There is a point of order.
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.
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.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Mr. Poilievre said that this motion we're debating came forward two weeks ago.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The original motion calling for these people to testify--
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The point I'm making is that this is not a surprise to the witnesses that they are going to be called. This is not like it's out of the blue that just today they're learning they're going to be witnesses.
I introduced the motion calling for them to testify two weeks ago. I could be off by a few days, but that's about how much time they've had. We're offering, through my motion today, another significant period of time in which to prepare and appear. I'm proposing February 28. Right now it's February 14, so they have two more weeks. Whether Mr. Gagliano wants to fly back from Florida or not is entirely immaterial to this discussion. He will fly back if he's summoned by a parliamentary committee to do so.
I've seen these meetings put together very hastily. I'm only asking for this to happen on two weeks' notice. We've put together hearings faster than that. I don't think there are any logistical obstacles that should prevent this testimony from going ahead. There are political obstacles from one political party, but no logistical ones.
I'm perfectly open to entertaining an amendment to have some extra time for us to review additional reports, but that is no excuse for allowing all of this work just to go down the drain because this committee could be dissolved and not be replaced necessarily with people who are au courant with the matter at hand.
It's been almost two years since we found out about this problem. We still don't have answers. Let's get it done.
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate where Mr. Laforest is speaking from. Of course, he, Mr. Christopherson, you and I sit on the steering committee. You're right, it's no small task to make sure we line everything up.
I wanted to speak to this because if we're going to have an argument for or against, let it be genuine. With Mr. Wrzesnewskyj actually speaking against this motion, when we accommodated him run after run at us on more witnesses, more witnesses, more witnesses on 48 hours' notice--
Conservative
Conservative
David Sweet Conservative Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON
--his argument is totally disingenuous.
On the management of the committee, we have gone at light speed on these reports when compared to the past. I understand there are only two reports left now that are not at a final edit stage.
Given the two weeks, there is the fact that Place Victoria was a significant case, in which we had a couple of bureaucrats who had actually sent e-mails and wanted to bow out of the whole thing because it was so messy. Then they came here and obfuscated in their testimony in order to make sure they didn't have to say anything--or certainly it appeared that way--that would compromise their situation.
I'd like to get at the bottom of this, because it's one of the most substantial ones we have dealt with.
February 14th, 2008 / 1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There are a lot of long speeches and I'm not sure who they're for. It's ironic, I just came from the government operations committee, where the government was decrying us investigating a number of different matters, including the Dimitri Soudas matter. Now it's on the opposite end. I don't understand the point of all the rhetoric. I don't understand the point of going on and on like this.
Mr. Chair, I think we know what our respective positions are. Bringing Mr. Gagliano, in this particular instance, in my opinion, is clearly partisan in nature. It's clearly driven with an electoral purpose.
I would suggest we vote on it. I don't think debating it and adding lots of rhetoric particularly advantages the process.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Just to clarify, we've already called Mr. Gagliano. That's not up for debate here.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
No, but the timing and the rhetoric surrounding it is my issue.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I'd wanted to do it as a point of order, but I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Sweet. It's more for clarification purposes. And I do take issue with some of what Mr. Sweet had stated there, because we're not debating who the witnesses are and whether they should appear. What we're talking about is the change in dates. No matter how it's presented, it just occurred. There could be an election, and there may not be. There are consequences to reports that in fact we were dealing with today, in extended hours, to bring to completion.
On what my point of order was going to be, I don't like to have to travel back in time on these things, because when it finally came to the reports, we did the right thing on the RCMP. We were able to, on many things, move on very serious matters in a non-partisan way. I don't like raising this, and I did try a number of times to make things move along, but it was incredibly frustrating and it did take me months to bring some of those key witnesses who have now been commended. To disingenuously say, with ten minutes, and they had to....
We can pull out an accurate record as to how many times I've moved motions, put motions forward, how they were delayed, and the timelines on those delays. I don't want to go there. We did the right thing there. But there is a record, so let's not go there.
We ended up with reports that were positive, were positive for the RCMP, were positive for Canada. I just want to clarify that, and I hope we don't have to travel this route again.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
I'll be very brief. These are my last comments.
I've listened very carefully because I think my vote may actually matter. If we were arguing originally, then I think, slam dunk, we would do it first. But I have to tell you, I'm having problems getting past the point that we're going to rejig it, and it doesn't lend itself to improving the chances of having a successful hearing. If anything, it works the opposite.
So on a balance of listening to everything, I really believe a fair-minded person looking at this would say no, it's not justified. So I'll be voting no.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy
A last comment to you, Mr. Poilievre, and then I'm going to put the question.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Before I offer my comments, could you just reiterate the witnesses and their dates that we have so far? I missed that at the outset.
The Clerk
On March 4 we'll have Gary Polachek and Janice Cochrane, and on March 6, Ralph Goodale. There are still question marks for Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Bard.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I have one last question. Do we have the authority to issue some sort of summons to search and ascertain the whereabouts of Mr. Bard? What powers do we have? This is the second time he's been called, and appearance before a parliamentary committee is not a voluntary undertaking; it's obliged. Is there some legal authority we can have to compel him here?