Public Accounts Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have only been on this committee for just under two years, unlike Mr. Kramp, who has many more years on this committee than I do. I think Madame Faille also may have many more years than I do.

In the short period of time that I've been on this committee, we have received motion requests such as this on several occasions. The previous chair has ruled that although there may be substance to the requests, and there is merit, they're simply in the wrong place.

As Mr. Kramp said, the purpose of this committee is to review reports of the Auditor General. When it comes to government operations, that clearly sits in the committee that's responsible for government operations. In this specific case, not only does this belong in government operations, it's in government operations; already this week it was requested in the government operations committee to have a motion very similar to this. So I think there's precedent set by your predecessor, Mr. Chair, that requests like this, although they may have merit, don't belong at the public accounts committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

I'll go back to Mr. Bains and then Madame Faille.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate some of the comments that have been made with respect to the motion I presented.

I believe this motion is in order. It's definitely within the mandate. It does deal with relevant expenditures that took place that were identified in the Auditor General's report and from a committee meeting that took place on the 15th with respect to this chapter.

Madame Faille did ask at that time--I believe it was Robert Wright, who is the executive director--about the tendering and contracting process. I have a quote here from him talking about that and talking about the “fairness monitor“ in his response.

This is definitely within the scope and the mandate of the discussion. No one raised any objections then; it was never an issue then. Therefore, there's the clear intent that this is well within that scope and mandate. I don't think this particular argument bodes well in this instance, so I think it's definitely within the scope, and it's a reasonable request.

The committee is the master of its own affairs, so yes, there are events taking place in other committees, but I think we have a responsibility within our mandate to look into this issue as well, regardless of what some of the other committees are working on. I think we have to keep that in mind when we make this decision.

This is consistent with a long-standing tradition all of us have had in committees with asking for documentation. I don't think this is anything extraordinary or something that's deemed to be putting the committee on a separate track. It's very consistent with the tradition of asking for documents.

I think we can essentially support this because we just want the facts to come out and this will allow the facts to come out, and then we'll determine accordingly what we need to do with this. This deals with some of the concerns that were raised by Mr. Kramp and Madame Faille as well in her comments in committee that were made on June 15 when she talked to Robert Wright, I think, the project executive director for Public Works and Government Services at that time.

Again, I want to do my best to address some of the concerns that were raised and indicate why this motion is relevant and is in order. Obviously I'll leave that up to you, Chair, to decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Madame Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Bains has summarized my thinking on this matter. I believe that we are entitled to that information. In the past, I used the same argument about the report of National Defense. I insisted to have dates. Ultimately, the report we received from National Defense was very useful. This proves that it is sometimes useful to ask for more detailed information.

In this committee, we cannot question the ministers. Therefore, we have to have accountability from the officials responsible for that program. Asking for information is perfectly legitimate. The Federal Accountability Act is under our purview. Some additional information has been provided by the department, revealing the extent of problems relating to governance, decisions made and accountability. If we have enough time, I believe that our duty is to carry out this kind of study. The information we will receive will allow for a more in-depth study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

Mr. Kramp.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been on this committee for six years now. I started on this committee and I've been very fortunate. I don't think I've ever seen it politicized, and I'm really thankful for that, I really, really am. I would just hope that we don't go down that road, the simple reason being that we understand the nature of the politics of this issue. I think everybody understands the nature of that.

But I do feel if it were that the mandate for this committee to investigate that, then we go and do that, no holds barred. If there is guilt or innocence, or any assumptions, so be it; that would be our mandate. But I truly believe that to duplicate another committee's work, work that falls within their mandate...I just don't understand it. I don't think it's a wise use of taxpayers' money. I don't think it falls within the responsibility of this committee at this point.

Now, if a case is made that this committee should follow through in the absence of another committee's responsibility and we pass judgment on that and the chair sees fit to do that, then we would decide that at that time. But I would ask the chair's indulgence on this. I have not made and would not make any recommendation based on simply a benefit to a party or a government.

I'm not trying to suggest that I'm holier than thou, far from it, but what I do suggest is that there's a difference between doing our job here as a committee responsibly and working for the taxpayers of Canada effectively within a process that we all have come to respect. If we don't respect our process that we have here, then we just start to denigrate, into another squabbling committee, and I would hate to see us go down that route.

That's why, Mr. Chair, I would ask for a ruling in favour of my argument. We accept whatever the chair's ruling is, maybe not gracefully, and maybe happily, but of course, that's my honest feeling from my heart and the way I believe things should be. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm looking at Standing Order 108, which states that:

Public Accounts shall include, among other matters, review of and report on the Public Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada, which shall be severally deemed permanently referred to the Committee....

I think this standing order was written to provide reasonable limits on what the committee can do and what it can't do, but also to direct the committee to what is important.

I have a concern about what I heard in the House yesterday in the form of questions—of course, nobody can be sued for anything they say in committee or sued for anything they say in the House—which amounted to a smear of one of my constituents, who is a person of the highest integrity, someone I've known for many years.

I'm concerned about continued smear and I'm concerned about a witch hunt designed to feed the media thirst for stories. This motion asks for the names of government employees who select winning bids and the names of persons, agents or lobbyists who've made representations or advocated for the contracts. Lobbyists are registered and they have to report, by the fifteenth day of the next month, every meeting they have with any designated public office holder.

I'm really concerned about feeding a witch hunt that will put this committee and Parliament in a poor light, a bad light. I think the Standing Orders were written to direct the committee. This is off and away from the Standing Orders and it's out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Young.

Mr. Shipley was next.

I'll go to Madame Faille and wait for Mr. Shipley to come back.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I insist on the fact that we are entitled to ask for documents in order to complete our work. After that, we will decide if we want to do a study or not.

In answer to Mr. Young, I would say, about looking at the problems that members of the committee might find, that we could meet in camera if there is a concen. After we receive the information, we will be able to decide on our course of action. We are perfectly entitled to ask for information. As a matter of fact, I put a request on June 15 to Mr. Guimond and Mr. Wright and both agreed with providing us with the relevant information. This is very significant.

If this motion did not exist, I would ask the committee to demand that Public Works meet the commitments it made it to the committee on June 15. I believe that the motion only confirms that the committee needs that information for its study.

I understand the concerns that have been expressed but the department has told us that it will provide that information. Therefore, I do not understand why there is even a debate on this. It will be up to you to decide about the point raised by Mr. Kramp. However, I believe that we have the right to ask for those documents, especially since the department has committed to provide them on June 15. It is there, in black and white. Even if the motion did not exist, the department would have to comply with that request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I'll just follow up. Most of it has been said. I think we'll just need to get to the vote likely after your decision, if that is how it works.

On June 15, these issues that we're talking about now were not in front of us. I know that we can ask for information. We are a committee; we can make decisions. I think the clear part is what we're entitled to be investigating and looking at. I know the comment was made that we always have time, and I think we do, if we were not the only ones doing it.

I'm not sure why we're interested and I don't think we should be interested in duplicating and having the same documents come before this committee that are going before the government operations committee. If at the end of this something needs to come before this committee, then I agree. I think it has to be looked at. The air has to be cleared on this whole subject. I don't agree that we duplicate the process. I don't agree that this is actually our mandate at this time as clearly set out in Standing Order 108.

I'll leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Saxton is next, and then Monsieur D'Amours after him, and then Madame Faille.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we are potentially going down a slippery slope with this request. Should it be allowed to proceed, not only would it contradict decisions made by your predecessor while sitting in that chair, it would also set an unfortunate new precedent: that we are going to be examining things that are not part of our mandate as a public accounts committee.

We have a lot of work ahead of us already. We need to stay on track so that we can get through the work that is clearly in the mandate of the public accounts committee. As has been stated earlier, we do not believe that this motion addresses work that is before the committee or should be before the committee, certainly not at this time, and it is already being addressed by another committee as we speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I fail to see why we should not receive that information. It would seem that MPs on the government side are trying to guess what kind of report might be submitted to the committee instead of just trying to receive the information. When we have the information, we will be able to see what course of action we want to follow. However, your position is that we should not receive the information because another committee will deal with the matter. Who knows? This might be a follow-up to the report of the Auditor General on the rehabilitation of the Parliament buildings. Mr. Kramp has said that some issues were not covered in the report of the Auditor General. He read part of it here. However, we do not know if there might not be some relevant information allowing us to establish a link.

Allowing the committee to receive the information is far from being inappropriate. If you listened to my statements in front of the witnesses, you know that I always said that we needed to receive the information to determine our future course of action. Otherwise, we will never be able to determine officially and clearly what we should do. Therefore, I believe it is quite appropriate for Mr. Bains to demand that information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay.

Madame Faille, I think you wanted to comment.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I said earlier that the department has accepted to provide that information to the committee. Nothing could be clearer. The motion only specifies how we want the department to provide the information that we are entitled to. I do not think there is anything to add to that. I believe that we are ready for the question. Do we have to vote on the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I have Mr. Dreeshen and one final comment from Mr. Kramp. Mr. Allen, by silence, has already consented to everybody else.

Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much. I have just a couple of points, perhaps to Madame Faille's question.

The June 15 request for information was not specifically for this information. I would be happy to see just what type of response is going to come from the department. Maybe it is up to someone to be asking when one can expect that information to come, because it was requested and done in the proper manner.

The other aspect of it is saying that this material be delivered to the committee within five sitting days. I am trying to get my head around the practicality of that part of it. This is really what I am looking at right now. I don't know how long it might take to even get what was asked for from June 15.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

They already have had four months to provide us with the information, I think.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

The information that you had asked for, yes, but this, I believe, goes to much greater detail and then you're asking for the same sort of thing. That's my suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Kramp.

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

Chair, the only other similar situation that I can recall that deals with an issue like this, where a topic is potentially before two committees.... I served on government operations and public accounts committees. The issue went back to the contracting out of real estate, sales promotions, and everything like that. This issue came before both the government operations and public accounts committees, and it was dealt with at both committees, but not at the same time. It was dealt with at committee subsequent to an investigation by the government operations committee.

After that, the Auditor General went in, did a more thorough investigation, and reported the findings of that investigation. That report was made public. At that point, the public accounts committee then deemed it to be worthy of further investigation, and it came before us at public accounts.

For us to move forward with the government operations committee doing this and us doing it at the same time.... I would like you to explain to the taxpayer why we were simply doubling up and trying to get bang for the buck on that. To me, it just doesn't make any sense. Time and place: if the time is right and the place is right, then by all means let's do it.