Evidence of meeting #16 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We haven't got the firm yes, but he wants us to pay his legal fees, and....
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
But it is an “if”. He'll only come if we pay. Is that correct?
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
I would suggest that a letter be sent to him to appear at a certain time. If he refuses to appear, then we put a summons for him.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
And we put it in the invitation that if he doesn't appear, there will be a summons.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
He should be reminded that if he refuses to come, the committee will find it necessary to issue a summons.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Just very quickly, I think that is the best way to proceed. I don't think.... You know, this individual last time was in the Middle East, so who knows where he is? To issue a summons to make it seem as though he's unwilling to come before the committee, when we haven't even communicated with him, I think seems a little draconian.
As for Mr. Gagliano, it's a reasonable thing for him to try to make conditions. Our just issuing a summons instead of telling him that his conditions have been rejected and giving him an opportunity to say “Okay, well, I'll come”, is very heavy-handed and draconian. I think the intelligent, logical thing to do is to advise him, by way of a letter, that all members of the committee are basically rejecting his conditions, and if he were to not accept to come to the committee, the committee would be considering a motion to drag him by subpoena here.
I can well imagine that he wouldn't want that to happen and that this would be enough to bring him here. Then the committee would, I think, have used its powers judiciously and appropriately.
As for the man missing in action, unfortunately we don't have any bounty hunters under our employ. Maybe the government wants to consider it; I fear giving them any ideas.
At any rate, I'm sure every effort will be made to track down this fellow, wherever in the world he is. He has appeared before the committee before, so....
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I'll pass. It appears there's a consensus being arrived at.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I think there is a consensus--and I agree with it--that we don't need to summons Gagliano yet, just make it clear that he is being requested for the following date. His airfare, etc., will be covered, but his legal fees will not.
And then we issue the summons for Jean-Marc Bard. At this point, I think you have a guy who.... If this were just the first time we had contacted this guy, or if it was just last week we couldn't find him and had sort of thrown up our hands, then it would be inappropriate under those circumstances to issue a summons. But this guy we've been hunting for.... How many months has it been?
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Well, on a previous, unrelated issue, I believe it was at least a year ago that we wanted him to appear before the committee. At that point in time, we had what I consider to be a fairly extensive effort. And as I explained before, we were told that's where he was. We thought we had him this time, but it was a different Jean-Marc Bard.
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Okay, but in fairness, we've been looking for this guy for well over a year now. I don't know what other avenue you can propose in order to reach him other than something that would be very strong and public, because apparently he's not following anything that's going on in this country.
The Liberals are saying we should write him a letter. But if you can't find him, how can you write him a letter? If he's trying not to be found, then maybe he won't open any letters we send him. Mr. Holland finds that idea very amusing, but as a technique for avoiding testimony, that seems to be the one that Mr. Bard is employing.
What other instrument are we left with? The approach the Liberals are proposing is just to let him off the hook: if you don't want to be found, we won't find you. But the only way to find someone who doesn't want to be found is to use the coercive authority that Parliament has to bring people of this sort before this committee.
And let's be fair, this is part of a scandal where $4.6 million was wasted--or worse--according to the Auditor General. We're not just calling him here to ask him his opinion on parliamentary procedure. We're asking him to come here and explain conduct that he probably doesn't want to explain. That's why I'm asking that we use the authority we have at the times when it's appropriate to do so.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Somebody must have put his name on the witness list. Who did that?
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I want to clarify, Mr. Poilievre.
We haven't been looking for him for a year. We were looking for him about a year ago, and we couldn't find him. Then his name reappeared about two weeks ago in a motion from Mr. Poilievre.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
1:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
With due respect, we have indeed been looking for him for over a year. He has still not appeared to testify, even though there is a motion outstanding from over a year ago that obliges him to do so. It's not as if we took a look under a stone and he wasn't there, so we gave up and forgot about it. He's outstanding now on two matters, one dating back well over a year.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I'd like to provide some input that I hope Mr. Poilievre will regard as constructive. I think we should separate the two individuals and how we decide to deal with them. Mr. Poilievre has tied the two together. I say we should separate them.
When Mr. Poilievre said there was a consensus, he neglected to state that we would summon Mr. Gagliano if he refused to appear. I think it's critical for that to be in there. I think it was understood, but he neglected to mention it.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I'm going to move that a summons be issued for Jean-Marc Bard to appear before the committee on March 6.
1:40 p.m.
Conservative