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.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
MPs will be the only persons authorized to leave the room and come back. It would be similar to the tabling of the budget with people from the Department of Finance.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I don't know if there are any other questions. Those of us who were not here before needed to have those questions asked and answered.
You'll notice on your agenda that the 28th is the first meeting we'll have subsequent to the Auditor General's report. It will be in a room with television facilities, so wear your best suits--and other apparel, for those of you who are female. You'll be on television, I'm sure.
For November 2, the steering committee agreed to put this item on as a contingency. We don't anticipate that this is what we will be doing, but in the event that the committee meeting before this doesn't come up with another schedule, then we'll fall back into this. Please expect that this will be changed. That's why it says “to be confirmed”, but we wanted to make sure there was a slot already taken for that.
Having said that, I'm wondering if we can have a motion to accept the report of the subcommittee? Mr. Kramp?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Thank you. Is everybody okay with that?
(Motion agreed to)
That's great. It's accepted.
Mr. Kramp.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Mr. Chair, I have one question.
Should we wish to put other items or topics on November 2, to throw a priority in there, when might we have an opportunity to do so? Would we wait until the potential steering committee after the 28th?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I'm not sure that we'll be able to make any decisions then. As you know, Mr. Kramp, all the offices will be getting an opportunity to list their priority reports for study. I'm not sure that it will happen on the 27th.
But if we don't, I'm going to ask the indulgence of all committee members to perhaps call for a very brief steering committee meeting, maybe after the meeting of the 28th, and that way we can give ourselves sufficient time.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
There are priorities that might come out of the report. Sure. that's fine.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
That is the benefit of being on time with studies and reports.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Earlier, we had several reports to study. At present, we have no backlog.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Okay. So the steering committee report is adopted as presented. Thank you very much.
Now we'll go on to the second item, which is a notice of motion from Mr. Navdeep Bains.
Mr. Bains.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Thank you very much, Chair.
I presented a notice of motion to the committee on--
I'm sorry, Mr. Kramp, but you're going have to come back for this. I know that you were going for lunch. I can be long-winded with it if you like, but essentially--
12:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:15 p.m.
An hon. member
It's not by choice--
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
I'm sorry. I saw you walking away. I didn't do mean to do that intentionally.
The notice of motion was presented on Tuesday, the 19th. It's a fairly lengthy motion. I'm not sure if you want me to read it, but everyone should have a copy of it.
In general, the gist of the motion is basically asking for additional information with respect to chapter 3, “Rehabilitating the Parliament Buildings”, particularly with the West Block restoration project. It asks for certain documentation. All of that is clearly articulated in here.
I feel that this motion speaks for itself. It's fairly clear in its intent and what it wants to achieve. I hope I can get the support of other parties on this motion, because I think it's very important and very timely.
I also believe that the issue of contracts has been raised in the past as well, in meetings that took place in the previous spring with respect to this particular chapter. Now that we have new and additional information, I think it's relevant that this come to light so we can then have all the facts in order to make sure this committee is able to present a report to the House of Commons, consistent with what recent developments are--not recent developments, but what has been brought to our attention recently. All of that has been articulated in the motion, so I won't speak to it further.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Thank you, Chair.
With respect to Mr. Bains' motion, I certainly concur that we as parliamentarians have every right and responsibility to investigate each and any matter that falls before the mandate of the committee.
I would like to make a couple of points. I would hope that after these couple of points the chair would realize the intent of the member here and declare this motion out of order. I would also buttress that with another statement following this.
The reason I believe the motion is out of order for this committee is not due to the lack of purpose of investigation of any particular subject. But everything that is basically in this, that is requested, is due to the contracting activities that have taken place, whether it be in the West Block and/or other areas, and yet our mandate as a committee is to respond to the Auditor General's report.
That's our mandate. We're not the defence committee or the government operations committee. We're not the status of women committee. We are the public accounts committee and our mandate is to respond to the Auditor General's reports. Specifically, in the Auditor General's report, on “Rehabilitating the Parliament Buildings”, on page 25, she says, “The audit did not examine contracting activities”.
For that particular reason, I don't believe that issue, although valid it may be.... It does not belong at this committee. I think it's on the face of it, just unto itself, and I would ask the chair to.... I think this is an opportunity for a clear level of impartiality and I would ask my colleagues to also consider that same argument.
I would follow that up with my second point to basically complement my original point. I am not suggesting that it's not an issue that should be before Parliament--far from it. As such, this issue exactly, with a very, very similar motion, is before the government operations committee. It has been presented, as a matter of fact, by Madame Bourgeois from the Bloc, and it was passed at the government operations committee, which I sat on prior to this one. And that is our mandate--dealing with the current reality--whereas the public accounts committee deals primarily with the Auditor General's reports, and I just don't feel it's pertinent here.
While I certainly have no difficulty with the issue itself, the fact that it's going to be examined at another committee I really feel is duplicating...let alone that it should not be at this committee. So I would ask the chair to rule on that and I ask for the consideration from my colleagues based on those two arguments. Thank you.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I respect Mr. Kramp. About the report of the Auditor General, he is right about one thing: she did not look at contracts. She looked at governance as well as at new approaches for the governance of the Parliamentary precinct. I would like to raise an issue for the members of the committee. I do not know if you have all read the documents provided by the department as additional information but there are major problems relating to accountability in the Parliamentary precinct. Since this document has been tabled, I believe it is also relevant. It was referred to in the study of the Auditor General and so I think it would be relevant to have a look at those contracts.
What Mr. Banks is asking for is information. The committee regularly asks for additional information. As a matter of fact, I intended to raise the issue here. I have put several requests to the deputy minister, Mr. Guimont, who has told us here that he has no objection to providing us with the next contracts for the Parliamentary precinct, the costs and the financial models. We had said that there had been a few surprises, and the officials were supposed to send us those documents which we have not yet received. I did some checking. During the first planning meeting, I asked our researcher if we have received all the information relating to that report and he said yes. After checking, I discovered that, unfortunately, the detailed information has not yet arrived. If you look at the blues, Mr. Guimont had said that he would provide the committee with that information, and that it would be descriptive and detailed. That is the same information being asked by Mr. Banks. So, I have no problem with supporting this motion since the original request was made officially in June. The department has not met its obligation to give us that additional information.