Public Accounts Committee on March 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Shipley.

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

Exactly. I didn't know what David was going to say, but I agree.

We've got two very strong individuals here, who are agents of the government—one was, and one still is. And the response letter that happened on the same day as yours is very strong. Not having them side by side, as we do with other ones, would not do justice to this. We will be played off, and then we'll be wondering how we're going to fix it.

These are very significant individuals. They are very strong in their opinions, and they need to justify those in front of this committee, together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay.

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, if I hear my colleagues correctly, the first choice is to have them both here at the same time. The question is, what happens if we can't get them both here at the same time, or if it's going to take a long time to get them here at the same time, are we willing to have one at a time? It's an alternative.

Obviously our first choice is to have them both here, but in the event that we're unable to have them both here, is one of them better than none of them, in the interests of time? I'd just like to ask my colleagues for their opinions.

Mr. Christopherson, you're pretty clear that you'd like to have them both here at the same time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My worry, Chair, is that we'll be back into the same loop. I agree with Mr. Shipley. They're going to play us off against each other. Eventually the lawyer, or Ms. Ouimet, is going to come out with some technical interpretation of why the Auditor General is wrong, and I'm not going to have a clue which, professionally, is the right answer.

I definitely think we need them both here. That is the way we do things. I need the ability, as a layperson—and I'm probably the biggest layperson here in terms of my lack of academic training—to ask the questions that I see, hear an answer, and then ask the other one, “What do you think about that?” Then I can make a judgment based on my intuition rather than just whether I know their profession or not.

It's a long way to say yes, we need them both.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I agree with Mr. Christopherson. We've actually had each of them here individually already anyway, so the next step would be to have them here together.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Okay, colleagues, let me think. Mr. Shipley has just withdrawn his desire to speak again because what we're all doing now is trying to give some guidance to the chair in interpreting that motion.

Yes, colleagues, I think we are all in agreement that the first step would be to get both agents of Parliament, one former, one current, before the committee at the same time. I'm taking as well an indication from that, as I said to Mr. Whitehall in my original letter, that the committee will reserve the right to extend that hearing or to have additional hearings. I'm taking from this that colleagues around this table might—I'm not going to prejudge anybody—even want, during the course of a meeting, before we get to the end, to move that we extend the hearing or come back later. Certainly that's what I'm going to advise both agents, one former, one current.

I'm going to suggest to all colleagues that you read some of that documentation that's referred to, because you have a good portion of it already, all of you. If you read it, you'll have an opportunity to be prepared.

You will note as well that I advised Mr. Whitehall that this is not a court, and I thanked him for his advice to us about how we'll conduct our business, but we will conduct our business as we will conduct our business. We have a different objective from a court of justice. We don't pretend to be that. We are parliamentarians.

I'm taking all of your interventions as an indication that we get both individuals here together at the earliest available date, and we'll take it from there.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have just one last thought. You mentioned earlier, Chair, your discussion with the AG about possibly having her deputy. There does come a point where if it's taking too long, we need to get practical about it. So I would hope that we would get dates that work for us and Ms. Ouimet first, and then put those to the Auditor General in the hope that she can attend one of your first round of short lists. But if that doesn't work, then hopefully somebody will look at whether the letter of that motion could be eight months from now, because it had to be the two principals, whereas if we could do it—assuming we were staying—within a few weeks with one and the deputy, I'd rather have it sooner than later, because that could be played against us too. “I can't make that” and “I can't make that”; by the time you bring in the AG's availability and our availability—it has to meet us too—we may be deliberately pushing this thing into foreverland. So a little flexibility....

If we nail down Ouimet, let's not let it go for lack of having the AG, when perhaps her deputy could make it, and that would make the hearing more timely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I just want to remind the committee that we do have the option of ordering them to come. If we want to go nuclear, we can go nuclear. That is always an option. It is not a preferred option, but it is a backup option.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We always have the government member to remind us they have the hammer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Mr. Saxton, thank you for raising that again. We've raised this in the past. I'm wondering whether you are prepared to move that if I don't, by the clerk, through our negotiations, get a date of compliance earlier rather than later, we just say “You're going to come at such and such a day, and if you don't, we're going to issue a subpoena.”

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Chair, I think it's premature to say that. I think we should try first our best efforts to get them here voluntarily.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

In other words, you want me to come back and tell you the best efforts failed before you're willing to go nuclear.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I want you to tell me the best efforts succeeded. That's what I want you to tell me. You have to have a positive attitude.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I want to see how nuclear you want to go, Mr. Saxton.

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

Chair, we have faith in your ability to suggest they be here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

All right.

I'm finished with the correspondence, unless somebody has any questions on the correspondence.

Mr. Shipley.

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

Mr. Chair, you said I didn't have a question, and I should be the one who withdraws it, not you.

My point is that we asked Madam Ouimet to come; we said, “You need to come”, and she finally did. We have the same authority with our agents to be forceful. I think obviously the letter of the 22nd from Madam Ouimet's lawyer will have her here. The Auditor General will show up. You don't need to subpoena her, but you do have to take the authority as chair to say “This is the committee's decision and we will set a date. If this doesn't work, tell us a date that will, so that Madam Ouimet will be here.” You have to take the leadership on it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

Well, I'm cognizant of the fact that the Auditor General's mandate ends in a couple of months, and I don't know where the next step in her career is going to take her. She may never become available again, in which case, then, Mr. Christopherson's suggestion about going to the deputy may be an operative one. We have tried to be as accommodating to Madame Ouimet as anybody could imagine, even though from the very earliest of meetings some members wanted to be very tough. So I'm going to take what you say, Mr. Shipley, as an indication that you want me to be as direct as anybody can possibly be—

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

As you usually are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

—and to insist. I don't know whether I have to have a motion to say that the chair has the authority to do that. We operate sometimes by consensus, so I thank you for that note of support.

Mr. D'Amours, you have a question.

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to make sure that you had finished your presentation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joe Volpe]

I have finished.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!