PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

¹

1535

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance))

Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.)

The Chair

¹

1540

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board)

The Clerk

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Mac Harb

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Mac Harb

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

¹

1550

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

¹

1555

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

º

1600

Ms. Judy Sgro

The Chair

Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.)

Ms. Judy Sgro

Mr. Joe Peschisolido

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 009

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, January 29, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

    The first order for today is, pursuant to Standing Order 39(5), the failure of the ministry to respond to question 85, from Mr. Williams (St. Albert). The chair is to convene a meeting within five sitting days. After we deal with that, we're going to move in camera to consider, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), a draft report on the report of the Auditor General of Canada dated May 8, 2002, on Groupaction Communications.

    On the first issue, this is the first time we've ever dealt with this. It deals with Standing Order 39(5)(b), regarding a question I had on the Order Paper. There's a new procedure in the House that deals with this. When questions are placed on the Order Paper, the government is required to respond within 45 days if you ask for that. It used to be that if you didn't get a response within 45 days, you could rise on a question of privilege, and the Speaker would deal with it. The new procedure is that if you don't get a response in 45 days, it is automatically referred to a committee, and Standing Order 39(5)(b) states:

    

If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of forty-five days, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committee.

It goes on to say:

    

Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond.

So I have five days to call this meeting to have the committee decide what to do.

    Ms. Sgro, do you have a point?

    Ms. Judy Sgro (York West, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chair. On this particular issue, with regard to the conversation with the minister of the department, the information has been filed--

    The Chair: Yes, I was going to get to that.

¹  (1540)  

    Ms. Judy Sgro: They do have the information you're referring to here.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Sgro.

    I have been advised by the clerk that the wheels of government are grinding a little more slowly than 45 days per revolution and that the answer is forthcoming sometime quite soon.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Well, they have submitted the information.

    The Chair: Nonetheless, I am required by Standing Order 39(5)(b) to convene this meeting to deal with the issue.

    As a matter of interest, I rose on a point of order in the House just a few minutes ago concerning a failure by the Department of Defence to properly respond to another question.

    I understand that the information is forthcoming, but they've gone over the 45 days. I don't think we should ignore the matter, so perhaps someone would like to move a motion I have prepared that says that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts expresses its displeasure in the Ministry in failing to answer Question 85 within the 45 days prescribed in Standing Order 39(5). It basically says we've noted the fact. We've taken Ms. Sgro's point that the information's coming, but at the same time, they have to respect the 45 day rule.

    Ms. Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): I'll move it.

    The Chair: Ms. Meredith has moved the motion.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I'd like to add to it that in the event you do not get the answer within a short period of time, this committee will reconsider the issue.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Meredith. In the event that I find the information does not arrive, we will revisit the matter.

    Is there debate?

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I believe it was Mr. Boudria who rose in the House to respond to this issue, and the reasons he gave were, I think, beyond the pale and totally unacceptable. I would ask that the government play fair, answer the questions, and not come up with any excuses or rationale that the government doesn't have this information or it's not collectible in that form, because we have alternative arguments. Simple, straightforward administration is wiser than trying to avoid the issue.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I'm just wondering where this came from?

    The Chair: Where what came from?

    Ms. Beth Phinney: This Q-85.

    The Chair: Question 85 was on the Order Paper. It was submitted by me back in the fall, and it was sitting on the Order Paper for more than 45 days. At the end of 45 days it automatically gets referred to this committee.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay. Any question that's not answered in the House of Commons, even if it's talking about the colour of the moon or something, gets referred to a committee?

    The Chair: To an appropriate committee.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: An appropriate committee, okay. I've sat on this off and on for four years or something, and we've never looked at one of these before.

    The Chair: I know. As I said, this is a brand new procedure, this is the first time it's happened. It's a whole change in procedure.

    Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this question, the motive for the question, or anything else. I think it's the proper thing to be doing. But I just caution you a little. I'm a little uncomfortable with the fact that you're the one who moved the question.

    The Chair: No, Ms. Meredith moved the motion.

    Mr. John Bryden: I'm talking about question 85.

    The Chair: Okay. I placed that on the Order Paper last fall.

    Mr. John Bryden: With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I realize you're interested in these issues and I realize it's the opposition's role to do this kind of thing, and I encourage them to do it, in fact, but I think it would have been more appropriate if another person, even another person of this committee, had moved it rather than the chairman. I'm a little uneasy with that.

    Ms. Val Meredith: He's merely asking a question of government for a response.

    Mr. John Bryden: I know. Because we're in camera, I can say this.

    The Chair: No we're not, this is public.

    Mr. John Bryden: Oh, I'm so sorry. I would prefer to raise the issue not in a public forum, because I don't want people to think I dispute your right, as a parliamentarian, to take this kind of step, or anyone's right. It's just that I would have been more comfortable if had come from, shall we say, the backbench of this committee, rather than from the chairman, although, Mr. Chairman, I do think it's a valid question to have put on the Order Paper in the first place.

    The Chair: Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I know it's your right as a member of Parliament to ask questions, and it's the obligation of the government to respond to your question on the Order Paper, but sometimes there are limits on how far a member of Parliament can take his rights, how far he can push the envelope. Frankly, in this particular case, I found that the question not only stretched the limit to an unimaginable level, but it's a bit abusive, in a sense, of the rules. I feel it's a bit out of line to ask the Government of Canada to bring items about jams, toilet preparations, perfumes. You should be embarrassed, Mr. Chair, frankly. If I were you, Mr. Chair, tomorrow when I looked at myself in the mirror, I would say, how terrible of me, as the member for St. Albert, to ask such a question of the Government of Canada. Has the chair asked himself how much it's going to cost taxpayers to compile all the information about this frivolous question? Has the honourable member asked himself? I thought he was concerned about taxpayers' money.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: I will check in the mirror tomorrow morning, Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Tirabassi, then Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Mac Harb: I'm voting against the motion.

    The Chair: I gathered.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board): Ms. Sgro informed us that this information will be provided, but there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether it's in the clerk's hands or not. Do you have that information?

    The Clerk: The response would be tabled in the House. I am told the coordinating agency, the Privy Council Office, has all the bits and pieces, and it may have been tabled this afternoon during routine proceedings, but I had to come over here, so I'm not aware that it was.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: So the intent of this motion is to let them know they've been a little late, and you want to give them a slap on the wrist, when we're really just trying to collect information on the inventory of, if I've got this right, clothes hangers, golf tees--

    The Chair: Do you want me to read the whole thing?

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: No, that's okay.

    The Chair: Okay, we're going to have Mr. Mayfield, Mr. Forseth, Mr. Bryden, Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak forcefully in the opposite direction from Mr. Harb. This question of timely answers to responses for questions on the Order Paper is big. There are questions that have been on the Order Paper many times more than 45 days, and the government has been negligent. You want to ask how many teapots there are. I don't know why you ask that question, but I'm in favour of that question if it will keep the government transparent. How many golf clubs and how many golf balls should the government supply to its employees or to its guests at taxpayers' expense? That's a legitimate question in my mind.

    I believe, if we're going to be open and transparent, and if public servants are there to provide service to the public and not for their own aggrandisement, we must be in a position to see what they do with the money that is given to them to spend. This is not a frivolous question, this is a question of accountability. I'm surprised that the Liberal members would be so willing to try to cover this up, so that the public doesn't know how the money is spent. We talk about a surplus. That's not a surplus, that's taxpayers' money that has been taken out of their pockets, and they're deprived of the use of it. If the surplus of money is so great that it can be spent on these types of things, then I say, Mr. Chairman, keep asking.

    As to the principle of members' questions being answered in a timely manner, if the committees are not prepared to back up members, who will? We are the members who have the ability to deal with this. They're your questions as well as the chairman's or mine. When 180 days after the question has been asked I'm still wondering why it has not been answered, how can we deal with that?

    Mr. Mac Harb: It's 45 days.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: But let me tell you, Mac, it has gone as long as 180 days and nothing has been done.

    Mr. Mac Harb: There is such a thing as Christmas.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Yes, there is. We're talking about sitting days.

    The Chair: I did actually want to mention at the beginning that had the department contacted me and said, we are going to run a little bit over, as a courtesy, that would have been fine, but they didn't. It gives the impression that we play second fiddle to the departments, and I think, as Mr. Mayfield pointed out, it should be the other way. So you may want to take the message back, Ms. Sgro, that courtesy would be appreciated.

    Mr. Forseth.

¹  (1550)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: I can see at first blush, when you look at the items, why the request would be made, but we understand that historically, a lot of these types of things are used as promotional items or gift items. I recall the issue of golf balls. It wasn't just a few balls, there were thousands. It goes to the point of the orderly formation of spending of money and how it's kept track of. A while back the average question was asked, how many vehicles did the federal government purchase last year? They had no idea, because they had no orderly way of keeping track of those things. So what the question does is help the minister and the ministry to keep control of what happens with slippage or if someone gets an idea that they're going to purchase a lot of promotional items like coat hangers, but the coat hanger has a label on it and is a give-away item and so on. We had the question of trying to rationalize the number of desktop computers, where they are in relation to what was on inventory, and we found that thousands of computers were missing, we had no idea where they went, no accountability.

    So even though some of the items there appear to be frivolous, it goes to a deeper issue of how inventory is kept and how we get information for general spending. The bottom of the question is, in the roll-up, how much are we spending on golf balls per year? There may be a considerable amount of money, because various departments are doing things for promotional purposes. That's some of the substance of the question, and I think a minister and the cabinet would want to know that information.

    The Chair: Let me ask, do we really want to continue this debate?

    Okay, Mr. Bryden, you're next on the list.

    Mr. John Bryden: I think this is an issue of very high principle, quite apart from the context of the question, which, incidentally, I have no trouble with, I think the content's just fine. Questions on the Order Paper are one of the few instruments backbench MPs have to hold the government to account, other than committee service and the occasional question, only a few in opposition, in question period. Backbench government MPs don't even have the opportunity of a question in question period of any real substance. We do, however, put questions on the Order Paper, and I think it is very clear that over time the diligence of government, both the bureaucratic government and the political government, in responding dutifully to questions on the Order Paper has been sliding. I think it is absolutely correct that if the government has not made the deadline spelled out in Standing Orders, the committee is obliged to hold the government to account. So I have no difficulty supporting this motion.

    The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, you laughed just a minute ago, saying maybe we've had enough discussion here--

    The Chair: No, I asked if we'd had enough.

    Mr. John Finlay: Well, I laughed when I read it, I laughed when you read it. I find it patently ridiculous. My colleague Mr. Forseth is doing a great job of trying to explain why golf balls should be there. Of course, you may have golf balls because you are promoting something that needs promotion, such as how you apply for your old age pension, how to get a new passport, or what have you. The question really bothers me, Mr. Chair, because you've been, I think, a pretty stable chair, and this is just a fishing expedition--beverages, alcoholic, cameras, both regular and digital, flatware. We'll order a dozen knives, and you stand at the end and we'll try to miss you when we throw them or something. And beginning with teapots.... I think it's laughable.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Mr. Finlay, it's difficult for me to speak from the chair, but in response, I table these questions every year, and the reason these questions are being asked in that order is that it is the order Public Works sets them out in: when you purchase items, you put them into these particular categories. These are the categories set out by Public Works Canada, I didn't choose them, which is why the information should be not that difficult to obtain.

    The issue here today is not a question on the Order Paper asked by me or anybody else, it is that the question has been referred to this committee because it has not been responded to. We will perhaps find these questions coming to us on a fairly regular basis from this point forward, and we will have to deal with them. Therefore, we shall continue.

    Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I was going to vote for this motion, but there's something that bothers me about the process. You were told that the information has been prepared, and the clerk tells us that the Privy Council Office has the info; it might be all together now, but you don't know, because you had to come over here. I would have thought the clerk would have had somebody on the phone to find out whether it is at his office now, so that we're not sitting here wasting our time now. Maybe he's had an answer in the last five minutes while we're sitting here, I don't know. But I just don't like playing that game with you, and it looks like a game more than anything: it may be here, but it's over in that office; it's not in this office. They told us five days, it is here, the information is collected. It's not as genuine as your question is, what's going on right now.

    The Chair: I appreciate your point very much, Ms. Phinney--

    Ms. Beth Phinney: It's sort of muddied the issue.

    The Chair: I would never have brought it to this committee either, except.... I can read the Standing Order: “Within five sitting days of such referral--”

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I understand that.

    The Chair: “--the Chair of the committee shall convene...”. I have no choice.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: But you also said, Mr. Chair, that this is a brand new regulation. They did get it within five days, they didn't take 130 days, and the clerk says it's prepared. Why not give it the benefit of the doubt?

    The Chair: I don't have the choice of giving it the benefit of the doubt. The question still, as far as we know, has not been answered.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: The clerk said it has been answered.

    The Chair: No, it has not been answered. The answer is on its way.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay, so it hasn't been tabled in the House.

    The Chair: It hasn't been tabled in the House.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: All right, that's different.

    The Chair: The Standing Order gives me no choice. Had it been your question and the answer was on its way, I'd have had no choice but to bring it to this committee too.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Does it say you go to jail if you don't do it? What happens if you don't do it, if you do it at the next meeting?

    The Chair: I don't know what happens, but as a Chair, I'm not given a choice. I put it on the agenda, and it's for the committee to decide.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Does it say at the next meeting, within 15 minutes, or what?

    The Chair: It says, “Within five sitting days of such referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond.”

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay.

    The Chair: That is the Standing Order. Had I had more time, I can assure you, it wouldn't have been here.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I think, again, as Mr. Bryden said, you made the motion because you probably knew it was a new rule and you'd catch us on this. The government would never have it ready on time. I think there's a bit of game playing here.

    Ms. Val Meredith: You didn't know this existed?

    The Chair: No, it's not so.

    Ms. Sgro.

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Could someone please read the motion?

    The Chair: The motion, as moved by Ms. Meredith, is that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts expresses displeasure in the ministry in failing to answer Question 85 within the 45 days prescribed by Standing Order 39(5), and that in the event the answer is not forthcoming in the near future, the committee revisit the matter.

º  (1600)  

    Ms. Judy Sgro: Mr. Chair, it's 4 o'clock, and I know the amount of work we all have, so let's just get on with it. The department was late, they acknowledged it, and possibly it would have been better had we communicated with you, but we've all just come back to work, and it's the end of the issue. Let's not waste a whole lot of time. We have a motion on the floor. If you think it's important to do it, let's just get on with it.

    The Chair: Mr. Peschisolido is next, then Mr. Murphy.

    Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I think everyone has acted in good faith. You're performing your role in considering the motion. Why don't we consider a motion, given the information Madam Sgro has put forth, that we acknowledge that the department has stated it's getting it here, it's a day late, rather than expressing displeasure, and have the department get the information to us by the time we convene again as a committee?

    Ms. Judy Sgro: It has been submitted, and it'll now be up to PCO, and then Mr. Williams will have to consider the information. The department has fulfilled the request and submitted the information.

    Mr. Joe Peschisolido: So, Madam Sgro, why don't you put forth an amendment that takes that into account?

    The Chair: Mr. Murphy. Let's wrap this up. I thought it would only be five minutes.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): This whole process troubles me somewhat. You were entitled to ask those questions, and you're certainly entitled to get an answer, I agree with Mr. Mayfield, in a timely manner. But when I look at the questions, it's inconceivable--maybe I'm wrong--that the department could actually do it in 45 days, with all the crown corporations and offices across Canada. They probably owed you a call or a letter telling you they couldn't do it in 45 days, and they didn't do that. But if we continue this exercise, I believe we're going to bring the committee and the chair into disrepute and your impartiality into question. I would amend the motion to change “displeasure” to “concern” and move on.

    The Chair: Is that agreeable, Ms. Meredith?

    Ms. Val Meredith: Yes, it is.

    The Chair: Okay.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    (Motion as amended agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We're now going to suspend the open part of the meeting and move in camera.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]