Public Accounts Committee on June 18th, 2007

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

I think Mr. Lake was ahead.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

He was up first. He had his hand up first.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

We'll concede to Pierre and then go back Mr. Lake.

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

I would like to make a friendly amendment that we have two meetings, if it's possible. Is that okay?

I think that the minister should come before the committee himself and that Mr. Brown would present his report, perhaps Mr. Day and Mr. Brown together. I don't see the need to mix all of these people together. It's a strange mixture of witnesses. The minister is certainly happy to defend his conduct in cleaning up the mess he inherited, and Mr. Brown was an appointee of Mr. Day, so I don't see why the two of them can't come together.

Mr. Zaccardelli, as the Liberal-appointed head of the RCMP, is no longer with us; he deals with the past. If we want to discuss the past any more, I suppose we can do that, but it's not congruent with having Mr. Day and Mr. Brown, who of course are responding to a mess they inherited.

I'm not sure what Mr. Spice's role is in this. Sure, he's a part of it. He was one of the ethics advisors or whatever. But there are lots of people who are equally or even more germane to the discussion than Mr. Spice.

So I would propose that it be two meetings. They can both happen on the same day, if necessary, one being with—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

I have a point of order from Borys.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Chair, we had called the question and Mr. Williams strolled in and made a point of order. We're now getting into debates over witnesses and the relevance or irrelevance of different witnesses. So unless there are additional points of order, we should call the vote.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

I'm going to be clear on this. I'm reading the rule, and the rule really isn't pertaining to the witnesses, the calling of the meeting. It seems to me what we're really doing is getting into a debate about the witness list for this meeting, and the rule doesn't really pertain to the witnesses. Normally that's something that people suggest and it works its way through the steering committee and you line up your witnesses once you decide you're going to have a meeting. So we're kind of putting the cart before the horse, if I could use that terminology.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm still speaking.

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order too.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Okay, but I'm inclined to think the matter is getting into debate here.

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

No, it's not--

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Well, I can make that determination.

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

It's actually not, because I'm talking exclusively about whether there should be a meeting. In fact, I'm proposing that there should be two.

I was asked specifically by Mr. Christopherson to deliver a rationale, and that's exactly what I'm doing. I'm simply proposing that the single group be divided into two; I'm proposing that the motion be amended to call for two meetings on the matter.

I suppose Mr. Wrzesnewskyj would accept that as a friendly amendment.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Call the question unless there's a real point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Okay, we have a point of order from Mr. Williams. Is yours a point of order, Mr. Williams?

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

Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

First, the concept of our having a vote on this is out of order. We have a letter signed by four or more members of Parliament. That means the meeting will happen. The meeting will be to discuss how we're going to handle the issue. We do not need to vote on the letter. The letter by itself guarantees the meeting will happen.

I think the letter, by the way, certainly should be ruled out of order itself, but that's another matter.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

It reads “shall convene a meeting”. That's what we're doing. Basically, the thrust of the motion is.... I think we're all arguing about the same thing, from what I can gather--

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

We do not vote, Mr. Chairman, is what I'm saying. There is no need to call the question. There's no need to vote. The letter by itself will cause the meeting to happen.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Well, the rulings in the past--and I'll just quote from the good book here--“The matter under consideration at such a meeting is whether or not the committee wishes to take up the requested subject...”. So that's exactly what we're doing here.

I've heard your point, but I think it's fairly clear--

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

No, but you haven't understood my point, Mr. Chairman. Standing Order 106(4) says that a letter signed by four or more MPs will cause a meeting to happen, period. It will cause a meeting to be called by the chair within ten days.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So we'll have another meeting.

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

And when that meeting is called, then we will decide how we're going to handle the issue.

[An hon. member]

Then I was perfectly in order.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In fact, you were. We are on the time. We're deciding now what date and who's going to be here. That's where we are and that's what's in order. And John can dance all he wants; it doesn't make it true.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Brian Fitzpatrick]

Order.

As chair, I'm confused on the matter, because I'm hearing both sides really saying the same thing. We're agreed that we're going to have a meeting, and to me, we're counting how many angels are dancing on the end of a pin right now, from what I can gather.

It's simply a matter of the committee proceeding with the motion. We're arguing among--