Thank you very much, Chair.
I think you've hit the nail on the head. One doesn't feel compelled every meeting to rush to shoot one's hand up. It hasn't been my practice in the past. Clearly we need to find a formula.
If Mr. Saxton feels that he needs to get his hand in and speak first, that's fair. Perhaps I don't put my hand up because I don't feel the need to speak first. But somehow we do need to balance this committee so that we actually have input and so that folks are being heard and we're not simply acquiescing to the fact that someone shoots their hand up.
You illustrated that someone might have an arthritic arm and might not be able to get it up. I, like many others who played sports as a boy, actually have had two shoulder surgeries, and actually my right arm doesn't work all that well sometimes, and I can't get it up that fast.
I actually envision myself trying to do “the Horshack” from Kotter and going, “Ooh, ooh, ooh!” to get the attention, which I think would be silly, to be honest. It seems that we're kind of stuck in that mode, but I'm hopeful that we can find a way to resolve it.
It would be in everyone's interest, I think, and it would be helpful to the chair to do that. And I would hope that folks on the other side would take the opportunity to know that there may be preordained things in life, and I'm not at liberty to suggest what those preordinations are, because I just live my life the way it comes, and I leave that to those who are more spiritual than I.
I can tell you unequivocally—and I say this to my colleagues across the way—that I have never taken advantage, nor will I ever take advantage of the fact that the chair is in my caucus by going to him ahead of a meeting and asking for him to recognize me. I have never done it. I did not do it for this particular meeting. Nor would I do it at any future meeting.
My colleagues across need to understand that.
Now that I've said that, let's move forward to the business at hand, which is to, hopefully, find a way to talk about a witness list. That's what I'd like to see us do today. Obviously, I'd like to see us do it openly, in a public meeting, so that we can actually get a sense of who we should bring. I think we're in agreement.
I believe, Mr. Saxton said here last week and has said publicly that he's happy to bring the AG, which I think is appropriate. I would expect that would be a standard witness for us.
He also has said here and publicly in the press that he would be happy to bring Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He's also said here and in public in the press that he'd be happy to bring the deputy ministers. I don't believe he's actually said from which departments yet, but I think we can work on which ones those are.
If we are accepting of all of those—and I think this side certainly is accepting of those in a general format—then I'd like to see us move to the ones that are perhaps not in that generic format.
I'd like to see folks like Alan Williams, Tom Ring, and Mr. Lessard. The reason I mention folks who are not in the departments is that here is what's in play here—and I've said this before to my colleagues, and I made sure it was on the record when the AG was here the first time. The fall report of 2010 around the helicopters looks very similar to this one. In fact, I've called it the twin.
My view is that we need to actually talk to folks beyond the department, simply because they are not just anyone but are experts in the field of procurement, because the departments have gotten it wrong twice within the span of 18 months, and they haven't learned any lessons they said they would learn.
In 2010, they agreed with the Auditor General's report. There was no disagreement. Then, in the subsequent report around the F-35s, the department disagrees with the Auditor General's report, even though it's very similar—if not identical—to the one from 2010.
We have them agreeing on the one hand, and disagreeing on the other hand. So I think it's time for us, as a committee, to take a look at what the defence department is doing and how this procurement happens. We need to make some recommendations to them that are beyond, not our mandate, but the normal things we hear from the AG, because clearly this is a department that isn't listening well.
In fact the government has decided, in my view, to take procurement away from them and set up another process. If I were in that department that would mean they didn't trust me to do it.
That being the case, I think this committee needs to do the due diligence it has always done in the past, as well as continue to look at how we can help this system get better.
So I would move a motion that we continue the planning phase—and I know my colleagues didn't want to amend their motion last week, but I'm assuming it was just because they didn't want to amend the motion. I would move that we continue the meeting and look at our respective witness lists. I'm not going to put on the table my specific list. I'll put it on the table once we've debated the motion. I'm not suggesting my motion has to be simply “Here's the list and let's do that”. I agree with the government that there should be a back and forth, and a give and take. As Mr. Kramp said last week, perhaps Mr. Allen has a name that he can put out and explain why, and he said he might agree.
I have every intention of putting some names forward and explaining why I hope the government will agree. I hope the government will not take the opportunity to say, “Let the deputy ministers make decisions as to who they should bring.” If indeed I've asked for someone else, I'm not looking for a deputy minister to give me the nod that it's okay and he's happy with my choice. I'm not interested in whether the deputy minister agrees with me or not, quite frankly. I'm only interested in getting to the bottom of the situation so that we can indeed assure Canadians that when we spend their money we're doing it wisely, and when it goes awry, as it has in this case and in others, we will help get it right.
Mr. Shipley said last week that we're all in this boat together. All of us collectively, as 308 members of Parliament, are trying to make sure the public purse is spent appropriately. We need to continue to do that, and on this side we're willing to help make that happen as a public accounts committee.
So I move, Mr. Chair, that we continue this meeting as a planning meeting to look at all available witnesses that all members want to bring forward, debate, determine a witness list, determine the number of meetings and how those meetings might be formatted—we may want to have one hour and then another hour, or two-hour segments, depending on witnesses—and that we continue the meeting in open public. That is my motion, sir.