Public Accounts Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2011

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

No, of course; it was not a parallel private system, I can assure members of Parliament here. It was a way to get from project advocacy to project selection. I shared all that information and the process that was used with the Auditor General. She opined about that, and I accept her opinion. She said there were better ways to do things than the way selected, but she also said that every penny was accounted for and went to its intended purpose.

We can always do better, and in this case we could do better, for sure.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I'm having difficulty understanding what you're saying. You're telling us that it wasn't a parallel private system? But we had an official system, which the Auditor General had the opportunity to investigate, and another system that she did not have access to. This is what we call a parallel system.

I'd like to go back to the matter of Mr. Cossette. There has also been talk of Mr. Dodds. There's actually a list. According to the email we obtained, some 12 to 15 public servants or members of government were involved in the process.

You accepted the Auditor General's report. Point 2.8 of the report indicates the following: "Senior officials were not able to provide us with any information and said their input had not been sought as part of that process."

We saw that public servants, including Mr. Cossette and Mr. Dodds, were involved and could have spoken to the Auditor General, but that didn't happen.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

No. I think what I find embedded in your question is the opinion that the entirety of what was being discussed was the G-8 legacy fund. The G-8 legacy fund was a small part of organizing for a summit.

There was policing. There was making sure people felt welcome.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Clement…

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

There were all of the preparations at the actual site.

So those individuals were involved in things other than the G-8 legacy fund.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

No, no. In the emails from Mr. Dodds that we obtained, we noted the involvement of Mr. Cossette, Ms. Forth, Ms. Nichols, Ms. St-Jean and Ms. St-Pierre through various duties. We have the names of people who were involved in the Local Area Leadership Group process, which was the parallel process. These same people, according to the Auditor General, were not involved in the process. In fact, the Auditor General couldn't find a way to report what they had done.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

I would like to clarify the involvement of two officials you've mentioned, Mrs. Nichols and Mrs. Hirshberg. They are Infrastructure Canada officials who were responsible for administering the 32 projects.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I don't necessarily want to talk about the role of the specific individuals. We have a long list of names. You are talking about individuals, but I want to talk about the fact that senior officials were involved in the Local Area Leadership Group process. But these same people were questioned by the Auditor General and said that they had no involvement in the process.

[Richard Dicerni]

Mr. Dodds and other FedNor collaborators participated in this famous meeting that you have the minutes for.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

But there were many meetings, not just one.

[Richard Dicerni]

What I'm trying to say is that taking part in a meeting doesn't mean that these people were necessarily involved in making a subsequent decision. They were there because it was part of their job to contribute to the discussion. As Minister Clement said, quite a lot of things happened with respect to the G8.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Don't you agree that if the Auditor General asks them questions about their involvement and asks them if they were consulted during the process, they should answer "yes" rather than "no", since this was the case? Actually, they said that they had not been consulted during the process. But they were consulted; you just said so.

[Richard Dicerni]

No, no. What I said was that they attended a meeting, maybe two meetings. They were there as public servants because FedNor is responsible for tourism in northern Ontario. There's a difference between sitting at a table and being involved in the decision-making process.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I wasn't talking about the decision-making process; I said that they were consulted during the process.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Mr. Caron, your time has expired.

Mr. Kramp, you have the floor, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Certainly to our guests gathered here, without doubt and without exception let me congratulate all of the officials who are here today. When we talk about the stimulus plan, the knowledge infrastructure, and the legacy fund--literally it is without parallel in Canadian history for efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability.

I know that most Canadians definitely share that view. They are very thankful that our officials, our civil service, and our ministers, in a time of extreme economic duress, acted in such an accountable manner, let alone expeditiously.

So I am deeply disturbed, quite frankly, when the official opposition have repeatedly stated that officials misled the Auditor General. I think it's disturbing. I'm very proud of the work of our professional civil service and the ministers on this.

I'd like some comment on the statement made by the opposition that the Auditor General has been misled by the officials gathered here today.

Perhaps I could even have a response from each one of you, very quickly.

[Yaprak Baltacioglu]

Our department was the responsible department for administering this fund. If you look at the e-mails that are in the system, which some honourable members have mentioned, they are conversations with various proponents about costs, contribution agreements, and basic program administration. That is exactly what our role is, and that's what we were supposed to do.

Infrastructure Canada officials did not participate in the local area leadership group meetings. They were not in those meetings. Our engagement would be with the actual 32 projects.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Kramp, I can't argue with your good judgment and your conclusions, but one thing I would say with respect to the public service is that it's awfully difficult for them to defend themselves against partisan attacks from one political party. I think when that happens, it's up to ministers to just underline the great work that they did.

I think in the height of the economic downturn, if you ever needed an example about how important it is to have a strong government, a strong public service, it was the results of the economic action plan and the gargantuan effort that the federal public service undertook with local public service and with provincial and territorial public service.

They did an outstanding job, they deserve all the credit, and I'll take any concerns on their involvement on this issue with respect to Infrastructure Canada.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Certainly I would like to say the same thing, that they acted in an exemplary manner.

As I say, if there are any things that the Auditor General suggested that there be improvements to, I take those to heart. That's my responsibility.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you very much.

The time has expired for this hearing. We have business to move to.

I will thank our guests, Minister Baird, Minister Clement, and the government officials. Thank you very much for being here. We appreciate your time. Thank you.

We'll suspend for two minutes and then reconvene dealing with Mr. Saxton's motion.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

I call the meeting back to order.

I remind everyone we're still in public session.

We are about three minutes away from losing our mandate to do any business. By unanimous consent, we can agree to stay until we've completed the work at hand, or you can put a time limit on it.

I need some kind of unanimous agreement, or we're done in three minutes.

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Why don't we go five-minute intervals, and for now just approve five minutes?

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Are we okay with that?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

However, we do have a number of--