Transport Committee on Oct. 19th, 2009

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I'm fine with that. I think we can move forward in that fashion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

I will put it on the agenda for the fourth.

The second motion we have is from Mr. Volpe, and there has been some discussion. It states:

That the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities engage in a study of expenses billed to the Transport Canada Mackenzie Valley pipeline fund in order to ensure that all expenses were within the scope of the fund, and report the results of the study to the House of Commons.

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

If you will recall, this issue erupted in the national media some five to six weeks ago. It involved members of the department continuing to bill or expense invoices on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline fund, which has essentially not done any work--I don't want to prejudge anything--and no longer exists. The minister then responded by saying he would conduct an internal investigation and get back to everybody.

I could be off by a couple of days or so, but we're about five weeks down the pike on this. Before the break we agreed that this was serious enough--as it involved more than $10 million--and deserved the attention of this committee and the House of Commons. We made only one caveat at the time. There seemed to be consensus that we could wait for the report on the investigation and then study it. I agreed to that semi-reluctantly because I think it's fair to get all the facts on the table. But it has been five weeks and we haven't heard anything back.

Maybe the parliamentary secretary can give us the status of that investigation so we can make a decision. If he can't give us an indication of the status, maybe we should direct the committee's attention to the study on its own.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I would just say the same thing: that five weeks of bureaucrat time is not necessarily what most people would say five weeks should be.

But just to be fair, in this case there is an investigation under way. Getting involved as a committee in this investigation could actually compromise the outcome of it. I see no prejudice whatsoever in waiting, because it's a matter of government money being allocated to one account instead of other accounts. It's not as if it has been stolen. As far as we're aware, it's just a costing method; it has been allocated to one costing account instead of another costing account.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I don't want to prejudge the outcome of the investigation.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I understand that, but there have been no allegations that the money was spent on non-legitimate government-funded or bureaucratic-funded expenses. So certainly there's no prejudice here. This committee has a lot of other work to do. It is just an accounting issue at this stage, so waiting on it is not going to prejudice anything.

I'm fine with investigating this. I would be prepared to vote for this motion, subsequent to the government's own investigation. That would make sense, because one investigation is enough to get the facts on it. What this committee will hear may actually compromise the final outcome. So I'm prepared to vote for it as long as we're prepared to wait until the investigation is complete. I see no prejudice to anybody by waiting. I don't know what the hurry could possibly be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Mr. Volpe.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

My approach to my motion is the same as my approach to Mr. Bevington's motion. There's a basic principle we want to accept, and then the steering committee can handle the logistics. When I hear the parliamentary secretary tell this committee he agrees that this is worthy of our attention and the only thing he has difficulty with is the logistics, then maybe the steering committee can argue out the logistics.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'd rather deal with it now. I see no benefit in going forward with an investigation when another investigation will be much more valuable to its outcome. We should wait for that to happen so we don't compromise it. It would be crazy to compromise it.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

The parliamentary secretary is probably right about cause and effect, but he's avoiding the question I asked earlier. Even if he's talking about government time as he defines it, as opposed to real time, it's still a long time. Is he prepared to give us an indication of how many more weeks of real time or government time the committee would have to wait before engaging its resources in doing something different?

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Should the committee write a letter to the minister asking for the timelines?

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

That's what I was going to suggest. I was not prepared to find out the timelines, because I didn't know if Mr. Volpe was prepared to wait until the investigation was completed. It will take a period of time. We don't want to rush the truth. We want to get to the truth. We should give them the opportunity to do the proper investigation and not have to rush it. I would certainly be prepared to come back to the committee to report on what the timeline is expected to be.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

The truth can always withstand rushing or delay. But it's important for us to understand that the committee does have legitimate concerns. We've always been accommodating, and we're prepared to ask the minister in writing, but I don't want the minister to wait another five weeks to respond to the letter.

If the parliamentary secretary is undertaking to get this committee a response within 48 hours of the issuance of the letter, that would be fine.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

A letter might be the most appropriate method. The minister has attended this committee so many times, is always on time, and always gets back on all the requests, so I can't imagine why you would suggest that he might take five weeks to get back on this letter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Rather than heading to a debate, Mr. Volpe, do you have a final comment? Are we prepared to wait for the parliamentary secretary to respond?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I think we can vote now.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

We'll move it to the subcommittee for discussion.

Seeing no further comments, the meeting is adjourned.