Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

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

I move, Mr. Chairman, that the motion just passed be reported to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I think that should be sufficient.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Good.

Colleagues, we're going to go back in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We are back to the public part of the meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The item being discussed is a motion tabled by Mr. Poilievre, and I'll read the motion:

That the committee alter the schedule such that the meeting of March 4, 2008, on chapter 7 of the Auditor General's May 2006 report, be instead held on February 28; the meeting of March 6 on the same subject be moved to March 4; and that the meeting dealing with the draft reports on February 28 be moved to March 6.

Basically, it's a rejigging of the agenda that was presented by the steering committee and approved by this committee at an earlier date.

Mr. Poilievre, do you want to speak to that?

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

Yes, Chair.

As you know, the Auditor General brought forward this report back in May of 2006. That's almost two years ago now. We still haven't had any answers to the questions that report provoked. I note that we could move around the dates in order to facilitate an earlier hearing from those who have the facts, so I'm calling on the committee to consider doing that.

This matter is important. It deals with $4.6 million worth of waste identified by the Auditor General. To this date, we still haven't a clue who made the decision to override a public tender, and why, and we need to understand the motivations for that decision. At this rate, we're never going to get answers. Again, it's been almost two years now since this study began, and we don't want these answers to be interrupted by other events that might spontaneously interfere with this committee's work.

I imagine there would be no problem getting unanimous support for the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Just for clarity, for all the committee members, because I don't have our schedule in front of me, I assume that the steering committee had set a calendar for all of these dates, and going forward, and we're dealing with a one-week timeframe.

For the committee's clarity, what are we dealing with on those specific dates?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

If I may, I'll try to answer that, and perhaps the clerk will correct me if I'm wrong.

This was discussed at the steering committee. I think initially we had one meeting scheduled for chapter 7, and the steering committee thought it would be better to have two meetings.

Next week is break week. We come back for a meeting on Tuesday, February 26. That meeting is scheduled to have a hearing on the management of the security of government information, and those witnesses have been called and all arrangements have been made.

According to the schedule, on February 28 we would be dealing with the two draft reports that are here, plus there'd be another one or two coming forward, which would be circulated to members. In the meantime, we allocated Tuesday, March 4, and Thursday, March 6, for chapter 7 of the May 2006 report.

Members should bear in mind that this scheduling is not a simple process, and we do accommodate witnesses. Sometimes people are busy and they can't make one date and they can make another date. And this case is complicated.

There were five witnesses in the original motion that was put by Mr. Poilievre. One of the witnesses was scheduled to appear before this committee on a totally unrelated matter about a year ago, and we could not locate him at that point in time. We thought we had a lead on him, and in this case it's the right name but the wrong person. So we still haven't got one individual, Mr. Bard.

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

That's Jean-Marc Bard. He's missing in action.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The same one who was involved with the sponsorship...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

At any rate, that is the answer to your question, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, and you still have the floor.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

We worked at and spent a great deal of time on a number of reports that are also quite delayed. They deal with very important issues. We just finished dealing with the report on the agenda with regard to forensic labs in the RCMP. We're very close to arriving at conclusions on those particular reports.

If Mr. Poilievre is correct in his assumption that there might be, in his words, some spontaneous combustion that derails all our work, then I would assume that it would be of great import to make sure that work that's 90% to 95% done be brought to conclusion and reported in the House of Commons so that we have a full public record, as opposed to beginning a process that would potentially require more meetings, etc., without any sort of fruitful conclusion.

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

Mr. Chair, I feel much the same as Mr. Wrzesnewskyj. The steering committee discussed the time when we should hear from witnesses. I remind you that I was quite receptive to Mr.Poilièvre's motion stating that we had not heard all the replies that we should have heard in this matter. Although I have been hearing for two years that this committee is non-partisan, I feel that this motion is taking a partisan turn given the strong possibility of an election call. Two or three more days to hear from these witnesses is not going to change anything.

If the committee really is non-partisan, we should stick to the agenda that the steering committee set so that the reports that have been waiting for months and months get priority and so that we can hear the witnesses that we decided to hear when we passed Mr. Poilièvre's motion at our last meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I will start with this question: how far along are we in securing witnesses for slotted times?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I'll ask the clerk to respond.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

Of the five witnesses mentioned in Mr. Poilievre's original motion, we have confirmed three so far--on March 4, Gary Polachek and Janice Cochrane; and on March 6, Ralph Goodale.

As the chair mentioned, we're still trying to locate Mr. Bard, to get contact information for him.

I spoke with Mr. Gagliano a few days ago. He is currently in Florida, and will be returning to Montreal in May of this year. Obviously he is another one who is up in the air as to whether or not he can come.

Mr. Gagliano did indicate that should he be called before the committee prior to his return to Montreal, his expenses for travel, accommodation, and expenses while he's here in Ottawa would have to be covered. This is something that committees frequently do for witnesses who appear. But he also indicated that he would want his lawyer present, and that should that be the case, he would hope that any legal fees associated with having a lawyer present with him could also be picked up by the committee.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Today is February 14, so we're looking at exactly two weeks to reschedule, contact Mr. Gagliano, and make arrangements for him to fly back.

Is that right? We only have two weeks to do that if we go along with this?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Presumably, yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have to tell you that I'm sympathetic to the motion to the extent that if we have the election, a lot of stuff is going to be undone here. The outcome of the election could dictate which of those things lived for a further day of debate and which didn't, and they are all important reports.

The reason I'm sympathetic with this one is that we deliberately went out of our way to revisit this thing. Do you know what? All that work we did.... The crunch decision, just as Pierre has said--who made the decision and why, resulting in a $4.6 million waste of taxpayers' money in circumstances that don't pass the smell test--is significant, and I would be very open to moving it.

I hear Mr. Laforest, and it's a good comment. I wouldn't make this for a political reason, except that if an election is coming, I'd like to get them in here to answer while this composition of members of the committee is here. This is so complex that even if the next committee wanted to pick up, if it had new members--and it likely will--it could easily get lost, and the whole point would be missed. It was very complex, if you recall.

However, having said that, I say to my friend moving the motion that I'm hearing some practical impediments in terms of scheduling that make it less of a common sense decision if one started from where I am.

I'll go back through you, Mr. Chair, to the mover of the motion to find some way to argue or change what I think are good legitimate reasons why my vote, if I'm going to end up being the swing vote here, should be to stay with the current course, recognizing that my desire would be to alter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Perhaps we'll hear from Mr. Wrzesnewskyj first, and then Mr. Poilievre.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I do understand the political appetite to bring these particular witnesses, and in Mr. Poilievre's typical flamboyant way to have an opportunity before an election to question them, but let's step back and take a look at what Mr. Christopherson has said.

There is a chance that this particular committee would take on a very different composition should an election occur, and we have a number of reports that are at their final stage. If this conjecture about an election date is correct, then we won't have a report on this particular issue for which the witnesses will come before us, so we won't have a satisfactory conclusion.

We've heard many witnesses before, and reference was made today to how witnesses talk out the clock, etc. Perhaps a couple of sessions may be adequate if we hear adequate answers, and we'll have lost the opportunity to address reports that are 95% done on very important issues.

Should there not be an election, then we still have the opportunity to deal with this particular issue, but it won't be dealt with one way or another. All this change of dates will provide is a little bit of political theatre prior to a potential election. I think that does a disservice, especially when it comes to such important issues as the forensic laboratories in the RCMP and some of the others that have come forward on that particular date.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Next is Mr. Poilievre, and then Mr. Sweet.

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre.

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

On Mr. Wrzesnewskyj's first point, I would give a very simple retort. I do appreciate the political imperative for him and for Liberal delegates here to avoid having these questions answered before an election, but at the same time it's not our job to serve the electoral interests of one political party.

On the logistical point that Mr. Christopherson raises, the reality is that we have to take a different perspective on witnesses' coming before committee: witnesses come before committee when we call them, not when it suits them. In terms of this notion that they might not be available or that their schedule doesn't suit, my motion came forward almost two weeks ago; there has been plenty of time for them to be warned, and there are weeks more for them to be alerted as to the timing of their testimony.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Point of order.