Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 20, 1996

.0905

[Translation]

The Chairman: Good morning everybody.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts is here today to discuss four items on the agenda: the fifth report of the Sub-committee on agenda and procedure; the draft letter to the Auditor General regarding matters relating to household goods removal services; other business; and adjournment to the call of the Chair.

The first item on the agenda is the fifth report. The sub-committee met on June 18th and recommends the following:

(1) Chapter 11 (Tax Avoidance) with the Auditor General and Deputy Minister of National Revenue;

(2) Chapter 7 (National Defence) with the Auditor General and Deputy Minister of National Defence; and

(3) Chapter 10 (Correctional Service) with the Auditor General and the Commissioner of Correctional Service.

I would also like to point out to my colleagues that this report does not mention the much talked-about issue of family thrusts since there is already a resolution that the matter be studied at our first meeting in September.

Also, Mr. Paradis has requested that we consider native issues, isn't that right?

Mr. Paradis (Brome - Missisquoi): I'm surprised that it is not an item on the agenda,Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I made the same comment to the clerk, who reminded me that we had agreed that we would wait for the Auditor General's report in September 1996.

Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, if I remember correctly, we had agreed that we would set a date, taking for granted that it would be in September or if not possible, at a later date.

The Chairman: Would you like to move an amendment?

Mr. Paradis: Add native issues as the fourth item.

The Chairman: There is no chapter number.

Mr. Paradis: For the information of members of the committee could we consider whether funding for native peoples actually get through to natives themselves in its entirety?

The Chairman: Mr. Williams.

[English]

Mr. Williams (St. Albert): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate Mr. Paradis' concern regarding native issues. I think I share the same concerns. But if the Auditor General is going to be reporting, and I think the consensus was that he was to report in the future, either in September or subsequently, we don't have any basis today for the committee to focus on any particular subject regarding aboriginal affairs. We don't have any native concerns laid on the table for us to focus on.

.0910

I'm just wondering if Mr. Paradis would agree that if the Auditor General is going to be tabling a report on that, we wait until the report has been tabled before we put it on the agenda. I have no problem with putting it on the agenda when it's tabled by the Auditor General, but I think we should wait until that's tabled and then we can bring it forward.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I thought that was the point of Mr. Paradis' motion, and the clerk has confirmed that this is included in the minutes of the steering committee meeting we had.

Mr. Paradis: I would like some additions to be made. We had that meeting and we are here this morning to agree on subjects that we might look into. I'm trying to set up an agenda for September.

The Chairman: The researcher informs me that, according to one of the reports we have already received from the Auditor General, other reports will be released in September or November of 1996. There will be a chapter entitled "First Nations' Accountability (Study)".

Mr. Rocheleau.

Mr. Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Chairman, I have two points. At bullet 2 we could say: "That the Committee hold meetings as soon as the House resumes in the fall of 1996" for greater certainty and so that we can all agree on this.

Secondly, I'm surprised that the committee won't be studying chapter 1 in the fall, as agreed. That is what the government side wanted.

The Chairman: We had agreed that when we reported to the committee we would not repeat all the motions that have been adopted or the outstanding ones. The committee adopted a resolution on June 5, 1996 stating that it would look into family trusts at its first meeting in the fall of 1996. The Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure doesn't think that we need to go over each of these resolutions.

Mr. Rocheleau: As long as there is no ambiguity.

The Chairman: There will be no ambiguity.

Mr. Rocheleau: Fine.

The Chairman: "As soon as the House resumes in the fall". Do you have any problems with what we are proposing? Do we need an amendment? And what about a meeting on native issues?

[English]

Mrs. Barnes (London West): On a point of clarification, do you mean when the committee has constituted the first order of business?

The Chairman: No, not when the committee constitutes.

Mrs. Barnes: Well, that's when we start -

The Chairman: This committee will continue. This committee is still valid, and the next committee will arrive at the beginning of October. We mentioned the first meeting when the House resumes in September. It was the sense of the...

[Translation]

That's a whole new issue, Mrs. Barnes.

Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Chairman could we agree that when we say "as soon as the House resumes in the fall", it's to study chapter 1?

The Chairman: That's right.

[English]

Mrs. Barnes: We have a motion about when we will deal with the order. What does the June 5 motion say? Let's clarify this so there's no confusion, because I don't like it when things are said differently from the motion. I really resent people trying to change motions by the side bar.

The Chairman: It is that the committee meet in relation to family trusts at its first meeting in the fall of 1996. We never mentioned when the new committee would be formed in October or whenever.

Mrs. Barnes: Fine. We went to Mr. Williams' motion, and that was the intention that day after he left and that's what we agreed on - the first order of business of the day, the first order of business of the committee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Before I recognize Mr. Paradis, I would just like to inform my colleagues that the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure will be meeting at the National conference in Victoria at the beginning of September. We will be preparing our meetings for the fall.

Mr. Paradis.

.0915

Mr. Paradis: That is exactly what I wanted to talk about, Mr. Chairman. The steering committee will get together when the public accounts committee meets at the beginning of September, if I understand correctly. This morning we are supposed to be selecting topics to help our steering committee draw up an agenda for the fall, and I point this out to my colleagues. I don't think we should be limiting the number of topics, but rather adding any that you may like to deal with. Now is the time to raise these matters so that the steering committee can schedule meetings. That is the point of our meeting this morning.

The Chairman: Yes. What is the procedure for amending these two motions?

The Clerk: One motion at a time.

[English]

Mr. Hopkins (Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke): Mr. Chairman, if I may...I hope there is no doubt in anybody's mind about the motion passed on June 5 that the first order of business when we return will be family trusts. What is decided beyond that... The subcommittee met and has this list for us to consider, so it seems to me we already have the beginning of an agenda. What's the problem?

The Chairman: There's no problem. We are ready to adopt our report.

Mrs. Barnes: I also want to clarify this, Mr. Chair. Quite frankly, I watch my e-mail every hour, because even though we say to call meetings and the subcommittee sometimes sets dates for meetings, it seems that we have to watch our e-mail on an hour-by-hour basis when meetings are constantly at the call of the chair. No other committee routinely operates that way.

I understand that there are emergency situations sometimes, but as a member of this committee am I supposed to be watching my e-mail all through the summer so that the moment I step back here I go on the hour-by-hour watch, or are we going to have a routine - as you suggested when you first came to the chair - and set certain days aside? Then maybe other people around this table won't be constantly cancelling constituency meetings and events and dropping everything to come here. I don't mind doing that when we work at planned events. We're doing schedules to have planning. I just want to make sure that's not...

It's your prerogative as the chair of this committee. If you want to adjourn to the call of the chair, it's in the rule book; you can do it. Just know that it's affecting all of our own work not only as members of this committee but as parliamentarians. It's affecting all of our other functions and all of our other work, which I'm sure includes constituency work for you as it does for me.

If you could clarify for me, as you originally did as the chair - and I know you want to get the work done, as we all do - that we are planning on having some businesses... It could be that in the fall we perhaps won't get the same rooms. I don't know. That's the function of the clerk reporting to you.

Are we going to have some semblance of order so we can say, ``Is it Tuesday and Wednesday?'' Are we going to do that, Mr. Chair?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Let me say that I am not autocratic when it comes to giving notice of meetings. Before giving notice of a meeting, I have always consulted first with my colleagues on the Sub-Committee for Agenda and Procedure, as they will confirm. For instance, when we met on Tuesday, we agreed that we would meet again on Thursday, however we didn't specify at what time because it depended on which room would be available.

At its first meeting our committee decided that as a rule the committee would meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 3:30 in the afternoon. Obviously at times meetings last longer than expected or must be put off to a later date. You can always check your E-Mail every hour, though I hope you won't do so this summer since we won't be meeting again until the fall. You will be off until the fall. There are other ways, such as the sheets that we receive every morning about committee hearings. I don't use E-Mail in my office; I look at the sheets every morning to know which committees are holding hearings. You don't have to check up on this every hour. The information doesn't appear instantaneously.

Let it be understood that the committee will meet on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 3:30 in the afternoon.

[English]

Mrs. Barnes: It's Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 3:30 in the afternoon.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Barnes: Good. Bon.

.0920

The Chairman: Yes. If we need to have more, or different, meetings, the subcommittee will suggest some dates.

Mr. Hopkins: Let's have some kind of understanding, then, if we have to get together at another time, Mr. Chair. I came into my office last night and for the first time knew about this meeting at 9 a.m. I had to reschedule something.

This is not fair to members. If we're going to run a committee we have to have some order to the business at hand. I think members deserve at least 24 hours' notice on these things. We should have a clear understanding on that. Otherwise, we're just throwing everybody into a...

[Translation]

The Chairman: Agreed.

[English]

Mr. Hopkins: Do we have an understanding on that? Is there consensus around the table on it?

Mr. Williams: I don't like this 24 hours' notice, Mr. Chairman, any more than any of the rest of them. I like the idea of regularity, which we've had for the last couple of years. I think the steering committee has to get a little bit of harmony. It should be able to come back to the full committee with a report that should be, by and large, agreeable to all members. It should be adopted. It should be three or four weeks in advance, with room scheduled for report writing so that the committee can advance in an orderly and organized manner, and we can see far enough ahead to organize our schedules accordingly.

I would ask that the chair and the clerk make sure that happens through the steering committee for planning and room reservations and so on in order for us to get back to the way it used to be.

Mr. Hopkins: I agree with that, Mr. Chair.

Mrs. Barnes: I do as well.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Paradis moves an amendment to the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedures report, at point 4, "meeting on native issues".

Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I thought it should have been on the agenda, just as you did. So this is not an amendment to the sub-committee's report. As far as I'm concerned, the sub-committee's report included the meeting on native issues.

The Chairman: It is an oversight. So we don't need a motion.

Mr. Rocheleau moves that on the first line of point 2, after the words "That the Committee hold meetings", that we add the words "as soon as the House resumes in the fall". Does everyone agree?

[English]

Mr. Williams: If we're going to approve this schedule as presented now, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you and the clerk, in light of the remarks I just made, draw up a schedule of meeting dates when we are to discuss chapters 1, 7, 10, 11, and perhaps native affairs, and that we schedule into these meetings discussion of the reports of these particular meetings and the reports we haven't filed so far on the issues we've already discussed and had witnesses on so that we have a clear schedule for the month of September.

Remember, Mr. Chairman, on September 26 the Auditor General is going to table another report. This is why I told Mr. Paradis that while I understand that native issues should be high on our agenda - I agree with him - I would just ask that he wait until the AG tables his report on September 26. There may be something that has a higher priority. Perhaps not, but once we have the information, we then can decide what's a priority and what's not.

I therefore would ask that we just leave it off at the moment. I'd be glad to support his motion once the report is tabled.

Mr. Paradis: No problem.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I want to say to Mr. Williams that it is difficult to schedule specific dates for each chapter. How many meetings will we have on family trusts? Will we have to reschedule meetings? If we say that we are going to begin with family trusts and then, in the second week, we move on to chapter 11 and then chapter 8, the problem is that we don't know how much time we need to complete our study before we can make a report. That is the problem we have with scheduling.

Mr. Crawford already asked for the floor.

.0925

[English]

Mr. Crawford (Kent): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was hoping that John would reword it a little to incorporate your recommendation, too, and to make that in the form of a motion so we know where we're at.

Mr. Williams: Specifying the dates.

Mr. Crawford: Dates and times.

Mr. Williams: As long as it's not carved in stone...the point being that we know that unpredictable things come along. We only have to look at Bill C-26, Pearson Airport, isn't it?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I move that the chairman and the clerk prepare for this committee a schedule of meeting dates and agendas for this committee when we return in the fall in accordance with the steering committee report as approved by the committee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Paradis, would you like to comment on the motion?

Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the steering committee, as you are. Isn't it everybody's wish that an agenda for the fall be drawn up with specific dates so that we know where we are headed? We are only making life more difficult for the sub-committee if we don't add more topics. I thought we were here this morning to choose topics of interest and to add others. Where's the meat? What will be doing in the fall? By coming up with more topics, we will make it easier for the steering committee to draw up an agenda for the fall. But instead of adding topics, we're withdrawing them. We will only have three topics left for the fall, aside from family trusts, and that is tax avoidance, National Defence and Correctional Service.

I would ask you not to withdraw topics from the agenda but rather to add others so that the steering committee can draw up a proper agenda for the fall that covers all meetings so that there are no gaps as was the case in the spring. Thank you.

[English]

Mrs. Barnes: I'm prepared to adopt this report right now and get on to something else.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Perhaps we could vote. I must report to the House when it begins at 10:00 a.m. I don't want to rush you, but do you agree that the clerk and the chairman draw up a draft agenda with dates and that we submit it for your approval at the meeting of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure in Victoria and that we then report to the whole committee? Do you agree?

[English]

Mrs. Barnes: What's in Victoria?

The Chairman: We will have a steering committee in Victoria because we're going to a conference.

Mr. Paradis: There's a national committee on public accounts. We've discussed that here. The budget has been approved and everything.

Mrs. Barnes: Are we going too?

The Chairman: The steering committee will have a meeting there.

Mrs. Barnes: When?

The Chairman: From September 8 to 10.

Mrs. Barnes: Okay. So then that report will have to come back to us afterwards?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Williams: At the suggestion of Mr. Crawford, I made a motion that the clerk and the chair take the subcommittee's report as presented to us and include in there chapter 1, which is the first order of business of this committee in the fall. We should put down the dates and a schedule, including the time for discussing reports of the chapters discussed in order for us to have some regularity in this committee in the fall.

I don't see that we really have to hash this over again at the steering committee in Victoria and then come back to the public accounts committee in September to do what we should be doing this morning.

I think we should just vote on the motion and move on.

The Chairman: Okay.

Motion agreed to

[Translation]

The Chairman: Point 2 of the report, with Mr. Rocheleau's amendment, would read as follows:

The Clerk:

Therefore, number 2 reads as follows:

The Chairman: ...the topics that are there and anything else that we might agree on.

.0930

Agreed?

[English]

The Clerk: In English, number two would read:

You have already decided as a committee that your first meetings in the fall will be on family trusts.

Mr. Williams: That's exactly my point, Mr. Chairman. We just approved a motion saying that you as the chairman, and the clerk, will have the first order of business as approved by this committee a couple or three weeks ago. The first order of business shall be chapter 1, followed by the others that have been approved, and you and the clerk are to set up the schedule and advise us accordingly.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: In his mind, when I said "as sooon as the House resumes", it was regarding consideration of chapter 1.

[English]

Mrs. Barnes: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We've dealt with this motion a zillion times. People just have to start paying attention. Here's something the chair has already told us. At the very first opening remarks you dealt with them.

The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau has his motion before Mr. Williams.

Mrs. Barnes: I know. I asked if it is in order. Is it in order to do what we've already done before? We dealt with this once before. I put it to the clerk.

[Translation]

Mr. Rocheleau: In his mind, we want to make our consideration of chapter 1 a priority.

The Chairman: That's settled. Agreed? Our colleague has withdrawn his motion. All those in favour of the fifth report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure will please raise their hand.

The fifth report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure is adopted unanimously.

The Chairman: Let's now deal with the second point, the draft letter to the Auditor General.

Has everybody had a chance to examine the letter thoroughly or would you like us to read it out?

[English]

Mr. Hopkins: I have a question, Mr. Chair. In the last bullet on page 2, the operation of the new business allocation formula used by the IDC to award moving contracts...you are asking him to look into that one, but one thing that should be down here in this letter is that we already know that the CNR and another company had 40% of the moving business in the recent advertisement.

They could not handle the business because the infrastructure was not there. CN ended up arranging for another moving company to do the work for which they had bid, in conjunction with another company. That other company that wasn't going to get any business under the new formula now had 40% of it. That's my understanding at this time.

Just to clarify all this, it is a necessity that any company that's going to bid on household goods must have their infrastructure in place or they do not qualify as a bidder.

In some cases, we had three half-tonne trucks ending up at a soldier's doorway to move his furniture. Now this is totally unacceptable. We're talking here about dollars and cents.

Members around this table who were at the first meeting that I was at on this will recall my saying that one of our top priorities should also be service to the people. You recall my saying that the military have enough problems today. They don't need to be waiting three or four days and having someone show up with inadequate equipment to move their furniture. This is serious business we're into here.

I think the Auditor General should also take a look at the responsibility of the IDC in awarding contracts. Either they have the infrastructure in place to do the job or they don't qualify for the bid. I would ask that he take a look at what has happened with the recent contract that was put out and that an internal study be made on it to show that the system in this case failed.

.0935

The Chairman: Do we have some changes in the wording, Mr. Hopkins?

Mr. Hopkins: I'd just like to have another bullet added. The infrastructure of companies bidding should be made clear and the IDC should make certain that the infrastructure is there to do the business.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): How about a report on the recent process related to the last bidding? How did it work? What happened?

Mr. Hopkins: No, I want to zero in on the word ``infrastructure''. I think any company that puts a bid in to do work should at least have the capacity to do the work. We don't want someone bidding on something and then people waiting around on moves, and the person who had the contract then has to make a deal with somebody else. In fact, I would even question the authority of the IDC to approve or of CN to hand over a contract to another company, after they were the ones who bid on it in the first place.

Mr. Telegdi: Just to extend that further, Len, what I'd like to see is withholding the judgments on it and asking for a report on what happened. If you're going to build a road, you bid on building a road. If you're saying if you don't have the equipment then you can't bid on it...sometimes people get equipment because they have a contract they want. That happens in government all the time, or in the private sector.

What we should probably get is a report from them to examine how the bidding process went and what went wrong.

Mr. Hopkins: I don't want this one to slip through the fingers, because what has happened here is a very serious matter. The Auditor General is to report on the savings and the government management of doing business. But if you're going to build a road and you pretend to be a construction company, you better know how to build a road. You can't put a bid in on it and then run around afterwards looking for someone to do the work for you.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the Auditor General to take the infrastructure of the bidder into consideration. Anybody can go around bidding and have nothing and then try to get the arrangements afterwards.

The Chairman: Brian will have a question for you afterwards, Mr. Hopkins.

Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams: I'm distressed by the information that Mr. Hopkins is bringing to us, assuming that the information is correct, Mr. Hopkins, that the IDC are demonstrating even greater incompetence than I was aware of.

I've been quite critical of that committee. I brought forward recommendations to this committee to try to separate the IDC from micro-managing and practically running the moving business. I would have hoped, and even just assumed, that IDC would have been awarding these contracts with the same scrutiny as presumably all government contracts are awarded - only to competent bidders who are able to deliver on the bids they have submitted.

Initially, I was not that supportive of asking the Auditor General to investigate the IDC, because I don't think it's really his concern to run after issues that come up in the marketplace and so on. But you are raising a very serious concern here that IDC can't do the job they're supposed to do.

.0940

Mr. Hopkins: I simply want the Auditor General to look into this and verify the facts. I don't want this left hanging in the air, because if someone's going to make a judgment on a contract they'd better make sure the person they choose is ready and capable of doing the business.

Mr. Williams: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would support that we do ask the Auditor General to look into this and make sure that he has our concerns at heart. We should ask him to feel free to have sufficient latitude to investigate the whole issue within the terms of his mandate to ensure that we get a value-for-money audit, as we always have, and to tell us how competent this committee is in managing the affairs.

Like Mr. Hopkins, I would like to see us deliver service to the service personnel when it comes to moving. They deserve that. They deserve no less. We deserve value for our money as a taxpayer, and there should be no incompatibility between these two points.

The Chairman: Brian has a question or a comment.

Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): It was just a suggestion in terms of amending this letter to answer Mr. Hopkins' concerns and the concerns voiced by other members.

I was going to suggest that in that last bullet we include, in English, after the words ``business allocation formula'' the words:

So that would get a handle on your concerns about infrastructure and it could also cover off other requirements that successful bidders have to satisfy in order to win contracts.

They're using an integral part of the formula when they allocate contracts.

The Chairman: Is that all right then, Mr. Hopkins?

Mr. Hopkins: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): Mr. Chairman, I would think they'll come back to us with a concept, which is general in bidding, that you have to be bonded. Perhaps they don't have all the equipment that's needed, but any company that bids takes a bond out to guarantee the work they're going to do. If that's not the case, there's something wrong in the process.

I still believe quite strongly that as a government we should look at alternate ways of moving people. For example, does Bell Canada move all its people? Does the Royal Bank have a moving contract to move its people?

The Government of Canada would probably be a lot better off to let individuals look after their own moving and have an allocation of money that the individual could use to move as he sees fit.

I would like to see the Auditor General explore that concept, rather than having this great government bureaucracy.

I asked these damn moving companies over a month ago to send me a few types of bills that they had for individuals who would come to our government. As of this morning, they're still not on my desk. I sent word back through our girl in the office saying if they can't cooperate with us, why should we go out of our way to cooperate with them.

There seems to be a hidden agenda in this moving business, and they don't want to cooperate with the government. They have a business out on their own. It's a hidden process.

As a government, if we'd go back to the concept that if a person is going to be moved, whether they be with HRDC or with the armed services, or whatever, we could allocate a certain amount of money - as we do with members of Parliament - and the guy moves. We forget about it. Give him a cheque and he moves from location A to B.

The Chairman: Any comments, Brian?

Mr. O'Neal: Yes. When I drafted this letter I was aware that members were interested in alternative ways of moving people and their goods. So we've also included a paragraph that reads as follows:

I think most members around the table will agree with me that the Auditor General, when he does his investigations, is fairly thorough and doesn't leave any stone unturned. If he agrees to follow through on the committee's request, I'm sure this is an area in which we should get some responses from him.

.0945

Mr. Williams: One final comment, Mr. Chairman. I raised at this committee some months ago, when we were discussing the household goods moving report, various issues. For instance, I was critical of the hard number that the first bidder gets 40% of the contract award and so on; these fixed percentages. I feel the lowest bidder should be able to choose a percentage up to a maximum he wants to bid on. I was also critical that subsequent bidders were forced - forced - to take their share at the same price as the lowest bidder, because if they are going to bid the lowest bidder's price plus 5%, for example, why should they be forced to take 5% less than what they bid?

We heard testimony that moving companies were required to lease or acquire warehouse space they didn't need twelve months of the year, even though it was only needed for a couple of months in the summer time.

In the letter you talk about preventing fraud by the moving company or federal government employees. ``Fraud'' is a pretty heavy word. I wasn't suggesting fraud. But we do know, for example, and there was testimony before this committee, that moving companies moved items that may have had questionable value and the motivation seems to have been that employees were given a cheque based on the weight of the move to cover incidentals such as propane tanks, which can't be moved because they are dangerous goods, drapes and curtains that don't fit windows, and so on. I wanted these types of things to be investigated as well, because they're all part of the peripheral costs of just moving.

There were various other recommendations I made at that time. I do hope the Auditor General would go back and listen to the testimony and take these other issues into concern as he's looking at the whole issue on a broad base.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other comments about the wording of the letter?

Mr. Paradis, you asked for the floor.

Mr. Paradis: I would like the French text to specify that when we talk about 30 to 40% in the second paragraph, it means 30 to 40% of all moves in the country, be they public or private.

I want this to be clear. We are talking about the total number of moves; I would like the text of the letter to specify "all moves in the country, be they public or private".

The Chairman: By the industry, in other words.

Mrs. Barnes.

[English]

Mrs. Barnes: I understand Mr. Williams' concern about using the word ``fraud'' in that context, especially when we're linking it to federal government employees. I think what everyone is concerned about is that the systems are in place to give fair value for money and service and to prevent any irregularities. I think we can say that in a potentially less offensive way. Obviously what we want to make sure of is that no fraud is going on, but at the same time, in saying it in this manner I think you're somehow casting aspersions on a large number of people who may not be deserving of those aspersions. I think we want to be clear what we're really saying here, because everybody knows words can be taken out of context or may be partial statements.

I think there are ways our researcher can word that to get the right intention. Everybody is very clear around this table, on all sides, exactly what it is we're after. I always feel if you sling mud you lose ground. So let's try to do it properly.

Mr. O'Neal: Could I suggest we use the word ``abused'' in place of the word ``fraud''?

Mrs. Barnes: ``Prevent abuse''. I am quite satisfied with that. ``Waste and abuse.''

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Telegdi: Actually, Charles' comment about giving people money is probably a good one. It would eliminate the need for having IDC in the first place. But a penalty clause is in place. Also, the bidder who lost the bid totally is now doing not 40% of the move but 47.5%.

.0950

Hopefully the AG can come back with something.

[Translation]

The Chairman: So we won't vote on the amendments one by one. I think we've had a good discussion. Anyone who doesn't agree has had an opportunity to speak. All those in favour of the letter to the Auditor General as amended will please raise their hands.

Motion carried

The Chairman: Lastly, we have to vote on two motions under the heading "other business". On Tuesday April 23, we met to adopt vote 30 concerning the Auditor General in the Main Estimates. Two motions could not be put at the end because we did not have a quorum. We will have to adopt them now so that I can table this report at 10 o'clock.

I therefore put the question on vote 30, under the heading Finance.

[English]

Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams: You're springing this upon us, Mr. Chairman. Did we discuss this at the steering committee?

The Chairman: Yes.

Some hon. members: No.

The Clerk: This committee was ready to adopt it way back. I realized last night that that was still outstanding, and the last date on which the committee can report is tomorrow. This is the last opportunity to adopt the vote. You don't have to do it, but if you want to do it as you have in the past... I know that the Auditor General feels very strongly that committees should be studying and reporting, and that's why it was brought to the attention of the chair.

Mr. Williams: Therefore the motion is that we approve vote 30, which is the Auditor General's budget, as we discussed at that particular meeting. Is that the motion?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Williams: That we approve the Auditor General's budget as included in vote 30.

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chairman: At the meeting of April 23.

Mr. Williams: I don't have any problem with supporting approval of the Auditor General's budget as we discussed. If that is vote 30, then so be it, but I would have thought that the chair would at least have explained it to us before asking us to approve expenditures of some $50 million just by saying ``Vote 30''.

The Chairman: I received the information five minutes ago, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams: I move that we approve vote 30.

FINANCE

Vote 30 - Program expenditures $44,288,000

Vote 30 agreed to

[Translation]

The Chairman: May I report vote 30 under the heading Finance to the House?

Motion carried

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned to the call of the Chair. Have a good holiday everybody.

Return to Committee Home Page

;