Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 9th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is everybody ready to vote on the amendment to the amendment?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

So you would not be prepared to change “unanimous” to a majority vote? I think it's a reasonable compromise. It meets the concerns and preoccupations you've expressed on behalf of the other members of your political party. It also addresses the concern that my motion was attempting to address.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

If someone wants to put an amendment forward to that effect, let's just vote on it immediately.

Are you moving that amendment?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

If Mr. Poilievre would withdraw his amendment, I would change the wording of my main motion and see if he's in agreement with it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Okay, I withdraw it. What's your wording?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

The wording would then be:

That the final time limit for the submission of a witness list and for witness requests to appear expires at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 9, 2006, after which witnesses may be invited to submit a brief in writing.The committee, by majority vote, may add names to the witness list in the future.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Let's go to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Does everybody understand what's going on here? All right.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're moving on to item number 3.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I support Mr. Martin's proposal to stand this discussion until after we have heard from our witnesses. I have no problem with Item N^o 3; however, I imagine that there is still some debate to be had on Item N^o 4. Out of respect for the witnesses, I therefore support Mr. Martin's proposal to stand this part of our meeting, if the committee rules allow us to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Does the committee want to hear the witnesses now or proceed with this report? Okay. There appears to be a consensus, so we'll adjourn and discuss items number 3 and 4 sometime in the future.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have three witnesses before us. From the Department of Public Works and Government Services, we have Laurent Marcoux, director general of public opinion research and advertising coordination, government information services. Good morning, sir.

We have from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Susan M.W. Cartwright, assistant secretary of accountability in government. Good morning again to you.

We have from the Department of Justice, Joe Wild, senior counsel. Good morning again to you.

Does anyone have any comments before we proceed?

[Laurent Marcoux, Director General, Public Opinion Research and Advertising Coordination, Government Information Services, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Chairman, I should perhaps briefly explain to the committee my job

and the role my unit plays is in the coordination of public opinion research within the government, if that may be of some assistance. As director general for coordination of public opinion research and advertising, I'm responsible for the public opinion research directorate.

This is an organization that has the mandate, pursuant to the Treasury Board communications policy and procedures, to act as technical and coordinating authority for public opinion research for the Government of Canada as a whole. As such, although each individual department and agency is accountable for its own public opinion research, they must come to my directorate, where we are obliged to review and advise departments on the research plans, methodology, and so on. We issue a public opinion research number, which is essential for a department to be able to access a contract pursuant to public opinion research.

In a very quick nutshell, that's the role we play within the public opinion research process within government.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Owen.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome, witnesses.

Mr. Marcoux, I quote from the Auditor General's report of November 2003, tabled in the House of Commons in February 2004, I believe. In particular, the section under public opinion research on page 4, chapter 5, of the Auditor General's report reads:

5.15 Based on our review of a sample of transactions and management practices, we found that the government managed its public opinion research activities adequately. The activities were centrally co-ordinated, as required by policies. Roles and responsibilities in the majority of activities were sufficiently clear; Communications Canada had issued an orientation guide outlining procedures for public opinion research and had developed a research guide to assist departments. In 2001-02, it published an annual report showing the number and value of government contracts awarded to each supplier.

Sir, in terms of your current position—and I realize the structure has changed, and Communications Canada no longer exists—could you please explain to us what changes have been made since the Auditor General's observation regarding public opinion research having been dealt with adequately? Were there particular concerns that required adjustment? Or has the situation been tightened up, or has oversight been expanded? Or what exactly has happened in terms of your role in the research since that time?

[Laurent Marcoux]

Certainly. Although the Auditor General did say that public opinion research was well managed at the time of the tabling of the report, nevertheless she indicated a number of observations, where there were some issues, and recommended to the government that an action plan be developed to address any and all of the observations in her report that raised concerns or issues concerning the management of public opinion research within the government.

In answer to your question, there was one comment, for example, that in a few instances—and those are the words of the Auditor General—there were cases in which a department had not received a written report on public opinion research. In other words, there were verbal reports only that had been identified by the Auditor General. As a result, the Treasury Board Secretariat issued new administrative procedures in November 2004, specifying that public opinion research reports must be in writing. I believe this was also indicated in the Treasury Board's communications policy.

Other concerns included that not all public opinion research reports were released to the public in a timely manner. I believe the Auditor General identified an 86% compliance rate, if you will, with the communications policy at the time, indicating that in 14% of cases the public opinion research reports were not made available to the public in a timely manner. Since then, my directorate has introduced a research information management system, which, as of a few months ago, issues monthly reminders to departments about due dates for the tabling of their public opinion research reports.

In addition, there were a number of observations that pertained to the Canada Information Office and Communication Canada, which no longer exist, so I won't refer to those.

There was an observation that the government could not prepare a strategic plan for public opinion research. Since then, the new procedures in November 2004, I believe, stipulate that institutions are to provide to the public opinion research directorate not with a global plan, but they are to advise the directorate of their plans to undertake public opinion research activities in a timely fashion.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I'm nervous as the time ticks on here.

To summarize what you've said so far, although there were some indications of concerns raised by the Auditor General, the overall practice was adequate. But those areas indicated as needing improvement were improved by the end of 2004.

[Laurent Marcoux]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Have any companies provided oral reports since these changes were introduced in 2004?

[Laurent Marcoux]

No, none at all.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Was the Earnscliffe case not before 2004?

[Laurent Marcoux]

Yes.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Was it before or after 2004 that David Hurley provided oral reports?

[Laurent Marcoux]

I believe that case was mentioned in the Auditor General's report, which means that it was before 2004. To the best of my knowledge, no oral reports have been filed since we amended the policy to make written reports mandatory.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Thank you very much. You are saying, therefore, that the rule has been enforced since 2004. Is it listed in a code of conduct, or is it a directive?