Evidence of meeting #28 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was audits.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Very quickly, Chair, nowhere did I indicate here in the motion--and I'm taking a double look and a triple look--for some sort of investigation or any additional work. It's just a request for information. That's all it is for now. I'm not prejudging what the committee will decide going forward, but that has not been included in the motion, so I don't think that should be part of the consideration for the point of order.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Okay.
I want to thank all committee members not only for their intervention, but for taking the opportunity to give me--what do you call it?--a baptism by fire when making a decision that's going to keep everybody happy.
I want to tell you, colleagues, that I'd asked the clerk to review some information for me, to provide me with the Standing Orders not only for this committee but also for other committees. I wanted to look at and spend some time reading minutes, including some of the requests by Madame Faille. I wanted to make sure that I had as firm a grip on this issue as I could. I wanted to take a look as well at the request of the motion.
So after having done that, I did see, of course, as some colleagues have pointed out, that Standing Order 108(3)--I think Mr. Young read it out for everybody and he even emphasized the part that I circled--says that “Public Accounts shall include, among other matters”, so it doesn't exclude any other studies, but it does try to direct the public accounts committee in a particular direction.
To mitigate that, I went to the mandate for other standing committees, and in particular government operations and estimates, etc. Part of their mandate is of course to review and report on the effectiveness of management operations, together with operational expenditures and plans of central departments and agencies. Given that some members have pointed out that this, too, is a committee that I gather might be studying this particular issue, I noted that Public Works is neither a central department nor an agency. Clearly, that particular committee has taken a particular tack that's not necessarily the one that we would take, but it's not one that's constrained by the Standing Orders for them either.
I appreciated especially the interventions of all members, including Mr. Allen; I watched him on occasion to see what his responses were. Much of the discussion has been on the substance of what to do and some of it has been on the process and procedures. I was almost persuaded by the argument that says everybody should try to get along. I looked for a point where people might not be getting along, and I asked myself, as the presentations were coming forward, two things.
First of all, is this information something new that's being asked? Yesterday--I'll share this with colleagues who weren't at the steering committee--we raised at the steering committee the issue of one particular department that for years down the road asked to be given more time because they were still studying the feasibility of actually responding to a recommendation by this committee.
I tried to listen to where everybody was going here. I don't think there was a discussion about what to do with the information if and when we got it, so I see this as simply a request for information that the committee can digest, and then, through its steering committee or in committee of the whole, make a decision as to what to do with it.
Because I am persuaded more that this is a question of process, whereby this committee can ask for information and ought to take whatever information it needs for its studies, if and when it conducts them, because it is information that has been referred to in the past, and because it does not ask us to engage in a study, and as well, because this does not infringe upon the rights of other committees to do whatever they will because we're not engaging in a study, I think this motion is in order.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Can we ask for a vote on the motion, please, Chair?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
If there's no further debate, we'll go directly to a vote on the motion.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Of course. The clerk will conduct the vote.
I see that there's a tie. Let me thank all committee members for giving me two opportunities during the course of the same session to find myself in what they call a pickle.
Having made the decision that the motion is in order, and having given committee members an opportunity to vote on the motion, I want to thank committee members for not challenging my decision. I'm going to vote for the motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I wonder if it would be helpful to have the record show that the vote broke down exactly on coalition versus government lines.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Well, Mr. Young, I think what happened is that all members were asked to vote, and each one of them did it on a recorded basis. I don't think they identified themselves according to party lines or to some new party that is a figment of somebody's imagination.
Mr. Saxton.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Since the motion has been voted on and passed, with you casting the deciding vote, I would ask that consideration be given to the timeframe. It requests five days, and I think that is very short and perhaps not reasonable enough. I would ask that you consider having that extended.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
That's very reasonable of you, Mr. Saxton. We'll go through the process of putting the request in, keeping in mind that one does not want to be unreasonable. I think that's what I heard all around the table. I don't know whether Mr. Bains wants to do something.
We'll keep that in mind. I think we all want to get the information as quickly as we can. Your point is well taken. Thank you.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Mr. Chair, you made my point, and I appreciate that. We've set a timeline, but we also want to be reasonable. We'll see what response we get from the departments. They should have this information. I believe that it should not be a problem. I think five days is a reasonable request, but if there is any concern, please raise it during the steering committee and we'll deal with it accordingly.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Just to help out Mr. Saxton and other members around the table who have asked about whether this is a tight schedule, the clerk has advised me, and quite rightly so, that the department may wish to have an interpretation of when the clock starts ticking and whether we would do it the way the House does it. I guess the answer is yes, we would. So in the spirit of being very reasonable, the clock wouldn't start ticking today. It would start ticking tomorrow, so--
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
No, no, Mr. Saxton. I guess what we'd do is say that you're not getting it today because we sent it today. You'll get it and we'd start it tomorrow because you'd receive it tomorrow.
That effectively gives them a little bit more time because of sitting days. It gives them a little bit more time than the five days during the week, because we won't be here to receive it on the 29th, okay? So we'll start off with that kind of indication of flexibility, and we're off the following week.
Mr. Kramp.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I'd like to make one statement before we go, Chair.
With all respect to my honourable colleagues--and I do respect all of you--I think we can take our business plan now, our timetable, our workload, our commitments that we've made, and the studies we've evaluated and throw them out the door, because, regretfully, I do believe this committee is now going to break its tradition after six years and become just another partisan tool. I'm really very, very disturbed by that. I believe it; otherwise, I wouldn't say it. All I ask is for you to prove me wrong, please.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I'm sorry you have that disposition, but on a happier note, we'll all see each other on Tuesday.
Thank you very much.
The meeting is adjourned.