Evidence of meeting #38 for Public Accounts in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
No, no. We can't have two motions in front of us at the same time unless they're fully stacked.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Now, since I have the floor, I will move the second motion.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Fair enough.
I'll suggest then, Mr. Chair, since the government has made its position abundantly clear, that no member of this committee should be surprised down the road if some of their witnesses who represent pay scales below deputy ministers are not called to this committee. There should be no weeping and gnashing of teeth if those witnesses who we feel could provide a substantial input into the study are not appearing before us. Ultimately, if you say that we're simply playing games, and that this is not a substantive argument, I disagree, because this is a substantive point about the process we're about to go through. If you can't have officials at lower pay scales than deputy ministers, we're not going to get to the bottom of all of this.
What has been suggested by Mr. Allen is that this is all nonsense, this is just games, and we should give it up and stop the games.
Everyone should understand, and as this thing evolves and those witnesses who provide value to this committee are not called before this committee because they're below the pay scale of deputy minister, they should not be surprised.
So why don't we just vote on my motion? Let's get this done.
NDP
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say that it was at Mr. Byrne's request that we all came here today at significant expense. I certainly hope we can get moving on the motion that is before the committee. It's not new to the committee. In fact it was introduced over two weeks ago, so every member of the committee has had a chance to review this particular motion.
If it complicates things to have an amendment, then I propose that we go ahead without an amendment. Nevertheless, I think we should just go ahead and vote on this motion, because it's very difficult to proceed.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
I'm sorry, when you say “this motion”, do you mean the amendment? That's what is before us.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Yes. We should vote on the amendment before us so we can get to the motion.
NDP
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
In the interest of time and efficiency, we should move ahead on the voting on these amendments.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Very good. Thank you.
I have no one further on the speakers list. The floor is open.
Seeing none, I will call for a vote on Mr. Byrne's amendment. Do we need it read out again?
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Mr. Chair, I would like a recorded vote, if I could, please.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Yes, you are entitled to a recorded vote.
A recorded vote has been requested and therefore it shall be ordered.
Before we vote, we'll have Mr. Allen.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to make sure that we know exactly which piece it is, because you did rule that it was one or the other. Which one have you ruled is now before us?
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
We are dealing with the part of Mr. Byrne's motion that is the witness list, and the second independent motion was one about appearing as panels. One is the makeup of the witness list. The other one is about how we proceed physically, and the motion, when we get to it, speaks to a specific way that we would hold our hearing.
Right now the motion is on what Mr. Byrne has read twice now and the attached witness list, which I can have read out if anyone wants that done. Otherwise, that is where we are.
Are you comfortable, Mr. Allen, or clear?
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
There is no way we're voting when anybody is ever in doubt.
Mr. Byrne, read it totally, please.
What you are about to hear is what we are voting on.
Mr. Byrne, read it in its entirety, please.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
The original motion, as proposed by Mr. Saxton, reads as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Public Accounts begin a study of the Spring 2012 Report of the Auditor General, beginning with Chapter 2 (Replacing Canada’s Fighter Jets)....
My amendment is to delete all words after that, and replace them with:
and that the committee hold a planning session at the meeting of April 19, 2012, and that the witness list include but not be limited to François Guimont, Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; Craig Morris, deputy director, F-35 industrial participation, Industry Canada; Richard Dicerni, Deputy Minister, Industry Canada; Johanne Provencher, director general, defence and major projects directorate, Public Works and Government Services Canada; Tom Ring, assistant deputy minister, acquisitions branch, Public Works and Government Services Canada; Colonel D.C. Burt, director, next-generation fighter capability, National Defence; Michael J. Slack, F-35 project manager, director of continental materiel cooperation, National Defence; Lieutenant-General J.P.A. Deschamps, Chief of the Air Staff, National Defence; Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister, materiel, National Defence; Kevin Page, Parliamentary Budget Officer; and Michael Ferguson, Auditor General of Canada.
For clarity, Mr. Chair, I will be moving a further amendment after we deal with this.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
Okay, hold it there. I'll come to you for that.
All right, it has been duly moved, debated, and repeated. I now call on the clerk to hold a formal roll call vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
Thank you. I declare the amendment defeated by a vote of seven to four.
Mr. Byrne, you have the floor.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Recognizing the amendment was defeated, I would like to move the following amendment to Mr. Saxton's motion. His original motion read as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Public Accounts begin a study of the Spring 2012 Report of the Auditor General, beginning with Chapter 2 (Replacing Canada’s Fighter Jets)....
Immediately following “(Replacing Canada's Fighter Jets)”, all words would be deleted and the following would be put in:
and that the committee hold a planning session at the meeting of April 19, 2012, and that witnesses appear as panels, with no more than two witnesses per panel, and that each panel appear for a minimum of one hour, and that the committee report its findings to the House of Commons.
Liberal
Gerry Byrne Liberal Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL
The front piece of my amendment would read as follows:
and that the committee hold a planning session at the meeting of April 19, 2012, and that witnesses appear as panels, with no more than two witnesses per panel, and that each panel appear for a minimum of one hour, and that the committee report its findings to the House of Commons.
NDP
The Chair NDP David Christopherson
All right, I will deem that motion in order. I will take challenges.
Hearing none, the motion is in order.
Mr. Byrne, did you wish to speak further?