CONTENTS
Thursday 26 June 1997
Committee business
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Chair / Président: Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East /-Est L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre /-Centre L)
Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings / Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East /-Est L)
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay / Muskoka-Baie-Georgienne PC)
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron PC)
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East / -Est ND)
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound PC)
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre /-Centre L)
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon / Lac-Nipigon ND)
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich L)
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North / -Nord PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona ((Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North / -Nord PC)
Also taking part /Autres participants et participantes:
Mr Erik Peters, Provincial Auditor
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in room 228.
COMMITTEE BUSINESS
The Chair (Mr Bernard Grandmaître): Good morning. The first item to be dealt with this morning, item 2 of our agenda -- we just completed our subcommittee -- is the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees Conference. The third item on the agenda is the report writing and that will be in closed session.
We will now deal with this conference to be held September 14 to 16 of this year in Edmonton. I've been informed by the auditor that he doesn't attend this conference. The Chair or co-chair can attend this conference. You will recall that at our last meeting we wanted this discussion in an open session, so you have an opportunity this morning to be heard and to give us guidance as to how you feel about this conference.
I simply want to remind you that back in 1993 Ontario was the host of this gathering, and after all, we are Ontario; we are the largest and maybe the most important province in Canada. I just want to end on that note and leave it up to you, members of the committee.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): My position was made clear previously, but just for the benefit of perhaps the colleague or two who didn't hear it -- this is not a position that I have been asked to put forward as the whip, by the way. This is my own personal position that as pointed out by my colleague Mr Pouliot, there are cuts being made in government that have been very difficult, and we are trying to make our dollars go as far as they can. I don't see the benefit in sending people to a conference when the auditor is going. I believe the auditor has made it quite clear that he's attending the conference.
Mr Erik Peters: No, I attend the Conference of Legislative Auditors, which is simultaneously in the same location. In fact, there's one joint session between the CCPAC and COLA.
Mr Grimmett: I see it as a junket. I don't think it's something we should be spending the money on right now and I won't be voting in favour of sending any of the MPPs or any of the staff. The auditor goes to the conference; I can see some benefit in that. But I quite frankly don't see a lot of benefit when the membership on the committee is changing quite frequently. That's my own position, but my colleagues are free to state their own positions on it, as they always are.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): You wish to save money. I understand that and I welcome that. And you most likely respect and love your parents. I don't meet too many people who don't wish to save money and get value. We used to send the whole committee out. I say this regardless of party: When I came here, the Conservatives were the government. Then it changed, and now the Conservatives are back, but in between we all had a shot. Regardless of stripe, the system was streamlined. People started to ask more questions. Santa Claus stopped showing up every weekend. The yuppies went their way. Time passed. So we cut back.
We have to be consistent. If we're not to send people from the public accounts committee, like one per party -- not 11 members on the committee. With respect to Mr Peters, our Provincial Auditor -- he will be going, and that's okay, eh? Oh, I see. But the committee will not. Mr Peters, simply in terms of jurisdiction, will not represent Ontario. The conference is not structured that way. It's not a conference of provincial auditors. Sure, they have meetings and they do their own things. It is a conference of public accounts committees from across the country. PEI will be there. We hosted the conference three years ago.
At the same time, there will be a Canadian parliamentary association conference. Talk to me about junkets. The forum is different. I get that in Regina. There's a forum in Germany. Some people will gather in Luxembourg. The Speaker will be going to Westminster. Is he going or not? I understand he has the plane tickets. Mr and Mrs Harris will be busy representing the province -- Mr and Mrs -- travelling in the democratic class, I'm sure. That's okay. Bill, just between you and me -- there's no one else here -- are they not going?
This is the public accounts committee. It's an affront. If you don't go and the other one doesn't go, if nobody shows up, then you're a no-show. That's okay for people. It doesn't cost an arm and a leg. There's already been a lot of streamlining. Three people going, plus the Chair. That's one member each, and Erik. We used to have 11. We've been to Washington to do this and do that. We hosted the session three years ago. That was okay. Last year, under the same auspices, we went to Victoria.
If we're going to say no, I would like to see the consistency, and say why it is. For me, it's not good enough to say it's to save yet another dollar. You live in a world which is getting smaller, but at the same time you have to reciprocate. Is it okay for the Treasurer to go and see the bond-rating agency after the budget? You can't say, "It doesn't apply here; you're crazy." No, I'm not. To go to New York and spend three days there after his budget, for Mr Harris to go and join Team Canada -- who pays for that? Ontario pays for that, of course. I don't begrudge them. I say, "You have to do these things."
I'm contrary, with respect, to Bill's view on whether we should go to Edmonton. I think our place is front row centre. We have a responsibility; we have 11 million people. We're the largest jurisdiction. You go on top of the CN Tower and you can see 50% of the industrial heartland of the country on a clear day. Give me a break; we must be there. I'm looking forward to going. I've already purchased my ticket and there's no refund.
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): I think Mr Pouliot struck on the right question, and that was "Why?" There obviously is a new reality. I used to run conventions in a previous life over a 15-year period, and the whole structure of conventions changed during that period of time.
One of the main reasons for going in the early years was the networking aspect that takes place at any convention. Through the difficult times of the early 1980s and again through the difficult times of the early 1990s, that structure changed entirely. The new reality kicked in as attendances dropped and there was a very serious question asked by those people who were footing the bill for the convention as to why people were going, what reward they got from that attendance, what value they brought home from that convention and what kind of attendance was there, who were the participants and how general was it. In answering those questions, the convention that my association put on restructured itself entirely and I think provided positive answers to those three questions about why they were attending this convention.
In that regard I would ask: What percentage of the provinces attend this convention? What do we as a province expect to bring home from this convention that will reward us for our attendance? What value for the dollars expended are we going to get? I guess that begs the question of how much it costs us to send someone to Edmonton, or a delegation. I would ask those questions and I would want answers before we make a decision as to who should go and why.
The Chair: Maybe we should ask Mr Pouliot and Mr Lalonde. I know Mr Pouliot has attended these conferences in the past and maybe he can give us the reason why this conference was attended by our province, by our government. Mr Pouliot, can you tell us why?
Mr Pouliot: Briefly. Let's set the table, the climate. I think it's important; the chemistry plays a role here. You immediately feel that you're there for the same reason. Except for the host province, everybody feels at home but everyone is from elsewhere. This is done. You meet people who do the same thing but in a bit of a different fashion. So there is a good synergy, a good group dynamic.
The sessions are interesting. We take part. We have to weigh the responsibility of the Provincial Auditor and that of an elected office. People come in with direct reasons why it works and to what extent by their own circumstances, and it's filled with nuances. You read between the lines. We participate; we're expected to participate. We voice our support and our concern on other people's positions. We ask questions. We come away enriched; we're a better committee on account of it.
I think it justifies the expense. It's not all that onerous. Let's keep in mind that it is within the country. Of course, if you don't send anyone you will always save money, but quite a bit of that has been done.
As I said, we used to send 11 people -- maybe it was a little much -- and for a longer period, because we felt that we had to prepare ourselves physically and mentally for the task ahead. That's gone by the wayside. We read the book before we leave home.
I think it's completely justified. It's an affront -- if Ontario doesn't show, what is it we're telling people, that it's no use? Having the Canadian Council of Public Accounts Committees Conference and the largest province doesn't show -- heck, even Quebec shows at those things.
1020
Mr Chudleigh: How many other provinces are going to be there?
Mr Pouliot: They will all be there, including the sister province and neighbours both to the west and the east of us.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I recognize what Mr Grimmett just said when he said that we want to save money, but those people who sat back during the recession and didn't look ahead to the future are still in trouble today. I have had experience at major conferences too, like Habitat, World Bank, G-7, and let me tell you that at those conferences there are workshops that are really profitable for those people attending. I agree that if you refer to other conventions -- I'm not afraid to say it -- Good Roads, for example, is a real party.
When we look at this session coming up in Edmonton, I have to say that for us, the people sitting and taking part in this committee, we never had any training sessions. We never had anybody tell us what our task was going to be. I really feel at this time that if we are -- not "if"; I know the three parties in this government are serious. If we are able to send one from each party to this conference, I think we will get benefit out of it, and this will help us to probably produce more at this committee afterwards. I just heard today that we might have the lowest budget in the whole of this country at the Provincial Auditor's office when we look at the budget side. But at those conferences, I'm pretty sure we'll come out of there with something that will benefit this committee in the future.
Mr Chair, I definitely would be in favour of having three members, at least a member of each party, attend this conference. We had the 1993 conference here in Ontario, and it's probably known that when the conference is local, the local group does not participate as much as the others. It's known all over. So my recommendation is one member from each party.
The Chair: For your information, Mr Chudleigh -- I think you mentioned the cost of this conference -- naturally it's the flight and two nights in the hotel. I don't really know what the final cost is per member, but those are the costs.
Mr Chudleigh: A couple thousand bucks.
The Chair: If you say 2,000 bucks -- I really don't know. I can't give you a final figure, but this would be the cost.
I just want to add something. I know the Chair is not supposed to partake in the discussions, but I think once in a while I should be permitted to put in my nickel and you can turn me down or do whatever you feel like. I find these conferences very important. As a former minister, I have learned a great deal from other provinces, and I think Ontario is a model province. We're innovators in a lot of ways, but it doesn't mean that we can't learn.
Also, Ontario can be a very good teacher to other provinces, and I think it's a way to shine, to show off our great qualities and to brag about Ontario. I think we don't do it often enough. Ontario is not only recognized as the largest province, but it has so many qualities. I think we should be bragging about our qualities and it's a great opportunity to do it at those conferences.
Having said this, I would ask Mr Shea for his comments.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I have some questions as well, and I don't know who to direct them to. As a relatively new member of this committee, I don't have a lengthy track record, so you have to forgive me and understand if I ask questions.
Let me first of all begin by saying I echo many of the sentiments that you have just laid before the committee. I am not one to suggest that conferences and workshops, whether they are local, provincial, national or even international, are without merit; quite the reverse. I think in many cases you're exposed to new ideas and there are some new thought processes that could be very helpful for us, and we may well be able to exchange a number of new thoughts that we have with other parties to the event.
That doesn't mean that you automatically assume each and every workshop or conference is either worth its due or is continuing to meet its due, and I think it's reasonable to subject every one to some scrutiny from time to time. I am perplexed with this one, I must confess, because I'm not an accountant; I'm just a simple Irish peasant trying to figure my way through life. I, from time to time, understand how to read a bottom line. I have had to be a budget chief from time to time, and so I know how to go through line by line with a scalpel, but I don't profess to have the expertise of the Provincial Auditor. My job is to listen to the Provincial Auditor and see if what he says makes common sense. I think that's the role of most of us who are in the political arena. There are those members of this committee who have business experience that far exceeds mine, and I defer to them and their expertise, and I applaud that. I wonder what value added they can take to a conference or bring back, but that raises the points that I want to ask in this instance.
I assume in the first instance that what we may be doing is asking for the permission of the assembly for each member who wants to travel to access their global funds. I know you can't access your global funds for any travel outside the province without permission, so I assume that's what we're doing so that each member may access their own personal accounts for that travel. That's one thing. But whether we do or not, it goes to the next step.
Let me ask two or three questions that for me get to the centre. First of all, I assume that every committee in this Parliament has a national or even an international counterpart -- I don't recall that -- or is this the only one? Is this a unique committee that has that?
Can you answer for me, Chairman, if it is the tradition of those who attend this conference, wherever it's held, to table individually and/or collectively with this committee a report that indicates what they have done, what they have seen and the information they have exchanged, to justify the merits of that visit?
I suppose, picking up on Mr Pouliot's comments, because he has indicated that in the past there has been sufficient time provided before and perhaps even after the conference to reflect upon what may happen or what has happened, and I assume that they have found the appropriate settings for that reflection to be productive, that we would be able to bring forward some of the results of the reports to show what benefits have accrued to the taxpayers of this province.
Part of the concern I have is, what value added is to be gained from attending this committee? There is no question that the auditor should be there; that's not even on the table for me to consider. If the answers were fair, if members want to go and access their global budget to do so, I will very cheerfully support that. I regret that Mr Pouliot -- I have to find a way to help Mr Pouliot, who has already bought his ticket and paid for it; it's non-refundable. That perplexes me, because first-class tickets are normally refundable. I would not expect Mr Pouliot to travel anything less than that, because I have great respect for his taste and his abilities.
1030
Mr Pouliot: I travel in the democratic class.
Mr Shea: If it is to ask permission for the global budget, I will gladly give that. If it is to be paid for elsewhere, if I go beyond the auditor, I might be persuaded that the Chairman ought to go, subject to a report being tabled with the committee so we have a chance to share in the benefits of the exchange at the conference and understand, what did we take to the conference, what did we bring back from the conference and of what value is it to the taxpayers of this province? I could be persuaded to do that.
To go beyond that -- I'm not here to be mean-spirited. If there's an argument to be made why there should be more members there to represent the province of Ontario, I'd be open to hear the arguments.
That's where I'm coming from. I was a member of a group that at one time went to Australia for a very important conference. What happened was that some other people from the staff side suddenly joined in at the last minute. I can remember the banner headlines that rightfully blazoned in the newspapers about the number of people who were there and their question, why is it difficult for one member to write a report? That's always been etched firmly in my mind.
I'd be open to that kind of information and that exchange. I'm quite open to that. I return now, full cycle, to my beginning point. I have no hesitation to support meaningful conferences and workshops for not just one person but for many people to be involved in, because I also know from personal experience that they turn out to be very hard work. If you're doing your job well, and I assume my colleagues would all do as I do, they're very hard work; they can be very productive. But I need to be persuaded that you need more than one person and that there is a value added for this committee and for the taxpayers of this province. That's what I need to see.
If I can be persuaded of that, on the one instance I am prepared to support anybody who wants to go through their global budget. Second, if we don't want to go that route, I am prepared to support the chairman to attend, subject to reports and so forth. I have no difficulty with that either.
Interjection: Is that a motion?
Mr Shea: I want to hear some answers to my questions first.
The Chair: Mr Shea, I think I can answer two of your questions. You were asking how this conference would be paid for. It would be paid for through the global budget.
Mr Shea: Of each member.
The Chair: No, no, of the committee, the global budget of this committee.
Mr Shea: I was referring to the global budget of each member.
The Chair: No, the global budget of this committee.
Mr Shea: We could ask the House for permission to do that.
The Chair: It's budgeted for, but we do need permission from the House; if we travel outside the province, it needs to be sanctioned by the House.
In terms of your second question, Mr Shea, I'm told that after every conference a transcript is distributed to every member of this committee, or any other committee, for that matter.
Mr Shea: I don't mean to interrupt, but what do you mean by a transcript? Do you mean a transcript of the proceedings?
The Chair: The proceedings. Just like Hansard, I've been told.
Mr Shea: But that would mean I could get a transcript without sending anybody.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Shea: Do I have reports that have been tabled by those who have been there to interpret what they saw and what that means for Ontario, what it means for this committee?
The Chair: I cannot answer this question to your satisfaction because I've never attended one of these.
Mr Shea: Chairman, I'm not asking you, I'm not putting you on the spot for that either. I don't want you to misunderstand what I'm saying. Maybe the clerk can tell me. Do we have a history of the reports that have been tabled by members who have attended, with their interpretation of what has happened and what that means for this committee and for this province?
Clerk of the Committee (Ms Donna Bryce): I haven't seen any reports that an individual may have tabled. I know that in the past when this committee did an annual report, they would include a page on the conference. But it was about six years ago that the committee actually did an annual report. This would be the first year in six years that the committee is doing an annual report, and that would be the appropriate place for some sort of summary of the conference.
Mr Shea: There have been conferences in the last six years, haven't there?
Clerk of the Committee: Right, but the committee has not done an annual report in the last six years.
Mr Shea: So the taxpayers have not seen anything as a result of the last five conferences?
Clerk of the Committee: Other than the transcripts, no.
Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I have a couple of questions. On the government side, I know you've talked to your House leader or your whip or whomever, and I am sure he or she has said, "You're not going," or "We don't want you to go."
Mr Grimmett: I've already made the point --
Mr Patten: You've made that point. Okay, so they don't want you to go; is that what they're saying? Or what's the answer?
Mr Grimmett: I made the point right at the outset that we've had no direction on this. We're all on our own.
Mr Patten: That's unusual, because I would think you usually would.
Interjection: We're democratic on this side.
Mr Patten: Yeah, right. A few members on your side don't say that.
Mr Pouliot: Mr Murdoch has an independent mind.
Mr Patten: There is money in the budget. The question is whether you think the optics of it are not good and you don't want to go, or you don't think it's supportable, or you don't think it's worthwhile.
When Ontario is host, we're very happy to be host and very diligent, but all of a sudden, when it's somewhere else, we have questions about it. It's always true. I find that somewhat distasteful, because it's not a sharing position.
There are lots of optics: be frugal etc. We don't have coffee any more in our lounges or the apple juice that we used to get free. We don't even have that any more. I find it strange that in committee, by the way, we have coffee, we have juice. Take it away. It's not legitimate, it's not compatible. We shouldn't have coffee here today or any of these kinds of things.
Perhaps it's the end of session and I'm losing my patience a bit, but we spend an inordinate amount of time on the smallest items. We sometimes talk about items worth almost $100 million that go through this committee and they pass quickly. We talk about something that's a couple of thousand bucks and we spend half a day on it.
I must say, if we don't place any value on learning, sharing knowledge, receiving knowledge, if we don't have any respect for members who might want to attend and don't care to receive their views and wisdom when they return, let's not waste time.
I support it. I always do. When businesses send people for training -- some companies spend up to 20% of their budget, by the way, especially in the high-tech field -- taxpayers pay. In every single area, taxpayers pay. But somehow we have a view that if we do it, because ours is visible, is on top of whatever we do -- and we do no training. In my opinion, we are the worst institution when it comes to training that I've ever seen, and I've worked as a trainer and as a consultant in that field.
What kind of training do ministers get when they go into the job? Absolutely zilch, nothing. What kind of training do we get? One and a half days of orientation. That's not training, that's orientation to the institution. We don't get training. We don't believe in it. That's why we're not as efficient or as effective as we could be. A lot of it is because we don't have a knowledge base and we're not prepared when we go in. We struggle away. You come to a committee: What the hell's the committee all about? You figure, "Oh, it's about such and such," and then maybe three months later you discover, "Oh, that is the mission of the committee."
I feel strongly that it is a legitimate investment in helping members to be more knowledgeable and to be better able to do their job when they attend committees etc.
1040
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): As you know, I haven't been here too many times, but I can't believe I come in here today and hear us debate about sending people to a convention. That's where we should be sending people. If we stick our heads in the sand, we won't know what the hell's going on out there. We went through this debate when I was in municipal government. You'd get people saying, "We can't go to this one, we can't go to that one." If you sit back home in your municipality, you won't know what the hell's going on out there in the real world.
This is why you have committees, this is why you send people to these conventions. I can't believe we're even debating this issue. You have a global budget and you'll send them through that budget. How many you send maybe could be debated, but I think at least each party should be represented.
If you're worried about saving a bit of money for the taxpayers, cripes, we've done enough chintzing around with our budgets already. We don't get pins any more, we don't get scrolls. I think we've done enough. I can't believe this is what this committee is all about. If you haven't been doing any more than this, I'm glad I haven't been coming.
I just say that I'll support it. I think we should be sending members out to these things. You're right: If we're going to host in Ontario and nobody shows up, we're going to look pretty stupid, and they'll say, "Ontario never showed up to ours."
I don't know why we're even debating this. I've never been in a committee yet that debated this kind of stuff. I'm just saying, I'll support sending them. Let's get on and do some business.
Mr Pouliot: I just wish to know -- these things inevitably happen. My understanding is that the government, rightly so, tabled a budget. It passed, rightly so. In the budget, once you go to estimates, once you go to line-by-line -- there was some allocation made for the attendance. It's budgeted for, is it not, Mr Chairman?
The Chair: Yes, it is, in the global.
Mr Pouliot: In other words, when we look at the budget, it's an acquiescence. It flows that we are so much for this and so much for that, if we're to go line by line.
If not at the last minute, I welcome the conversation. We must always conduct due diligence on our own affairs. I take it that it's nice for the gallery. I would have preferred for this conversation to be accompanied by Remy Martin later on in the day than having it this morning. It gets to be philosophical. But my understanding is that we're talking about a fait accompli, that the budget was passed, and in the budget, once you go line by line, there was an allocation made to attend the conference.
The Chair: I'd like to clarify something with you, Mr Pouliot, and the rest of the members of the committee. When we talk about a global budget, it is a global budget. In our budget we don't have an item that says "attending conference." It's from a global budget, but it is money that can be used for conferences. I just want to clarify this.
Mr Shea: Mr Patten's comments and Mr Murdoch's have certainly helped move my vote. I must say, I asked the question in a businesslike fashion. I have been through the waters and need no lectures from anyone about the values of conferences or workshops or anything else. I made that patently clear in my opening comments. There is considerable merit in any of these efforts if you can justify them.
But what concerns me in response to my questioning is that there has been no justification. Simply tabling a transcript with this committee I think is offensive. It is sloppy business and it makes no justification for anybody at all, particularly the taxpayers, who are paying for it.
I have men and women in my parish, let alone in my riding, who can't afford to take a holiday anywhere. This will not be assumed as a holiday, but let me tell you, some may well see it that way. Those are the optics. I'm not prepared to get into that level of the optics with that, because I'm not persuaded by that.
What I am more persuaded about than Mr Patten spoke to and didn't address is the fact that I have nothing before me, or a track record before this committee, to tell me what value added has been given from any of these workshops. What makes it worse is that the membership of this committee over the last five years has changed significantly year by year, as parties change their membership. I may send someone off very cheerfully to pick up information that could be of great assistance to this committee, but they're not here when they come back anyhow and there is no track record of what they learned at the committee.
All I'm suggesting is that if you're going to involved in these events, there should be a protocol that tables with us some information of merit to this committee and allows us to develop some kind of corporate memory upon which we can build.
Mr Patten talks about business sending people for training. They do, and it's worth the money. I will put it to him that the employees stay in the corporation, usually, to work on what they have learned and to transmit what they have learned to the rest of the corporation. That's of great value and that's worth expending the money. But you, Chairman, have not been able to tell me that that has been done for the committee.
I'm simply raising a business case here. No one need get defensive about saying, "I want to do this trip, because look what I will learn." I'm not putting anybody under a personal attack. I'm talking about a process which I think is flawed. All I said from the very beginning was that if some of you want to come back and justify it and will bring back reports and so forth, I could be persuaded to support it. But the response by Mr Patten and by my great colleague whom I admire deeply -- I don't know who he is, because he's a stranger in most cases, but my good colleague Mr Murdoch is one I respect. If they think there's some merit, show me where the merit comes from. That's all. I want something to build upon.
Mr Murdoch: I think the merit is the way we run the province. I hear what you're saying. If you can go back to what I said about municipalities, that's what happened. You can bring back a report. I hear what you're saying, Derwyn, that you would appreciate somebody going. We can set up that process and I'm sure whoever goes is going to come back and report. You can't do much about it if they change the committee. That's the leaders' choice and sometimes that happens. That's like a casualty of the business, and you can't help that.
I hear you. You're right in what you're saying, that there should be some benefit in sending people to conferences. I go back to my municipal experience. There was benefit. What the councillors did or the reeve or me was that we would go back to council and use the wisdom we'd picked up at the convention and report it back and then use it in the daily business of running the township.
Mr Shea: But we haven't done that here.
Mr Murdoch: I don't know whether we haven't. I haven't sat on this committee before, and there may not be anybody sitting here who's been to one of those. Ben's probably the longest-sitting member here, or Gilles; they may have been. If they were at one of these conventions they'd use it now as you go through your meetings, and they would in the future, whoever went. You're right in what you're saying, so I think you have to let them go.
The Chair: This discussion could go on forever, so I'll listen to M. Lalonde and then M. Pouliot.
Mr Lalonde: I just want to clarify one point. When I referred a little while ago to the Good Roads convention, that it was a party --
The Chair: Good times.
Mr Lalonde: Well, I don't want the statement I made to be misinterpreted. They definitely have good workshops. It's after the regular agenda that they have the parties going.
Mr Murdoch: I never went to a Good Roads convention where I didn't learn something. I came home once with two graders for my township. That saved them a lot of money, let me tell you.
Mr Pouliot: Mr Chair, would it be in order if I were to make a motion to test the floor?
The Chair: Absolutely.
Mr Pouliot: It would be that the committee authorize the attendance of you, Mr Chair, the clerk of the committee and one member from each of the three parties to attend the conference on the specified date, September 14-16 in the city of Edmonton, Alberta. I possibly need help, and I would appreciate your help in the appropriate wording.
Mr Chudleigh: For clarification, you said the Chairman plus one member from each party, so that would be four members.
Mr Pouliot: Exactly, and the clerk of the committee.
Mr Chudleigh: I couldn't support that. I could support three, one member from each party.
Mr Pouliot: That would be inclusive of the Chair?
Mr Chudleigh: Yes, one member from each party.
Mr Pouliot: What about the Chair?
Mr Chudleigh: The Chair could be his representative from his party.
The Chair: You're including the clerk or deleting the clerk?
Mr Pouliot: Yes.
The Chair: Yes what?
Mr Pouliot: Father Shea would wish to see a report, and no one is more able to prepare and present such a report than the clerk.
The Chair: You realize that whatever the outcome of the vote on this motion, we would still need the blessing of the House to travel to Edmonton. In your motion, M. Pouliot, are you adding that the clerk provide us with not only a transcript but a full report of the activities of the conference?
Mr Pouliot: Yes, and I do so at my own peril, Mr Chairman, to acquiesce to the wishes of my colleague Mr Shea.
The Chair: Very good. Can the clerk read the motion?
Clerk of the Committee: That the committee request authorization from the House leaders, through a motion in the House, to allow the Chair, one member from each party and the clerk to attend the CCPAC conference on September 14 through 16, and that the clerk prepare a report to the full committee on the activities of the conference.
The Chair: We're ready for a vote on Mr Pouliot's motion. Those in favour? Those against? I declare the motion lost.
I think we should revert back to item 1, the estimates of the Provincial Auditor. As you know, members, at 9:30 this morning we had a subcommittee meeting and we were advised by Mr Grimmett that the government intends to table a motion.
Mr Grimmett: I'd like to move that item 1, estimates of the Provincial Auditor in open session, be struck from the agenda. It is our position that the committee does not have the jurisdiction to deal with this matter.
The Chair: Any discussion on Mr Grimmett's motion? Those in favour? Against? Carried.
The committee continued in closed session from 1053 to 1200.
Mr Shea: Mr Chair, I move that the committee request of the House leaders that the Chair or the Vice-Chair and the clerk of the committee attend the CCPAC conference from September 14 to 16, and that the clerk prepare a report to the full committee on the activities of the conference.
The Chair: All in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
We'll now go back into our closed session.
The committee continued in closed session at 1201.