PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

¹

1530

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance))

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

¹

1535

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

¹

1540

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

¹

1545

Mr. Robert Bertrand

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Clerk of the Committee

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Clerk

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Clerk

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Clerk

Ms. Beth Phinney

¹

1550

The Clerk

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Clerk

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Clerk

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

¹

1555

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

º

1600

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

º

1610

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

º

1615

Ms. Beth Phinney

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 002

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1530)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): Good afternoon, everybody. We have a quorum, and this is the continuation of the organizational meeting. You may recall that we had the election of the chair and the vice-chair at the last meeting, and now we're going to move on to the routine proceedings, which the clerk advises me have been distributed.

    The first one is the establishment of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which is a steering committee. The proposal, which is a standard proposal, has been that the chair, the two vice-chairs, an additional Liberal member, and representatives of the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party do compose a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

    Is that moved?

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): May I make a suggestion?

    The Chair: Well, no; we have to have a mover first.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Can I make an amendment?

    The Chair: We have to get the motion on the floor if you want to debate it.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): I'll move it.

    The Chair: It's moved by Mr. Murphy.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I would like to amend it, Mr. Chair, to read that there be a representative of the Canadian Alliance, seeing as how the two vice-chairs are already Liberal.

    The Chair: I'm there.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Yes, I know, but I'm saying the Liberals have three people, the official opposition has one, the Bloc has one, the Conservatives have one, and the New Democrats have one. That doesn't acknowledge that the official opposition is considerably larger, and I think there should be two. We're still outnumbered.

    The Chair: We have an amendment by Ms. Meredith that there be two members of the Canadian Alliance. Is that what you're saying, two members of the Canadian Alliance?

    Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): There are two vice-chairs; that's two people.

    The Chair: Yes, but the two vice-chairs are two Liberals. If I understand Ms. Meredith's point, there will now be the chair, two vice-chairs, an additional Liberal member, a Canadian Alliance member, and a representative of each of the Bloc, NDP, and PC.

    Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Normally we have seven people on that committee?

    The Chair: That's correct.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: In order to stay with seven people, which party are we knocking off, the New Democrat or the Conservative or the Bloc?

    The Chair: She didn't propose that anybody be knocked off.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm just asking. If you're adding one more person on, you won't have seven; you'll have eight. So who are we knocking off from the other parties?

    The Chair: Either that or we put another Liberal on. It's entirely up to the committee.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: But if there are seven people and you add another one on, that makes eight.

    An hon. member: But they don't have to have seven all the time.

    An hon. member: Is that against the law?

    The Chair: We'll have the remarks through the chair, please.

    The point in response to Ms. Phinney's point is that there may be a proposal to have two additional Liberal members to offset one more from this side. I don't know; I'm at the committee's disposal. We've gone with seven before. There is a proposal that we go up to eight. There's an amendment that we go up to eight. If we're going to run by proper procedure, we'd have to vote on the amendment. We either like it or we don't.

    Ms. Meredith.

¹  (1535)  

    Ms. Val Meredith: Speaking to the amendment, the worst that can happen is that you have a draw.

    The Chair: We have a draw, and remember--

    Ms. Val Meredith: And there's nobody to put the deciding vote in. If it can't carry the weight of the steering committee.... I mean, a steering committee doesn't make decisions. It merely advances an agenda to the main committee.

    The Chair: Right. The steering committee operates by consensus; it does not have the authority to adopt or approve anything. All it can do is report to the main committee.

    Are we ready for the question on the amendment that there be an additional member of the Canadian Alliance?

    (Amendment negatived)

    The Chair: The motion is that we have a subcommittee consisting of seven members, as written on the proposal.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): You didn't waste any time, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the Library of Parliament. I think it would also have been a good idea to add information staff. But the problem with this committee is that often...

[English]

    The Chair: We're going to get there in a second.

    Now we're going to move to the Library of Parliament and the research officers.

    Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: That's right, we still haven't reached that part yet, but I still want to say that the Public Accounts Committee does not have enough staff to do its job. I just wanted to slide that in.

    However, I will make the request for more information staff a little later, so that the public understands what the Public Accounts Committee is all about.

    Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Desrochers.

    The motion is, at this point in time as presented to the committee at large, that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers of the Library of Parliament as needed to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the chair.

    Mr. Desrochers did advise me of some items that he wanted to raise, which he said he would discuss later, and I presume he would want that sent over to the steering committee.

    Am I correct? Or do you want to raise it at this meeting, Mr. Desrochers?

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: No. I simply wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the issue you raised is also a concern I share and which I mentioned in the notice of motion I sent you. Of course, I would like to discuss the matter today.

[English]

    The Chair: Very good.

    So the motion at the moment is the one as presented. Do we have a mover? Moved by Mr. Finlay.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next point is hearing evidence and publication of the same when a quorum is not present. The motion is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least five members are present, including three government members and two members of the opposition.

    Moved by Ms. Phinney.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The reduced quorum. The motion is that in the absence of a reduced quorum of five members the chair be authorized to call the meeting to order to hear evidence no sooner than 15 minutes after the time indicated on the notice, provided that three members are present.

    Moved by Mr. Shepherd.

    Debate? Ms. Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith: How can you have a motion that says you can't hear witnesses unless you have five members, three government members and two opposition members, and now you are saying you can have any three members present?

¹  (1540)  

    The Chair: The way we have dealt with it in the past is that if the meeting was called to order at 3:30 and there were only five members present, being three from the government and two from the opposition, we could start the meeting at 3:30. However, at 3:45, in the absence of five, we have been able to go ahead with three and retain and continue our business. So if a number of members leave and we are reduced to that, we can continue on to hear evidence.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Can I then make an amendment that at least one member of the opposition must be present to even hear witnesses in a reduced quorum? Because the whole point is that the government cannot, to the exclusion of opposition, proceed with the meeting. I think that thought should be carried over into this other motion.

    The Chair: Provided that--

    Ms. Val Meredith: Provided that of the three members present one of them is an opposition member.

    The Chair: I guess we should put in “provided at least one member from the opposition and one member from the government side” to ensure that neither side takes advantage of the other.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Do you become the third member then?

    The Chair: I may not be in the chair. Under these circumstances, I don't have to be in the chair. It could be a vice-chair from the government side in the chair and--

    Ms. Val Meredith: But you're basically saying that with two people you can hear witnesses?

    The Chair: No, with three members present, myself and two more, we can continue to hear.

    Ms. Val Meredith: That's what I'm saying.

    The Chair: That is correct.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Provided that three members are present, one being a member of the opposition. That's what she wants.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: My motion was going to be that at least one of these three must be of the government.

    The Chair: I think that's fair that at least one be from the opposition and at least one from the government.

    Mr. Bertrand.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): If I memory serves me well, the reason we adopted this motion in previous years is because sometimes witnesses came from very far away. We spent a lot of money on their expenses, but as it turned out, sometimes we did not have a quorum and could not hold the meeting. Given the current wording, I don't think the presence of one or two members from either side are enough to make decisions. I think the point is simply to have enough MPs to hear from witnesses who have travelled a long distance to get here. That is why we adopted this motion.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Shepherd.

    Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): I guess I don't understand the issue, in the sense that the evidence is recorded in Hansard. It's available to all the members whether they're here or not, so I don't really understand the purpose of demanding.... I suppose the bottom line is the opposition wants to make sure it's not wasting the government's money, or that it would show up.

    The Chair: Ms. Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I think it is a sad day when a parliamentary committee cannot get enough people to listen to a witness. If somebody comes from a long way away, and there are three people sitting here out of a committee of...how many? Does this ever happen? I would hope not.

    An hon. member: Oh yes, it does.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Then I think there's an onus on all of us to make a commitment to be here when we call in witnesses. I can't believe you'd have three people listening to somebody who comes from wherever they come from, or that it's meaningful for them to have taken time out of their work and have gone to the expense of coming to the committee to have three people listen to them. That's a shame.

    The Chair: Ms. Meredith, the rule was introduced about two or three years ago just to address the situation that the committee could not get started.

    So let's get back to the motion. We have an amendment by Ms. Meredith adding “provided at least one member is from the opposition” and by Mr. Finlay saying “and one member from the government side”. So with these two amendments, are we prepared to proceed?

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: On a point of order, we're voting on the amendments.

    The Chair: I guess I did combine the two amendments together.

    Are we agreed that we can combine the two amendments together?

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: We can combine the two amendments, but we vote on the amendment, then on the main motion.

    The Chair: Okay, let's vote on the amendment--and they're combined together--that there be at least one member from the opposition and one member from the government side.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: So the motion as amended is that there be a reduced quorum of three when at least one member is from the government and one from the opposition.

    (Motion as amended agreed to)

    The Chair: Okay, the next one is on allocation of time for questioning: that the witnesses be given five minutes to make their opening statement, and if they have additional information it should be deposited with the clerk of the committee; and that during the questioning of the witnesses there be allocated eight minutes for the first questioner of each party, and thereafter four minutes must be allocated to each subsequent questioner, at the discretion of the chair.

    It is moved by Mr. Mayfield.

    On debate, Monsieur Bertrand.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: Is this what we had before?

    The Chair: It's exactly as before.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: On witness expenses, we have a motion that, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the committee, up to a maximum of two representatives for any organization.

    It is moved by Ms. Meredith.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Concerning working lunches and dinners, the motion is that the committee authorize the chair from time to time as the need arises to take, in conjunction with the clerk of the committee, the appropriate measures to provide lunches for the committee and its subcommittees for working purposes, and that the cost of these lunches or dinners be charged to the budget of the committee.

    It is moved by Mr. Finlay.

    On debate, Monsieur Bertrand.

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: Let it be charged to the clerk.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: We'll take that under editorial advisement.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: On distribution of documents, the motion is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only after they have been translated and made available in both official languages.

    It is moved by Monsieur Bertrand and Monsieur Desrochers.

    On debate, Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay: What happens in a situation where someone comes from some distance, and they've probably been told we'd like it in both official languages, but maybe they're not able to produce it? But it's their special date, so they're going to talk to us. Can we just go a little easy on that rule?

    The Chair: No, we can't go easy on the rule, because we're talking here about documents deposited with the clerk for distribution. The clerk will have them translated and distributed.

    If a person wants to bring some documentation to the committee and reads it into the record in one language, of course that is perfectly legitimate.

    Mr. John Finlay: It's just the distribution of documents.

    The Chair: Distribution of documents.

    Are we all agreed? Is there any further debate?

    Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm just wondering what notification witnesses are given that it must be in two languages.

    The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Chairman, the witnesses are always informed that if they're to submit anything, it would be preferable if they could do it in two languages. If it's not possible, then they get it to us as quickly as possible, and we'll make the arrangements.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: After you say that first statement, do you then say that if you cannot arrange for it yourself, send it to us so many days ahead of time, so we have time to get it translated?

    The Clerk: Generally. But normally, as you know, on this committee we're dealing with witnesses from the government, and that's taken for granted that they will submit anything in both official languages.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Well, I think we have had people come here and they did not bring it--

    The Clerk: It has happened on occasion, but they are told.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Is there a form that goes out from the clerk's office that says very clearly you must have it in two languages, and if you cannot do it yourself, send it to us to arrive here by so many days ahead of time, so that we have the two or three days--whatever you need--to get it translated?

    The Clerk: We have a form similar to what you describe. Normally we send those to private sector witnesses who come. It contains a great deal of other information too. But normally in our dealings with the departments and agencies of government, it's understood. And nine times out of ten--

    Ms. Beth Phinney: When you say you normally send them, is anybody who comes here who is not a member of the government...? Is everybody sent this letter? That's what I want to know.

¹  (1550)  

    The Clerk: That would be part of the confirmation of their hearing or appearance before the committee. It would talk about documents. It would talk about all sorts of things, including witnesses' expenses. There is a form that goes to witnesses.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: And it says they are to send it here so many days ahead of time so that it can be translated. Does it say that in the letter to everybody?

    The Clerk: It doesn't say that on the form, no. But--

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Should it be included on the form? We can't expect people who are coming to know that it has to be here three or four days ahead of time unless they get notice of that. Couldn't that be included in the letter? That's all I'm trying to get at.

    The Clerk: Yes, it could be. Yes, sure.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: It seems logical that if it's the rule of the House of Commons and we're saying it has to be in two languages, let's tell the people.

    The Chair: Well, I think the clerk is now aware of the wishes of the committee. If we are inviting a witness other than a member of the federal government, he takes it under advisement to make sure they are aware that they either have it available in both languages, or if they don't have that capacity, if they send it to us several days ahead of time, we will make that arrangement on their behalf.

    Is there any further debate?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Who was that moved by?

    The Clerk: Mr. Bertrand.

    The Chair: Okay, ladies and gentlemen, that brings us to the end of the routine motions.

    Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: The motion I think the clerk has in both official languages.

    The Chair: This one here in notice for new business.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, 48-hour notice.

    The Chair: All right. I have a motion here the clerk is distributing.

    Ms. Phinney, if you can read it into the record, please....

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I just want to make sure it's the same one: that unless there is unanimous consent, 48 hours notice must be given to the members of the committee before any new item of business is considered by the committee.

    C'est aussi en français.

    The Chair: It's just coming around. I'll wait until it's fully distributed.

    It is moved by Ms. Phinney that unless there is unanimous consent, 48 hours notice must be given to the members of the committee before any new item of business is considered by the committee.

    Debate? Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I'd like a clarification. Ms. Phinney, does your amendment pertain to regular meetings? Or also steering committee meetings? That should be clarified. Your amendment contains a reference to unanimous agreement and a 48-hour notice for committee members. But we have two committees: the steering committee and the committee which hears from witnesses. Would the 48-hour notice apply to both?

[English]

    Ms. Beth Phinney: No, I would just be thinking of the regular meeting.

    The Chair: Yes, and I think Ms. Phinney is saying that it cannot come to a vote of the full committee until 48 hours notice has been given. I think that is what we mean by consideration by the committee: that the committee cannot vote on a question unless 48 hours notice has been given.

    Am I correct, Ms. Phinney?

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes.

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): I just need clarification, possibly from Ms. Phinney.

    I'm just a little worried about how the motion is phrased. It isn't very specific. It could be used in ways in which it might be difficult to move new business. Does Ms. Phinney mean we're talking about the idea that unless there is unanimous consent, 48 hours notice is needed for any item of new business? Does she mean any motion? Is that what she's after? Any item of new business could be a suggestion to change topic or to hear a witness who wasn't pre-planned.

    I can see your motion in terms of introducing new motions before the committee. I would have thought 48 hours notice is appropriate as long as unanimous consent enables us to hear a motion we all want. Could you explain?

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I would just comment that when I wrote the motion—and I say this to the clerk—I had “any substantive motion is considered”. The clerk has written it up to be “any new item of business is considered”. I think “any substantive motion is considered” is the form used in most committees.

    The Chair: The clerk advises me that this is a standard motion used by all committees, and it's what we call the 48-hour rule. That basically means a motion cannot come to a vote unless there is 48 hours notice. But your point is taken, Mr. Bryden.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: It should be a motion, I think.

    Mr. John Bryden: I think the original version that Ms. Phinney wanted would address the problem that we might have some concerns about. But with this wording, I can see how I could abuse it, Mr. Chairman.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: That really gets us quite concerned, Mr. Bryden. I would be quite concerned if you were to abuse these things.

¹  (1555)  

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Chair, could I ask the clerk a question?

    If it's “before any substantive motion is considered”, is that—

    The Chair: I think “any substantive motion is considered by the committee” is agreeable.

    The Clerk: Who decides what is substantive?

    The Chair: The chair.

    An hon. member: No...[IEditor's Note: Inaudible].

    Ms. Beth Phinney: No? Do you want new business, because it could be a motion but it's not new business. That's the problem.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Yes, Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'd like to ask Ms. Phinney a question. I'm a person who thinks there should be a rule when necessary, but we are such a rule-oriented bunch. Is this necessary? When has there been an occasion when we have needed this rule? When has there been such abuse that someone was taking advantage of the committee by pushing forward a motion?

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, I think it is.

    The Chair: Just a second. We're going to hear from Mr. Murphy.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Yes, it's not normal, but it happens. It has happened. I'm also on the Standing Committee on Finance.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'm talking about this committee here.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: No, I'm talking about the committees of Parliament. In that committee, there was an instance in which they didn't have the 48-hour rule, and members of your party, during a hearing, made a motion that the chair be replaced by somebody else. That's what we're trying to avoid. We don't want a situation—

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: We want to keep our chairman.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: We don't want a situation in which, during a meeting, I make a motion that John be replaced. That happened in another committee. So I think the 48-hour rule makes sense.

    The Chair: All right, I think the question—and I appreciate this—is that it seems to be.... Is there any further debate on this issue, by the way?

    I think we're down to the semantics. I appreciate Mr. Mayfield's point. In this committee, I don't think we've ever required the 48-hour rule to be implemented in order for people to think, discuss, consider, and so on. But I appreciate Mr. Bryden's point that it could be abused given the way it is worded.

    So I'm going to propose—

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'll prove it.

    Mr. John Bryden: You know, this is why we should change the wording.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: It doesn't matter how you change the rules. I can abuse it if I choose to.

    The Chair: It is going to read “any substantive motion of new business”, so a motion dealing with the business that is before the committee on that particular day would be allowed. Is that okay?

    Mr. Bryden, I'm open—

    Mr. John Bryden: All you have to say, Mr. Chairman, is “before any new substantive motion”. It's not a motion for new business, it's a motion. The motion may not pertain to new business, it may pertain to getting rid of the chairman.

    The Chair: That would be new business.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

º  (1600)  

    Mr. John Bryden: It's dealing with old business, perhaps.

    I don't understand why we can't just say “before any new substantive motion”.

    An hon. member: It's used in every other committee.

    The Chair: Okay, so it's “any substantive motion is considered by the committee”.

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay, then, there is the proposal: that notice must be given to the members of the committee before any substantive motion is considered by the committee.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: We are now down to finishing with routine proceedings, which include the agenda of the meeting for today. There are a couple of other things, since we're already dealing with 48-hour notice and so on.

    As you will recall, the House approved a motion that all business before the committees prior to prorogation carried forward. In essence, then, we continue on where we left off, and we do not need a motion to reinstate the reports and the committee business that was in existence or in the process of being dealt with when Parliament prorogued.

    However, the clerk advises me that two notices of motion were presented at the meeting we held in July. One of them was from Mr. Mayfield, dealing with the review of the new contracting practices as proposed by the Minister of Public Works. He proposed that they be reviewed. There was also a motion by Mr. Thompson that we investigate a numbered Ontario company that had received a loan from the Business Development Bank.

    The clerk advises me that they were notices of motion. Therefore, in essence, they weren't before the committee at that time. Unless somebody moves these motions again, they cannot be considered.

    Are you prepared to move your motion again, Mr. Mayfield?

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Is that a new order of business?

    The Chair: It's a notice of motion that will be dealt with at the steering committee.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Ms. Beth Phinney: If it is a new order of business, I'm number one on the list.

    The Chair: I was just trying to clean up some old stuff.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Okay, fine.

    The Chair: You've forgotten the motion, Mr. Mayfield?

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I was not expecting this now.

    The Chair: It's not a big situation. We can bring it up at a steering committee meeting.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'm sorry, sir, but I do have it right here after all.

    The Chair: He does have it. His files are closer at hand than he thought.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: And I have it in both English and French.

    I move that the steering committee of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts should, at its next meeting, discuss holding a meeting of the full committee to explore the new contract regulations regarding the government's sponsorship program that were issued on July 3, 2002, by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services; the documents tabled in the House of Commons on October 10, 2002, by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, entitled “Quick Response Team Sponsorship File Review—Final Project Report” and “Actions To Date and On-Going—RE: The Government of Canada Sponsorship Program File Review by Public Works and Government Services Canada”.

    The Chair: Have we all got that?

    An hon. member: Yes.

    The Chair: I'm suggesting that we accept the notice of motion and refer it to the steering committee, to be considered at the next steering committee meeting.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: There was also a notice of motion from Mr. Thompson, but nobody is here to move it on his behalf. It may be moved at a later date. It is not before the committee at this point in time.

    Ms. Phinney, you had some business.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, and it refers to our meetings in June and July. I'm concerned about the ability of this committee to function properly. In June and July, we had several in camera meetings. At that time, the House of Commons lawyers told us several times that there were some very important rules to follow when we have in camera meetings, such as not reporting to anyone, except the ones sitting in the committee, what was done at that meeting, who said what, and anything that went on.

    In my opinion, several of our members broke these rules, including our chair. And I don't think it's just my opinion, because they talked to the media after the meetings.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think this is inaccurate. It's true that the media did approach me, and I did speak--

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm not even talking about you, sir. You're not one of the ones I'm talking about.

    The Chair: There's a point of order here.

    Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I speak for myself and for others who were reported. The fact is that I did not relate anything that happened in this meeting, but I did comment on the question of the reporter. I know words were put in other people's mouths.

    The Chair: Do you have a point of order, Mr. Desrochers, or a debate?

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I would like to make a clarification.

[English]

    The Chair: If it's a point of order, I will accept it. Ms. Phinney has the floor.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I don't agree with what Ms. Phinney said with regard to the in camera rule, because her interpretation of it is wrong.

[English]

    The Chair: You will have to let her finish her statement first.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm particularly concerned with the chair because I feel the chair needs to follow the rules of the House of Commons. It's a particular position being chair of a committee. I feel if the chair takes the title and the money that goes with it, the chair should be absolutely squeaky clean about following the rules. I think it's difficult for him to expect other people in the committee to follow the rules if he doesn't follow the rules.

    I would just like the chair to assure us that we won't see any more examples of this at other meetings. I have all the quotes here. Even though Mr. Williams didn't directly quote somebody, he told several of the media what was going on at the meeting, what had gone on, and what somebody talked about, how he was trying to save the country, etc.

    I just would like assurances from the chair that if we have in camera meetings again, or other rules such as that.... The lawyer has sat here for quite a long time and told us, I think seven or eight times, that we could not discuss what went on at the meeting. He didn't say just quotes. He said we couldn't discuss what went on at the meeting outside. I would just like assurance that all of us will be going by the same rule book and that we'll all be careful when we go outside of this room.

º  (1605)  

    The Chair: I thank you for that, Ms. Phinney. You can be assured that the chair, in the chair's opinion, has always lived within the rules as stated by the law clerk of the House of Commons. If I can paraphrase him, he said that any evidence given by a witness cannot be introduced into a court of law. It is privileged information. He went on to say that evidence given to a committee could also make the prosecution of a case more difficult, insofar as the prosecution in a court of law would have to prove that any evidence they introduced in the court was not obtained here and that even the idea of where to find the evidence didn't come from what was said in a committee of the House of Commons, because everything said here is privileged.

    I recall saying on the radio that we can comment about what was not said at a meeting because that obviously is not evidence. All parties were talking to the media immediately after the meeting. I certainly cannot speak for anybody else in this committee or bind anybody else in this committee. We're all parliamentarians, we're all mature, we can all understand the rules.

    The fundamental thing is that no member of a committee of the House of Commons should willingly, knowingly compromise a police investigation that is ongoing at the same time. I can assure you that as far as I'm aware, Ms. Phinney, anything I said to the media and anything that members of your side said to the media has not compromised the investigation by the police because nothing that was said in this room was reiterated.

    Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: I think the point Ms. Phinney is trying to make isn't about the police investigation, it's the fact that this committee was holding in camera hearings and substantive content of that committee was released to the press by, obviously, members of the committee. We presume none of the officials would have released that information.

    My own feeling about it, for what it's worth, is that the past is the past. I take your point that as members of Parliament, we are all responsible for our own behaviour and how that behaviour is seen by the electorate. I would only say this. If we do hold in camera hearings again, among ourselves we must be very clear as to how we will treat that information. In fact, I think we do a disservice to witnesses if we hold in camera meetings and any one of us releases either the direct content or, which is even more fragile, the indirect content.

    When others have had their say, I would like to close this debate, because I find it awkward, Mr. Chairman. I happen to have great confidence in every member sitting in this committee, but we're all human, and occasionally, under the pressure of circumstances and the press, we can make mistakes. But we go on from there.

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the issue of in camera meetings. When the Public Accounts Committee sat in camera, it was because it was hearing from witnesses who were under police investigation. That part is clear.

    I used to work in the media—Mr. Bryden would understand—, so I understand that when a witness testifies at an in-camera meeting, he or she has to be protected. But I don't think that the information given behind closed doors can be completely protected, because the reason testimony is given in an in-camera meeting is so that it does not interfere with an RCMP investigation. That's why we hold in-camera meetings.

    I have other questions with regard to that issue, Mr. Chairman, because one of the witnesses who came before the Public Accounts Committee went out and said a lot more afterwards. Therefore, an in-camera meeting has to work both ways. The Public Accounts Committee treated the two star witnesses fairly, but one of them did not respect... So, if we want very strict in-camera rules, we will have to clearly define them and decide whether they apply to the House of Commons, to the courts or to any debate on public accounts. Once all those issues are defined, Mr. Chairman, I may be able to criticize them, but for now, I can't.

    I just want to clarify one thing: how far should the Public Accounts Committee go in protecting information given in-camera? As I said, one of the two witnesses did not play by the rules, since he later spoke to the media about things he did not even mention before the committee. This sheds doubt on the entire process. I also wonder how the Auditor General will deal with this, since her work is based on statements made before the committee. And yet, we had a witness who provided more information outside of the Public Accounts Committee. I therefore think we should call the gentlemen before the Public Accounts Committee again to ensure that our investigation is complete, equitable and fair for everyone, Mr. Chairman.

º  (1610)  

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    We're going to have a wrap-up by Mr. Bryden, because he said he would have the last word.

    Mr. John Bryden: I have one very brief comment. My word is my bond, and if other people choose to break their word, it doesn't affect me. So if the witnesses choose to release the contents of the in camera hearing, that's fine, but I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Desrochers. That is not a reason for me to break my word, though I know it's tempting.

    The Chair: As Mr. Bryden pointed out, we are all mature and responsible people. We may make mistakes, but there are rules of this House. Witnesses have a right to have this committee respect their rights. The law clerk gave us full information on what their rights were and how the committee should handle itself, what it could and could not do. I would hope all members of the committee will respect the witnesses' rights if we decide to hold any more meetings in camera.

    I think we'll wrap it up there and consider this matter closed.

    There will be a steering committee on Thursday morning at 10 o'clock. One additional member from the Liberal Party has to be nominated.

    Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, is it a paid position?

    The Chair: There is no remuneration. There are two vice-chairs on the government side plus one more, so the government is going to decide who--

    Mr. John Bryden: I understand the vice-chairmen hold paid positions. Is that correct?

    The Chair: That is correct, yes.

    Mr. John Bryden: If I'm working for free--and I'm happy to do so, Mr. Chairman--I do take note that there are others who have positions that perhaps--

    The Chair: We also have seats on the steering committee for the Bloc, the NDP, and the Tories that are without remuneration. Mr. Desrochers, I presume you are the member for the Bloc. There are two members from the Liberal Party.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: That was defeated. One member is Liberal.

    The Chair: We agreed that the quorum would have one of each side. There's myself for the Alliance, three members from the government side, being the two vice-chairs, plus Mr. Bryden.

º  (1615)  

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Was he just put on it normally, or did he put himself on?

    Mr. John Bryden: I asked to go on.

    The Chair: Mr. Desrochers and Mr. Martin and Mr. Keddy are the steering committee. They will meet at 10 o'clock Thursday, location West Block, to be advised.

    There will be a meeting of the public accounts committee on Thursday afternoon. As you know, we have lost two months, and I have taken it upon myself--and I guess you can tell the chair he can't do this--in the interests of time to arrange for the Auditor General to give us a report on the status report she tabled in the House early in October on Thursday afternoon. It was five chapters. At the same time we're having people from Health Canada to speak. Mr. Bryden has requested that we get a briefing from Health Canada. Mr. Bryden, you can perhaps advice the committee what you wanted.

    Mr. John Bryden: We had witnesses on the non-insured health benefits program. I'm happy to report that Health Canada has moved very substantively on it. I think we should get them here and put it on the record, because it represents a significant success of this committee, one we will all be proud of.

    The Chair: Okay. They're coming here on Thursday afternoon, so we're going to have two sessions on Thursday afternoon.

    Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I'd like to ask Mr. Bryden if there's going to be a report following our meeting with Health Canada on prescription drug abuse.

    The Chair: John.

    Mr. John Bryden: We can discuss that. I certainly think it's important for the credibility of the committee process that we let Canadians know we undertook a project that has a significant beneficial effect, even saves lives. This committee did it, and I should think either a report or something is in order.

    The Chair: Okay, we'll discuss that.

    Next Tuesday afternoon the public accounts of Canada will be discussed by the Auditor General and Mr. Neville, the Deputy Comptroller General of Canada, just to get the committee going until the steering committee can kick in and get things moving.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Can we get a notice of the meeting this Thursday?

    The Chair: You will have one right away, now that I've been able to get things organized with the routine proceedings.

    So there will be a steering committee on Thursday morning. There will be a main committee on Thursday afternoon with two issues, non-insured health benefits from Health Canada and the status report by the Auditor General. Next Tuesday will be the Auditor General and the Deputy Comptroller General discussing the public accounts of Canada.

    The meeting is adjourned.