Evidence of meeting #12 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
I call the meeting to order.
We're going to move directly to motions, because we have some motions and I think we should deal with them.
Ms. Faille, I think that you are moving the next motion. We have two motions. You can move yours.
9:05 a.m.
Bloc
Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
The motion that we tabled two weeks ago now stems from reports on CBC and in the Globe and Mail about approaches made by the Prime Minister's office to officials of Public Works and Government Services. The motion reads as follows:
That the committee examine and report to the House on the political interference by the Prime Minister's office in two files involving Conservative fundraiser Leo Housakos, and call first to appear Dimitri Soudas, Leo Housakos, Michael Fortier, Frederic Loiselle, Michael Rosenberg and John Lemieux.
These people seem to have been involved in the various meetings that took place. We were shocked by this story. The committee should address it or at least hear these people's versions, because there seem to be comments from both sides and people in the middle. Mr. Fortier's office is uncomfortable about the situation. There is a process by which contracts are awarded, and this was a military matter. Other articles contain between-the-lines references to the involvement of Thyssen. Some aspects of this need to be clarified and the only people who can do so are people like Mr. Housakos and the officials at Public Works and Government Services who are involved in the affair.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'd like to move an amendment, if I could.
This is not unlike Mr. Holland's motion from last week. We know why it's coming up and so on, obviously. We know that Minister Fortier will be a candidate against Ms. Faille in the next campaign in her district, so this is the obvious angle here--not that there weren't legitimate questions that were raised for one day in one new cycle that were dropped the next day because the press gallery recognized there was actually no issue here.
I'm going to put forward an amendment to her motion--I have it prepared here in both official languages and have forwarded it to the clerk--and that is that this issue has been referenced to the Ethics Commissioner for examination. It's in fact very rare in our parliamentary system here in precedent that committees study things ahead of either the Ethics Commissioner or the Information Commissioner or the Privacy Commissioner. So what I'm recommending here is an amendment to Madame Faille's motion.
In French, it reads as follows: "Et que ce comité n'étudie pas cette question avant que le commissaire à l'éthique n'ait eu la possibilité de l'examiner et de faire rapport à la Chambre".
“And that this committee does not study this issue until after the Ethics Commissioner has had an opportunity to examine and report back to the House.”
That's been the practice and tradition of these types of motions, so I would move that amendment.
A committee can study what it likes, but it is our tradition that we wait for independent officers of Parliament to render judgment on that, and that becomes part of the examination.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Moore said that he was circulating the motion. Before I can discuss it, I would like to have it.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
If there are not enough copies, I can give them mine.
Did you get a copy, Mr. Angus?
You have the floor, Ms. Bourgeois.
9:05 a.m.
Bloc
Diane Bourgeois Bloc Terrebonne—Blainville, QC
First of all, I do not agree with the amendment. I would just like to remind the committee that we studied real property management after the sale of federal government buildings. At that time, there was discussion of leasing buildings, but when we were studying the file, we did not know that there were legal proceedings between Public Works and Mr. Michael Rosenberg.
I think that this raises questions about the decisions made when the buildings were sold, eight, if memory serves. I feel that it is important that the committee is able to return to this file so that we can get to the bottom of the story. So our motion also refers to leasing buildings, to private management and—and these are strong words—to dirty little secrets that were kept from us.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I just don't want to see us head down the road of either duplication or overlap again. I think it is important that if this committee wants to study this issue, for whatever the reason, whether it's partisan or whether it's wholesome and good for the Canadian taxpayer, that's fine. That's fair ball and I suppose reasonable.
If we go ahead now without the information that has come forward or will come forward before the Ethics Commissioner, we're excluding anything we might hear there from bringing it into our meeting here. So I really think we have to take things in chronological order to deliver the results we need for the full evaluation of this committee. If we go ahead and study this now or in due course, and then after that study or investigation information comes out from the Ethics Commissioner that might either corroborate or be judgmental and/or be in opposition to some of the information we've already heard, we've put the cart before the horse.
I'd like to hear from the Ethics Commissioner on this, and their study and their evaluation. At that point, then, the committee would have the information available to them to decide whether or not we should go forward. If that information, in the judgment of this committee, after the evaluation of the Ethics Commissioner, is such that it is worthy of further study, then of course that's this committee's will, and I think we would accept that judgment.
Let's just do things in the proper order here; otherwise we're going to end up redoing something that's already taken place and then having to just recycle a horse around, and that's no way to run a committee's business.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am glad that I am speaking right after my colleague Mr. Kramp, because I hold the opposite view in that I understand the Ethics Commissioner wants to look at the matter. If the information that we receive happens to be different from the information that the Ethics Commissioner receives, that will be a problem, because the two groups must have access to the same information.
If the information is contradictory, that in fact proves that there is a problem, despite what my colleague said. But there is no problem with the Ethics Commissioner waiting for our information, just as we can wait for his. Let us never forget that this committee, like all committees of the House, is in charge of its own program and its own decisions.So nothing prevents this committee from studying the matter, even if someone else is doing so.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I agree with my colleagues on this side for many of the reasons they have already articulated. I think there's even a more foundational reason that we need to consider as a committee, and that is that this committee seems to run off in all directions every time a new item hits the news. We have not sat down as a committee and really completed any work that we can report back to Parliament. We have a list in front of us in terms of what the clerk gave us last week as to the ideas we've already agreed to pursue. So here we are running off again in a different direction.
I would like to ask the law clerk if he would have an opinion on whether or not it's customary for committees to delve into things that are before the Ethics Commissioner or even where there are pending lawsuits outstanding.
Do we have any precedent or advice on these kinds of questions?
9:10 a.m.
Gregory Tardi Parliamentary Counsel (Legal), House of Commons
Madam Chair, the lifespan of the existence of the Ethics Commissioner as an entity, under the newest form of the legislation brought in by Bill C-2, is far too short to be able to answer that. There is no real precedent yet.
Going beyond that, in an entirely legally based view—which has to be mine—what's at stake here is the application of the sub judice rule to the Office of the Ethics Commissioner. With respect, the Ethics Commissioner is not a court of law but an officer of parliament. That being said, it seems to me there is nothing in law or legal custom to prevent the committee from examining the subject matter, albeit perhaps not exactly the same issues as those within the responsibility of the Ethics Commissioner. Under her own legislation, the committee can choose, if it wants, to look at the general subject matter, to investigate the facts, and perhaps to draw conclusions, hopefully, other than those the Ethics Commissioner will draw.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I just wondered about the potential for lawsuits. I understand that in this case and with one of the other motions we're dealing with there's a potential for lawsuits outstanding, or at least the filing of an intention to sue.
Is that a problem we would want to avoid?
9:15 a.m.
Parliamentary Counsel (Legal), House of Commons
I think, Madam Chair, the way the questions is phrased, as to what the committee intends to do or wants to do, I would find it rather difficult to answer. The sub judice rule certainly would not apply, in my view, to cases that may perhaps eventually go before the courts. It could apply in cases that are before the courts now.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Can you give a bit of history and/or an evaluation on the precedent of what we are doing here. Is it normal for either multiple committees and/or investigations and/or hearings to be going on simultaneously?
My concern here is that we have a process going on before the Ethics Commissioner. That's acceptable and understandable. Then a committee might have a responsibility to deal with that same issue. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me that we would be running parallel investigations at the same time.
A classic example would be when this committee discussed accrual accounting. It had already been before another committee, at that time the public accounts committee. The public accounts committee spent close to two years, on and off, on the evaluation of accrual accounting. I was on the public accounts committee at that particular point and I recall that. It was not being studied at the same time by the government operations committee. They reported their recommendations through Treasury Board, and at that point this matter came before the government operations committee. When it came before the government operations committee we saw the recommendations the previous committee had made had not been accepted to the degree that committee had wanted.
We further studied the issue, brought in more information, took the information from the previous testimony that had been given before the public accounts committee, and then made what we believed to be a very strong and convincing case to go back to Treasury Board to say that the first submission, although they listened to it, might not have been complete enough. So we added much more information and demonstrable evidence. At that particular point we were successful in at least putting forward a motion.
I know I am digressing onto another topic, but my thought process behind this is whether we're doing this as a government operations committee. Perhaps the Ethics Commissioner or another two or three committees wish to study this. Regardless of what the issue is, why are we all doing it at the same time? It doesn't make any sense to me. To be able to have an evaluation take place, to be able to take all that information that has been received and then, if we wish, to go to another investigation or another hearing, that's fine. Take all the information that has been accepted, rather than redo it all at the same time and haul in the same witnesses at the same time--unless you believe there are contradictions there. Then you have enough information to be able to assess and pass proper judgment.
To me that seems to be the normal course of activity here. Is that not a normal process the government seems to follow? Do you find that we have multiple attacks and/or investigations going on at the same time? Can you give us any history on that from your experience?
9:20 a.m.
Parliamentary Counsel (Legal), House of Commons
Madam Chair, I think what Mr. Kramp is referring to is the benefit of economy of parliamentary time, an economy of effort and energy.
Within the last few years that has not always been the case. I think the train of events that most members around the table will recall as the most serious of the cases I want to mention is the sponsorship scandal. In the winter and spring of 2004, at some times there were no fewer than three separate investigations going on at once by the public accounts committee, the Gomery inquiry, and several matters before the courts. They all took place more or less simultaneously. They all started at different times and ran different lengths, but they were all in parallel or in tandem.
Generally speaking, the same scenario occurred with respect to the investigation of the Privacy Commissioner, Mr. Radwanski. At one time I recall there were no fewer than six or seven different efforts to look at various aspects of Mr. Radwanski's tenure.
The same thing happened last fall with respect to the RCMP pension and insurance matter and more recently with the Linda Keen incident, for lack of a better expression. So while ideally it's good to have economy of effort, it's not always possible.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Diane Marleau
You are correct.
To be honest, when we did our report on accrual accounting, at the same time the public accounts committee passed a motion that was different from what we were reporting. We had done a study, and they had not done an in-depth study but did pass a motion at exactly the same time as we were passing our report. I think it happens on a regular basis.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Granted, but using that example, we took the information and the minutes and the dealings and all of the testimony that had been given at the public accounts committee and put it into the application of our study.
Regretfully, if the system has been used either ineffectively and/or for whatever particular purpose other than efficiencies and, as you mentioned, in the way it should really be used, I don't think that gives us any licence to perpetuate more wrongdoing. Let's just get it right and carry on and do what we should do here.