Public Accounts Committee on June 18th, 2009

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

That would go specifically to whether there was any desire or need to delete anything at all from the tape, if there was anything at all that needed to be hidden.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

That's a real stretch.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

So I'll ask, was the rationale provided to all the participants, and if so, did you hear complaints from any of them that they felt their consultation or their participation was not in fact listened to?

[Daphne Meredith]

Thanks for the question.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to turn to Ms. Payant to answer in detail. She was there for the duration of the sessions. I was there only for the introduction. I saw the large group and sort of kicked off the sessions.

I understand there were several deck presentations made to the group. They wouldn't have waded through the text of the business rationale in the form that we publicly released it on May 7, but they saw the foundation of it.

To me, what was of interest was how that business rationale and the report on the consultations were received by industry. And the feedback that we've had has been positive, in general. Now obviously there are trade-offs in these things. Not everybody is going to be perfectly happy. But I'm satisfied with the response to the report that we issued publicly on May 7.

Christine, do you have anything to add?

[Christine Payant, Director General, Product Management, Information Technology Services Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services]

Yes. Just to add, we received very positive feedback, in fact, once we released the final consultation report and the business rationale. And it was acknowledged that we had made significant changes to our procurement approach, that we were proposing significant, positive changes to our proposed procurement approach and that we listened to the feedback received from industry. So yes, very positive comments were received following the release of those two reports to the participants of all the consultation sessions.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Hall Findlay.

Madame Faille, I'll allow you five minutes, but we won't be coming back to you if we have a second round.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do not think that you can answer the questions given your previous statement. I would ask that you read my report and that you confirm for us in writing what portions were deleted and who made the decision to delete them. I would also like you to tell us whether this passage was the subject of discussions within the department. In light of the tape analysis and what has been going on for two, if not three months now, I am confused by your attempt to keep information from us and to hinder our work as members.

If my privilege still applies, Mr. Chair, I would like the minister to read my report and to justify why certain comments were deleted. I would also like Public Works to tell us why the business case has still not been submitted. The committee may have overlooked this, but on March 24, it requested a business case, which the deputy minister agreed to provide.

I also have questions about the costs. Ms. Payant seemed to be saying that the industry was satisfied. But the first disc for the afternoon of January 15 contains troubling statements by Treasury Board. The passages are indicated in my report.

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

I have a point of order.

We're going into the actual guts of the business plan issue. If that is our intention as a committee, then so be it, but we're here to check the veracity of the tapes. We're here to check whether or not the information provided by Public Works is correct.

If Madame Faille is correct and hours and days are omitted from those tapes, then Public Works will be back here and had better find a solid explanation for that.

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

I agree with Mr. Kramp.

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

If that is wrong, then we would expect an apology for an error from Madame Faille, but I think that should be forthcoming either way.

For us to be going on a tangent and getting the reasons for the business case and so on...if we want to rehash the deal, that's the government operations committee's job. It's not our duty as the public accounts committee to do that. Let's just stick to our mandate one way or the other, because, Chair, it's out of order going this way from what the original purpose was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Madame Faille, as to the business case, we will try to stick to the tapes, but where are you coming from?

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

I was expecting to find information about the business case on the tapes. Unfortunately, information is missing. Can they confirm whether the missing portions are related to the business case, or if there is something else? Earlier, the deputy minister said that she could not tell us what had been deleted because she herself had not done it. I give her credit for that. However, I would like her to tell me in writing which sections were deleted and how the department went about those deletions.

But, and I agree with Mr. Kramp, if....

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Let's continue on the tapes.

Madame Faille, in her well-prepared report, has identified what she alleges. She hasn't proven, but she's alleged there's a lot more missing from the tapes than as stated by the Department of Public Works and Government Services. The assistant deputy minister has indicated she doesn't know. We will give her an opportunity to come back with a written report to the committee giving us the facts. There's no point in asking more questions about what's missing because she doesn't know and she's indicated that.

Again, colleagues, there's a larger issue here that I haven't heard any questions on, and that is whether or not the Privacy Act applies.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, may I interject when you're done?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Saxton, on another point of order.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

We're obviously hearing some very different stories from Madame Faille versus what we're hearing from the Department of Public Works. Why don't we now put forward a motion--

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's not a point of order.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

--that the public accounts committee hold an in camera meeting to listen to these audio cassettes and verify the differences.

Right now it's just allegations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Saxton, we'll decide that a little later. We're going to ask for Public Works to come back to us with a written response to these.

In fairness to Public Works, they've only seen this...in fact, they've never seen it. They were not given a copy beforehand, so it's unfair; she cannot answer the questions.

I think in fairness to the officials here from Public Works, we will invite them to get back to the committee, within two or three weeks, on what is the situation with the tapes. I think that's fair.

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

Mr. Chair, I have nothing further to add. As things stand, they cannot answer us because they are not familiar with my analysis, they are not the ones who did the work. Since Ms. Payant was at the meeting, I was trying to see whether she could give us more information, more details.

Therefore, I ask that PWGSC send us their response in writing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Madame Faille.

Do you agree with that, Ms. Meredith, that within, let's say, three weeks you will provide the committee with a written response as to the discrepancies?

[Daphne Meredith]

With the reason for any discrepancy and what we see as being deletions--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes.

[Daphne Meredith]

Yes.