Evidence of meeting #106 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was benefits.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Okay.
I totally understand my colleague and his wanting to make sure that we don't get buried in a tremendous amount of communications. Nevertheless, we managed to get details on the COVID Alert app through the elements related to a contract. I'm talking about restaurant meetings or bottles of whisky. It's nothing major, but when we're able to get an overall picture, we can see the context and understand it better.
That's why I asked for all documents related to the COVID Alert app. It's to get the full context. Having only the contract doesn't give us the context that explains how the two consultants managed to insert themselves into a contract that was already under way.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I very much appreciate what Madame Vignola is saying here today. I think she hit the nail on the head when she said that.
My concern here is, again, that we're going to overwhelm the folks who produce this material. Our focus right now is on the contracts. Let's take that first step. Let's look at what the contracts have to say. Let's see what is in those contracts—which is the focus of our study—then make that determination before we again overwhelm the system with a production request that is going to produce, like Madame Vignola mentioned, an overwhelming amount of documentation. I think the contracts will give us a foundation from which to work. I think that's the first step.
We'd like to see this proceed. We think it's a good motion and a good necessary step forward. However, like I said, we want to balance it out with making sure we judiciously and responsibly ask for documentation. I think the contracts are a very good step.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Let's agree that we won't be able to agree on that. I understand my colleague's concerns, but the contract doesn't provide me with the context for the awarding of the contract. To fully understand the contract, I also need to know the context and how it happened.
We won't agree on the subamendment, unfortunately. I completely understand the quantity of documents that represents, since I read them. I spend my days reading them. However, I need the context to do a comprehensive objective analysis. There you have it.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We're talking about Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment, which is to take out “communications, memoranda, calls for tender and proposal submissions”.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Sousa Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I appreciate that the concern is that we're trying to obtain as much information as possible to determine how it came to be with respect to some of these contracts. Certainly, it's appropriate, which is why we've been at this committee for some time relative to this. However, I think we've obviously had some concern expressed, even by the chair, in terms of the volume of translation, material and information that we've asked to be produced. For us to go back to ask again for more, in light of the fact that we have quite a bit of information already on hand that hasn't determined what I think we're trying to obtain....
I don't want us to find ourselves bogged down in a situation of futility on a matter currently under investigation by a number of bodies, and we certainly have taken quite a number of steps to try to obtain some information. All the material and all the communications from a number of departments that may or may not be related to this—even though we're trying to suggest it be so—becomes quite an undertaking. I think we have already requested some of this internally.
The scope is so broad in this request that I think we need to be more specific, and that's why some of the amendments made by my colleague feel appropriate in order to delve strictly into what is being discussed here and getting to the bottom of how that decision came to be.
This is one amendment. I think we'll probably have yet another. I propose we take this amendment and proceed forward, so that we can get the most value from our request of the civil service to divulge information.
Thank you.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Are we ready to vote on Mr. Kusmierczyk's amendment?
We have a tie. I vote no.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're back to the original motion.
Colleagues, are you comfortable with my perhaps offering a compromise?
12:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
It's to move it up to March 1....
I understand Mrs. Vignola's issues, but I understand what you're saying as well about the number of documents by the 15th and that we're not going to get them by that time. Perhaps we ask for contracts, RFPs and the proposals, and perhaps move the time up—that greatly reduces the amount—with a promise that we immediately revisit the motion when we're back if Mrs. Vignola needs more context.
Rather than the communication, memoranda, etc., it would be contracts, RFPs and submissions.
This is open for discussion. That was all.
Mr. Bachrach.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I appreciate the attempt to find a compromise. It's difficult to know where to land on this, because, of course, we don't know how many documents we're talking about. Perhaps previous document orders have given people a sense of the volume that we're talking about, but I think we want it to be realistic in terms of the timeline and to get the answers the committee deserves and the public deserves.
My instinct would be to keep it broad, as Mrs. Vignola outlined in her original motion. I have no idea about the practicality or practicability of that, so I'm hesitant to support trimming it down without knowing whether that's necessary. How many emails can you send about a topic like that? It's hard to say.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Yes, it's hard to say. I'm just being realistic. I'm cognizant of the time and the translation services as well. It's taken us three days just to get a one-page letter translated, so that's my concern about the date. That's why I'm just putting it out there, from a pragmatic point of view.
Go ahead, Mr. Bains.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Parm Bains Liberal Steveston—Richmond East, BC
Just quickly, in addition to the translation and the magnitude of the documents, I'm concerned about the costs associated with producing them and then translating and doing that.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
The amendment has been defeated. We'll go back to the original motion. I just put out a solution, but we'll go back, just to keep it proper.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I have another amendment. I'll bring forward a second amendment, and again, this one is with regard to the last sentence. It would delete, after the words “COVID Alert application,” the following: “as well as any government or internal communications from any government body or department related to the COVID Alert application”. Can I speak to it very quickly?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Sure. I'm trying to get my computer up and running.
It would delete—and I'll quote—after the words, “COVID Alert application”....
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Is that “in the context of the COVID Alert application”, etc.?
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Irek Kusmierczyk Liberal Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
It's the second part.
I'm sorry. I apologize because my computer right now has decided to turn off, but I'll quote the words.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Okay, so it is after “or department in connection with the COVID Alert application”.