Government Operations Committee on June 5th, 2008

[Liliane saint pierre]

It is very important to emphasize that we have not begun the procurement process for the planes. We received no requests for services from the Department of National Defence. We are therefore not in a position to present you a detailed procurement strategy.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus, one last question.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to follow up with Madame Saint Pierre. My colleague had asked about how the fairness monitor is applied. You said there were 23 such processes since the summer of 2005.

It's a two-part question. Are the 23 projects within the Department of National Defence, or is this general public works in total? And would you be able to give us a general costing of what those projects were so that we can have a sense of how the fairness monitor works?

[Liliane Saint Pierre]

Regarding the fairness monitor, I did mention that since the adoption of the policy in mid-summer 2005, we had 23 processes where the services of the fairness monitor were used. One of those processes was cancelled, and 22 remained.

I have the statistics related to who and for what. In 18 of those processes, the public works department had provided agency procuring services to other departments; three involved a procurement for which public works is the client, because we also procure on our own behalf; and two were for another branch within our department, which is real property.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much.

Would you be able to supply us with the overall costing, what those projects cost?

[Liliane Saint Pierre]

We will be able to provide you with the cost related to hiring fairness monitors.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

No, I'd like the cost of each project, just so we get a sense of at what point the fairness monitor is applied.

[Liliane Saint Pierre]

We will be pleased to do so.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very kindly.

On behalf of the committee, I would definitely like to thank our witnesses for coming here today: Mr. Ross, Ms. Saint Pierre, and Mr. Williston. Obviously you have a huge impact in ensuring that our men and women are adequately looked after and provided for. And of course your responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer is also of paramount importance.

Thank you very kindly for coming today and sharing your knowledge, and obviously the focus of your departments.

We'll take a very brief break while you leave, and then we'll carry on with the rest of our meeting.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Order.

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Chair, my comments on the motion will be brief.

This is an item that has been debated at some great length. There are a lot of outstanding questions. I'm not suggesting that we determine today the nature of the review, but as this does have to do with the operations of government, I think it's appropriately before this committee, and I think the motion speaks for itself.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I think this motion is another example of an attempt to derail the important work of this committee. We've embarked on an extensive review of procurement processes, and I think that's important.

Over and over in the last number of months, we've had too many obvious examples of the work of Parliament or the work of committees being sidetracked by questions that have already been answered. For example, this report is there and the questions have been answered. So I would stand opposed to this motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Are there any other comments on this?

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm not sure what Mr. Holland is seeking to find. It's nowhere in the motion what exactly he thinks is possibly a deficiency. Obviously, folks who are much more qualified than we are undertook this investigation, and if it is the fact that he didn't get the answer that he wanted, that may be something of a different discussion.

We've all had the opportunity to read the report. We've all had the opportunity to see what was found there. He hasn't brought anything specifically that he's looking for.

So I'm not sure. Certainly I'm not in favour until we find there's some major deficiency. I just don't see why we're going to spend the committee's time reviewing somebody else's work that was very competently done.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Okay.

We're out of time. We're going to end this today. However, Mr. Holland's motion came on the floor dutifully, and it should be a priority of the committee. We have only have one witness on Tuesday. It should come up as the first agenda item and be dealt with.

The meeting is adjourned.