[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, December 3, 1996
.1537 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Colleagues, the committee is meeting today to proceed with the consideration of the report of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure regarding the future business of the committee.
Allow me to present the Eighth Report of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure:
- 1. The Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Public
Accounts met on Thursday, November 28, 1996 and agreed to the following:
- That the Committee hold meetings during the weeks of December 2 and 9, 1996, as follows:
That's today's meeting.
- Wednesday, December 4, at 3:30 p.m., on the Public Accounts of Canada 1996;
This meeting will be with witnesses.
- Tuesday, December 10, at 3:30 p.m., on Chapter 33 of the November 1996 Report of the Auditor General (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada - Funding Arrangements for First Nations); and
- Thursday, December 12, at 11:00 a.m., on Chapter 17 of the September 1996 Report of the Auditor General (Human Resources Development Canada - Canada Pension Plan: Disability). The meeting will be postponed to February 1997 if the House adjourns for the winter recess prior to December 12.
Colleagues, exceptionally, I would like to make the following comment: Please remember that this meeting had been postponed and that the only time that the people from Human Resources Development Canada were available to meet with us was Thursday, December 12 at 11:00 a.m. Since we are aware of this far enough in advance, I hope everyone will strive to include this in their agenda.
The second point to be reported:
- 2. That the Committee hold meetings on the following chapters of the November 1996 Report
of the Auditor General during February and March 1997:
Third point of the report:
- 3. That the Committee consider draft reports to the House on the following matters in February
1997: Chapter 11 of the May 1996 Report of the Auditor General (Revenue Canada -
Combatting Income Tax Avoidance) and Chapter 14 of the September 1996 Report (Service
Quality). Any report regarding Chapter 7 of the May 1996 Report of the Auditor General
(Peacekeeping) should be included in a report to the House on Chapter 34 of the November
1996 Report to be examined later.
Fourth point of the report:
4. That, further to the invitation received from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the Parliament of Ireland, the Chair of the Committee be authorized to seek the authority from the House and the necessary funds to permit the Members of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure and two staff persons of the Committee to travel, during a week in March or April, 1997, to Ireland to meet with members and staff of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and other committees that review and exercise control over public expenditures at the Parliament of Ireland. The members would also meet with officials from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of Ireland as well as officials of the Treasury of Ireland.
- Respectfully submitted,
- Michel Guimond
- Chair
Mr. Williams.
[English]
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): I may have some questions, Mr. Chairman. Why don't we take it one point at a time? You have four items here. Why don't we just have four motions and approve them, one, two, three, four?
The Chairman: Okay. Are there any comments on the first point?
Mr. Williams: The only question I have is on chapter 33 and chapter 17. Are there any briefings or are they just simple hearings?
The Chairman: On chapter 33, one member of the subcommittee suggested that because of the available days until the recess, we must skip the briefing meeting and have a meeting directly with witnesses on Tuesday, December 10. For chapter 17, we already had a briefing session.
Mr. Grose (Oshawa): Who are we having as witnesses?
The Chairman: Is it possible to have...?
[Translation]
We have several microphones on.
[English]
Mr. Hopkins.
Mr. Hopkins (Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke): Who are we having as witnesses for the Canada pension plan?
The Clerk of the Committee: We chose this date to get everybody as high as possible. We've already confirmed the deputy minister, a few assistant deputy ministers and the Auditor General himself. It's the same for chapter 33, Indian Affairs. We've confirmed the deputy minister, a few ADMs and the Auditor General himself.
Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): I want to ask the rationale for taking chapters not in the sequence that they appear, from the lower number to the higher number.
The Chairman: It's a question of the availability of witnesses.
Mr. Pagtakhan: Okay. I understand.
The Chairman: Is the first point agreed on?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Are there questions or comments on the second point?
The clerk mentions that all those chapters were suggested as priorities by the AG, but I mention ``suggested'' because I think we can decide our own agenda. We are not the committee of the AG, with respect for him.
Mr. Williams: So these chapters are merely the ones suggested by the Auditor General. They are not, in essence, the report of the steering committee and they're not in the priority of the steering committee.
The Clerk: The letter from the Auditor General that listed all these chapters was discussed for half an hour by the steering committee. The steering committee considered each of those suggestions and other suggestions, and decided to recommend those as priorities for February and March, as much as possible in that order.
.1545
Mr. Williams: I would just like to congratulate the committee and I would hope they can get through all this. Go ahead. Work hard.
The Chairman: Other comments? Item 2 agreed.
Item 3. Any comments on item 3? This is about the three chapters we have already studied without presenting a report.
Mr. Williams: So the only chapters you have not written a report on are these particular chapters? Then I agree, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: For the last part of the item, about what we'll do with chapter 7, we suggest that when we study chapter 34 we will decide whether we will present a separate report or we will include our comments about chapter 7 when we study only 34. You can see from the last sentence of this paragraph we have a kind of decision to make some day.
Mr. Williams: Just one point, Mr. Chairman. If perchance the committee does not study chapter 34, then a report will be filed on chapter 7 on a stand-alone basis.
The Chairman: Do you suggest that?
Mr. Williams: What you're saying is if the committee studies chapter 34, the report on chapter 7 should be included with that of 34.
The Chairman: Maybe, if we decide so; or after hearing witnesses on chapter 34 maybe we will decide there are two different topics or two different sets of recommendations we could have, and maybe we can decide to have a separate... We will be ready to decide only after the hearings on 34.
Mr. Williams: My point, Mr. Chairman, was that if perchance the committee does not study chapter 34 you will file a report on chapter 7 anyway.
The Chairman: This is your suggestion?
Mr. Williams: That's my suggestion. It's for the record. I can leave the recommendation as it is at the moment, Mr. Chairman, on the understanding that if they don't look at 34 a report will be tabled on chapter 7.
The Chairman: Okay. Any comments on point 4?
Mr. Grose: It may appear to be a little facetious, but has any provision been made for the provision of flak jackets for the attendees?
Mr. Pagtakhan: That's not facetious at all, Ivan; it's being realistic.
Mr. Williams: One quick point, Mr. Chairman. They were saying here that basically the steering committee would be going. Am I correct in saying that? How many people would be going?
The Chairman: It will be the steering committee. We suggest the steering committee; or we could have a replacement on the steering committee, plus the clerk, maybe, and one researcher. It's the same pattern.
Mr. Williams: If only four members of Parliament are going, one staff member should be sufficient, rather than two.
The Chairman: Okay. Are you presenting an amendment, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I present an amendment that there be one staff member rather than two.
The Chairman: Do you have any comments on the amendment, or shall we vote on the amendment?
Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): The delegation from Ireland: there seemed to be how many people?
.1550
The Chairman: I think it was six MPs, the clerk and a researcher. About the researcher, honestly I'm not sure. There was a group from the Irish AGO, and I think only the clerk. At any rate, it was six MPs.
Mr. Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, Canada's a fairly big country with a fair population, and if we can't even return with the same number of people they had visited us with, maybe we should consider whether or not we can afford to go at all. It just doesn't seem to be repaying a visit.
Mr. Williams: We're more efficient over here, Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Hubbard: Said by a Scotsman.
The Chairman: I have no problem if you want to present another amendment, Mr. Hubbard. You suggest six MPs and one staff, or two staff?
Mr. Hubbard: I only suggest, Mr. Chairman, we should pay back our visit on a comparable basis.
The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard suggests six members plus one staff, plus the clerk. If we have the same pattern, it will be the clerk, because the clerk was there, I remember.
Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Crawford (Kent): Mr. Chairman, this is the only committee I know of, or one of the few committees I know of, that travels between Rooms 209 and 269. That's about as far as we ever get in the whole term of our office, four years or five. Other ones are travelling every month all over the world. Yet we're saying we can only afford to send two or three.
You know, I think there should be a little equality within this House of Commons in who travels and who doesn't.
The Chairman: Very good comment. Mr. Hopkins.
Mr. Hopkins: The chair is put in a dilemma on this, I know, but through you to John as well, I went to the Irish ambassador's home for the dinner that night. I was the only member there. I was glad I had gone.
Actually, if my memory serves me correctly, their Auditor General was with them, was he not?
A Voice: Yes.
Mr. Hopkins: So he came along with them as well as the clerk and so on.
I echo the sentiments of my colleagues on this side of the table, Mr. Chairman. I've sat on the public accounts committee for a long time. It's quite true: this committee travels from room to room in the West Block, and that's about it. Mind you, I got to Newfoundland for the first time for one meeting.
Mr. Williams: Halfway to Ireland.
Mr. Hopkins: That's right.
When we consider air fares today - and I certainly don't pretend to be a professional at this business - we can fly from Ottawa to Vancouver return, if you hit it at the right time, for about $325 or $335 apiece, which is very reasonable. I don't know what air fares would be like to Ireland, but I don't think the committee would break the bank. Because members do have a lot of meetings and they don't have a great deal of excitement - they go through a lot of figures and a lot of work - maybe we should be taking a look at a little more flexibility for the members of the committee.
The Chairman: I have some estimates. If we go economy, five days, for six persons it will cost $19,000. The air transportation would be $3,200 per person.
Mr. Williams: Pardon?
Mr. Hopkins: Oh, surely we can do better than that.
.1555
The Chairman: I will finish, colleagues. If we go excursion class for a total of seven days, it will cost $1,100 per person for air fare.
Mr. Hopkins: That seems like a lot of money for the distance we're travelling. Has there been any search made on these fares? I know fares have been a big question mark on many travels of committees. It's amazing the differences you get fed to you when you start looking around. I'd just like to know how deeply this was really researched before we decided on the fares.
The Clerk: Since the subcommittee met on Thursday, I've spent quite a few hours with the few people that have travelled recently, and I spent over an hour with the agent from Rider's at the committee directorate. Believe me, after looking at all possibilities, this is the best Rider can offer at this stage.
Mr. Hubbard: I want to make a point on this. I've found the other generals never looked into Rider Travel. For example, last winter a group of people went to Vancouver from various parts of Toronto east. I picked up a return ticket for some $580. There were others who travelled with Rider who paid in excess of $2,000 for the same trip. I'm surprised this has not been brought forward by some committee, including our own members of Parliament. Could it be possible that either the chair or one of our members could look? For example, the group who went to Holland in May of 1995 travelled with an agency out of Toronto and their tickets from Toronto to Amsterdam and back were less than $800 per person.
I think we're dealing with an issue here where we can save not only ourselves but other government departments a lot of money. Maybe some time we could look into that with the Auditor General.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I've got a question. At the steering committee, did the Reform Party member support the motion to travel?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I have to leave to attend another meeting. Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to support the decision of the committee as to what we are going to do regarding this matter, but unless we're going to wrap it up in the next couple of minutes, I've got to leave. Of course with a look at air fares, as I've said, my preference would be that the steering committee and one member of the staff travel. However, if the committee feels it should be expanded, then perhaps I could see my way to supporting that, Mr. Chairman - perhaps.
Mr. Crawford: Was that a motion, John, or just a recommendation?
Mr. Williams: No, that was just my personal points of view. I would rather see the steering committee and one member of the staff travel. However, if the committee as a whole group feels it should be otherwise, then perhaps I could be talked into supporting it, with reluctance.
Mr. Crawford: Perhaps I could add that if the subcommittee or the clerk checked into the cost of travelling by other airlines or through other companies than Rider, they may get a competitive bid. From Detroit we flew for $429.
The Chairman: In the proposition we will take that into account, but we must start the process for the money. But before we do that, the clerk will check and he will make inquiries. Maybe we can have this point before our meeting tomorrow.
Mr. Williams: If I leave, it will break quorum and we will not be able to have a vote, so why don't we vote and approve the matter in principle and then the requisition for funding can go forward and so on. Then the final details regarding air fares and so on can be brought back to a subsequent meeting.
The Chairman: Good idea, John. We will hear Mr. Pagtakhan and then we will vote.
.1600
Mr. Pagtakhan: We can delete reference to the number of members of the committee and numbers of staff at this point. At this point there is no fixed number. We know the sentiment. We have to be reasonable.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Williams: I move that the public accounts committee be authorized to seek funding to travel to Ireland in accordance with the request presented to us, the number of staff and MPs to be determined at a later date. Also, the cost should be in the most economical way.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Grose: I'm sorry, I do not agree with the motion. That's fine, I'm out-voted.
The Chairman: On division?
Mr. Grose: That's not necessary.
The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Hubbard: Mr. Chairman, I think the Auditor General should be informed, and, hopefully, if a group does go he should be invited to participate.
The Chairman: It was my intention to do that. I didn't put it in the recommendation, but it was my intention to write a letter to the Auditor General.
Mr. Hubbard: If we go.
The Chairman: We meet again tomorrow.
The meeting is adjourned.