Evidence of meeting #43 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was options.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I would like a copy, and I'm sure everybody else would like one, because you're now raising something as a question of privilege.
4:05 p.m.
A voice
Yes.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Monsieur D'Amours has presented a motion. The reason I said that I thought the first part was very much like the summons.... The summons was pretty straightforward. It was very factual, and it followed a particular formula, a legal formula, that had been provided to the committee for us to consider and approve.
Mr. D'Amours has followed that up with the motion that you see before you, in English and in French, respecting a breach of privileges. This doesn't preclude anything else, but it is a specific item that we have before us and that we would debate at this juncture.
I have a list, but I'm not sure that list pertains to this motion, so I'm entertaining a speakers list on this motion.
Mr. Kramp and Mr. Christopherson.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Thank you, Chair.
It's a good motion, and I think it might be in order at the right time. But I don't want to move prior to advice from our legal authority, Mr. Walsh. I suggest that we have Mr. Walsh here first.
The implications and ramifications of any activity we might take with regard to this could be significant down the road. It could be setting a precedent. I wouldn't know. But we do need the professional and legal advice of our officials. I think the first step is to draw Mr. Walsh here. Certainly, if he were in accordance with this motion and deemed it proper and legal, on his authority and on his judgment I would certainly support it at that time.
I suggest that we do that sooner rather than later.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Along the same vein as Mr. Kramp, I don't agree with Mr. Young's approach that we sort of just wait, hold our breath, click our heels three times, and hope that she'll magically appear. I'm not for that at all.
I agree that this is a good motion, but I still think that the House expects its committees to exhaust all the work they can do at this level before engaging the House. The first question, if I were a member of the House and not on this committee, would be whether you have exhausted all your options. Did you go as far you possibly could, and what were those options? Because the House has the right to review before it takes its own action.
As much as it seems kind of straightforward that this would be the natural step, that isn't the way the advice has come. It hasn't been, oh, yes, this is the obvious next thing. There is some question as to what we do in this regard.
I've been around long enough on this committee and have dealt with these kinds of matters enough to know that we want to be absolutely crystal clear when we start to deliberate about the possibility of suspending a citizen's rights. For example, when people are arrested, at that moment, all of their civil rights are suspended. And we're into that realm of power and steps.
Let's just be sure. Again, not being a lawyer, maybe rewording the summons ups its value and puts us in a stronger legal position. Maybe not; maybe Mr. Walsh will roll in and say that this is pretty straightforward and that the motion is exactly what you want to do. I would sure feel a whole lot better if we took the time for even one more meeting to have Mr. Walsh here to explain to all of us, to everyone who cares and who's interested, and the public, what our options are and which option we choose and why. From that we can determine how we want to finish the report.
I'm not opposed to your motion, I say to my colleague, but I do feel that I would like to hear from Mr. Walsh before I cast a vote in terms of referring this matter back to the House.
Thanks, Chair.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I agree with Mr. Christopherson; I think the next step is to bring Mr. Walsh in so that we can say to the House, if eventually it gets to that point, that we have exhausted all other means.
I also agree with Mr. Young; I think we should be asking the bailiff to keep an eye on the house, and when it appears that she's back in town, well, that will give us another opportunity.
So I think we could be doing two things at the same time, but definitely the next step should be to bring Mr. Walsh in.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Mr. Saxton, just before I go on to Mr. Young, Mr. D'Amours intervened in our discussion about potential items by putting forward a motion, a resolution. Are you doing the same with respect to going forward? Is that a reflection, or is it a motion you're proposing?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
No, I'm proposing.... I agree with my colleagues Mr. Christopherson and Mr. Kramp that we should have Mr. Walsh come before the committee. If you want to make that a motion, we can make that a motion, that's fine.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Walsh should come before the committee. That's the next step, prior to anything happening with this particular motion.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Mr. Chair, I do want to correct Mr. Christopherson. His words were a gross misstatement of my position.
My position is very simple: let the bailiff do his job. That's what they do. They find people. They know how to find people. They know where to find them. And sometimes it's better to wait for somebody to come home.
I don't know if Mr. Christopherson wants to give carte blanche to some investigator to travel to South America or Europe with a credit card and then bill the House of Commons. I certainly don't. Sometimes it's best to wait for people to come home.
I want to ask Mr. D'Amours, though, about his motion. He wants us to recommend that this be given to the House and that they take whatever measures they deem appropriate. I'd be interested to know what measures, what options, you think the House might have. I think they might just send it back to this committee, where it belongs.
What options are you thinking of? What would you like to see the House do with it, other than refer it back to this committee?
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chairman, I don't think this is complicated. If the committee cannot obtain the appropriate answers, or if its requests are not respected, I believe the Speaker of the House will ultimately have to make a ruling.
I am not convinced that he will necessarily send the matter back to the committee. We have tried certain options, and I am not sure that there are any others. In fact, I am sure that this is the only one. In light of what Mr. Kramp said, it is clear that he is willing to support the motion.
Ultimately, the Speaker of the House will have to take the appropriate measures to deal with this situation.
Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns raised by my colleagues, except that, personally, I think this has gone on long enough because we still don't have an answer. At a certain point, we have to stand up and do what it takes to gain respect.
This is the purpose of my motion. However, it is clear that if all committee members wish to hear from Mr. Walsh within a reasonable timeframe, without letting this issue drag on for another two or three months—as seems to be the case since we began working on this report—I am willing to go along with that. I am willing to wait to hear from Mr. Walsh before we vote on my motion.
That being said, let's be clear, Mr. Chairman: I am doing this reluctantly, because I feel that the situation is needlessly dragging on. At a certain point, we need to get results, so that we, the committee members, can do our job.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Chair, could the record show that I did not get an answer to my question? Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
I support the motion.
However, a little earlier, my colleagues suggested that we meet with Mr. Walsh.
I would like to suggest that the committee make a request, given that we are studying the report of the Auditor General, and that we try to shed light on everything that has happened, to determine whether there were any signs or indications, from either side, that the organization was being run badly. We would need to obtain documents from the Treasury Board and the Privy Council, that is, the correspondence exchanged between Ms. Ouimet's office and those organizations. This would help us understand whether there was a dialogue with the Treasury Board. This would also be in line with a statement made by Minister Day, who made a commitment to shed light on the allegations contained in Ms. Fraser's report.
So I would like to make this suggestion to the committee. In a few moments, if you will, I will table a formal motion. We could also ask Mr. Walsh to appear and ask to obtain these documents.