not how they were intended to be spent. Is there anything you would recommend that the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Government of Canada should consider, by way of a reporting standard, to establish whether money was spent without parliamentary authority? You are aware that a notice of motion was tabled before the committee to call the Auditor General before us, because we have not yet heard a stand-alone testimony from the Office of the Auditor General on the G-8 legacy fund.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Mr. Kramp.

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

Point of order.

You made the statement that if items were discussed that had been previously considered it would not be right or desirable. I am not about to divulge discussions that have taken place, but I think the chair would recognize any exact duplication. So I would ask the chair to make a ruling on this. I would hope that the clerk, who was attending at that point, and our independent authorities could pass judgment on an exact parallel to the statements.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

There is no reply. I hear your point. I've cautioned Mr. Byrne. He knows he's snuggling up close to the line, but I don't think he's crossed it yet.

Mr. Byrne, continue.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, with all due respect—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

You're using your own time now.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

—if my motion was out of order because it was held in camera, it should have been ruled out of order as it was tabled.

Madam Cheng—and Mr. Ralston, if you would like to jump in—would you be able to advise the committee as to how the public accounts of Canada could be improved so that parliamentarians receive a better, fairer, and more exacting representation of how moneys were spent?

Right now all we know is that there were moneys spent under the Canada border infrastructure fund that the Office of the Auditor General did indeed find were spent inappropriately because they were not spent for the purposes for which Parliament was informed; they were spent for different purposes. Yet there's no outline of that within the public accounts.

[Nancy Cheng]

Mr. Chair, I'll give a few very brief answers.

First of all, in terms of the G-8 and G-20 legacy fund, there is no specific reference, aside from in the individual departments and ministries, where you can see how money was actually spent against that particular purpose. The public accounts weren't set out to deal with that kind of accountability framework. It tends to be more ministerial accountability in terms of reporting back to Parliament.

From what I understand, the public accounts is not set out to do that type of reporting. The requirement for what is reported in the public accounts is really at the pleasure of Parliament. If Parliament chooses that it wants certain information, it could require that and then the government could furnish that information to be included in the public accounts.

The other quick comment I would make is that there is one place in the notes to the financial statements where there is an authority issue that the government addresses year after year. If you turn to page 2.12, which is in section 2 of volume I—again, volume I is the only volume we audit—within the public accounts itself, in note 2, you see the right-hand column, under ii, after two paragraphs on that page.

Mr. Chair, if members are able to find that particular page—again, it's 2.12, in volume I—you'll see there is something called “Over-expenditure of spending authorities”. So where you've actually set a limit you say the vote authority is x, and where an entity has overexpended, the government would then choose to report that. And we do look at that. That is one piece of a compliance issue, I guess, that does get brought forward to Parliament.

Aside from that, with some of these other authority issues it's not obvious to me how they're really reported in the public accounts.

As far as appearing as a witness, we're at the committee's pleasure. Obviously if you would like us to appear on whichever subject we would be happy to do so. It's at the call of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you very much. Time has expired.

We'll move to Mr. Aspin. You have the floor, sir.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Welcome, people.

I understand in reading the material that for the thirteenth consecutive year the Auditor General has provided a clean audit opinion on the Government of Canada's financial statements. I just heard within the last five minutes from my colleague opposite that there was some reference to the government spending money unlawfully.

Now, Ms. Cheng, could you correct that? Is that in fact the case? If it is in fact the case, then what's the reference that the Auditor General has provided a clean audit? Is that statement accurate?