Public Accounts Committee on March 5th, 2013

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Okay. The information I'm referring to is information that members of the committee would like to see before the committee, which was—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Okay, so it's both.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

—not available today. We will get that information to the committee.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

All right. I think we've already heard that there's resistance, but I will check again on behalf of the committee, since I'm now hearing it from opposition and government regarding this information.

Mr. Robidoux, I know you said—and you are speaking now on behalf of your deputy—that the information requested is denied at this stage. Are you saying that you do not have the authority to release that information?

[Benoît Robidoux]

Well, I think I said I couldn't commit to providing it before going back to the department.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

You do know, sir, that's not acceptable. This committee has the power to demand whatever records and documents it chooses. You can certainly use the language of “no”, but procedurally that's not acceptable, and it would be my advice that this committee take some action. Constitutionally, we're entitled to all documents and records that we wish, and we wish to have these documents.

[Benoît Robidoux]

I would like to verify through legal advice of the department what you are entitled to and whether, effectively, you are entitled to any information you want to see. Second, if it's the case, then we'll move. If it's not the case, an agreement will have to be reached among the department and the minister and the government to release the information which was provided in confidence at that time.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

We are talking about two different pieces of information now, but there will be two requests coming.

The first indication is whether or not you're going to commit today to give it to us, and you're saying no. I'm just letting you know formally that's not an acceptable answer at the public accounts committee, and that we have the power, as do all standing committees, to demand records and documents as we wish. Therefore, anything other than a “yes” answer is not acceptable.

It would be my advice to this committee that we do need to move forward with a motion that deals with both aspects.

You've done nothing wrong individually, sir, but that is where we are on this information.

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

I've asked for a point of order.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

You didn't ask for a point of order; you asked for the floor.

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

No, I asked for a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I didn't hear your point of order.

Did you hear the point of order from Mr. Byrne?

I'm sorry, the clerk didn't either. Otherwise I would have.... I did hear a point of order here. I will come right over to you.

Mr. Kramp.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I'd just like some clarification.

I understand the rights of this committee to place a request or demands upon witnesses. We have that authority. But you also seem to be inferring that unilaterally by either you as the chair or this committee, it's demanded. It has to be passed by this committee.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Oh, yes.

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

I would like to make that very, very clear.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Yes.

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

Quite obviously, we've had situations before at this committee in which we've had egregious abuse of in camera proceedings, a substantial number of them, even after the chair's explicit warning to members.

We now have a situation here in which obviously...governments have to make decisions, right, wrong, or ugly. When they make good ones, the electorate rewards them; when they make bad ones, they obviously chastise them in whatever manner possible.

In this particular case, information is presented to a respected body. In this case information is forwarded to the department, from the Department of Finance to the minister. They prepare a budget. Quite frankly, that budget is then debated in the House and all information at that point either could or should be available for discussion at that point. That's fully understandable. But to suggest that you have a right to know beforehand why I might wish to part my hair on this side or that side....

I'm not suggesting that is the case, but I would just temper the direction from the chair and hope that such an understanding is being transmitted to our guests.

I do agree with the chair, in that we're very, very demanding, as a committee, with requesting information that is deemed to be essential to the purpose of the committee, but the committee does not take and has not taken that precedent lightly. It's only if we feel that there is an egregious abuse of information to the committee that's directly intended to misinform and/or to not inform the committee. I certainly don't see that case here, so I just make that point.

And that's only on a point of order.

Thank you, Chair, for the consideration.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

You're welcome.

I'll go over to Mr. Byrne for a point of order, too.

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

Mr. Chair, I am making no judgment of character or professional integrity of our witnesses from the Department of Finance, but this is one of the very reasons why we ask for deputy ministers to appear before us, so that decisions can be taken with authority. We are not experiencing that right now because we are not hearing from a deputy minister, as we had originally asked for to attend before us from the Department of Finance.

Notwithstanding that, Mr. Chair, before there is any further hatcheting of what has been asked for, the last sentence of paragraph 7.50 of the Auditor General's report, which has been referenced in my notice of motion, reads as follows: “The Department has prepared other long-term fiscal sustainability analyses since 2010, but they too have not been made public. There is existence of documentation which I do not believe breaches national security issues—”.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Mr. Byrne, you're on a point of order right now. I need to know what your point is just beyond this.

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

My point is that there was a statement as to exactly what it was that we were debating and there's been—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Here's what happened.

Mr. Saxton had the floor. Mr. Kramp got the floor on a point of order. I then went to you on a point of order. You don't seem to have a point of order.

I will be getting back to you. You're entitled to debate your motion, you can place it today, even, but you're not on a point of order. I just want to keep us going fairly—

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

I'm addressing Mr. Kramp's call for the production of papers, which is a parliamentary prerogative, so if I could do that—

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I didn't hear a point from Mr. Kramp. He had a point of order that he used more as a court of opinion. Fair enough. Anyway, I think we'll get to where you want, just not on a point of order. Let's not get swept up in procedure here, folks.

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I think I had the floor before this whole thing started. I don't think other members' points of order should eat up my time.