Government Operations Committee on Feb. 5th, 2008

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

First, I think this motion is clearly a fishing expedition, obviously. We know why this motion is coming up, obviously, and I don't think it is terribly helpful. First of all, it goes beyond the mandate of this actual committee when it was created a couple of years ago. That's very important. Parliamentary committees have their functions, their mandates, and their responsibilities, and this clearly goes beyond that.

I know, Mark, you've pushed this motion at the public accounts committee, right?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

I was told it should be here. The clerk told me this is the committee it belonged with, so I moved it to this committee before moving it there. I was just making sure it was at the right committee, James, and now I'm told we're at the right place.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The Ethics Commissioner took a look at the whole issue of this light rail project and declined to investigate it because he said there is in fact no problem here whatsoever.

As long as there is the sentence in here, “with a possibility of more witnesses, should the committee deem it necessary”.... I mean, it's very easy to bring people before a committee, essentially bureaucrats from the City of Ottawa and the federal government. I suspect the Liberals will push to have this committee meeting held in one of the Centre Block committee rooms with the cameras, because that's what this motion is about, getting in front of cameras.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

No one has approached me on that, at this point.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Wait for it, wait for it.

This motion could very well preoccupy this committee. We're not going to sit here as a government and allow something when the Ethics Commissioner has said there's nothing wrong. It doesn't even warrant investigation. Nothing wrong happened here. To have a bunch of bureaucrats come before the committee so that people can grandstand and take shots at something, where there's clearly nothing wrong, and to let that hijack this committee....

With the possibility of more witnesses, should the committee deem it necessary, we will deem it necessary to bring anybody before the committee if required to undo the damage being done here. We've seen in this particular Parliament--it's my third term--that it's been getting out of hand, frankly, the going after people and their individual character based on little or no evidence. We have seen that.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Coming from you, that's something else.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes, coming from me, Raymonde, it actually is. I was a victim of it just before we went into the Christmas break. With no evidence, I almost had my character assassinated for absolutely nothing. So yes, I think I can speak on this a little bit, Raymonde.

This is unnecessary. We saw last week the attack on Dimitri Soudas. Stéphane Dion had to withdraw his criticisms because they were libellous outside the House of Commons. We saw Ruby Dhalla accusing the justice minister of a crime outside the House of Commons, and she had to apologize and retract. Last week we saw Dimitri Soudas getting attacked with no evidence whatsoever. It was on the front page of The Globe and Mail. It was dismissed by the media the very next day because it was a non-story. Now we're going to invite a bunch of people before the committee on an issue for which the Ethics Commissioner has already rendered judgment that there is nothing wrong.

I think this committee has functioned very well, Madam Chair. We've had a number of people before this committee who have opened our eyes to a number of different topics. We have a very full calendar here already. We've passed a number of motions already to study a number of very important issues that are important to the public service, to the management of government, which is what this committee is about.

This committee isn't about what a former treasury secretary did or didn't do that the Ethics Commissioner said a year and a half ago there's no problem with. This committee is about overseeing the management and the operation of government. That's what this committee's mandate is. We already have a very full schedule.

If this is going to be the start of the downward spiral of parliamentary committees, as we go into an election campaign, where silly season comes now, then this is the beginning of it. And this is entirely unnecessary.

Madame Folco, I welcome you to your first meeting.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you very much.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I'm sorry that your contribution is this partisan, because it's not terribly helpful.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Well, I had a contribution just before.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes.

I think this motion is partisan, unnecessary, fishing, and out of step with the spirit that this committee has developed and the good work that this committee has to do. Charlie Angus has a motion coming up in a minute that I think is an important one to look at.

I think this motion will clearly sidetrack the future business of the committee, because we're not going to put up any more with these fishing expeditions and character assassinations without evidence and where the Ethics Commissioner has already cleared everybody involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Thank you.

Is there debate by anybody else on the amendment?

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

I've thought a lot about this motion, because I did feel it was a fishing expedition, and I'm uncomfortable about a fishing expedition. I've asked Mr. Holland if there is a smoking gun that warrants our committee's interest. He said we could look at it in one day.

I'm worried about it still being open-ended, so I would prefer that we put it in the motion that we meet for one day. If we decide afterwards that there's evidence, well, then, we meet afterwards if there's evidence.

I would be very uncomfortable about doing this in front of television cameras. I think it would be inappropriate. If we're going to do this, we have to have very clear definition. Either there's something there or there's not. If there is something there, then we will look at it, but I certainly am not comfortable bringing people in and putting television cameras on them. I think that would be inappropriate at this point, because we don't know what we're looking for.

Personally, I would support, if there is evidence, one day. Let's see, and if, at the end of that, we feel there is something, then I would consider moving on.

I'm asking for your direction on this, Madam Chair, for some very clear guidelines so that we're not opening up a hand grenade on something in the middle of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Do you wish to amend the amendment?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Yes, at the end of the day I'd like to amend the amendment and ask for one day of committee hearings. I certainly don't want it to be a subamendment. My support in advance is contingent on this not being in the main television chamber.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We don't want to make a circus out of this.

So what would your subamendment say?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

It would say that this committee hold one meeting to hear witnesses. Then I'd defer to them on the witness list, because at this point, since we're not bringing politicians before us, at least we can hear if people have credible cases. We'll give it one day, and if there's further...we'll take it from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Is there debate on the subamendment?

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I don't want to be totally repetitive of the comments to my colleague, but I am concerned for two real reasons. I and a number of members of this committee have championed this to be an oversight committee, as was originally intended. As such, for the most part this committee remains relatively non-partisan--as best we can within the constraints of Parliament. I am really concerned that with this motion we're heading down a slippery slope, and once you start down that slippery slope, away you go.

My prediction right now before this committee is that if we start down this slope it will be a circus. It will be inescapable and will do great injustice to the purpose of this committee. It will do even more injustice to the number of issues that have come before us that we have yet to deal with.

A classic example is the deputation we had here today. They have appeared before this committee a number of times. We have not come up yet with a concrete proposal, evaluation, report, or sense of direction. We have a number of other similar issues that should not, in my humble opinion, be held hostage to political partisan games. Quite frankly, with all due respect to Mr. Holland--he has his role to play within the opposition--I really believe this is going over the bounds of trying to be constructive and an asset to this committee, and getting the results that are needed for the people we represent.

We have a responsibility, not just to ourselves and this committee but to all of the representatives who have come and given witness here. They've poured out their problems and situations to us and asked for our help, guidance, support, and whatever. What message does this send to them? Is it that we'd rather go off and play some political games instead of dealing with some of the problems that really matter to them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

We're also debating the subamendment proposed by Mr. Angus that we meet for one day with no cameras. It would be an open session, but it would only be one meeting with five people. It's a subamendment on the amendment, so it adds that part.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I'll go back to that point, and I mentioned the slippery slope. Once you take the genie out of the bottle and pull the cap off this thing, the experience I have in Parliament, for the short time I've been here, three and a half to maybe four years, but maybe 30 years around this thing.... All of a sudden our main purpose and direction will be usurped for the wrong reasons. It will be a terrible reflection. It will open up a Pandora's box that will embarrass not only this committee but some members involved in the committee, particularly once we get into this.

There has already been a police investigation. It is done and closed as far as the particular elements of the people we are talking about inviting to this committee. That is a non-starter. Anything else where charges have been laid, these are matters that are before the court. We certainly cannot interview witnesses and ask for testimony that would be relative to comments they might have to make before a court of law.

So I really think we will put ourselves into a position of conflict. We're not going to be able to get solid resolved answers, because people either aren't going to be able to respond or won't want to play the game.

Madam Chair, I want to be on the record as saying, all politics aside, let's do our job with the responsible activities that have been put before this committee. Otherwise we might all just start bringing in spurious motions like this--and away we go. They will be on the next topic, and the next topic. Let's deal with serious issues before us that deserve answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Could I get clarification as to where we are right now in terms of the motion as it will read if we include the amendment and subamendment as well. Could I hear what that is?

[The Chair, Liberal, Diane Marleau]

Could you read the motion?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Michel Marcotte]

If it is agreeable to Mr. Angus, instead of adding something on the subamendment we would take off what is already in the first motion. In English it would read:

That this committee look into whether the unprecedented decision taken by the former Treasury Board President during the 2006 municipal election to withhold $200 million in federal funding for a light rail transit project in Ottawa constituted political interference in a municipal matter; That this committee hold one meeting to hear witnesses: Wayne Wouters, Secretary of the Treasury Board; Christa C. Wessel, General Legal Counsel, Siemens Canada Limited; Kent Kirkpatrick, City Manager, City of Ottawa; Rick O’Connor, City Solicitor, City of Ottawa; and Réjean Chartrand, former Director of Economic Development and Strategic Projects, City of Ottawa.