:
I'd like at this point in time to call the meeting to order.
I want to extend a welcome to everyone.
We have a big crowd here today, colleagues. This meeting has been called pursuant to the Standing Orders, to deal with chapter 1, “Management of Fees in Selected Departments and Agencies”, of the May 2008 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
We're very pleased to have with us today, from the Office of the Auditor General, assistant auditors general Douglas Timmins and Clyde MacLellan, and Rona Shaffran, director of audit operations.
From the Treasury Board Secretariat, we have the Comptroller General, Rodney Monette, and assistant comptroller general, John Morgan.
From the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, we have the associate deputy minister, Stephen Rigby; Mr. William Crosbie, assistant deputy minister, consular services and emergency management branch; and Francine Côté, director general, corporate finance, planning and systems bureau.
Again, I want to welcome you.
We are now going to opening remarks. I understand, Mr. Timmins, you are giving the opening remarks on behalf of the Office of the Auditor General.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the results of our audit from the May report of the Auditor General on management of fees in selected departments and agencies.
Joining me today, as you've mentioned, is Clyde MacLellan, assistant auditor general, and Rona Shaffran, director, who were responsible for the audit.
In this audit we looked at 13 fees established by six federal organizations that are responsible for a major portion of the fee revenue reported by the government. In addition, we looked at any related government policies or guidance on the fees that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat provided to organizations. We also looked at the scope and application of the User Fees Act.
There are two categories of fees. The first category includes fees for goods, services, or the use of a facility, such as the purchase of a government publication. For these fees the amount that is charged normally cannot exceed the cost of what is provided. The second category includes fees for rights or privileges, which mainly involve the authorization to use publicly owned or publicly managed resources, such as commercial fishing licences. For these fees the amount that is charged is normally related to market value rather than cost.
[Translation]
Departments and agencies are not required to charge the full cost or value of the good or service provided but need to know this information. Other factors must also be considered when determining the amount to be charged. For example, consideration should be given to the proportion of the cost or value that should be borne by the fee payer.
As a result, we expected to find that departments and agencies had appropriate systems and practices in place for managing fees and establishing a reasonable relationship between the fee and its cost or value. A clear accountability mechanism was also a critical component of our audit criteria to ensure that Parliament, fee payers and taxpayers receive fundamental information about fees.
[English]
For the cost-based fees we audited, we found that organizations varied from those with systems and practices that captured the full cost of fee-related activities, such as Parks Canada, to organizations that did not know the cost.
The rationale for the amount charged for fees also varied, from fees based on a comprehensive analysis of the amount charged to fees based on factors unrelated to cost or value of what was provided. We concluded that some organizations do not have all the necessary information to determine what amount to charge for the fee or to determine whether there is a reasonable relationship between the fee and the cost or value.
As previously mentioned, the total amount collected as a fee for a service should not exceed the cost of providing that service. For the consular service fee in particular, we found that Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada allocated to the fee included in the cost of an adult passport costs for activities that were not outlined in the Treasury Board approval of the fee. These additional costs were for activities performed on behalf of other government organizations.
The department reported a deficit for this fee in its departmental performance reports. However, our audit work and recalculations by the department showed there was actually a trend toward surpluses. In other words, the amount collected through this fee was more than the cost of providing the services. The department therefore is at risk of not having determined fees in a way that is consistent with cost recovery, as its own legislation requires.
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada has acknowledged it needs to review the impact of the surpluses on the amount charged for the fee, as well as related issues. The department also agrees that the costing methodology for the consular service fee, including its time reporting system, needs to be reviewed. The committee may wish to ask the department to outline its specific actions to resolve this matter as well as how it intends to amend its reporting to Parliament.
We also found that many accountability provisions of the User Fees Act cover only fees that are new or have been increased since the act was introduced in 2004. This means, for the vast majority of fees that were set before the act was passed, that the related organizations are not required to publicly report costs, performance standards, or performance information, nor are they required to reduce fees when service standards are not achieved.
[Translation]
The Treasury Board Secretariat has agreed that there have been challenges in the interpretation and application of the User Fees Act and has agreed to provide the President of the Treasury Board with an analysis of the issues raised in our report by November 2008. The Committee may wish to ask the secretariat for its plan and timetable for its report on the User Fees Act.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may have.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. And also good morning to members of the public accounts committee.
I'm here today with John Morgan, assistant comptroller general for the financial management and analysis sector. We are pleased to appear before you this morning to discuss user fees.
Having recently returned to the Office of the Comptroller General after a few years, I have noted the significant change in how user fees are managed. In particular, the User Fees Act of 2004 has had a real impact. The transition from what was previously a Treasury Board policy to the legislative provisions of the User Fees Act has brought about some important changes.
[Translation]
Managing user fees requires that departments do a number of things, including stakeholder consultation, impact analysis, costing, dispute management, and setting service standards.
[English]
Last week I spoke with the chief financial officers of the six departments included in the Auditor General's report, with the purpose of discussing action plans and how to share best practices. We agreed that an interdepartmental committee would be struck, focusing on issues such as costing and service standards. I believe this step will help advance user fee management.
As noted in our response to the Auditor General's chapter on the management of user fees, the Treasury Board Secretariat is supportive of her observations and recommendations.
[Translation]
Continued improvement is the ongoing objective both for TBS within its role of providing central guidance, and for departments in terms of strengthening the practices I just mentioned.
[English]
The Treasury Board Secretariat action plan to address the recommendations is as follows:
Firstly, in March 2008 we effectively fulfilled one recommendation by releasing a revised guide to costing. Our plan for the next period is to promote its use across government.
Secondly, by November 2008 we will provide the President of the Treasury Board with an analysis of challenges in implementing the User Fees Act.
[Translation]
Thirdly, by March 2009 we will update our guidance to departments in setting fees.
[English]
And fourthly, over the course of the upcoming months we will work with the six audited departments regarding the Auditor General's recommendations directed their way. We will also engage other departments.
Before closing, may I bring to your attention some improvements worth mentioning.
Departmental performance reports now contain more user fee information than ever before. Cost, revenue, and performance information is widely available, and more departments are committing to these kinds of improvements.
In 2004 Treasury Board introduced a policy that asked departments to develop service standards for all external user fees. Today, 85% of user fees have service standards. Before 2004 this was not mandatory and only a few departments had service standards.
[Translation]
Since 2003-2004, TBS has conducted an annual review of the user fee information departments reported in their Departmental Performance Report.
[English]
This past year we have included the results of our reviews in the management accountability framework exercise, as part of the department's rating in relation to financial management and control.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions and comments.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, and ladies and gentlemen.
I am joined this morning by Bill Crosbie, the assistant deputy minister of the consular services and emergency management branch, and my colleague Francine Côté, who is the director general of corporate finance, planning and systems within our chief financial officer branch.
The Auditor General's report on the management of fees in selected departments and agencies included a review of the $25 consular services fee that is collected from adult passport applicants when they apply for a new or renewed passport.
The Auditor General has made two recommendations with respect to that fee. Paragraph 1.58 of the report has recommended that the department review its time-reporting practices and the allocation of costs and activities to the consular services fee to ensure that they remain consistent with the authorization for the fee, and exclude costs of any services provided by Canadian missions abroad on behalf of other departments and agencies that are not part of the consular services fee.
It also recommended that the department amend our reporting to Parliament to take any necessary action to adjust the fee in view of the trend toward surpluses, which is indicated in the report.
In addition, the Auditor General recommends that we--along with other departments--take steps to improve the transparency of the fee by providing more complete public reporting of financial and non-financial performance information.
The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade agrees with the recommendations of the Auditor General, and we will be implementing these recommendations as we outlined in our response contained in the report.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to give a short history of the Consular Services Fee in order to explain to committee members how the Auditor General and the Department have come to an agreement on the recommendations contained in her report.
In 1995, as part of Program Review, the Government decided that the Consular Program should be self-financed through the imposition of a fee levied at the time passports or other travel documents were issued. This shifted the cost burden to those Canadians who hold Canadian passports.
[English]
The fee was fixed at $25, as at that time approximately 1.5 million passports were issued annually and the estimated cost of the consular program was $47.9 million. However, instead of providing the funds directly to the department to manage the program, the funds from the consular services fee were deposited into the consolidated revenue fund.
As was noted in the original Treasury Board submission, the consular services fee is in the nature of an insurance fee that will support services delivered abroad to Canadian citizens as per the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. These services provide protection and assistance to Canadians who travel abroad and find themselves in distress as a result of an accident, illness, crime victimization, arrest or detention, natural disaster, and civil unrest. Because of the nature of insurance, not all passport holders will require consular services.
The types of the consular services provided have not changed significantly since the fee was introduced in 1995. However, the nature and complexity of the cases has increased substantially, particularly since 2001. For instance, demand for more complex services, including cases of arrest, child custody, and medical evacuation, increased by some 39% between 2004 and 2007, and this trend is expected to continue.
As we noted in our response to the Auditor General, we have also faced a general increased demand for consular services, increased expectations from Canadians abroad for more services, and must provide services to larger communities of Canadian citizens who are permanently resident abroad. The evacuation of Canadian citizens from Lebanon in 2006 is the most visible example of how the complexity of consular services has evolved over the last decade.
At the same time, the number of passport applicants has increased dramatically in the last few years, particularly and principally due to the U.S.A.'s western hemisphere travel initiative. When the fee was established in 1995, an estimated 1.5 million passports were issued, whereas for the year ending March 2007, over three million adult passports were issued. The result has been both increased revenues and increased workload.
The original approval for the consular services fee required that the cost of the program to the department and the revenues from the fee would be reviewed annually. If there was a significant difference between the costs and the revenues, we would seek Treasury Board's approval to adjust the fee. The department prepared a costing of the fee on an annual basis and compared it to the revenues generated. Based on our original assumptions at that time and as reported in the departmental performance reports, we believed the costs exceeded the revenues generated by the fee.
When the Auditor General reviewed the original documentation on the calculation of the fee, it was determined that the department was incorrectly interpreting the original Treasury Board submission. The department calculated the full cost of the consular program and subtracted the revenues received primarily from Passport Canada to determine the costs to compare with the revenues generated.
However, the Auditor General determined we should not be deducting the revenues received. Rather, we should have been deducting the cost of the activities related primarily to passport issuances abroad. Since the revenues for these activities are much lower than the costs, the change in interpretation from deducting the revenues to deducting the costs of those services resulted in moving from a deficit to a surplus for some of the years audited.
[Translation]
As a result of the Auditor General's observation, we reviewed our data and report and we performed a second recalculation which was accepted by the Auditor General. The calculation excludes the time spent on passport issuances and includes other passport services performed by consular staff abroad. The Department's new calculation shows a similar trend of surpluses. However, over the five-year period, it shows a cumulative deficit.
[English]
Even with this deficit over the five-year period examined by the Auditor General, the department agrees it is important to review the costing methodology. We believe this is an opportune time, as budget 2008 announced additional funding of some $32.4 million in 2008-09, rising to $95 million ongoing, to improve the delivery of vital consular, business, and diplomatic services abroad. A significant portion of this will be directed at improving consular services.
It also announced that the government would be instituting a ten-year passport by 2011. Therefore, spending on consular services will increase, while the consular fee will be collected half as often.
The department is committed to working with the Comptroller General, the Treasury Board Secretariat program sector, and the Department of Finance to resolve the outstanding issues related to the consular services fee and to ensure the department is in compliance with the recommendations of the Auditor General.
Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Good day to all of the witnesses.
I have a question for you, Mr. Timmins. In your opening remarks, you draw a distinction between the various categories of fees. On the one hand, there are those fees for which the amount charged normally cannot exceed the cost of what is provided.
On the other hand, there are fees such as those charged for commercial fishing licenses, tied to the use of resources. With respect to the latter category, you stated the following: “For these fees, the amount that is charged is normally related to market value rather than cost.”
I nonetheless have some serious concerns about the cost of these types of fishing licenses. Consider, for example, the cost of a crab fishing license which is now approaching $24,000, or approximately 10% of a fisher's income. The cost of the license hasn't really changed, whereas crab prices have fluctuated a great deal. They have dropped from 90¢ to 45¢ per pound over a period of ten years. So then, while the price of crab has declined, the cost of a license hasn't changed. This amount represents an important share of fishers' income. How do you explain this situation? Basically, you're saying that fees should be related to market value, but at the same time, the cost does not decrease when prices drop.
In the case of the example that you gave in the report, the opposite is true. You wondered why prices do not increase when the market value of catches increases, as in the case of crab. However, there is no logical explanation possible for that happening.
Can you tell us why you failed to mention this fact?
:
There are a couple of things.
On the volume increases for passports, obviously as the number of passports in circulation goes up, the amount of revenue goes up, but so does the burden on the consular program, because while not everybody who gets a passport travels extensively, a lot more do, even under those who are getting them by dint of the western hemishere travel initiative.
We have a couple of challenges. Number one is that we have got to be able to clearly capture the increased burden on the consular program, and that is one of the things we're doing in response to the Auditor General's examination. We have a system today for time capturing, but as I've looked at this, I think there are improvements that can be made to make sure we're capturing all the costs.
What we have seen over the last few years—and this goes back to one of the questions I was asked earlier—is that increasingly the consular cases are getting much more complex. So it's not just a question of the consular officers who are being burdened with this, but there are other officials in the department who also have to work on consular cases.
One of our challenges is to make sure the data capture we have encompasses all of that.
:
There are two columns of calculations. We believe our calculation is a legitimate calculation on the basis of the time reporting system within DFAIT.
The recalculation by DFAIT was on the basis of a time allocation in the original approval of the fee. As Mr. Rigby has stated, there are some concerns as to whether the time reporting system is adequately capturing the time charges. Therefore, if those time charges were off, our calculation would be off. So the default was that we presented the second calculation as the one based on the original time study in 1993, and we believe in both cases they need to be looked at. The time study done in 1993 could be out of date, and the time reporting system may not be correct.
But in both cases, the point is there was a trend of surpluses on both calculations at least three years in a row, and the final year that brings it back into deficit is because of something that was unique, the one-time cost of Lebanon.
So I think the message is that there is an issue that needs to be looked at. Multiple aspects include looking at the time reporting system, perhaps doing another study of that, and finally, some consideration of whether they want to revisit entirely the basis of calculating the fee and the approval of the fee.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the presenters, and thank you for the indulgence of my colleagues.
I'm familiar with many of the aspects of Bill C-212, so I thought I'd come here.
First, I want to congratulate the Auditor General for taking on a review of this particular matter. It was overdue, and I am as frustrated as I'm sure many others are.
I saw the process as being more evolutionary rather than revolutionary, but evolution should have a pace to it as well. And I must say, I'm very disappointed in the way the government has responded. That's a general statement. Some departments are doing better than others, but....
I had a couple of questions. In the Auditor General's report, you say Bill C-212 does not apply to existing fees, it applies only to new fees or increases in fees.
I was surprised I wasn't included in your interview list when you did this review. Nonetheless, that's just an aside.
I know all the lawyers of the departments and agencies were briefing the deputy ministers or whoever they briefed to say it didn't apply to existing fees, which I debate. In fact, there would be lawyers who would argue it does apply to existing fees.
We know for sure that it applies to new fees and increases in fees, but I don't think it's as absolute as you say in your report, that it doesn't apply to existing fees. You're aware that following the proclamation of Bill C-212, Treasury Board came out with the guidelines to clarify in case there was any ambiguity about the application of Bill C-212 to existing fees. Treasury Board guidelines said that the word, the letter, the intent, the spirit of Bill C-212 applies to all fees; there must be performance standards, there must be accountabilities, etc., in reporting.
Presumably, hopefully, you didn't rely on legal counsel for the departments and agencies, because departments and agencies are uncomfortable with the requirements of Bill C-212. I think there's no question about that.
Did you get independent legal advice that would lead you to conclude that Bill C-212 does not apply to existing fees?
:
Yes. Well, I know that certainly the departments and agencies are interpreting it that way, but notwithstanding that, even if you take that legal interpretation, the Treasury Board issued some very clear guidelines that there should be performance standards, that there should be.... I forget the exact wording—I don't have it with me—but the President of the Treasury Board was fairly clear that the spirit and intent of Bill C-212 would have been applied to all of them.
I must say that if you look at the reporting annually, it's been a pretty sad commentary. I've looked through some of the reports. In terms of benchmarking or whether performance standards have been met, I saw that one department wrote in, “Well, we haven't had any complaints”, and this sort of thing. I mean, it's really an affront to Parliament that people would actually do things like that.
As I say, I accept the fact that it can be evolutionary, but the evolutionary pace is so slow that it's really an affront to Parliament.
I would like to come back to the question of the passport or the consular fees. I haven't studied this as carefully as I might have. Was this an increase in a fee or a new fee? And if so, did the department table it in Parliament, as is clearly required under Bill C-212?
Now, another major concern is really about transparency.
Mr. Monette, I'm aware that you've not been in your position for a long time, but you did say in your remarks today that 85% of user fees have service standards. The problem is that they're not really reported. So you have this extreme case on page 21 of the Auditor General's report, where we have this glowing comment:
As an example of full and balanced performance monitoring and related public reporting, we found that the Parks Canada Agency included full cost information and complete information on standards....
But then for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, not only do they not make it public and report against the performance standards.... And again, someone who is looking at this critically could maybe surmise, or ask themselves the question, what are you hiding? But the Department of Fisheries and Oceans then does a small-scale survey of 200 and then reports on performance on that.
How does a department continue to get away with that, and is that specifically going to be addressed?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to continue where I was a moment ago.
Given that 216 of 220 fees that have been looked at have not been increased since 2004 when the act came into effect, I'd be curious to know whether there is an opinion—and I don't need it today—from the Auditor General as to the reason. Is it because the act is too cumbersome, too complex? Or is it because there was initially—and I recall this was a private member's bill, not a government-generated bill—still a built-in resistance to having Parliament issue directives through legislation, which is its mandate, its authority.
I join my colleague Mr. Cullen, who was talking a bit of an affront to Parliament here. I would like an opinion, if there's one to be had, from the Auditor General on that, because it's been four years, going on five. That's on the increase side.
Then, I must admit I'm very surprised that it's you, Mr. Monette, who is here today for Treasury Board. I must admit that I had a different conception of the role of the Comptroller General of Canada from one of your sitting here organizing or setting policy—or at least, if not policy, then methods and best measures and so forth—for fee collection. I've always thought or conceived of the comptroller general function as one that oversees spending and that comes into play where any new spending has to be authorized, as opposed to only involving collection on the fee side. I want to put that on the record. I may have a misconception of the role of the Comptroller General's Office.
I'm sorry, though, that there isn't someone here from the Treasury Board Secretariat, which I don't think you represent—and if it's the case that you do, then really I think we have to explore the conception and the role and the reporting mechanisms and so forth—who can talk about the fact that over four years nothing has been done.
All of what you've said, Monsieur Monette---
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, unfortunately Mr. Bélanger has left. He didn't really give me an opportunity to respond to his question. I would like to advise the committee that we do not have the information to give him the answer to his question. I think it would be speculation on our part.
But I would point out that within the chapter we strongly recommend that the fee should be reviewed on a regular basis, and I think that would start the process whereby they would be naturally going through some update or some change that would put them through the User Fees Act. If that were the case, then I think he would be more satisfied that those fees were being looked at on a regular basis.
I also would like, at this time, to respond to Mr. Lussier's question concerning the larger fees that we did not look at.
[Translation]
There are two categories of fees. We looked at some of the fees charged by certain departments. For instance, the fees charges by Citizenship and Immigration Canada total approximately $250 million. The fees charged by Passport Canada for consular services account for one third of the total fees collected, or for $230 million. Industry Canada collects about $300 million in fees.
The remaining fees are collected by departments and agencies that we have not yet audited, such as the CRTC, $175 million in fees, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, $50 million, the Canadian Grain Commission, $40 million, and the National Energy Board, $35 million. There are some 220 different fees in all.
:
I just have a few points to make.
Another relevant legal case has just been.... There's an opinion in the court with CRTC on part II of the Broadcasting Act on broadcasting fees. The Federal Court of Appeal ruled on that just recently, recognizing that the fees the government charges are legitimate.
Secondly, there's been some question as to the applicability of the User Fees Act. Our approach has been that all those fees that meet the definition of a user fee under the act must be reported annually in departmental performance reports, and they are being reported; those 220 clusters of fees are all reported in terms of revenues, performance standards, and so on. Even though the act may not require that they be reported, we have achieved that in fact by issuing guidance and policies to departments. The particular aspects of accountability in the User Fees Act deal with only new and amended fees. So there are some distinctions within the User Fees Act itself.
My last point concerns the guide on costing. That is something we've been working on for a couple of years. We had it issued as a draft for more than a year, getting feedback. It's a very detailed document, with lots of tools for departments. It was only finalized recently. We will be supplementing that kind of guide with a suite of financial management policies that indicate the principles for good costing. One of those will be a policy on resource management.
So we are trying to strike the policies at an appropriate level and give more detailed guidance, which can then be used as a tool.
Thank you.
Mr. Monette, Mr. Rigby, do you have anything?
The committee has one final issue. It has to do with a motion from one of our colleagues.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for your appearance today. We will be writing a report and filing it with Parliament. Again, thank you very much.
Members, we are now going to deal with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion. The motion has been circulated. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj has indicated to the clerk that the date “May 29” is to be replaced with “June 10” instead.
What I propose is to allow Mr. Wrzesnewskyj two minutes to present his motion, allow up to eight interventions of one minute each, thren go back to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj for the final minute, and then put the question.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you have two minutes.
Colleagues, we heard testimony about the issue of the contract for $122,000 to Mr. MacPhie, a gentleman with deep Conservative connections and ties. We heard from departmental officials and we saw communications that red flags were being raised through the process. We heard admissions from Mr. Flaherty that rules were not followed, that Treasury Board rules were broken.
When we tried to find out who was at fault in this particular situation, one person kept being mentioned. Unfortunately, the person did not have an opportunity to appear as a witness before this committee to give insight. But more importantly, when blame is being laid at one person's feet, it's incumbent upon the committee to provide that person with the opportunity either to say “Yes, it was me; I am the one at fault, as the minister said. I'm the one who made these decisions” or to provide added insight. But it's clearly not fair to the individual to be blamed for something as serious as this situation.
The other person who was mentioned a number of times was Mr. Bill Horrigan, the budget director in the minister's office. His name was mentioned a number of times as the coordinator, the one who set up not only Mr. MacPhie's contract but other contracts with individuals with Conservative ties. I think this gentleman could also provide additional insight into what transpired.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I understand where Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is coming from, but we are an institution of accountability. We have a protocol of accounting officers. We had the Deputy Minister of Finance here. We had the Secretary of the Treasury Board here. We had the here. They accepted full responsibility for the breaking of the rules. We had a clear commitment from the Minister of Finance that it's not going to happen again.
I think about the witnesses we've just had here. None of them were directly involved in the administration of the fees, but they accept responsibility.
I really don't know what Mr. Wrzesnewskyj would hope to achieve by virtue of this, but remember we're talking about a $122,000 contract. Three very senior people in the Government of Canada acknowledged responsibility. I don't think there is anything to be gained by bringing in the minister's staff to beat them over the head.
If we think of the time we spent on a $122,000 contract, we have multi-million and multi-billion-dollar issues that need to be addressed seriously, and I think we're far better to focus our efforts on that to benefit the taxpayers of Canada rather than going after a headline of something that maybe wouldn't even get a headline by virtue of the fact it's already been disposed of.
Needless to say, I've been lobbied heavily by both sides, and given there's a possibility that once again I'll be the swing vote, I've given this a lot of thought.
I don't think anybody here is going to accuse me of being shy in terms of jumping on things that I believe need to be jumped on, but I have to say that discretionary call we already made when we brought in the minister was a big step. There would have been a legitimate argument for this committee to say no, we're not going to go down that road. They could have done that and stood by that with a credible argument. But instead we went the other way, in large part because the opposition controls the committee when it comes down to crunch votes. But we did it, we held the thing.
The minister did come and acknowledge that a mistake was made. Now he calls it an administrative error. I reject that as being just a little too cute by half. But the question remains, after a minister comes in and says there's been a $122,000 mistake--his chief of staff made the mistake, he didn't know about it, he's been properly admonished, he's not even in the office any more, he's gone--is this a hanging offence? Are we going to call for a minister's resignation?
Personally, I think the climate has gotten away from ministerial responsibility and needs to come back that way a little more, but in the current climate I just don't see that. To me, at best this is another fishing expedition; at worst, it's a witch hunt. I'm not comfortable. I don't think there's enough here to warrant the next step, so I will be voting against.