Public Accounts Committee on Dec. 14th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Chair, respecting Mr. D'Amours' request, and also not wanting to.... I understand that committees are masters of their own destiny; we have who we want, when we want.

But I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to have our clerk contact the government operations committee as well, so we don't end up completely overlapping and duplicating. Obviously it's an issue they're consumed with as well. We could see where their witness status is. Whether we can either parallel it and/or do it in tandem and/or let testimony come out at one...I'm not sure.

I'm wondering perhaps if between now and Thursday the clerk could ascertain the status of the entire process and the witness list from the government operations committee and report back to us on Thursday. At that point we could make a decision as to who we want, where we want, and when.

That's just a thought. It might be more efficient and effective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

As much as I appreciate the suggestion, Mr. Kramp, regardless of what I believe the other committee is doing, it is clear we have a mandate here. After the report, and as in the discussion we had today, there are a lot of gaps.

You, yourself, said in committee that it would be good to have both of them so we don't have this one-off, “he said, she said”. Regardless of what the government operations committee is doing—and maybe we can work with them—I am of the view that we need to have her appear before the committee.

A lot of the questions that were raised today were focusing on the process, of course, but also on the report. It is definitely within our mandate and I think it should be pursued.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Chair, could you please reiterate what the clerk told you with regard to trying to contact Madam Ouimet?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

As I said earlier, there was an effort to contact her. We identified a phone number for her residence, left a message, and followed that message up with another phone call, leaving another message. As of yesterday we had received no response, and we don't have her here today.

With respect to the Privy Council, everything is as I said earlier on. There wasn't an indication that there was an unwillingness to come; it was that Tuesday was a bad day. There is cabinet, and after cabinet he was briefing the Prime Minister. People are reasonable....

Mr. Shipley.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I just have a question about the steering committee and our agenda.

I don't have the agenda here, but we've had a line-up of either reports or...coming forward. I'm just wondering where we are with that and whether the steering committee wouldn't be the appropriate place to consider what's coming up, how that schedule is going to work out, and how we fit in.

I'm not opposed to having her here, if we can find her, and anyone else coming here. I'm just trying to understand the process with the steering committee and what we have on the docket. That's all, Mr. Chairman.

So I would say that maybe it should go to a steering committee. I don't know when you meet, whether it's tomorrow or whatever day it is, but that might be the appropriate place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley.

This committee had already accepted the steering committee's tentative agenda for discussions when we come back. I say “tentative”, because if we didn't have something else, we would make a decision to go with what was put on the table.

What is being proposed now, from what I gather—and I don't know whether Mr. D'Amours is quoting Mr. Young accurately—is the suggestion from last week that if people aren't responsive, they can be directed to come here. I don't want to use stronger language, but when they receive an invitation from the committee, the chair, on behalf of the committee, can say very, very strongly, “Show up.”

So you don't need a steering committee to make a decision on whether you're all in agreement. It appears that everybody is in agreement. You just have to say, “Yeah, make that effort”, and we'll make that effort again.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

To be clear, Mr. Chair, what are you going to say? Are you going to send a letter directing Madame Ouimet to appear before this committee? Is that your suggestion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Well, I don't think that's our intention with the Clerk of the Privy Council. He gave us a very reasonable response. He said, “I'd like to come. I'm in cabinet, and I can't be in two places at once.” If he's not in cabinet the next session, that rationale doesn't arise.

So what do we do, other than to say, “Look, we'd like you to come. Thanks for saying you wanted to come. Are you available now?”

With respect to Madam Ouimet, she hasn't responded to two requests. The language can be as strong as required to indicate to her that she can't be in contempt of a committee of Parliament. You don't have to be threatening. You just have to be able to say, “Here are the facts of life. You know what they are.”

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Well, we won't know unless we go ahead. We have an address for her. No, actually we have a phone number for her, and we can go from there. I can't imagine that we don't have an address for her, as she's in receipt of a whole series of things.

I'm just interpreting what you're all telling me, that there's a sense that you want to do this.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I've been listening carefully, because we've never undertaken these kinds of things lightly, including holding a second hearing, and particularly doing something that ultimately leads to what is tantamount to a subpoena. We want to do these things very carefully, very rarely, and cautiously.

I have to tell you, though, given the fact that the former commissioner doesn't agree with the audit and says it's wrong, given the fact that this is not just any position—and it's not just any deputy position for that matter—but we're talking about an officer of Parliament, whose role is to be a safe place to go to when there's wrongdoing, it seems to me that we are entirely justified in pursuing this further with her. I think you're right that everybody is in agreement on that.

My concern is that if we don't immediately give you, Chair, the authority to recommend to the House that we take the ultimate action to have the witness appear, then we're going to be back here again in six or eight weeks in exactly the same position. That's my concern, that if we don't bite the bullet now and give the authority for the big stick, if you will, to be used, then what will happen is you will get enough weeks under your belt, water will go under the bridge and new issues will come along, and then slowly it will drift away. The fact that the person is an officer of Parliament is the thing that really, really resonates with me. There really is no higher position, other than having oneself elected to a seat in that House.

So I'm in favour of what's being talked about. I don't like the idea that someone who is appointed as a commissioner, with that kind of money, can just cut and run and hide, and not be accountable at the end of the day, at least once, for what went on when they were given that kind of power and authority and paid that kind of money. The Canadian people at least deserve to hear what went on there, particularly when the commissioner wants to just rush off and say, “I disagree with the report, it's not right” or—I don't know, as I haven't heard the words—“It's not fair”, and then run away and hide. That just doesn't work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Right. Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

I'm going to take this as an indication that the committee wants the chair to issue a letter to get her here as quickly as possible, and that the discretion rests with the chair to get, I think your language suggested, Parliament or the House to do that.

But I think there are a couple of steps first, and I'm going to take it that everybody agrees that the chair should at least go through the first one and say, “You're coming.” Okay?

[Some hon. members]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I'm sorry, Mr. Young, but we're already past our time.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Just for the record, I don't support this movement with Madame Ouimet.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.