Evidence of meeting #16 for Public Accounts in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:20 p.m.
The Clerk
There's a legal authority to compel them, and that's a summons. There's the practical issue of being able to find them, being able to locate them. Occasionally there is great difficulty finding witnesses, as everyone probably has experienced in other committees as well.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
What's the practical instrument for carrying out the summons?
1:20 p.m.
The Clerk
The summons would require a motion from the committee that specifically says the committee is going to summon person X to appear on such and such a date before the committee.
1:20 p.m.
The Clerk
If he doesn't, then the committee can choose to report the matter to the House and you can get into, if the House then wants to move forward with it, going right back to issues related to contempt of Parliament again.
The summons is an instrument that is similar to a summons that someone would get to appear at court, in that respect.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
All right.
I'll just conclude my remarks by saying again that I think two weeks is plenty of time. We've pulled together more complicated groups to testify. So far, we have only three people. We'd be rescheduling three people, moving their testimony forward, and those three people would still have, in the worst-case scenario, two weeks from today to be notified of their testimony. So I don't see how complicated this really is, to ask three people to change their schedules for a parliamentary committee and give them two weeks in which to do it. That's not difficult. We can pull that off. So I don't see any logistical obstacle whatsoever. I see some political obstacles, but I think we should go ahead with it and get this done, instead of trying to keep the answers hidden until after the election.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I want to put the question. I read the motion before, so I don't believe I have to read it again.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Can I give a very short point on a question that was just asked about this Bard fellow and the summons and so on? Is there not some process when we can't find a witness to turn the matter over to the RCMP to bring him before us?
1:20 p.m.
The Clerk
I don't know 100%, but my educated advice would be that I don't think there is.
1:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Possibly, yes. I can definitely look into it. It has happened in the past, where some witnesses have been summoned to parliamentary committees and they couldn't be located.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Fitzpatrick Conservative Prince Albert, SK
It's a big loophole if we don't have that power. All you have to do is go into hiding and you can frustrate a parliamentary committee.
This guy did it before. I'm very suspicious of this situation. It seems to me this person is deliberately evading this committee. I don't want to use words lightly, but if he doesn't come before this committee and he knows we want to see him, he's evading the legal process. We should have the ability to turn it over to the RCMP to find this guy and bring him here.
1:20 p.m.
The Clerk
I'll find out, and I'll definitely get back to the committee with the appropriate answer.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I have a motion that the clerk prepare a summons for Mr. Jean-Marc Bard.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I will consider that motion in order. The motion is that the summons be issued for the appearance of Jean-Marc Bard before this committee. And we will specify the date right now: March 6, 2008.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
A voice
To the summons?
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
He's indicated that he's not sure he's going to accept our invitation, so....
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
The situation with Gagliano--and I'll get the clerk to confirm--is that he wants his expenses and accommodations paid. That's normal. It's within the full authorization of this committee. But he also made a request that his legal fees be paid. That would certainly be way outside our mandate. I guess we could technically, but I think we'd have to go to the liaison committee. It's not something we would likely consider, because we've never done it before.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's not like he said no, and it's not like we can't find him.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I just don't know.... In these circumstances are we going too quick, too hard? If it's in order, by all means, I just don't want it to seem like we're playing any kind of heavy-handed games and rushing straight to a subpoena on somebody who's given the same answers as most people who end up coming.