Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.
I must inform members that the clerk of the committee can only receive motions for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions, cannot entertain points of order or participate in debate.
[Translation]
We can now proceed to the election of the chair.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the chair must be a member of the official opposition.
[English]
I am ready to receive motions for the chair.
It has been moved by Monsieur Berthold that Kelly Block be elected as the chair.
[Translation]
Are there any further motions?
[English]
Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: I declare the motion carried and Ms. Kelly Block duly elected as the chair of the committee.
I invite Ms. Block to take the chair.
They read, “That...witnesses provide the committee with their opening statements 72 hours in advance”.
If need be, for the operation of other committees, we found that by having these statements in advance, the witnesses could provide extended statements, which offset the need for them to have more time, rather than having them come in at 10 minutes, off the cuff.
Quite frankly, it also ensures that we have the proper translations in advance for our French colleagues; or if they're francophones, then English translations in advance.
I'm going to start raising my hand in the “participants” function.
Chair, through you to Mr. Green, thank you.
In committees' past practices, sometimes you don't invite witnesses until a day or two before. Sometimes that's just the nature of the parliamentary calendar and committee schedule.
If that is the spirit, if it's possible to provide written correspondence 72 hours in advance, that would be great. It's not a requirement, but only if possible. In that spirit I'm supportive of the amendment.
I would like to raise the following point.
People who attend meetings from the office of a whip or House leader do not just follow one committee meeting at a time, but two or three, depending on the schedule of the day. You can only attend one meeting at a time when using the Zoom platform. However, when you participate in meetings by phone, you can follow several meetings at the same time.
It may be possible to make changes to our Zoom videoconferencing system so that we can follow more than one meeting at a time, but I don't think that's technically possible at this time.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Fergus, I wasn't talking about the employees in a whip's office, but about our own assistants, who are supposed to help us during the meetings. They have to be connected with us at the same time. Otherwise, they can't help us do our work as they would if the meetings were in person.
From what I understand, the clerk will check the system's ability to accommodate our assistants. Again, I suggest that our assistants be able to participate in the meeting with a closed camera. That way, we know they are present and that they are participating in the meeting. I'm in agreement to wait for the clerk's response on this.
First of all, I'd like to comment on Dean Allison, who was also a really good chair in the short period I interacted with him. He does have a lot to bring back to us in terms of institutional knowledge.
I wonder whether part of this motion could also talk about orientation in general, that the orientation would include a previous chair coming forward to discuss the operation of the committee. We also had some very good orientation from the Clerk's office. We have a lot of new members on the committee, and I found the orientation to be excellent. If we were able to have another orientation session, showing us what the committee does when it's on a good day, what kinds of challenges we might have and how to handle those challenges going forward in a non-partisan way....
I would suggest that part of the motion state that we bring back the previous chairs, and that we have orientation by the department.
I know that Mr. Allison was newly elected in the very short period of time that we met, but if my memory serves me correctly, it was actually Mr. Kevin Sorenson and Mr. Shawn Murphy, the past Liberal and Conservative chairs, who had a little bit more time in the chair. Mr. Allison was a very short-lived chair of this committee.
For the record, it's the Canadian Audit & Accountability Foundation that Mr. Longfield was referencing with regard to our initial orientation, which I also found to be an incredibly great start to this. I would welcome that as part of our overall resumption of this committee.
Mr. Christopherson, Mr. Sorenson and Mr. Murphy would be the people who would be in keeping with the motion.
Madam Chair, I was going to move a similar motion to Mr. Longfield's.
I appreciate Mr. Green's motion. To tell you the truth, I could use a second orientation from the Canadian association. I'm hoping it will stick a little more in my head, because it was a lot of information they provided to us. I say this for the new members: These orientation sessions were fabulous.
In the history of this committee, I don't know over how many Parliaments, it has presented unanimous reports. There have been no dissenting reports from this committee for a long time. I think that's because the committee has had the benefit of this kind of training. We take our fiduciary responsibilities as members of Parliament, not as political representatives but as members of Parliament, seriously to make sure that this committee continues to do great work.
I look forward to voting in favour of this motion and getting that training back.
I just want to make sure that you can all hear me. We had difficulty in pretesting my microphones. I assume you can hear me fine.
Great. I see that thumbs are up.
I absolutely support the motion with the additions of Mr. Allison and such. As a new member of this committee, I very much look forward to an orientation. I served close to eight long years on the public accounts committee in the province of Alberta, so I'm curious to know how the operations here work and whether there are any differences, which I'm sure there are.
I look forward to learning how you run the operation here.
Thanks.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There are far too many buttons you have to press to speak in French and then listen in English afterwards.
I would just like to say that it has been a long time since we last met with the Auditor General and the Comptroller General of Canada. Immediately following my comment, I'm going to move a motion to invite the Auditor General to appear next week to report on the status of reports, deadlines and what has happened since her appointment in June. It is important that we receive her promptly so that we can plan for all of our future work.
I support Mr. Green's motion to have an orientation session where we would have past chairs of the committee and people from the foundation. However, we should not spend our next six meetings doing training; we need to limit ourselves. It is also our responsibility to seek training to serve on this committee.
So I would keep the first draft of Mr. Green's motion, which is to invite past chairs of the committee and the Canadian Audit and Accountability Foundation to provide training.
As for the Auditor General and the Comptroller General, we have a lot of questions for them. I would exclude them from the motion, if Mr. Green agrees, but then I would bring forward another motion to have the new Auditor General come here.
I would love to hear from Mr. Green.
Madam Chair, I think he had accepted two friendly amendments to his motion. I don't know whether it's one or two. Perhaps Mr. Green could clarify that.
Just as a point of information, perhaps the IT people can make the following clear.
[Translation]
Mr. Berthold, if you have the latest version of Zoom that the House has encouraged us to use, you don't need to signal when you want to speak in French. With this new version, you can use the floor channel and it will work. It wasn't possible with the version we were using in May, but it is possible with the new version. This remains to be confirmed with the information technology people.
Thanks. I had an email coming in, so I couldn't raise my hand on the right-hand part of my screen.
I think if we did the training first, then we would know how to deal with Auditor General questions. To get the process of how we function as a committee as a first order of business, I agree we need to get the Auditor General in, especially in her new role. I know the clock is ticking because in November we're going to have the public accounts coming at us. There is going to be a fairly heavy workload thrown at us in November, I'm guessing.
I would say, let's try to get our committee processes and procedures and reflections done first, and then get the Auditor General in once we've had our training on how to function as a committee.
I would like to add something, and despite my friend Mr. Green's statement, I hope that it will be considered as a friendly amendment.
I don't want to change anything in Mr. Berthold's motion, since I agree with him that the Auditor General and the Comptroller General should appear before the committee as soon as possible. I would like to add, however, that we should first have some training from the other guests before inviting these witnesses to come and present the statement of accounts and audits at the next meeting.
Mr. Berthold, I don't remember if you were a member of the committee before the prorogation. We received very detailed training on how to read the statement of accounts, the right questions to ask and the questions to avoid. I found it very useful. The committee analyst is waving; he may have an update on this.
I support your motion, Mr. Berthold. My proposal does not constitute a dilatory motion. I simply want us to receive training first, so that we can then ask questions.
I'll speak in English for technical reasons right now.
When we have a meeting of the public accounts committee, it has been the practice in recent years to have it divided into two one-hour sessions. During first hour, in addition to staff from the OAG who provide an audit opinion of the public accounts, we also include the people at the Office of the Comptroller General who help prepare them.
We have one in camera session, and then we have one public session in which we study the public accounts, ask questions, etc.
One way, perhaps, in which to accommodate thevolonté of the committee would be to have a session with the past chairs, the Canadian Audit & Accountability Foundation and, if possible, the Auditor General of Canada, Ms. Hogan.
Then when we study the public accounts in the next meeting, it can be assured that both the OAG, as well as the staff, including the comptroller general, will be there for the first half of the in camera session.
I just wanted to help provide some background for the committee.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I know that in short order, as Mr. Longfield referenced, it's likely that we're going to get to a point where we'll be meeting twice a week, based on the workload.
As a thought for the committee, given that we haven't met for quite some time now, if it makes sense or if it is both considered urgent and important, perhaps in the week that we do our orientation we can book a second meeting to deal with the business at hand in the event that it might take us longer than we might have in one sitting to get it all done.
I have no objection to an orientation session.
In my motion, instead of talking about Thursday, October 22, we could say October 22, which is next week, or October 29, which is the following week. That would give the clerk some latitude in organizing the meetings if, for example, some guests were not available on Thursday of next week. It would also give them some latitude.
If we can't hold the training session before the week of October 29, we could still have the Auditor General come in next week and ask her questions. However, I prefer that we have the orientation session next week.
If everyone agrees, I will amend my motion to say “at its meeting on Thursday, October 22, 2020, or Thursday, October 29, 2020”. So the clerk will be able to schedule the orientation session at either of those two meetings, depending on people's availability.
Thank you very much, Mr. Berthold.
Are there any other comments to be made? If not, I will assume that we are ready for the question.
All those in favour of Mr. Berthold's motion?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Is there any other future business that the committee wishes to discuss at this time? If not, I would need the consent of the committee to adjourn the meeting.
Do I have your consent to adjourn?
Some hon. members: Agreed.