PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

º

1610

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

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

The Chair

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

º

1615

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons)

º

1620

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Rob Walsh

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

Mr. Rob Walsh

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

The Chair

º

1625

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

º

1630

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

º

1635

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

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

º

1640

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

º

1645

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

º

1650

Ms. Beth Phinney

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Alex Shepherd

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 007

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1610)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Ladies and gentlemen, I call to order the full public accounts committee meeting. This is no longer in camera. It is public.

    Our agenda for today is future business, and if we get through that then we will go back in camera for a draft report.

    The first item here is consideration of a notice of motion by Mr. Philip Mayfield.

    Mr. Clerk.

    The Clerk of the Committee: It is moved by Philip Mayfield that this committee call Mr. Guité back for an in-camera meeting to continue comments with this committee and receive questions from members.

    The Chair: That is the motion.

    Is there any further discussion of Mr. Mayfield's motion?

    Monsieur Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): In light of the comments by Mr. Guité after his appearance here, on July 9 if I remember correctly, Mr. Mayfield's motion is justified in my opinion. There was press coverage in October, Mr. Chairman, and it seems to me that those points have not been discussed here.

    For this reason, and in order to clarify the whole issue concerning Groupaction, I feel Mr. Guité needs to be called as a witness again, and he could then tell the committee what he has told the media publicly but neglected to include when he appeared on July 9.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): As per our earlier discussions, there are a couple of things here. We had a lot of difficulty with the in-camera meetings that we had before and complaints from Mr. Guité's lawyer that the members of the committee didn't respect the in-camera situation. We have debated that.

    We have a piece of paper here about media reports. It doesn't really help us.

    The point I'd really like to make is that we've had hearings. We have the possibility of having a report on those hearings in short order. I would imagine that the report has been prepared. I would like to proceed with that, basically because I think that once we have the report, if we still feel we need to go back to the file we can, but I'm anxious to leave the Groupaction story behind us, and move on to bigger issues.

    The bigger issue is of course the gun registry. We have a $1 billion problem that is potentially before this committee. I would like to see us move in that direction.

    The Chair: Is there further debate? We're not going to carry this on forever.

    Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I think I would like to reiterate a couple of things that I said last time and perhaps go on a bit further than that.

    Before I get to the particular parts of the newspaper articles that distress me, I'd note that it seems to me there were important details that were left out of the conversation. And I'm not talking about contradiction or going over the same old ground again, I'm talking about stuff that should have been on the record in the in-camera meetings we had with Mr. Guité. I'm speaking specifically about comments he's made in the media. I'm looking at The Globe and Mail, Saturday, October 12, 2002, where it says:

    “...Chuck Guité is as voluble as ever when he describes how he rigged advertising deals for the Progressive Conservative government in the 1990s. The trick, he said, was organizing a competition that pitted the government's agency of choice with a bunch of weaklings.”

    I realize that this is talking about the time of a previous government when he was serving then, but he goes on to say, “But the new, supposedly open bidding process under the Liberals was also 'bent,' he now acknowledges”. I do believe that with comments like that, we cannot help but ask him to come back and explain what he means by a bent situation in the process that we have now.

    Further, Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot about what the committee members have said in the media, but I have to say that, except for what I have read of Mr. Guité, I have never seen any committee member say anything that I did not hear before that committee meeting started. I'm not going into the details of this, but I can tell you that I have heard more stuff that I'm not going to repeat now than was ever reported in this committee or was reported out of this committee. There was a lot of information; the veracity of it, the accuracy of it, I would never like to vouch for, but there was a lot of stuff being said.

    When I hear committee members being accused of going out and talking to the media, I have a lot of difficulty accepting that there was stuff taken out of here, because there was so much that was in the conversation before. I don't think this idea that the members of this committee can't keep their mouths shut when they're talking to the media is really a valid one, and this is all I'm saying in that point.

    Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that we meet. I don't think we should be distracted. I'd like to have the committee vote to do this so that we can complete that item of business.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayfield.

    I will point out that we're not going to confuse and combine the issue of the motion together with the issue of responding, or not responding, to the letter we received from Mr. Guité's lawyer. We have Mr. Walsh here, and we'll deal with that issue next. He's in a rush to get to another committee meeting, so we'll have no more than one more intervention from either side.

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): As a matter of information, I beleive the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has decided to call evidence on the gun control issue concerning how the monetary provisions were reported each year.

    The Chair: But we're dealing with Mr. Mayfield's motion on Groupaction.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: But that's part of the discussion as to--

    The Chair: No, the gun registry and the AG's report will come next.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Fine.

    The Chair: Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Things are moving very fast, Mr. Speaker.

    If none of us around the table has anything to hide, if we want to clarify the situation and would be OK with calling Mr. Guité in again, the most honourable solution is to invite him back to clarify things. In my opinion, that is how we should do things, rather than leave things in doubt.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm going to call the question on the motion that the committee call Mr. Guité back for an in-camera meeting to continue his comments with this committee and receive questions from its members.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: A recorded vote, please.

    The Chair: Mr. Mayfield has asked for a recorded vote.

    (Motion negatived; nays 9; yeas 7)

    The Chair: The motion is defeated, and now we're moving on to the next item of business.

    You may recall we had some issue with a letter we had received from Mr. Guité's lawyer and we've had some debate. I think it's appropriate that the committee accept the advice of our law clerk, Mr. Walsh, who is sitting before us right now as a witness, that we need not respond to the letter. However, some members had some questions and perhaps didn't agree with that statement. I'd ask Mr. Walsh to briefly recap his position.

    I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth when I say we didn't have to respond to the letter. If that's correct, could you reiterate that? I want a decision made on this issue too.

    Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have with me Greg Tardi, senior legal counsel in my office. In the rush of events of the last few days he's been aiding me in preparing for this appearance today.

    With regard to the letter, if memory serves, my comments at the last meeting of this committee where I appeared were to say that given that the letter is dated early July--July 12--and we are now four months, I think it is, past that date, I didn't see any useful purpose in replying to the letter, unless it were the case that it was the committee's wish to respond in more substantive terms, and that is to forward an apology of some kind to Mr. Edleson's client. In the absence of that intention, given the absence of any follow-up from Mr. Edleson and the absence of an answer by this late date, I don't know that there is much purpose served by answering the letter at this time.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: Could you explain the context of the letter, just for the record? This is about an objection from Mr. Guité's lawyer with respect to statements that were made subsequent to an in camera meeting. Is that correct?

    Mr. Rob Walsh: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Guité appeared before this committee on July 9, and it was an in-camera meeting. At that time the committee voted that his testimony would not be made public until three years later, or later still if there was an investigation still pending. Subsequent to that meeting, according to the letter from Mr. Edleson, some members of the committee discussed the testimony of Mr. Guité with the media outside the committee room. This disturbs Mr. Edleson. In his letter he has some concerns. I think members have seen the letter of Mr. Edleson and ought to be well apprised, I expect, of what Mr. Edleson's concerns are from that letter.

    The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I'm just interested in your comments. You said, other than to apologize.... That would signal perhaps some concept of mutual responsibility for the allegations that are made in the letter. Is that your opinion?

    Mr. Rob Walsh: I don't wish to respond individually to the various matters made in the letter, but it was the case, I seem to recall--and I stand to be corrected by committee members if my memory is not good, but I think I was in the room at the time--that representations were made to the witness that his testimony would be received in camera. Whether it was made express or it was implied, there was a certain degree of confidentiality attached to his testimony. We evidenced a motion not to disclose the testimony sooner than three years later, or later than that date should there be an investigation pending.

    The allegation of Mr. Edleson is that Mr. Guité was made uncomfortable by subsequent comments made publicly by members of the committee with regard to his testimony. To the extent that Mr. Guité is disturbed by this, it might be that the committee wishes to apologize for any discomfort it caused to Mr. Guité. That is not necessarily to acknowledge that there were comments made of a kind that put Mr. Guité in a difficult legal position, but I think it's safe to say that there were comments made about the proceedings, and that has caused Mr. Edleson's client to be concerned.

    The Chair: As I said, we don't want to carry this on ad infinitum. I think that as a committee we should just have a motion--I'm not suggesting we write to the lawyer, but we'd just pass a motion--acknowledging receipt of the letter and that it would be deposited with the clerk. That way we have dealt with the letter.

    Is that moved?

    Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next item of business is dealing with subsequent business. We have a draft report, but we'll deal with that later if we get there. The next item of business is future business.

    Mr. Keddy.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I know for a fact that I wrote you a letter yesterday and had it sent and translated. I had expected that to be a notice of motion. The clerk tells me that I hadn't crafted it properly. It was about how we'd be requesting our standing committee.... I'd like to read the letter, if I could, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: I would rather wait at this time, Mr. Keddy. What I want to deal with is the--

º  (1625)  

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have two things I want to deal with. The first is that I expected the letter to be on the agenda because I gave you prior notice and the clerk had it. Now if it's in the wrong order, then I expect knowledge of that and information coming from the clerk to me to tell me that before I get here, 24 hours later. That's the first thing.

    The second thing is that I would like it in the form of a motion, and I would like it dealt with now. If I'm out of order, and if the clerk says that this is not a motion, then I will introduce it tomorrow. But if we're just delaying it so that someone else can make the motion, then I have difficulty with it.

    The Chair: We're not delaying it to let somebody else make the motion, Mr. Keddy. I was just trying to move through in a process and format that I had in mind. We've dealt with the Groupaction issue. We've dealt with the letter, and that is now closed. We're now going to deal with the items of agenda that are normally before this committee.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: But why is this not on the agenda?

    The Chair: Let me finish. Then we will deal with your letter, and any other business, and then we'll get into draft reports.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Very well.

    The Chair: The next thing we are going to deal with is the letter of September 2002, which is the Auditor General's status report, and also the Auditor General's report to the House of Commons, December 2002. I believe you all have these documents before you.

    Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Can you tell me what order of agenda you are following? Is it this paper from the clerk, is that what you are following?

    The Chair: We were supposed to have a steering committee, Ms. Phinney, before we got into the main committee.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, but we didn't have it.

    The Chair: We didn't have the steering committee, so we're dealing with the agenda in the main committee because we really don't have a report from the subcommittee. I want to set out, and the clerk needs to know, what we are going to deal with when we come back so that he can arrange the witnesses and so on. I would like to have two or three meetings in February set up.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: So the two papers I need are the one that says “September 2002” and the one that says “Annex”?

    The Chair: These are the chapters that are before the committee from the Auditor General's report.

    Mr. Bryden has talked about the gun registry, Mr. Keddy has talked about the gun registry, and I think it is important that we deal with the gun registry. Is it all agreed that we deal with the gun registry?

    We will have discussion. Ms. Phinney was first.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I think we should look at it, but before we think of looking at it I think we should wait until the auditor's report comes out. If the auditor's report that the minister has asked for then makes it necessary to have a discussion, then we should discuss it. But for us to have meetings when we don't have the auditor's report yet.... I'm not talking about the Auditor General, I'm talking about the audit within the department.

    Mr. John Bryden: Actually, I don't quite agree with my colleague on that. I think if the Auditor General has reported, then it is incumbent on this committee to respond to that report. Departmental audits are inevitably going to be part of what the department will be doing in any event, and they might have it done before it's time.

    What I'm anxious about is that I think this issue should be resolved before we break. If Mr. Keddy needs to redraft his motion so that it's acceptable to the committee, I think he should be allowed to do that. Perhaps this committee could convene for the twenty minutes or half an hour that it takes to deal with that motion.

    If ever there was an issue that belongs in public accounts, gun registry is the issue. What's at stake here is that we, as a committee, need to determine whether the gun registry is still viable. I think it's an urgent thing that is before Parliament.

    The Chair: It is acknowledged that we received a letter from Mr. Keddy basically setting out two things: one, that we deal with this issue of the gun registry, which we are now debating; and the second point in Mr. Keddy's letter is the witnesses. We cannot deal with the second point until we've addressed the first point, as to whether we are going to have a hearing on the gun registry.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have two issues here. I thought we were still dealing with the motion from Ms. Phinney on KPMG's audit.

    The Chair: No, there was no motion.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Well, I had a comment first on the Auditor General's report. You want to wait for the other auditors. I agree totally with John. The Auditor General has reported. The government has chosen to hire KPMG to do an audit of information that the Auditor General couldn't find.

    My motion doesn't deal with the audit. My motion deals with bringing in the appropriate ministers of the day, so we can question them at this committee to find out basically who knew what. But if we're dealing with the motion, I would read it. I meant it to be in a motion form, so if it's worded improperly, I have no problem redrafting it.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: We don't need to have it in a motion form, Mr. Keddy. What we're dealing with is the question of whether the committee is going to pick up the issue of the gun registry and call witnesses and....

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Actually, Mr. Chair, I don't quite understand why it's not in a motion form. What it said, if I could read it, is:

    “I am writing to request that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts conduct full public hearings on the Report of the Auditor General concerning the overspending on the gun registry, and the failure to report that overspending to Parliament.”

    The Chair: If can interrupt, the Auditor General's report is automatically referred to this committee by virtue of the Standing Orders, and that was referred to us the day she tabled it on December 3, which was a week ago. It is now before the committee and has been before this committee for one full week.

    The question is whether we are going to have a hearing on the gun registry. It's been moved, and I'm having debate. I'm going to call the question in the event that there's no more debate.

    Mr. Shepherd.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: What I would like to caution, as Mr. Forseth has already interceded, is the government operations and estimates committee has already undertaken an investigation of this. I know you have your own mandate. What Mr. Alcock is in the process of doing is preparing terms of reference. I believe that the terms of reference in that committee are basically looking at the overall structure--how that's happened--and not necessarily the gun registry system but rather looking at the structural aspect of that and how it can fit the structural government so it doesn't happen in other departments as well.

    The suggestion I would have for you, if in fact there's concurrence to review the gun registry issue, is that you restrict your own terms of reference so that you don't duplicate the work of that committee.

    The Chair: Our terms of reference are the Auditor General's report as referred to this committee. The report that she has written has been referred to this committee. That is the report that is before the committee at this time.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Well, it just seems a logical thing to me that if we have members of Parliament who are going to spend their time that they don't do it twice, by a simple matter of obvious consent. That doesn't mean that you're sending it to another committee; it just means that you're trying to get your work together so that you don't duplicate.

    The Chair: We can talk. I'll talk to Mr. Alcock about that.

    Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that I am fully in agreement with discussing firearm registration, but as I have already said in an earlier meeting, I want the foundations issue to be addressed first.

    I had asked for that to be the first thing addressed when the Public Accounts Committee resumed, that it be debated. I can well understand the urgency of the firearm registration issue, but we still do not know who has the control of a total of $7.5 billion as far as the foundations are concerned.

[English]

    The Chair: That's fine, Mr. Desrochers. The order of the hearings is set by the clerk, as he can arrange the witnesses. Whether we have foundations first or we decide to have our hearing on foundations or the gun registry second, I will normally leave that to the clerk to decide.

    So let's focus. I'm going to call the question now, unless you've something new, Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Well, I did move that we study this, but I didn't say much more than “I move”, and I want to be specific about what the motion says.

    I want the motion to say that we will study the Auditor General's report on--is it the gun registry, is that the title of it?--chapter 10 and that we will call appropriate witnesses in the course of that study.

    Now, Mr. Chairman, do you want me to include in that motion the witnesses I would like to have called, or would you like to leave that till later?

    The Chair: No, we'll do it two steps at a time. First, are we going to have a hearing on chapter 10 of the report?

    Do you have anything new to add, Ms. Meredith?

º  (1635)  

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): There's also an amendment on chapter 11 that deals with the information databases of the police department--gather audit observations.

    The Chair: Yes, chapter 11, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Canadian firearms program--

    Ms. Val Meredith: Right. They should both be brought into the....

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: That can be a friendly amendment, as far as I'm concerned.

    The Chair: Okay. We don't normally do this by motion or amendment. I know we're dealing with the full committee. Normally, by consensus, we lump these two together. We don't have formal motions; we just say let's move ahead, and these are reasonable to do.

    Ms. Meredith is suggesting that chapter 10, plus a part of chapter 11 dealing with the RCMP Canadian firearms program, be dealt with at a meeting together.

    Ms. Phinney is saying no. Okay, let me see if I can move this agenda forward by calling for a vote.

    All those in favour of chapter 10, the firearms registry?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Mr. Keddy, in the second part of his letter, said he would like specific witnesses to come forward.

    Mr. Keddy, can you tell us who you'd prefer to have?

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely. I request that the committee hear witnesses, including the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice. I also ask the committee to seek evidence from the current Minister of Industry and the current Minister of Health, who were directly involved in costs overruns.

    I don't think we can ignore the fact that not only did the majority of these estimates come through the sub-estimates, but they were also passed by the Treasury Board. All of these ministers sat on or sit on the Treasury Board. They had to be complicit in the knowledge that these estimates were out there, and they were granting the dollars for the long-gun registry, even though they had more information than we have today. They knew, first of all, they shouldn't have been in the sub-estimates to begin with; they should have been in the main estimates. Second, they knew there were serious cost overruns that they were supporting.

    I think we have to ask the appropriate ministers of the day to appear before committee and be heard.

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: This is very reminiscent of the debate we had--Mr. Merrifield will remember--with Groupaction, in trying to decide on the witness. We all have our thoughts on witnesses, but I think we need to first of all hear from the Auditor General herself, and question her.

    In the meantime, we should all be preparing lists of suggested witnesses, which can be given to the chairman and reviewed by the steering committee. These suggested witnesses can be brought forward to the full committee. That's the procedure we followed in the Groupaction file, and it seemed to work, so I suggest we do it here.

    The Chair: Is that acceptable, Mr. Keddy?

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely. I want everyone to understand that I have a group of suggested witnesses already: the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Justice....

    The Chair: Okay, so the members of the committee are asked to submit their preferred lists of witnesses to the clerk, and the subcommittee will decide which witnesses will be called.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Does it have to be a written submission, or do you want me to submit my names now?

    The Chair: Just put them on a piece of paper and give them to the clerk.

    Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mine are already in.

    The Chair: We acknowledge receipt of Mr. Keddy's list.

    On other items to be dealt with, we have Mr. Desrochers on foundations.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I agree on the foundations, which are dealt with in the other report. But can I add something else, acquisition of office space, which is addressed in chapter 8?

[English]

    The Chair: We'll do one issue at a time--foundations. That goes all the way back to April 2002. The Auditor General pointed out there was $7 billion parked in foundations, as you may recall. She has been quite critical of that issue. It was decided in the past that we would have a hearing on that. As you may recall, Parliament was prorogued and the committee had to be re-created and everything started. All that agenda fell by the wayside. Mr. Desrochers says he would like to have that hearing, which we agreed to previously. So are we all in agreement with that?

º  (1640)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: No, no. Ms. Phinney, when the initial agenda was discussed, it was agreed that the first thing addressed would be foundations.

[English]

    The Chair: Foundations is on.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: We also have the September 2002 status report of the Auditor General. There are a couple of issues on there that I would like to think we should deal with. One is chapter 1, the social insurance numbers, and chapter 4, NATO defence, the NATO flying training in Canada. That's on this page.

    I would like the committee to look at chapter 1, “Human Resources Development Canada—The Integrity of the Social Insurance Number”, and chapter 4, “National Defence—NATO Flying Training in Canada”.

    Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I would like to provide some information. As far as chapter 1 is concerned, I have already been called to the Human Resources Development Committee, where the Auditor General and witnesses from Human Resources Development have already addressed that question. I do not know whether we can find out anything further here. Since we are required to give priority to a number of chapters, I felt I ought to inform you of this information concerning the chapter on integrity of the social insurance number.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers says HRDC is also looking at this particular issue. In fact you're saying they already have, the HRDC committee.

    Again, that is not any reason why the public accounts committee can't look at the issue. I have no idea what the HRDC committee has done with the report. I see no reason why we can't do it here as well.

    Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, it would also be important to address chapter 11 which deals with the $30 billion in excess of requirement for Employment Insurance, which means a surplus of $40 billion. This has been much discussed in the House and throughout the country. I think it would be a good thing to find out where it has gone. There is a surplus which does not need to be there, billions and billions of dollars. In my opinion, it would be a good thing to address this issue also.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. We will take that and we'll deal with it after we deal with these two issues here. Excellent point, Mr. Godin, but we're dealing first of all with the social insurance numbers and NATO flying. We'll leave everything else out at this time until we make a decision on these two.

    Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Chairman, when do we get the next Auditor General's report?

    The Chair: April 2003.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: That means we have two months to go through all of this thing.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: So we have two months to do the two that you want to bring up, plus the gun one, plus all of these.

    The Chair: Yes, we have February, March, and April. Let's say the end of April. We have three months.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: February, March, and April. That's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen.

    The Chair: We're not going to do all 17 chapters of a report that was tabled last week.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: No, but I'm just concerned that we're just.... You have two more to add to this. The gun one we've already added.

    The Chair: From my perspective, if we deal with foundations, these two, the gun registry, we can decide on the EI.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Aboriginal, chapter 1, I believe.

    The Chair: Ms. Meredith feels aboriginal, chapter 1. I want to deal with the two items I put on the table--social insurance numbers and NATO flying training. Is there any more debate on social insurance numbers?

    Ms. Beth Phinney: What we've decided is that we're going to do your two--

    The Chair: I haven't decided anything. I'm asking for a decision.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: No, but do you want suggestions from us for these--what's in here?

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: I want to deal with the status report of September 2002 and pick a couple of chapters and then leave the rest and we'll deal with the current Auditor General's report.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm sorry, I'm lost. You've suggested we do the gun. We've already voted on that. We're going to do that one.

    The Chair: We're going to do the gun. We're going to do foundations.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay, that's two.

    The Chair: That's all.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: No, we have all of these to do.

    The Chair: These are proposals. No decisions yet.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: We're going to do them by the end of April. So when do we make the decisions?

    The Chair: We don't have to do them.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: We're discussing what we're going to do the month of February. That takes one month out of the three months.

    The Chair: That is likely only as far as we're going to go today, Ms. Phinney, and we'll wait until January to decide what we're going to do in March and April.

    Ms. Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Are we done with this?

    The Chair: We're not done with it, because we haven't made a decision. Let me reiterate what I'm saying—

    Ms. Val Meredith: Let's make a decision on it.

    The Chair: I want to give the clerk direction to set up the meetings as soon as we come back. So when we come back in late January or early February, we can start work. He needs to have three, four, or five meetings he can set up. Beyond this, we will decide in February what we are going to do in March and April.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Maybe I'm the only one who thinks the discussion on the financing of the gun bill is going to take more than one meeting. My guess is it might take four. It's just a guess, but it would use up half of February. Then you have yours, which will take at least one meeting. So I think we're being a little unrealistic to put the two you're suggesting and the gun bill and that one.

    The Chair: We've never had four meetings on any one particular issue, Ms. Phinney.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Yes, Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: We're kind of floundering, because we don't really know how much work there is to do. Ms. Phinney has suggested there may be more than one meeting. I'm guessing there may be quite a number of important witnesses on the gun thing. I would say it may take more than one meeting. I don't know if it will take four or not.

    I'm wondering if the subcommittee might take up the conversation here, and, in the course of the time between now and the end of January, have a conference call and sort this out. Is this a reasonable suggestion, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: That's fairly reasonable, Mr. Mayfield.

    We have two issues we can start working on to provide guidance to the clerk. I would maybe like a third, and maybe leave it at that. That's enough to keep us going.

    Ms. Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Chair, I know I'm kind of off topic here. I haven't been part of this committee in the past, but the issue of the GST fraud and the breaking of the guidelines set up has been raised in the House of Commons. Can I get copies from the clerk of any meetings this committee has held on that issue of GST fraud?

    The Chair: I don't think we've had any meetings on GST fraud. Normally, we depend upon the Auditor General to do a detailed analysis, write a report, and give it to the committee. This is the basis of the information we have to hold a hearing. Are you suggesting perhaps we ask the AG to do an investigation?

    Ms. Val Meredith: I think we would be remiss if we didn't either instruct the AG or see if she has run across it in the past. It was a little embarrassing to sit on the public accounts committee and have this exposed through the media without our having any knowledge of it. So I would suggest, if she hasn't already done something on it, she should be instructed by this committee to please look into it—assuming that she hasn't.

    The Chair: Okay.

    We are now stuck with the 48-hour notice. Therefore, are you giving notice of motion that we ask the Auditor General to investigate the allegations of fraud in the GST and report to Parliament?

    Ms. Val Meredith: I will make this a notice of motion. I will have the motion for the next meeting.

    The Chair: Okay, we have a notice of motion from Ms. Meredith that we ask the Auditor General to investigate the allegations of GST fraud and report to Parliament. It will be debated at the next meeting.

    Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, you asked for suggestions for consideration by the subcommittee. I would suggest we consider the coast guard chapter. I'm not sure what the number is; it may be chapter 2. Ms. Meredith has also suggested chapter 11. I think these chapters should be considered.

    If you'd like more suggestions, I'll work on this too.

    An hon. member: How about chapter 8.

    The Chair: Okay, I have chapter 8.

    Are there any others?

    Ms. Val Meredith: Did you get chapter 1?

º  (1650)  

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Which chapter are you talking about?

    Ms. Val Meredith: This chapter on aboriginal reporting from the Auditor General's December report.

    The Chair: From the December 2002 report, I have chapters 1, 2, 8, and 11.

    In addition to these, remember chapters 1 and 4 of the September 2002 report.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Is this part of your wish list? Is that what it is?

    The Chair: You've been part of the steering committee, haven't you?

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes.

    The Chair: You may recall that--

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm just asking if this is part of your wish list.

    The Chair: This is strictly the wish list.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay. I thought that before you were saying you wanted....

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: Chapter 7.

    The Chair: Chapter 7 of the 2002 report.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd: December 2002.

    An hon. member: Is chapter 10 in there?

    The Chair: We don't have chapter 10 in there because chapter 10 is already decided.

    An hon. member: And the foundations.

    The Chair: So I have a wish list of seven issues and taking Mr. Mayfield's point under advisement. We will prioritize these seven issues at a steering committee meeting, which may be held by a conference call during the break. Is that okay?

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: That's fine with me. I'm not on the steering committee, but that's the steering committee members' decision.

    The Chair: Are we all agreed on that?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay. It's very difficult to try to reach consensus in a large committee. That's why we do it in a steering committee. Then we report to the main committee. Here I'd say it's a bit more difficult.

    Do you have these all down, Mr. Clerk?

    The Clerk: I will review the blues, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Interesting reading for Christmas Day.

    Is there anything else on future business of the committee at this time?

    Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, some of us are at a disadvantage because we didn't bring the list of chapters here. I'm asking if it would be appropriate for members of the committee to contact either you or the clerk with further suggestions you might put on that list. Is that appropriate?

    The Chair: That's appropriate, yes.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you.

    The Chair: I'll now bring this part to a close.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]