Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 8th, 2011

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

I don't have a problem with what's being said, but what I'm hearing are arguments, and....

Everybody knows me--I'm ready to argue at the drop of a hat--but I like to know what I'm arguing about. At some point, before we keep going around and around expressing outrage, we need a solution. A solution is going to come from looking at the options that are available, picking one, and acting on it. It seems to me that's when we would make our speeches.

I'm urging you to get the matter of the options in front of us as quickly as possible so we have something to actually speak on that's going to lead to an action. When we're done all this we will still have to do that step, so I urge that we do that as quickly as possible to get us going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

If Mr. D'Amours and Mr. Kramp will permit us to pole-vault their second interventions, I'll go directly to what Mr. Christopherson had indicated initially. I think it's a valid point. I just wanted to hear what everybody had to say before we went forward.

Are you okay with that?

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

I have a suggestion that might be helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

He's been very specific. I just want to know, if it's an argument and you want to--

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

It's not an argument.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay.

Mr. D'Amours, please be brief.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say something about what the clerk will tell us later on. As I said earlier, we seem to be taking almost for granted that Ms. Ouimet is outside the country. When the clerk will explain our options to us, let's keep in mind that Ms. Ouimet might still be in Canada.

I don't know why we should believe that she is outside the country, that we cannot meet with her and that it will take a couple of weeks. I don't know why we are even talking about this, because we just don't know. There are people, after all, who are at her house and who answer the phone. We don't know who answers the phone, nor who answers the door. We don't know who is retrieving the business cards that are being left at her house.

Let's not take for granted that the lady is outside the country. Let's also remember that she might still be in Canada when the clerk tells us what our options are.

I just wanted to point that out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Merci.

Mr. Kramp.

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

I suggest that the clerk contact the respective authorities to see if we have precedence for this within matters of dealing with the House. The House has dealt with almost everything at some point, so we might have a procedure where this has happened before. We might be able to pattern a response off that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I think we'll go to the initial question, and then maybe we can entertain some arguments.

They are, so far, whether we, one, continue the study; two, discontinue the study; three--before I go back to the clerk--I think we had consensus that we would expand the number of witnesses, and the steering committee was going to vet that list tomorrow; and four....

Madam Clerk, will you give us an indication of some of the precedents, as Mr. Kramp has suggested, that have preceded this committee on similar situations, if any?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Joann Garbig]

There have been cases where committees, faced with the refusal of a witness to appear following the serving of a summons, have reported to the House thereon.

In the current circumstances, although the committee has made a number of efforts to reach the witness, all have been unsuccessful. It's difficult to conclude that the witness has refused to appear when none of the attempts to reach her have been successful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay.

I think some colleagues would like to know if that venue is available, or if there is another one with respect to reporting back to the House.

[The Clerk]

It's in the hands of the committee if the members feel that, notwithstanding the fact that no effort to reach the witness has been successful, this constitutes somehow an avoidance of the invitation or summons of the committee, or a disinclination to agree to the committee's invitation to appear.

It's in the hands of the committee how it wishes to deal with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Christopherson, that gives you four options. Are you satisfied that we've put some on the table?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, we're getting there.

Is there further legal action we can take? We've made some attempt to deliver.... I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just asking whether there is a further step we could take. I'm pulling things out of thin air.

Does the House have investigators? Do they use the police method? Is there a more formal method of contact that heightens the lack of response? What are our options? This is what I'm seeking: what are our options?

We're all in agreement that we don't want to let this lie. I think that's clear. We're all in agreement that she needs to come here and answer and be accountable for her time in office. We've been stonewalled so far. Maybe I'm just not getting it--I accept that--but I'm not understanding what the next legal step is, if there is one. Or is the legal answer that you've gone as far as you can?

This is what I'm trying to get a handle on...and if we don't have it here, we could ask Mr. Walsh.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Right. We could have Mr. Walsh come before us. Yes, that's a good point.

The ethics committee, I think in June of last year, was dealing with something more or less similar. They made repeated efforts to get several witnesses before the committee. The clerk of the committee advised the chair that repeated efforts to deliver the subpoena, even if unsuccessful, were to be deemed as delivered. I don't know what the legal status of that is, but subsequently the individuals appeared before the committee. I don't know strong it is in terms of a precedent, but it is a precedent.

The clerk has given me—and she can say it herself—another indication. For example, in some of the discussion last week about what to do next, we indicated—and I think the Hansard will bear this out—that some of the questions we might ask and that we've raised again today would require something more than a bailiff's action. A bailiff's action is typically to deliver a subpoena, not necessarily to go out and find where a person might be.

The committee would have to authorize the expenditure of that kind of action. If it were the committee's decision to have the bailiff ascertain where Madame Ouimet might be, then that's a direction that we, as a committee, could move forward. I didn't feel I had the authority to give that kind of instruction because that comes with an expenditure, so that didn't happen.

Mr. Christopherson, that's another solution that I think you've indicated you might be looking for.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

While I have the floor, I would throw on the floor for consideration of colleagues that we schedule Mr. Walsh to come in to tell us what our options are.

If we agree to that, then I think the other thing we can kick around today is whether we want to go any further. We know we have a number of outside groups and an individual who would like to give testimony. We could start to grapple with whether or not we want to do that in the absence of the former commissioner's presence here.

I would leave with colleagues that at the very least we look at bringing Mr. Walsh in next time so we can get definitive answers to the questions we have. When we start mucking around with laws and powers of Parliament...this is serious stuff. We need to know, not just what the rules are but what the implications are. I would feel a lot more comfortable if Mr. Walsh were here with the authority of his office, giving us that advice as a starting point.

Then, if we have time today and we want to, we can talk about whether we want to continue with other witnesses in the interim or put this file in abeyance until we've heard from Mr. Walsh and make our decisions then.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Why don't we as a committee direct the bailiff to periodically check whether Madame Ouimet is back in town? She's a property owner. She's a responsible citizen. She's going to come home at some point. Let's put the file in abeyance and go on to another matter that's important to this committee.

We've heard from a whole series of witnesses. We've heard from everyone who has anything to do with this matter and should have any knowledge, other than Madame Ouimet. Why don't we carry on with important government business and have the bailiff report to us when he's been able to serve a summons? I don't know exactly what the summons should say; perhaps we can get legal advice on that.

We've lost the better part of today already on this matter. The lady is obviously out of the country. She doesn't want to be found. In some ways, it's understandable. But she's going to come home. Why don't we find out when she is home, send her a summons, and carry on with other committee business?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Thank you, Mr. Young.

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I cannot support that. I will be frank. I think we have lost a lot of time trying to contact Ms. Ouimet. At a certain point, we have to stop wasting our time. Rather, we have to move forward and find ways to locate her.

Of course, we can get a lot of people to testify, but I don't think we should hear from witnesses who have agreed to appear before Ms. Ouimet herself shows up. I think that is a basic issue. Otherwise, we will just keep on going around in circles. That's what I think. We can also ask the advice of other people to see whether we have other options. However, at this point, the ultimate person to turn to is the Speaker of the House.

Given the situation, we can look at other options, but we have to move forward. Mr. Chairman, I think it is relevant to present a motion to the committee. I have one here. Committee members will decide what they want to do with it. Let's remember that the Speaker of the House is the person who will ultimately be able to provide the committee with an answer. Let's stop going around in circles and not decide what to do once she is back. For God's sake, she could show up in six years! So what are we going to do? Are we going to let this situation drag on, and one day say that someone is bound to find her, and then, we will ask her to appear before the committee? I think this would be disrespectful of taxpayers.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will read my motion:

That the committee report the following to the House of Commons: Whereas the committee agreed on February 1st that Christiane Ouimet be summoned to appear and give evidence before the committee on matters relating to its study of the report of the Auditor General of Canada on the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada on Tuesday, February 8, 2011, at 3:30 p.m. in the House of Commons Committee Room 237-C, Centre Block, and to remain in attendance until duly discharged. And whereas Ms. Ouimet failed to appear on Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 3:30 p.m., the committee wishes to draw the attention of the House on what appears to be a breach of its privileges and recommends that the House take whatever measures it deems appropriate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I missed the first part of that, Monsieur D'Amours.

Do you have a copy? Are you suggesting a formal motion?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Oui.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

The part that I heard was the text of the subpoena that we authorized last week; that's all you're...?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Oui: “That the committee report the following to the House of Commons”.

What I have just read is only the beginning of the motion in English. If you would like to have a copy, Mr. Chairman, I can give you one. That's not a problem.