Evidence of meeting #51 for Public Accounts in the 40th Parliament, 3rd 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
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I can only interpret for you what was the general tenor of the discussion. The steering committee.... I mean, if you want, you can move that it be these and/or others, but that these appear after the others.
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Yes, okay. I can move that. That's a very simple way to....
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Okay. I move that these witnesses, should they appear before this committee, would appear after the witnesses--that's the Auditor General and the former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner--Mr. Christopher moved in his motion. These witnesses would be after those two witnesses.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty supporting this motion. I did not object to that of Mr. Christopherson. He wants us to invite both at the same time. I am not opposed to that.
However, Mr. Saxton's motion raises a problem. If we are not able to have them appear at the same time, or if one of the two parties refuses to appear at the same time as the other, it means that we do not get to see any of the others. We will never get a chance to hear from the others if one of the two parties, either Ms. Ouimet or the Auditor General, refuses. I doubt that the latter would refuse to appear before the committee, but we have no guarantee as to what Ms. Ouimet might do. This motion would mean that if one of those two witnesses refused to appear at the same time as the other, we would not be able to see anybody else in the future. I cannot accept such a motion.
If the intent, rather than providing flexibility, is to ensure that no one else can appear before the committee, I will vote against this. I will never support this.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Sorry, I was conferring with my staff during part of it, so if I'm off base, bring me back quickly.
It seems to me that the wording of the motion is the next available date. That would suggest, and Mr. D'Amours makes a good point, that we may actually skip over a couple of opportunities. Is it absolutely imperative that we hear them in that order only? I guess that is the question. I'm open to hearing the arguments for it. But I think Mr. D'Amours' point that this motion may block what would otherwise make sense....
We want to do something next Thursday, but we can't if somebody can't make it. The next thing we do is slot in important work as close to that subject matter as possible to get the file going. Through you, Chair, would the motion have the effect Mr. D'Amours is questioning, of negating our ability to call in those folks?
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Mr. Chair, I think everybody would agree that the main issue before the committee right now is the disagreement between the Auditor General and her report and the former Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. That's really the crux of the issue this committee is faced with. We have two agents of Parliament--one former agent of Parliament and one current agent of Parliament--who are basically at opposite ends of this argument. We're trying to get to the bottom of this matter. Obviously, the only way we can get to the bottom of this matter is to find out where they're coming from, basically, because they're at opposite ends of this argument.
So for us to move on to new witnesses before we have the opportunity to get to the crux of the matter, which is with these two witnesses, I think is premature. That's why I'm saying that it would be best for us to deal with the two witnesses who are at opposite ends of this argument first, before we move on to new witnesses, because they may resolve it. If we hear from both of those witnesses, we may be satisfied afterwards that we agree with X or we agree with Y, and we won't have to move on to new witnesses.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Chair, if I can, if I still have the floor, could I ask if there is anything that would preclude us putting in something that gives us a little bit of wiggle room? I'm just worried. Mr. D'Amours makes a very good point. If they don't come in, the two of them, and sit there, and we have that meeting, by supporting your motion, unless there's a new motion, we prevent ourselves, by rule, from bringing in anybody else. We may decide that we're having a problem, but for good reason, the next committee might want to do that in the next Parliament. So could we not leave a little wiggle room, rather than making it absolute today?
Conservative
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I, too, just want to second what Mr. D'Amours was saying, because we know the positions of the Integrity Commissioner and the Auditor General, regardless of the fact that they haven't had the opportunity to sit face to face and address one another before committee. We are familiar with their positions.
Ideally, we would like them to come sooner rather than later. In the absence of that, I think there are other relevant witnesses who are implicated in this who need to be brought forward to committee as well.
Getting an arrangement, as we've seen with Ms. Ouimet in the past, has been, at times, challenging, to put it politely. This potential date when the Auditor General and Ms. Ouimet come before the committee could be in weeks, if not in months. So until then, if we want relevant witnesses to help add more context to it, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think that's a reasonable request, and that's why I don't support the motion.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
I think we're “if”-ing. Why don't we deal with the reality we have and we'll put in an order to call these witnesses? If we can't get them for some particular reason, then at that point we'll make a decision on where we need to go. Why are we “if”-ing? Let's deal with the reality. We've asked the duality of witnesses to appear. If at some particular point it's a problem, they can't, they're delaying, or whatever, then we move on to other options. For us to be trying to amend, and here we go and there we go, why? We're at a moot point. Let's recognize the reality of where we are with this Parliament as well. There's no sense our belabouring this point right now.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Thank you, Mr. Kramp.
I know others want to speak on this.
You've hit the nail on the head. Let me read for you what the motion was so we don't misinterpret what we're talking about. The latter part of the motion, Mr. Christopherson, was that they be invited to appear at the next available meeting. It wasn't that they both must appear, which is perhaps what Mr. D'Amours interpreted your amendment to be. I'm sure that wasn't your intention.
I think Mr. Kramp is right. Our first obligation is to see if we can get them both here together. If they can't both be here together, we'll continue on our list. That's all. At least we've given an indication that we want them both here together. The word is “invite”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
Of course.
Can I now proceed in accepting this 19th report without the date? I'm sorry, we've already agreed. Thank you.
Now are you withdrawing your motion?
Conservative
Andrew Saxton Conservative North Vancouver, BC
Based on what was discussed and agreed, now I can withdraw my motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
So you're withdrawing it.
Thank you.
Just a minute, I will [Inaudible—Editor] the correspondence, since the issue has obviously been resolved.
This would probably be helpful with regard to what Mr. Kramp has suggested, and I'm happy that Mr. Saxton withdrew his motion. I want to draw the committee's attention to this. You have received in the last couple of days a communication. I'm not going to read it all because one of the pieces was privileged and confidential. It went to the clerk's office and immediately to every member's office. It came from Heenan Blaikie regarding the appearance of Madame Christiane Ouimet before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I won't read it. I want to respect the privileged and confidential nature of the request. It is in both official languages. You received that on March 11.
On March 18 you also received from the Auditor General a letter plus an appendix addressing some of the points raised by Mr. Whitehall in his letter, but essentially it refers to statements that had been placed before the committee during Madame Ouimet's testimony. All of you have that. It did not indicate that it was privileged and confidential, especially since it went not only to the clerk but it also went to Madame Ouimet. So Madame Ouimet has what all of us have. I am assuming that what Madame Ouimet has is also in the hands of her lawyer.
On March 22, referencing both letters, I sent a further letter of response to Mr. Whitehall. You will see that it was to him; it was not to the Auditor General.
I did speak to the Auditor General about appearing before the committee, in fact, because the Auditor General called the clerk. The Auditor General did not write that letter in response to our conversation.
Mr. Whitehall answered me that very afternoon of March 22, and you have a copy of that letter as well. Essentially, my letter just confirmed his willingness to appear with his client before this committee in the week of April 4, assuming of course that the House is sitting then, and if it is, then we will have Madame Ouimet. We don't know whether we will have the Auditor General. The only thing I can tell you about the Auditor General's conversation with me is that I asked, in the event that her schedule couldn't allow her to be here, whether she would be prepared to have her deputy speak on her behalf. I don't think I'm saying anything out of turn, and it's a paraphrase, but she felt it would be more appropriate for her to be present if that were going to take place.
There is at least some element of willingness. I'm very cautious about that because, as I read the letters—and I'm no different from any of you, and we can draw our own conclusions—that would be quite a feat to have them both here at the same time.
In fairness to both, Madame Ouimet, according to the letters you have before you, and her lawyer would probably have a very exhaustive presentation they'd like to make to the committee, and having somebody else here to juxtapose every position might seem like more of a debate than could be satisfied in the two hours we would accord, unless of course we were to make a decision that we would go well beyond the two hours.
On the part of the Auditor General, as all of you can see for yourselves with the appendix, I think the information that she would have would be copious, to say the least, and it perhaps might take more than a face confrontation with Madame Ouimet to exhaust. It would appear, as you will see from my last communication to Mr. Whitehall, that that information might already be in the hands of Madame Ouimet, but we don't know for sure.
Are there comments, colleagues?
Mr. Kramp.
Conservative
Daryl Kramp Conservative Prince Edward—Hastings, ON
Once again, there are a lot of “ifs”. However, if in the opinion of this committee there is copious information, as the chair has quoted, that we might want or need from either Madame Ouimet or the Auditor General, and the committee feels we should entertain either one of them to investigate more fully their responses and/or concerns, then I see no difficulty with having that meeting prior, to see if they can clear up any misunderstandings and/or difficulties they have with each other's testimony.
However, that hasn't been stated. I still believe it's imperative that we eventually have the two of them together. If we can dissolve this ambiguity prior to, with clarification that either one of them can provide, so be it. Maybe I'm prejudging it a bit to suggest that wouldn't happen, but at this particular point, if the committee feels it's worthy of investigating each position more fully, so be it.
I personally think that at some point, sooner rather than later, we're going to have to have both of them together, where one can't play off the other. I really think we need that clarification.
I don't want to move away from that position, so my only point would be if we need further clarification, with an additional meeting with either one of them prior to, if the committee feels that is worthy based on the information and letters we would get from either/or, so be it.
But I don't want to lose that original motion from Mr. Christopherson, to be able to bring both of them in at the same time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Joe Volpe
I'm not taking any of that discussion as an indication that we are now reversing the motion. I think we're still there.
Mr. Christopherson.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's definitely complicated. But it's not the first time we've dealt with complex issues with copious amounts of detailed background. Again, there are a few of us here who can point to a couple of files where we went...I think it was 15 meetings in the case of the RCMP pension issue.
I have to tell you, Chair, when things start to get too complex, my reaction is always to pull back and ask what the fundamental questions are—back to the simplest questions. At this stage I'm listening. I'll listen to good ideas.
My inclination is bring them in, do it the way we usually do it, give them the time we usually give them, and if we find it's not working, then at that moment we can start to grapple with how we want to do this. There are a lot of options we can look at.
But I would suggest that rather than trying to figure out ahead of time what the right tweaking to our process would be, my inclination is to do it the usual way, bring them in, and we'll make decisions about how we move forward as we need to.
I guess I'm very much in the corner of Mr. Kramp because I think I just said what he said, with different words.