Government Operations Committee on March 31st, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

No, I don't think it is. The chair has to get us through some business. But I'm happy to entertain that.

Colleagues, our staff have discussed the possibility of an appearance here with the chief human resources officer. First, she's a new appointee. Her appointment has been referred to the committee. Second, there have been some issues raised in previous meetings, which appear to involve the responsibilities of that particular officer.

The response we've had is that she would prefer to wait six months. I don't know whether colleagues are comfortable with that. Perhaps they are. I just wanted to report to you on the status of that.

If it were the view of colleagues that we should require her to be here, either on the matter of her appointment or on some of these human resources issues, then perhaps colleagues could express it now. We have a few minutes to deal with this and a few other items.

On that, Ms. Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

On the question of her appointment, it doesn't seem to make much sense to wait six months. Why would we be meeting with her to talk about her appointment and wait for six months? If she is concerned about wanting to learn more about her role in terms of answering human resources questions, that's a different issue. They're different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

If we're that intent on having her come on the issue of her appointment, then no, six months doesn't make sense. If we're not too fussed about that, I think six months is still too long—she should be able to ramp up before then—but giving her a bit of time would make some sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

We have a dozen other appointments that have been referred to us, and we've only called one of them. We don't have the time, of course, to call all appointees. I just wanted to mention she was one of those.

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I'm not interested in reviewing her appointment. I think we're satisfied that she's well qualified for the position. At this point, what I am looking for is the information that specifically falls under her mandate. When she comes, I want her to be well prepared to answer the questions, so I want her to come when she's prepared. Obviously, if this pushes us into the fall, there will be work being done by our committee in the interim. Whether or not she wants to contribute to it, up until that point, is completely in her hands.

My sense is that when we call her we will want her to be fully briefed on the issues we're going to be asking her about. If that means we wait until the fall, I'm prepared to do that. Even so, we are going to continue with our studies, and I guess she'll be responding to what our findings are, rather than contributing to those findings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Okay. In fairness, I want to point out that the chief human resources officer isn't just a new appointee. There's actually a new administrative office function there, an amalgamation of other functions, so it's not just a new appointment. Clearly there would be some time necessary to get it up and running.

I'll leave this to members. In the event that members consensually feel she should be called before the summer, they can express that.

The second item has to do with our upcoming meeting on Thursday. This is on the subject of stimulus package spending. This meeting was designed to be informational, really a preparation meeting for the Tuesday when we come back after the Easter break. I had even thought that we should go in camera, but the two witnesses from the government departments identified have indicated that they would prefer not to be in camera. I suppose that if they're going to say something, it might as well be on the public record; they don't want to get into a difficult situation. This is what they've requested, and if members want to respect their wishes, that's fine.

In any event, we will go ahead with the meeting. There's one thing I'd like members to accept: that the meeting should be seen as informational, and not as a meeting intended to address the issue of accountability of the witnesses. The accountability issues can be dealt with at the subsequent meeting that will happen on the Tuesday when we come back, if there are accountability issues. I would like colleagues to agree in advance that the witnesses would be treated in the usual respectful way, as assisting the committee to prepare for the subsequent meeting, and that if there are questions for which there are not answers forthcoming or available or whatever, we simply let it be or take note of it. If questions are asked and need answers in the subsequent meeting, they can be addressed there as a matter of accountability.

Can I seek agreement to proceed on that basis for this Thursday's meeting?

Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I do not know who is appearing before the committee next Thursday. Could you please remind me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I will have the clerk read it.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michel Marcotte]

Simon Kennedy, from the Privy Council Office, and Alistair Smith, from the Treasury Board Secretariat, will be here.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you.

I have no problem with our discussing the stimulus package, except that we discussed it last week and the three witnesses did not know what to say to us; they had no answers. I do not wish to waste any time here.

If we can ensure that these people will be able to answer our questions, that will be fine. I do not wish to waste any time delving into the numbers and nitpicking. We have a lot of work to do. If the witnesses do not know what to say, they should not be invited to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Well, I know the witnesses who are coming will definitely try to be helpful to members. It's been my perception that there's a great lack of information, misinformation, about the arcane world of authorizing government spending and how it happens. Not only is that true generally, but in this case the process that's being adopted is for the most part unprecedented. But it does follow rules, etc., and I thought it would be helpful for members to be acquainted with all of that before we get into the meeting when we come back from the break. If members feel otherwise, they should speak and let me know.

Otherwise, we'll proceed with this as a meeting that could have gone in camera--and it still might. Keep in mind that it is our decision whether or not the meeting is in camera, not that of the witnesses. In this case they've asked that it not be in camera, and if members are okay with that, we'll proceed on that basis. Is that okay?

By the way, I'll try as chair to ensure the meeting is informational in context.

In addition to that, there is a motion by Mr. Calandra that when we deal with the procurement issues in subsequent meetings--we have three lined up--we call the Information Technology Association of Canada on April 23. Colleagues, I'd rather not pick a date, but I am prepared to accept that we will call this industry group, ITAC, at one of the three meetings in the appropriate envelope.

If you're okay with that, Mr. Calandra, we will call ITAC as a witness on the appropriate date. Is that okay?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

It's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

So there's no need to put a formal....

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I was just wondering how much time we've given ITAC in the previous Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

I don't know.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Are they not regular and frequent visitors here?

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

No, but apparently one of ITAC's issues is that there may have been other witnesses who have received a lot of time at previous meetings, and they'd like to have a chance to put all of those submissions in context from their point of view.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

They have been waiting a long time, Mr. Chair, so if there is adaptability to get them first, I would be most appreciative of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Thank you, Mr. Calandra.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

If it is to look at the plan, we are willing to receive them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

If members are agreed, it will be at the first opportunity. We're good.

Now, for the last item, I think Madame Bourgeois was going to move a motion. It may have been written out, but in my view, as it is a new motion, there should be notice. It's actually recommending to members that we undertake a piece of work, a study. I think it would be useful for Madame Bourgeois to circulate it and discuss it with members.

I may have misunderstood. She was asking Madame Barrados to undertake a study.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

We could ask Ms. Barrados to conduct a study. Considering everything I said, I think it is important. It could address the concerns of both Ms. Barrados and Mr. Warkentin. We could then have a true picture of the situation.

Basically, she could table a report before our committee. We could then make some proposals to the government. I acted very suddenly, and I apologize for that, but I did not think it would reach such proportions. When I saw that nearly everyone is heading in the same direction in terms of personnel, that is when I thought of making that proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Derek Lee]

Let us have a look at how we might handle this. A committee is actually not in a position to force somebody else to go to work for it and do a study. We are in a position to require their attendance and to ask them for information. Madame Barrados has been a very good witness here and she's been very cooperative. Perhaps we should collaborate with her a little bit on how this might take place, and we can discuss it among ourselves and/or at a future meeting, if that's okay with members.

Your suggestions are excellent. I think we should consult a little bit with the Public Service Commission before we formalize it.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

She told us that is what she wanted. You can confirm it in the blues from this very meeting. She opened the door for us. That is why I mentioned it. I will reformulate my recommendation and forward it to our clerk. Is that okay?