Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 16th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Very briefly? Okay. Merci.

All right. Thank you very much, lady and gentlemen, for your visit with us and for your responses.

I'm going to suspend the meeting for just a couple of minutes and then we'll continue with some business of the committee.

Thank you once again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Colleagues, thank you very much.

I have just a couple of very brief items. I think one of them has already been handed out to you, or is being handed out to you. You can have a quick look at it. The reason we did it is that we have a meeting on November 23. The auditors looked at Citizenship and Immigration, HRSDC, and the Canada Revenue Agency, as you will see from the list of potential witnesses, but virtually all of the recommendations were addressed to Citizenship and Immigration.

So could we have just a very quick indication from the members around the table as to whether you'd like to focus just on Citizenship and Immigration or whether you'd like to have all of the witnesses that are listed there present? Just an indication of your preference....

Okay. Seeing no preference, we'll see how we can work that out with the agencies that are available.

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

There's no preference.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

You have none? Okay. Thank you.

That's okay. I just wanted to make sure everybody knew what was going on.

This is just a look ahead for everybody. On November 30, on “Managing Conflict of Interest”, from the 2010 AG report, the auditors, as you know, looked at Treasury Board and several departments, including Agriculture, Canadian Heritage, HRSDC, Natural Resources, and Public Works. They're all listed here.

Given the large numbers of departments, the OAG was consulted and suggested that perhaps what we could do is focus on Treasury Board as the essential witness to give us an overall view of the responsibilities, especially from the perspective of a central agency. The OAG did not recommend any departments as witnesses, but of course we can make a decision on our own. But at least, they said, get Treasury Board. It's a central agency and can give us an overview.

We can take one of two approaches: one, just bring in Treasury Board, and after that think about other departments, or we could bring them all in, or we can just have Treasury Board, period.

Those who would go for option one, which is to bring in Treasury Board and then make a decision later on...?

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

We could see what flies with that, and if it warrants further witnesses, so be it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Is everybody in agreement? Marvellous. Thank you very much.

Now, on the third item, it's with respect to some of the documentation. I think some of you are familiar with documentation the committee requested from Public Works and Government Services concerning the West Block restoration project, pursuant to a motion adopted on October 21 and November 2.

A quantity of material has been delivered, which cannot be yet distributed because it is not yet translated. The documents were accompanied by e-mails dated November 9 and 15 and these have been distributed to members.

I know that some people are probably wondering how come we don't get these earlier. Well, if we don't get them, we can't distribute them.

Mr. Bains, you had something to say on this?

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

Yes, I did.

When I brought this to your attention, I thought we would be dealing with this motion at the beginning, but I'm glad we're doing it now after the committee has heard from the various departments. So far, I'm extremely disappointed and frustrated with the way the response has been coming along with respect to this request, because this motion was passed in committee, and the committee's very clear on the timeline it set out.

I think we discussed last time that we're more than willing to be flexible and then we showed that flexibility when the department asked for an extension of time, saying that it needed additional time, up to the 19th, which is understandable.

But I don't see why this information is not becoming readily available and why they can't bring it forward. Did they provide any additional explanation as to when they'll get this information to us and what's causing the delay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Yes, we did.... I have to confess to my colleagues around the table that we have a little bit of a difficulty. We've received a couple of letters, one of them saying that they would comply with some elements of the motion, and secondly, that there were some 10,000 to 12,000 pages available, and then another letter that said there'd be a time lag of eight to twelve weeks between their getting the information and having it translated, at a cost that approximates something like $900,000 to $1.8 million.

So they're reviewing our request, but I think they gave us some material earlier on in the day. A lot of it is redacted. I've had an opportunity to take a look at some of the material. I'm not sure that it's material that many of us can use.

I think there's a couple of issues that we might address on this. I think we can refer this to the steering committee—and I'm just alerting here you to what's going to happen—and consider some of the options that are going to be available to us and maybe after that have the full committee take a look at what the recommendations of the steering committee might be. But clearly, it does not appear that we're going to be able to get the material that the motion the committee approved to be received by the 19th is going to happen....

I have Mr. Saxton, and then Madame Faille, Mr. Kramp, and Mr. Bains, keeping in mind that we have about five minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to refer to the issue of the translation: $900,000 to $1.8 million to translate documents that arguably should not even be coming to this place in the first place.

I think the fact that we're coming out of a global economic recession where Canadian families have had to tighten their belts and make tough decisions.... For us to spend--or waste, as some people might allude to it--$1.8 million translating documents that shouldn't even be coming to this committee in the first place is absolutely outrageous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

I think that language has never been thought of as an impediment.

Madame Faille.

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

In fact, Mr. Kramp and I often come to a common solution.

As you have suggested that the committee deal with that issue tomorrow, I was wondering whether we could ask Public Works Canada officials to give us an idea of what they planned on sending us. That way we could examine that information and determine what we would actually need.

The request was made last June. It seemed that the information was quite simple to provide. Tomorrow, we might agree to simplify our request. However, before directing them to those 900,000 pages, would it be possible to get an idea of what they intend to present to us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I should be able to get that for you tomorrow.

Mr. Kramp.

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

Chair, I just read the part where it says that on November 9, PWGSC did provide the committee with the documents requested in the motion. Now, they are not translated, granted, but the documents have been provided to this committee.

Now, whether the chair or someone else wants to do a summation of those documents—and certainly I understand Madame Faille—my concern is...and sure, everything has a legitimate right, and it's a privilege of Parliament, to be translated. I certainly concur with that, but I also ask, is this expenditure worth the issue? I don't know, I really don't, but for me to go out and justify and validate spending a couple of million dollars, when, as Mr. Saxton says, it's not even before this committee, really.... This whole issue is being decided and/or discussed at the government operations committee, and we're just going to go ahead and indebt the Canadian taxpayer by another couple of million dollars on a potential wild goose chase?

I would like to have something more definitive to go forward on. If Madame Faille and/or the committee chair is able to come up with some summation of the information now before committee, and if there is that--quote--smoking gun, then by all means I think we could go ahead with that. But to make a commitment now and force the government into spending that kind of money when we really don't know exactly what we're asking for and have nothing specific to go on, I think is really, really an error in judgment on our part and it certainly wouldn't be accountable to the taxpayers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

No judgment has been exercised, Mr. Kramp. I take your observation with all the merit it deserves and I'll give you an indication that some of this will be discussed. It's for all of us to discuss at the steering committee tomorrow where all the options will be in play. But I'd be cautious about making any reflections on translation as being a cost of government; we are a bilingual institution, so it's mandated.

Monsieur D'Amours, very quickly.

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

I appreciate the comment you have just made, Mr. Chair. We must always remind ourselves that there are two official languages in Canada, French and English. I do not understand why translation is becoming an issue all of a sudden, when we are trying to obtain information. It is easy to argue that translation costs money in order to prevent people from accessing information. I think that such issues do not warrant discussion. Such thoughts should not even cross our minds. I still have a simple question. This is the third time.

Mr. Saxton, you may well laugh at what I am saying, but it is the truth.

For the third time, I will make the same comment. If the government keeps on saying that the request was presented to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, then I do not understand why it is so complicated. If the request was already presented to that committee, that means that the documents have already been translated. Therefore, we cannot talk about a doubling of costs. If the same request was made to both, then we should simply be provided with the information, and the information given to the committee will have been translated.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you.

Ms. Faille, I will allow you to speak one last time.

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

Yes, I would like to help settle the problem.

I know that the French language issue is important, and that is why we are trying to find a way to receive that information in French. That is not a privilege, it is a right.

I know that Public Works and Government Services Canada has reports. I have often made requests to receive contracts and charts. I know that their officials have systems that allow them to provide us with certain reports, and translation would not be an issue. Some of the figures or pieces of information that we need to ensure that projects are operating correctly might already be available thanks to the systems in place at Public Works and Government Services Canada. That is something we might want to look at in greater detail tomorrow.

The last time we broached the language issue, both sides had come to a compromise, but we were disadvantaged for having accepted that compromise. We have the right to obtain that information in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'm sorry, but we need to wrap up. All of this will come up in tomorrow's steering committee, Mr. Kramp, Mr. Allen, Monsieur Nadeau--un moment, s'il vous plaît--Madame Faille, and Monsieur D'Amours.

We were going to start a little later tomorrow, but I guess we're going to have to go at one o'clock as we normally do at our steering committee meetings. It will be one o'clock, so there's no confusion about the starting time. This will be the number one item.

Monsieur Nadeau, 20 seconds.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I will be very brief.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Mr. Chair, I was one of those who agreed to limit the number of translated documents. The following day, in the House of Commons, Jacques Gourde on the government side attacked me because I had not fought to have the documents in both French and English. That said, you will understand why we want the documents in both languages. We will not compromise on that, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

That is not how we will do things here in this committee.

Thank you, dear colleagues. To the members of the steering committee, we will see each other tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned.