Evidence of meeting #19 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was reports.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I'd like to call the meeting to order.
Bienvenue à tous.
We're going to open in public. I've been told by two members that they have motions to present to the committee.
We'll deal with your motion, Madam Ratansi. On your motion, this will be just to receive notice.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a notice of motion and I have it in both official languages. Could I present it to the chair or clerk?
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
No. Doesn't the distribution take place by the clerk? I have given sufficient notice, so it's more than 48 hours. They can be distributed.
Do you want electronic versions of it, Mr. Chair?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Colleagues, the notice will be circulated by the clerk. It won't be dealt with today. It will be dealt with, at the earliest, on Tuesday.
Madam Faille, you have an issue.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Mr. Chair, I am still waiting for some documents. Normally, departments like Public Works and Government Services send us the documents we ask for quite quickly, especially when they offer them to us of their own accord; quite quickly.
Last week, my colleagues and I discussed a document and the fact that it was written in one language only. So we agreed to take audio cassettes in their original form. But they are taking their time. The committee still has not received the audio cassettes, nor have we received any particular reason.
So I am making a motion that would read as follows: “That the Department of Public Works be required to table the audio cassettes by next Wednesday.“
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Okay. Just let me take a minute to explain the situation and the background in more detail.
This has been going on for quite a while now. Madam Faille asked at a hearing that took place some time ago for an audio recording of certain public meetings--or no, for a recording of the consultations, and we've gone back and forth from the department.
Is it the Department of National Defence, Madam Clerk?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
It's Public Works and it's been back and forth. There was an issue as to the expense and time for translating this recording into both official languages. The committee agreed, unanimously, of course, that we would accept them in the language that they were presented in, and everything was proceeding smoothly.
We received word...was it today, Madam Clerk?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We received word today from the Department of Public Works that they're not going to give it to us because they have privacy concerns. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that this committee can call for any persons or documents and that's not a legitimate reason.
So we have the motion of Madam Faille. We could, with unanimous consent, deal with it today, or we can defer it and deal with it on Tuesday. What's the pleasure of the committee? Does Madam Faille have the unanimous consent of the committee to place her motion before the committee?
Mr. Kramp.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I have just one question on the same topic. I have no problem with that; I think that's reasonable. The only question I would have is on the privacy concern. That's your belief, legitimately. I don't know that. If that is what it is, and the Privacy Commissioner would.... Do we need to go down that path? I don't know what is private and what is not. As long as it's legitimate to ask that, I would hate to be put into a position where evidence would come before this committee and would be subject to privacy concerns.
The only way I could think of for this is that perhaps at that particular point, Mr. Chair, we could just go in camera if it were deemed to be problematic, but of course the information would still be accessible to Madam Faille. I don't know. I'm asking for your thoughts on this.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Well, they announced some public meetings, an invitation to companies working in information technology. Five public meetings were held and the recordings could help us to understand how contracts are handled in the information technology sector. None of us were at any of those public meetings. So we really have no information.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
That sounds fairly straightforward, and I see no reason why we shouldn't be supportive of Madam Faille's trying to get this document; however, I think Mr. Kramp makes an excellent point. As learned as your opinion is, it's just one member's opinion. If there's a way to do some kind of check--in other words, find out exactly what they are saying specifically--and then make a determination on whether or not....
Mr. Kramp makes a good point. We wouldn't want to just say we don't see any conflict, then go ahead and roar it through, and then find out afterwards that upon advice that we ignored, there was an issue.
So it would be a quick—and I emphasize quick—test on that. I'm comfortable giving the chair that mandate, that we ask him to satisfy himself by checking with someone to find out if that reason should come back to us or not, and if not, then plow ahead, and if it should, then bring it back.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
After hearing from Mr. Kramp and you, Mr. Christopherson.... That was my advice, based upon advice from the clerk, but on second thought, I think the best thing to do is take Madam Faille's notice of motion. In the meantime, over the next five days we will do further research with the Library of Parliament, and if possible, get whatever argument the Department of Public Works and Government Services has. Then we'll come back on Tuesday to debate and vote on the motion.
Is that okay?
Okay, then, we're going to now suspend this part of the meeting and go in camera.
Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Shipley.
Conservative
Conservative
Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON
Thank you.
Last night we received the two draft reports that came forward regarding the committee meetings and hearings of over a year ago, in fact almost two years ago, in some respects. One is chapter 1 of the 2007 October report of the Auditor General, “Safeguarding Government Information and Assets in Contractin”, and the next one is chapter 3 of the 2007 May report of the Auditor General, “Human Resources Management—Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada”.
My understanding when I read through it is that the committee studied chapter 1 on February 26, over a year ago, from the October 2007 report, and the audit was substantially completed in August of 2007, so we're moving back quite a ways. The committee studied chapter 3 on April 15, 2008, and that chapter is from the May 2007 report. That audit was substantially completed in 2006.
There's been a fair bit of time lapsed since then. We have those two reports in front of us. I'm wondering, in terms of the best interests of the committee, if there would be consideration of having those departments come in for an hour each at a meeting so those reports can be updated.
I'm looking at our schedule and I see we have a vacancy for June 16. Have them update it for an hour on where they are. It's been over a year, in some cases close to two years, since these reports were done. Then we can add the updated part to it to make, I would think, a more meaningful report, since it's still in the draft position.
I would have a motion to put forward to that. I know it will take consent, and certainly the discussion around it, but it could be brought forward and we could do it on June 16, have it, and then get that report updated so it would be more meaningful.
I just open that up for your consideration.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Before we deal with it, I'll explain a little of the background, Mr. Shipley. I'm certainly not disagreeing with your thinking at all. I know what you're saying.
These reports took a lot of time. They have age on them. They're getting yellow, I guess you can say. The background—for members who may have forgotten—is that we did have these five reports. The hearings were held in the previous Parliament. The only two members who would have gone through the hearings would be Mr. Christopherson and myself. The analysts wrote reports and, because of the election, didn't have an opportunity to deliberate on the reports or of course to file the reports in the House of Commons. The opinion of the steering committee, which was approved or sanctioned by this committee, was that instead of losing all the thoughts, the work and the recommendations, we should resurrect the reports. That also involved a motion, which was passed, to introduce and to bring before this committee the evidence of the committee.
Again, there are difficulties, because people didn't hear the demeanour of the witnesses. They weren't here. Even for the ones who were here, with due respect to those people, these events occurred quite some time ago. It does create some difficulties.
That's a little bit of the background on where we are on those two reports. One of the reports actually has gone through this committee, the report dealing with the fees. That's a bit of the background, but I'm at the instruction of the committee on this particular issue.
Mr. Saxton, then Mr. Christopherson.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Chair, as you rightly pointed out, only two of the eleven current members of this committee have actually heard this testimony. If we have the time, if we can fit it in, I think it would be very helpful for the other nine members of the committee to have an opportunity to have a brief one hour with each witness on each topic, simply to bring us up to date. Maybe there's new information I don't know.