Public Accounts Committee on April 30th, 2007

[A voice]

He is.

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

Okay, we perhaps can ask him to come forward and give his opinion on the matter and go from there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

The law clerk is here. In fact we have both of them here, Mr. Williams.

[Rob Walsh, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons]

What's the question, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Before I go on, I want to introduce to colleagues and the witnesses Mr. Rob Walsh, who is the legislative counsel.

Welcome, Mr. Walsh.

[Rob Walsh]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What's the question?

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

The question, is that I believe there is a lawsuit by one of the witnesses against one of the members of this committee. It seems to me there's a conflict of interest in that particular member asking questions of a witness when there are other proceedings at another venue going on between them.

[Rob Walsh]

The term “conflict of interest”, Mr. Chairman, is used in a variety of contexts. One of those contexts is the code of conflict of interest for members of Parliament. That, however, deals with private interests, as against the larger public interest. A lawsuit, as such, isn't a private interest in the sense that the code contemplates members having private interests. However, is there some other kind of conflict of interest here? Obviously, members who are in lawsuits have a keen interest in that lawsuit and its eventual outcome. But I don't know that it's an interest of a kind that causes the member to be disqualified from participating in the proceedings of this committee, although it may be something that some members might think warrants some constraint or restraint by the member, given that the other side of the lawsuit is participating in the same proceeding.

There is the sub judice rule, which is a practice of the House. It's not a rule, as such, but it's a well-established practice of the House that members in debates or proceedings such as this do not comment on matters that are pending before the courts. That's out of respect to the judicial function so that it is afforded ample opportunity to consider those issues without any seeming interference by the legislative branch. Having said that, this is not to say that a member of Parliament who finds himself met with a lawsuit is thereby disqualified from participating in debates or proceedings pertaining to matters that relate to the subject matter of that lawsuit.

Fundamentally, the bottom line—sorry it takes so long—is that it's a matter of personal judgment and perhaps the personal preference of the committee as to whether this particular lawsuit warrants any intervention by the committee to the member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Williams.

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

I would therefore suggest, based on that, that the member be given an opportunity to withdraw if he so chooses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Any member who wants to choose that can do so, Mr. Williams. It doesn't need the chair. However, I would think that if we allow this as a precedent it would be easy to get rid of members of Parliament, parliamentary debates, committee debates. I see it being more of a personal item. If the member thinks it appropriate that he not participate or not be here, then he or she would have to make that determination.

In accordance with previous practice of this committee, we will ask the clerk at this point in time to swear in the witnesses.

In the meantime, Mr. Christopherson, do you have a point?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. I have a suggestion, maybe a motion, that in light of the number of witnesses we have and in light of the fact that we all have to be here for bells at 6:30, we extend this meeting for one hour, up until voting time.

I want to also say I realize that this is a last-minute thing and no one should feel that this shows whether they're committed or not. But if people's schedule allows and we have to be here to vote, we could use the hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'm in the committee's hands, people.

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

Ask the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We need unanimous consent.

Is anyone contrary-minded? There's no one contrary-minded. Okay.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, one moment.

One of our members has to leave at five o'clock. If there's an assurance that no motions are going to be placed, and no votes required—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I can always adjourn until the member comes back. We'll undertake to do that, yes. We can assure the member there will be no votes if he's absent for an hour or half an hour.

Okay, if that's the case, we will continue the meeting until 6:30 or until the bells start ringing.

Let's proceed.

[Keith Estabrooks, As an Individual]

I, Keith Estabrooks, swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[Normand Sirois, As an Individual]

I, Normand Sirois, do swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[Paul Roy, Ottawa Police Service (Retired), As an Individual]

I, Paul Roy, do swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[D/Commr Barbara George, Deputy Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I, Barbara George, do swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[Rosalie Burton, former Director general of Human Resources, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, As an Individual]

I, Rosalie Burton, do swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[C/Supt Doug Lang, Criminal Operations Officer, Winnipeg, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I, Doug Lang, do swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[A/Commr Bruce Rogerson, Assistant Commissioner, Technical Operations, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I, Bruce Rogerson, swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.

[C/Supt Fraser Macaulay, Chief Superintendent, Royal Canadian Mounted Police]

I, Fraser Macaulay, do swear that the evidence I shall give on this examination shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.