:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
We are pleased to present our 2009 spring report, which was tabled in the House of Commons this past Tuesday, May 12. As you mentioned, I'm accompanied by John Wiersema, Deputy Auditor General, and Doug Timmins and Wendy Loschiuk, assistant auditors general.
Our job is to provide parliamentarians with reliable and independent information on how well the federal government manages and spends taxpayers' dollars and whether it keeps its environmental and sustainable development commitments.
Before I present the details of our individual audits, I would like to raise a matter that has implications for all of our audit work, and that is the government's approach to documenting its analysis of policy initiatives submitted by departments and agencies.
[Translation]
Central agencies have an important role in ensuring that policy and recommendations put to Cabinet have been thoroughly analyzed. In one audit for this Report, we wanted to see that this had taken place — not to question the recommendations or decisions but to see that the analysis had been carried out.
We were told that it had taken place but that the only evidence was in the recommendations to the Treasury Board and Cabinet, documents that we do not see or wish to see. We believe this analysis should be documented in a form that can be made available to us.
I strongly urge the government to ensure that relevant analysis is documented and maintained in information systems. Should the analysis not be available to us, I must conclude that it was not performed.
Mr. Chair, I would like to now turn to last Tuesday's report. Let me begin with our audit of the government's use of gender-based analysis in its policies and programs.
[English]
Gender-based analysis is used to assess how spending initiatives and policy proposals might differ in their impact on men and on women. The federal government committed in 1995 to implement this tool throughout its departments and agencies. However, it has not made it mandatory. Our examination of seven departments showed that despite the fact that some departments and central agencies are making efforts to consider gender differences in designing their programs, the 1995 commitment has still not been implemented.
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is clearly a leader in this area as the only department that has fully implemented the elements of a sound framework for gender-based analysis. On the other hand, Transport Canada and Veterans Affairs Canada have no framework.
[Translation]
We also found that very few of the departments that perform gender-based analysis can show that the analyses are used in designing public policy. Their proposals to Cabinet and to the Treasury Board provided little information on how policies would specifically affect women and men.
The government has recognized that policy decisions can affect men and women differently. It should keep its longstanding commitment to consider these differences in developing its policies and programs.
Turning now to the government's management of intellectual property. Intellectual property refers to legally protected rights, such as patents and copyrights in the industrial, scientific, literary, and artistic fields. The federal government generates intellectual property through its own activities as well as activities carried out by the private sector under federal contracts for goods and services.
Intellectual property is a valuable asset that can provide social and economic benefits to Canadians. For example, National Research Council Canada developed a vaccine for meningitis that is used in Canada as well as internationally. In addition to the health benefits, it has generated over $25 million for the organization.
[English]
We found that despite their significant expenditures on science and technology, Health Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada have identified little intellectual property developed by their scientists and researchers. None of the three organizations that were audited adequately identify and report whether work performed under contract is likely to generate intellectual property.
As well, the government's policy requires that, apart from some specific exceptions, ownership of intellectual property resulting from contracted activities should go to the contractor to increase the potential for commercialization. Yet Health Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada retained ownership in more than half the contracts examined where intellectual property was reported, often without adequate justification.
We did see some good practices by the National Research Council that other departments and agencies could adopt to improve their own management of intellectual property.
[Translation]
The Report also looks at how the government ensures the health and safety of federal employees working in office buildings administered by Public Works and Government Services Canada. The Department administers more than 1,400 buildings in all regions of the country, where more than 230,000 public servants work. Individual departments have a responsibility for the health and safety of their employees working in those buildings.
Many of the federal departments we audited did not clearly understand their roles and responsibilities for fire safety planning. Although departments are required to hold fire drills every year, they could not demonstrate that they were doing so in 18 of 54 buildings covered by our audit.
[English]
We also found that for the majority of buildings in our audit, departments had not submitted fire safety plans to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, as required. During our audit, and in response to letters we sent to departments indicating the serious nature of these shortcomings, we noted that many of the departments took corrective action.
In addition, we found that Public Works and Government Services Canada has clear policies for managing the condition of the office buildings it administers. However, it could not demonstrate that it consistently corrects high-priority deficiencies in these buildings. The federal government has an obligation to protect the health and safety of its employees. It has appropriate policies in place, and it should ensure that departments follow them.
[Translation]
Let me go back to Chapter 4. There's an issue that came to our attention during our financial audits of the Canada Revenue Agency. The Agency has incurred more than $90 million in unnecessary interest costs over the past three years, as a result of large balances that a number of corporations have been keeping on deposit with the Agency. The Agency has a responsibility to ensure that it does not make large interest payments that could be avoided. It has recognized for years that certain corporations might be leaving large balances in their accounts to take advantage of favourable interest rates.
[English]
The Canada Revenue Agency needs to develop a robust administrative policy on managing advance deposits and apply it consistently to reduce unnecessary interest costs.
We also examined the Department of National Defence's financial management practices. National Defence has a yearly budget of about $19 billion and manages more than $33 billion in equipment, inventory, and real estate around the world.
Its financial decisions have long-term impacts, not only on the department but also on national security. We found that while National Defence has taken steps to improve financial management and control, its systems and practices do not adequately support financial decision-making for the medium or long term. The department needs more highly developed financial management practices to meet the demands of its complex operations.
[Translation]
We found that National Defence lacks a corporate business plan that aligns its operations with its investments and the Canada First Defence Strategy. In addition, we saw no evidence that senior decision-makers are routinely briefed on the status of key risks. In addition to better information, senior management at National Defence needs to be more involved in financial management. It will take strong leadership and commitment to make the necessary changes.
[English]
The next issue was brought to our attention in August 2006 by Natural Resources Canada. In response to concerns raised by NRCan's internal auditors, we examined five contribution agreements, and we found a serious conflict of interest. A consultant who helped the department develop two contribution programs also worked for organizations that received funding under the same programs. We were very concerned that, knowing all the circumstances, the department went ahead with these contribution agreements without identifying this obvious conflict of interest.
[Translation]
Furthermore, NRCan made over $3.2 million in payments to an organization of which the consultant was the president, despite evidence that it was insolvent and was not paying its subcontractors. This was contrary to the terms and conditions of the contribution agreement. Natural Resources Canada needs to develop policies and guidance on conflict of interest for contribution agreements to prevent a recurrence of this type of problem.
[English]
Finally, we are also presenting the main points of special examinations of eight crown corporations that we completed in 2008. We identified significant deficiencies in three of these corporations. Crown corporations represented an important part of federal government activity. They employ 92,000 people and manage $185 billion in assets. They are accountable to Parliament through the responsible minister, and special examinations are an important mechanism in their accountability.
The report tabled on Tuesday contains two chapters from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. Unfortunately, the commissioner is unable to be here today, so on his behalf I would like to take a few minutes to summarize the finding of those two chapters for you.
Let me begin with the section on protecting fish habitat. We examined the role played by two federal departments, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada, in the protection of fish habitat. Fish habitat is a national asset. It provides food and shelter for aquatic wildlife, as well as water for human consumption. We found that efforts to protect fish habitat have been inadequate. In the 23 years since the habitat policy was adopted, we found that some parts of it had not been implemented at all, and others only partially. This could be putting fish habitat in jeopardy.
We found limited information regarding the state of fish habitat across Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada does not know whether its actions are achieving the stated objective of the habitat policy—that is, to contribute to a net gain in fish habitat.
We noted that Environment Canada has not identified what it has to do to fulfill its responsibilities under the Fisheries Act related to prohibiting the deposit of harmful substances like pollutants into waters that contain fish. We found that it does not have a systematic approach that allows it to focus its resources where significant harm is most likely to occur.
[Translation]
Finally, we found little formal coordination between the two departments to set priorities or to develop common criteria for habitat protection.
The Fisheries Act is among the most important laws of the federal government intended to promote environmental protection and conservation. We are concerned that many of the issues identified in our audit have been raised repeatedly over many years, and they are still unresolved.
Turning now to the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. The Act was passed by Parliament in 2007. It requires the government to produce a plan each year showing how Canada will meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol by 2012.lt also requires the Commissioner to issue reports to Parliament on Canada's progress. This is our first report in accordance with these obligations.
The government has completed two climate change plans, which include targets for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gas within the Kyoto Protocol period, 2008 to 2012. We found that the plans are missing some of the information required under the Act.
[English]
We found that the government will be unable to determine actual emission reductions achieved for each of the measures in its plans as the act requires. Without a system to count real emission reductions that result from its measures, the government will not be able to inform Parliament whether the measures are working. We also found that Environment Canada has overstated the expected reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for the 2008-2012 Kyoto Protocol period.
Environment Canada has accepted most of our recommendations and has committed to follow through on them in the next climate change plans.
Mr. Chair, I thank you. This concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Thank you again for coming today.
I'd like to begin with chapter 1. There are two parts to it. I'll deal with the substantive matter first and then maybe go to the process one.
If I'm understanding the trail properly, there was a commitment made by the federal government of the day to the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, in 1995, that we were going to move to gender-based analysis. We made that commitment in 2005.
Then in 2007 and 2008, we were making reports and comments in front of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, bragging about the fact that this was one of the elements we were initiating as a government and as a country to help Canadian women. Yet you found that it's not happening anywhere near the degree it should; those are my words.
So we have a commitment made in 1995. We have bragging going on in 2007 and 2008. Yet when we look in between, it's not happening.
I'm pretty sure that this will be one that we'll call in. I can't imagine that we will let this go by without bringing it in for a hearing.
I'm a little confused about this; it looked as though they started out well, with the justice department. When I read that I thought, wow, this is serious. They're getting the training in place and everything else.
Then they dissolved it. Now we're back to....
Can you flesh that out a little? What did they do? Why did it work? Do you have any notion of why it disappeared?
Did they replace it with...obviously they didn't, but what were they thinking they were replacing it with that was going to do as good a job?
I think it would be perhaps worthwhile, Chair, to have a discussion with the committee on this issue.
In the gender-based analysis, particularly, we were looking at the process that these analyses go through. An important part of the process, to us, is the challenge function that is done by the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office. There's an analyst somewhere in either one of those departments who challenges to see the following: Has the analysis been done? Has it been done rigorously? Has it been considered in the policy? Is it built into the policy options?
We were told that those analyses take place, but that the only documentation or evidence that they do is in the recommendation to ministers, which, of course, we don't see. We believe there should be some documentation of that challenge function within those departments. Quite frankly, how do people know that it's ever occurred if it's not...?
We're not asking for a tome. We're not asking for 50 pages. But there isn't even an e-mail on this. It's a little astounding.
The government is quite adamant that they disagree with us. They believe it would be too onerous to do this documentation. They indicated in certain periods, for example, in budget proposals, that the timelines were very short, they might not have the time. We can probably understand in certain circumstances that may occur, but I just can't believe there can't be some documentation of this challenge function.
That's where the issue is: they indicate to us that it is largely verbal, and that the only indication it is done at all is in the recommendation to the ministers.
Thank you, Madam Auditor General, and your colleagues, for coming in here again today.
I would also like to focus on chapter 1, dealing with gender-based analysis. First of all, under the section, “Why it’s important”, I want to commend you on using, as an example, cardiovascular disease, as it's the number one killer of women, yet it's not recognized as such.
As a director of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C. and Yukon, this is an issue that I am familiar with. I'm happy to say that the president of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of B.C. and Yukon, Bobbe Wood, introduced the Heart Truth program, which in fact is bringing this to people's attention: the concern over why, despite the fact that heart and stroke disease is a major killer in women, it's not recognized as such, and therefore not enough resources have been dedicated to that. So I appreciate your using that example.
Now, I notice, as my colleague Mr. Christopherson mentioned, the Government of Canada at the time, in 1995, first committed to a gender-based analysis system, yet, for example, in the Department of Finance, nothing was done until 2005--or at least that's the impression I got.
I just want to ask you, what did happen during those 10 years--mostly under the previous government, I should add--to this gender-based analysis, in particular with the Department of Finance? Did anything happen?
Welcome again to our guests. As always, it's just a complete validation of the office.
It's that mixed bag of things that we like to see, where we're doing something right in government, but it's also clear identification of areas that need improvement, some of them minor tweaking and others a major re-evaluation of how, why, where, and what we do.
Thank you very kindly for coming here today. There's no doubt that after receiving the number of these chapters of concerns, this committee is going have substantial work ahead of it to come forward with recommendations and to follow your guidance on this.
I have a couple of maybe good thoughts and bad thoughts. I won't dwell on the conflict of interest situation, but that's highly problematic, and at some particular point I will. I'm more concerned with that from the one statement you made on it, which is, “We are very concerned knowing all of the circumstances, the department went ahead....”
Well, regardless of what the individuals are doing right or wrong in there, if the department knowingly still proceeded in a particular direction, that's a governmental decision. Quite frankly, I'm hopeful that down the road as we move on to that, we will potentially explore it.
So thank you for identifying that. That clearly is a classic example of some of the things we need improvement in.
Right off the bat, you mentioned you actually saw some good practices by the National Research Council that other departments and agencies could adopt. I think it's important. Identifying our problems is one thing. But also, if there are some positives that can be either duplicated, replicated, and/or whatever....
I'm wondering if you could specifically identify a few of those positive practices. And would they be transportable or transferrable to some and/or all departments to use as a potential template or potential pattern?
:
Thank you very much, Chair.
Are we doing five minutes in this round, Chair?
It's four? Oh, boy.
Okay. I will ask my questions and then leave them with you.
Ms. Sheila Fraser: Oh, oh! Four minutes of questions.
Mr. David Christopherson: We all know what I'm like: talk, talk, talk. That's why I'm here.
I want to go to chapter 3 on health and safety in federal buildings. I appreciate that my colleague Mr. Kramp raised something on this. This is one of those things, in the context of the millions and billions of dollars we deal with, and of conflict of interest, and defence budgets, and war planning, and the like, that could easily get overlooked.
When you're talking about their not doing the fire drills, at first blush that can sound pretty mundane. But, boy, if there's ever a disaster and then an inquiry and the first piece of evidence is that there was no fire drill, suddenly it's headlines.
Let's recognize that our first priority, even beyond the programs we deliver, with a couple of exceptions—armed forces, RCMP, emergency response personnel—and our first obligation to the people we hire to implement those policies is their health and safety. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who work in buildings we're responsible for, and probably millions of people who care about those individuals.
So I'm going to urge, if we can, Chair, that we find time to maybe do.... I'm just suggesting this.
But I also liked the questions that Mr. Desnoyers was asking around VIA, given the importance of the future, of moving Canadians around this big country, about the importance of moving to rail in terms of the environment--all those reasons. We have a report that's telling us there are major problems.
I'm going to suggest to colleagues that perhaps we could find a way to maybe do one hour on this report, and pick one, two, or three within, spending maybe an hour or 45 minutes on each.
The other one I want to raise is the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority. I'm being right upfront that I'm being very parochial. Hamilton is affected by this in a big way, but so are literally tens of millions of other Canadians. At Hamilton we have one of the major ports on the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence Seaway system, and there are real issues here about the qualifications of the pilots and the navigators.
There are recommendations, if I have this right, that domestic shipping no longer be exempt from the certification process, or no longer be exempt from having to....
Help me on this; there's a piece that they have to do and they're exempted from it. Perhaps you can fill that in for me.
But there's a piece there, and there's a recommendation that came out in 2002 saying, hey, we ought to move away from this.
Again, as one of the Great Lakes port representatives, and thinking about all the cities that are impacted by ports, and here we have a health and safety issue on our waters.... I don't think it needs to be a long two-hour examination, but it would seem to me that we ought not to leave that untouched.
Also, there's the building issue. If I can, I would note the example you gave of 66 Slater Street. Lest anyone watching think, “Really, fire plans...?”, it's the confusion among departments, because they didn't know which department was responsible—one of them was the PCO, by the way. The report says:
As such, fire safety planning risks were not addressed for the building for almost a three-year period...endangering the health and safety of the federal employees located at 66 Slater Street.
It seems to me that's an alarm bell and that we have an obligation to follow up on it.
Thank you, Chair.
Members, I'd like to move on to some business.
The first item is a motion that was actually tabled by Mr. Christopherson on the last day of notice. That, as far as the chair is concerned, has been resolved, and the meeting will take place on May 26, the first Tuesday when we come back. The clerk has asked me to point out that the Privy Council Office witness, although she's coming to the meeting, won't be here until 4 o'clock.
At the last meeting, we had a motion tabled by Ms. Ratansi, and someone made the motion or whatever that the motion was out of order for this committee. I heard interventions from different members, both for and against, and I just want to rule on that now. I did put some work into this, so I'll read my text.
As I said, I've heard from several members of the committee, both for and against, and I certainly want to thank them very much. I've sought the advice of the clerk and I've done my own research as to the appropriateness of this motion before this committee.
Colleagues, standing committees receive their mandates in three different ways: under Standing Orders, by an order of reference from the House, or under legislation. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g) of the House of Commons, the mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is defined as follows:
(3) The mandate of the Standing Committee on:
(g) 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 immediately after they are laid upon the Table;
and any other matter which the House shall from time to time refer to the Standing Committee.
Some have argued that our role is to follow the work of the Auditor General, and, as a result, we are precluded from reviewing or reporting on any other matter or concern. That is not, and has never been, my interpretation of the committee's mandate. Our mandate is to review government spending. Our reviews and reports pertain to the issues of economy, efficiency, prudence, and compliance. We are not to be concerned with policy issues. We are not concerned with why things are done, but with how things are done.
However, practically speaking, since the committee does not have its own research or audit capacities, we rely almost exclusively on the Office of the Auditor General. In other words, the committee would have considerable difficulty—but is not restricted from—reviewing and reporting on issues of economy, efficiency, prudence, and compliance without the professional help that we receive on a daily basis from the Auditor General and her hundreds of staff.
My opinion is that once an expenditure has occurred, it does become an issue for this committee. Once an expenditure is made by the Government of Canada or any of its agencies, then the matter becomes part of the public accounts of this country, whether it's reported or not. The expenditure becomes part of that department or agency's statements, which in turn become part of the general statements prepared by the Receiver General for Canada. Then those statements, in turn, are audited by the Office of the Auditor General, and are eventually laid on the table as the audited statements, usually in October of each year.
There's no better example, colleagues, than the report we just heard, which was tabled in Parliament on Tuesday of this week. In particular, I did raise a question about chapter 6, entitled “Selected Contribution Agreements—Natural Resources Canada”, which reports on a number of contribution agreements, one of which was particularly troubling. The report documented blatant conflict of interest, payments being made not in the accordance with the terms of the agreement, and total mismanagement in the spending of government money.
The issue arose as a result of an internal audit, and I did put the question to the Auditor General. And Mr. Wiersema answered that any parliamentarian should have picked it up, if he or she had read it. Then it became an issue for the Auditor General, only because the department was not following up on the recommendations of the internal audit.
I use that as an example. I, as chair—and I hope you, as members, agree with me—would see no problem in the committee moving a motion to bring this issue to the public accounts committee based on the contents of the internal audit, which, according to the Auditor General and her assistant, was published on the departmental website.
I have absolutely no difficulty putting the internal auditor, the chair of the independent audit committee, and the deputy minister, the accounting officer, at the end of the table and asking them what exactly is going on in this particular department. Parliament and Canadians would have been better served, I think, if that had been done three years ago instead of today.
The motion before us is somewhat unusual, and that is why I wanted some time to give it some thought. The matter involves a request that the Comptroller General report as to the expenditures--and I underline and repeat that word--coming from vote 35.
Vote 35 is highly unusual. The wording of vote 35 is as follows:
Vote 35—Budget Implementation Initiatives
Subject to the approval of the Treasury Board and between the period commencing April 1, 2009 and ending June 30, 2009, to supplement other appropriations and to provide any appropriate Ministers with appropriations for initiatives announced in the Budget of January 27, 2009,
In essence, it's a blanket appropriation. The government needed this unusual appropriation to deal quickly with the need to stimulate the economy. And we're not debating at all the need for vote 35, because as everyone knows, vote 35 was approved in Parliament.
The motion is also not looking for more specificity as to the spending intentions, nor is it looking to clarify the estimate process. The motion, as I read it, calls for a report on actual expenditures made from vote 35--in other words, moneys that have been spent. Hopefully no one would be opposed to this information coming to the committee.
In normal circumstances, to obtain an ongoing list of expenditures from a particular vote would be, in my opinion, an abuse of the powers of this committee. The vote that was passed in the estimates process would be specific, the funds being expended would come from that specific vote, and the committee would have no tools available to it to determine issues of economy, efficiency, or probity. However, given the highly unusual nature of vote 35, I do not see it as inappropriate that this committee receive this information.
The reporting requirements would not be onerous. This information is readily available to the Comptroller General. It's under his ambit, and vote 35 expires in 47 days, so the obligation would be extremely short.
I should point out that the preamble to the motion is not part of the motion. I didn't get into that in any detail at all, and I didn't consider it as to factual correctness or whatever.
I have difficulty, colleagues, with that part of the motion dealing with jobs. My first problem is that it's not the role of the Comptroller General to monitor or report on jobs, the so-called jobs created.
The second problem is that if there are any actual expenditures coming from vote 35, those would likely come under funding arrangements with other levels of government or other entities, and any reference to jobs would be second-hand or third-hand, and highly speculative.
My third problem is that the issue may be bordering on policy.
For these reasons, I am prepared to rule out of order that part of this motion dealing with jobs, which would mean the deletion of the entire second sentence after the word “vote”. So it would end at the word “vote”.
To review, I didn't spend any time on the first four paragraphs as to the factual accuracy or the veracity of the statements. The resolution would end on the second sentence under that vote. Everything else would be deleted.
That's my opinion, colleagues.
Ms. Ratansi, part of your motion is still in order, and if you're still interested, you can move the motion.
Colleagues, I'd like to hear from the mover for two minutes, and then I'm prepared to entertain up to eight interventions of one minute each, then go back to , and then we can put the vote.
I have a very serious problem with this. One is political and the other, to my mind, goes right back to the purpose of this committee.
This committee works really well when we stay away from the partisan nature of politics. With all respect to all my colleagues at this table, this motion is a strictly, straight partisan issue that has a very obvious intent. There isn't one member sitting around this table who doesn't recognize the reality of the motion, what it's for, and what it's intended to do.
Probably one of the most disturbing things that I find about being a member of Parliament is having to go through this kind of a...well, I won't throw a word to it.
I have two or three points, though, Chair. I have some points that I need to make on this. Quite frankly, we received the letter to you that was dated April 27. That's wonderful, but we're only just receiving it now. It clearly illustrates the response that was requested from public accounts, with an idea of deadlines on that, from the Comptroller General, which is a clear response to what this committee had asked--obviously not in line with the vote, but in line with the request from.... So there's no move by the Comptroller General to not comply with the means of accountability.
In your opening statement, Chair, you were referring to Marleau and Montpetit, subsection 108(3). You said that the mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts includes “among other matters”.
Well, it doesn't say that; “among other matters” is not included in that. What it says is that the mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts includes the “review of and report”.
I'm not wishing to get into wordsmithing. I find it really disturbing that we're heading down this road. I think it's a shameful abuse of the purview of this committee, I really do--particularly when it's already been reported elsewhere and investigated in other committees, as we stand right now.
We had the Auditor General arrive today, doing the classic thing that the Auditor General does: presenting reports to us for evaluation, so that we can make.... We have a ton of work to do.
Third, and as perhaps the last point, in that one program alone I think there were over 3,000 applications just for Ontario to administer. Would you say that it's just nothing to come up with these reports? Well, quite frankly, there are thousands and thousands of reports and program expenditures that would have to be reviewed every seven days in working through to meet that. That is absolutely over the top, preposterous, and unnecessary.
There's no attempt to dissuade anybody from finding out what's going on. If it's already been reported in the estimates, the estimates are being reported on a consistent basis at the request of all of the opposition members of Parliament. If we were to go through with this, quite frankly....
Chair, with the greatest respect, I would challenge the chair and ask that this matter go to the Speaker for judgment. I don't want to go there, Chair.
:
I have just a couple of thoughts. I might have been one of the first to ask whether or not this was in our purview, not because I suspected anything political. Really, if you want to play politics, you can go all the way back to the origin of the vote. It's all been highly political.
I would also say to Mr. Saxton, he used the term “highly unusual” for this, but the whole vote 35 process is unusual. That's why an exception makes sense.
My only question was whether or not this was actively for us to look at or someone else. I was hoping someone would, but were we the right ones? You've made your ruling, and we've now sustained that.
Given the extraordinary nature of the vote, I'm feeling compelled to support it because there's no reason not to. It is unusual, but so was that whole process and the setting aside of money and the way it was going to be accessed.
I can appreciate the concern that there's partisan politics, but other than the usual layers of partisanship that exist, I'm not sensing, there's no particular case here, that this is going to segue into, or you're backing into, an issue you couldn't get in through the front door. There's nothing like that.
Yes, it's going to be political, but so is the whole setting aside of that money and spending it the way we did. So I'm feeling comfortable there are no games at play, beyond the usual tensions that exist anyway, and I don't think it's extraordinary enough that we wouldn't go ahead and do this. It's over in a short period of time. It's Canadians' money, they're entitled to know where it's being spent.
You've now said it's in order, Chair, and we've sustained that, so I'm in support of the motion. I can't see a good reason not to be at this stage.