Evidence of meeting #23 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contracts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
You can't do that. It's you who are introducing it. We haven't finished the meeting.
10:30 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Absolutely, but I don't know how to do it. I'd like to introduce it today.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
10:30 a.m.
Bloc
10:35 a.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
We can't, because if she's presenting in a....
We'll take a short break.
10:37 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
I'm going to reconvene the meeting.
Madame Bourgeois was speaking, and I will go back to Madame Bourgeois because I stopped it.
10:37 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
Madam Chair, I want the committee to ask the Office of the Auditor General of Canada to investigate the process whereby this contract was awarded.
10:37 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
All right. The motion reads as follows:
That the Committee ask the Office of the Auditor General of Canada to investigate the process by which the Department of Public Works and Government Services awarded contract EN869-040407/001/EL-000 to CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Inc. on October 31, 2007, in light of the allegations that Mr. Don Powell, President of TPG Technology Consulting Ltd., made during a press conference on March 31, 2008.
10:37 a.m.
Liberal
10:37 a.m.
Bloc
10:37 a.m.
Bloc
10:37 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
But the question she was asking was about the contract that was awarded to CGI. She's asking the committee to recommend that the Auditor General review it.
Copies are coming, but if you'd like, the clerk can reread it in English.
10:37 a.m.
Liberal
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Madam Chair, I have no problem with the Auditor General investigating anything. That's her duty and job--if, how, why, when, or where it's deserved. This is a matter that's before the courts now. It's already been there three times. This will be the fourth.
We've had no compelling evidence come before this committee to suggest that we have this problem, this problem, this problem. Should that evidence come before this committee, then I think by all means a motion like this would be in order. At this particular point, the committee has not heard that type of evidence. I think we're being presumptuous on this, and particularly when a matter is before the courts.
I certainly think we should reserve the right to do this, and I think there might be a time to do this, but I don't believe the time is now to present a motion like this. I'm going to suggest that we not cast aside a motion like that, but that we at least take a look at a motion like that when the time is opportune and when the time is also real.
If this committee, in its wisdom, decides to go forward with this, so be it. I know, certainly as a government member, I have nothing at all...and the minister has been straightforward in his statement on this. The question is, do we want to interfere in the process if there's a time when this process should move forward with a request from the Auditor General? I seriously question the timing of this motion. I think we should consider that very, very seriously.
For that reason only, I certainly would vote against it, not for the spirit of the motion and having people come before us, and certainly not for the spirit of getting to the bottom of any situation. I think open and honest transparency is fine, but once again, time and a place. I don't believe this is the time or the place.
April 10th, 2008 / 10:40 a.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I understand the intent of Madam Bourgeois' motion, it's fine, but the Auditor General won't look into it until the litigation is complete. If this committee passes a motion asking the Auditor General to do something that we know she won't do because the litigation is incomplete, I would suggest that would make this committee look a little less than sharp.
