Public Accounts Committee on April 19th, 2012

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

Certainly I don't want to get into a peeing match across the floor here at this stage, but I remind all my colleagues that there have been a number of filibusters and delays on this committee, and this never once came from the government. If we want to get on with things, then let's make some decisions and vote and get to work. That simply means....

Today was not called for a planning session. Today was called for permission to study the issue. This was the motion put forward. Now we've suggested that we need to move forward and we need to get at the planning, get it over with, get it done. This message says do that.

I'm certain Mr. Allen would understand that we can move forward with this. We could have been doing this two weeks ago, but we were delayed with more filibuster. Let's just get to work and pass this motion so that we can have our planning session and call our witnesses in. I'm confident that we can have the number of witnesses necessary to certainly start our planning session and put everything in order.

I will actually agree with Mr. Byrne on a few things. The last thing we need is to have a whole group of witnesses coming in here, eight or nine witnesses at one point, and not be able to dig down and drill down when we should and when we need to. That is why it's very important that we have a very effective planning session with the witnesses that we want there, to put our strategy in place and effectively produce results for this committee.

So let's just go forward with it. Stop all the gamesmanship and get to work today. Let's just vote on this thing, go to our planning session, have our witnesses in, and do what we should be doing. It is that simple. Why we just keep dragging this out and dragging this out....

The frustration level is there for all of us. Surely we can get beyond the gamesmanship here and just get to work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I just want to point out to members to give some consideration, in the course of their debate, as to what we do with the DND hearing that is scheduled for next Tuesday. I hear it wasn't the intent of the government to cancel it, but rather to defer it.

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

Yes, just to defer it.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

But at some point—I'm just pointing out some loose ends here—we'll need to know what to do with that.

Again, I am imploring from the chair that if there can be agreement on even one or two witnesses today, it just increases the odds that we'll actually have a productive meeting next Tuesday. Otherwise we're back to the 24-hour notice again. I can't do it unilaterally. All I can do is implore colleagues to consider these things as they take up the debate, which we are now continuing.

Mr. Saxton, you have the floor.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We all came back here today at Mr. Byrne's insistence in order to deal with the motions before the committee.

The committee voted ten to one to deal with the motion, the one against being Mr. Byrne. The one fellow who brings us back here, at great expense, votes against dealing with the motion that's before the committee. I think that speaks volumes to where he's going with this.

Mr. Chair, I suggest that we now vote on this motion and move forward.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

A suggestion I can take.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I'm making a friendly suggestion, Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

No, it's not friendly; it's just a suggestion.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

—that we stop playing to the games of Mr. Byrne, which are becoming clearer the more he talks. Let's just get moving on with the business of this committee, which has worked very well in the past.

I've been on this committee for three and a half years. We've done some very good work on this committee. It's different now that we have a member such as Mr. Byrne on the committee, but we're dealing with it.

I suggest that we now move on and vote on this motion.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I caution the personal comments. You were close there. I don't want to see anybody get that close again.

The floor is open for further debate.

Mr. Byrne.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm kind of glad I rattle the chains of the government, because that's what the public accounts committee is supposed to be all about. It is supposed to hold the government to account. I don't apologize for asking for this meeting and having other members support it. But he's quite right; Mr. Saxton has pointed out that I do stand alone here in many respects calling this government to account. And I do appreciate the fact that we have time on our hands and that to not use that time effectively and use this as a planning session, quite frankly, is a waste of resources. I really believe very strongly that we should be using this time today as a planning session so we can get to work.

I'm glad the NDP in the recorded vote did indeed vote with my motions and say that there were requirements, that there was value to the witnesses I brought forward. I recognize now that the government is saying that disharmony is being created by the Liberal Party of Canada representative on the committee because I actually want this committee to hear witnesses quickly and I want to have a full list of witnesses. I make no apologies for that.

Now, Mr. Chair, with that said, I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, this is not a planning session, but we can make it a planning session if we so choose. But apparently we do not choose to, so let's get on with the vote.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

The floor is open for debate. This is the last call.

Hearing no one, I close debate on the amendment and I will put the amendment to the committee.

Is there anyone who doesn't understand the amendment and would like it read out again?

Hearing no one, once again I will call on the clerk to give us a formal recorded vote. Madam Clerk.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

The amendment is carried.

Is there further business?

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm assuming we're now going back to the motion as amended. If I'm correct on that, I would like to now speak to the motion as it has now just been amended.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

That amendment carried. We now have the main motion as amended. That's where we are.

Does everybody understand where we are? The amendment carried. The main motion is now amended. The main motion is now back before the committee.

Mr. Allen has the floor. Please continue.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

As much as we're part-way there, we are not the whole way there, and let it not be left unsaid that what we were invited to today was not a planning meeting.

Are we prepared, as New Democrats, as the official opposition? Yes.

Am I disappointed that my counterparts across the way aren't prepared to have a planning meeting today? Yes.

We have seasoned veterans on that side of the table who would have known the process and could have acted accordingly, and we actually could have moved forward today.

So my expectation, Chair—and I say this only as an expectation—is that at four o'clock the government will look to adjourn and look for a planning meeting on April 24. So I would move the following amendment to the main motion, beginning with the third line, where it says “and that the committee hold a planning session at the meeting of April 24”: that the session be held open and in public, not in camera.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

That is, “hold a planning session at the meeting of April 24, 2012, and that it be held in public”.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

That's correct.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I will take that as an amendment. That amendment is in order.

Are there any challenges? Do you challenge that?

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

I will be supporting that amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

That's wonderful.

Does anybody want to challenge it? No.

Therefore the amendment is duly in front of the committee. Mr. Allen, you have the right to speak to it further, if you wish.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Clearly, Chair, the reason I've asked for this to happen is that the government has acquiesced today. Normally committees can go in camera or not. It's their decision to make. The government decided that it wanted to have an open and public meeting today, and that's gratifying from our side.

Clearly, we're going to be talking about people we call for witnesses. We're not talking about personnel issues, where there are breaches of privacy. These are public figures we're asking to call, and the debate is around the merit of whether one witness should be called versus another, or indeed what is the merit. As Mr. Kramp quite ably pointed out earlier, if I propose a particular witness X, and I put forward a good case for witness X, the government would say “Let's call witness X”. There aren't any privacy issues around these individuals that need to be hidden away.

Seeing the efforts of my colleagues in the other two parties over this issue of whether it will be limited or it will not be limited, what I would say to the government side is that the way to prove that you don't intend to limit the witness list or try to curtail a full and wholesome piece is not to go in camera, but to go in the public view. Therefore no one will be bound by that confidentiality and will be faced with the optics—and I say this to my friends over the way—of perhaps having done something that was untoward, because statements get made that aren't wholly accurate because they are made in a political context. So you may have actually done something well in camera, but no one would actually know you did it well because you did it in camera and no one can speak to it.

This is the way to move forward. Your planning meeting will be on Tuesday. Clearly, you've determined that's the day you want to have it, as much as I was prepared and my colleagues were prepared over here to do it today. I would have preferred to do it today, and as Mr. Byrne said earlier, I'm willing to stay. I'm here for however long it takes to get it done, if that is the wish of folks, but seeing there probably isn't going to be acquiescence from the other side, then I would simply ask them to support the amendment so that we can actually show that indeed we just simply hammered out a witness list, we hammered out a plan, and we got it to full completion in the public view. Folks will see what the arguments are. There won't be any worry about who said what in camera. It will be absolutely open.

Folks will then take from that what they want because they will have witnessed it, rather than us on the committee going behind closed doors and hammering out a witness list. We all know if there is somebody not on my list or someone else's list, the conjecture will start about why that person is not there, whereas we might have all unanimously agreed after a discussion that “You know what, Malcolm? You don't need that particular person on the list”, and I said, “You know what? You're right, Mr. Kramp; I don't.” We'd never be able to say that.

If it is held in public view and Mr. Kramp makes a valid argument as to why I shouldn't call witness X, and I say “You know, Mr. Kramp, you're right”, people are going to see me say that Mr. Kramp was right. That is fair to both parties in this endeavour.

I want to relinquish the floor, Chair, because I do want to actually finish this business. I will relinquish the floor.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

The floor is open for further debate. Last call....

Hearing none, as per our procedure I will ask the clerk to do the roll call vote. Madam Clerk.

[The Clerk]

The question is on the amendment by Mr. Allen.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

The amendment by Mr. Allen is defeated.

The floor is open for further debate on the main motion as amended. Last call.

Hearing no one, I'll declare discussion and debate on the motion as amended concluded, and we will now move to a formal recorded vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) [See Minutes of Proceedings]