PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 29, 2004

¹

1525

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC))

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.)

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Leduc (Counsel to Gilles-André Gosselin, As Individual)

¹

1530

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

¹

1535

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC)

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

¹

1540

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ)

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC)

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

¹

1550

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 037

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 29, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1525)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): Order, please.

    We're resuming from this morning. I don't need to read the orders of the day again, do I? No.

    What happened to Monsieur Leduc? I thought he was around here. We're a little early, actually. It's only 3:25.

    We've lost our witness here.

    Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Do you want me to be a witness for a few minutes, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: Dennis, we couldn't contain ourselves with you.

    We will suspend the meeting for a few minutes until we find our witness.

¹    

---

¹    

    The Chair: Order, please.

    Now, before we recommence with the witness, I understand that Mr. Pierre Leduc, the counsel for the witness, has a statement.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Leduc (Counsel to Gilles-André Gosselin, As Individual): There are two things I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, I've submitted to the Clerk's office the results of some research I did over the noon hour concerning the two corporations, specifically concerning Strategis, the incorporation process and the registration of these two firms in Quebec. This will give you an overview of the corporate names.

    Secondly, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my client, I request that owing to exceptional circumstances, you excuse him from having to testify any further before your committee.

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Leduc.

    There has been some discussion among all the parties, and it is agreed that we excuse the witness for this afternoon. The witness is excused, and you are excused. You may withdraw.

    We have a quorum. We're going to deal with two motions. Copies have been circulated.

    Ms. Jennings is first, and then we'll deal with Ms. Ablonczy's motion.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Further to Mr. Toews' comments, I've given the matter some thought in the 48 hours since giving notice of motion and I've decided to proceed with my motion. I think it's important to hear from the Clerk of the Privy Council on the question of the responsibility and accountability of deputy ministers. I also believe that we should hear from KPMG representatives in camera and that we should also hear from the other suggested witnesses on the dates and at the times mentioned in the motion. Therefore, I'd ask all committee members to support my motion.

    Regarding the AG, Mr. Chairman, I hadn't mentioned her in this motion for the simple reason that I had planned to include her in another motion I had drafted, one in which I planned to call her to testify on Wednesday, and Mr. Alfonso Gagliano and Mr. Quail on Thursday. Ultimately, I had to redraft the motion because of information I received that very same day, namely that the AG was scheduled to appear on Monday, May 3 from 11 a.m. to 1. p.m. I believe the committee had already agreed to that.

    My motion calls for Ms. Fraser to make a second appearance the very same week, that is on Thursday, May 6. I realize this would mean a minor scheduling problem, but I think the clerks can arrange it. The AG would then have had an opportunity to hear the Clerk of the Privy Council speak about the responsibility and accountability of deputy ministers and to hear the testimony of industry professionals, Mr. Quail and experts as well. I'd also like the benefit of her opinion on the matter.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

    In a previous motion we had agreed that the Auditor General would appear on Monday morning. That motion still stands.

    The new motion in front of you says Monday, May 3, 3:30 to 5:30, the Clerk of the Privy Council; Tuesday, 9 to 11, a steering committee meeting; 11 to 1, KPMG, in camera; 3:30 to 5:30, one representative of industry professionals; Wednesday, 3:30 to 5:30, Mr. Ran Quail; Thursday, 9 to 1, four experts, including Mr. Franks; and 3:30 to 5:30, the Auditor General. I did mention that the Auditor General has a conflict on Thursday, May 6, so we'll put her in the 9 to 11 slot.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: A point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. We have always been consistent in having as our witnesses people with specific knowledge of the period. I want to make sure that by the Clerk of the Privy Council, we mean Mr. Mel Cappe.

    The Chair: Are you talking about Mr. Mel Cappe or Mr. Himelfarb?

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'm talking about both gentlemen, that is Mel Capp, the Clerk of the Privy Council at the time of the Sponsorship Program, and Mr. Himelfarb, the present Clerk. I think Mr. Himelfarb will have some interesting views and advice to share with us on the lessons to be learned from this whole affair and on the traditional doctrine of ministerial responsibility. Various reforms are now being carried out and I'd like these two individuals to split the time we have available. We could put questions to both of them, which isn't such a bad idea.

¹  (1535)  

[English]

    The Chair: Do you want to bring Mr. Cappe back from London, to share time with Mr. Himelfarb?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: If Mr. Cappe is in London, I doubt that he would be able to be here on Monday. It would take a bit of time. In that case, I would suggest, in the interim, Mr. Himelfarb.

    The Chair: I just received three seconds ago, if I may read—

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Himelfarb is in Timbuktu?

    The Chair: No.

    This is a letter from the Canadian High Commission in London, addressed to Mr. LeBlanc, the co-clerk of the committee:

Dear Mr. Leblanc,

I have just received your letter of 21 April inviting me to appear before the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons.

I would be pleased to meet with the committee, but unfortunately have previous engagements in London the week of May 12th. I do, however, plan to be in Canada for business the following week, and would be pleased to come to Ottawa to testify on the 17th, 18th or 19th of May.

I hope this will allow the Committee to conduct its work expeditiously.

Yours sincerely,

Mel Cappe

High Commissioner

    I just got handed that as you were speaking.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Fine. Let's leave aside Mr. Mel Cappe. The committee can always decide what dates we want to bring him in.

    But definitely Mr. Himelfarb.... While he will not be able to answer about the role of the Privy Council during the sponsorship file because he was not the Clerk of the Privy Council then—and I wouldn't expect any questions to come from the committee members to him about that—he is certainly in a position, as the employer of deputy ministers.... He's the one who signs the contracts. He's the one who evaluates their performances and determines what pay scale they'll get, etc. So he should be in a position to give us his view of ministerial and deputy ministerial responsibility and accountability—what it is now and how this committee can perhaps make recommendations for changes to make it more effective for Canadians.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I have a list of Mr. Toews, Mr. Desrochers, and Madam Ablonczy.

    I would also like to recognize in the gallery some constituents, from my constituency of St. Albert, all the way from Alberta. We welcome you to the committee.

    Mr. Toews, Mr. Desrochers, and Madam Ablonczy.

    Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I think it would be appropriate to have your constituents here as witnesses, and they could tell us what they think of you!

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: They already told me off the record, Mr. Mills.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: And I have a smile on my face!

    Mr. Toews, Mr. Desrochers, and Madam Ablonczy.

¹  (1540)  

    Mr. Vic Toews: At the risk of repeating myself, I think it's important to make this point, Mr. Chair. We have hired a very capable firm, KPMG, to view all of the evidence and to provide us with a list showing how the evidence should unfold. Trying to determine the priority of witnesses while working in a committee is often unwieldy. We rely on this expert to provide us with that information. I haven't waded through all the information, and I'm certain that Ms. Jennings hasn't, either. She has certain priorities. I don't know on what basis she has prioritized these witnesses. I think that when the taxpayer pays the kind of money we're paying to KPMG, it's money well spent, but we should respect what these professionals tell us in terms of how the evidence should unfold. My concern is that we have a particular order of witnesses for particular purposes, but it has not been demonstrated that they should come out of the natural order.

    This motion mentions the Clerk of the Privy Council. We didn't even know who we were talking about until we had this discussion. Apparently it's Mr. Himelfarb, but previously I heard Mr. Cappe mentioned.

    On Tuesday we have scheduled one representative of industry professionals. What are we expecting our KPMG expert to do, go and figure out which expert he's going to choose? What if it doesn't correspond with the outline of the evidence that he has determined would be in the best interest of the unfolding of this story?

    Then it says May 6, four experts from the list, including C.E.S.Franks. On what priority has this been based?

    Those of us on this side of the table can only assume that there's a political agenda afoot here, as opposed to relying on the experts who are giving us advice on a non-partisan basis based on their review of the evidence. I'm certainly not satisfied that this is anything more than an attempt by the Liberals to hijack the agenda of this committee and prepare the way for an election. That's simply what it is.

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Chairman, following up on my colleague's remarks, I commented on this very same thing last time around. We retained the services of KPMG, a firm of highly qualified professionals. It drew up a list containing the names of between 50 and 60 individuals. I haven't had time to review the list, but at the very least, I would have liked to see the Liberal member' s motion call for the committee to consult this list.

    I see that according to our agenda, we're scheduled to discuss relations between this firm and the committee. However, I fail to understand why, at this stage of our proceedings, the only sign of cooperation we're getting from the Liberals is another list of potential witnesses. This, after having spent two days discussing the matter and after a KPMG representative spent over two hours explaining the specific work he was doing and how he was having some difficulty contacting certain witnesses. Let's be serious for a moment.

    This week, we've had some trouble filling our agenda because we've constantly had to play catch up, given the list of witnesses suggested last week by Mrs. Jennings. As it happened, no one on the list was available to testify this week. Mr. Chairman, it's the best way I know—and I'm speaking to our audience right now—of wasting money and of reinforcing people's belief that the committee is spinning its wheels. That's what motions like this accomplish.

    I for one think we should stick with the list drawn up by KPMG.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

    Madam Ablonczy.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Chairman, I have a great respect for my colleague Ms. Jennings, and she's aware of that, but I'm a little puzzled about why she would feel it necessary to intervene in the orderly calling of witnesses for the committee. Does she not have confidence in the clerks and the officials we have attached to the committee? Are we all now to start second-guessing what we should be doing and bringing forward motions to have certain witnesses on certain days? How's that going to work out, Mr. Chairman, if we all decide that we want to run the agendas, individual members? If Madam Jennings isn't doing this on her own behalf, if she's doing it at the behest of the Prime Minister's Office and the Liberal Party, what does that make this committee? This committee, then, is now being taken over by the Liberals for their own political purposes. Surely there has to be some order to the way a parliamentary committee is run.

    So there are only two scenarios I can see. Either Madam Jennings, on her own behalf, on her own initiative, has decided that the officials attached to this committee, many of whom, as Mr. Toews has said, are well-paid professionals, don't know what they're doing and she has to second-guess them, or this is something that she has been asked to do by her party for political purposes. Both of those reasons, Mr. Chairman, are completely untenable. I just think we should quit playing these kinds of games and get on with the agenda that has been set out, vote down this motion, and simply proceed as we have already decided to proceed, without all these interventions for personal or political reasons.

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I want to be on the record as saying I respect the professional capacity of KPMG, but I will never put my political judgment in a position where I am subservient to their final decision-making. I've never heard of anything so strange. All of us had a shocking experience earlier this week, and we moved on. When we have KPMG in camera on Tuesday, I'd really like to know not only who they're going to see, but what guidelines they're operating under. I think we need to review this, because I personally have some anxiety about the process as it's unfolding right now.

    The Chair: Madam Jennings, closing comment.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Merci.

    I want to thank my opposition colleagues for their comments. I'm sorry they feel compelled each time to ascribe partisan motives to my motions. Each member is entitled to an opinion as to the work the committee should be doing and the direction it should be taking. Subsequently, it's up to us to...

    Mr. Chairman, I don't interrupt my colleagues when they have the floor.

[English]

    The Chair: Order.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: One member of this committee, whom I will not bother naming because everyone here knows who I'm talking about, is unfailingly discourteous toward me.

    In conclusion, I'm not calling into question the quality of KPMG's work. I'm not calling into question the quality of the work done by our clerks either. However, as an MP, I see things a certain way, move motions accordingly and try to convince my colleagues to share my position. Sometimes they agree with me. Sometimes, they do not. End of discussion.

[English]

    The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Could we have a recorded vote, please?

    The Chair: A recorded vote. Okay.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 9: nays 6)

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: We now have Madam Ablonczy's motion that the public accounts committee request the invoices and post-mortems referred to by Mr. Claude Boulay in his testimony before this committee.

    Madam Ablonczy, speak to your motion.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: This motion, Mr. Chairman, is pretty simple. It's to bring documents before the committee that I think would be of assistance to us. They are documents referred to by Mr. Claude Boulay when he appeared before the committee. They are invoices and post-mortems he referred to with respect to sponsorship files handled by his company. I think they should be brought and we should have a look at them.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I have to question Ms. Ablonczy's motives, just as she questioned mine when I requested certain documents or asked to hear from specific witnesses. I don't understand why she wants to see the invoices and post-mortems to which Mr. Claude Boulay alluded in his testimony. Further to the latter's testimony, the government's audit team that examined 721 files, 126 of them more closely, clearly stated that the files of Groupe Everest were quite in order, that all the records and supporting documents were accounted for.

    That being the case, is the member calling into question not only the testimony of Mr. Boulay from Groupe Everest, but also the testimony of the Quick Response Team, that is Mr. Monette, Ms. Conway and Mr. McLaughlin? Do you doubt the expertise and integrity of the government's auditors?

[English]

    The Chair: Madam Jennings, you don't ask questions of the--

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Through the Chair, I'm asking if the member doubts their integrity. It's truly shameful.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I just wanted Ms. Ablonczy to be a little more specific. What is she really looking for?

    The Chair: I thought it was fairly simple. She does say she is looking for invoices and post-mortems referred to by Mr. Claude Boulay. Are you trying to find the intent behind that?

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: It could be that.

    The Chair: Madam Ablonczy, do you want to respond?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: The Auditor General and the quick response team found that in at least half the files, and sometimes more, these documents were missing. Mr. Boulay said they were all on the files, every single one of them. I think we're entitled to have that evidence to support the allegation brought before the committee.

    The Chair: There we are. We will call the question, with a recorded vote.

    (Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

    The Chair: The vote is unanimous.

    There being no further business before the committee, the meeting is adjourned.