CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, March 20, 2000

• 1542

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Colleagues, I'd like to begin the eighteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

There are a couple of things on the agenda today. One has to do with the question of privilege arising out of a news release that happened last week. The second part of our meeting is going to be in camera while we discuss our report on our refugee determination system and illegal migrants.

We're awaiting quorum for the purpose of passing any motions, but I think we can start the discussion.

I don't mind if the question of privilege is discussed in a public forum. I don't believe that necessarily should be in camera, so I won't move to in camera until such time as we've moved to the consideration of the report.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, maybe we can draw on your recollection or that of our clerk. It seems to me that there was an attempt by Mr. Benoit to move out of camera when we held a meeting over in La Promenade Building. Members may recall that he said he had a tape recorder and that if we didn't agree to move out of camera, he was going to tape-record the proceedings that were held in camera and then release the detailed conversations. I can't recall the outcome of that, other than I know that I and some others perhaps spoke in anger at the fact that he would issue such a childish threat to tape-record meetings, and I felt that was in fact in violation of our privileges as members of the committee. Did we at that time or at any other time to the best of your knowledge move the proceedings out of camera?

The Chair: No. I'm trying to remember the date of that specific meeting. I know that there was some discussion with Leon with regard to whether or not the consideration of the report should be done in public. As you know, at the meeting in La Promenade Building and before that on February 23 and 24, we were discussing some questions and summary papers that had been prepared by the researcher for our edification. Because that was consideration of a report, and the tradition of this House and of its committees is to move in camera, we had moved in camera for the purposes of that discussion paper.

• 1545

I don't believe Mr. Benoit was at the meetings of February 23 and 24. He appeared at the meeting of March 2, and he objected, as you can recall, to having these kinds of meetings held in camera. That's when he talked a little bit about making a motion that we go public. That motion was never put. He did, as you indicated, threaten to tape-record the proceedings of the committee as they related to consideration of the report, which have always been in camera.

The only thing I did say to him at that meeting of March 2 was that in the future, if he wanted to put a motion with regard to moving to a public meeting for the purposes of considering the report, we could consider that particular motion. As you know, that motion was never put.

The only motion this committee actually voted on last week was the one put by Mr. Benoit that in light of a draft release or some paper he had that the immigration department had produced a draft immigration bill, it was useless to continue our discussion with regard to the refugee determination system and illegal migrants because in his opinion that legislation had already been dealt with.

So that's my recollection of it. I know that when we started to discuss the draft report, it was in camera. It has always been in camera. We have never moved to a public meeting with regard to the consideration of that report.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: With due respect to your memory, which is similar to mine, I wonder if the clerk can corroborate that.

Is it your understanding that at no time did we move out of camera in dealing with this report?

The Clerk of the Committee: The only thing I can say is that we've had three meetings on the discussion paper. The first two were in camera. The third one was held in La Promenade Building, and the committee agreed to hold the meeting in public only for that day. It was agreed for the discussion paper, after we heard CSIS.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So we did move out of camera for discussion purposes that day.

The Clerk: For the discussion paper, yes.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: It has occurred to me that—

The Chair: It was the discussion paper, not the draft document we've been dealing with for the past two or three meetings.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I understand that the motivation is perhaps self-interest politically. But to try to understand why someone would in fact call a press conference and release the draft report, the only conclusion I could come to is that maybe Mr. Benoit felt that it was already public because we may have moved out of camera. I just wanted to verify that for the purposes of discussing the report, that did not happen.

Even if it did, in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice book, which was recently presented to us, it states:

Committee reports must be presented to the House before they can be released to the public. The majority of committee reports are discussed and adopted at in camera meetings.

That means that not all are, but the majority are. Then it goes on to say:

Even when a report is adopted in public session, the report itself is considered confidential until it has actually been presented in the House.

Clearly, what Mr. Benoit has done—certainly from my perspective, and as I think my colleague Mr. Martin has said—is more than just leak the document. He called a press conference, he distributed it, and he held discussions and question-and-answer sessions. As I understand it, he was asked about the words “confidential until tabled in the House” by some of the reporters who were present, at which time he gave a defence that I don't think is acceptable.

I would also point out that on November 28, 1997, Mr. Dick Harris, the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, a Reform member and a colleague of Mr. Benoit, rose in the House on a question of privilege with regard to a leaked report of the Standing Committee on Finance. He quoted Beauchesne, sixth edition, citation 877, which says:

No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House.

So one of his own colleagues was filing on a question of privilege.

• 1550

The ruling on this was by the acting speaker, Mr. McClelland—who, interestingly enough, is also a member of the Reform Party, but in any event I'm sure acted independently. Mr. McClelland felt that because there was not a specific person named, he could not rule on a matter of privilege. I think that's understandable. It was just a point of privilege that a committee report had somehow been leaked by persons unknown prior to it being presented to the House. But he did quote the exact section of Beauchesne's that would apply to this.

Mr. Chairman, I've gone through a number of the areas where a breach of privilege is alleged and what can be done. This committee, as you know, does not have the power to punish, or for that matter even to recommend punishment, although it would be my preference that Mr. Benoit not only be sanctioned but that he be removed from this committee. I certainly have no sense of confidence that I can trust him in any way whatsoever to maintain statements that are made by members here, in camera, in private, done for very legitimate reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we are, by definition, an extension of the House of Commons and we report to the other members of the House of Commons before we report to the public or the press. For that matter, before we even report to other colleagues, that report must go in to the House.

I personally think this is more than just a violation of our privileges. I was interested to note that in one of the media reports, Mr. Benoit cited the reason for giving this press conference, and I'll quote. He says: “What a sick charade this has been. Where's the respect for the democratic process?” A rather interesting remark from someone who is openly violating the democratic process, the rules of procedure in this place as set out in any of the procedural documents that one wants to research.

I would move that this report be adopted. Since we cannot give recommendations—or maybe we can; I think there's some interpretation as to whether or not we can give recommendations. If we can, my recommendation before the committee would be that he be censured by the Speaker, if that's the proper word, and that Mr. Benoit be removed from sitting on this committee and the Reform Party be asked to name a replacement in his stead. I give you that motion.

The Chair: I think the motion, if you go to your agenda, would have to be...

Perhaps at this point in time, so that all members have it...

I know that some of what you've said about what possible sanctions may be imposed... I don't think it would be proper for the House or for this committee to be judge and jury. I think it's incumbent upon us, if we feel that such a breach of privilege has occurred, to report the breach, as I did 15 minutes after the actual press conference occurred on the Wednesday. I appeared before the House of Commons, having given notice to the Speaker that such a breach of privilege had occurred. As the Speaker then said, he would consider all matters, including a rebuttal from the member from Lakeland.

What I think we ought to do, if you all believe what Mr. Mahoney and some others have indicated, is report this to the House. Then I suggest, Mr. Mahoney, that you move the motion that we've drafted, which is number 3.

• 1555

Perhaps I should let you see our report to the House first and then look to...

As you can see, the report essentially states the facts as we know them without in fact asking the Speaker at this point in time to do anything but review the matter and then act accordingly.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I suppose that would be acceptable. It would certainly be my wish that the action taken by the Speaker—and I may indeed say this if given an opportunity when the question of privilege is considered by the Speaker. It would be my wish that he be censured by the House of Commons for this activity and that he be removed from the committee. But rather than include that in the motion, which may cause some concern for other members, because the ruling by the Speaker in previous... Our House of Commons Procedure and Practice recommends that committees tread very carefully in these areas. While we certainly have the power to recommend actions to the Speaker—that's clear in the book as well—perhaps just giving the Speaker that kind of latitude and speaking to it at the time the privilege issue is debated in the House would be more appropriate.

So I'll move the motion as it is before us.

The Chair: Could you just hold it for a moment?

Pat, did you have something?

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Can I speak to the motion, or do you need a seconder first? How does the procedure work?

The Chair: No, we don't need a seconder. You can speak to the whole question, the privilege and/or the report I've tabled before you, and the motion that has been moved by Mr. Mahoney. Go ahead.

Mr. Pat Martin: I just feel that it is even more of an issue than breaking the rules of this committee or the parliamentary law. If there is going to be any kind of recommendation for sanctions of any kind, we should use as one of the arguments that this is actually a more serious breach than even the most recent example that was cited by Steve. Maybe when there was a leak about the finance committee's operations, that would have been an inconvenience for them and it would be an undesirable thing for the country. But the nature of the work we're doing on this committee is so delicate and sensitive in terms of the whole issue surrounding illegal migrants, which has been so charged and emotional around the country, that you're actually toying with social unrest; you're actually toying with promoting hatred when somebody like this takes the irresponsible step of disregarding the workings of the committee.

I would just point out that the nature of the work we're doing makes the violation that took place here that much more serious and of national interest. I think we could use that as one of our arguments to the Speaker, whether it fits into the motion or whether it has to come as one of the arguments when it comes up as a point of privilege in the House... I would emphasize that we certainly take this issue, in my party at least, more seriously than other examples of its type, given the nature of the work this committee is dealing with.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Bigras, do you have any comments?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): I will be brief. Clearly, what Mr. Benoit did was serious, and at the very least, we have an obligation to inform the House. However, I think we must be cautious, to avoid putting ourselves above the House. We are a committee, of course, and we must acknowledge that there is an authority above us—the House. If we were to ask for sanctions that go as far as Mr. Benoit's removal from the committee, we would be going too far, and we would be dictating to the Speaker or to the House a way of proceeding that might establish a precedent.

• 1600

It is our responsibility to inform the House of the incident and to ask it to rule on Mr. Benoit's action, which we find unacceptable. I think it is better to leave it up to the Speaker and the House to make a decision.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[English]

Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you.

I feel Mr. Benoit not only broke his privilege as an MP but he also broke the trust of his colleagues on this committee. I really think it is a very serious matter.

I support Steve's suggestion. I think we have to have a severe sanction. It has nothing to do with his political party. It's on principle, our duty, how we discharge our duty as MPs.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. John McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): I take the facts of Mr. Benoit's release of the report as that, factual. Then the question is, what is it we're asking the Speaker to do?

I think Mr. Bigras has hit the nail on the head. We need to ask the Speaker to either find that Mr. Benoit has breached the rules of the House, or he has impinged on our privileges as members, or he is in contempt of House procedures. If the Speaker makes one of those findings, I think it is within the purview of the Speaker as to how the sanction is addressed rather than of this committee. Much as I might think that an appropriate sanction is to have Mr. Benoit removed from the committee or that censure is an appropriate response by the Speaker, I don't think it is within our purview to ask for those specific kinds of sanctions.

So I think Mr. Bigras is actually right on this issue, that we should ask the Speaker to rule on whether there has been a breach of privilege. We should ask the Speaker to rule on whether there's possibly been contempt of Parliament. But I'm much more hesitant with respect to the actual imposition of the kinds of sanctions we had asked for.

The Chair: Thank you.

I think it might be appropriate—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On a point of clarification, I withdrew any suggestion on recommending action by the Speaker and I have simply moved the report. I agree with that. As angry as I am about it, I think it does go too far from the committee, and I thought I made that clear. So I'm not suggesting we actually do that.

The Chair: Some of these points might in fact be part of the debate of privilege. We might want to read the first report. We have it before us. Let's do it so that anybody will understand and know how balanced... I think both Bernard and Pat and everyone has indicated either that they're outraged... but I think we can't be judge and jury here. That's why the draft report is written in such a fashion as to allow the House to determine, after it hears all the facts, what to do. Perhaps I could read it. It says:

On Thursday March 16, 2000, at 3:30 p.m., the Member for Lakeland, Alberta, Mr. Leon Benoit, held a Press Conference and released a draft Report to the House entitled “Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance”, before it had been finalized, adopted and tabled in the House.

The Members of the Committee considered the matter on March 20, 2000 and felt that their privileges had been breached and that the In camera process had been jeopardized because of the disclosure by the Member for Lakeland, Alberta.

As a result of the action of the Honourable Member for Lakeland, Alberta, the Committee adopted a motion to report this matter to the House.

Your Committee feels it is their duty to place these matters before you at this time since privilege may be involved and to give the House an opportunity to reflect on these matters.

• 1605

I think that's essentially what everybody has said.

I have Mr. Telegdi and Ms. Augustine, and then I think we should move to a vote.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): The point I was going to raise, Mr. Chairman, is just to make sure Mr. Benoit was notified of this meeting. He's aware of it?

The Clerk: A notice was sent to everybody.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Anders was outside waiting to come in and I said “Why don't you come in, Rob?” He said he was awaiting instructions from Mr. Benoit. I just wanted to have that on the record.

The Chair: Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Most of what I intended to say when I signalled was said by your reading the report. I think the report and the recommendation to the Speaker... that the Speaker rule in whatever fashion, taking into due consideration what we've put before him.

I also want to make a side comment, and that is the fact that when a member sits around a table where we are discussing things that are sensitive to us, things that are very personal to the communities we serve, and says “I have a tape recorder here”, I don't feel as a member that I can sit around this table and say what I would really want to say knowing it is taped. It's being taped by a member when we're supposed to be in an in camera session. I think just the mere fact of that tape recorder sitting in front of him, in my full view throughout the entire meeting on that particular day... that was not really a comfortable feeling. It could be called intimidation.

The Chair: I think we so debated that and made that known to him.

There are certain aspects of the March—

Ms. Jean Augustine: He didn't remove it, though. It remained on the desk.

The Chair: I don't know whether or not it was on, but there are certain aspects of the March 2 meeting that, after we move this motion and table the report, I need some correction on, just so we have that understanding. One of them happens to be with regard to that tape recording.

It's been moved by Mr. Mahoney that the committee report to the House of Commons the unparliamentary action of the member from Lakeland, Alberta, Mr. Leon Benoit, who held a press conference on March 16, 2000, and released a draft report entitled “Refugee Protection and Border Security: Striking a Balance” before it had been finalized, adopted, and tabled in the House.

Are there any objections to that motion? No objections. Can we move the first report to the House of Commons?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So moved.

The Chair: Shall I report it to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Just so we can put this matter to rest and then go on to the consideration of our draft report, which by the way, thanks to all of your hard work, has been amended in a very substantial way—it's unfortunate that Mr. Benoit has given to the public something that in fact has been changed drastically enough as of today and with the good discussions we had in the previous two meetings.

There is one aspect with regard to the March 2 meeting that needs to be corrected. We did a lot of work that day, as you know, because we had CSIS, Mr. Elcock, here, and that was at the point where we had this whole discussion of whether something was going to happen in public or in camera, and Mr. Benoit had the tape recorder on.

I've asked the clerk to prepare the minutes of that proceeding, and there is a part of these minutes that is unclear and I think needs to be corrected. I'm going to read it. It was meeting number 15, Thursday, March 2:

• 1610

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration met at 9:09 a.m. this day in Room 705, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Joe Fontana, presiding.

Members of the Committee present: Rob Anders, Jean Augustine, Leon Benoit, Bernard Bigras, John Bryden, Joe Fontana, Sophia Leung, Rick Limoges, Steve Mahoney, David Price and Andrew Telegdi.

Acting Members present: Gary Lunn for Grant McNally.

The researchers were present, and the witness was Mr. Elcock, director of CSIS.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee resumed its study on all aspects of the Refugee Determination System and Illegal Migrants. (See Minutes of Proceedings of Wednesday, November 3, 1999, Meeting No. 2)

Ward P. Elcock made a statement and answered questions.

It was agreed, - That the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration be requested to appear before the Committee after March 30, 2000, when the Reports on Plans and Priorities are tabled in the House, but not later than May 31, 2000, to address the Estimates for the fiscal year of 2000-2001.

It was agreed, - That the Chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board be requested to appear before the Committee after March 30, 2000, when the Reports on Plans and Priorities are tabled in the House, but not later than May 31, 2000, to address the Estimates...

Those were two procedural matters.

Then it said:

The Committee resumed consideration of its draft report to the House relating to its study on all aspects of the Refugee Determination System and Illegal Migrants.

It was agreed, - That the Draft Report be considered in Public.

I think that is wrong, because we never did have a motion to go in public. We were always in camera after Mr. Elcock had vacated the room. The report indicates that the draft report be in public, yet there was never any motion to that effect.

You will note that Mr. Benoit had said he was going to move a notice of motion, which he never did. As you know, he talked about a motion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is the motion coming forward?

The Chair: I just want to quote what Mr. Benoit said with regard to “What does the government say about you releasing this report in contempt of Parliament, I would presume?” When he was asked by the news media, he said:

Well, that's an interesting point, and I'm glad you brought it up, Ann, because in the committee meeting on March 2, which was the last committee meeting before the break—it's in the minutes, and you have a copy of the minutes attached there—it said that it was agreed that the draft report is to be considered in public. We also agreed that the committee... We went through a whole process...

Anyway, he tries to say in his news conference that that particular meeting of March 2 was held in public. As you remember, he put forward a motion that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration hold a vote prior to holding any in camera meetings, provided that 24 hours' notice be given, and clearly outlining the reasons for holding it in camera.

I just want to tell you that that motion was never tabled nor put by Mr. Benoit, but in his news release and in his news conference he indicated that we had moved in public at that point in time. So I need to have that clarified as it relates to the minutes.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the problem here... First of all, the rules clearly state that a committee report is considered confidential, whether it's been dealt with in camera or in public, and particularly a report that's not completed yet.

I found it interesting that one of the questions that was reported to me had to do with the substance of the report. At the meeting Mr. Benoit said that the recommendations were all “mushy”, because all they said is the government should do this and should do that. Members who were here at the last meeting will remember that I in fact put a motion, an amendment that we delete the word “should” from all recommendations and that we toughen it up and say “the committee recommends that”. And that's exactly what we have here. Margaret has rewritten it.

So he has said a number of things about the report that was released, and he was releasing it. It's still confidential. It belongs to this committee and the members of this committee, and it must go into the House before it can be released in any kind of public forum. It was a draft report; it was incomplete.

• 1615

The reason I mention this, Mr. Chairman, is I kind of want you to listen to this part of it. I think we fundamentally gave an impression when Mr. Benoit was holding up this tape recorder. I can remember a number of members of the committee saying—and with respect, Mr. Chairman, I think even you said—we don't really mind, it's no big deal; let's just get on with writing the report. I think we gave an impression that we weren't concerned about the issue being public or being held in camera.

In fact, as you have rightly pointed out, we are an extension of and we report to the House of Commons. I think you made remarks that not all members of the House of Commons can sit on every committee, and therefore the committee needs to report and present it to the House.

I think the reason the minutes reflect what they do is because we didn't perhaps take this as seriously as we should have. We sort of fluffed it off and said “no big deal; get rid of your tape recorder and let's get on with the business”.

So I don't know how... I think the clerk has to advise us if the minutes are accurate. If they're not accurate, then they should be corrected, in my opinion, administratively, not retroactively by some member of the committee changing them. They should be changed by the clerk.

The Chair: I agree.

There are two things I just wanted to point out. One is that it says that the draft report be considered in public, and that's not what we were talking about at all that day, because we never had a draft report. We were talking about a discussion paper the researcher had provided us. Remember, there were two or three pieces of paper with all kinds of questions. That wasn't the draft report. So if anything, a clarification is that it wasn't the draft report we were discussing.

As to whether there was confusion as to whether it was public or in camera, I can only tell you that the motion by Mr. Benoit was never put. The minutes reflect that a motion was never put by Mr. Benoit to go in public to discuss even the discussion paper, let alone whatever. You will remember that this occurred.

Mr. Bigras made some comments with regard to going public, as did you, and a number of other people were rather uncomfortable that any discussion with regard to in camera or confidential matters be put.

I'm at your disposal. I would like to correct the record.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But my point is that it's not up to the committee to correct the record.

The Chair: Well, it's a public record now, this meeting, and it is wrong, in my opinion. Therefore, I wanted it corrected.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The clerk should correct it.

The Chair: Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It's pretty fundamental. We approve the minutes as to whether they correctly reflect or do not reflect. That's done by the committee. If it's improperly reported, we have to correct it.

I do recall very clearly that we were talking about the report. It's important we don't confuse it with what was compiled by our researchers as to what the witnesses said. That was the report we were talking about. That's the only report we were talking about. We were never talking about the draft report.

The Clerk: When we started going through the discussion paper that Margaret Young had prepared for the committee, I used the term “draft report to the House”. That was used because it was towards preparing a draft report.

Now, at this meeting when CSIS appeared it was an open meeting. That was on March 2. After the testimony of CSIS, the question was raised by Mr. Benoit, I think, that the meeting should continue in public. There was a consensus, and the chair also agreed. That's what it shows in the evidence.

The Chair: For the record, though, we want to correct it. It wasn't the draft report; it would be the discussion paper.

The Clerk: Then maybe the committee could agree to make this correction—that the discussion paper, draft report, be considered in public—because that's what the evidence shows.

The Chair: The draft report is this thing—that is the draft report. The discussion paper was a five-page discussion, in point form; so it wasn't the draft report.

• 1620

I think it's important to clarify that what we were dealing with on March 2 wasn't the draft report. It was the five-page discussion paper, which had a whole bunch of questions. If everybody's in agreement that's actually what was done on March 2, that it wasn't the draft report but it was the discussion paper, I would ask for a motion to replace the words “draft report” with “discussion paper”. Are there any objections to that?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm not comfortable with it. I think what has happened here is that Mr. Benoit had what you have in your hands, and he handed that out to the media at his press conference as his justification for releasing this report. It was called a draft report. It says in the minutes that it would be discussed publicly, and he went and handed it out at a press conference.

I understand exactly what you're saying, that it wasn't the draft report we were dealing with. It was the discussions that would lead us to a draft report. But it was called a draft report. Now what we're talking about is after the fact going back and amending the minutes. I suppose we have the right to do that, but I think we look foolish.

The Chair: Give me a moment while I look at that piece of paper.

Order, please. Colleagues, for your information, this is the document we had on March 2 and also at two previous meetings. It says “A Study on All Aspects of the Refugee Determination Status System”, prepared for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. At no time does it say that it is a draft report or so on. It talks about options for a report, which is a discussion paper for instructions to the researcher with regard to the production of a draft report.

I want the record clarified. It is wrong to say that on March 2 we were considering the draft report, because there was no such draft report. It was a five-page document, and it talks about options for a report, which are instructions to the researcher, or a discussion paper. So I want to clarify the record. I don't want to manipulate the record, but I want to make sure the record is absolutely clear that we were not considering a draft report at that particular point.

Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: If you check the transcript, one of things that's going to be there is that Mr. Benoit argued that the reason this should be in public was because it was not a draft report. He argued that specifically. He said this was a—

The Chair: He did argue that point. We got copies of the minutes, and he does say that when we get to the draft report, he thinks we should discuss that in camera. He felt that because this was a discussion paper, that should be dealt with in public. We never did get to his motion. But the record says that we, as the clerk has said, had moved from Mr. Elcock and continued the discussion in public. But it was the discussion paper and the options paper, not the draft report.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: There was no confusion in Mr. Benoit's mind about that. He was very specific in pointing that out, and he was indeed correct, because what we were discussing were the points that had been made by witnesses who appeared before us.

The Chair: We'll take that as a motion, Andrew, that you would correct the minutes of March 2 so that it would read that it was agreed that the discussion paper, the option paper, the options for a report, would be considered in public that day.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

• 1625

The Chair: We now move to the second part of our meeting, which is further consideration—in camera, by the way—of our draft report. So all those who shouldn't be here, with my kind invitation, should leave.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]