PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

º

1645

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

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC)

º

1650

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

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

º

1655

»

1700

»

1705

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Vic Toews

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

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

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

The Chair

»

1710

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

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

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

»

1715

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

»

1720

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

The Chair

»

1725

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

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

Ms. Beth Phinney

»

1730

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC)

The Chair

Hon. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

»

1735

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

»

1740

The Chair

Hon. Robert Thibault

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

»

1745

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

»

1750

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

»

1755

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

¼

1800

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

¼

1805

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

¼

1810

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

¼

1815

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

¼

1820

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

¼

1825

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

¼

1830

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 018

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º  (1645)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): I call the meeting to order.

    Good afternoon, everybody.

    I know that you're all eager and anxious and so am I eager and anxious to move this agenda forward. I was going to table the report on the Auditor General's peer report in the House of Commons just before I came over, but I thought in the interests of timeliness that we should get the meeting underway.

    Before we get into the action, I'll read the orders of the day.

    The first order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108.(3)(g), is the March 2004 report of the Auditor General of Canada, referred to the committee on March 30, 2004. The witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General are Ms. Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, and Hugh McRoberts, Assistant Auditor General.

    When we get through all that I have, pursuant to Standing Order 81.(4), the main estimates 2004-2005, vote 20 under Finance, referred to the committee on February 24, 2004. The witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General of Canada are Ms. Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada; Mr. Richard Smith, Assistant Auditor General; and Ms. Mary Clennett, the principal from the office. If we go through all that, there are some votes that we will adopt.

    Carrying on from there, the next order, pursuant to Standing Order 108.(3)(g), is the Public Accounts of Canada 2002-2003, referred to the committee on November 4, 2003. The witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General are Ms. Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada; and Mr. Clyde MacLellan, the principal from the office. From the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, we have Mr. Jim Libbey, acting comptroller general; and Mr. John Morgan, executive director,financial management and accounting policy directorate. And from the Department of Finance, we have Mr. Peter DeVries, director,fiscal policy division, economic and fiscal policy division.

    I would advise that those orders of the day were agreed to by the steering committee a couple of weeks ago.

    However, before we proceed I was given a notice of privilege after question period from Mr. Vic Toews. It says:

Dear Mr. Williams:

Please be advised of my intention to raise a point of privilege regarding the apparent violation of in camera testimony by a member sitting on the committee. I intend to raise this point at the March 31, 2004 meeting of the committee. I therefore....

    This is the first item of business because it is an item of privilege and it takes precedence over everything else.

    Mr. Toews, you have given me notice of your point of privilege. Would you address the committee, please?

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

    As you indicated, I gave you notice earlier of my intention to raise a question of privilege in regard to a grave matter concerning our proceedings. A member of this committee has improperly released information from an in camera meeting; this information was the subject of some discussion at an earlier committee meeting. Today on the news Mr. Mills, a member of this committee, revealed some of the testimony presented by Mr. Chuck Guité. I have here a transcript of that. Obviously, there's been some discussion here, but the anchor from CBC News Today, March 31, 2004, stated:

There is word today of testimony that supports Alfonso Gagliano's version of events in the sponsorship scandal. It comes from Liberal MP Dennis Mills, who sits on the Commons public accounts committee. Later this month the committee will hear from Chuck Guité, who ran the sponsorship program for several years. But Guité testified behind closed doors two years ago, and Mills says at that time Guité made it clear that Alfonso Gagliano was not directing the sponsorship program.

Then they quote Mr. Mills. Someone asked him, what about influence from Mr. Gagliano? And he said, “Mr. Gagliano never gave me specific direction on any advertising files.” He makes the case that he's been in this business for 37 years and knows his business. Then the anchor said:

Guité has agreed to waive his demand for confidentiality and make the testimony public. The committee is expected to release it later today. Guité himself is to appear before the committee later this month.

    So obviously, the CBC knows something about the release of this that I'm not aware of. But in any event, as you are aware, the committee decided to keep this testimony secret. While there's been some discussion about revisiting that decision, it had not been overturned, and the moment Mr. Mills revealed restricted testimony, he was in contempt of this committee. This isn't simply, Mr. Chair, an honest mistake. This was deliberate discussion, a very sensitive discussion, about an order of confidentiality and the restriction on that evidence. Everyone in this committee was absolutely clear where the committee stood on this particular matter.

    Page 129 of Marleau and Montpetit clearly states that the divulging of events during an in camera meeting is a matter of privilege and contempt. Page 129 also describes the procedures to be followed:

Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter.

It goes on to describe the need for a report before the Speaker will entertain a prima facie question of privilege in the House. I would urge this committee, Mr. Chair, to report this matter to the House as soon as possible.

º  (1650)  

    I find it surprising that a member of the Ontario Liberal caucus has very deliberately and openly divulged the contents of an in camera meeting, a meeting he knew was the subject of a very delicate negotiation on the release of transcript evidence before the witness was to appear. Mr. Chair, you recall my concerns about that. I stated very clearly that what was going to happen was that this evidence was going to be released first and the testimony would never be heard viva voce. I still cling to that theory, and every day, in fact, I'm being proven right.

    This is a deliberate attempt to sabotage that agreement, to overturn a very delicate arrangement that this committee has come to. There are questions, Mr. Chair, about whether even this committee has the power to release that information. There have been suggestions from our legal counsel, Mr. Walsh, that it should be an order from the Clerk of the House. I believe that was Mr.--

    Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): What does that say?

    The Chair: Order, please.

    If you object, Mr. Lastewka, we'll just stop and I will read the letter.

    Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): He said it came from our side.

    The Chair: He corrected himself. Where is the letter?

    Hon. Joe Jordan: No, we won't dispute that.

    The Chair: What is Mr. Lastewka saying?

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Walsh did not say that.

    The Chair: He corrected himself and said the Clerk of the House.

    These are sensitive issues. If you are going to start throwing accusations around, I will rule you out of order. I will not tolerate this kind of behaviour. Are you going to listen to the chair? You will not have your piece when I'm finished. The chair will carry on.

    Mr. Toews, you have the floor.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As I indicated, it is surprising that a member of the Ontario Liberal caucus has deliberately and openly divulged the contents of an in camera meeting. I want to revert to March 11, 2004, when Mr. John O'Reilly, the Liberal member for Haliburton--Victoria--Brock, raised a question of privilege. He said:

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious question of privilege. It affects all members of Parliament. This question of privilege arises from a meeting in Room 253-D on March 3, 2004. My position as chair of central Ontario caucus is to report to Ontario caucus and in turn to the Prime Minister at national caucus.

Sun Media received a tape from the broadcast service, by whatever means, which remains to me a mystery for sure. I want to know how it was made, why it was made and how did the media receive it. I believe Parliament, and all members of Parliament, should have an answer to this.

    An Ontario member of this committee openly discussed the proceedings of an in camera meeting on the CBC. Contrast his statements today with the concern of Mr. O'Reilly on March 11. What hypocrisy.

    Mr. O'Reilly went on to say:

I have no argument with the media. Of course, to quote Churchill, never make enemies of people who buy paper by the ton and ink by the barrel. My problem is, who made the tape and how was it obtained? The damage it caused me is incidental. Politicians love to have publicity; the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity. The damage to the manufacturers that I represent in my riding is reprehensible.

    Mr. Chair, I, as a member of this committee, do not fault the CBC for this incident; they are simply reporting what they heard. The culprit here is clearly Mr. Mills.

    Mr. O'Reilly also said, challenging us to think about it:

I would like opposition members to think about it. If this incident happened to any opposition party, would they feel their right to privacy was violated? Would, for instance, the member for Laurier--Sainte-Marie. speaking to his caucus, feel aggrieved if in fact it had been taped and broadcast?

Section 193 of Criminal Code of Canada clearly favours my point, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consult it.

Who does a member of Parliament of this House of Commons turn to for justice in this matter? Do we go to the Sergeant-at-Arms, which I did? Do we go to you, Mr. Speaker, which I am doing? Do we go to the RCMP, who have no authority in this particular incident? Do we go to the House of Commons security? Do we go to the Senate security? Do we go to the six or seven security agencies that operate within this precinct? Do we go to the Ottawa police? Or do I go to a local crown prosecutor, which would be in fact in the Ottawa court system, which does not cover the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker, there is damage. I want to be able to know that I can speak out in private on behalf of my constituents without the fear of their right to privacy being invaded, or my right to privacy.... I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that even you would want to ensure us that right of privacy, that right of being able to bring our constituents' problems forward without fear of being taped by someone. Was it taped? Was it broadcast? I have heard of four different ways as to how this happened.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this was criminal activity and I would ask you to investigate it, to look into it, and to ensure that my rights as a member of Parliament are secure in this environment.

º  (1655)  

    The facts are not exactly the same, but the principle is identical. This committee had a commitment from the members that this information would not be released until the appropriate procedure had gone through. I expressed my concern that we not release the transcript before we hear the verbal testimony of Mr. Guité. I saw all kinds of difficulties arising. I didn't, frankly, Mr. Chair, foresee this kind of difficulty, that your authority and the authority of this committee would be deliberately undermined by this member, Mr. Mills. In the case of the Ontario caucus leak no one took responsibility. Nonetheless, Mr. Chair, the matter was considered serious enough for the Speaker to rule that a prima facie question of privilege existed. In this case we have the smoking gun and the shooter on videotape, a tape that has been broadcast throughout the country. Members will understand I used the smoking gun figuratively.

    Mr. Chair, Derek Lee, along with other Ontario Liberal MPs, participated in that debate and added that it is the disclosure that is the breach. That is very important. Here we have the disclosure being made by that member, Mr. Mills, on tape. He goes on:

I have not made reference explicitly to the taping or the broadcast. There are factual elements involved in what happened here that are not precisely known to me. It is quite possible that the taping, the switching, the broadcast, the transcription, all of those elements may also constitute a breach of our privileges here, individually or collectively, but I will leave that matter to the chair.

Suffice it to say, from my perspective, that the disclosure itself of something known to be private communication in camera in our Parliament by a person outside of it constitutes a breach of our privilege. I would submit that work that happens in camera in this place, whether it is by ministers in camera, House committees sitting in camera, or caucus meetings in camera, is all the same in terms of the need to ensure that we have the ability to conduct some of our business in camera.

    On March 25 of this year the Speaker ruled on the matter and said:

As I indicated on March 11, the Chair takes such matters very seriously. The crux of the matter for the Chair is not the leak of this information but the publication of leaked information that was manifestly from a private meeting. Accordingly, having examined the situation, the matter of the publication of a leak from the caucus meeting of February 25, I find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege and I am prepared to entertain a motion at this time.

    Mr. Chair, I have quoted the transcript where Mr. Mills revealed Mr. Guité's evidence, which is still confidential at this time, a confidence that was breached by Mr. Mills. My fear, as you know, is that the transcript is going to be leaked out bit by bit by bit, as has already been done, and an election called before the witness is able to give his testimony in the context of the current proceedings. Remember, the context in that situation was very different. We have now all types of other evidence that needs to be put to the witness. What we're seeing here is the release of information in another context in order to colour the proceedings for the purpose of the public. This isn't simply an innocent release by an individual, but is a very deliberate release of evidence that he knew was given in a specific context, that he knew this committee was specifically considering the release of.

»  (1700)  

    Mr. Chair, I don't think in this context I even need go into my thoughts about the Liberal plan for putting out this transcript. I think we can see that easily enough in the comments of Ms. Nancy Wilson: “There is word today of testimony that supports Alfonso Gagliano's version of events.” Obviously, she heard it from the Liberal who gave it to her. “We have now evidence clearing Alfonso Gagliano”--that is what this member is trying to foist off on the media. These are the statements here. And then, Mr. Chair, here it is: we haven't yet made a decision on this matter, but “The committee is expected to release this transcript later today.”

    You know, I fear this is becoming a charade because of the activities of the Liberal members. They have a majority on this committee. They in fact have an expectation that it will be released. Why? Because they've already made up their minds. We've seen members of the PMO directing the Liberal members on this issue, so we already know where this is going.

    I want to just quickly conclude. The public position of the Liberals is that they want to get to the bottom of this scandal. In fact, the agenda from this particular member is becoming clear, that they are simply wanting to release choice tidbits--

    Some hon. members: [Inaudible—Editor]

»  (1705)  

    The Chair: Order!

    Mr. Vic Toews: --outside of any proper context, not even the context of the transcript itself when it was given but the context of the hearings that we are hearing today.

    Mr. Chair, we want to hear the evidence of Mr. Guité. I don't want to just read about it. I want to hear it. And I want to hear it in the context of the evidence that we heard at this hearing.

    The final point I want to make, which I am very worried about now, is that if this committee releases this transcript, it may well jeopardize the agreement that was made for Mr. Guité to appear here, at this meeting. The agreement has been breached by that member, Mr. Mills. He has breached it.

    So I would like to move the prima facie case, Mr. Chair, that the committee report to the House the evidence presented, and that it feels it is its duty to place these matters before you at this time, since privilege may be involved, and to give the House the opportunity to reflect on these matters.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

    Madam Jennings, clarification?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Chair, is Mr. Toews saying that the statements that he purports to have witnessed on TV or whatever, that have been reported in the media and attributed to Mr. Mills, in fact are the content of what Mr. Mills is supposed to have attributed to Mr. Guité, are in fact Mr. Guité's testimony? If that's the case, I would like Mr. Toews to clarify that, because if it is the case, then it may appear that Mr. Toews himself is breaching the in camera testimony.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would hope that Mr. Toews would clarify that it's purported that this was Mr. Guité's testimony in camera, and that he cannot confirm or deny that, but that if the person who made those statements purported that it was in camera, that this would be a breach, but that he should speak to the actual substance.

    I want that clarification.

    The Chair: Mr. Toews, are you also quoting from the in camera testimony, or are you quoting from what you--

    Mr. Vic Toews: No, I've never seen the in camera testimony.

    The Chair: You've never seen it.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So you have no knowledge of whether or not it's been breached.

    Mr. Vic Toews: That's why I'm saying that this is prima facie: it appears.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, I understand that. I just wished a clarification for the benefit--

    The Chair: Order, order!

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I was interrupted, Mr. Chair. I would like to complete my statement.

    I think it is important that Mr. Toews make that clarification for the people who are around the table here, the members of the committee, for everyone else who is in this room watching it, and for all Canadians who are watching it, that Mr. Toews is not claiming that the statements made are in fact the statements Mr. Guité made in camera. That's what I'm asking for, that clarification.

    The Chair: Mr. Toews has stated that he has not read the testimony--

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Excellent. So he has no idea if the claims that were made on TV or to journalists were factual or not.

    The Chair: We are now going to hear from Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): I'll defer to Mr. Murphy.

    The Chair: Okay. Mr. Murphy.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): This goes back...and I think you're probably aware of what I'm going to talk about, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Toews probably would not have brought this up if he had served on the committee in 2002. As you're aware, this very subject was dealt with before.

    The Chair: I'm sorry, which subject?

»  (1710)  

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: Not Mr. Mills, but on....

    Let me continue. We were hearing the testimony of Mr. Guité and Mr. Tremblay, and we had an extensive hearing in camera. We made an agreement--it was five parties then--that the matter was sensitive, that it was important, and that it would be in camera.

    So we held the meeting in camera, as you recall, Mr. Chairman, and in fairness to you, the members of your party respected the edict. The members of our party, I believe, respected it also. But there were two members...and we had a lengthy discussion about this after that. It was brought to committee, and there was a lengthy discussion.

    The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and Mr. Pat Martin, whose exact riding I don't know, rushed from the meeting to the hall and gave extensive, elaborate, and detailed interviews to the media about the testimony of Mr. Guité and the testimony of Mr. Tremblay.

    Mr. Chairman, I have a lot of the quotes. I'm going to table them with you. They are in only one official language.

    I know you were quite annoyed at the time, Mr. Chairman, about the actions of the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. You were quite annoyed about the comments from Mr. Martin--

    Mr. Vic Toews: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm just wondering what relevance this has to--

    An hon. member: Nobody interrupted you.

    The Chair: That's right....

    Order!

    Mr. Toews, you had about ten minutes to make your point of privilege, and Mr. Murphy is responding to it.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: I'm going to quote from an article by Mr. Les Whittington in yesterday's Toronto Star. Maybe Mr. Whittington is here, I don't know. Let me read to you the third-last paragraph, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Toews:

The gist of Guité's secret testimony was leaked by opposition MPs after he appeared before the public accounts committee, which was investigating three questionable contracts in 2002.

    I'm going to table Mr. Whittington's article, and I'm going to table--

    The Chair: Mr. Murphy, you tell me these are in one language only.

    I'll need unanimous consent to table these.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Yes, as an exception. This is a bilingual country, which we would ask the people on the other side not to forget.

[English]

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: To conclude, Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no question, if we're talking about a prima facie case....

    We have warned against the member--and I know he wasn't a member of your party at that time, but you've inherited him by successorship--from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough and Mr. Martin, who I understand is no longer a member of the committee. Mr. MacKay was not a member of the committee at the time. He showed up for that one meeting.

    So whatever action you consider taking, you certainly--I'm positive, I'm convinced--will be taking it against those two members, after reading the documents I just tabled.

    The Chair: I take it, Mr. Murphy, you are actually raising a point of privilege against Mr. MacKay.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: Well, I'm just...they're all the one....

    You've dealt with it before, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Well, I'm not going to deal with two issues at once. I'm going to deal with the issue raised by Mr. Toews and nothing else. If someone at a later time wants to raise another point of privilege, we will entertain it at that time. But we're dealing with one--

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: I've raised it as a point of privilege, and--

    Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    I accept, by the way, that there might well be another question of privilege to be raised, but in my view, the material that was tabled was material in evidence to the discussion of the motion that's before us.

    The Chair: But he didn't read it into the record, and he was suggesting that was another issue.

    Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Chairman, with due respect, it was argument with respect to the motion before us.

    The Chair: Okay, but as I said, I'm only dealing with the point of privilege against Mr. Mills. I'm not dealing with an issue of point of privilege against Mr. MacKay. Once we have dealt with the issue of the point of privilege against Mr. Mills, if someone wants to raise a point of privilege against Mr. MacKay, we will deal with it at that time. Now, the information that Mr. Murphy has tabled may be relevant against Mr. Mills. That's fine. But I'm only dealing with the point of privilege against Mr. Mills.

    Mr. Mills, I think you have the floor.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to begin by reading a quote into the record that was actually given to me today by a journalist early this morning. It is from Thomas Jefferson.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

»  (1715)  

    The Chair: Order.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I quote:

A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself....

    Colleagues and Mr. Chair, I have been an attentive participant, from hour one, in this journey of getting to the bottom of the sponsorship file. I have not missed any meetings related to it.

    I have witnessed people's characters being assassinated without due process. I have witnessed aspersions being cast on people without due process.

    What I observed two days ago, on Monday, when witness Chuck Guité and his counsel gave us consent to receive his testimony--

    The Chair: I have to interrupt you, Mr. Mills. Mr. Guité was not a witness here on Monday.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: I said his lawyer, his counsel, was here.

    The Chair: He wasn't a witness either. He was here but he wasn't a witness.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: He was here. He was in a discussion with you, which you acknowledged, and which we discussed in front of this committee.

    We on the government side, in defence of that man who has practically been splattered against every wall in this country.... When I witnessed the opposition members denying that testimony being made public, I was naturally incensed, and I said so.

    Now, Chuck Guité was on national television a few weeks ago, from his ranch in Arizona, and everyone heard him say, “What I did when the country was at stake”, and “I was there to save the country”.... Everyone saw that.

    The Chair: I didn't.

    Mr. Dennis Mills: Well, I did, and lots of other Canadians did.

    The reality, Mr. Speaker, is that I take full responsibility for what I said to the media today, because it was my belief that we were going to vote on a motion that was in front of this committee today, in proper format, that we had the numbers to make sure the motion passed, and that his papers were going to be made public.

    That is what I said, and I stand by my statements. The committee can do with me what it will.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mills.

    Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I listened to what Mr. Toews said and I feel that he is raising a very serious issue. However, I would like to say to the committee that we are getting bogged down in procedural matters. Let us look at what is causing the present situation. Mr. Charles Guité's testimony that was given on July 9, 2002, has not yet been made public. A few confidential excerpts have been leaked, voluntarily or otherwise, to the media, but those are only excerpts. The testimony is being made public in bits and pieces.

    What happens when things are made public in bits and pieces? We run the risk that the bits may be misinterpreted because they are heard out of context. That is why, Mr. Chair—and I want to say this to the committee members as well—we should reveal this July 9, 2002, testimony in its entirety. We should hear it as soon as possible.

    I would therefore ask for unanimous consent on the part of committee members for a motion that would read as follows: That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts make public the in-camera testimony by Mr. Charles Guité, given before this committee on July 9, 2002, as part of its study of the Auditor General's report of May 8, 2002.

    I would like to bring a second point to the committee's attention. Mr. Guité...

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Guimond, we are in the process of discussing a point of privilege. I cannot entertain motions at this time regarding other matters.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I agree with you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to indicate my intention to present a motion, when the time is right, for which I will be seeking unanimous consent.

    Moreover, Mr. Guité has been quoted a number of a times by various witnesses in the testimony. As a result, everyone here is aware that his testimony is very important, not to say crucial, for our work here. In fact, if we go by the testimony that we heard earlier, Charles Guité was at the centre of this whole affair that is now being called the sponsorship scandal.

    Consequently, until Charles Guité testifies in person before us, we will remain in this murky procedural situation.

    I know that Mrs. Jennings told us a little earlier that we would not hear Mr. Guité until April 23 and 24. I would point out, Mr. Chair, that it is totally inconceivable that Charles Guité—of all people—should dictate to this committee what its schedule should be. Charles Guité must be available for the committee, and not the contrary. The committee is not subject to the schedule of Charles Guité, who is lounging in Arizona. That is why I am telling you that I will also be tabling a motion to ask us to hear Chuck Guité on April 7.

»  (1720)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Guimond.

[English]

    I've got Mr. Tonks next.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, Mr. Toews has raised the issue with respect to two concerns he has. He indicated that my colleague to the right had said he expected that the testimony of Mr. Guité would be released. Mr. Toews has taken some exception to Mr. Mills' saying that. I infer from this that it was presumptuous on Mr. Mills' part to speculate in that regard. Second, Mr. Toews has referred to “choice tidbits outside of the proper context”--I take it that he is referring to Mr. Guité's private testimony--thinking there would be piecemeal release, and he takes exception to the fact that Mills has done that.

    To quote Robert Service, “I may not be as smart as the lawyer guys, but simply between us two...”. The public generally could take it that Mr. Mills is presumptuous. Yes, as a matter of process, the committee would be dealing with that, and Mr. Mills has indicated that he thinks the committee is going to release that information, pursuant to the request from Mr. Guité and accommodated between Mr. Walsh and yourself, Mr. Chair. So I think the average person would say that does not seem to be a tremendously perverse speculation, so just get on with it, because we would really like to see it.

    That leads into the second element, choice tidbits. We wouldn't be in this situation but for the frustration, which I take to be the same frustration Mr. Toews is feeling, that there would be no tidbits if the whole information was put out there.

    So my suggestion would be, Mr. Chair, that if there is a motion to chastise Mr. Mills in some way, we get on with receiving that motion and get to the real issue the people are looking for us to take a position on, the question that has been given under notice of motion, which is to deal with what we could have dealt with perhaps a few days ago. But now that we have additional information, we should deal with that.

    So my suggestion, Mr. Chair, would be that we get on with it. If we do, we will not be in the particular predicament that Mr. Toews has found himself required to address in these proceedings.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Tonks. I too think we should get on with it, but I did have to hear from Madam Jennings, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Guimond, and you, and Mr. Jordan wants to speak, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis wants to speak, Mr. MacKay, and Mr. Kenney. I can cut them off and be an autocrat, but this is not an autocratic place. So the chair will hear from the people who wish to speak.

    Mr. Jordan.

»  (1725)  

    Hon. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, my best imitation of Johnny Cochrane has been circumvented by Mr. Mills' apparent open confession on this. I think we put in play now whatever steps regarding a report the clerk needs to draft to send this matter to the House. I don't think we have any other option, and I don't see the point in continuing to discuss it.

    The Chair: Very good, but Ms. Wasylycia-Leis would like to say something.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I would certainly agree with Alan that this committee ought to get back--

    The Chair: You used his first name.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I am sorry, excuse me, Mr. Chair.

    I want to agree with those members of the committee who believe we ought to get back to the issues of the day, the issues at hand, the serious matter of the sponsorship file. I think we should move this along expeditiously. I did want to say a couple of things, though.

    It is interesting that it was a year before the actual tabling of the Auditor General's report on sponsorship that we had this issue before Parliament, when a colleague of mine, Pat Martin, was in apparent breach of privilege for having relayed some confidential information to the media. At that time the chair, our chair today, of the public accounts committee rose in the House and gave a very heavy-handed, very tough speech, quoting all over the place from Marleau and Montpetit about breaches of privilege or breaches of the rights of members of Parliament and suggesting we deal with this expeditiously. At that time, a member from the Liberals on the committee, Mr. Mac Harb, who is now a senator, made a big to-do about it: “I beg you to get to the bottom of this issue, because those guys cannot suck and blow at the same time.”

    So, Mr. Chair, I think we should follow the advice of Mac Harb and deal with the predicament we are in as a result of Mr. Mills' conveyance of material from in camera proceedings dealing with Mr. Guité. I too, as Mr. Jordan has just said, believe Mr. Mills has just made a confession. He certainly acknowledged that he has conveyed information from the in camera proceedings, and that, to go by all of our previous experience in this place, is a breach of parliamentary privilege. So it ought to be dealt with on that basis, notwithstanding the fact that as Mr. Mills has said, Mr. Guité did give some assurances to this committee that we could use his material. That is not the point, because it would be setting a precedent if we simply discounted or ignored Mr. Mills' breach of parliamentary privilege and proceeded as if it did not happen. We cannot do that, obviously, and I would not suggest we do that.

    Therefore, I would suggest, and I do not know if this is part of the motion--I assume it is--that this matter be referred immediately to the House procedures committee--am I correct?

    The Chair: It gets reported to the House, I believe, but we will have the clerk give us some advice.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would assume, Mr. Chair, that this would go to the committee dealing with House affairs and procedures, and then be sent back to the House.

    The Chair: We'll get clarification from the clerk on the process .

    On a point of order, Mr. Murphy.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: I just want to make it clear that we are dealing with Mr. Mills and Mr. MacKay too. I want to make that absolutely clear on the record.

    The Chair: No.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: Well, I want to make that point, and I want you to deal with that issue, because I explained that all--

    The Chair: I know you explained it, Mr. Murphy, and I said we will deal with Mr. Mills first, and if you wish to raise Mr. MacKay, we'll deal with that second, but I can't deal with points of privilege against two people at the same time. So we will deal with one, and if you wish to raise another, we will deal with that.

    Ms. Phinney, is this a point of order?

    Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I think it is.

    The Chair: Let me know, and I'll rule whether it is a point of order.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: We have the Auditor General of Canada sitting here, and she was supposed to have been here until 5:30. It is now past 5:30.

    The Chair: Well, almost 5:30.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: We have other business to do ourselves. Could we ask the Auditor General if she would like to leave, and we can continue with our business?

    The Chair: Ms. Phinney, you may call that a point of order. The orders of the day are from 3:30 to 5:30. This meeting will be adjourning at 5:30.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Why?

    The Chair: Because that's the order of the day.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: It didn't start until--

»  (1730)  

    The Chair: It doesn't matter when it started. It was held up by the House. There were votes in the House, and they take precedence over the committees. Committees never start until the votes are finished. We all have an obligation to vote in the House. There is no way a committee would dream of starting when there are votes in the House.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: We're not babies, we understand that.

    The Chair: That is why we were late.

    On a point of order, Mr. Thibault.

    Hon. Robert Thibault (West Nova, Lib.): Mr. Chair, you could perhaps advise me as to the proper form, but I would like to move that the proceedings continue beyond the allotted time.

    The Chair: We have an order by the committee from the minutes of Tuesday, March 23, only a week ago, that if required, the committee sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays from nine to one and on Wednesdays from 3:30 to 5:30. It is now 5:30. If you want to change that, you will require unanimous consent

    Hon. Robert Thibault: I am asking for unanimous consent.

    The Chair: Mr. Thibault is asking for unanimous consent to extend the hours. Is there unanimous consent that he may put that motion?

    Some hon. members: Yes.

    Mr. Vic Toews: I have a point of order.

    The Chair: It's not a point of order. I'm asking if there is unanimous consent for Mr. Thibault to put the motion.

    Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): I do not consent until I know what time it is until.

    The Chair: Mr. Thibault, what are you proposing?

    Hon. Robert Thibault: I would suggest that we meet until 7:30 or such time as we've dealt with all the motions before us.

    The Chair: The orders of the day said until 5:30.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: Make it seven.

    The Chair: Is there unanimous consent?

    There is no unanimous consent. The motion is denied.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: What was the motion, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: The motion was a week ago that we sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays from nine until one, four hours each day, and on Wednesdays from 3:30 to 5:30. This is now the hour of adjournment. There is no unanimous consent.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I understand, but is it not possible to amend the motion? I understand that there was no time allocation put on it. Could we not move to continue until 6:30?

    The Chair: Unanimous consent was denied. Do you want to keep putting forward motions? What is your proposal?

    Mr. Alan Tonks: My proposal would be that we sit until 6:30.

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks is proposing that we sit until 6:30. Is there unanimous consent for us to consider the motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Vic Toews: Is my motion, then, being forwarded to the House? Is that what's happening?

    The Chair: We are just continuing to deal with the point of privilege. I haven't ruled on the point of privilege.

    Is there unanimous consent for Mr. Tonks to put that motion?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks, would you put your motion?

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I would so move, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Tonks moves that we sit until 6:30.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The motion is carried.

    Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): Mr. Chair, I did want to at least have an opportunity to respond to--

    The Chair: This is only on the point of privilege raised by Mr. Toews. You can't talk about any other proposed point of privilege.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I am simply responding to remarks made by my friend across the way from the island. He basically is talking about a situation of almost two years ago. I know there is no statute of limitations, but he has been able to keep his rage in check now for a good period of time. His righteous indignation today comes a little late, given that Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has referred--

    The Chair: Are you talking about Mr. Toews having raised--

    Mr. Peter MacKay: I am talking about the remarks made by Mr. Murphy.

    The Chair: You can't deal with the remarks by Mr. Murphy about two years ago. I didn't rule his remarks out of order, because he was trying to say they were relevant to the point of privilege made by Mr. Toews. If you want to try to justify your position of two years ago, that is not appropriate unless Mr. Murphy, after we deal with this one, raises a point of privilege.

»  (1735)  

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, I am responding only to the remarks that you, the chair, accepted in relation to Mr. Toews' motion.

    The Chair: You may address Mr. Toews' point of privilege only.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Very good, Mr. Chair.

    The motion that is before the chair deals specifically with the comments of Mr. Mills, and they're what I would describe as a characterization of the testimony of Mr. Chuck Guité. That characterization, I think members would admit, is what is disturbing, because it is essentially Mr. Mills characterizing Mr. Guité's testimony as exonerating Mr. Gagliano. He says specifically that someone asked Mr. Gagliano at that hearing whether there was influence exerted by Mr. Gagliano on Mr. Guité. Mr. Mills responded, and he said Mr. Guité said, “Mr. Gagliano never gave me any specific direction on any advertising files.” He goes on to say that makes the case: “I have been in the business for 37 years, and I know my business.”

    I was at the committee, so I will pre-empt Mrs. Jennings' suggesting that I am now confirming what Mr. Mills has said, which I am not. I am suggesting this was a characterization of Mr. Guité's evidence, which undermines this committee's ability now to make the decision on whether to release Mr. Guité's evidence, release it at the time of his testimony. It has been agreed by Mr. Jordan--who I might suggest Mr. Mills fire as his lawyer, or at least not let him do the plea bargain--that it should be referred to the House for consideration.

    The Chair: Mr. Kenney, Mr. Murphy, and Ms. Phinney.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chair, I do not want to belabour this. First of all, I have considerable regard for Mr. Mills; I think he's a great parliamentarian. I think he made a serious mistake in this instance. I do think it is a prima facie case of privilege. But what concerns me more, quite frankly, are the remarks from Mr. Tonks. He essentially said to us--

    The Chair: Is this focused on the point of privilege?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, it is very much on the point of privilege, because I think the two are very much connected.

    Mr. Tonks essentially said to us that given that this information is starting to be leaked, we are compelled as a committee to expedite the release of this in camera testimony. That is, Mr. Chair, my concern, that we have been put in a position--

    The Chair: We've got a point of order here, Mr. Kenney.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I thought we were speaking to Mr. Mills' issue. You stopped Mr. MacKay for going over the boundary in taking something seriously that had been said by one of the members on this side. Doesn't it behove us to get on with this? I will just have to defend myself after he is finished speaking, Mr. Chair, and we can go on forever.

    The Chair: I've heard from Madam Jennings, I've heard from Mr. Murphy, I've heard from Mr. Guimond, I've heard from Mr. Mills, I've heard from Mr. Tonks, I've heard from Mr. Jordan, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, Mr. MacKay, and Mr. Kenney, and I've still got Mr. Murphy and Ms. Phinney. These are people on both sides who want to speak, and if they want to speak and they feel they have something to add, who am I to say they don't until we hear what they have to say?

    On your point of order, Mr. Kenney did to some degree summarize your position, saying here is further rationale for proceeding very quickly to release the information Mr. Mills appears to have talked about that was still in camera. So I do not think you have a point of order.

    Mr. Kenney is on the issue, so continue.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chair, directly on the motion for a finding of a prime facie case of privilege with reference to the House, my concern is that this remark, notwithstanding my tremendously high regard for the member who made it, is doubly contemptuous of this committee and of Parliament, precisely for the reason that Mr. Tonks identified. It has, deliberately or otherwise, put us in a position--it certainly put Mr. Tonks in such a position--to infer that we are now compelled as a committee to release in camera testimony, when we have not yet made that decision.

    Furthermore, Mr. Chair, Mr. Tonks suggested, as have other members, that Mr. Guité's lawyer has invited, has requested the release of in camera testimony that is under seal. This is not accurate, and I think this is a very relevant point on the motion of contempt. In his March 29, 2004, letter to Rob Walsh, our legal clerk, Mr. Edelson, Mr. Guité's counsel, said, “Mr. Guité's agreement to waive confidentiality is contingent upon the committee's agreement to accommodate his travel schedule and the time necessary to meet with legal counsel prior to testifying, should these dates be altered to a timeframe without Mr. Guité--”

»  (1740)  

    The Chair: On a point of order, Mr. Thibault.

    Hon. Robert Thibault: Mr. Chair, I recognize this is difficult for you, but I would ask you to consider whether this is actually speaking to the motion of privilege or is more a debate on a motion that may come before the committee.

    The Chair: Mr. Thibault, Mr. Tonks most definitely did raise the issue that having Mr. Mills talk about this in public and what Mr. Mills said in public perhaps did influence the process of coming to a conclusion by this committee. I think the point is relevant. I didn't expect Mr. Kenney to read the whole letter, but somebody from the government side asked him to read the whole letter. I don't think we need to read the whole letter, Mr. Kenney.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: No, Mr. Chair. I was invited by a Liberal member to read the paragraph. Essentially, Mr. Guité's agreement to waive confidentiality is contingent upon certain reciprocal actions on the part of this committee. Carte blanche release of the confidentiality undertaking of this committee in 2002 was not granted by Mr. Edelson on behalf of his client earlier this week. This is a very grave matter, Mr. Chair. This goes directly to the motion that is before us.

    Let me just close with this point. Mr. Guité is clearly, if not the key witness, one of the key witnesses in this matter. His willingness to give live testimony before us is contingent. For individual members, as one member did today, to start leaking that confidential testimony I believe jeopardizes the possible cooperative appearance of Mr. Guité to provide us with live testimony. That is particularly contemptuous of the committee and the process in which we are engaged.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kenney.

    On a point of order, Mr. Lastewka.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: Do we have a motion on the floor?

    The Chair: We have a point of privilege on the floor, and everybody is speaking to the point of privilege. There is not a motion on the floor.

    Mr. Murphy is next, and he seems to be the last speaker. Then we will rule on the issue of the point of privilege.

    By the way, Mr. Murphy, you will not speak to anything that you may raise regarding Mr. MacKay at a later date.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: I think my point is on the next motion, so I will withdraw at this point in time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: That is the end of the speakers.

    Now, I don't do this every day, but I do want to clear up some misconceptions. It has been said that the chair is opposed to releasing the information. I just want to put this on the record. I quoted from a letter from Mr. William C. Corbett, which I read into the record. It was dated March 24. It was addressed to Marlene Jennings, with a copy to me as the chair. It dealt with this particular issue of making the information public. It says:

A precedent that relates indirectly to this circumstance dates back to 1978 when, by House Order, a committee was allowed to make available to a commission of inquiry in camera evidence heard during an earlier Parliament and to impose on the commission any conditions that it wished. The committee then adopted a motion to make the documents available to the commission of inquiry for examination in camera, and required those documents to be returned at the end of the examination.

In view of the actions of the House in 1978 and in the absence of other precedents suggesting other options, it would appear to be prudent for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to seek a House Order should it wish to make public in camera evidence from a previous session.

    I have argued and supported the position of Mr. Corbett. At no point in time did I as the chair say that the information shouldn't be made public. I said the process to be followed if this committee wishes to make it public will be in accordance with the rules and advice of the Clerk of the House of Commons. I do not want to hear in the general public comments made against the chair that he spoke against making the information public, because he never has. Let that be perfectly clear.

    Now I am going to deal with the issue of privilege raised by Mr. Toews. Clerks, what do you have to say?

»  (1745)  

    The Clerk of the Committee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I believe there is a desire to have the process explained to the committee, so I will quote from pages 129 and 130 of Marleau and Montpetit:

Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee...the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter. The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and is not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member's interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate, or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, then the Chair will rule accordingly, giving reasons. The committee cannot then consider the matter further as a question of privilege. Should a Member disagree with the Chair's decision, then the Member can appeal to the committee, which can sustain or overturn the Chair's decision.

If in the opinion of the Chair the issue raised relates to privilege (or if an appeal should overturn a Chair's decision that it does not touch on privilege), then the committee can proceed to the consideration of a report on the matter to the House. The Chair will then entertain a motion which will form the text of the report. It should clearly describe the situation, summarize the events, name any individuals involved, indicate that privilege may be involved or that a contempt may have occurred, and request the House to take some action. The motion is debatable and amendable, and will have priority of consideration in the committee. If the committee decides that the matter should be reported to the House, it will adopt the report which will be presented to the House at the appropriate time during the Daily Routine of Business.

    The Chair: Okay.

    I think it's a decision of the chair to make a determination that there's prima facie evidence of a point of privilege. As was pointed out, I do not make the final determination of whether there is or there isn't prima facie evidence.

    That then is reported to the House in a report by the committee, tabled by the chair. Whatever that report says to the House will then be the process that will be followed, and the House will take it up from that point forward.

    We are dealing here with testimony that is in camera, testimony that has been.... The constraints around this testimony have been discussed a number of times in this committee, where we have stated quite explicitly that members may attend to the clerk's office, read the testimony, make no notes, and leave. That way they're apprised of or refreshed with the information that is in there.

    We all know that the motion on whether or not this information will be made public has not been dealt with.

    If I read the information given to me--I think I'm quoting from the same information that was quoted by Mr. Toews--it says the following:

Later this month the committee will hear from Chuck Guité, who ran the sponsorship program for several years. But Guité testified behind closed doors two years ago, and Mills says at that time Guité made it clear that Alfonso Gagliano was not directing the sponsorship program.

And then Mr. Mills went on to make some quotes.

    Based on the preamble before your quotes, Mr. Mills, you were advised that he had testified behind closed doors two years ago. I believe there is a prima facie case of a contempt, and therefore that it shall be reported to the House.

    Ms. Phinney.

»  (1750)  

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I think I heard the clerk say that we have to explain the whole situation, and I think we'd be in error if we didn't state that part of Mr. Guité's statement was public. Two people went to the media and talked about it.

    So I would like to have legal counsel's advice on that. It's part of the story, and you can't give half the story.

    The Chair: Before you continue, Ms. Phinney, again I'll quote from Marleau and Montpetit, which says, on page 130, “The Chair will then entertain a motion which will form the text of the report.”

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes, but he also read that effective--

    The Chair: I found that there was a prima facie case of contempt. Now we must talk about the report to the House. If you want to say that they contain that information....

    But before we move to what that report should contain, before we get that far, Mr. Toews, the chair having found that there is a prima facie issue, do you wish to move your motion?

    Mr. Vic Toews: I do wish to move the appropriate motion that the committee report to the House the evidence presented and make the appropriate ruling and consideration.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

    I am just going to confer with the clerks for 30 seconds, if I may.

    All right, Mr. Toews, you again have the floor.

»  (1755)  

    Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would ask the parliamentary staff to summarize my comments and provide them in a succinct report for the committee tomorrow so that I can draft the appropriate motion on that basis. I recognize that this is a very serious matter, and I don't want to do it up in a matter of two or three minutes simply to do the proceedings. In my discussion with counsel, that suggestion was made, and I think that's a reasonable suggestion in light of the gravity of the matter.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Toews, in addition to your intervention on the point of privilege, Ms. Phinney has introduced some additional information that she feels should be part of the report. I'd like her to say what that is. However, I don't think we need to go on amending and debating and making motions and so on. If we could get on the table tonight the information that should form part of this report, then the researchers and the clerks could have this for us by tomorrow morning.

    So you say you have something, Ms. Phinney, that you wish to be included in the report.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I think the clerk read the part of the rule book that says we have to give the whole story and explain the situation clearly. I think it should be stated clearly that certain information that is on the tape has already been revealed to the public through comments...and I don't mind if you put in there that it was through comments “by so and so”. It should be stated that some of the things that were on the tape have already been revealed, have been in the media.

    So I think that should be included.

    The Chair: I'm not sure how they would want to word that, because I don't think “on the tape” would be the appropriate terminology. I think what you're saying is that some people spoke of the testimony....

    Ms. Phinney?

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I'm sorry.

    The Chair: I believe what you're referring to is that some other members besides Mr. Mills spoke to the media about the testimony at an earlier time, and that reference should be made to this as well.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Yes.

    The Chair: That's fine.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: But I'm not any more concerned than that.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Madam Jennings wanted to speak.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, I'm fine.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Are we all agreed that overnight the clerks and the researchers will put together, with the context, a succinct report of Mr. Toews' intervention, adding what Ms. Phinney had to say, and that will sum up the report? We will adopt that tomorrow and I will table it in the House. Is that agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I am honoured to have had an invitation to join the committee. You've just indicated that, should I be happy and honoured to be with the committee tomorrow, I would be voting in favour of the report. I would certainly be considering the report as something I might vote in favour of, but I wouldn't want to prejudice the debate if the debate continues.

    In any event, I wanted to signal this, that I....

¼  (1800)  

    The Chair: That you may or may not vote in favour of the report tomorrow.

    Mr. Derek Lee: That's right.

    The Chair: Well, that's good, because we all are going to vote in favour of or not in favour of the report tomorrow. So you're not alone.

    Mr. Murphy, did you want to raise a point of privilege?

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Chair, after what's gone on this afternoon, I think what I'd like to do is just turn my discussion into a notice of motion. We can perhaps bring it up in a day or two, after we've dealt with this.

    The Chair: A notice of motion on what?

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: That Mr. MacKay's actions before this committee constitute a contempt of Parliament.

    The Chair: Well, as far as I know, a point of privilege doesn't take a notice of motion.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: At the earliest point, Shawn. You're on the ball. Two years....

    The Chair: A point of privilege takes precedence over everything. You either raise it and we deal with it or you don't raise it and we don't deal with it. A notice of motion is not part of it.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: Okay. I withdraw it.

    The Chair: Okay, those issues are dealt with.

    Mr. Guimond asked if the motions given to me would be dealt with by unanimous consent. He has given them dated March 31, which is today. He is asking for unanimous consent to deal with that. We have about half an hour. Since he sought unanimous consent, I will ask him to read his motions. If he has unanimous consent, we will deal with them. Then I'll deal with correspondence, then I'll deal with motions in the order they have been received.

    Monsieur Guimond, you've given me the two motions. Let me just read them and see if there is unanimous consent for us to deal with them.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: May I have one moment?

    The Chair: Okay, you may have one moment.

    Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chair, I can read you the two motions for which I am seeking...

[English]

    The Chair: I will read your motions, Monsieur Guimond, to see if there's unanimous consent for you to introduce your motions.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I would like to understand why Mr. Mills is refusing even before hearing the wording of the motion.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Mills hasn't been recognized, so he can wait until he is recognized.

    I will read your motion and find out if there's unanimous consent for it to be dealt with. Remember also, Monsieur Guimond, that the motions you have asked unanimous consent for are in some ways a duplication of motions that are already being dealt with. Therefore, the committee may not wish to deal with yours, but rather deal with their own.

    Madam Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I was just going to make a point of order that he is requesting unanimous consent to waive the 48 hours' notice.

    The Chair: I guess that's right.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We need to be very clear. It is not unanimous consent for the actual substance of his motion. Should he obtain unanimous consent to waive the 48 hours' notice, his motions would be dealt with after any other motion for which 48 hours' notice has already been given and expired and which is on the order paper to be dealt with.

    The Chair: As I say, I will point out that these motions you are introducing are covered off to a large degree by motions already on the table.

    Are you prepared to waive the 48 hours' notice for Mr. Guimond to introduce a motion that says the public accounts committee should release the in camera evidence given by Charles (Chuck) Guité before this committee on July 9, 2002, as part of its examination of the report of the Auditor General of Canada dated May 8, 2002?

    An hon. member: No.

    The Chair: There is not unanimous consent.

    The second one is that Charles Guité be summoned to appear before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on April 7, 2004; and in the event that Mr. Guité refuses to do so, that the chair of the committee be instructed to inform the House of Commons of this fact immediately, so that it may take action; and that it be recommended that the House direct Mr. Guité to appear before the committee. Are you prepared to waive the 48 hour rule on that motion?

    An hon. member: No.

    The Chair: There is not unanimous consent, so these motions are received by the clerk.

    We did have a rule, Mr. Guimond, that motions be cleared by the clerk's office and by the auditor to make sure you are not asking for the same thing that has already been asked for.

    I will now deal with correspondence. This is a letter to me dated March 30, 2004. It's addressed to me as the chair of the public accounts committee and is from Mr. Corbett, the Clerk of the House of Commons. It states:

Dear Mr. Williams:

Further to your request yesterday, in light of recent deliberations at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I have again considered the issue of access to evidence given in camera before a committee during an earlier session of the same Parliament.

My letter to Mrs. Jennings dated March 24, 2004, which has since been read to the committee, dealt with three issues in a generic context.

First, it stated that committees may order that in camera evidence heard in one session be deemed heard during the current session.

Second, the letter described the traditional method for providing access to in camera evidence or any document distributed at an in camera meeting to committee members.

Third, the letter referred to the clear authority of the committee to dispose of in camera evidence it has itself heard as it sees fit. At the same time, it referred to the absence of a clear and direct precedent regarding the authority of a committee to decide whether to publish in camera evidence and related documents from a previous session.

I have reviewed the transcripts of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Monday, March 29, 2004, in light of points summarized above and I have found nothing that would lead me to reconsider the advice contained in my letter of March 24.

I trust this clarification will be helpful.

Yours sincerely,

William C. Corbett

    On the letter, we have passed a motion that the in camera evidence heard at a previous session has now been adduced and is before this committee properly. I have referred to Mr. Corbett's previous letter to Mrs. Jennings saying he strongly advised prudence, because we are dealing with a serious issue and there is no precedent for this, and that we seek an order of the House--

¼  (1805)  

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I wish to know if we are at this point in the process of considering my motion that the committee, in accordance with Mr. Guité's decision, waive confidentiality?

    The Chair: I think your point of order comes--

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: May I finish, please?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It is a point of order, because the request you made as chair to Mr. Corbett to reconsider is in direct relationship to either debate or a decision that this committee will be rendering on my motion. So I would like it made clear that my motion is now on the table and you are prefacing any debate on that.

    The Chair: I am dealing with correspondence at this point in time, Madam Jennings. Your motion I think is coming next.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You are simply reading out the correspondence.

    The Chair: I'm reading out the correspondence. I'm explaining the correspondence so that all can understand the context. As I said, Mr. Corbett advised--

¼  (1810)  

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I understand English. I also understand French--

    The Chair: Well, that is very good, but Mr. Lee has shown up for the first time.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: --therefore I do not need someone to explain correspondence to me.

    The Chair: Madam Jennings--

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, if you are going to be rude to me--

    The Chair: I'm not being rude to you.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That's exactly what you are doing.

    The Chair: I am not. I am ruling you out of order--

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That's exactly what you are doing.

    The Chair: I am ruling you out of order.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: You can do that.

    The Chair: I just did.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: On a point of order, I think the point Mrs. Jennings is making is that you are making editorial comments when there is a motion. I think Mrs. Jennings is right.

    The Chair: You're out of order too.

    Mr. Alan Tonks: I think if you put a vote, the committee would find that.

    The Chair: Mr. Kenney.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: You're going through orders of the day, one of which is correspondence. I would just make the point that there are several notices of motion to be considered this evening, one of which relates directly to the letter you just read. I gave notice on March 29 of a motion to be put today that the committee seek further advice from the clerk--

    The Chair: Is this a point of order?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes. I'm just giving notice to withdraw my notice of motion.

    The Chair: That's not a point of order.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: All right. Then I will bring it up later.

    The Chair: I'm just going to finish my summation of this letter from Mr. Corbett. He said it would be prudent. He didn't change his advice. He said nothing would lead him to reconsider his position.

    Even though it was argued at the time that the new information was that Mr. Guité had agreed to the release of the information, Mr. Corbett has not changed his advice to this committee. At no time did I say that the information should not be released. I just cautioned that this committee act with prudence. That is all. And I don't like comments in the media to the contrary.

    I'll now deal with the motions we have in order.

    There was a notice by Mrs. Jennings on March 29:

That, pursuant to S.0. 108(3), Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the Auditor General'sNovember 2003 Report referred to the Committee on February 10, 2004, this Committeedo, in accordance with Mr. Guite's decision to waive the confidentiality of the in camerahearings wherein he testified in 2002, immediately render his 2002 in camera testimonypublic and modify the summons so as to change the date of appearance from April 1, 2004 to April 22 and 23, 2004.

    So there are two parts to Mrs. Jenning's motion.

    Point of order.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chair, once again I gave you notice of two motions on Monday, one of which I seek to withdraw, that the committee seek further advice from the Clerk of the House of Commons on the propriety of unsealing in camera testimony given to the committee in 2002. I withdraw that motion.

    However, I put forward another notice of motion prior to Mrs. Jennings' that the committee seek a House order stating that the committee has the authority to make public and dispose of the--

    The Chair: Are you suggesting an amendment to this motion, Mr. Kenney?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I actually would propose an amendment to Mrs. Jenning's motion. It is a separate matter, but I'm moving consideration of my notice of motion prior to hers, given that I believe it's a preceding motion.

    The Chair: We deal with them in the order received, Mr. Kenney. While some people may prefer it the other way around, the clerks tell me we deal with them in the order received.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: In that case, on a point of order, I move an amendment to Mrs. Jenning's motion.

    The Chair: It's not a point of order. You just move an amendment.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I move an amendment then to Mrs. Jenning's motion on--

    The Chair: Mr. Kenney, you have the floor on a point of order. You can't move an amendment when you're recognized on a point of order.

    Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chair, we feel that this motion...

¼  (1815)  

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Guimond, you've got the floor.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: We feel that this motion makes no sense for the simple reason that it deprives us of Charles Guité for another month. The motion calls for him to appear on April 22 and 23, whereas he was supposed to appear tomorrow, April 1. The motion deprives us of an important player in the sponsorship scandal, Charles Guité.

    In the view of the Bloc Québécois, as I said earlier—and I repeat—Charles Guité cannot be allowed to dictate the agenda of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. He is a witness, and witnesses must be available to appear before the committee, and not the other way around. The committee must not be subject to the whims of someone who is horseback riding in Arizona. While people here in Quebec and across Canada are trying to find out the truth about what happened, Mr. Guité is horseback riding and has decided that he will not be available until April 22 and 23. Under the Standing Orders, it is possible to summons someone to testify before us. I think that the committee should move quickly, Mr. Chair.

    In closing, I feel that the Liberal members are acting as accomplices and spokespersons for Chuck Guité's desire not to testify before us, since by tabling this motion to have him appear on April 22 and 23, Mrs. Jennings knows very well that there is a strong possibility that an election will be called on April 18 and that the truth on the sponsorship scandal will not have come out at that time.

    The Chair: All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Guimond.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: So I am proposing an amendment, Mr. Chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. Did you say point of order, Mr. Lastewka? I was trying to listen to the translation.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: It is my understanding, and I would like you to confirm it, that you and the vice-chair met with the lawyers of Mr. Guité. You accepted it in a private discussion, but he has confirmed in writing. We have accepted it as a committee. He has said--

    The Chair: No, no. There is a letter. Have you read the letter? There is a letter on file, period.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: What did it say?

    The Chair: Anyway, it's not a point of order, Mr. Lastewka. I'm going to go back to Mr. Guimond.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would like a point of order. Am I correct? What I've seen in this committee is that normally when someone has tabled a motion and it comes up for debate, you normally recognize the mover of that motion.

    The Chair: Okay, my apologies. I should have done that.

    Mr. Guimond I think has an amendment, but I will recognize Madam Jennings because I should have done that first.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: May I begin, or are we waiting for Mr. Guimond and then we will go back to any amendment that someone wishes to bring?

    The Chair: Madam Jennings, you're first, followed by Mr. Guimond, Mr. Adams, Mr. Kenney, and Mrs. Ablonczy.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Am I also correct in assuming that in accordance with the procedure that you have used with regard to disposing of motions, once the debate is over and everyone who wishes to speak to it has spoken, you come back to the mover of the motion and ask if they have any final words? Would I be correct in assuming that it is in fact the procedure that you've used generally?

    The Chair: Quite often I do that. If you wish to be recognized I would always recognize you at that point.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would appreciate that, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

    I believe that my motion is quite clear. We issued a summons for Mr. Guité to appear on April 1, 2004. Mr. Guité's lawyer sent a letter to the committee chair dated March 29 and received on March 29. That letter was read to the committee. In it, Mr. Guité's lawyer states that his client has authorized him to waive the confidentiality of his in-camera testimony given before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in 2002. The lawyer also mentioned that Mr. Guité was held up in the United States and could not come back to Canada before April 9, I believe, and that the author of the letter, Mr. Guité's legal counsel, would be out of the country until April 15, inclusive. So he was asking for an accommodation that would see the committee amend the summons so that the appearance would take place on April 22 and 23, 2004, rather than April 1, 2004.

    As for being dictated to by Mr. Guité, I do not believe that this is the case. If that is the argument that the Bloc intends to use, I believe that it might want to amend the motion for which Mr. Guimond tried to obtain the committee's unanimous consent to waive the 48 hours' notice, because if I am not mistaken, Mr. Chair, members do not have the right to comment on how people have voted in a committee. In Mr. Guimond's motion, the appearance date in the summons is not April 1, but a later date. So if he wants to assign motives to Liberal members regarding the appearance date that he is proposing, given that this date is not April 1, he needs to assign the same motives to his own party and to himself.

    On the question of substance, which is the first issue in my motion, that is, the immediate publication of Mr. Guité's in-camera testimony given in 2002, with all due respect for the Clerk of the House, I cannot agree with his opinion. I believe that there have been many decisions made by the House, the Speaker of the House, to the effect that a committee has full powers, that it is master of its own fate. In light of those decisions and that principle, this committee has all the authority it needs to decide if it will cancel the three-year publication ban imposed two years ago, in 2002, as per the request or the decision by Mr. Guité to waive the confidentiality of his in camera testimony. I believe that this committee has full authority to make that decision.

    I must say, given the respect that I have for the House and for Parliament and for the Clerk of the House, that I am not saying this and I did not come to this conclusion lightly or quickly. I have thought long and hard about committee powers. I have also thought about the weight that a committee must give to a witness's decision to waive the confidentiality of his in-camera testimony when it is subject to a publication ban. But since this testimony belongs to Mr. Guité, in my opinion, and the publication ban was imposed partly at his request, since he did not want to come and appear before the committee in 2002 without a guarantee that his testimony would be covered by a publication ban, I believe that this committee has the right and must use its right to immediately make public Mr. Charles Guité's in-camera testimony from 2002. Moreover, it needs to amend the summons to change the date when he will appear before the committee to April 22 and 23, 2004, from April 1, 2004.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

¼  (1820)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Madam Jennings.

    Monsieur Guimond, you had your intervention. You were going to make an amendment. I will only take your amendment.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I would simply add, to explain the context of the amendment, that we are proposing the date of April 7. I am going to read you the wording of the amendment. What the Bloc is proposing is an accommodation, and not full leeway like the Liberals across the table. When I was listening to Mrs. Jennings, I had the impression that I was listening to Charles Guité's lawyer.

[English]

    The Chair: Your amendment, please?

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: The amendment would change the second to last line of Mrs. Jennings' motion to read as follows: “and amends the summons to make the hearing date April 7, 2004.”

    I am replacing the words “April 22 and 23” by “April 7”, and dropping the end, “rather than April 1, 2004.”. That becomes null and void anyway.

¼  (1825)  

[English]

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Monsieur.

    The amendment is that the last dates in Madam Jennings' motion, April 22 and April 23, 2004, be replaced by April 7, 2004. That is the proposed amendment by Monsieur Guimond.

    There will only be discussion and debate on the amendment and nothing else. Is there debate on the amendment?

    There is no debate on the amendment. I will call the question on the amendment.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

    Could we have a recorded vote, please?

[English]

    The Chair: You want a recorded vote? Okay.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): That negates the agreement in the letter.

    The Chair: We'll have no discussion across the floor, please. The clerk will do the roll call.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Could you read the motion that we're voting on here?

    The Chair: Okay. The full motion reads:

That, pursuant to S.0. 108(3), Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the Auditor General'sNovember 2003 Report referred to the Committee on February 10, 2004, this Committeedo, in accordance with Mr. Guité's decision to waive the confidentiality of the in camerahearings wherein he testified in 2002, immediately render his 2002 in camera testimonypublic and modify the summons so as to change the date of appearance from April 1, 2004 to April 22 and 23, 2004.

    The amendment is to delete April 22 and 23, 2004, and replace it with April 7, 2004.

    I called the question. The roll call will happen right now.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 7)

    The Chair: The amendment is defeated. The motion, as originally proposed, stands.

    Mr. Adams, you're next.

    Mr. Peter Adams: I'm speaking now to Mrs. Jennings' motion directly.

    The Chair: Unamended.

    Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Chair, I would like to first of all concur in her remarks about the committee being master of its own fate. This is a phrase that's been around for many decades, but you and I and all the people here have worked to strengthen the role of committees and to make committees more assertive. I would quote Mr. Corbett's remark in the letter you just read out to us referring to a transfer of in-camera evidence from one session to another:

First, it stated that committees may order that in camera evidence heard in one session bedeemed heard during the current session.

    So it asserts the right of the committee to do such things. But, Mr. Chair, I'm not convinced that this is relevant. The precedent you quoted from the advice that we received from the clerk from 1978, first of all, was a long time ago, when committees were less assertive, and secondly, it refers, as is indicated here, to the committee thinking of bringing material from one Parliament into another Parliament.

    The Chair: That has been done.

¼  (1830)  

    Mr. Peter Adams: That has been done, and he asserts that. And I suggest to you that it's a very considerable undertaking. But that's not the considerable undertaking that we deal with here. We are talking about the transfer of evidence within one Parliament.

    The Chair: No. Mr. Adams, if I may clarify, we are talking about taking in-camera evidence that's now before this committee and making it public even though we made an agreement two years ago to keep it for three years.

    Mr. Peter Adams: Then I have a precedent, Mr. Chair, if I might, from 1998, which is from the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations of the House and Senate, which, like this committee, was chaired by a member of the opposition, then a member of the Alliance. It referred to--

    The Chair: The Senate?

    Mr. Peter Adams: A joint committee of the House and the Senate and it was chaired by Gurmant Grewal.

    It says here:

Last week, we passed a motion to hold an in camera meeting. Nevertheless, it was our intention to have these in camera proceedings published. We realized that this could be problematic. When a meeting is held in camera, the transcripts are not released. Otherwise, when a meeting is public, the proceedings are published. My colleagues want the proceedings to be published. We are moving a motion to overturn last week's motion to sit in camera so that our proceedings can be published.

    And then there are some other remarks and the chair, Mr. Grewal, says:

We're not hiding anything. The only thing is we did not want to write the wording of the motion until now. Shall I proceed now? Is it agreed?

    The committee answers yes, and the motion is adopted.

    Mr. Chair, I have that. So, Mr. Chair, particularly as Mr. Guité has given us permission to release this material, I would urge that we vote on this motion now.

    The Chair: There are two problems we have, Mr. Adams. One, we have three speakers who have asked to speak. The orders of the day were only to 6:30, and it is now 6:30. Therefore--

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would seek the unanimous consent of the committee that we extend the proceedings to hear from the three other speakers and then the question be immediately moved, a vote taken, a registered vote, and once we've disposed of this motion, then the committee will adjourn.

    The Chair: Madam Jennings is seeking unanimous consent that we hear from the three speakers on the list, who are Mr. Kenney, Mrs. Ablonczy, and Mr. Guimond, and that the question on the motion be put and disposed of and at that point in time the meeting would adjourn.

    Is there unanimous consent?

    Mrs. Ablonczy, on a point of order?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Chair, believing that the orders of the day would govern the committee, one of the speakers who is on the speakers list has had to leave. This is not the only responsibility that many of us have as members of Parliament, and I don't think it's fair to foreclose one of my colleagues from being able to speak because he's already left. It is past 6:30, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Let me ask the question. Is there unanimous consent to continue on?

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: No. I can't do that to one of my colleagues.

    The Chair: There is not unanimous consent.

    The meeting is adjourned.