Government Operations Committee on April 14th, 2010

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay.

Is there any debate? Since you're agreeing to the amendment, I'll take debate on the total motion.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I want to generally say two things. One is that I'm getting a sense that to debate this motion would bounce anything we had on the schedule. That's the prerogative of the committee, and we'll find out if that, in fact, is the intention of the committee. That's the first thing. I think we're undertaking some important business and I think it's important that we continue with it, but the committee will determine how the schedule works moving forward.

The other thing is that I'm not sure what this motion has to do with our committee. Certainly these are interesting times, and these are interesting subjects to some members around the table, but I'm not exactly sure how this relates to our committee's mandate and exactly what we hope to accomplish as a committee with regard to the specific witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You're asking me for an opinion--

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Well, no. If you could offer one on behalf of the Liberals, or if Madam Hall Findlay could, on behalf of....

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay. I will get Mr. Martin to speak.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Chair.

Timely is the only comment I wanted to make. The reason I will support this motion from Martha Hall Findlay is that when I look at the mandate of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, it quite clearly states in subparagraph 108(3)(c)(iii) that it is to review of and report on the effectiveness, management, and operation of specific operational and expenditure items across all departments and agencies.

Therefore, the language that Martha Hall Findlay and the Liberals have put forward in this study is that the committee conduct a study of the renewable energy project funding by the Government of Canada, which has great interest to me above and beyond the rather salacious details associated with Rahim Jaffer and lobbying. If it were strictly about lobbying, it would be a matter before the ethics committee, not the government operations committee.

This is a program that I get more letters on than anything else lately, because the government gave an extra $80 million to this program and then killed it in this budget. Phones are ringing off the hook, and letters are flying. People want to know why the renewable energy project funding has been cut. We'd like to know more details about how that money was spent and distributed, and generally more about the operations of that program.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

It's subparagraph 108(3)(c)(iii), yes.

Go ahead, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Certainly Pat speaks to the relevance and makes the connection between the mandate of the committee and this particular motion. That answers part of my question, and I'm good with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Go ahead, Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

With respect to the motion, I would simply like to add that I agree with Mr. Martin and Mr. Warkentin. I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. Part of the motion has more to do with the Natural Resources Committee, and the other part relates to the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. So, I do not see the relevance of dealing with this in this Committee, especially in light of all the work we have.

Ms. Findlay will certainly want to address that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Go ahead, Madam Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I would like to read this in English, because I have the English version in front of me now.

“Government operations and estimates shall include, among other matters...the review of and report on the effectiveness, management and operation, together with operational and expenditure plans of the central departments and agencies”. It's a broader mandate. I understand Mr. Gourde's concern about perhaps some of the other committees, but I do believe that in that sense it is a rather broad mandate.

Mr. Warkentin raised a concern about our overall committee process and the work that we're doing. I would agree, and I think I have the agreement of colleagues here. We are doing very important work in this committee. In this regard I would volunteer that rather than pre-empting everything else that we're doing, which is important work, if there is some agreement to schedule one day for this and one day for our asset freeze work, I'd be more than happy to do that, because I also want to make sure that the good work this committee is doing on other issues continues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay.

If I see no more discussion, I will call the vote on the motion as amended, with the addition of the name of Mike Mihelic.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Madam Chair, as part of that original motion—and I apologize for not having it written out and in both languages—just to give effect to the original motion, I would add an additional two. Even though I believe we didn't have 48 hours notice for them, as they're on the same topic, I understand I can add them to the original.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

If they meet with the intent of the motion, yes.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

They both do.

Please accept my apologies for this being in English only. We will provide a translation.

This one is a summons motion:

That the committee order that Mr. Rahim Jaffer be issued a summons to appear before the committee at 3:30 on the 19th day of April, 2010;

That the committee order that Mike Mihelic be issued a summons to appear before the committee at 3:30 on the 19th day of April, 2010;

That the committee order that Mr. Patrick Glémaud be issued a summons to appear before this committee at 3:30 on the 19th day of April, 2010;

That the committee order that Mr. Nazim Gillani be issued a summons to appear before this committee at 3:30 on the 26th day of April, 2010.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Certainly I understand there's an eagerness by some members to get on with this, and I have no reason to resist the timetable set out. However, I would just be curious as to the precedent for issuing a summons before a request to appear has been turned down. I think it might be appropriate for our committee to request the attendance of witnesses we want to appear, and if in fact we get some pushback, then we can issue a summons.

I'm just wondering if the clerk would be able to provide a precedent for having a summons issued before a request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

While I get the clerk to look that up, I will listen to Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My point is similar to Chris's, actually.

First of all, I think if we're going to list all of those witnesses other than ministers, who cannot be compelled to attend a committee, we should have that football player on the list as well.

But I don't think we can issue a summons until they've been invited, or maybe the term is “called”, to appear. Until they're invited and turn the invitation down, then a quite complicated process begins to actually issue a summons and compel their attendance. I think the most we can do is to call these witnesses to the committee and see if they cooperate. If they don't, then they're in contempt and a summons can ultimately be issued, I suppose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You and Mr. Martin have the same issue.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, we have cameras in the room right now and they are taking pictures. Could I please get you to do the right thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

I would ask the cameramen to not be here, please. Don't take any pictures. Thank you.

The process is to invite and then summon witnesses, but there is a precedent you asked for, and that's what the clerk is looking up. To give us procedural comfort, this has been done before; let's look at what has happened before.

Yes, Madame Hall Findlay.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

While the clerk is looking that up, I have just been informed that although I was trying to be magnanimous in saying we can juggle the days, I got my days wrong. I referred to the 19th day of April in three instances, which is actually the Monday. I think the view is that the Monday should be devoted to the already scheduled committee business and that we do what I proposed on the Wednesday. So where I said the 19th, 19th, and 19th, and then the 26th in the motion, it should be read as the 21st, 21st, 21st, and 28th.