Public Accounts Committee on June 13th, 2007

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, given the advice that we heard.... Certainly Mr. Williams' position is that it shouldn't happen at all. The law clerk, if I understood, said that we could, but we had to be careful, as there's a narrow range there. So prudence, to me, would be to call in everybody except her, and to bring in that staff person. Then, if we believe that we still need to get at the truth, we can spend the time necessary to talk that through and set the parameters of the meeting. I would be more comfortable with that, rather than roaring ahead and inviting in the Lieutenant Governor and possibly getting ourselves into side issues and constitutional questions. All it takes is one member to cross the line and ask the wrong question, and there's offence given.

I'd rather optimize our chance that we're going to get to the truth in the cleanest, quickest way, as our first step, recognizing that we can always add people later, and bring her in and anyone else in we deem necessary. So at this time I would be more comfortable with exchanging the former Lieutenant Governor with her administrative assistant, with the right still to call her back, if we so deem.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Would you be agreeable to that suggestion or amendment, Mr. Laforest?

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

What is it?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Dropping the Lieutenant Governor off the list and bringing in the person Borys—

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

No.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's amendment—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

You're in agreement with Borys's amendment, but you're not in agreement with Mr. Christopherson's.

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

I agree with the amendment that states that this is an addition.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

It's also been brought to my attention that this report zeroes in on the heritage department's involvement in this file, and it seems to me that if we want full scrutiny of this issue, the appropriate official from the heritage department should be here as well.

Mr. Williams.

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

Again, Mr. Chairman, I have to object to bringing in the Lieutenant Governor. I have no problem with bringing in her chief of staff or whoever else can answer the questions about the management of the funds.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, we must remember we were dealing in those days with the Constitution of the U.K. A lot of it is unwritten. But I'm a great believer in and firmly committed to upholding the rule of law.

I'll turn the tables for a second, Mr. Chairman. In this investigation we've had this last number of weeks we've had some slanderous accusations at this table that cannot be used in a court of law because we are protected by parliamentary privilege. In some cases these remarks have gone unchecked by the chair. They have been made with absolutely no repercussions by virtue of the fact that we are protected.

The Constitution of Canada, as we have heard from Ned Franks, who has been here, also reaches back to the United Kingdom. Our Constitution says we will have a constitution similar in nature to that of the United Kingdom. As I said, these long-unwritten rules must be adhered to, Mr. Chairman.

If we are to respect the rule of law, parliamentary process, and democracy, we cannot throw it all away on a whim because someone appears to have abused the privilege. There are rules we abide by.

Therefore, I have no problem bringing in the staff, but I seriously object to bringing in the Lieutenant Governor.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

The law clerk has a comment on that, Mr. Williams. We would all want to hear that.

[Rob Walsh]

Maybe I could flesh out the situation here.

When you want a citizen to appear before the committee and they refuse to attend, you have the optioning of summoning the witness. If they don't attend, you can go to the House and seek a contempt.

In my view, the House of Commons can't hold the Governor General in contempt any more than it can hold the Queen in contempt. Constitutionally, the Governor General is not accountable to the House. The Queen is not accountable to the House. Notwithstanding that by tradition since the times of King Charles the Queen can't walk into the House of Commons, she can't be called in, in the sense that she is the monarch and the rest of us exist under that. That's the theory.

So if you can't summon the official in their official capacity or hold them in contempt, it follows that they have an obligation to attend in their official capacity. The tricky part comes in terms of the former office holder. While that person can be summoned, even held in contempt, once you get into questions about their official duties, you're in effect making them accountable to the House. That could be a problem.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Thank you very much, Mr. Walsh.

I have two more people who want to speak on this.

I interpret that we have two motions on the floor, one from Borys, and then we had one from Mr. Christopherson.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mine is a friendly amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Well, it's a friendly amendment, but it still amends the motion.

And then we had Mr. Christopherson's suggestion, which was quite a bit different.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'd like to look at it as a proper amendment and have a vote, if you don't mind.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

I think we'll take the next two people.

If we accept the friendly amendment procedure, maybe we'll deal directly with Mr. Christopherson's amendment. His motion would have the effect of deleting the Lieutenant Governor from the list of witnesses.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, if I understand correctly, Borys's suggestion, accepted by Jean-Yves, was that the staff person would be added. And then my motion, that the motion be amended by withdrawing the Lieutenat Governor, would be in order. Part of my motion would be recognizing that we have the right to call her back at a later date, if we so choose. That would be my amendment.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Yes, well....

Ms. Sgro.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Chair, when I first came here, we talked about how much work this committee had. The question is how you deal with the work we have to do. Before we got into the RCMP stuff, the committee was working on three or four things at the same time and we didn't want to get into this RCMP.... Since the RCMP took over, it basically has pushed a lot of other things back.

If we adopt this motion, are we planning to work in the summer? That's my first question. Second, where does this fit in the priority of all the other things? And third, I think we have to be careful about our own reputation, as a committee. We're not on a witch hunt here. I mean, you're talking about the Lieutenant Governor of Quebec.

I thought what I read in the paper was appalling, but I don't believe what I read in the newspaper. I would be anxious to hear from our auditor Sheila Fraser first, and figure out where we go from there. But let's be cautious as to what we're getting ourselves into and where we're going.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Thank you.

Mr. Laforest, and then Mr. Sweet.

Mr. Sweet has been trying to get in here for a long time. Pierre is just trying to get in while we're trying to wind down this discussion, but we'll put him on the list.

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

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I do not think this is about when the people cited in the motion will appear. This is about adopting the motion. Then, the steering committee could make a suggestion to committee members as to when this will occur. If this is to occur in the fall, it will happen in the fall. But I do not think that we should be talking about it occurring right now or over the summer.

Secondly, in terms of the procedure, I will accept Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's friendly amendment to the one I presented earlier. So I would like us to vote on this motion before voting on Mr. Christopherson's amendment, which doesn't necessarily add anything, but rather completely amends the content.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

We'll debate this amendment when we get to the amendment, if we get to it.

Mr. Sweet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

I would just like to echo the words of my colleague. We enjoy the rule of law, freedom, and democracy that we have right now because of centuries of development of the Westminster tradition and the constitutional framework that we have right now in Parliament. I would be absolutely 100% against having the Lieutenant Governor come before this committee.

I would have no problem—and I think it's a very good suggestion that Ms. Sgro has mentioned—with bringing the Auditor General first. We have done that in every other case. Let's hear her evidence, and then we can move after that.

But I just have a real problem with even considering going there, with the years of tradition that we have and the mechanisms that are in place that make our nation, frankly, one that's envied by everyone in the world.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Pierre.

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

I have no political reason not to want her here. This is someone who was appointed by a previous government of a different stripe. It's not in my home province. So for me, from a political standpoint, it doesn't cause any headaches.

I agree with Ms. Sgro: Why not listen to what the Auditor General has to say, first? Normally we put together a witness list after we hear from the Auditor General in the first place. She comes down with a report, we listen to her, she deposits it here, she sits at the table, and we listen to her contribution. After that's done, we all as a group, through the subcommittee, plan who our witnesses are going to be.

My sense is that there is an attempt here to put forward a big uppercut. We're going to bring in the Lieutenant Governor. We put it before the committee, we're dragging her in, and we're going to teach her a lesson. I don't think that is necessary or appropriate.

I think what we've heard from our legal advisers and from the contributions that Mr. Williams and others have made is that if we were to call a former head of state into this parliamentary committee, it would be a big step. I think even those who are supporting this motion would agree that it is a fairly drastic thing to do. It would seem to violate certain conventions on dividing the executive from the legislative branches, a convention that we weren't willing to breach when it was Adrienne Clarkson, you'll recall. I don't think we need to take a drastic step like that before we've even heard from the Auditor General.

I'm going to support the motion from Mr. Christopherson to have her removed from the list for now. If, for whatever reason, at some point later on, we are convinced that her testimony here is essential, I'll be open to it, but until I've heard from the Auditor General I'm not convinced of the necessity to take such a drastic step as to fuzzy the line between executive and legislative.