Government Operations Committee on Feb. 6th, 2007

[Vic Toews]

I'm always cautious before I speak on some of these issues because I don't want to jeopardize any contractual arrangements that may or may not be in place. Certainly, when we're talking about procurement, the government's first position is that it needs to be done on an open and competitive basis in order to get the best price possible.

Secondly, we recognize that many of these contracts offer opportunities for Canadians to develop their skills, that we retain skilled workers and technicians and professionals here in Canada. Again, that is important. I know, for example, under the WTO there are provisions to allow contracts under NAFTA that allow work to be done in-country, so it doesn't have to be shipped off to another country. I think there are good, solid, national reasons for doing that in order to develop our own industry, our own workforce.

I'm just wondering, Mr. Secretary, if you want to add anything to that.

[Wayne Wouters]

I think in the government's procurement policy it sets out the conditions by which we undertake procurement, which are that it should be competitive, except in areas where for security reasons or whatever, or the size of the contract, there may be only one competitor. As well, the government has built into procurement policy provisions to achieve other objectives for the government, for example, ensuring that aboriginals have a certain percentage of overall procurement, or ensuring that the procurement we undertake meets certain environmental standards, what we call green procurement conditions.

At the same time as the government moves to look at how we undertake procurement, Public Works, for example, has given special attention to small and medium-sized business. As we are looking at reforming our procurement approach, in doing so the government wants to ensure that those businesses continue to receive a fair share of the overall procurement budget.

I think there are ways, while continuing to move to competitive process, to ensure other objectives are being achieved at the same time.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

Something that I know I raised with your predecessor, Mr. Minister, concerned some cuts that were made last fall. I know there was a lot of concern in my community about those cuts, specifically the cancellation of the court challenges program.

There was great concern about the impact on human rights and the potential inability of people whose rights might be breached under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be able to access legal assistance in order to challenge the law and have their rights protected. Of course, we have lots of examples, whether it's francophones, people with disabilities, or gays and lesbians who have had the ability to have their rights fulfilled because of the court challenges program. That was one area.

A second area was the cuts to Status of Women. I have to say there is great concern among women in my community and across the country about the cuts that have been made, the offices that have been closed in the Status of Women program, and a seeming reorientation of that. I appreciate that the details are best asked of the Minister of Heritage, but it's the cuts that really concern women.

The third area that I heard the most about was on the cuts for touring arts. I know internationally acclaimed writer Margaret Atwood wrote an opinion piece in The Globe and Mail about this and how important it is in terms of Canada's projection of its image abroad and our culture and in terms of giving opportunities to aspiring or up-and-coming artists to have our international touring program. The loss of funds to those kinds of programs is really of great concern to the arts community.

We did, of course, ask these questions to your predecessor, but I feel obliged to raise this with you as well, because of course these cuts are ongoing and the funding has not been restored.

[Vic Toews]

Well, I've not yet seen areas where we've in fact taken money out of a certain area and simply left it without money. I'm not aware of any.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

On the funding for the court challenges program, whether or not it's actually gone at this moment, it has been announced that it will be cancelled.

[Vic Toews]

Right. What I've seen in almost every situation I've come across and what people have asked me about is this. For example, we've taken money out of this situation, and yet I've consistently seen in the government announcements that we are simply redirecting the funding. Instead of paying lobbyists to lobby the government to get more money in order to lobby, for example, we wanted to have actual delivery of programs.

For some of the work that I saw, for example, through so-called literacy groups, there wasn't in fact much literacy work being done at all. It was straight advocacy. But I was encouraged to see the actual direct expenditure of money into reading programs and the like. I would prefer that the money actually go to help children, adults, and immigrants learn to read rather than simply paying lobbyists to do it.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Minister, on that particular issue, I wanted to ask an additional question specifically on literacy.

In my community, there is a lot of concern about the loss of funds for literacy support. Some of this money was going to train instructors in literacy programs. If you don't have instructor training, you don't have support for the instructors, and if you don't have the resources for instructors, you don't have the programs.

I have to tell you that people on the ground who are delivering these programs have expressed great concern. This isn't about people flying around in jets lobbying government. This is about people who are delivering programs on the ground and who have come to talk to me in my community.

[Vic Toews]

As I understand it, all of the $1 billion in savings have been reallocated in those areas to ensure that those kinds of needs are met. In the literacy area, for example, $81 million is going towards actual literacy programs, as opposed to lobbying groups.

The court challenges program is an interesting example. I believe in the budget there was about $5 million a year, yet no one is able to tell me who got the money. I first asked who got the money years before I was even in the federal government. When I made those kinds of inquiries, they said “I'm sorry, we can't tell you because it would violate solicitor-client privilege.” That was the grossest abuse of solicitor-client privilege I had ever heard of in my life.

For example, when someone is on a legal aid certificate, that's well-known. The source of the funding doesn't in any way violate solicitor-client privilege. So not only did we not know who was getting the money because the group said they couldn't tell us, but we didn't know the criteria under which that money was spent.

If we're going to go down that road in any way, the people who actually receive the money...we have to be clear about that. It has to be open and accountable. Secondly, the criteria.... Those were the fundamental two flaws in the court challenges program that I experienced. It may only be $5 million, but that's a lot of money to many people.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

If I could just say that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

You have both gone way over time. You'll have to try again later.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, one of the foremost tools that Parliament has at its disposal in holding the government to account is the Office of the Auditor General, and when leaks of Auditor General reports occur they undermine that whole process. We've had an unprecedented three leaks since January of last year. In fact, the last two reports of the Auditor General have been leaked--unprecedented occurrences that undermine parliamentary privilege and our ability to hold government to account.

On May 12, Mr. Jason Kenney, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Prime Minister, quite clearly stated in the House, and repeated three times:

Now what we are clearly concerned about is that confidential information remain confidential and that people who are responsible for leaking confidential information are held accountable. The government is committed to that, and we will act accordingly.

So he repeated three times that people will be held accountable. Then in The Globe and Mail the following day he stated:

I can further assure her that the government is investigating the matter and will hold accountable anybody who may be responsible.

Have you seen a copy of the Treasury Board report on the leaks?

[Vic Toews]

This issue was discussed quite fully at the public accounts committee yesterday, and officials who were there—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

But have you seen the actual Treasury Board report on these leaks?

[Vic Toews]

I'm not going to disclose what I have or have not seen. All I can tell you at this point is that officials were at the public accounts committee yesterday—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That wasn't the question, so I'll try to stick to the questions and hopefully get some answers.

It's quite clear that the government treated this with great seriousness, Minister. Jason Kenney stated that the individuals—

[Vic Toews]

Perhaps you can tell me what specific information you would like and I can answer the question.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

It would be tremendous if you could provide us with a copy of that particular report.

[Vic Toews]

I'll see whether I'm able to do that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

That would be tremendously helpful, Minister.

In the statement, you said yesterday that this was discussed at Public Accounts. In that statement, the Treasury Board official had a review of the report--not the actual report--and he said that it focused on document controls and procedures and on reminding employees of their obligations. The second review looked at receipt and signing procedures. There was nothing about actually trying to get to the bottom of who is responsible for the leaks. And in conclusion--it was quite brilliant, in fact--it stated, “In summary, we have conducted thorough internal reviews of the processes and procedures in place to maintain the confidentiality of the work of the Auditor General”.

There is nothing to hold anyone accountable for the actual leaks. So I think it would be of significance and importance to see the actual report, to see whether the government made any efforts to get to the bottom of these unprecedented leaks of the Auditor General's reports in a quantity that is unprecedented.

But since you'll review whether or not you can provide that for us, let's move on to a different topic that was touched upon: procurement. Minister, you stated that transparency is of vital importance, and especially that $5 million is a lot. Well, billions of dollars are being spent on heavy-lift aircraft from Boeing, single source. And the minister in charge of this particular file—

[Vic Toews]

It wasn't single source, as I understand it.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I haven't finished my question, Minister.

And the defence minister is a former military arms lobbyist.

For the sake of transparency, especially if billions of dollars are being spent, single source--this isn't $5 million, you said you were concerned about $5 million--and when the minister himself, in the past, worked and was paid for by arms lobbying firms, it would be of tremendous benefit for the Canadian public, the taxpaying public, to see all the procedures that were followed in making the decision and in setting the requirements for this particular procurement.

Would you, as President of the Treasury Board, be willing to be forthcoming with all the documentation?

[Vic Toews]

Well, you've made all kinds of assumptions and statements and put them all together in what is not, particularly, a very neat package.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Maybe you could provide us with a neat package showing all the details of how this particular procurement came about.

[Vic Toews]

First of all, to simply suggest that the Minister of National Defence was somehow in some kind of conflict because, I understand, he was a lobbyist for one firm or another.... The assumption you're making here is that he was in conflict, which was not in some way detected, and that there was something inappropriately done.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No, the gist is transparency, sir. Once again, you talked about $5 million, but this is billions of dollars at the same time as other programs are facing cuts.

Can you tell us, for the sake of transparency, especially in the case of single source, how the procurement requirements were set? What was the process? And will there be transparency provided so that we will actually know how the final decision was arrived at?