Public Accounts Committee on Jan. 29th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Do you understand the amendment, Mr. Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes, and I understand it to be unfriendly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

So I take it that you do not agree.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the motion. What we found out so far doesn't pass the smell test--something in here stinks. There's a decision that can't be explained away by any kind of rational argument I've heard or seen, and I consider it to be unfinished business.

I felt a lot of frustration when we last dealt with this. We were moving toward concluding, but there was still this sense that something happened here; we didn't find out what it was, and we need to. I'm supportive of the motion, but I also have some sympathy for sending it to the steering committee.

In looking back, I remember that when Borys would bring us a whole list of names, we didn't do as much work at the steering committee as we should have. We got caught in some politics, etc. So I think there is room for that, but it shouldn't slow this down--the decision that we will have hearings. At least these people--to give respect to the mover of the motion--will be called. Leave room for the committee to add others or make recommendations back if they wish. I think that is an orderly process, and it doesn't need to slow things down a lot.

We don't want to have what we got into with the RCMP thing, where every three to four weeks we had another five people...and how do they fit. We sort of lost control of that. Then we had to work at getting back out in front. From the get-go we ought to make sure the steering committee maintains control over recommending what our agenda looks like. They have the time to suss things out, they are not under the camera's eye, and they can do all of that.

I agree with the motion. We ought to go forward fairly quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Lake.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

I concur with what I've heard from Mr. Laforest, Mr. Poilievre, and Mr. Christopherson. We haven't finished. There is a general feeling that the situation was never properly explained. We had an extraordinary step taken to overrule an original decision that seemed to be common sense. We've never really heard about these extraordinary circumstances that were required to justify overruling this decision.

I think we need to hear from these people. This is a great starting point and is exactly what this committee is supposed to be looking into.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

I'm going to put the question to the members.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Can we have a recorded vote, please?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

There was the matter of a letter that was sent to Superintendent Denis Constant and Chief Superintendent Wayne Watson in regard to Mr. Zaccardelli's testimony that he had not instructed Ron Lewis to begin a criminal investigation. It had been mentioned by witnesses that they had heard that some of Mr. Zaccardelli's staff had in fact stated that Mr. Zaccardelli had initially said for a criminal investigation to begin. So it's in reference to that and whether or not we've received correspondence from those two individuals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The clerk is not here right now. We have the letter from Chief Superintendent Denis Constant. That's been circulated.

Mr. Clerk, on the other letter, the other individual...?

[The Clerk]

So far, in response to this letter, we've only had a reply from Denis Constant, so we're still waiting for a reply from Mr. Watson.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, I'll put that as a matter for the steering committee. We will be following up with Mr. Watson, demanding that he respond immediately to our request.

If there's nothing further to come before the meeting, we will adjourn. We have a hearing on the military health issue on Thursday morning, starting at 11 o'clock.

The meeting is adjourned.