Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[The Chair (Hon. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.)), Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Welcome, friends and colleagues.

I see a quorum, so we'll begin. I call the meeting to order.

Mr. Saxton, Mr. Kramp, Mr. Shipley, and Mr. Dreeshen, good morning to you as well.

We'll begin with committee business and then we'll go on with some of our witnesses and carry on with the orders of the day.

I think we have a couple of items of committee business. One is to discuss the motion by Mr. Navdeep Bains regarding the production of papers.

Madam Clerk, would you give us an update on what has been produced so far?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Joann Garbig]

The committee adopted the motion of Mr. Bains on October 21. On October 28, material provided by the Department of Public Works and Government Services was distributed to the committee. I have copies here if members do not have their copies with them.

The material distributed consisted of an e-mail and an attachment, including details of all contracts relating to the work on the West Block. The e-mail requested from the committee an extension in order to provide more time to the department to provide the material requested in the motion, which it said it would provide in one language by November 19, 2010; the French version would follow as quickly as the material can be translated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

So in essence we don't have all the documentation that Mr. Bains's motion called for, but we do have some. Is that it, Madam Clerk?

[The Clerk]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Go ahead, Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the clerk's providing us with the chronology of the motion and when it was submitted. It's important to note that when we passed this motion in committee on October 21, we gave five working days. There was a little bit of flexibility on that; we discussed that, knowing full well that information had been requested of the department by Madame Faille months ago, roughly four months in advance of my official request that was approved by the committee.

This information is in the possession of the department. I don't understand why they are asking for this extension. It's unacceptable that on the day of the response they verbally or in writing gave us a very vague explanation and then continued to ask for an extension. To say it's only in one language again seems like a delay technique.

This information should be readily available; it should be in the department. They've had sufficient time to provide it. They are undermining the work of the committee, because this is something the committee has requested. It's timely information for a report that we want to submit to the House of Commons.

Chair, I would strongly urge that we need to receive a response more quickly than this. I feel that the timeline is unacceptable in light of the information that is already available in the department.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Go ahead, Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to remind Mr. Bains of the magnitude of his request. I understand that there are 5,000 to 8,000 pages of material that need to be accumulated.

I should also remind him of the amount of work, the time, and the cost involved in doing this. I understand that another committee, the government operations committee, has requested something very similar; is Mr. Bains aware of the extreme amount of work and time and cost that he's causing as a result of this request, while at the same time the government operations committee is duplicating his request?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Go ahead, Madame Faille.

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

Of course we want the documents in French. However in order to move forward with the committee's work, would it be possible to ask the department to get the information to us as the documents are translated? I also suggest that the deadline mentioned in the letter be maintained. I believe it was November 16. So then, between now and November 16, I'd like the documents to be turned over to us as they are translated and become available.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Would you like the documents in English and in French, Ms. Faille?

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

In English and in French. We want copies of the documents in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Saxton has brought up a point that has already been discussed before, namely that another committee has made a similar request. Could members of the government party tell us if the other committee has received the information?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I don't sit on that committee. I can't answer that question.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, it's clear why I ask the question. For weeks now, members of the government party have been saying here in this forum that another committee is already looking into this matter and has made a similar request. It's rather odd then that it is taking not days, but weeks, to resolve this matter. Soon, months will have passed. On the one hand, it was being argued that we should not have this information in our possession, while on the other hand, we were being told that another committee had made a similar request, therefore we should not have the information. One has to wonder if someone is trying to hide something, and why.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I just wanted to very quickly respond to issues raised by Mr. Saxton. First of all, he raised the issue of the amount of effort and time required. I would beg to differ. I think the information is readily available in the department. It's a matter of consolidating it. The fact that he's aware of the number of pages--I suspect he may have some additional information he may want to share with the committee as to why it's taking so long. Maybe he can be a bit more detailed in his response.

Last week in the House of Commons, I brought up an example of how this government spent $3,400 for a 1,300-word press release. I'm not sure I would appreciate any type of accusations of the cost implications of this request. This is a committee that's doing work on behalf of parliamentarians for a pertinent report on an issue of transparency, and this issue speaks to the core of what we're trying to get at, which is value for taxpayers' dollars. I think this information is very important, and I don't see why the government is trying to stop this information from being received by the committee.

If government operations is looking into it, that's great. We're a committee, we control our own destiny, we work in our own mandate within our own rules, and we have a responsibility to do so. So if other committees are working on it and they can produce some of that information, great, maybe we can find a way. But when we discussed this motion, clearly it was a reflection and needed in the report we're working on with respect to rehabilitating the Parliament buildings as mentioned in the Auditor General's report.

So that's why this particular motion was brought forward. We debated all these points then, so I don't see why the government is now supporting the department in delaying the release of this information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'm loath to have the debate continue. You've made your point, and that is the point we have. There are two issues: one, that the motion was already accepted; two, and probably even more important, that we don't have the material. I'm looking for a way to remedy that situation rather than to continue the debate.

I have Mr. Saxton then Mr. Kramp.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Chair, I'm glad that Mr. Bains brought up the issue of the mandate of this committee. I understand that Mr. Bains is new to this committee, so perhaps he doesn't understand its mandate. But this request is clearly outside the mandate of this committee, and that's why another committee has requested that information. This is simply duplicating work that's not necessary when we should be moving to the mandate of this committee, which is reviewing the Auditor General's report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Kramp.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Notwithstanding all the arguments, some of which were put forward at previous meetings, I've sat on this committee for a number of years too, and Mr. Saxton's point is absolutely valid. I would even point to the chair's reference to the same point in previous committee discussions and deliberations. The chair has argued our point, actually, in a manner that's in concert with the government position right now.

But that notwithstanding, I have never yet found a department or a ministry that has not cooperated with the requests of the committees, given some form of reasonable approach. A lot of work and documentation is contained in 5,000 to 8,000 pages. There are two arguments. The first—whether it is necessary—is a separate argument. But is it reasonable to ask for 11 working days to present those kinds of documents? Quite frankly, I think that's a reasonable request.

It's not, “No, we're not providing them for you.” It's not, “No, we're not giving you a sense of direction.” We're stating that this is the reality and this is what they have to deal with.

Madame Faille made an interesting suggestion. If information is available on a per-day or chapter-by-chapter or topic-by-topic discussion, so be it. But there is no attempt whatsoever to not provide information.

I think out of courtesy and consideration, this committee should accept the letter from the department and then just move on. Let's get to work on this issue. When it's time....

To go on and play our games with this kind of thing, quite frankly, Chair, is an embarrassment to the past work of this committee and hopefully to the future work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Hopefully “not” to the future work: that's what you meant to say.

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

Yes, thank you for the correction, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Young--