Public Accounts Committee on June 18th, 2007

[A voice]

No.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

We're on to that. We agreed to that change.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's fine. I'll withdraw.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

This one is basically to give this individual the leeway to, during the summer months, do the work he has to do, communicate with the chair, and keep everybody abreast. I would assume that all of us would be in support of that direction. Do we have agreement to go along with that motion?

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

Is that where we're going?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

No.

I was just talking about that motion. I'll read it to you. Can everybody pay attention? We'll read the motion, and then you'll know what we're talking about.

The motion is that the committee chairperson and staff be authorized to review government responses to recommendations made by the committee during the 39th Parliament, on the committee’s behalf, acknowledge receipt of the responses where they respond clearly and completely to recommendations, or request by letter further information or clarification, as required.

This is just giving Mr. Stilborn and the committee chairperson a much clearer mandate and terms of reference for doing work over the summer.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

And they will report back to the committee, obviously, in the fall?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Yes.

Mr. Williams, are you moving that motion? Could you do that?

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

Fine.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Now we're back to Mr. Laforest's motion, which we dealt with last Thursday.

I think as it was left last Thursday, Mr. Laforest--and I'd like to leave it where it was that day--that we take this thing under advisement. I really think that because of the issues raised, we do need to get some legal advice about the constitutionality of calling a lieutenant governor before our committee.

We're certainly not going to have this meeting, if we proceed with it, until the fall. Mr. Walsh and the other legal people could certainly give us some guidance on this matter well before we schedule such a meeting. That, I think, would be a lot more suitable.

Go ahead, Mr. Laforest.

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

Mr. Chairman, in fact, I asked a question this afternoon to find out whether the government would support the motion asking the former lieutenant-governor to appear before the committee. The Minister of Heritage replied that it was up to each committee to decide whom it would like to hear. So I don't see what why we should refer to the Constitution, nor do I see any danger in doing so, especially since two days after the facts were revealed by the Auditor General of Canada and the Auditor General of Quebec, the Government of Quebec decided to call the former lieutenant-governor to hold her accountable for her annual expenses.

So I don't see why there would be any constitutional implications, especially since Ms. Thibault is no longer the lieutenant-governor. Quebec now has a new lieutenant-governor. I cannot get over the fact that this issue has been raised. I really do not understand what is happening, except that perhaps people are engaging in obstruction. As for the constitutional aspect, how can the government of Quebec have gotten to the bottom of the matter in two days, when there are still unanswered questions with regard to the person who does not hold that position anymore.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Mr. Williams.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The way the motion was left was that the chair reserved a decision on whether or not the motion was in order until he had consulted with the Speaker, the Clerk of the House of Commons, and the law clerk. If you have not done that, you're in no position to report back to this committee, and therefore it should remain in abeyance.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Again, on that point, Mr. Williams, before we leave it, I'm just going to point this out:

A point of order calling attention to a departure from the Standing Orders or from the customary manner in which a committee has conducted its proceedings may be raised at any time, by any member of the committee. In doubtful or unprovided cases, the Chair may reserve his or her decision.

That's my interpretation of what we did last Thursday.

Mr. Laforest, I've no doubt it's an important issue, but there's no urgency on the matter. The earliest we're going to be able to deal with this matter is in the fall. I think we have good legal advice. Maybe the Quebec legislature knows something we don't know. I think there were enough good points raised last Thursday that a person should proceed with some caution on the matter.

So I think that would be my decision, to go ahead with what was decided last Thursday. We'll be consulting with the legal officials. Come the fall, when we get this thing clarified, we can proceed with it.

That would be my ruling. If we're going to deviate from the Standing Orders and use the discretion that is given to the chair under the rules, this is a good area to do it in.

Yes, Mr. Roy.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with your interpretation at all, because last Thursday, when the discussion ended, there was no unanimous consent and no decision had been taken, because the meeting ended abruptly. You ended it because the bells were ringing and we had to vote. There was no consensus. So last Thursday, at the meeting, there was no vote. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, no decision with regard to this matter was taken on Thursday. I insist on the discussion being held now, today, and on concluding the discussion so we can reach a true consensus or come to a final decision.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

I'm just reading the rules; I didn't make them. It says that in these uncharted areas, the chair has the right to do that. So I'm going ahead with what the chair has as a discretion in these areas.

If there were urgency involved with this, Mr. Roy, maybe we'd have to move very expeditiously to deal with it. But we're going to have three months for Mr. Walsh and the legal people to get back and advise us on the legalities of calling this person before this committee.

Not only is it the rule, but it seems to me to be common sense that we'd follow that practice, and I'm making that ruling.

We have another matter on the agenda today, and we should get on to this business. We have some good witnesses here who want to inform us on an issue of fairly major importance.

We will be back in the fall, and there will be steering committees. If we can bring the Lieutenant Governor before the committee, and it's legal and so on, we'll do it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. There is a motion by Jean-Yves Laforest, which is the one I presented last time, on the agenda. If you want to withdraw the motion or not vote on it, you need unanimous consent from all committee members. It's on the agenda, it's there. As Mr. Roy said, at the last meeting no decision was taken because it was 5:30 p.m. and the bells were ringing because there was a vote. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask that we vote on the motion. If members do not agree with the motion, they can vote against it; it's as simple as that. It's on the agenda, sir. It's not right to say that we don't have to vote on it immediately. When I table a motion, as when another member tables a motion, I want to discuss it and vote on it.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

I'm going to refresh your memory on the matter. A point of order calls attention to “a departure from the Standing Orders”, and then it says that in “doubtful or unprovided cases, the Chair may reserve his or her decision”.

That's exactly what happened on Thursday, and that's what I did. I followed the rulings of this House on that matter—

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

Mr. Chairman, I had asked that we vote on the motion, and you replied that it was 5:30 p.m. and that the meeting would end—

[A voice]

That's exactly what you said.

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

—because we needed unanimous consent from all members to continue the meeting. But there was no unanimous consent: Conservative members rose from their seats.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

In my recollection, the ruling I made was what I just referred to in this book, which has the case history of the Standing Orders. So I'm quite within my rights to stick by my decision, and that's what I'm going to do.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Point of order, Chair.

You referenced that your decision was based on a departure from the Standing Orders. Could you explain to us what precise departure from the Standing Orders you referred to in making this particular ruling?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Normally we have a pretty unfettered discretion to call witnesses before the committee. We had quite a discussion about the role of the Crown and calling representatives of the Crown—

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

But, Chair, maybe you misunderstood. My point of order is for you to tell us precisely what Standing Orders we departed from.

You're basing your decision on a statement that we departed from the Standing Orders. It's a very serious decision that you're making. I would assume that in making a serious decision of this sort, you would be able to tell us what departure from the Standing Orders took place that allowed you to make this decision.