Public Accounts Committee on April 16th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Poilievre, on a point of order.

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

Before the time runs out and before we move into motions, I'd like to move that this committee sit until 6:30 and continue to hear testimony from the witnesses. I believe there are lots of answers that need to be heard. With the unanimous consent of this committee, we could sit until 6:30, and that would permit us to get more of those answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'll throw it open.

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

There don't seem to be any objections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

There is a motion from Mr. Poilievre to go to 6:30. I would still have the motion at 5:15, but we can go for an hour after. Is everyone agreed to that?

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

I fully agree.

Will you add to my two minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

No, but I can come back to you.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Everyone is in agreement? Okay, fine.

I think I'll do it better than that. I'm going to come back to you right away and I'm going to go to the motions right now.

It's 5:15. We're going to deal with three motions, colleagues. They won't take long. I'll ask the witnesses to stay where they are. I just want to make sure that these are done.

The first two motions, colleagues, I don't think require any discussion. I'm going to go over them very briefly. They're just administrative motions to approve a budget.

As you all are aware, we've invited Mr. Brian Glicksman to attend from England to Canada, and there is a motion, which I will not read, just to authorize his budgetary expenses of up to $5,000 to pay for his expenses. Can I get a mover for that motion?

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

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

I don't believe we need any discussion.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The next motion, again, is a very administrative motion dealing with the budget for certain witnesses to come from other parts of Canada to attend this hearing. This is a normal practice in this committee. Again, is someone prepared to move this motion?

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

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

I don't believe it requires any discussion.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The next motion is the motion of Mr. Christopherson. I will read the motion. What I propose to do, colleagues, is to allow Mr. Christopherson two minutes to present his motion. I'll read it. He's moved it. Then I'm going to allow up to six interventions of a minute to a minute and a half each. Then I'm going to give the last minute to Mr. Christopherson.

The motion reads: “I move that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts write to the Minister of Public Safety requesting that the RCMP Pension Plan Funds Investigation be made a full commission of inquiries under the Inquiries Act.” That was moved, of course, by Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Christopherson, I'll allow you now to speak to the motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your getting this on the agenda.

I made a couple of comments earlier about the proceedings here. I think that what happened after I made those comments goes on to reinforce--and I think by the end of this meeting it ought to be crystal clear to anybody watching--that we do not have the means, the structure, the ability to do justice to the kind of investigation that needs to be done. But I also want to say that as far as the NDP is concerned, the appointment by the government of a contract person to conduct some investigation is equally unable to rise to the task. I believe we need a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act, for a number of reasons.

One, this individual has no legislative authority, no legal authority, no investigative authority that can be based on anything where Parliament has the power to give someone to do something. That's why we have the Inquiries Act. That means, Chair, that unless it's under this act, witnesses will not necessarily be under oath, and there will not be the ability to summon individuals to come. Certainly those who are outside government wouldn't have to pay any attention. The Inquiries Act allows summons that would supercede the Privacy Act and other matters that could hide information that needs to come out. Under a public inquiry, they'd have the ability to pierce through that.

It's far more arm's length. Certainly a retired judge would have a lot better standing in our mind, as opposition people. Notwithstanding that I don't know the individual personally involved, it's an appointee of the government with a limited track record. And even it has some questions around it, although I'm not going to focus on that a lot. It's not the greatest choice in the world, but it's a bad process.

I want to emphasize again that there's more protection for the witnesses. We see our witnesses today jumping to get their point of view across when someone has said something that may implicate them, and they want a chance to do that. We do not have the mechanism. It's not a court of law. We need that court of law to do it.

The last thing is that there's nothing at all that guarantees that all documents presented during this review will be kept as part of the permanent record of the investigation. That only happens under the Inquiries Act.

So for good common-sense reasons and good legal reasons, Chair, I hope that at least the majority of this committee...although I'd like to see the government come on side and recognize that we need to say to the minister--and that's what this is--that the investigation he's appointed is not nearly good enough and we need a full public inquiry. That's what the committee is asking the minister to undertake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

I will entertain up to six interventions at one minute each.

Ms. Sgro, one minute.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

I would like to speak in favour of the motion from Mr. Christopherson. This whole issue has shaken the confidence of many of us, and this process, what we call a process, here today is totally inadequate. It is unfair for people to have accusations made against them and not to have sufficient time to be able to respond, and going back and forth like that is not a positive process for us to be doing.

So I'm very supportive of moving forward on the inquiry. I think it's imperative for Canadians and all of us who love and respect the RCMP, as does Commissioner Zaccardelli and the others, that we make sure this is looked at clearly, that the air is cleared, and that Canadians and all of us have the confidence we need in the RCMP.

I think it's imperative that we go forth and have a full inquiry. Having Mr. Brown ask questions...he's not even going to get the amount of information that we're able to get through the committee process. So I think it's imperative that the process, after today, be squashed and a full public inquiry be called.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Ms. Sgro.

Mr. Laforest, one minute.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I fully support this motion. However, would Mr. Christopherson agree to a friendly amendment? We could include the word “public“ in the motion in order to ensure that it will really be a public inquiry.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, it's implied by the Inquiries Act, which is about public inquiries. But by all means, to raise the comfort of my colleague--and particularly to get his vote--I will be glad to put that word in there, and just about any other word he wants, to make this go through.

So I'm fine with that as a friendly amendment, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Yes. I think it's pretty clear what the understanding is.

Thank you, Mr. Laforest.

Mr. Williams.

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

I had a question of form, Mr. Chair. I do not think--and you know how I sometimes hold on to the proper form--that we as a committee have the authority to write to the Minister of Public Safety. I think we can only table a report in the House asking that the Minister of Public Safety convene an inquiry, and therefore I think the form of the motion is not in the proper order. Perhaps you want to check with the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams, apparently this issue was canvassed before, and the motion is in order to write to the government minister. The will of the committee is to go to the government minister.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I actually don't have a big problem with this motion or the substance within it. My concern is the timing. The government has set in place a legitimate process under section 127 of the Public Service Employment Act. Contained within the terms of reference of that investigation is the ability for the investigator to recommend a public inquiry. If that recommendation comes forward, or if we have any reason to believe that the investigation has not been sufficient, I would certainly be prepared to support Mr. Christopherson's motion.

So I would offer him my conditional support for the motion, and I would exercise that support on the condition that the two-month process that is scheduled to end in mid-June run its course, and if it's believed insufficient at that time, I would certainly be willing to vote in favour of the motion.

At the same time, I don't believe now is the occasion to do so, because we haven't actually witnessed this investigation carried out. I've talked to a lot of people involved in this matter who have said they don't want to wait two or three years for a public commission to go ahead, because frankly, they want answers sooner than that. That's my preference as well, to get to the bottom of it quickly rather than to delay, and if we can get to the bottom of it quickly, then that would be superior to waiting.

However, if that doesn't work, I'm happy to support Mr. Christopherson's motion in June. We can easily convene a special meeting of this committee to do so. For now, I'm just going to abstain because I don't object to its content, merely to the conditions under which it's presented. And if those conditions change in a couple of months and it becomes necessary, then he can count on my support at that time.

But he can count on my abstention today.