Public Accounts Committee on April 19th, 2012

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

Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness on this particular issue.

I will correct the government on a couple of matters. One, the public accounts committee in the past has indeed received and passed motions to convene studies, and witness lists have been included in those motions. That happened quite recently, actually. The government was a part of that. So it's not against the traditions of this committee to have motions before us in which witnesses were “pre-prescribed”.

I want to be very clear, however: this is not a “pre-prescription” of witnesses. This is not a limitation on witnesses. In fact, it's an open invitation to add witnesses. The motion I put forward was very specific in its wording: “that the witness list include, but not be limited to”.

We came here—or at least I assume we came here—with the idea that this would be the planning session. All parties came here, I assumed, with a list of witnesses so that we could get on with the work at hand. I anticipated that all parties and all members would come forward and make a friendly amendment to add their list of witnesses to my motion.

I hope nobody has come here, after weeks of waiting for this study to occur, to suggest that we take another little bit of time, that we have a planning session down the road. I hope people came here to get to work. We certainly did.

There is nothing in my original motion and my original list of witnesses that precludes other witnesses from being added to the list. If the government would like to point out what objection it has to having Craig Morris, the deputy director for F-35 industrial participation at Industry Canada, appear before us, I'd like to hear what the objection is. If they don't want to include Mr. Craig Morris in the witness list now, I'd make an assumption that they won't want to include Mr. Craig Morris in the list down the road in some future planning session.

I'd like to know why the government does not want Richard Dicerni, the Deputy Minister of Industry, to appear before us. I'd like to know why the government does not want Johanne Provencher, the director general of the defence and major projects directorate at the Department of Public Works, to appear before us. I'd like to know why Tom Ring, the assistant deputy minister of the acquisitions branch at Public Works, should not be allowed to appear before us, or why Colonel D.C. Burt, the director of new-generation fighter capability at the Department of National Defence, shouldn't be allowed to appear before us.

I'd like to ask the government why it thinks that Michael J. Slack, the F-35 project manager, director of continental materiel cooperation at National Defence, shouldn't actually be one of the witnesses to appear before us. I'd like to know why Lieutenant-General J.P.A. Deschamps, Chief of the Air Staff at National Defence, is not really a priority witness, or Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister for materiel at National Defence.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Hold on, Mr. Byrne.

On a point of order, Ms. Gallant.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It was my understanding that we put a motion on the floor to consider a motion, and that is the motion we're supposed to be debating. It would appear that Mr. Byrne is already taking the notion that his motion has already been accepted to be debated, and he's debating that motion instead of the one before the floor. I'd like to get back to the point at hand.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I hear your point of order.

This gives me the perfect opportunity to mention something as the discussion is unfolding. I would point out—and I'm non-partisan as the chair—that the two motions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I think Mr. Allen alluded to that.

Look at them carefully. They aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. There is a compromise that's pretty obvious if we can agree on the details, so I point that out.

In terms of the comment, as members know, there's a lot more latitude at committee meetings. In particular, it's known that what members can say and not say in the House of Commons is very tightly controlled. There is a little more latitude. I haven't heard Mr. Byrne starting to talk about foreign affairs or health care or railways. He's speaking within the gamut of the three motions that are around us—one before us and two that are sort of there.

All of that is to say I think he's in order. I'm listening carefully. I do get these points of order from the government when it believes opposition members are going off the point to score political points. I understand that, but at this point I do believe that Mr. Byrne is within the confines of the matter at hand. But I'm listening closely.

Thank you, Madame.

Mr. Byrne, you have the floor again.

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

Thank you.

I'd like to know why the government does not consider Mr. Dan Ross, the assistant deputy minister for materiel for the Department of National Defence, to be a priority witness appearing before us.

If we look at my original motion, Mr. Chair, it was basically to begin the study as soon as possible and to arrange a preliminary witness list, knowing full well that other MPs would be able to bring forward their own amendments to the motion and add to the witness list. I don't think anyone really wants us to spend a huge amount of time in a planning and priority session. It's April 19 today. This is the planning session, and it was intended to be the planning session; we should be proceeding immediately.

If the government could explain why they don't accept these witnesses, I think we'd all appreciate hearing their reasons. I think we'd also appreciate hearing why they didn't come to this meeting with their own lists of witnesses they could include by amending this motion. That way everyone gets an opportunity to participate in this planning session to approve the study on the F-35 acquisition, the Auditor General's report.

Mr. Chair, since you are providing some procedural advice and guidelines to members, is the process that we're engaged in right now to adopt the motion, and then, subsequent to tabling the motion, to actually debate and vote on the motion after that?

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

That's correct.

Right now we are debating a motion that, if carried by majority, would put Mr. Saxton's motion in front of us. It would be in order, and I would give him the floor to speak to it. That's where we are. If, however, this motion loses, we're back to square one, and the floor would be open.

You still have the floor.

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

I'd be prepared to proceed. In fairness, once the motion is on the floor, I'll be voting against it, based on the principle that my motion was indeed tabled first.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I'm not sure I'm following. When you say you'd vote against the motion, do you mean the one in front of us now or the one that would follow?

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

No, it's to include Mr. Saxton's motion.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Okay.

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

I think that convention and courtesy would suggest that the first mover of a motion within a committee would have the precedence to have that motion heard first. Mr. Saxton did indeed use an opportunity to advance his motion; it was basically verbatim to what he had placed some time ago, but it was well after I had already placed my motion.

I'm not going to get caught up on that. The facts are that my motion was tabled on April 3. There was a notice of motion that went around. In reaction to that, at committee on April 5 Mr. Saxton then tabled a counter-motion, which is basically the substance of what we're discussing right now.

I just think we should get on with this. I don't think anyone should be afraid of bringing forward bureaucrats who were directly involved in all this. If my motion is just not acceptable to the government for some reason, what they really need to do is explain to Canadians, at least to all of us here, why they don't want the senior officials who could shed so much light on this issue to appear before us. Otherwise, are we simply going through an exercise in which they'll be included anyway? If that's the case, it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. We're wasting time.

Mr. Chair, we'll get to the business at hand, I hope, and we'll use our time more productively.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Very good. Thank you.

I have a list of speakers. The first speaker is Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find it a little frustrating and confusing that this was called as a “planning meeting”, as my colleague across the aisle says. If I might read the reason for the meeting, it says, pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), "Meeting requested by four members”—which means the opposition called this meeting—“of the committee to consider a study of chapter 2, 'Replacing Canada's Fighter Jets', of the spring 2012 report of the Auditor General of Canada”.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Just to keep us all clear, and the public, it could have been any four members; it didn't have to be the opposition. If I receive letters from four members...I don't see parties in that case, just so you know. It's not just the opposition.

Go ahead.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'm wondering if the member opposite actually notified us through any venue that he was planning for this to be a planning meeting. Actually it talks about considering a study. We have the study. We've had the discussion, as our parliamentary secretary has indicated in his motion, which was actually out on April 4, where there had been opportunity prior to today's meeting to move forward, I would suggest, but we chose not to at that time. This motion could have actually gone.... We could have actually been moving forward with a list.

I'm wondering, speaking of courtesies, if any notification came to our parliamentary secretary about what the agenda would have been today with regard to a planning meeting.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Are you asking somebody a question?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'm asking you, through the chair, through the clerk—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I have no knowledge of that. I'm not aware that the staff have any knowledge of that.

You can ask Mr. Byrne, but once he gets the floor, he has the floor.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Well, then I'll leave that as a statement.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I thought you might.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

In fact, we didn't get any notice of it, but I thought maybe the clerk might have been able to confirm whether anything had come through that office.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

It didn't come through our offices, no.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, sir.

What it is right now...clearly Mr. Byrne has put out a list. In fact, our parliamentary secretary said we would want to have many of those people, so contrary to what he's saying, that we wouldn't want those people, or why would we not...that's about today's discussion, about how we select.

I've been on the committee before, and in terms of fairness—and I look across to Mr. Allen—we always want to put a list forward from all parties.

Nobody said today was a planning meeting. We didn't get the courtesy of that notice.

I would suggest to my parliamentary secretary that I would support this motion. In fact, we might add a friendly amendment to help satisfy Mr. Allen, that actually we could bring witnesses forward on the 24th. That starts to establish the date when we want to move forward, because really it indicates that we don't want to hold this thing up, contrary to what has been said earlier; we want to move forward on it because we want clarification on this study that the Auditor General has brought forward on the F-35s.

I would add that a friendly amendment could follow to determine the witness list, an agenda for the study to begin with the witnesses on Thursday, April 26. That would be a friendly amendment, which would help the NDP with their concern that the Conservative Party is saying it wants to do something but actually is not saying when. We actually have said we want to, and we'll put the date in place so that they know when we want to start. Then we can go back, Mr. Chair, to having the planning meeting, as this thing should be laid out, and have the fulsome discussion about the number of people we should be bringing forward and look at the list.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

I am, of course, in the hands of the majority of the committee. However, from a practical point of view, it would be very difficult to pull in all the people we would need for the 24th.

You did make reference to the 26th, which I would say is doable, if everybody helped out and massaged their schedules. That is doable, but the 24th, I want to advise members, would be difficult. I'm just worried that we would set it up and it would fail. The 26th, though, will work.

Staying with those who have not yet had a chance to speak the first time before I go to a second-time speakers list, Mr. Kramp, and then Monsieur Dubé.

Mr. Kramp, you have the floor, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make a couple of points that I think are important.

A planning meeting is not just deciding we're going to call some witnesses. It's not that simple. A lot goes into that planning meeting. We have to decide not only the list of witnesses we would like to have but in what order we would like them to appear. Would we have them there to corroborate testimony? Would we have them there to potentially oppose testimony? Would we have people from the Auditor General's office at the same time as we would have people from DND? Would we give each of them their time to move forward separately?

There are a lot of issues that can play out here that should be before this committee for some serious deliberation in order to get the answers and responses we need. That's why, quite frankly, a planning meeting is important. Let's get at it; that's the point. We need to get at it immediately. If there are other issues that are on our calendar right now, I as a government member would be willing to take those issues and put them on the back seat right now in order to expedite this. Certainly the opposition members want it and certainly the government members want it, so let's just get to it that way.

Let's do it and do it right. Let's not bastardize the process. Quite frankly, when we do that we're not going to get the results we need. Let's do it the way it should be done--effectively, professionally. Moving forward, we will deal with this study in a comprehensive manner. I'm very confident with that.

I will leave that with the committee for their thoughts.