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.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Usually the way these situations work is that there's an invitation first. Then if there's a negative response to our invitation, we issue a summons. We've done that before.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I should point out that when Mr. Bard was scheduled to appear before the committee on a totally unrelated matter, probably at least a year ago, we couldn't find him. Our information at the time—again, this is not confirmed—was that he was in a Middle Eastern country at that time, and they couldn't locate him at that particular spot.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I'm not hearing a good reason why we would include Gagliano in a summons. That's a big deal; I mean, as a former cabinet minister, that's news. We have to make sure we have reasons for generating that kind of headline.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
We'll deal with the motions separately, for one thing. We can do that.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and then Mr. Poilievre.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
On the issue of the costs of legal representation, we have many witnesses who appear before us. It's their choice as to what kind of legal support they have or what kind of research they do before they appear as witnesses. I think it would set a wrong precedent to indicate to him that we would cover those particular costs.
He isn't required to have legal representation here; he has parliamentary privilege. But if he so decides, it should be added at his own cost.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I was just going to say that my understanding was we had asked Gagliano, and he indicated that he was not willing to go except under certain conditions, one of which we're not going to meet.
I'm perfectly willing to leave him off the summons for two days, until we can ascertain whether he's giving us a yes or a no. But I haven't heard either of those two options; I've heard a conditional response from him.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chair, if I can offer it, how about a conditional motion--in other words, that the clerk and the chair be authorized, should they receive a negative from Mr. Gagliano, to issue the summons? But give him the opportunity to go through a regular procedure and lock in his appearance, without it looking as though his own Parliament—he was a senior minister here—had to drag him because he didn't want to come.
If we're going to do that to somebody, let's make sure they're being recalcitrant and are saying “No, screw you.” If they aren't, then.... I am offering up some deference to him as a former cabinet minister. Before Parliament did that to any former cabinet minister, you'd want to make sure they were treating Parliament the way that issuing a summons would suggest they were. If they aren't, we ought not to do this to them, no matter who they are.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Why don't we just wait two days? We'll give the clerk a couple of days to get a yes or a no, and then we can move this.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
What does two days do? Then we're in our ridings, Pierre.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
1:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
That's why I said the conditional. It matches what you are saying. They would try to organize, and if they can't, for whatever reason—we won't pay the lawyer, he won't come, or he's being difficult—then we preauthorize the clerk and the chair to issue that summons, and then he has justified the summons.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
Mr. Christopherson, the clerk has indicated it's not legal for us to issue a conditional summons. I'll ask him to speak to it.
1:30 p.m.
The Clerk
The summons can only be issued by the committee. It can't be delegated to someone else to do it on their behalf, such as conditionalizing it to the chair, should Mr. Gagliano say a definitive no.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Can we word it another way, whereby we issue the summons, but we give the chair an opportunity to let them voluntarily lock in before we sign the document? Can we do that?
1:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Again, in that case, the summons.... Ultimately, if the committee didn't want to proceed with it, it would be up to the committee then to essentially remove the summons—again, not to the chair to do it. There would be a requirement to have a summons with a list of people, or an individual summons for, in this case, Mr. Bard, Mr. Gagliano.
1:30 p.m.
NDP
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
I should point out too, with respect to the other individual—and it's not my job to carry his brief or anything—that we've had no response from him that he's unwilling to come here; we just cannot locate him.
Sometimes the efforts of the committee previously haven't been 100%, as far as that is concerned. We couldn't locate Janice Cochrane, don't forget. She was the accounting officer. I would support bringing her, but we couldn't locate her. There are a number of people in Ottawa who know her, and there's no evidence at all that she avoided the committee or that she was in hiding. That's totally false. She's well known to most people in Ottawa. In fact, she has a summer home on Prince Edward Island, and I see her quite regularly.
We have to be careful with these—
1:30 p.m.
NDP
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, just to be clear on this, Mr. Gagliano said he would come if we would pay his air fare and his accommodation while he was here. Is that correct?
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
No, he.... There are discussions ongoing that he'd like us to consider paying his legal fees. There's no question, if we want him here, we pay his airfare and we pay his accommodation. That's for every witness who ever appears before any parliamentary committee.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
To be clear, and just to finish on this, is there an “if” to it? Will he only come if we pay his lawyers?