TRGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 14, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, Lib.))

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Á

1110

Mr. Ovid Jackson

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan--Shuswap, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

The Chair

Á

1115

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, PC/DR)

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

Á

1120

Á

1125

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Darrel Stinson

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mr. Paul Szabo

Ms. Meredith

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mrs. Desjarlais

Mr. Szabo

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Á

1130

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Reg Alcock

Á

1135

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.)

Mr. Lebel

Mr. Harvey

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Darrel Stinson

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

Á

1150

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

---

NUMBER 055

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 14, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, Lib.)): Colleagues, I see a quorum. I'd like to call the meeting to order. On the order of the day, the first item is that our colleague, Ghislain Lebel, has a 48 hours' notice of motion.

    Monsieur Lebel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to all my colleagues gathered here around the table.

    I proposed a motion which reads as follows:

    

“That the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations invite Jean Brault, the President of Groupaction Marketing, to appear before the Committee to tell us what contracts were obtained from Public Works and Government Services and what was contained in the report on the study of ways to increase federal government visibility and in the report concerning the production of a list of 1,300 cultural events.”

    Mr. Chairman, we are all aware of the troubling things that have occurred in this department. These things have been experienced over the past few days. We therefore find ourselves with a generous donor to the party currently in power. The figures are difficult to pinpoint, but Mr. Brault will perhaps be able to do so. Amounts have been mentioned ranging from $70,000 to $112,000 in contributions to the Liberal Party of Canada's campaign fund. Was it to thank this donor for his contribution that a contract was awarded to Groupaction Marketing Inc. for it to report to the government?

    The fact remains that this same generous donor is at the centre of a controversy. This company executed a contract. If my colleagues wish, I can quote the number of the contract for them. This is not imaginary. The contract bears the number EN771-8-0024/01-ZCA. This contract, which cost the government about $550,000, cannot be found. The troubling aspect in this whole matter is not only that the report has disappeared, but that the content of the report remains unknown because of this disappearance. Having alerted my colleagues around me, I think that the members of the Committee are as interested as I am in the content of this report.

    Are we really dealing here with an administrative error and the mismanagement of documents? Here again, even if the disappearance of this document occurred entirely in good faith, the fact remains that this department or, at least, the Canada Information Office, has been mismanaging documents. It is the mandate of a committee such as ours to shed some light on the matter.

    Today, I have written a letter to Ms. Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada, in which I have said, on behalf of my party, that:

    

“The Bloc Québécois has for some time wondered about certain practices that are prevalent in Public Works and Government Services Canada. We are particularly concerned about two factors, first of all, the granting of numerous contracts without tender, contracts that, in some cases, are awarded to contributors to the Liberal Party of Canada's campaign fund. Second, we also wonder about the management of documents by this department.”

    I think that this is perhaps something that should be of concern to the Auditor General. It should at least be of concern to my colleagues opposite and on each side. Mr. Chairman, $550,000 may not be a significant amount to some people, but it is an enormous amount to others. When an amount such as this is paid, are we not entitled to see what it was paid for, what was delivered to us, what the compensation was and how the bidder or contractor performed in relation to Public Works and Government Services?

Á  (1110)  

    We see the minister admitting, quite honestly and candidly, that he was unable to find any trace of the document anywhere. Did he search in the right places? Could the Committee invite people to appear here as witnesses who would have seen this famous invisible report or who might have had it in their hands?

    To give the people that we all represent here at least the appearance of trying to do our work as it should be done, I think that we—both members of the government party and members of the opposition parties—have a duty, and this is an imperative, an obligation, to shed light on this missing document and on the circumstances leading to its disappearance. I do not think that we can escape this duty.

    Consequently, I will not engage the Committee any further. However, there is a motion on the table, Mr. Chairman, on which I am prepared to hear comments from my colleagues, from those in favour or against, of course, and to ask them to vote this morning in order to determine how valid this motion is.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Ovid Jackson: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Stinson.

[English]

    Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan--Shuswap, Canadian Alliance): I have to agree with my colleague from the Bloc. This is a major concern that is out there, and I do think we have an obligation to find out what happened here. In this day of computers, it's tough to try to justify, even to myself, why there is no backup on this report.

    You would think even the company should have them on one of their drives or they're stored somewhere, but surely the government should have them. What happens to these reports is a major concern, along with the cost. The people who are depending on us to justify some of the actions we take here on this Hill are waiting for an answer. So I would gladly support the motion.

    The Chair: Bev.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): I would support it as well. My thoughts on it are actually that probably what's going to happen is that someone is taking what background notes are available and making up a quick report. I think probably what we should do, once we do see it, is decide whether it was worth half a million bucks.

    The Chair: Val.

Á  (1115)  

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, PC/DR): I certainly will be supporting the motion. The thing that concerns me is that the transport committee gets consumed with Public Works or Government Services. I think if it wasn't apparent three months ago, it's certainly apparent now that we need to have a separate standing committee for Government Services. That committee should be struck with this issue, as well as the issue that was raised earlier.

[Translation]

     The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

    Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ): If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will say that I hope that the MPs from the Liberal Party wish, as we do, at least to know the contents of the report. My colleague's request is simple. We invite the President of the company to appear before us. We ask him to brief us on the contracts that he obtained from the federal government and, at the same time, to explain the contents of the study. He, or people working for him, surely worked on this study, and they can provide some explanation to us regarding the contents of the report, if it remains missing.

    I cannot believe that Liberal MPs do not want to know the contents of a study that cost $550,000 and that the Minister cannot find. He made a vow to be above reproach. He said that if he had the report in his hands, he would give it to us. However, he should perhaps know what the report contains.

    My colleague is proposing that we might at least discuss the matter with those who wrote the report and obtain an explanation of what the report contained. They surely still have notes, even if they do not have the final text. They will certainly do what the Minister is doing and track down all the notes. If they worked on it, they did not just keep everything in their heads. There are certainly notes and they will be able to explain the contents of the report to us. I think that this is only fair to the citizens of Quebec and Canada who paid for this study with their taxes.

    Consequently, there is nothing dishonourable in this approach. I can understand that, when we tried to have Mr. Gagliano appear, this did not work. That was complicated. We did not want to cast doubt on the integrity of the Liberal Party. However, today your minister tells us that the report is not available and that he would like to have been able to produce it. At least allow the person who wrote it or the President of the company to come and explain the contents of the report to us, together with his witnesses and the people who work for him. I will never believe that everything has disappeared, even from their offices.

    I therefore hope that the Liberals will vote in favour of the resolution and that, for once, this committee will not be split.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mario.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I listened to the positions of the honourable members, and I want to remind the members that the minister in the House, in response to the questions, shared the concerns that the members have expressed and made an undertaking that if and when a report was found, it would be tabled, etc.

    He also indicated in the House, as well as in the press, that it wasn't simply a one-issue matter; he was concerned about how this happened and indicated that he was going to take the necessary steps to deal with this specific action, and to ask all parties who possibly could assist in this to find this report and determine exactly how this happened. Obviously, a new minister wants to be responsible with regard to serious issues like this. So I thank the member for raising it.

    Let me make a brief comment about the donations to the Liberal Party of Canada. It's true that it's a public record issue. As members know, all donations to any political party in excess of $200, under the laws of Canada, must be disclosed, and it's available. The decisions about whether contributions are made are corporate decisions.

    In this particular case we're talking about a very large company. I was concerned with the suggestion in the House that there were kickbacks and the like. As members know, that's an illegal act; it's quite serious to make such allegations, and I caution members not to get into difficulty over that. It is a matter of public record, and I'm sure the figures the members have indicated are correct, that those were donations over a number of years. I simply wanted to point that caution out.

    Number two, with regard to the report, as I said, the minister indicated that if and when we get this report it will be tabled in the House. I'm pleased to advise that we have found a report. This morning, Groupaction put out a press release indicating that they in fact....

    Mr. Stinson very astutely points out that with computers, etc., there are backup disks, etc., even though you won't keep the hard copy. I understand that about 200 pages have been printed off that backup diskette and have been forwarded. It's not in both official languages at this point, but it will be, and it will be provided to the critics of each of the parties.

    The minister, I thought, took every responsible action he could by providing all of the ancillary documents but indicated that this wasn't acceptable. So in a very short time, as soon as the report is verified by independent audit and is properly translated so that it's available for all colleagues regardless of their language of choice, it will be provided in the appropriate form.

    Finally, with regard to Groupaction and the request the members made to ask the officials of that company to come here, there were a couple of aspects of this other than the report; there was a little bit about the donation-type stuff. I'm not sure if it really is the purview of the committee to query a company about their donations to any political party. I don't know whether or not they contributed to other parties--they may have--but it is a matter of public record, so this committee could not do more than in fact the public record already does with regard to donations.

    With regard to the point on the report, the report in fact is going to be provided and it will be provided in a form and with the necessary sign-offs that will verify that it is the original report so that there should be no concern about whether or not this is the report in question.

Á  (1120)  

    It will tie in, obviously, and it will have to tie in with all the other documents that have already been provided to members. I think they'll have all the information they need to satisfy their informational requirements, not only as to whether there is a report but what's in it.

    I also wanted to comment on the size of the contract. When you say there is a $550,000 report that somebody has lost, it would be not unreasonable for a person to suggest that's an awful lot of money for a company to get for just writing a report.

    In this particular case, and in most of these cases where you get major reports on assessment of government programs, there is a lot of surveying, a lot of interviews. We're talking about hundreds of programs that were reviewed. Each one of those had professional services engaged to do the detailed interview work, and so there was enormous cost to it.

    In fact, Groupaction's fee for doing the project was 12% of the billed cost, so their revenue, without any expenses, wasn't $500,000; it was 12% of the contract amount for doing the services.

    In the year 2001-2002, the current fiscal year of the Government of Canada, there are nine companies that are pre-qualified to provide such services. They go through a process under Public Works and Government Services to be pre-qualified. Public Works and Government Services coordinates this activity on behalf of all government agencies and departments so that if they want somebody to do something, we don't have to worry about finding companies; we have pre-qualified them. If the members are interested, I can give them a list of the nine.

    Under Treasury Board guidelines, no one company can have more than 25% of the total amount of contracts awarded in a period. Groupaction is at 21.14% for the year ended March 31, 2002, so it's within Treasury Board guidelines.

    I believe, Mr. Chairman, I have provided the members with information addressing the concerns that were specifically brought to us with regard to these kinds of things we needed. In fact, that information either now has been provided or is in the process of being provided, whether it be by the minister tabling once translation occurs or by virtue of already existing on the public record elsewhere, and it is unnecessary for this committee to do that work.

    On that basis, Mr. Chairman, I believe I've satisfied the honourable member's request, and on that basis I don't believe we should proceed with a request for the officials of Groupaction. I would suggest that the motion not be passed.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much for that information, Mr. Szabo.

    I will go now to Bev.

    An hon. member: [Editor Note: Inaudible]

    The Chair: I'll go to Bev first and then I'll come back to you.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: As you can see, I really wasn't surprised that the report appeared. It only made sense that somebody would be doing their darndest to burn the midnight oil even if one didn't exist, and that it would have been done fairly quickly.

    But recognizing that it is available, I think as a committee we should request that report and should request the background information Mr. Szabo has indicated is available. We should have that information as a committee so that everybody has the report and the background information that is there to coincide.

    It's for Government Services to evaluate whether or not it was value per dollar. We should still continue to do that.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, could I ask whether all members of the committee should get it, or just the critics of each party?

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Actually, as a committee member dealing with Government Services, until they come up with another committee, I'd like to get it, because I'm probably the one who is going to be--

    Mr. Paul Szabo: If the member wants it, the information is available to all parliamentarians.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: The committee, I think, should get--

    The Chair: As a result of the minister coming to the committee, and the committee requesting from the minister the background information, that is available. He has had it translated, and that would be available to the entire committee. Now that he has some subsequent information, hopefully we'll get it as well.

    Mr. Stinson.

    Mr. Darrel Stinson: On top of that, I would like to get the names of the nine companies.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I could give them right now if you'd like them.

    The Chair: You should be giving them to the committee, but anyway--

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I can read them. There are only nine names here.

    The Chair: All right. They'll be in the minutes then.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: The names are--and they will be in the transcript anyway: Communication Coffin; Compass Communications Inc.; Focus Strategies and Communications; Groupaction Marketing; Gosselin Relations Publique; Groupe Everest Inc.; Lafleur Communications Marketing; PNC; Captech Multicom Inc.; and Internal Transfer.

    The Chair: That takes us over to Monsieur Lebel.

[Translation]

    M. Ghislain Lebel: Thank you.

    Mr. Szabo, you have just given us the names of nine companies. Could you assure us that these nine companies are independent companies and are not affiliated with each other or dependent on each other?

[English]

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I know he's referring to Gosselin, Groupaction, and Lafleur. I can confirm that these are three different legal entities--

    Ms. Val Meredith: It's the same parent company, though.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I'm not familiar with the corporate structure.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Is it owned by the same people?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I don't know that.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I think that you should make enquiries, Mr. Szabo. I think that you are not sure of what you are suggesting. Some of these companies belong to Groupaction. Three of them are affiliated to, or dependent on, Groupaction. Groupaction has a number of subsidiaries, so be careful. At least, this is what appeared in the newspapers recently, just a few days ago. I am not accusing you of anything, but let's be sure when we state something. I cannot tell you which, from memory, but check it. Groupaction is not alone.

    Second, we are told that the report has been found, that it suddenly appeared. I am very happy and pleased, Minister, that it has finally been found. Would it not be appropriate to at least have the President of Groupaction appear, as I have suggested in the motion? Let him come and tell us why it took so long to find it. Let him come and make some suggestions to us or have some suggestions made to him or to the Minister so that, henceforth, when a study is ordered and a report is submitted to us, there is an appropriate legislative provision requiring the person who submitted the study or the one who received it to make a backup or to do something so that we are not obliged to empty every garbage can in Parliament in a sudden attempt to find it when it is required. If only for that purpose, would it not be appropriate and beneficial for Mr. Brault to appear before us?

    I cannot make assumptions about the contents of the report that is to be submitted to us: I have not seen it. You have seen it, Mr. Szabo, the famous report that has been found?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Not yet.

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: It was said that the contents of this report could have been found in 15 minutes by a 13-year-old child with some skill in surfing the Internet and that he could have provided you with a list of 1,300 activities, 1,300 groups or 1,300 sports and cultural events in Canada at the speed of a factory printer, that is, in less than half an hour. This seems enormous, 1,300 names of firms. It is no more complicated to get that from the Internet than it would be to transfer three pages from the telephone directory. So was this worth $550,000? This is the kind of question that needs to be asked here.

    I am prepared to accept a challenge from any one of you. I have a young assistant behind me who is very skilful on the Internet. Give her 15 minutes and she will produce a listing of the 1,300 Moose clubs across Canada. She will do it in 10 minutes, if my printer is capable of handling it. Is that worth $550,000? This is the nub of the question. I trust that you will not refuse to do a decent, honest job of making recommendations to the Minister so that, henceforth, when contracts such as this are awarded, as I said earlier, we will not have to search through every garbage can in Parliament to find the report. If no respect is shown for a $550,000 report, what will command respect in future? This is a disturbing situation.

    I am delighted that the Minister says the report has finally been found and that it suddenly appeared more or less unexpectedly. That's great, but this committee needs to do its homework. If you once again refuse to do this, the credibility of politicians and parliamentarians will suffer, mine as well as yours.

Á  (1130)  

[English]

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Perhaps I may have misunderstood something in the exchange here.

    Perhaps, Mr. Szabo, you could clarify something for me. In the nine companies you referenced, if I understood you correctly, what I thought I heard you say was that there was a process on the part of the government of pre-qualifying companies that would then be eligible to undertake large evaluative studies on behalf of the Department of Public Works and Government Services or any other department of government. Government Services played a role in pre-qualifying them, and that list of nine companies was the existing list of companies that had been pre-qualified by the Government of Canada to undertake evaluative work. Is that correct?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Correct.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Are you saying that these nine companies were part of the particular study we're talking about, or is that the sole list of companies that were available for evaluative projects?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: It's the latter one.

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Lebel, is it your contention that in that list of nine at least three of them are part of the same overall corporate structure?

Á  (1135)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I will read the press cutting from the Ottawa Citizen to you, Mr. Alcock. This is dated March 12, two days ago.

[English]

    Three of the nine, Groupaction Marketing, Gosselin Relations Publiques, and Lafleur Communications Marketing Inc., have been identified in the past as actually agents. They were all part of the same corporate group with the same president. That was my question. That's what I said, and Mr. Szabo says no, I'm wrong.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: No.

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: You specifically told me those three companies had no relation between them.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: No, that's not true. I said they were separate legal entities.

    Please don't put words in my mouth.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I asked you if they were related to each other. You said that they were not.

[English]

    That's what you mean.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: And I answered the question that I did not know.

[Translation]

    M. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Alcock, does that answer your question?

[English]

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman?

    The Chair: Go right ahead, since you're on the government side. Mr. Shepherd wants in.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: No, I understand.

    The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I basically want to go back to Mr. Lebel's main point, that he wanted to call the president of this company before us. This is very much of a conjecture. He's sort of guilty of what's he's trying to accuse us of doing, and that is, he's prejudging what is in the report that he hasn't yet seen. Why wouldn't he wait until he actually read the report to make his own judgments on whether in fact there was value for money, etc?

    It seems to me his motion is now self-defeating, in any case, because that whole motion was dependent on the fact that the report was missing. Now that it's been found, he seems to want to pursue this letter by calling the president for a report that he has conjectured to be somehow insufficient. It seems absurd to me that we're going to call witnesses based on conjecture. We should simply wait until we see the report before we call any witnesses.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Mr. Lebel made the motion.

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: He is asking me a question, so I want to answer.

    First, we're not a tribunal here, so nobody will be found guilty before we hear the witnesses. Okay?

[Translation]

    Second, Mr Brault is at least guilty of having taken two days to find his report. I am sure you will agree with this point, because it took at least two, if not three or four days, to look for the report. We have now learned that the report has just been found, but it took a while to find it, and Mr. Brault did not know, any more than you or I, where it was. This is beyond dispute.

    The key element of my motion is to conduct a review and to make recommendations to our minister, who is also your minister, so that in future we are no longer required to endure situations such as this where reports are lost.

    In the past I sat with Mr. Richardson, MP, on the Defence Committee. We did more or less a world tour and, when a report was sought, it was found. Document management was such that...it was very complicated, very difficult in Defence, but when a report was requested, they had it.

    Here, a report is requested and everyone goes mad. Nobody finds it, nobody knows where it is, not even the Minister or the former Minister, much less the future Minister, but nor does the current Minister know. Consequently, we need document management in this department. It is an immense department. Now, you are refusing to make representations to your minister so that, when research contracts are granted and a report is required, the service provider is at least required to keep a copy in his files for a number of years. We do not even have that at present. This would be an excellent recommendation to make to your minister. I am not the one trying to walk away from this and nor is the Bloc. You are the ones doing that. So make this recommendation to him.

    I am a member of the Chambre des notaires du Québec. I am not entitled to dispose of any document for 10 years. Why, when we are handling immensely important issues with the government, do they delete virtually anything from the computer as soon as the report is submitted, as though it were a finished matter? Let's see! The service provider has a responsibility. If he does not have responsibility, we will give him some. This is the reason for inviting Mr. Brault to appear. We want him to tell us where the deficiency lies in contract management, what he would be prepared to go along with and what suggestions he would make to spare the government from the kind of embarrassing situation that it has experienced over the past four days. It is not only in the public interest; it is also in the interest of your government. Please take this on board once and for all. Thank you.

     The Chair: Mr. Laframboise.

    Mr. Mario Laframboise: Particularly since Mr. Szabo had not given us his explanation at the outset...You appeared, Mr. Szabo—and I very much regret it—to try to defend all this. You said that there were nine independent companies who might do the same...We have just seen in the space of two minutes that three of them were perhaps interrelated.

    Furthermore, you tried to justify yourself by saying that it was not just a report, that there were many analyses and that they wanted just a small percentage. I think, particularly since these explanations are far from being clear, that it would be really interesting to have Mr. Brault appear so that he can explain the situation to us and inform us about the contracts obtained. My colleague's motion is simple. Therefore, we could see with him whether he is really the president of other organizations and how this works with the subsidiaries or affiliated companies.

    Second, we are asking to discuss the contents of the report. We could simply ask him questions on...When we have a witness appear, usually, it takes a few weeks before he arrives. We would have the report. We could analyse it, look at it, read it and ask questions, among other things, about the cost of the report and its contents, and we could analyse it.

    I consider it a matter of current interest to have Mr. Brault appear. Give him a few days, time for the report to be submitted and read. However, we have an opportunity now to get him to appear; we could wait a week before having him appear before us, so that there is time to read the report. I don't think that this presents a problem.

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Provided that they do not lose it in the meantime.

    Mr. Mario Laframboise: That's right, but at least I think we have some good and very relevant questions to ask him. This morning, with the explanations from Mr. Szabo, we have more than we had before. He gave us some material. Consequently, I think that we might at least clarify this situation together and it would be in the interests of everyone involved. Thank you.

    

    

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Harvey, and then we'll wrap it up with Mr. Szabo.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.): I would like to say a word, Mr. Chairman. I am sure that our colleagues Mr. Lebel and Mr. Mario will spend the weekend studying Mr. Brault's report, but everybody has access to the report. In fact, as Alex said, before spending hours analysing the report, we should first read it. This might be a report of extremely high quality. Nevertheless, our colleagues from the Bloc should be reminded, Mr. Chairman, that when we talk about party financing....

    In his introduction, Mr. Lebel talked about the amounts to be given to various political parties, including ours. A political party, Mr. Chairman, needs to be funded. Democracy has a cost. I remember that at the time Mr. Lebel of the Bloc had been elected on the excellent principle of public funding. To my knowledge, unless I am very badly informed, public funding was dumped by the Bloc ages ago. Bloc members are into corporate financing and I do not blame them. I do not blame them, but the fact remains that companies also have a right to participate in maintaining democracy. I agree with that, but in 1993 this was an extremely significant principle.

    This case, Mr. Chairman, is not comparable to the experiences in the Quebec National Assembly, where high-level politicians made recommendations to people to approach firms to obtain access to various offices. There are some important things to investigate in the Quebec National Assembly.

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: They should be made to appear here.

    Mr. André Harvey: I see that Mr. Lebel is asking us to have Mr. Simard and a number of others appear here. However, he is an important minister in Quebec City. So I think that if we really want to pay careful attention to the various reports submitted every day to Public Works, as my colleague Mr. Szabo has so clearly said, we have to go through them. If we have to have everyone appear before us who has writing contracts in the departments, Mr. Chairman, we are not out of the wood; we will be spending the summer here.

    So, I am asking for a vote on this question so that we can have our committee consider other points. I think that I have understood their message very clearly.

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Lebel, maybe you can be brief, because I have a number of others. I'll give you a chance to answer quickly.

[Translation]

     Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I have not seen the report. Nor has Mr. Szabo seen it yet, he said. I think that Mr. Harvey has seen it. I would like to ask him whether, in the report that has just been found, it is stated how it came to be lost. If he can answer that question, it will be a little like signing a letter in a sealed envelope. I think that he is completely off track. The whole point of the motion is to determine why the report was lost. How was it that the report was lost? The report will not tell us why it was lost. This is what you do not understand.

    You are being asked to decide on the motion proposed here today, so that in future...If it's valid for the report, it might be valid for a helicopter. I don't know, let's say we pay $8 billion for it and don't know where it is.

Á  (1145)  

     The Chair: Thank you very much.

    M. Ghislain Lebel: The thing that needs to be investigated is the reason why the document was lost.

[English]

    The Chair: Val, you can have it on that.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think our concern from this committee should be a little bit broader than just this one report. I'm a little concerned that we have only nine companies across our country that apparently qualify for doing this kind of work. I would like information as to how they were chosen, who they are, and how much money they have received in the last fiscal year for doing this sort of thing. Do they widely and broadly represent the provinces of this country?

    I'd like to know more information about this list of nine. I would like to be provided--I think this committee should be provided--with the parameters of who the nine are, information about the nine, how they're chosen, and how much money they've made over the last fiscal year in doing this kind of stuff for the government.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Ms. Val Meredith: The fact that they're putting money back into the Liberal coffers—I'm not as concerned about that, at this point in time, as I am about the parameters of the nine and information about them.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I have a couple of points, Mr. Chair, before you call the question.

    Mr. Laframboise, again, made reference to the fact that I had indicated the companies were independent. I want to repeat my statement here, to the members here, that those three particular companies are three separate legal entities. I did not have and I have no knowledge about their corporate structure or their interrelationships. I did not say they were independent. I don't know that they are.

    Mr. Lebel has put some information that he received from media reports. I'm not aware of them, but I'll endeavour to find out. But I have not declared that these people are independent. Please be careful on that one. That's a very important point.

    Mr. Chairman, a number of the issues raised by members have to do with authenticating the report, with whether our systems can be improved, etc. This appears to be activity flowing from this. They're over and above the motion before us now. Since we've gone into other details, it would appear we've exhausted the debate on the motion directly, and I believe we should call the question.

    The Chair: Okay. Val.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I agree to call the question, as long as my request for further information is on the table. If you want a motion to that effect--

    The Chair: We'll deal with one motion at a time. Mr. Lebel's motion is first. If you want to request information from the department, you can do that any time.

    Will you poll the members, please?

     (Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

    The Chair: As a member of the committee, can she not request that Treasury Board, or whoever, send us the information on what she has asked for? Is that a problem? Does she have to make a motion, or can we just get that done?

    Mr. Darrel Stinson: I think all members of this committee should be supplied with that.

    The Chair: I'm trying to see whether she needs a motion, or if we can get it done.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: On the issue of pre-qualification, this is a standard practice on a number of fronts, not just with regard to consultants, or whatever. They go through a process of pre-qualification because you get a large number of requests from different departments throughout the Government of Canada, and rather than having competitive bids for each and every request, regardless of the dollar amount, you determine which companies have which kind of expertise, whether it be in a certain region, etc.

    The criteria are on a competitive bid basis, on a contract for request for tender, and in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. This is standard government practice. It can be requested either through Treasury Board, about the Treasury Board guidelines on competitive bids and pre-qualifying, or from the department at any time by any member.

Á  (1150)  

    Ms. Val Meredith: Well, I am requesting it.

    The Chair: We'll get the information the member has asked for through the committee. Let's get that done. That's off the table.

    Ms. Val Meredith:Thank you.

    The Chair:Thank you very much.

    We will move in camera now because we're going to have a look at the budget, with regard to our work plans and travel plans. We're going to need a couple of minutes to do that.

    [Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]