Public Accounts Committee on March 11th, 2008

[Terry Sewell]

We spent some time developing the framework you refer to. Then the next question was, is there enough data out there in settled land claims areas? Have there been settlements long enough to have measurable results?

We spent some time with consultants to take a look at the evaluability. We checked to see whether we had the data sources to do meaningful work. That work was undertaken last year. We found that there is indeed sufficient data and that an evaluation can be fruitfully undertaken.

We have used the framework. We're just now getting to the point where we're doing the evaluation.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Hang on. You said that you had some consultants talk about the evaluability, but that was in the modern context. Are you saying they built on this framework, or is it a whole new plan?

[Terry Sewell]

We used the framework. Then the question was, with the topics under the framework, is there data enough to allow us to measure each of these remote locations against the components? That's the work we did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank each of you for your appearance today.

Mr. Wernick, do you have any closing remarks you want to make to the committee?

[Michael Wernick]

I'd like to thank the committee for its interest. I know this isn't a policy committee; it's an accountability committee. We take our work quite seriously. We'd be pleased to provide progress reports to this committee as well as to the policy committees that oversee us. We'd be happy to work with the clerk on the specific follow-up questions from members, and we'll get you responses in writing as quickly as possible.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of very brief comments I would make. One is in the interest of clarification. Mr. Lake asked a question in relation to the audit process. I just want members to understand that we have a very vigorous process in all of our performance audits, and it's not just the recommendations we get agreement on in the departments. We get agreement on all of the facts contained in the report. I just wanted to clarify that.

An interesting point that Mr. Wernick made throughout the testimony was that what the department appears to be doing now is trying to develop the tools that officials need in order to be able to properly implement all aspects of the agreement.

I think we'd all agree that it would have been a much better world if we'd had those tools in place 23 years ago, and I think if we're looking for lessons learned, perhaps when we enter into agreements we need to make sure officials have the tools they need. I think it was mentioned today--the need for evaluative tools, measurement tools, some contracting tools, and basic information on some of the economic development.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wernick talked about his action plan. We at the Office of the Auditor General would be happy to receive the plan and comment on it to the extent that it covers the recommendations we've made.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Campbell.

Thank you, Mr. Wernick.

Thank you, others. We will be writing a report and tabling it with the government in the House of Commons in due course.

The committee has a couple of other motions we're going to deal with now, so you can leave if you wish. And again, I want to thank you very much for your appearance here today.

Colleagues, we have two motions. What I propose is to deal with them similarly. The first motion is by Mr. Poilievre. It's a very simple motion, actually: that the committee schedule a meeting with Ralph Goodale, Don Boudria, and Jean-Marc Bard in relation to its study of chapter 7 of the Auditor General's May 2006 report.

I'm going to give Mr. Poilievre two minutes to speak to his motion. I'll entertain up to six interventions of one minute each, and then I'll go back to Mr. Poilievre for his closing comments, and put the question.

I propose to deal with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion in the very same manner.

I should point out, Mr. Poilievre, I'm sure you won't have any problem if we just eliminate Jean-Marc Bard. He is subject to a previous motion. That motion has been passed. A summons has been issued, and we have him scheduled for sometime in April. So that matter really is taken care of.

So we're dealing with Goodale and Boudria in the motion.

Is that okay with you, Mr. Poilievre?

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

Well, I would add that we could have Mr. Goodale and Mr. Boudria appear at the same time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That would be up to the steering committee, but that's a good suggestion.

You have two minutes.

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

I'll just talk about the reason I want to invite the three witnesses who are suggested in the motion. Jean-Marc Bard goes without saying. He was the chief of staff. That motion is now passed, so I won't address it at any further length.

Second, we have Boudria, and third, Mr. Goodale.

What we have here is that the first minister to be involved in this affair says that all of the mistakes were made after his tenure. The third minister who was involved in this affair says that all of the mistakes were made before his tenure. So that leaves the guy in between, who of course is Mr. Boudria.

Mr. Laforest mentioned to me that he wanted to hear from Mr. Boudria on this issue. That is why I added his name.

And finally, on the question of Mr. Goodale, I still have questions for him that I was not able to address to him at the last round of hearings. I don't expect we should need him for very long. But anyone who listened carefully to his words would agree that he made some fairly spectacular claims when he said that the Auditor General did not have the information necessary to conduct her study. There is absolutely no supporting evidence for that view anywhere in our documentation, nor during the testimony of Ms. Fraser or her staff. In fact, one of her staff members says exactly the opposite.

So one question I would have liked to ask him had the time not expired is what evidence he has to suggest that the Auditor General's office was information-deprived in reaching its conclusions. That's a question that's clearly not answered.

We don't often get witnesses who question the work of the Auditor General. We now have one, and I think it raises a whole series of other questions that need to be posed. And finally, it can't hurt. If he comes back, he might not have a lot more to offer, but we're talking about an hour of his time, and I think at the very least, it will be helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Laforest, one minute.

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

I did indeed mention to Mr. Poilievre that I was wondering why Mr. Boudria had not been invited to testify before the committee. In the end, there were three ministers who succeeded each other in a relatively short period of time on this file. Mr. Boudria was there when the two contracts were signed: first with Place Bonaventure and then with Place Victoria. I think we have questions we would like to ask Mr. Boudria, and I agree entirely.

As for Mr. Goodale, I am not so sure. However, having heard Mr. Poilievre's arguments, although I had not seen things from that perspective, it may be relevant to hear from him once again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams, one minute.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On a personal note, I've never been in favour of bringing in ministers, because they tend to change the dynamics of the committee.

Leaving that aside, because that's a personal issue, it's a longstanding policy of the public accounts committee. Mr. Goodale has already been before us for one hour. He reiterated what Janice Cochrane had said, that despite what we think, the government now sees this as two separate issues.

There was a contract with Bonaventure and a contract with Place Victoria. Nobody is going to admit they were the same, because they did this splitting of hairs right down the middle and treated it as two separate contracts. When you use that philosophy, there's nothing. You can't break down that logic, although I totally disagree with it.

Yes, you can answer a few more questions, but when I think about what we just dealt with here today, I could go on for a week lambasting what the government hasn't done in the last 25 years as far as Indian affairs is concerned and this first nation in the Yukon Territory.

We have other issues we need to deal with. I think we should be thinking about writing a report condemning what happened in Place Victoria and the way it transpired, and say we never want to see this again. But I'm not sure it's good value for time to bring in Mr. Goodale and Don Boudria. Jean-Marc Bard--I don't mind kicking him around; we kicked him around before, and he deserved it and needs it again. But the ministers, I'm reluctant.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Lake, one minute.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I would express my support for this motion. Clearly we didn't get any answers in the last meeting. But I think that one of the reasons we didn't get any answers was that we've seen two ministers refer to things happening outside their timeframe.

I think having both ministers here at the same time gives us the opportunity to hear from one, hear from the other, and get some clarification when the ball is being passed back and forth. I think it's important for us to do that.

I'm not convinced we're going to get to the bottom of this in one more meeting. I believe the answer may have been given. Given Mr. Goodale's contention that the Auditor General didn't have all the answers and didn't have the right information, perhaps the answer is eventually going to be to send her back to get the right information.

I think this is a good step in the process, and I hope it will take us to a better understanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Hubbard, one minute.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chair, we have to somehow set some guidelines for how long we're going to spend on this topic. We've spent a lot of time already. As Mr. Williams said, other issues are probably more important than this.

In any case, Mr. Bard is set to come. Is that not right? And if Mr. Boudria is deemed to be a witness.... I certainly want some assurance from Mr. Poilievre that he's not going to come every Tuesday and have another list of people he thinks he should hear from or hear back from.

My impression from Mr. Goodale was it was a fairly straightforward business. Maybe our researchers could conclude with whether or not it was a good deal or a bad deal, but I don't think we've heard anything to the contrary.

In any case, to simply have a continued expedition not proving a whole lot, certainly we wouldn't support it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Seeing no other names on the list....

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You said you were going to go around. I didn't realize....

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I wanted to put your name on the list.

You have up to one minute.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm comfortable with Mr. Boudria, only because I think it makes eminent good sense. We've heard ministers bracketed on both sides. And this was the key time, so it would be to be consistent. I'm not convinced that we need to bring Mr. Goodale back. I realize that it's not a big deal to us, but it has an impact. We shouldn't do these things willy-nilly.

I understand the point Mr. Poilievre makes about wanting to find out what's behind that information, but all that's about is whether it was a $4.6 million loss or a $2.1 million loss, and I'm not all that interested, at this point, in which number is correct. They're both unacceptable.

If we're going to call anybody back, I would look at Drouin. For the longest time I thought there was something here, money-wise, that was not right. Something smelled. But now I'm beginning to wonder. If that's not the case, then the only other alternative is that this newly minted minister didn't like the digs he'd be going into in the new place and wanted to stay in the current place, because he talks about prestige and all that. And everybody else fell in line to take care of their friend. The government had been in power so long that they kind of got used to the idea that they ran everything.

So I would bring him back.

I'm going to vote against the motion, but I would say that if it loses—it may not—and there's another motion with Mr. Boudria in it, I would support that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Seeing no other intervention, I'm going to go back to Mr. Poilievre for the last point.

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

I would like to make a friendly amendment to drop Mr. Goodale and add Mr. Drouin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That means an amendment, Mr. Poilievre.