HUMA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, September 22, 2003

¹

1520

The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.))

Mr. Jack Korwin (Director, Public and Parliamentary Relations, Communications Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services)

The Chair

Mr. Jack Korwin

¹

1525

The Chair

Mr. Jack Korwin

The Chair

Mr. Jack Korwin

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Jay Hill

¹

1530

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Jay Hill

Mr. Jack Korwin

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

Mr. Pierre Berthiaume (Manager, Parliamentary Relations, Communications Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Pierre Berthiaume

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Pierre Berthiaume

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

¹

1535

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Jay Hill

¹

1540

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Larry McCormick

Mr. Jack Korwin

The Chair

Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC)

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Norman Doyle

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Norman Doyle

¹

1545

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Norman Doyle

The Chair

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Jack Korwin

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

---

NUMBER 037

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, September 22, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1520)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)): I'm going to call meeting number 37 to order.

    This is a meeting that's a little out of the ordinary for this committee, but I'm told it's not the first time a question has been referred to a standing committee. I have asked the clerk to circulate for members of the committee some of the new procedures concerning written questions. That will give folks on the committee some background on why this particular issue has come to us. I'm not going to dwell on it now, but it will give you the information you need. The question at issue is item number Q-233; it was on the Order Paper.

    We have with us witnesses from the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Welcome, gentlemen.

    Before I turn it over to you, for other members of the committee, I just want to welcome the new Alliance critic for human resources development. Brian Pallister will be with us now. We know you'll find this a very useful and informative committee, and we look forward to your input over the coming months. Welcome to the committee.

    Mr. Hill, it's good to see you with us. You can come back any time you want to join us.

    Now I will turn it over to the department officials. I don't know which one of you gentlemen is going to start, but when you do, perhaps you could introduce yourself and your colleague and carry on from there.

    Mr. Jack Korwin (Director, Public and Parliamentary Relations, Communications Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services): My name is Jack Korwin. I'm the director of public and parliamentary relations. With me is Pierre Berthiaume, who's the manager of parliamentary relations. We're the officials in the department who are most closely associated with procedures such as the tabling of responses to written questions.

    Madam Chair, on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Government Services, I certainly want to apologize sincerely to yourself and to the member who posed the question for being late in tabling this response. In fact, our response has now been tabled. It was tabled on Wednesday, September 17, so it was two days late. We really don't have an excuse for this. We'll be reviewing our procedures and our timelines to make sure all the participants in the process are well aware of the deadlines and make sure this doesn't occur in the future.

    Essentially, that's all I have to offer at this point, but I'll be glad to answer any questions if I can.

    The Chair: Then perhaps I have a few for clarification. As to the nature of the question, was there something that would have necessitated extra days, and how many pages was the response?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: Our response was essentially one sheet of legal-size paper detailing grants, loans, and contributions in the riding as requested. It was a question that was posed to all departments and agencies, so we were just one of many that were required to provide this information.

¹  (1525)  

    The Chair: Who's responsible for coordinating the responses from the various departments and agencies?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: PCO takes that function on. The questions are distributed to the departments and agencies for response. In any written question such as this we would prepare our portion of the response, and once it was approved by the minister, it would be sent on to PCO to be consolidated and tabled.

    The Chair: Is there a timeline, a sort of continuum of checkpoints along the way in that 45-day period, that departments or those who are gathering the information need to follow?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: Yes, absolutely. We certainly strive to get the finished product up through the approvals process well within the 45-day period. In fact, PCO usually wants the responses from us within a 40-day period. In this case we essentially ran out of time before we ran out of steps in the approval process.

    The Chair: I'm going to turn it over to members of the committee. Mr. Hill, I'm going to give you the leadoff question.

    Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today.

    I have a number of questions that come to mind about this. First of all, just to give you the background, I think it is important for all members of Parliament, because from time to time we are asked how much of the federal pie, so to speak, flows into our ridings. We're often open to criticism from political opponents for either getting too much or getting too little, so that was the purpose of me putting forward these questions, to try to ascertain what in total from the various government departments was flowing into Prince George—Peace River.

    Now, is the single sheet you eventually provided for me from Public Works and Government Services Canada the entirety from PWGSC that would have gone? There was no additional money, for example, for upkeep for federal buildings or any federal parks or anything like that, even cost-shared items, PWGSC would have been involved in, in funnelling money into my riding?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: There would. In fact, with respect to contracts, what we noted was that the statistics on contracts are not identified according to electoral boundaries. Certainly, to the extent that there were government buildings in that area, there were probably expenditures related to maintenance, etc., but we aren't able in our reporting system to identify under which contracts money would actually have been spent in that riding because the geographical information we might have would relate to the bidder and not to the location of the building. It's not really a material fact in contracts to identify which riding they pertain to. It certainly relates to a particular building, but...

    Mr. Jay Hill: Concerning the question I asked, what about companies that would be registered in my riding? There isn't any notice here of any grants or contributions that flowed through private companies I'm assuming were contracted to do maintenance or something else under Public Works.

    Mr. Jack Korwin: There may be contracts. I'm simply speculating here because I don't have the information; it's not available by riding. But there would be contracts for maintenance of buildings that might go to a company based in Vancouver, for instance, that would then hire subcontractors.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I can understand, in a sense, the ones you wouldn't be able to track where the actual company receiving the money is located outside the riding. But are you telling me today there weren't any companies, for example, in Fort St. John, my hometown, my home city, that received money and that are from Fort St. John, where a cheque would have been issued to ABC Consulting or whatever in Fort St. John?

¹  (1530)  

    Mr. Jack Korwin: Our financial systems wouldn't permit us to retrieve the data in that way.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I don't understand. You must know where you sent the money. You must know that a cheque for x dollars was sent to a company at a certain mailing address. How is the money paid out if you don't know where it goes?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: I think we'd probably have to get people from the contracting arm of that department to answer those specific questions. Our understanding up to this point was that we were brought before the committee to answer to the tardiness of the response and not to the content of the response as such, so there's a limit to my expertise on that side, I'm afraid.

    The Chair: And the reference is to respond to the lateness of the report as opposed to the content, so you'll have to take that up in another venue.

    Is there someone on the other side?

[Translation]

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    The report has been tabled in the House. Correct? Could we have a copy? Right now, we're completely in the dark.

    Mr. Pierre Berthiaume (Manager, Parliamentary Relations, Communications Branch, Department of Public Works and Government Services): Certainly.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: We don't know if we're dealing with a one-page, a 500-page or a 1,000-page report.

    Mr. Pierre Berthiaume: It's a fairly hefty document. I believe the clerk may have received a copy. Its covers all departments and agencies, so it's a fairly lengthy report.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Judging from the number of contracts awarded, the riding was indeed favoured.

    Mr. Pierre Berthiaume: The question was asked of all departments and agencies, which accounts for the size of the report.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The report is as hefty as a telephone book. Fine then.

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Bellemare, I understand it's in only one of the official languages; therefore it can't be circulated, but it's certainly in the library and you can reference it with Journals.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Has anyone seen any sign or been suspicious of any wrongdoing of any kind?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: Do you mean in relation to the contracts in this particular riding?

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

    Mr. Jack Korwin: I'm certainly not aware of anything.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Have the recipients—there must be quite a few, as we have quite a report—been notified of this question and of the answers?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: In fact, we're here to respond to the Public Works and Government Services Canada portion of this question. Our response covers payments in lieu of taxes that were made to the municipalities in this area. So the entire content of our response relates to those payments or grants to the municipalities that are essentially in lieu of municipal taxes.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In your former counsel, on what you're talking about right now—

    The Chair: I'm going to give you the same guidance that I gave the official opposition. The witnesses before us are essentially here to respond to why they were not able to meet the 45-day deadline. In terms of the body of the report, again that's—

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: We're not to go into the substance. Okay.

    The Chair: Precisely.

    So if you have any questions that relate to the tardiness, I will undertake those, otherwise it may be something the committee will want to look at another time.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Point well taken.

    Merci beaucoup.

    The Chair: Mr. Pallister.

    Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Madam Chair.

    My understanding, of course, of the past practices of the committee in regard to these kinds of requests from members of the House is very limited.

    The Chair: This is the first, and is something that was actually adopted in October 2001. I'm told that only about three have come to various committees, so this is a very new thing. It's certainly the first one for this committee. I understand the justice department may have had a couple.

    Our guidelines are really fairly clear. The department that was supposed to comply with the time is called before a committee to explain why it has not been able to respond. In this particular case there has been a response. It was tabled two days late, and the officials before us have given their explanation as to why. They probably will give us an undertaking that they will do everything in their power to ensure that further requests are responded to within the 45-day period.

    It's really a very limited discussion that we can have here today.

¹  (1535)  

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I want you to bear with me a little bit, in the sense—

    The Chair: I'll give you some latitude for being new on the committee.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thanks. I appreciate your gentleness, Madam Chair.

    I think the two things are intrinsically linked: the accuracy of the information submitted, and the timing of it. Of course, it would be a totally farcical exercise for us to have reports back from your department on time that contained partial information, such as this does. Really, the whole exercise would be a waste of our committee's work and time.

    This response only addresses one subset of the question, so I guess I have to ask you why that is. Does it relate to the reason for the length of time and the lateness of your response that it's so incredibly difficult to get this kind of information?

    You've responded on grants to municipalities, and nothing else. The question is very clear in asking for loans, contributions, and contracts awarded as well, yet there is zero information on those categories here. Are you unable to get that information, or was it simply not asked for?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: Again, I'm not the subject area specialist on contracting, but my understanding is that the systems in our department are not set up in a way that we can identify the beneficiary constituency. Even if we could find an address for a contract, for instance, it wouldn't necessarily indicate where the benefit of that contract went, in terms of expenditures, job creation, etc. Any contract bidder on a job in that municipality could have a place of business virtually anywhere in the country, and perhaps even outside of the country, in some cases. So our systems just don't identify, by constituency, where the dollars are spent or the benefit is received.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: But that wasn't the question the member asked you, sir, and a cursory reading of this request would tell you that. The question was about loans, grants, contributions, and contracts awarded in the constituency. It did not ask where the money was spent, did not ask where the subsequent distribution of the money was made, did not ask where the people who were part of the contracts are from or employed. It simply asked you for some basic information on the contracts that were awarded in this constituency: were they awarded in this constituency? You're raising points, sir, that don't relate to this request.

    There are a limited number of communities in Mr. Hill's riding—this is not a complex issue—and there are a limited number of addresses and postal codes. You should not attempt to create the impression to this committee that the search requirement for fulfilling fully and accurately the request this gentleman has made is an onerous requirement. If that's what you're trying to do, and I'm not sure you are—

    Mr. Jack Korwin: No, it really isn't within my expertise to address the issues of contracting anyway. I'm trying to be as helpful as possible—

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I appreciate you're put in a difficult position.

    Mr. Jack Korwin: —to the committee, but my understanding of our responses to these types of requests on contracts is that normally it is not possible to determine the locus from our database of where the contracts are awarded.

    Certainly if somebody took the 60,000 contracts that are awarded every year and sat down and went through them, I suppose some sort of information could be gathered, but I don't think it's something that's particularly easy to accomplish.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I could accept your point of view if payments weren't made to satisfy these requirements for these contracts. But I'm sure your department is responsible for paying for the services, so the payments must be directed. Are they directed electronically, and therefore you can't track them by area or region? Is that what you're suggesting?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: No, I think we're really getting into an area that is beyond my expertise. We're here essentially to answer to the issue of the tardiness of the response.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I just don't understand the whole premise of your appearance here, I guess, because if it's limited to the timeliness of your response, you've already apologized for being late; you've already not offered any excuse, if I understood you correctly; and that's all you have to say. Is there anything more to say?

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Jack Korwin: Well, probably not.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I must say that's not very helpful. I would have rather had somebody come to answer why I didn't get the information I asked for.

    The Chair: I think, Mr. Hill, the problem is with the standing order; the standing order only provides for this. That's something you may want to talk to your House leader about and that other parties may want to talk to their House leaders about. It may be something that will be raised again in modernization of procedures, because the order that's referred to us is limited to the timing of the response.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Let me make one final comment, then, Madam Chairman. I find it incredible that one department of the many I asked for this information from could appear today and basically tell us they have no idea where the money went that's gone into my riding. I know the money has gone into the riding, and they say there's no way to track that. It boggles my mind. I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. McCormick.

    Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm coming late into the conversation, but I know you're going to strike me down on where I'm going with this.

    I just want to make a comment. It has everything to do with tardiness. I see the words here “grants and contributions”, of which 97% or whatever were great. It seemed like the hypocrisy of politics a couple or three years ago when, following question period, if you'll allow me my preamble, as soon as we'd finished between a certain minister and the opposition parties and the cameras had turned off—this is where you can't allow the politics to get personal—the opposition parties would come over and ask for a favour, right after we'd tried to do some bloodletting. But as far as I know when I see these words, at that time this information was available, and at that time HRDC could provide what my honourable colleague wanted. And we—the government and HRDC—could provide it quickly. My point is, since I missed part of this, why wasn't it provided as quickly as possible, Madam Chair?

    The Chair: Mr. McCormick, HRDC did reply.

    These officials are from Public Works Canada.

    Mr. Larry McCormick: I don't agree with you, Madam Chair. I'd like to give these people an opportunity to give me a straight answer. They're here to tell that message, but I'd like to also know why the tardiness when the information is available.

    Mr. Jack Korwin: Really all I can do is reiterate my initial remarks, which are that we have an approval process for this type of material. We certainly strive to make sure that it's in the hands of PCO well within the time period. In this case, events conspired against us and we were a couple of days late tabling the material.

    The Chair: Okay. Is there anything further? Mr. Doyle.

    Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): I'd like to ask a general question. I was wondering if there's a limit to the number of requests a member may make to a department or agency for information. I notice this question here went back to 1993-94, right on up to 2000-01. Is there a limit? How far can you go back when you're asking for this kind of information? Does that very often have a bearing on how quickly you can get back to an individual? When you get right down to it, 45 days is not really a great deal of time. Would that be an influencing factor in this particular instance?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: Well, it is indeed, inasmuch as we're not able to go back beyond six years. So we weren't able to go back further, as the financial records are only kept for up to six years. In this case we weren't able to respond to the early fiscal years that were requested.

    Mr. Norman Doyle: So if a member wanted to know, say, back to a ten-year period, how much money was spent in his riding, you really couldn't go back ten years, you'd just go back for the six years?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: Exactly.

    Mr. Norman Doyle: Do you find it difficult, even on the six-year period, when you have 45 days? Is 45 days a reasonable period of time when you get right down to it, or would it be more reasonable to say, well, you had a two-month period to conduct that kind of a search? Is 45 days a problem, do you really think?

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Jack Korwin: In general we find 45 days is quite adequate. I think our track record in the past has been fairly good. Up until this particular month it's hard to recall any previous situation where we were late.

    Mr. Norman Doyle: Thank you.

    The Chair: I want to give Ms. Davies one last question, if she has one.

    Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): No, I don't have any questions.

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Pallister, one minute.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    So we know this information is late. That's clear. I'm waiting to hear an acknowledgement that this is partial. You're cognizant that this is in partial response, correct?

    Mr. Jack Korwin: Yes, inasmuch as for contracts we're unable to provide the data by constituency. In fact, PWGSC does not provide loans or other contributions. With respect to loans we don't provide any, so it's partial in that respect.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Forgive me, because I wasn't here at the time. I know other members of the committee were here, but I seem to recall the image of a government minister—I think he was referred to as “binder boy”—waving around sheets with detailed listings of grants and contributions, loans, handouts, and various programs by constituency for some weeks. He had this information available to him, I assume fairly readily, too. Yet we have, after a fairly long time, a number of weeks, something which really you could have printed out in an hour.

    I find it disrespectful, frankly, Madam Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pallister. I think you've made your point.

    In terms of what was in the binder, I'm not aware that there were government contractors in the binder. It was essentially Human Resources Development Canada, not Public Works Canada.

    Anyway, I want to thank the two gentlemen. I think some questions have been raised on both sides of the committee. You have fulfilled your duty to come and appear before us and to address the matter of the lateness. We thank you for your cooperation.

    We're going to suspend for a few minutes and then go back into an in-camera session to briefly discuss future business.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]