Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 7th, 2007

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I agree with you, and I'm not exactly sure what we should do, but as I read through—You travel down these two roads at the same time. You look out one window and you see one thing and you look out another and you see something totally different. Some of the contradictions are spectacular. I'm not going to read them out because that wouldn't be appropriate at this time.

In many cases, these contradictions are patent and irreconcilable, to my eyes. There has to be some mechanism by which this committee can deal accountability to those who would speak falsehoods. As our lawyer, which is your job, in a sense, what would you recommend to us, as your client?

[Rob Walsh]

As I said a moment ago, I don't believe the legal recourse to the Attorney General is realistic for a number of reasons. I think you might choose to do one of two things, essentially. One is to form an opinion based on the material you have here and report to the House on your concerns and lessons learned—that sort of thing—for future reference. Or you might do that after you've called some witnesses back and asked for some explanations. Again, they are lessons learned by a larger process, which might drive the point home.

Some witnesses, don't forget, might exonerate themselves from any discrepancies. Others might not. But that's basically your choice, it seems to me, not the legal route to the Attorney General. In theory, it's there. I don't think it's realistic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We'll go to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Earlier this week I had a motion before this committee requesting information reports, and Mr. Williams invoked a very similar argument to Mr. Christopherson's argument today, in stating that we should be very careful and not necessarily name individuals, especially if there's potential criminality involved. Consequently, he suggested quite different amendments from what Mr. Christopherson was suggesting. Mr. Christopherson suggested that we go in camera to protect the innocent.

Mr. Williams made what he called friendly amendments to not even table reports dealing with pretty serious malfeasance, and potential malfeasance as well. So I think we should follow the logic Mr. Williams presented to this committee somewhat earlier this week, just a couple of days ago, and the suggestions of Mr. Christopherson that this particular report be discussed. As you said, perhaps we're not compelled to do so, but morally it would seem to be the right thing to do.

I just thought I'd make these comments and refresh Mr. Williams' memory of comments he made just two days past.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams.

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

Thank you.

In reference to Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's comments, of course, I was referring to a criminal investigation file that was never made public. Perhaps the parties named were never even aware of the names in there and what was said about them, and to make that a public document would not be appropriate if they were not to be charged. I understand they weren't going to be charged because the time ran out.

But this is different. First of all, I'd say Parliament is an institution of accountability, Mr. Chairman, not an institution of management. I've said this many times in a different vein: we are an institution of accountability.

I understand Mr. Christopherson's concern about using people's reputations in public when they are innocent. But we have been given public statements they made under oath here and there, and if there's a discrepancy between them, it's not as if they're being caught unaware; they made these statements in public. We're asking them to say, if you said black today and white yesterday, why is there a difference?

Mr. Chairman, I've thought about this and I think perhaps we should meet in camera to discuss our strategy and the comments that have been brought before this committee. As Mr. Walsh says, there's no point in handing all the evidence over to the people and then say, work out a good excuse and come here and tell us what your good excuse is. It doesn't advance accountability very far.

So I think we should have the people here in public. Another reason to meet in public, Mr. Chairman, is that if we were to table a report in the House of Commons—and I think we would certainly table a report—naming names and giving the discrepancies between what they're alleged to have said or actually did say, and they find the report coming right out of the blue, with no opportunity to defend themselves because the meeting was held in camera, it would be even worse than having the meeting in public where they could defend themselves in public.

If we do have meetings in camera, Mr. Chairman, I'd go back to the meetings we had with Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Guité in 2002, I believe, where the testimony was in camera, but there was a process by which it would be made public at a later date if, as, and when no criminal charges were laid, or after they were all obviously concluded. If we do go in camera to discuss strategy, I would suggest the same thing, that after everything is over, the meeting's minutes or blues be made public. If we are a democratic country, a democratic parliament, doing our business in public, as we ought to, then to do things in secret is never a good idea—never a good idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Laforest.

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

Earlier Mr. Poilievre asked Mr. Walsh or Mr. Tardi for his opinion or advice. Mr. Walsh ultimately suggested to him that the committee table a report in the House, but after hearing witnesses. That's like what you said a little earlier. I think that's the solution.

Right now we're wondering whether we should hear these people in public or in camera. It's clear to me that that testimony should be public. I utterly disagree with Mr. Christopherson, who feels that an in camera appearance in a way protects innocent persons. I don't think the fact that the meeting is in camera will lead the committee to decide whether a person hasn't properly answered the questions put to him. The appearance itself and the answers given to the questions we ask will lead the committee to determine whether that person has given contradictory testimony. On the contrary, as one person said a little earlier, I think that a public appearance makes it possible to clear someone and to better understand the process. When we wonder whether we find testimony contradictory, there may be reasons why people have acted in that manner, and that will be public. As I said earlier, I think, for the public interest and for the protection of democracy, this absolutely has to be done in public and everyone must know exactly why the committee has requested a comparative study. Why has it done so? It's definitely not to conceal the facts or to discuss them in camera. It's for them to be made public.

I don't know whether this is the time to introduce a motion, but I'm ready to do so. We may do it later, but I could do it immediately.

I move that we hear the principal witnesses at a public meeting and that the committee then meet to conduct its discussion and prepare a report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Walsh.

[Rob Walsh]

If I could just clarify a point, I may have misled the committee a bit earlier in my remarks. We now have the contrast between the views expressed by Mr. Christopherson out of concern for the innocent and the concerns of Mr. Williams and others regarding the public nature of these proceedings. I think the concern of Mr. Christopherson, as I understand it, is the way you're talking about whether so and so is a liar, and that sort of thing, and that's very damning.

On the other hand, if the discussion is about where we see discrepancies that need explanation, that is not damning. We're not saying anyone is lying; we're just saying there's a discrepancy and we want to know why. I don't have a problem with specific reference to specific testimonies by identified persons as a public discussion by this committee--discrepancies that need explanations.

However, if the discussion is along the lines of, “I think so and so lied, I think so and so is a liar”, that's a different kind of discussion and maybe it should happen in camera.

I just share that with you, Mr. Chairman, as there is a possibility for an open discussion here if the committee were to talk in terms of discrepancies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If I understand what you're saying, we could have the discussion in public. If we find a material discrepancy we could write the witness to get an explanation for why the apparent discrepancy occurred. When we got the explanation we could decide what steps to take.

Would that be a recommendation, or would that be just one—?

[Rob Walsh]

I think that is a viable avenue for the committee. In fairness to the witness, it would be wise to say in the letter, “This is your testimony on this date. Here's your testimony on that date. We find these inconsistent, so please explain.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Fitzpatrick.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you for those comments.

I've done a quick read of these inconsistencies or discrepancies. I think the mind has a way of playing games with people over time too, not that this would ever happen in Parliament with members of Parliament, but it does happen with witnesses from time to time.

Some of the questions that do trouble me are the pretty straightforward kind of questions, where the answer is no. Then at the following hearing the answer is yes, and there's a fair amount of detail involved with it: yes, I did this and I did that. Those ones are troubling in my mind, because it's like a question about whether the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. It's a black-and-white type of thing. You either knew you did it or you didn't do it.

I can sort of speculate why the answer might have been no at a particular period of time, for whatever reason, but those kinds of answers are troubling to me.

We're going to have a lot of problems with the other ones that are long explanations involving interpretation.

I agree with your comment about hanging dead men, but I'm also worried about people riding off into the sunset, maybe waving at us or giving us a particular salute. That bothers me.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I agree with Mr. Poilievre that when people appear before this committee it's not a bad thing for them to understand that telling the truth is taken seriously here, and we don't feel like we want to get jacked around—not just by the people who were involved in the sponsorship scandal, but on a very regular basis. Quite often I get very frustrated, because I get the feeling that as a committee we're not always getting straightforward explanations for things.

Those are my comments. I have trouble with the kinds of answers where it was a no and then at the next one, oh, yes, I did do this, and then they go into detail. I have a lot of difficulty with that, because from what I can see, some of them aren't dead men hanging in the trees on these things. It's other people. I don't even want to know who they are, but I'm wondering, should they just ride off into the sunset?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

As a clarification, the only thing I'm talking about doing in camera is discussing whether or not we're going to take any further action, based on the table we've received.

There are x number of names in here. You know how many there are. We may or may not decide to call them all in. If we haven't reviewed the document, how do we know whether or not there are some who we believe made statements of good faith. In other words, even if there's a little discrepancy, we believe that it wasn't one of intent to lie, mislead, or withhold, and therefore by majority we decide to not follow that one up.

But at that point, there may be three or four other members who felt differently. Now we've put on the public record concerns about someone's character that are not supported by the majority. From that moment forward, when we decide we're going to bring someone in—I agree and I'd fight the other way—that has to be in public.

My only concern is the decision about who gets called in—who gets a letter, if anyone—is an issue that we should debate in private, again to protect the innocent. If we're not taking action on them, why should there be one negative thing against their name during these proceedings? Why? If it was my mom, dad, son, or daughter, as a public citizen I wouldn't want their reputations slung around.

If we decide who we're going to call in, and it may end up that we do all of them, then fair enough, we let the public know; we let the media know what we're doing, and it will all happen in public.

I'm not going to push this any further—this is my last push—but I really believe that we owe it to those who we may ultimately find innocent, to the extent that we're not going to take any further action, to have those discussions in private. Then regarding only those who by majority vote we decide need further follow-up, we immediately go out of in camera and the whole procedure takes place in public.

That's what my thinking is.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I certainly agree with the procedure recommended by Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Tardi.

[Gregory Tardi]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There was one point you raised a little while ago that got me thinking, and then the same point was raised in a different manner by a number of different members. That was on the requirement for witnesses to speak the truth before committees, whether those witnesses are sworn or not.

I'd like to give you a parallel between this idea of deeming the obligation to speak the truth versus being sworn under oath. That is, being called to a court, civil or criminal, by means of a subpoena, versus being called before a committee by means of invitation. In my mind, as a practitioner, both have equal value. In other words, an invitation to appear before a committee is still as inherently binding as a subpoena before a court. In that sense, every witness all the time has the obligation to speak the truth to a committee.

You can't refuse an invitation from a committee, and it is utterly unacceptable not to tell the truth when you appear before a committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams.

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

There are a few things. I think we're getting consensus around what Mr. Christopherson and I were saying. Let's do our planning and thinking in private, but we talk to witnesses in public, and whatever goes from there, goes from there.

The other issue is on oath, as Mr. Tardi was saying, and being deemed to be under oath. If I recall, Mr. Chair, prior to Mr. Ouellet, I read out a statement from Marleau and Montpetit where it stated that you're deemed to be under oath. They were advised, if I recall, and the blues will say that or not, of course. It's not as if they didn't know. I think I read a statement to each and every one of them, telling them they were deemed to be the same as if under oath prior to that time.

Perhaps Mr. Walsh or Mr. Tardi or Mr. O'Neal can take a look at that, and if that's the case, then based on your statement, Mr. Tardi, that would seem to be in essence a legal opinion that they were obviously and knowingly under oath. Am I right in saying that?

When we come back, perhaps you can answer that question. Do you feel it would stand up in a court of law if we were to go as far as recommending perjury? Would the fact that they were advised about being before a parliamentary committee and reading that statement from Marleau and Montpetit stand up in a court of law? You can let us know.

[Gregory Tardi]

There are several responses to what you've just said, Mr. Williams.

Number one, my memory is the same as yours. I attended almost all of those committee meetings in the 37th Parliament. As I recall, your clerk did read out such a statement, and that constituted notice to the witnesses.

On the point of whether such a statement and such a deeming would stand up in a court of law, my hunch is that it would not. This is a political parliamentary forum and deeming is appropriate or the reading out of a statement is appropriate. The end result is the same, but it would not necessarily be recognized in a court of law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tardi.

I would like to proceed, but I take it that we're going to go in camera, because we have another item that we have to deal with, and we have to deal with it today. It's direction to the analyst on the writing of a report.

I think we've discussed this matter sufficiently. However, there is one item that I want to deal with in public right now, and it relates to a statement Mr. Tardi just made. I kind of got a kick out of it.

We have a hearing on Monday, involving the Department of Health, on chapter 8, allocating funds to regulatory programs, Health Canada. We have invited the deputy minister and the accounting officer from Health Canada to come before the committee. He told us that he doesn't want to come and that the associate deputy minister will be sufficient.

The chair would entertain a motion that if the accounting officer refuses to come by the end of business today, a subpoena should be issued for his attendance on Monday. Is somebody prepared to make that motion?

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

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure we want to hang a subpoena over a deputy minister at this early stage of accounting officer rules. I think we should just pass a motion at the committee saying that we invite him to be here at 3:30 on Monday afternoon. Leave the subpoena part out of it at this point in time.

I would certainly support it if he wasn't here at 3:30 on Monday afternoon, but we are dealing with good faith. I argued this point before when Mr. Laforest wanted to subpoena Mr. Marshall. I said he would be here, and he did show up.

I don't think we want to get into an antagonistic relationship. I think you, as the chair, should advise the DM of his new responsibilities and that he is expected to be here, period.