Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 5th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'd like to call the meeting to order, and I want to extend a very warm welcome to everyone here. Bienvenue à tous.

Colleagues on the committee, witnesses, ladies and gentlemen, there are three items on our agenda today. The first item has several motions that I want to deal with. The second item is the inquiry that has been called for by this committee into the leaks.

I want to point out to members of the committee that we are on a tight schedule. We have some motions.

The third item on the agenda is the departmental performance report from the Office of the Auditor General, and also the report on her plans and priorities for the upcoming year. I would like to start that portion of the meeting at five o'clock, so I'm going to adjourn right at five minutes to five. Once we start with the motions, I'd ask that colleagues and committee members be judicious in their use of time.

Before introducing the witnesses, I will deal with the motions. The first item is a ruling on a previous motion that was made by Mr. Wrzesnewskyj requesting an investigation by this committee. At the time I ruled that it was not in order, and I'm going to confirm my ruling. I have the following reasons for the decision, which I want to read into the record.

On December 12, 2006, the committee was asked to consider a motion from Mr. Wrzesnewskyj that basically asks that the public accounts committee ask for an investigation into the leaks about the Auditor General's most recent reports of May and November 2006. Some members of the committee have contributed to the debate on the motion.

Mr. Williams pointed out that this committee has no capacity to communicate with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to ask for an investigation and expressed the view that the motion was out of order. On the advice of the clerk as the debate was taking place, I stated that I was in agreement with that view. The powers given to committees are mainly to study matters within our mandate as stipulated in the Standing Orders, to summon papers and persons, but not to instruct or compel the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or any other government agency to conduct an investigation. Mr. Wrzesnewskyj indicated that his motion was a request to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and not an instruction.

After doing some consultation and research, I am comforted in my initial ruling by the Standing Orders, which spell out the powers of the standing committees as clearly stated in Marleau and Montpetit, pages 808-809, a copy of which has been made available to members of this committee. The member, I am sure, has other avenues he can contemplate to have the Royal Canadian Mounted Police conduct an inquiry into the leaks. Of course, any member or group of members is certainly free within their own prerogative to report or communicate to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police any matter they view to be relevant.

In closing, I want to thank all members for their contribution to this matter. That concludes that particular motion, colleagues.

I want to move now to the motion by Monsieur Laforest. I will read it for the benefit of committee members:

In light of the testimony the committee heard on December 12, 2006 and January 29, 2007, including that of Raymond Bélair, vice-president and general manager of Royal LePage Relocation Services, and Graham Badun, president of Royal LePage, and in order to explain to us the role she played as a lobbyist for Royal LePage Relocation Services, and thereby to explain the issue of registering in the Lobbyists Registry, it is proposed that pursuant to Standing Order 108(1) the public accounts committee call Sandra Buckler to appear as a witness as soon as possible.

That was tabled in the proper form by Monsieur Laforest, and we are going to debate it. I'm hopeful that the debate will be brief, and we will vote on it as a committee.

I'm going to ask Monsieur Laforest to speak to his motion.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chairman, the motion I presented is a follow-up to questions I asked on two occasions, i.e., to Messrs. Bélair and Badun, regarding the mandate that had been given to lobbyist Sandra Buckler at a time when she had not properly been registered as a lobbyist.

The issue was brought to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee in April 2005. Somehow, the proposal that Royal LePage call on the Auditor General was only adopted six and a half months later. In the meantime, the president and vice-president of Royal LePage confirmed that Ms. Buckler had done lobbying work for the company. The questions asked of those representatives were intended to find out whom she had met and what her mandate was. On two occasions, those two people did not deny that Ms. Buckler's mandate was to ensure that the process not be completed.

Furthermore, it was well-known at the time, and even publicized in the media, that Ms. Buckler was in a very close relationship with a Conservative member of Parliament. We might want to further consider the following facts: when the Auditor General issued her report on Royal LePage, she indicated that the contract had been awarded unjustly and unfairly, but that same day, Minister of Public Works Michael Fortier stated that the contract was valid, and he did so without awaiting the Public Accounts Committee's report on testimonies given by the witnesses.

I am raising the issue of whether there is a link between the fact that Ms. Buckler is currently working in the Prime Minister's Office, that she lobbied for Royal LePage and that the current Conservative minister did not await the committee's recommendations before making such a quick decision regarding the Royal LePage contract.

These are the reasons why I am asking that Ms. Buckler appear before us. The purpose is for her to provide the committee with clear answers, which we have yet to receive.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Monsieur Laforest.

Just before I ask Mr. Williams, who is next on the list, to speak, I want to point out to all members of the committee that we did receive, as requested by the committee, a letter from Royal LePage Relocation Services that outlines, I submit, in relative detail the involvement of Ms. Buckler and the two meetings that she held with Mr. Allison and Mr. Kramp, with another individual, I believe, from that lobbying firm.

Mr. Williams.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm not exactly sure where my colleague Mr. Laforest would like to go with this, but this whole issue came to light because the public accounts committee asked the Auditor General a couple of years back, or whenever, to conduct an investigation into this, and we now have this report tabled before us.

The reason the public accounts committee is dealing with this issue is primarily to find out why there happened to be a $50 million discrepancy between Envoy and Royal LePage—one bid zero, and another bid basically $50 million. Our job is to investigate the government; it's not to look into the private sector.

If I could quote the Auditor General, there was no suggestion of impropriety here, Mr. Chairman. I think the same concept was given to us by Mr. Marshall, the Deputy Minister of Public Works and Government Services, that while mistakes were made in the contract, there was certainly nothing inappropriate in the way it was handled, just the fact that through some, shall we say, lack of competence on some people's part, it didn't work out as well as perhaps it should have. And I think about Professor Franks, who was here last week, talking about the need for the public accounts committee to focus on accountability, not partisan politics.

We all know that Sandra Buckler now has responsibilities within the government, and if we brought her in, I'm not even sure what we would ask her to explain, because there was nothing in the Auditor General's report suggesting that Royal LePage did anything illegal, other than perhaps maybe double charging, but that's a different issue. There was no indication that Envoy did anything inappropriate. Nobody is suggesting that the government did anything inappropriate—incompetent, yes, but not inappropriate. It was basically a normal business transaction that wasn't properly put out to bid, and we are dealing with the fallout from that.

I don't know where we're going to go in bringing in Sandra Buckler, Mr. Chairman. Are we going to try to find out how Royal LePage does their business? Is it our business to find that out? Is it up to them to tell us because we just want to gain some political brownie points to bring in lobbyists and others to try to explain what they were doing? I think it's actually quite inappropriate, Mr. Chairman, and if the member wants to go down this track, it seems to me he's actually opening up a whole new investigation. If we did want to go down that way, it would have to go back to the steering committee and come forward as a report.

What exactly are we're trying to achieve here? I've always looked at the Auditor General's reports, and her report has been quite clear and categorical. We have a problem, we're dealing with it, and therefore I see no reason why we would support this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Poilievre, but again I plead with members, don't repeat what's already been said. We have a busy schedule. If you have a quick point, make it, and we'll move on, as I would like to call the question.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

The decisions around this contract on both occasions when the competitive process went ahead occurred and were made by government officials at a bureaucratic level and possibly, though we haven't proven it, at a political level. But Ms. Buckler was not in the government. She was not involved in the government decision. She was a lobbyist, as thousands of people are, but in this case she was a lobbyist for one of the firms that were competing.

We have here, from this letter, information that she met with a couple of MPs. I don't know about the rest of you, but the same thing is happening every day with both Envoy and Royal LePage having their lobbyists call our office, send us letters, and ask for meetings. That's what lobbyists do. I don't know what would be untoward about having a meeting with two different MPs or what would be unusual about that, given that there are two firms competing rather ferociously for this government business.

Other than the fact that she's now in the Prime Minister's Office, I don't know what makes her more interesting to this committee than the rest of the lobbyists who have been working on this file, and there have been many. They're here in the room every day we hold these hearings. I don't know why we're not calling them.

Perhaps it's not politically useful to the Bloc to have those other lobbyists up on the panel because they're not currently attached to this government, but frankly this government hasn't even made any decisions on the relocation contract, so she would not, as a member of the government, have been involved in any way, shape, or form in decision-making regarding the relocation contract. The only thing she's done—and this happened after the contract was awarded—was meet with a couple of MPs. Why that merits the committee's time, I don't know. But if we're going to have her, I guess we should get on to calling every single member of the lobbying teams of both Envoy and Royal LePage to find out all of their activities and ask them what they were doing and why they were involved. I don't see how she is relevant to this matter any more than the other dozens of lobbyists who have been involved in this matter going back several years, and I don't think the Bloc has shown it. The Bloc has shown that it would be politically interesting to bring the Prime Minister's communications director before the committee. The Bloc has not shown in any way, shape, or form that she is germane to our proceedings.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Fitzpatrick, very briefly, please.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I want to make a few comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We have had two submissions, Mr. Fitzpatrick. If there's something new, please proceed.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes, there's something new. So please let me speak.

Time is of the essence with this committee. We have no shortage of topics to be pursuing. We are working overtime to try to catch up with them, so this is a consideration where we can go on a fishing expedition for political purposes if we so choose, but there is a lot of work that we have to get on with here.

I'm a lot happier with what I know about Royal LePage right now, today, after a bunch of lengthy meetings, than I did before, and I think I can see the problems and the issues on this and I think the members on this committee do. I wish I could say the same thing about 800 Place Victoria, which to me has a whole lot of questions and loose ends that have to be sorted out, and I just use that as an example.

I really have difficulty seeing how we can allocate time to go on a fishing expedition on something that I think we've covered very well in this committee already.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. I would like, at this point in time, to call the question and--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just before you do that, Chair, I don't think anybody from the Liberal side spoke. We know how the votes break down here, and I'm trying to make a fair-minded decision and not be partisan, and I've told Mr. Laforest that I'm not as yet convinced but that I'd be listening carefully at this committee.

I would like to hear what the Liberals have caucused on this and have to say, and if they have nothing formal to say, fine, indicate, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Ms. Sgro, you had a few comments.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Just very quickly, this is not a witch hunt. We're here to work on the public accounts committee, and I repeat what Mr. Williams has said. We're here to do a good job of what we're doing. We have enough work on our plate. Let's get on with it. If we turn around and adopt this motion, this is nothing more than getting more into politics, and at some point we're going to have to question the value of the committee if we're going to politicize absolutely everything we're doing.

So I have to tell you in good faith that I am not going to support that motion. I want to get on with the work of the public accounts committee in a non-political fashion and I hope that all of us will work for the right things and work for the Government of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

Mr. Christopherson, the last word goes to you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'd like to give a last opportunity to Mr. Laforest. He's heard what everybody has to say.

I say to him again, through you, that I'm not convinced. The only thing that seems to be amiss is the non-registration. At the very least, I'd want to hear from the registrar that he or she deems this to be something more than an oversight and that they are concerned about it, because if not, that really is the only infraction. I don't as yet see enough of a connection, enough of a substantive argument, to say that breach caused a major problem. I haven't heard that yet, and that's what concerns me.

Mr. Chair, I would like to afford Mr. Laforest a last chance to make his case, because I think the case on the other side has been made very effectively. I'd like to make sure he is given an opportunity to counter it; otherwise, he's going to lose this.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

We heard the other side's arguments, including the fact that we should not politicize the debate. We in committee often meet public servants who assume administrative responsibilities. Committee members often complain that they do not receive all the answers they would like to have and that it is difficult to truly understand all the circumstances in a given file.

There is something here that is deeply troubling to me. The committee had to review the file that was referred to the Auditor General, but the motion was only adopted after much delay. And yet the matter is an important one, and the motion was finally adopted thanks to the initiative taken by my late colleague Benoît Sauvageau. He had in fact informed the committee, which was then chaired by a Conservative member, that six and a half months had gone by since this important matter had last been considered.

The witnesses that appeared before us left a number of answered questions. Namely, we still do not know why it took so long for this issue to be debated by the Public Accounts Committee. Why did this file take so long to reach the Auditor General? Were attempts made to obstruct the process? It appears that the lobbyist in this case met with two members. I think we should meet with her and ask her to clarify this issue.

Mr. Williams said that he'd not know what we should be asking of Ms. Buckler. I could easily suggest some to him. I think we should know exactly what kind of work she did with the members and what her reasons were. The letter that was given to us does not contain any answer in this respect. Why did Royal LePage, which already had the contract, have to hire a lobbyist? Was it to protect itself, or to prevent the issue from being referred to the Auditor General?

I believe that these questions have not been answered, and that is mainly why we should hear from Ms. Buckler. This is not a question of politics: we have to know what really happened and gain an understanding of the issue. It is a matter of transparency.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Laforest.

I'm going to now call the question on the motion to call Mrs. Buckler.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The next item, colleagues, is the motion of Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. I can summarize it. I'll not read it—

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

I have two here. Which one are we talking about?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

In the one we're dealing with, Mr. Williams, he's looking for four documents in an upcoming hearing.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Is that the one that starts, “In 2006—”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, I think it's another one, Mr. Williams.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Does it begin, “In order to ensure that the public accounts committee—”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That's right; that's the motion we're dealing with.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is looking for a number of documents. I want to point out that this involves a future hearing; this hearing is actually scheduled for February 21.

I would suggest there shouldn't be any problem in getting the internal audit. Some of the other ones may be difficult, because of criminal activity and police investigations, but that may be something we could deal with at the meeting. Again, this will be for a future meeting. It's Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's request that these documents be made available prior to the meeting, I suppose, or at the meeting.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, I'll ask you to speak to the motion also, please.