Is there discussion?
Mr. Brown.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Health in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agency.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
It's not committee business right now. It's more appropriate that we do it at the end of the meeting, when we have committee business.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
No, but she can move it. She is within her rights to do that.
I know we've set up an agenda, and I know it'll be a long time before we set this up, but the motion is on the floor.
Dr. Carrie.
Noon
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Madam Chair, we have set an agenda, we have witnesses here to hear, and I think we should give them the respect that they are due. Let's move ahead with the agenda we have agreed to.
Noon
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Yes, Madam Chair.
I raised my hand because I still have a number of questions for the witnesses. It is clear that we should continue this discussion. If not today, in the next few days, but I think it is clear that we have to continue it.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Well, Monsieur Malo, that's a good point, and it can be at any other time as well that we can meet afterwards and take a look at things.
Mr. Dosanjh.
Noon
Liberal
Ujjal Dosanjh Liberal Vancouver South, BC
I would suggest that we vote on it, but I suggest to Ms. Leslie that she ask for 30 more minutes for this panel so that the others can come in for 30 minutes and at least present their viewpoint, rather than our having to send them away—since Dr. Hamm is here, and I have a lot of respect for my old premier colleague.
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Megan Leslie NDP Halifax, NS
I would be willing to change my motion to extend this panel by 30 minutes.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Chair, I would have a lot of trouble with not having.... Thirty minutes gives no time for a full round of questions. I think we need to keep with our agenda and move forward. If we deem we have questions that are unanswered, then perhaps we can look at extending the study when we talk about committee business.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
We're going to take a vote on it, then, if all comments have been made.
I have to say to you that, you know, we have a full committee agenda of very important things. It is really up to the will of the committee, but it's highly unusual to do things in an unbalanced manner.
It is the will of the committee, and I'm going to ask you now: who votes on...?
Yes?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
May I just say that if we're going to be adding an extra half hour here for the other witnesses—I'm just looking at numbers—as my colleague said, to give a decent round of questions and actually just hear their opening statements, we should see whether we could extend the meeting an extra half hour. As you said, this is totally unusual.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Well, we have to deal with the motion first, Dr. Carrie.
The motion is to extend the current panel for 30 minutes.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Dr. Carrie.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON
Could I, then, bring forward a suggestion that we extend the meeting for half an hour?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
All in favour of extending the meeting half an hour to be fair to the others as well, please signify.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you.
Okay. We will have a longer committee meeting today, with everyone having equal time, so we will achieve the same thing we started out to do.
We will start with Mr. Malo.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Ms. Slater, in your initial presentation, you told us that Canadians were not getting value for their money in terms of the agency's expenditures. You also told us that, in your opinion, the conference report was weak and useless, or could not be used, and that you passed the budget while still trying to understand it. My question is also for Ms. Baylis.
What efforts did you make to really understand the 2009-2010 budget you had to vote on at the time? Did you ask for help to understand the budget? Did you come up with questions? Did you get answers or technical support to help you to understand it better? Ms. Baylis, you actually told us that one of the responsibilities of the board of directors is to approve the budget. That really lies at the heart of the agency's operations.
Please go ahead.
12:05 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
As I told you, we saw the 2009-2010 budget for the first time at a meeting in June. They used slides. At that point, I said that it was unacceptable and I was not the only one to say that.
Although we were supposed to vote on the budget according to the agenda, we refused to do it when the time came. We then had a teleconference. I was unable to participate in it, but I tried to fulfill my duty as a member of the board of directors and I sent a list of questions. I was still interested in participating, but I was not able to. When I read the minutes, I understood that my questions had been read during the teleconference, some comments were made and, as a result, I was supposed to receive the answers to my questions, which was the case. So I have a copy of my questions and the answers. But I must admit that, when I looked at that, I still had a hard time.
For example, I repeatedly asked a question because it was a topic I was concerned about. I wanted to know what percentage of the budget went to the board of directors. There are standards after all. We wouldn't want to spend 25% of the budget on the board of directors. So I kept asking how much that would be. I was told that the expected sum was $120,000 for two meetings, which means $60,000 per meeting. I thought to myself that it was still expensive.
It was interesting for me to hear the answers Ms. Slater received, since she also asked the same question without my knowing. She was told that it would be $150,000 for three meetings. So she was told $50,000 per meeting and I was told $60,000.
Just to compare, the figure for the scientific council is $21,000 for two meetings. So it is much cheaper for them. I don't understand. Perhaps there are differences in the figures, I don't know.
That gives you a brief overview and shows you that it's never clear and we never seem to understand. Yet we are not asking a complicated question. We are asking what the budget is and what percentage of the budget goes for governance.
Every time I asked questions, I was told it was in this or that column, in the transport column, for example. I don't want to know how much I pay for a plane ticket, and it is not my job to ask my colleagues how much they pay for their plane tickets and then work out the total.
I also asked very specific questions about the consultants and contracts. I wanted to understand the obligations better and what the difference was between granting a contract to someone and hiring them as a consultant. I also asked where I could find out what we were paying for subcommittees. Not only did I want to find out the cost of our governance, but I also wanted to find out the cost of the scientific committee's expertise. I want you to know that their expertise is extraordinary. During my term, I felt it was a great committee that was working well. But I still have a right to know what the cost of the expertise is, and I cannot tell you that.
There were a lot of little questions like that.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I also want to thank the witnesses. Certainly you've raised a lot of flags here; in my opinion, at least, it was unfortunate we didn't get to hear the other witnesses, because I think that would actually generate more questions back to you had we perhaps heard some of their responses to your concerns and then had a chance to again get a bit of back and forth. But having to go with the will of the committee, I certainly appreciate that.
I have sat on a lot of different boards. I have found that some record minutes, and it's just action items. I've found that others record almost verbatim what happens in every particular meeting.
You expressed concerns about the minutes. They did record motions, results of motions, and action items. Could you perhaps talk a little more about that?
12:10 p.m.
As an Individual
If I understand your question, you're asking if those are the kinds of things that were in the minutes? Okay.
I wasn't on the board when the discussion about the minutes first happened that Françoise had mentioned. But the problem I experienced on the board was that by the time you got your minutes.... You know, you want to review things and make sure you heard things properly. We probably all took our own notes when we were at these meetings. To me, the minutes need to reflect what is being discussed and what is being said.
The other thing about the minutes that's really important as well is that as an agency, when they released a press release in March, they had a value statement, and in that value statement the agency made a point of saying that all the minutes would be posted publicly, for the public, on their website. To date, that has never happened.
Now, I totally understand that anything pertaining to cabinet confidence would not be posted unless it was for public knowledge. But to not honour that commitment to Canadians is something I found very difficult to understand. It's something I actually had brought up at the last face-to-face board meeting I was at. I had asked continuously about whether or not I could put on the agenda the discussion about posting of board minutes. It was very difficult to get that on the agenda, but it finally was put on the agenda.
Just to make another point about the kinds of things that were delegated to teleconferences, the follow-up discussion on that item was actually put to a teleconference where there were no minutes of the discussion about posting minutes on the AHRC website for the public.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you.
Again, talking to other boards, we know that often there are certainly challenges in terms of boards moving forward and there are varying degrees of sort of rowing together.
I also know that it doesn't seem like any one of you are not strong in terms of your confidence, in terms of going to a board meeting and insisting on having conversations on certain issues. We speak to boards where difficult conversations take place, but it's because people are willing to bring issues to the table and engage in those very difficult discussions.
I'd like to hear some comments. Did you bring specific concerns? Did you have robust discussions around those areas or did that not happen?