Public Accounts Committee on May 12th, 2009

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I am highly disinclined to support the motion. I don't think I can support the motion with respect to Madame Faille. I'm very, very concerned with regard to the possibility of undermining or subordinating the Privacy Act and the privacy of the people who were recorded on the audio cassettes. It sounds to me like there are an awful lot of people involved.

It's important in a workplace, when people give candid information to their employer, that they have some comfort that it's not going to end up on the front page of the Globe and Mail, especially when information can end up leaving what is otherwise a secure place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Before I put the question, I want to ask Madame Faille to address this issue.

Also, I believe you have a document you showed me. I'll let you speak.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Actually, I did some more detailed research in order to obtain information for our colleagues. I did not think that this matter would take all our time.

When the people came to testify here, there were discrepancies between what was said at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and what was said at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The intention was not to follow the Auditor General's guidelines. We had the opportunity to obtain information about a public consultation on information technology management contracts.

I thought that the audio cassettes would be useful in understanding the presentation and in following the explanations about the presentation that the officials provided.

When Public Works and Government Services Canada first informed us that there had been no simultaneous interpretation at the public session, I saw no problem with us making an exception and receiving a version just in French or English. They came back to us with the excuse that a transcription had not been made because of the cost. Up until that time, providing us with the information was no problem. Now, suddenly, the audio cassettes have become documents that are no longer appropriate for the committee to have. Last Thursday, they held a huge press conference trumpeting the merits of consultation.

I just wanted to get the documents so that we could check whether the efforts to consult the industry correspond with what we have been told here, given all the contradictions we have observed.

For my little research project, I consulted someone from the industry, from an information technology firm, who had attended. I asked him about the documents that he had been given during the consultation. At the meeting with the executive directors' committee, there was a framework proposal for consultation. They were told that, based on the principles that guided the consultation, the desire was for a transparent process where everyone's contributions would be used for the benefit of everyone in the industry: “input will be shared“.

Public Works' next response was—and this is why I found your contribution to the committee just now to be interesting—that industry presentations to the committee of director generals would be open to all industry participants. So they agreed that all briefs presented during the consultation and all industry presentations would be shared with all industry participants. They wanted it to be a public meeting so that the views expressed to the government by members of the industry could be made known to all.

So there is nothing that tells me that this information should be hard to get. To my mind, it was just information. No one who participated can say that he expected his comments to be kept confidential.

So, in the light of what we have heard today, I do not feel that getting the audio cassettes should be a problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. We'll hear from Ms. Ratansi and then Mr. Tardi. Then I'll put the question.

Go ahead, Ms. Ratansi.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

My question is very simple. Was there a hansard reporting of it or not? There was no hansard or blues.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

In the statement, we were told that the comments made by industry people would be provided to us. We made one correction, because I did not say a video cassette, I said an audio cassette. That was the only correction that was made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Go ahead, Mr. Tardi.

[Gregory Tardi]

Mr. Chair, I think there is a way to resolve this issue.

Ms. Faille could legitimately get the information she wants if it was the content only, with no participants' names.

Mr. Chair, I feel that, if we asked the Department of Public Works and Government Services exactly that, to provide the information without the participants' names, that is, it could make their job easier and make life easier for Ms. Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

But then there would be the question of costs. They would have to work on the audio cassettes in order to remove the names. You cannot remove anyone's name from an audio tape. You can recognize the voice. I do not know how that can be done technically.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I think we've had a fulsome argument here—

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty with this coming forward at all, but I still have that concern with the Privacy Commissioner. If the chair and this committee are willing to indemnify us from the privacy concerns, with fall-back, fine, but I am concerned that if we have individuals, and somehow they are brought forward, and there is some repercussion.... I don't even know what this issue is about—haven't got a clue; don't know the issue at all. I'm not aware of the implications, or whatever. But if we put ourselves in a position where we cross the line, and I don't know....

I respect our expert witness here today. I would still like to see a comment—run this by the Privacy Commissioner, and if they feel there's no difficulty with it, then by all means let's do it. And that shouldn't take any more than a day or two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

All in favour of the motion as presented?

A recorded vote. I'll ask the clerk to....

A point of order, Mr. Young?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Was it on a point of order that I was speaking before? Do you remember that you interrupted me and went to Madame Faille?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No. I apologize for that. I thought you were through—

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Then I'll let you continue.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I actually wasn't, but I do want to finish. I was almost through.

I just wanted to say that if you want employees to provide candid information and be frank and help their employer, they have to have some comfort that the information they provide—and their name, I think, might be key to it as well—does not become public. I wanted to state on the record that I'm very uncomfortable with it. I agree with Mr. Kramp. If you're prepared to take responsibility yourself as chair, or if we can be indemnified against undermining the Privacy Act, go ahead. But I can't support it for that reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

A recorded vote has been asked for.

(On the motion as amended: yeas, 5; nays, 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. It's a tie.

I'm going to support the motion. I'll just elaborate a bit.

It's my view—and we've dealt with it when it has come before the committee on occasions before—that the powers of Parliament, colleagues, are broad to ask for the production of persons and documents, and the privacy concerns are very limited.

In fact, I'll just read some text. Although the Privacy Act is sometimes used as a justification not to provide documents, paragraph 8.(2)(c) of the act states that the personal information under the control of a government institution may be disclosed “for the purpose of complying with” an “order made by a...body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information”. And the House of Commons is such a body.

There are occasions, when you're dealing with a criminal case or issues of national security...but from my experience as chair of this committee and as a parliamentarian, I don't see the legitimacy of the argument. This is a private matter. These individuals went to a meeting, the meeting was transcribed, and the committee can accept it.

So I will support the motion.

If someone wants to, he or she can come back with a further motion at some point in time as to what the committee wants to do with it. But it will be used, obviously, for the preparation of this report.

That concludes the motion. We'll ask the clerk to notify the public works department.

(Motion agreed to: yeas, 6; nays 5)

The last item of business is Ms. Ratansi's motion. The notice was received on Tuesday. I'll just read the last three paragraphs—there are some preambles:

that the Comptroller General of Canada present to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts every seven days, commencing May 19, 2009, and every seven days thereafter, a report on expenditures approved from the $3-billion appropriation;

that each of these weekly reports set out as of this date the number of times that vote 35 has been used, the aggregate amount that has been drawn down under that vote, and the number of jobs projected to be created by the funds expended;

that these weekly reports continue until the entire $3-billion amount is expended, or until such time that the amount is included in the estimates process in the ordinary and normal course of parliamentary appropriations.

Ms. Ratansi, do you want to speak to the motion? If you could, keep your remarks to two minutes.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Yes, thank you, Chair. I will keep it very brief.

We are in the midst of an unprecedented national economic crisis. The government asked in March 2009 for this unprecedented amount of $3 billion. This is unprecedented because the government generally, when it asks for money, provides the listing of what the projects are, to provide accountability and transparency. Taking the government's own talking points on the stimulus package, that they believe in taxpayers' money always being spent in an accountable, ethical, and transparent manner, I brought this motion forward.

Given our mandate as the public accounts committee, which is to make the government accountable, we're asking, therefore, what the projects are that have been drawn down under vote 35 and the aggregate amount of money that has been drawn down, and what jobs it has created. When the stimulus package claimed that they would create jobs—and this is a very short timeframe, from March to June—and the money will be utilized.... If it's not utilized, it will go back to the consolidated revenue fund.

We've been studying chapters on accountability, etc., and have clearly stated that the government should not make assertions without delivering.

All of us in our ridings are facing people who are losing their jobs. In fact, two days ago I received an e-mail that was very distressing. People are jumping off balconies because they cannot find jobs. I think it is important for us to be mindful that in this economic crisis we, as a public accounts committee, be retrospective. It's a short timeframe, and we ask that the Comptroller General, whose job it is—we brought in the Comptroller General as an internal auditor—provide us with the necessary tools.

I am done, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

Given the extraordinary nature of the expenditure and the process and everything else, I was actually surprised and disappointed that the House approved it in the way they did. But I'm fully supportive of this accountability.

My only question, Chair—you know this is coming, because I wanted to make sure you were ready to do it—is, does it fit our mandate? I was just a little unclear. I'm used to our dealing with things that are a little bit dustier—not ancient, but also not ongoing outlays of today. I'd like to know whether it's in order, but in ruling on that, whichever way you go, would you just expand a little to help me clarify...? For instance, are we eligible to review anything from the moment money is spent? From that moment forward, can we can ask for accountability? Does there have to be a certain period of time or certain internal reports, so that we're not asking for something that the government maybe doesn't have itself? At what point do things like that become the mandate of the finance committee rather than of the public accounts committee? I'm seeking your guidance as well as your ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm not going to make a ruling, Mr. Christopherson. I'll just say—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You're not going to make a ruling? I'll make it a point of order if you want.

It's a point of order, then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'll speak to that. But just to comment, without a ruling—because other people may want to speak to your comment—it has always been my view that the mandate of the committee is to deal with the expenditure of public funds. We don't deal in issues of policy. Whether things are good or bad or indifferent, that's not the role of this committee. That's always been my understanding.

I know this is not a clear-cut case. Of course, we don't deal with the estimates either. The only estimates we deal with are the estimates of the Office of the Auditor General.

That's just a comment, not a ruling, though.