Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 12th, 2006

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Going in camera is a whole different deal from just adjourning this segment and moving to a new issue, as you well know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We can deal with both motions, if you wish.

Have they been circulated, Mr. Clerk? Have the motions been circulated?

[Georges Etoka, Clerk of the Committee, Standing Committee on Public Accounts]

Yes, last week.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Perhaps, before we do this, we can release the witnesses. You don't have to stay. We want to thank you very much for your appearance this afternoon.

Once we deal with the motions, we will be going in camera. You're welcome to stay if you want. Again, we're dealing with something that's not related, and you're welcome to leave.

And again I want to thank you very much for your appearance here today. Thank you. Merry Christmas to everyone.

Can I get everyone's attention?

Colleagues, we have two motions. They're similar. I would like to deal with them quickly. They both involve the leak from the last auditor's report.

The first motion is from Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. It basically states, and I'll go to the last sentence:

I move that the Public Accounts Committee ask for an investigation into the leaks of both of the Auditor General's most recent reports, May and November 2006 by the RCMP.

He's basically asking for the RCMP to investigate both leaks.

Mr. Christopherson's motion is much simpler. He is looking for the government, the executive, to provide to this committee a representative just to explain the investigative process: what has taken place; the timelines; the results, if any; circumstances that they're aware of surrounding both leaked reports, the May 14, 2006, report and the November 8, 2006, report.

Let's deal with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion first.

Do you have anything to add, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, other than what I've said?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No, and I think the text of the motion makes clear the intent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Is there any other discussion on the motion?

Mr. Williams.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will ask whether you'd check with the clerk to find out whether the motion is in order. The public accounts committee has no capacity to communicate with the RCMP or any other outside institution; therefore, I would tend to think that the motion is not in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

From advice from the clerk, I agree with Mr. Williams' point of view, that we can summon for papers, persons, what have you, from government—and of course we report to government—and it wouldn't be normal to report to the RCMP. However, anybody in this committee can individually file a complaint with the RCMP and deal with it on that basis.

Mr.Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Chair, this is not compelling the RCMP. It's a request for the RCMP from the committee. I think if you check you'll find that it is within our competency to make this sort of request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There's absolutely no way this committee, or any committee of the House, can compel the RCMP to do anything. The gist of the motion is to ask for an investigation. Again, the advice I'm getting is it's out of order.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would ask you and the clerk to help me. I understand you're saying it's out of order, but I'm not understanding why.

It looks to me as if you may have the answer right there. I won't talk any more, if you have an answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

What I'm going to do, colleagues, is this. I'd like to do some more research on the issue, and I'm going to take Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's motion under advisement.

I will rule on it, and I may even ask the Clerk of the House of Commons to get involved. I've read the section. It appears that we can't, but I want to research it a little more. I will rule on the motion in due course.

Mr. Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I entirely agreed with the motions that were tabled. You said that you would see if they were in order. But it would be important for you to see, if they are out of order, how committee members could, if necessary, convey their concerns about leaks to other authorities.

Also, I would like you to do some research to find out what the committee can do to stop this. If I understand correctly, that is the objective. The situation is unacceptable, and we think that the RCMP should handle it. However, we cannot sit here with our hands tied. There must be some way we can intervene.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Prior to working on this motion I had asked for legal counsel from the House of Commons. I had been under the impression that this particular motion was in order; however, Mr. Williams has certain concerns. I'd be willing to entertain a friendly amendment that would state that should this motion pass, we will act on it only upon verification from House of Commons legal counsel that it is within our authority to make this sort of request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Just before I go to Mr. Williams, I want to point out that, from my dealings with the RCMP, we don't have any clout or say or sway with the RCMP. A group—we, individually, or 10 or 12 or 20 of us collectively—can ask the RCMP to investigate any matter we're aware of. Of course, whether they will or not is entirely up to them, and how they conduct their investigation is up to them.

I know the motion is a request. They have the right to say no. I just want to point that out to members. If there's a criminal activity, please feel free to inform the RCMP.

Mr. Williams.

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

You pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that we have the authority to ask for papers and persons. I strongly believe this motion is completely out of order and I think you're right in reserving judgment.

It's totally out of order to have a vote on a motion whose validity has been questioned. The chair has reserved ruling on the validity of the motion in order to determine whether it is a motion that is in order. Therefore, to have a vote and to have the vote negated if the motion is ruled out of order is totally inappropriate. You cannot have a vote on a motion on which you have reserved judgment as to whether or not it's in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes, that's the way I'm going to handle it. I'm going to do some more research. I'm going to contact the House of Commons legal counsel and I'm going to make a ruling on the motion.

Do you have anything to add to this, Mr. Fitzpatrick?

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I think I do. We're getting into requests and so on. We have different operations that are independent from Parliament for various reasons, like the judiciary, for example. I think it would be inappropriate for a committee of Parliament to request a judge in a trial or some of the other independent officers.... The RCMP is viewed in our country as being arm's length from government. It's very important that they are viewed that way. If individual citizens have evidence or concerns, they're free to go to the RCMP and register their complaint. I don't know why we would have to proceed through a committee process on this. And I also think it's premature to get involved with that one because I think, Mr. Christopherson, if we vote for that one and we follow that course of action, we should maybe hear before we shoot. I think that's a reasonable position. We should hear from the government representatives and so on, and the auditor, before we go ahead and start asking for police investigations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

That's sufficient discussion on that issue, colleagues. And again, as I've said before, if there's anyone out there who's aggrieved, or a political caucus, if you think it's appropriate, feel free to contact the RCMP. And I will rule in due course.

The next motion is the motion of Mr. Christopherson. I'll read the motion:

I move that the government provide a representative to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to explain the investigation process, timelines and results regarding the leaked Auditor General reports of May 14, 2006 and November 8, 2006.

This motion, as I understand it, is quite simple. Mr. Christopherson is looking for somebody at the head of the table to come and explain what investigations have taken place, what information is known, what is done, and explain to the committee what circumstances are known to the government.

Am I correct, Mr. Christopherson? Do you have anything to add to the motion?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, I don't, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Is there any more discussion?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Does Mr. Christopherson have anybody in mind, Mr. Chair? There are about 180,000 people working for the federal government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There are 450,000, aren't there?

[John Williams, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

It's 450,000, okay. Inflation is then setting in.