Public Accounts Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, we're trying to find a solution here.

Mr. Christopherson has proposed a possible solution, and his solution is very similar to what the law clerk said when he was here. The law clerk said there were ways of dealing with confidential documents to make sure they remain confidential. Those ways are to deal with them in camera, to deal with them in hard copy, where you number each hard copy and you distribute it and then you collect it back at the end of the meeting. There are ways to deal with confidential documents.

If we had followed those ways we would not be in the situation we're in today. I suggest we agree with Mr. Christopherson. In future let's deal with the documentation as the law clerk recommended we do, which means we deal with it in camera and on a numbered hard copy basis, with collection at the end of the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Saxton.

I too was at that meeting, because the law clerk came here at my invitation. He made some recommendations; he didn't give direction. That's why we went in camera, so that we could add the benefit of his public views and his private views. I'm not going to refer to his private views.

I'm going to close this with Mr. D'Amours. I said this led me to another item of business that's absolutely related, and you may be pleased with the way it will unfold.

Mr. D'Amours, very briefly please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Firstly, I would like to mention that, when the government provided the information to us, those sensitive or personal elements had already been deleted. That information had already been removed, and you are aware of that, Mr. Chairman. There is no need for me to provide precise examples. And all committee members are aware of it as well. In the documents that we have received, the government has already obliterated the information, eliminated anything that was sensitive or personal in nature. That has already been done.

Secondly, we have been waiting for this information for some time already. So why is it that, with regard to the two remaining deliveries from the two other federal bodies, the Official Languages Act has not been respected? I thank you for having brought up this point, because that aspect is unacceptable.

Thirdly — and this is my final point —, when we undertake a job, we do so in the public interest. But if this is being done in the public interest, one cannot say that we are going to hide everything here. If we make an access to information request, the information is supplied to us and is never withheld. Any individual within the general population could make these requests and receive the same information.

Must we evolve in an era where the government hides things? No. The government had already identified those sensitive elements to be deleted. We then come to those matters which are of public interest, especially when we are dealing with taxpayers' money. We are talking about these 11 million dollars, but we could talk about other things. Nevertheless, we are dealing here with taxpayers' money, and if that is not a matter of public interest, then there is a problem in today's society.

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

When departments are looking into that information which is to be dealt with in camera, they normally also convey this to us through correspondence. Such was the case with the investigation regarding the move and transfer of federal employees. In the case of that investigation, the committee was instructed by the department to deal with the documents in camera. It was on that condition that the department disclosed the information.

I might say that the clerk does a very good job in this regard, because I attempted to access these documents, but it proved to be impossible because I was at the time not a member of the committee, whereas my colleague here had access to the documentation.

It is my belief that certain provisions are in place and that departments can invoke them. However, in this case, they did not do so. All of the attention was devoted to the Departure Agreement issue.

I do not know if I can express an opinion regarding this agreement. We have not learned anything new. It was possible to do all of the calculations and everything was available on the Privy Council Web site.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Christopherson, I saw you throw up your hands.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, with great regret, let me tell you. But you have to deal with this stuff when it comes.

This whole notion that somebody else is redacting, somewhere else in government, documents that we're going to get is a problem. We've made it clear. We've gone to the wall. I've been through this a couple of times, up to and including threats to have it taken to the Supreme Court. This committee, as any committee, as Parliament, has the right to demand that documents be produced. Those documents cannot be redacted.

If we put something in the motion that we asked them to on our behalf, that's another matter. If they want to make suggestions that they think certain issues are not germane to our point and might violate someone's personal privacy, by all means make that recommendation. But it is never, never acceptable for a document to be requested by a parliamentary committee and for it to arrive redacted. That document, by the Constitution, is to show up here in its original form, all of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Madame Faille says documents that are of high confidence are given to us and they're requested to be in camera. I should remind her that the departure agreement was in fact given to us with that stipulation, and it is now out in the public realm. So this committee did not handle that document according to the way the department requested.

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

We're still missing the crux of this whole thing. Regardless of where the information comes from—if it comes from the government, if it comes from an individual who is before committee, if it comes from an interest or a lobby group or whatever—that information has to be treated properly. And that simply means no unilateral action. It means we do what this committee feels should be done with the information. We pass judgment on that and we do it. There's no difficulty about accessing anything, passing judgment on anything. But it has to be a committee decision. That's my point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Kramp.

All of you have made some good points. If documents come, they should be unredacted. Those of you who have gone through the documents already know that they come into three particular groups--those that are redacted, big vacuum, and those that aren't. There's only a very small group of the ones that weren't redacted. I repeat--because it's important for all committee members to know, in light of a point that was raised--that there was only one item to which the government said “please respect this confidentiality”. And that was respected.

On the fact that somebody said it's out there already, on behalf of this committee I have the obligation to say I don't know where that came from, but I know that somebody else already had it, because there was a letter on the 17th that said it was already out there.

We will deal with this in the steering committee and try to establish the appropriate mechanisms for going forward. But I don't think it's fair to ask the clerk, the chair, or any other member to try to ferret out how many copies are out there. There are at least 15 offices, and if you all have a couple of members apiece, that means 45 people and others have copies. That's not to imply there's anything else, but I just want to give you an indication of it, because we're just talking about members of Parliament; we're not talking about any other interested parties, including the originators of the documents. I've been around here long enough to know that sometimes that's where the things come from.

What has been sent to you as well is a letter dated the 16th. It's addressed to me, four other members of Parliament, and the Speaker. It comes from seven agents of Parliament. I made that available to everybody. I'm assuming that all my colleagues will have done that, although I spoke to two of them and they hadn't yet distributed it to other members of Parliament on their committees. But if you multiply fifteen times five times three, you can all appreciate how many people already have this document.

The clerk handed me a request from the media to have this document. I said, “I'm not going to speak for anybody else. Give it to my colleagues. When that comes forward we'll deal with it in our own committee.” But before anybody goes forward and asks who has it, I can tell you that two of the five are Conservative chairs of committees.

[An hon. member]

What does that have to do with it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Well, it has nothing to do with anything. I'm telling you that there are five committees with fifteen members apiece who already have it, and they come from different parties.

I thank all members for having the patience to go through this debate and look at where we're going forward. We'll deal with the documents that come forward in our next steering committee to establish new procedures or additional procedures for the consideration of this.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, there is one matter. That's not going to happen until Tuesday. I just want to ensure--and if we need a motion I'll make one--we state that any more documentation, from now until the steering committee and the broader committee recommend otherwise, be kept in the hands of the clerk's office so we can get our arms around this thing and get control. I just don't want something to come out over the weekend or on Monday when the steering committee technically is on Tuesday, and technically everything's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

No, it's on Wednesday.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm sorry. That's worse. It's one more day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Sorry, I don't want to entertain debate on that. I think we have already struck a consensus on it. I said that's where we're going. I indicated it would be unrealistic for us to put that same restriction on documents that have already been distributed to committee members. It's everything going forward--and that's in both official languages. If it hasn't gone forward in both official languages, we haven't received it. We couldn't possibly have received it, including the chair.

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

Thirty seconds.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'll give you the same fifteen that I gave Mr. Christopherson.

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

Let us hope that Mr. Saxton has good connections and that he will be able to provide us with the translated documents that we were supposed to receive.

I do not understand why access to these documents is starting to be blocked. There is someone who is going to be coming next Thursday afternoon. If documents are translated on Monday, why could we not have them in our possession in order to be able to prepare ourselves for Ms. Ouimet's evidence?

It concerns me greatly to be told that we must not touch these documents, that we should no longer touch them. If they could be translated, as they should have been since February 19th, we will assuredly have to have them in order to put questions to Ms. Ouimet. Right now, we are unable to obtain them. Someone, somewhere, is at fault, if we do not have these documents. Someone is at fault for not having provided us with these two sets of documents. We need them. It is not acceptable that we be told that they will sit in some safe while we wait to have them translated, such that we will not have the opportunity to put questions to Ms. Ouimet in case they are translated in the meantime.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Merci, Monsieur D'Amours.

I gave an indication to both Mr. Whitehall and the Privy Council Office that we expect all the documents in both official languages so we can do our job. If we don't get them, that's a way to redact some information so we're not privy to everything. I've made that point.

I'm asking Mr. Saxton, as the parliamentary secretary, to reinforce that point, because he has access to the government members and the minister.

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We still have a gap. I'm sorry, but Mr. D'Amours made a very good point. I wish he hadn't, but he did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Every time he makes a point you make a speech.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

But he has a good point. In preparation for the hearing, if the documents come in, we've now set up a procedure that artificially denies members a chance to see the stuff for less than 24 hours.

Can we at least say that if the documentation is received you will move to call an emergency meeting of the steering committee so we can grapple with that very issue?

Mr. D'Amours makes a very good point.

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

As usual.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I didn't say that--in any language.