Evidence of meeting #69 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I just want to get unanimous consent to add Anne McLellan to the list of witnesses, given that she was the minister at the time this happened and given that she said that none of the conduct of Mr. Zaccardelli needed to be investigated. We've now found that to be the opposite of the truth, given Mr. Brown's report.
We've already had Mr. Zaccardelli here, so there's no reason why we can't have another person back--
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
This is a matter of debate, folks. I do not interpret the rule such that we can get into a debate of the witnesses.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Is there unanimous consent? Are the Liberals denying unanimous consent to have their minister be accountable?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
There is no consent.
I don't think we're going to get very far here debating the witness list. This is a job for the steering committee.
3:45 p.m.
A voice
You cancelled the steering committee meeting today.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Laforest laid it out. This letter was signed by six of our members, saying we want to have a meeting and these are the members we want to have. There wasn't any discussion about a steering committee and our normal process because six members signed it. They said we want a meeting and we want to meet with these members. So it's not up to the steering committee to change it.
When we meet with them, from a scheduling perspective, will be up the chair to coordinate. But it's clear. Six members of our committee have signed a letter asking for the meeting and asking for these witnesses. There is no option for the steering committee to change it at all. It's the way it is exactly.
This isn't normal form. We don't normally do this, but it was done.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Madam Sgro, if you actually read the rule, the rule is for the purpose of a meeting. It's not to get into the merits or the substance. Because the motion happens to have some of that in it, it doesn't do an end run around the rule. The rule is quite clear.
Once the group has decided on a meeting, it's up to the committee, through the steering committee or other things, to determine when they're going to schedule the meeting and who the witnesses will be.
Now, people have offered up names, and that's normally what the steering committee does; it lines up the--
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Chair, with all due respect, six members signed for a meeting, and specifically said these are the people we want at the meeting.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
Order.
Six members do not have the power to amend the rules. I'm just following the rules the way they're written. They can put whatever they want in their motions, but they still have to come within the rules. Rules are rules. We work under a system of the rule of law here. We can't make an end around just through that kind of wordsmithing.
I think Pierre was next.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Given that we have witnesses on this list who have already testified, I'm very surprised that we would not be inviting the minister who was responsible at the time this scandal occurred. She stood up in the House of Commons and said that Mr. Zaccardelli had no conduct that needed to be investigated whatsoever. Those were her words.
We now learn that those words were wrong. We know that during the time this scandal occurred, Treasury Board approved all of the increases in costs associated with pension and insurance outsourcing. I don't know why the Liberal members would not want the Treasury Board president to be invited to participate in this meeting.
I'm not on a point of order. I'm on the speaking list and I'm going to speak. You've had your chance to speak. You can't shut me down and try to shut down discussion of what happened under your government.
Mr. Chair, the reality is that if we're going to have Mr. Zaccardelli, it's--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Let me just go through Standing Order 106(4) with you and the clerk so we can all understand why we're getting ourselves into this mess.
The Chair of the said committee shall convene a meeting
That means the chair, not the steering committee. And I just found out about the meeting a few minutes ago.
provided that forty-eight hours’ notice is given of the meeting. For the purposes of this section, the reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request.
All these things are fine. We should not be voting on this. Mr. Chairman, you should be setting the date for the meeting. If I go to Marleau and Montpetit, on page 843 it says:
The Chair may agree to consider the matter at a meeting that has already been scheduled, rather than calling a meeting for that purpose alone.
So what's wrong with meeting on Wednesday?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
I haven't had 48 hours' notice.
I'm calling for a meeting based on the letter that was signed by six MPs.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Is it a public meeting you're calling? Is that what you're talking about? I just want to be clear what you're saying. Are you saying we should set a date to actually have them come in, or are you saying we set a date for making the plan?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
Mr. Chairman, I have not had 48 hours' notice of this meeting.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
I'm inclined to accept your point, Mr. Williams. As I read this rule, it's on the agenda, the substance is there, and it has been properly brought before us. We've agreed that we're going to have a meeting, and if I read this correctly, the chair has 48 hours to decide when we're going to have this meeting, or to put it forward to decide whether we're going to have it.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
You have five days to call the meeting, and you have to give me 48 hours' notice of the subject.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Brian Fitzpatrick
That's to kick in the first step of the process. The second part of the process is the 48 hours. The way I see it, it's up to the chair to decide within 48 hours, now that we've agreed to have a meeting, to have a meeting to decide when we'll have it, which would be Wednesday.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Williams Conservative Edmonton—St. Albert, AB
That's provided you give me 48 hours' notice of the meeting. You can't sit on it for two days and then say we're going to discuss this. You have to give me 48 hours' notice.
