PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, January 27, 2003

¹

1540

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Mac Harb

¹

1545

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

¹

1550

The Chair

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

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

º

1605

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Philip Mayfield

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

º

1620

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 008

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, January 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome back to the first meeting of 2003. I hope you all had a wonderful time with your families and friends over Christmas and New Year. We're back to doing business—

    An hon. member: And constituents.

    The Chair: And constituents, of course.

    I hope we're back to continuing this harmonious relationship we developed over Christmas and New Year and that we can continue in the same vein in the months ahead.

    Anyway, the orders of the day are: (a) adoption—

    Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): In that vein, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to convey to you, perhaps on behalf of the committee, our regrets and condolences on the passing of your mother. You have our sympathy and support in that. We're just glad to be here with you, John.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayfield. I appreciate that, and all the comments of members of the committee. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.

    The orders of the day are: (a) adoption of the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure; (b) consideration of notice of two motions from Ms. Meredith on the alleged GST input tax credit fraud; and (c) pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), consideration of a draft report on the study of the motion by Ms. Phinney, MP, dated March 19, 2002, with regard to the government response to the 21st report of the public accounts committee on the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal of February 9, 1999.

    Now you may recall that the committee met in December and decided it would have some hearings. It then referred the rest to the steering committee, which would meet by conference call. The whole committee, if I recall, agreed to hold a meeting into the chapter on the gun registry in the Auditor General's 2002 report in December; to hold a meeting into the Canadian Space Foundation, which is part of the April 2002 report; to hold a meeting into the social insurance numbers, which is part of the September.... The rest, including the determination of the witnesses, was referred to the steering committee, which met by conference call, at the meeting on the gun registry.

    I understand the report of the subcommittee has been circulated. I will just take it section by section.

    The first one is that consideration of the draft report on Groupaction be referred to the standing committee, because the committee has, of course, decided there will be no more hearings on Groupaction. Therefore, the subcommittee recommends that the report, which has been sitting for some number of months, be distributed first to the committee.

    Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): It's nothing new here. This is the first meeting we have had, and I hope we will all be hearing each other out.

    It is my very, very strong recommendation to hold onto the distribution of the report, pending the finding of the Auditor General. Rather than just having almost a passive type of a situation, at least we'll be able to deal with it when the Auditor General will have brought her report in. We have our finding, and we did hear from witnesses. It would give us a chance and an opportunity to take collective action that really would address this problem once and for all.

    Frankly, Mr. Chair, I'm not interested in seeing ourselves doing it with a piecemeal type of an approach. I would rather we wait until then and then proceed with it.

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers, followed by Mr. Bryden.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too would like to welcome everyone as we begin the year 2003.

    I agree somewhat with what my colleague Mr. Harb has said, but it's important for us to understand that the public and the media expect some steps to be taken in the not-too-distant future. If we go by what Mr. Harb is recommending, again, the public and the media would be left with the impression that a great deal goes on within the confines of the Public Accounts committee, but that recommendations and findings are very slow in coming. Therefore, to give our committee more credibility, we need to take this first step and table this report so that the public and the media see that we have already taken some action to address the situation brought to light by the Auditor General.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): I'm very much of a different mind from Mr. Harb on this issue. Like Mr. Desrochers, I think it is very important to get that report out. We need to see it as soon as possible, and we need to make a decision about that report and get it out to the public.

    I point out that we are acting as a result of an Auditor General's report. That's why we did the study ourselves. We don't have to wait for another Auditor General's report in order to release what we've found.

    The Chair: And we will all remember that we all recognize that this report is to be an interim report. It is to be called an interim report because it was pointed out a number of times that the Auditor General will be bringing down a second chapter.

    Mr. Mayfield, do you have anything further to add?

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I must say I did not come here prepared to agree with Mr. Harb, but before I begin disagreeing with him too vehemently, I'd like to hear his reasons for making those two recommendations for the delay.

    Mr. Mac Harb: They're quite simple. We have two parallel things going on at the same time. We have a police investigation into what possibly could be a criminal matter. Secondly, the Auditor General is very actively going not only into the area that was specified, but into a wider area. I therefore thought it would be exceptionally rational for us and cautious for us to wait until we see the findings of both the Auditor General as well as the police, and then to bring this matter back to the committee and take action on what would be before us then. It's the logical thing to do.

    For us now to have an interim report, have another report, and, oh, mama...at the end of the day, frankly, I just would wonder who is leading who.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: I think we have all the information on the table. Unless there's something really important that you wish to add, Ms. Meredith, we'll call a vote.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: That report has been prepared for some number of months and there hasn't been anything in the media at all on that report. It will be circulated in confidence, and we have set aside this coming Wednesday to discuss the report. I'm hoping it will remain—

    The Clerk of the Committee: It's going right now.

    The Chair: The clerk say he's going to distribute it right now.

    Is that what you're going to do?

    The Clerk: It will be sent electronically to their offices.

    The Chair: It's going electronically to your offices right now, and I hope it remains in confidence until such time as it's tabled in the House.

    Moving on to the second motion, it's proposed that the committee resume consideration of the draft report on the Human Rights Commission. This kind of follows on from Ms. Phinney's issue. That's later on this afternoon, and I presume it's agreed to.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Thirdly, it's proposed that a meeting be held with the officials from the Department of Health concerning the non-insured health benefits program, following on the October 2000 AG's report and report 10 of the committee.

    Mr. Bryden, that's the issue you brought forward, and I presume we're all agreed on that.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Next, it's proposed that the committee consider the following chapters from the reports of the Auditor General—and remember that this is a consensus report of the steering committee: chapter 1 of the September 2002 report of the Auditor General on HRDC's social insurance numbers; chapter 4 of the September 2002 report of the Auditor General on National Defence's NATO training; chapter 2 of the December 2002 report of the Auditor General on Fisheries and Oceans and the coast guard; chapter 8—

    An hon. member: Which committee report?

    The Clerk: The steering committee report.

    An hon. member: Will that be distributed?

    The Clerk: Yes, to anybody who doesn't have it. It was sent to your offices.

    The Chair: It was sent to your offices. Does everyone have a copy? We are not in camera. This is a general meeting.

    Chapter 1 and chapter 4 of the September 2002 reports; chapter 2 of the December 2002 report; chapter 8 of the December 2002 report on PWGSC office space; chapter 11 of the December 2002 report of the Auditor General, other observations, and RCMP/firearms; and chapter 7 of the December 2002 of the Auditor General on the Canadian Space Agency.

    That was the consensus report of the steering committee. Are we all agreed?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Number (5) is that the consideration of chapter 1 of the December 2002 report of the Auditor General on first nations be referred to the committee. There was no consensus on this issue and therefore it has come to this committee for a decision.

    You may recall that the Auditor General pointed out that the first nations had to submit many reports--39 is the number that comes to my mind--and many of little value whatsoever.

    Mr. O'Neal, do you want to point out what you're saying here?

    Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): There were at least 168 reports.

    The Chair: All right.

    The Auditor General states, in paragraph 1.1, that:

We estimated that at least 168 reports are required annually by the four federal organizations that provided the most funding for the major federal programs.

    Continuing on:

We found overlap and duplication among the required reports....

    And so on. This appears to be bureaucracy gone mad.

    Mr. Bryden, please.

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes. For the information of the members, I think the reason why the steering committee couldn't decide on going ahead with that particular report, even though it describes all kinds of incredibly awful examples of misadministration, maladministration, and a general lack of accountability on money being paid out to aboriginal communities, was that some of us felt it wasn't necessary to go into the report because it was being overtaken by the government's aboriginal community accountability bill, Bill C-61.

    This is the bill that would require transparency and set standards of corporate governance for aboriginal communities receiving government funds. To some of us, at least, there didn't seem to be much point for this committee to go through past inadequacies when we had legislation before the House that was addressing the problems.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Is there any discussion?

    Ms. Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): Do we know for a fact that it's addressing the issues the Auditor General raised?

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Do you know that? Have you seen it?

    Mr. John Bryden: I think, Ms. Meredith, this Bill C-61 that's before the House is a very powerful, in my view, piece of legislation that attacks the problem of financial transparency and accountability with a very broad brush.

    The Chair: Ms. Meredith, I can mention that if we decline to have the hearing today, there's nothing wrong with proposing it at a future subcommittee to be discussed at a later date. This is not a “cast in stone” situation.

    Ms. Val Meredith: No, but the Auditor General pointed out the number of reporting times that the aboriginal community had to do. They were reporting to umpteen dozen different departments about umpteen dozen programs. She felt there had to be a better way of getting the reporting mechanisms down to a smaller number.

    I don't know whether you feel that the legislation that has been introduced is going to address it.

    Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if we could follow your suggestion and ask the researchers to check into this, see what the bill requires them to do in the new legislation that has come out, and see if he feels that it's adequately covered. If not, we can add it at a future meeting.

    The Chair: Are we agreed that we defer the decision to a future meeting? We have half a dozen chapters now and we can fit in some hearings at a later date.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Will you ensure that it will be diarized so we do consider it and it's not lost in the shuffle?

    The Chair: Very good, Mr. Mayfield, yes.

    All right, that's good. Now the next one is (6), that the selection of witnesses to be called during the consideration of chapter 10 of the December 2002 report of the Auditor General on the firearms program be referred to the standing committee. There was no agreement there either.

    You may recall that at the December meeting we agreed there will be a meeting. It's not a discussion as to whether there will be a meeting or not; it's a question of who is coming.

    Mr. Clerk, do you want to distribute the list of names?

    I'm going to pick some of the names largely at random because I can see that some may be contentious and some may not be contentious. I'll start and pick a number who are not contentious to see if we can get some agreement on some names. Then we can have a bit of a debate over the others.

    Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We should go back to the terms of reference of our committee, the role of the committee, and just stick to that. I know partisan politics always has to play a role in some shape or form. My colleagues seem to drift away from what it is we are here to do to some other partisan thing that may or may not have anything to do with the committee at all.

    As you recall, Mr. Chair, I said at the December meeting we had by telephone that the wisest thing for us is to wait until the auditing company comes back with its report, meet with the Auditor General, and ask the Auditor General for a list of witnesses she would recommend that this committee entertain. When my colleagues come in with a list that is a mile long of people who may or may not have anything to do with the subject, frankly, I think it is abusive to the reasonable members of this committee that they should even entertain those things.

    So I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we go back and just allow the system to work. Let's respond when we have a report coming in from the company that is doing the audit on behalf of the government. Then we can decide, in consultation with the Auditor General, what the list of witnesses should look like. We are not a police force here. This is not within the mandate of the committee. Frankly, from time to time, I feel some of my colleagues need to read the terms of reference of the public accounts committee so as to know what we can and cannot do as members.

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: As you know, Mr. Harb, we have always been a committee that has dealt with the Auditor General's report. This particular report is no different from any other. As you also are aware, the Minister of Justice stated in the House today that these audit reports he speaks of should be ready in the next couple of weeks, and no doubt he will make them public. Third, we are tentatively looking at a meeting towards the end of February, at which time these reports will all be available. So I think each of your proposals is not in order.

    Mr. Desrochers, followed by Ms. Meredith.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Contrary to Mr. Harb, I don't believe any of the names appearing on the list are superfluous. When the media dropped this bombshell in December, all MPs, members of the media and the public--and I received considerable feedback in my riding--were unanimous is saying that this was the first time they had ever seen waste on such a scale. Admittedly, this issue has been handed off from one minister to another. First, it was Mr. Rock, then Ms. McLellan, and then Mr. Cauchon. All the while, Mr. Martin, the then Minister of Finance, was observing the proceedings, the President of the Treasury Board...

    One billion dollars were squandered on a program that was supposed to cost $2 million. Considering that the list here is a list...

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers, I said I'll pick the names one at a time, and we'll just do them, first of all, on a non-contentious basis. We all know all the names put forward are legitimate names. I just want to get on with it.

    We've heard from you, Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb: I have a motion.

    The Chair: Now we're going to hear from Ms. Meredith.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Does that mean my time is up, Mr. Chairman? Are you cutting me off?

[English]

    The Chair: No, I'm not cutting you off. What I want to do is take some names, one at a time, and I'll start with the less contentious. For example, I think we would all want to bring the Auditor General here. Then we will have some debate on some names that are no doubt contentious, and we may need to have a vote. But we will try to move forward as rationally as possible.

    Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, the reason I--

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I haven't yet said all I have to say. I hope my colleague will let me finish.

[English]

    The Chair: No. This is not a case of three minutes, four minutes, and so on; this is a general discussion. Mr. Harb has asked for a point of order. He's entitled to state his point of order.

    Mr. Mac Harb: I want to just make clear my intention to put down a motion to defer the hearing of any witnesses until such time as the report is made public by the accounting firm that is doing the work on behalf of the government. That could save you a lot of energy, if you are interested. So you figure out where you're going to put it.

    The Chair: We'll take that as a notice of motion, which requires 48 hours, so it will be dealt with at another meeting.

    Mr. Mac Harb: No, I'm sorry, this is a deferral, not a notice of motion. I'm deferring the list of witnesses. It's before us and we're dealing with it, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Mr. Harb, it is not a point of order, but you're entitled to make it when you get the floor.

    Mr. Mac Harb: That's all right. I'll raise my hand, then, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Ms. Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Chair, I am quite frankly concerned about the obstructionist attitude of one of the government members. If he doesn't want to work with this committee and let the committee do its job, I would suggest that Mr. Harb find another committee he's willing to work with. I am here to do my work in this committee on behalf of Canadians. I find it appalling that every time we try to do something, we have a member from the government side trying to slam the door and prevent us from doing what this committee has been set up to do. So I would like it to go on the public record that if he doesn't like working with this committee, maybe he should find a committee he'd like to work with.

    The Chair: Mr. Murphy.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we should follow the process we've followed in the past. I look at the list, and if there are contentious witnesses, sometimes you have to hear what the auditor says, what the minister says, what the deputy says, and what the CEO of the Canadian firearms administration says, and perhaps the former deputy. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, we should call those five witnesses I've mentioned, who I do not believe are contentious. If it leads to other areas, such as Groupaction, which are more contentious, or a criminologist from the University of Toronto, we can call them as follow-up witnesses. Certainly, there are at least five there, and that would keep us going for at least two hearings.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: I agree with Mr. Murphy. Rather than going through them all individually, if we call the Minister of Justice, we would get the appropriate officials who are named here with the Minister of Justice. Obviously, we want the Treasury Board present, because these are the two departments that were crucial in this, and the others mentioned by Mr. Murphy. After we've received some of that testimony, then we can decide, if you wish--we can decide now, but I think then would be better--whether we want to go into the past, because I think that's the only item of contention here, whether we need to call past ministers on this issue. We might still feel we do. I'm open to that, but I do think we need to call the present ministers, their officials, the head of the firearms administration, and the Auditor General.

    The Chair: Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: We don't have our lawyer here, but maybe one of our researchers knows what the House of Commons position is on bringing past ministers. I thought that wasn't something we could do. Could we have a comment from the researchers on that?

    The Chair: If I can just explain the situation as I see it, having followed this issue, Ms. Phinney, it's not normal for ministers to come to this committee, but there's nothing precluding us from asking ministers to come to this committee. Ministers don't normally speak on their previous departments, but past Minsters of Justice have spoken to the media on their past departments, and perhaps they may want to speak to Parliament too. That's what I've heard from the other members of the committee, which is why they have put these names down here. It's up to the committee to decide. If these ministers felt quite willing to talk to the media about their previous portfolio, maybe they would be quite willing to talk to this committee as well. That was the message I was getting from the other members, and that's why the names were on the list.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: If we have reports coming out in the next two weeks, we're going to start this three or four weeks from now?

    The Chair: We have tentatively set aside February 24 for a meeting.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: So we have the reports coming out by then, and if we did the Auditor General, the CEO, the President of the Treasury Board and the justice minister, that takes us well into March. If we did at least one meeting, maybe two, and then decided how many we're going to add to the list.... All of them are available, none of them have to be given advance notice. Since we do have the reports coming out, and it's going to be a good month and a half before we get to some of these, why not wait a little longer? I don't mean wait till the last day, but a little bit longer before we....

    The Chair: Okay, Ms. Meredith and Mr. Keddy.

    Ms. Val Meredith: You know, the Auditor General had a concern about two things. One was the amount of expenditure on the firearms program, and the second was keeping that information from Parliament.

    I would suggest that it's not the present justice minister who holds the responsibility for that. It's the former two justice ministers, who not only were part of the spending program but were the ones who did not report to Parliament on the increased spending of an important government program. So I'm saying ultimately the Honourable Allan Rock and the Honourable Anne McLellan are both largely responsible for the report the Auditor General has tabled.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Maybe someone in the bureaucracy would be more appropriate, and then it's the same people as under the present justice minister.

    The Chair: Ms. Meredith, Mr. Keddy, and Mr. Forseth.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Is it the responsibility of the bureaucrats to report to Parliament, or is it the responsibility of the minister? That was part of the Auditor General's report, that they hid the facts from Parliament.

    I would argue that it's the minister's responsibility to report to Parliament--not the deputy minister, not the director, but the minister.

    The Chair: Mr. Keddy, and then Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I want to take what Val is saying just a step further. When the Auditor General appeared before us and spoke on chapter 10 on gun control and on the firearms registry, she stated a number of things with two concurrent themes.

    First of all, she talked about procedure, and proper procedure was not followed.

    The estimates were not truthful. The government was not truthful in the estimates for the firearms registry. They had information that they deliberately withheld from Parliament. They used the sub-estimates and the contingency fund to finance this, when the very ministers who we want to call before this committee knew differently. They had information that the rest of the members of Parliament did not have, and they deliberately withheld that information from Parliament. I think that's something we should be concerned about as a committee.

    So I don't see any way around this. It was a deliberate abuse of the sub-estimates by the ministers in charge of the portfolio, and the Privy Council members, and the estimates and the contingency fund. That's how we get our money in this place. We can't ignore that, and that is the reason we have to call former ministers of that department to task. They have to explain to us how, within their jurisdiction, they're allowed to do that.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. I just want to add some further depth as to why, for instance, the honourable member Minister McLellan should be coming. It's not a fishing expedition or pure politics; this minister has already gone to the media. I have a report here from CBC television that Anne McLellan said she realized the gun registry was in trouble when she took over as justice minister in 1997. So if it's good enough for the media, it certainly should be good enough for this committee.

    Secondly, I'd like to remind Minister Allan Rock a little bit of the meeting I had in his office in the spring of 1994 as justice critic. There's a fair amount of content there about the road we were going to go down, because he was consulting the opposition at the time. So there's some good history there that should be brought out.

    Also, regarding Professor Gary Mauser, I know him very well and he's a very credible person who has been on this file for a long, long time.

    So I hope the government members will take the few names I've put forward. There's good reason there, not just on a purely partisan political basis.

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden--and Mr. Mayfield, you're next.

    Mr. John Bryden: Still on the point here, I think Ms. Meredith and the others on that side are challenging a fundamental principle of Parliament, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing. We've all been trained to believe ministerial responsibility stops when the minister steps down, and what the minister has done in the past is no longer relevant. To be quite honest with you, I'm not sure whether this isn't a value that should be questioned. It's a value that has always been accepted, and I do point out that the people who are being suggested to be called are still current cabinet ministers; they're still within cabinet. I think it's something that maybe this committee should seriously explore.

    The Chair: Mr. Mayfield, Mr. Keddy, Ms. Meredith, Mr. Desrochers.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, I would not disagree with my colleagues who would ask the ministers who have been involved here to come and explain. They've never given any account to Parliament of how they thought this through, what it was intended to do.

    Mr. John Bryden: What they were told.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'm talking about the ministers.

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes, that's what I mean, what the ministers were told--

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: But I would like to expand the conversation just a bit, Mr. Chairman. You can just go to the Internet and have a look and see that almost 500 contracts have been let in this process here. I would like to talk to some of the people who received those contracts--and I've listed those--but I would also like to talk to some of the government officials who had to work with the contracts from the government end.

    For example, I would like to talk to Mrs. Lucie Ménard-Baxter, who's the assistant director of contracts. I think it would be extremely important to talk to her about what these contracts were meant to do, why they failed and what they did as a result of that failure. It was a mess so profound the Auditor General said she couldn't complete her audit.

    I think as we look at some of the bureaucracy of the Canadian firearms program and Justice.... I would be happy to give you names, Mr. Chairman. I have shortened my list considerably, but I'm not sure when the appropriate time to do that is.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think we have to go back to the words the Auditor General herself used. She noted the fact that moneys were assessed, were acquired, for the firearms registry in a manner that didn't follow proper procedure. The government could have put those moneys in the estimates. They refused to put them in the estimates, they used in some cases the sub-estimates, but in most cases the contingency fund, to get those moneys, and they're not allowed to do that. That's in contempt of Parliament.

    The Chair: Ms. Meredith, followed by Mr. Desrochers, Mr. Bryden, Mr. Murphy.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Chairman, I don't buy that we can't call back ministers, because I know in another committee I sat on we did call back a former minister who was no longer part of the government, and if he wasn't prepared to come on his own, we were prepared to subpoena him to appear. So I don't think there's anything stopping us from calling previous ministers to this committee to answer some questions.

    I think it's extremely important, because this program was flawed from the beginning. The lack of reporting to Parliament happened right from the beginning, and I don't see how we can do our job properly unless we track it from the beginning to the date the Auditor General tabled her report.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Desrochers.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I also concur with my colleague Ms. Meredith. I think a precedent was set when the Auditor General tabled her report. We've never seen a discrepancy of this magnitude before.

    Getting back to the issue at hand, my comments are directed to my Liberal colleagues opposite because what is happening is clear. The number of colleagues opposite is growing and we're familiar with the tactics they commonly employ. The longer you delay in calling in ministers and those concerned...Don't try and confound me with red tape. Ministers are the ones accountable for their department's actions. They are accountable to the public.

    Don't try and tell me today that officials are going to be called in to testify. Many people are concerned about this scandal and about the fact that costs have escalated from $2 billion to $1 billion, Mr. Chairman. Contracts have been awarded and comments have been made about the registration process which leads us to believe that costs will be astronomical. I think it would be in the best interests of he entire House of Commons, the public and the media for the committee to turn its attention without further ado to this matter. Those concerned along with the individuals identified by the media and the public, the ministers concerned, should come here to explain their conduct and actions and explain to us how we ever ended up in such an administrative mess in such short order.

    I repeat that given the unique nature of this situation and the fact that I've never seen anything quite like this since 1997 when I first began serving on the Public Accounts committee, it is our duty to shed some light on this whole affair, as members of the public and the media and indeed the members of this committee, are demanding. The ministers responsible for this matter must appear before the committee, Mr. Chairman, and explain their actions.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: The members opposite have made a good argument and have convinced me. They might appreciate knowing that. My only reservation now is that I'm concerned about the outside contractors Mr. Mayfield has proposed.

    Normally this committee concentrates on the administration of government and calls witnesses who are members of government or who are commentators on government—that is, academics and whatever.

    Just as we did with the Groupaction file that we explored before, we deliberately did not call the people from the corporate world who were part of the contracting problem. So, too, I think it would be a mistake to call people of the corporate world on this file, when our real mandate is to explore where government has gone wrong, in terms of both the political and the bureaucratic government.

    I would support everything but this small group of contractors Mr. Mayfield has suggested.

    The Chair: Mr. Murphy.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Chair, to try to bring it to a head, I'm going to now...I agree with a lot of the comments from the other side. This is a serious issue, and it's incumbent upon us in this committee to get to the bottom of it in order to establish accountability. Again, on the whole issue of the ministerial responsibility, the practice that I'm aware of is that the minister speaks on behalf of the ministry.

    We can always call past ministers and go on, and we can chase rabbits into the woods all day, but I believe and I submit—and I'm prepared to put this in the form of a motion—that we ought to call the five key people. If there are any holes in the testimony, and if this committee collectively decides that there are some unanswered questions, that there are some areas we have to explore to get to the bottom of this, there's absolutely nothing to stop us from calling previous ministers and then also going....

    We're accountable for government money. Going outside to the private sector certainly is unusual, from my thinking, but there is nothing to stop us from doing it. I think that to decide to do that at this meeting would be extremely unusual and, I submit, extremely unwise.

    So, Mr. Chairman, I propose—and if you want, I'll put it in a motion—that we call the Auditor General, of course; the Minister of Justice; the Deputy Minister of Justice, the present CEO of the Canadian firearms program; and the past CEO of the Canadian firearms program, leaving it, of course, to the prerogative of this committee to call other people after we've heard the testimony of those five key witnesses.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: That's a motion?

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay, there is one motion.

    If I may, and if it's agreeable to you, Mr. Murphy, I'm going to add some editorial prerogative, in that we start with the five.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Start with five, yes.

    The Chair: They are the Auditor General; the Minister of Justice; the Deputy Minister of Justice, who I believe is Morris Rosenberg; the CEO of the firearms registry, who I believe is Mr. Gary Webster; and the past CEO of the firearms registry, Maryantonett Flumian.

    We have a motion.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Would you read the motion again, please?

    The Chair: The motion is that we start with the following witnesses: the Auditor General, the Minister of Justice, the Deputy Minister of Justice, the CEO, and the past CEO. We're also open to more motions after the fact.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I would like to add...I would like six witnesses instead of five.

    The Chair: What's your amendment, Mr. Mayfield?

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: It's that the name of Ms. Lucie Ménard-Baxter, assistant director for contracts and matériel management, be added to the list.

    The Chair: Mr. Mayfield has proposed an amendment to the motion. Therefore, I have to call the question on the amendment.

    (Amendment negatived)

    The Chair: We'll return to the main motion as proposed by Mr. Murphy.

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Can you repeat the motion?

    The Chair: The motion is that we start with the following witnesses—

    Ms. Val Meredith: With the understanding that we can call future witnesses if necessary.

    An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

    Ms. Val Meredith: No, not necessarily. I want to be very clear on that.

    The Chair: Okay, it's on the understanding that we can call further witnesses.

    Is that agreeable, Mr. Murphy?

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Chairman, this is getting ridiculous. That's understood. You understand that, and everyone on this committee does.

    An hon. member: There's a lack of a level of trust here.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: If we can agree that there are holes in the testimony, the prerogative of this committee is always to call further witnesses.

    The Chair: Okay, we have the motion. I'm going to call the question. All those in favour of the motion that we start with the five witnesses as proposed...?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: Just for my colleagues, following off from Mr. Murphy's motion, there is one other witness I would like to have seen added to the motion, and that is the Treasury Board chairman. You cannot get a perspective on this without bringing Treasury Board forward, because that minister is responsible for the dispensing of funds.

    The Chair: Do you have a motion, Mr. Bryden?

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes. I move that a sixth witness we might consider would be the President of the Treasury Board.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Does anybody have any further motions?

    Ms. Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith: You're going to be dealing with my motion that's on the floor?

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Well, I'm still....

    Does anybody have any further motions on the issue of witnesses for the gun registry? No.

    We now have six witnesses, and we will arrange the meetings accordingly. We have a tentative date of February 24 for the first meeting.

    We'll continue with the agenda. If you go back to the orders of the day, Ms. Meredith had given us two notices of motion regarding the reporting of the GST input tax credit alleged fraud.

    Do you have the two motions, Mr. Clerk?

    I believe they have been circulated in both official languages. You have them both.

    First, Ms. Meredith moves that the Minister of National Revenue, Elinor Caplan, appear with officials before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts at the earliest opportunity regarding the GST input tax credit fraud scheme and the issue of how the matter is or was reported in the Public Accounts of Canada.

    Now, you had some discussions with me on that motion.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I did.

    The Chair: Do you want...? You said you would want to amend that motion.

    Ms. Val Meredith: If this committee is willing to allow the department people, the Treasury Board, and the Auditor General--and the minister, if possible--to appear before this committee, then I would withdraw my second motion to have the Auditor General investigate it.

    The Chair: Ms. Meredith has said, colleagues, that we will bring forward the officials from CCRA, Treasury Board, the Auditor General, and/or officials from the Auditor General to discuss this matter, and if it's agreeable she's prepared to withdraw her motion that the Auditor General be asked to investigate.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: For the next item of business, members, we're going to move in camera.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]