Public Accounts Committee on April 24th, 2012

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

That witnesses appear as panels, with no more than two witnesses per panel, and each panel appear for a minimum of one hour.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I'll accept the amendment as being in order.

The floor is open.

Did you wish to speak any further, Mr. Byrne?

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

No, I'm good. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I see Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I am in favour this amendment, particularly because, and Canadians watching may be interested in knowing this, it is a strategy to fill sessions with witnesses, with too many members, so that we have very little time to actually ask them in-depth questions.

I think clarity on the main motion with regard to how long we'll be able to question these witnesses is a helpful amendment. It will provide Canadians with more information. It will allow us to ask more important questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

Is there further debate on the amendment? Then we will put the amendment to the committee.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

The main motion, unamended, as originally put, is now before us and the floor is open for speakers.

Mr. Byrne is next, and then Mr. Allen.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The normal process of selecting witnesses—from my 16 years of experience in this place—is to submit a witness list to the clerk so that all committee members can be advised exactly what is being proposed in terms of witnesses. The Liberal Party of Canada has submitted a list. The list is quite well known and has been read out a few times over the last number of days.

Can the Conservatives tell us if they have prepared a list that they would like to share with the committee that includes the complete scope of witnesses they are proposing?

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Are you asking rhetorically, or are you asking a question and seeking a response?

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

I'm asking a rhetorical question that maybe if the government members, while they're—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I'm not going to look for an answer to a rhetorical question. If you mean it as a question I'll see if there's an answer.

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

If you can do that, Mr. Chair, it would be very helpful.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Sure.

Mr. Byrne has asked the question. Does any member of the government wish to respond? No.

Go ahead. You have the floor.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

That's very unfortunate, because now we are left wondering where the government is going to take this. Well, I don't know if we're left wondering at all. We know where the government is going to take this. They are going to stifle and stymie and keep this as closed as possible.

Having all three deputy ministers appear before us at one time, before the Auditor General, is not in keeping with the traditions of this committee, nor is it helpful in finding the truth about this very serious multi-billion dollar issue involving taxpayers' funds.

I wish the government had come a little more prepared, or at least more prepared to inform the committee what their intentions are. They have not.

The Liberal Party of Canada has been extremely transparent and forthcoming about exactly where we would like to take this and who we would like to hear from. We're still cloaked in mystery as to what exactly the government intends with regard to these hearings. The only thing that is not in doubt is that the government wants to hold them in secret, control the witness list, and prevent the truth from being told. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, the cover-up is now becoming worse than the crime.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

Is there further debate on the motion?

Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think my colleague, Mr. Ravignat, articulated quite clearly what happens when we have what could be a place where members find it difficult to find seats. I've been at committees where witnesses literally come up to the first few tables because there are that many of them, and we have a two-hour meeting where they get to have perhaps a 10-minute opening. If there are four of them, they've just burned up 40 minutes. That leaves us with an hour and 20 minutes to do rounds of about five minutes each, which doesn't allow most of us to get to the individual deputy ministers.

It means we might get to speak to one, but not the other two. In fact, there are four of them here when we look at the secretary of the Treasury Board. They are all important people to have come before the committee, all important people that we want to see.

That being the case, and the government obviously believes they're important to bring because they've made the motion to bring them, I would look to the government to say that since you agree that we want to speak to them, now the secondary piece has to be how we intend to speak to them all.

There is no point in having them here so I can look at the deputy minister for Public Works and say he's a handsome chap. The chair says his time is up, and I no longer have an opportunity to speak to him because the meeting is over, unless of course the government is willing to say they're willing to bring them all back again and put them back down there so all 12 of us—11 of us and then the chair can take liberties to ask a question, if he needs some clarification—would get the opportunity to speak to all four, if indeed we chose to.

If my decision is that I don't wish to ask the deputy minister of department X a question, I'm at liberty not to do that.

If I wish to focus on only one deputy minister, then that would be my prerogative.

Let the record show that my prerogative is such that I want to speak to every single one of them. Under this time limitation, I will not be able to do that unless I'm simply asking them to state their name and their title, because inside five minutes I will not get to all four, never mind the group that they might bring with them, because I hear the government saying they'll allow them to bring folks according to what the deputy ministers' wishes are.

They may indeed have a full house. The rows of chairs may be filled up back there with all the folks they think they should bring with them, and Mr. Chair, if I were to ask the person in the third row back there to come to the table, I don't know how I'd get that question in by the time they got there.

So in spite of all that, I agree we need to bring them. The format is skewed, which leaves me with the dilemma that I agree that we need to talk to them. I agree with the government's motion that we should talk to them. I don't necessarily like the timing. I think the Auditor General should come first because that's what we've normally done. It's the AG's report, but I'll take the government at its word because I heard them say they would call the Auditor General, and I would hope very quickly because that's what I heard last week.

I find myself looking for help, but I'm reluctant to ask for it because I'm afraid I won't necessarily get the help I'm seeking.

I will move an amendment to the motion, which requires the deputy ministers to be available to the committee for a minimum of three sessions, complete with two hours procession, so that each member gets at least one round to ask one round of questioning—which is five minutes—of each deputy minister if they choose to do that.

If a member chooses not to exercise that opportunity, then that's fine.

At a minimum, each member should be allowed one round of five-minute questioning with each individual deputy minister and the secretary of the Treasury Board.

I would move that amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you. I have an amendment to direct the committee that there will be three two-hour meetings to deal with this chapter. That amendment—

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Chair, if I could, not this chapter, but to deal with these specific witnesses that the government has made as their motion.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

Let's repeat again, then, that there be three two-hour meetings to deal with the witness list that is currently before us.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Correct.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Three after the 26th or inclusive of?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Inclusive of.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

That amendment is in order. You've given your remarks, Mr. Allen? You're good?

Further on the amendment, the floor is open. Very well, we'll put the vote. Last call, if anybody wants to jump in, you're welcome to. All right, I think we're good.

On the amendment then, Madam Clerk, a roll call vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

Thank you. I declare the motion defeated on a vote of seven to four.

The floor is still open on the main motion.

Monsieur Ravignat, you have the floor, sir.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I think the question here with what the government side has presented—they know it and we know it—is essentially what version of this story are we going to get and how much time we're going to have to discuss this extremely important issue for Canadians.

I find it peculiar that the Auditor General is not being invited first, for it is the Auditor General who sets the tone. Will we have a chance, for example, to bring back the deputy ministers to discuss things after we see the Auditor General? I think this is a very incomplete motion. The Auditor General has the details with regard to this issue and it will allow us to then pose more pointed questions and more detailed questions to the other witnesses.

So I would like to move an amendment to the motion that the Auditor General be the first witness heard by this committee followed by the other witnesses as proposed by the government side.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Okay, I can accept that as an amendment, therefore, that motion is now duly before us.

Are any further comments, Monsieur, or you're good?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

No, I'm good. Thank you.