PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, July 25, 2002

À

1005

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

À

1010

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

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

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

À

1015

Mr. Harb

The Chair

Mr. Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

À

1020

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC)

À

1025

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

À

1030

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Harb

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Harb

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Harb

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

À

1035

Mr. Mac Harb

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ)

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

À

1040

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

À

1045

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

À

1050

Mr. Jordan

The Chair

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

À

1055

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Á

1100

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

Á

1105

The Chair

Mr. John Bryden

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Pratt

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

Mr. Harb

Á

1120

Ms. Val Meredith

Mr. Mac Harb

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Á

1125

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Philip Mayfield

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Greg Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Harb

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Harb

The Chair

Mr. Mac Harb

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Á

1130

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 065

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, July 25, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

À  (1005)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance)): I call this meeting to order.

    The order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), is consideration of a letter dated Wednesday, July 17, 2002, signed by four members requesting to convene a meeting.

    The text of the request by Philip Mayfield, Odina Desrochers, Pat Martin, and Greg Thompson is as follows:

    “The Members request a meeting of the Committee in order to investigate the issuing of government contracts to Groupe Everest Inc., Lafleur Communications, Media TDA Vision Inc., Les Editions Polygone Inc., Communications Coffin Ltd., Compass Communications and Communications Columbia Ltd., as well as any government contracts funnelled through a third party; and to determine which witnesses should be called.”

    We don't normally have this type of reference. I thought that as we have a letter signed by four members of Parliament, we would have a three-minute opening statement by the signatories of the letter who are present, Mr. Mayfield, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Thompson. Mr. Desrochers is not here, so he can't speak. Then we would open it up for discussion.

À  (1010)  

    Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I and other members of the committee received a letter from Edelson & Associates dated July 12, who I believe represent Mr. Guité, which was sent to Richard Rumas, the clerk of the committee. I would like to read it into the record, Mr. Chairman, because it's not available in translation. I do believe it's relevant to the discussions we are about to have. Mr. Chairman, I can either read it into the record now or we can read it into the record immediately after the presentations of the members opposite.

    The Chair: We are going to have an open discussion after they have made their presentations. Therefore, that would be the appropriate time to read it.

    Mr. John Bryden: That is fine, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: We'll start off with Mr. Mayfield for three minutes, followed by Mr. Martin and Mr. Thompson. Then we'll have an open discussion.

    Mr. Mayfield.

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

    Good morning. I want to thank members of the committee for being here this morning.

    I left our last meeting feeling disheartened, if not angry, at what I consider to be the contemptuous attitude of witnesses before this committee. I understand there were certain questions that could not be asked, and I respect that. But what I found unacceptable was for those witnesses to say what questions they were going to answer. Since when do witnesses decide which questions will be asked and which questions will be answered in an investigation of this nature?

    In looking at the criteria for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, it says “The Public Accounts Committee is not fundamentally concerned with matters of policy.” I respect that. “The Committee does not call into question the rationale of government programs”--I respect that--“but rather the economy and efficiency of their administration. Although the Committee hopes to have a continuing influence on the quality of the federal administrative processes, its prime orientation is after-the-fact or post-audit, to understand, assess and correct...inadequacies and failings...”.

    Colleagues, I believe that's what we are here to do, and I don't think we have been able to do that at this point. I do believe we are in a situation where, if we are to fulfill our responsibility as parliamentarians, it is necessary for us to call witnesses who will answer the questions that have been so long unanswered.

    By the Prime Minister's own admission, a few million dollars have gone missing. To talk about a billboard saving Canada, I may be naive, but I'm not so naive to think that is what saves Canada. Canada is a much greater nation than that.

    So I propose, Mr. Chairman, that we consider calling witnesses. I still believe that Mr. Gagliano, the former Minister of Public Works, should be called. I believe that the former Minister of Public Works, Don Boudria, should be called. I would like to see Mr. Jean-Marc Bard called. He was senior special assistant to Mr. Gagliano in 1997 and the former chief of staff to Mr. Gagliano as Minister of Public Works. Mr. Bard is the one who told Jon Grant, “The rest of Canada is yours; Quebec is ours.” He would likely know the ins and outs of the Quebec Groupaction game. Mr. Pierre Lesieur was Gagliano's special assistant for Quebec from 1997 to 2000. We'd like to know what kind of structure was in place within Quebec.

À  (1015)  

    Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): I have a point of order.

    The Chair: Mr. Mayfield, there is a point of order.

    Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, we received a notice signed by four members of Parliament to talk about the specifics. It says “The Members request a meeting of the Committee in order to investigate the issuing of government contracts to Groupe Everest Inc., Lafleur Communications, Media TDA Vision Inc., Les Editions Polygone Inc.”, and on it goes. My colleague is now bringing forth items that are not on the agenda of this committee, and I wonder whether that is in fact in order. I would ask, Mr. Chair, that you rule on that. Then let us go back to focusing on what is before us as requested by the four members of the opposition.

    The Chair: I said we would give each signatory to the letter who is present three minutes. Mr. Mayfield was just wrapping up, I believe. He has set out a rationale and what the mandate of the public accounts committee is, which is to investigate maladministration. He quoted from the mandate of the public accounts committee. He went on to say, I presume, that in order to complete the investigation of this issue, he thought we would need to hear from these particular witnesses.

    I'd ask you to name these witnesses, Mr. Mayfield, and then I will go to Mr. Martin.

    I think your point of order is out of order, because I think he was on the issue.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, with all due respect--

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: May I--

    The Chair: Mr. Mayfield and Mr. Harb--

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, it's a legitimate point of order. I would ask for a ruling by the clerk on whether or not it is appropriate for the member to move away from the agenda while we are dealing with an agenda item that was requested by members of Parliament.

    The Chair: Mr. Clerk, is Mr. Mayfield on subject by giving the mandate of the committee and saying these witnesses would be required in order for him to complete his investigation of the issue contained in this letter?

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

    In the order of the day the text of the request by Mr. Mayfield and the other three members indicates which contracts they would like to examine in the future, and in the last sentence it says “and to determine which witnesses should be called”. So it's part of the request that came from the four members.

    The Chair: Is it in order?

    The Clerk: I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that it's in order.

    The Chair: I would ask Mr. Mayfield to finish his list, and then we'll move on to Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: The list includes Mr. Roger Collet, Mr. Marc Lafrenière, and Ms. Huguette Tremblay. I can give comments about each of those witnesses on why I believe they should be called, but if I'm out of time, I'll leave it in your hands, sir.

    The Chair: Thank you; you are out of time for now.

    We will turn to Mr. Martin for three minutes as to why you signed the letter and why you asked the chair to call this meeting.

À  (1020)  

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    It is the belief, I think, of all the opposition parties that to halt our investigation into this partnership initiative sponsorship contract after one cursory and very unsatisfactory overview of only one of the sponsorship contractors undermines the important work of this committee and also undermines my ability to be an effective member of Parliament in critiquing what we believe is a misuse of public spending.

    I believe all the members here will agree that there is at least enough evidence to indicate that there has been some maladministration or misuse of public spending. In the interests of investigating that misuse or maladministration--which is the mandate of this committee, to investigate any misuse of any public spending--we went after one very narrow scope of research and investigation, which was to investigate three specific contracts to one of the sponsorship contractors. We were stonewalled. There were two very unsatisfactory hours spent in investigating that narrow mandate.

    We believe that to get to the bottom and do our job, we need to expand that scope and investigate not just Groupaction but to ask those same questions in regard to Groupe Everest, Groupe Polygone, Communications Coffin, Compass Communications. We believe all of those pre-qualified communications sponsorship contractors were getting money-for-nothing contracts from the federal government, which would constitute a misuse and maladministration of public spending.

    It is our duty and obligation as members of the public accounts committee to continue investigating until we get to the bottom of this.

    If I could add, the rationale given for shutting down the investigation so far was that the RCMP and the Auditor General are investigating. Neither of those two investigations will yield the results or answers we need to our questions. The RCMP will only investigate fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of the private sector contractors. The Auditor General can only comment on the actions of the bureaucrats. We need to dig deeper as the public accounts committee. There are questions that only we can investigate and only we can ask.

    Therefore, I appeal to the Liberal members of Parliament on this committee to allow this investigation to proceed into the summer if necessary, because some of us believe Parliament may prorogue by September, and we will have then lost our opportunity to investigate with any further detail.

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

    Mr. Thompson, you are a signatory to the letter. You have a maximum of three minutes to tell us why you feel the chair should be calling this meeting.

    Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you to my colleagues for being here this morning.

    Mr. Chairman, I don't think we can pretend that maladministration of government funds didn't occur. It is essential that this committee look after the interests of the Canadian taxpayer. I believe that Standing Order 108.(1) empowers the committee to do exactly what we are doing here today.

    Mr. Chairman, to be very specific on the companies we are looking at, we are looking at questionable dealings of over $5 million. The Prime Minister can scoff it off and pretend that $5 million is not a lot of money, but it is a lot of money, because it is coming from the hind pockets of the taxpayer. I think the taxpayers are entitled to know where that money was spent, misspent, wasted, or abused.

    The companies in question that we mention in the letter.... Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind you that for Communications Coffin, for example, there were $116,000 of questionable expenditures; a million dollars to Lafleur, funnelled through VIA; Polygone, $330,000 received, almost one-fifth of the sponsorship money; Groupaction, $1.6 million; Compass Communications, $2.3 million, presently under review.

    Mr. Chairman, when you're looking at the total number, $5 million, it is a lot of money. I guess if you are Prime Minister for nine years you can look at it and say it's not a lot of money, just a minor detail, but the fact of the matter is that Canadians are concerned. They want to know how that money was spent. Was it legal or was it not?

    Mr. Chairman, I think the thing we have to remember, as parliamentarians, is that if the government has nothing to hide, let the committee go forward. The fact of the matter is if they don't let the committee go forward, it simply means they are concerned about further embarrassment. If the government is clean, and everything was done properly under the Financial Administration Act, don't be afraid; let this committee go ahead, let this committee do its work. I think the Canadian taxpayer is entitled to know what happened with that $5 million.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

À  (1025)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

    The fourth signatory to the letter, Mr. Odina Desrochers, is not present today, so there will be no opening statement from him.

    Mr. Bryden asked about a point of order. He said he had a letter that he thought was germane to the debate we're about to have. Therefore, I would ask Mr. Bryden to read the letter.

    Mr. John Bryden: I would just begin by saying that I take exception to the suggestion that any of us on this committee are afraid to proceed. I remind members of the committee that it was this side of this committee that wanted to pursue the Groupaction file, and it was this side of the committee that wanted to bring in Mr. Guité and Mr. Tremblay. It was our motion.

    Having said that, and as a preamble to this letter, I will point out that this committee does not have the mandate to actually call witnesses from the various companies named in the motion before us. This committee's mandate is to call the bureaucracy that handled the contracts pertaining to those particular companies that are named in this motion.

    In that context, I remind everyone that on the Groupaction file there is a key bureaucrat we brought before the committee and we had that bureaucrat in camera. If we were to proceed as this motion suggests, we would have to call that same person again. And presumably, because of possible police investigations, we'd have to have that person, Mr. Guité, appear before this committee in camera.

    In that context, Mr. Chairman, I will read the letter, which I think is very germane and very important. It's from Edelson & Associates and it was directed to Mr. Rumas, the clerk of this committee. It begins:

    “Re: In Camera appearance before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Tuesday, July 9, 2002

    “As you are aware, Mr. Guité, former Executive Director, Communications Coordination Service, Department of Public Works and Government Services, was summoned to appear by the Committee to provide information in response to questions by Members of Parliament in relation to issues arising from a report issued by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. This appearance was to be restricted to the answering of questions relating to three contracts given to Groupaction beginning the 2nd of July, 1996.

    “Legal counsel to the House, Robert Walsh, on numerous occasions explained the legal parameters of taking such information during the In Camera hearing. I would like to outline a number of concerns arising from Mr. Guité's attendance before the Committee.

    “(1) Mr. Walsh made it clear on a number of occasions prior to Mr. Guité's attendance before the Committee that the testimony of witnesses appearing would be protected by Parliamentary privilege. This was explained to mean that protection would be extended to all witnesses, not only with respect to the evidence supplied before the Committee but including derivative evidence flowing from that information.

    “(2) Committee members were well aware that I had genuine concerns with respect to the attendance of Mr. Guité before the Committee if the proceedings were held in public, which would permit not only the media to attend, but also the RCMP, to whom the Auditor General has already referred this matter for criminal investigation.

    “(3) Accordingly, it was undertaken that the evidence of Mr. Guité would be received In Camera and, as explained by the Chairman, John Williams, would not be released for three years or until such time as the RCMP investigation and/or any charges, trials or appeals were finally disposed of.

    “(4) With this understanding, Mr. Guité agreed to attend to provide information on an In Camera basis. Clearly the intent of an In Camera hearing is that all information received from the witness and all questions asked of the witness remain secret and confidential pursuant to the undertaking that induced the witness to attend before the Committee in the first instance.

    “(5) Accordingly, I was dismayed to watch, quite by accident, as numerous members of the Committee, apparently immediately after the hearing, stepped outside of the Committee Hearing Room and provided interviews to various members of the media in which it is quite apparent that they were disclosing information in relation to questions posed and answers given during a secret hearing. To convene an In Camera hearing and make representations to a witness that the proceedings will be secret, only to leave the room and disclose the content of the hearing in whole or in part is contemptuous in my estimation.

    “(6) Today I received further inquiries from a media source who had very specific definitive information that arose directly from questions posed by Mr. Martin and answers provided by Mr. Guité. It is clear not only from the media interviews but from telephone calls that I am now receiving from the media seeking comment that some members have breached the sanctity of the In Camera hearing and disclosed information received within the Committee room.

    “(7) On another matter, I want my client's position to be perfectly clear. Mr. Minto interviewed Mr. Guité, which interview was not transcribed on a verbatim basis but rather the subject of notations made during the course of the interview on the 22nd day of April, 2002. My client takes exception with a number of the notes that were made and attributed to him. On further review we have found other references with which he disagrees. As a result, Mr. Guité has never signed any of the notes in relation to this interview.

    “I would ask you to distribute this letter to all members of the Committee and to Mr. Walsh, as I am seeking an immediate explanation as to why this In Camera hearing has been rendered partially worthless by reason of the release of the information to the media in the public realm notwithstanding the In Camera order. I also have a genuine concern that those members who did give interviews to the press and released information may now be compellable in a criminal investigation; this was the very rationale for convening the hearing In Camera.”

    “Yours very truly, Michael D. Edelson”

    Now, Mr. Chairman, we can carry on.

À  (1030)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Before we carry on, are we agreed that even though it is in only one language, it can be tabled with the clerk?

    The Clerk: The letter has been distributed in both languages.

    The Chair: I thought you said it was in only one language.

    Mr. John Bryden: Did anyone else receive it? I understood that people did not receive it.

    Mr. Mac Harb: We were away.

    Mr. John Bryden: I just heard some negative reactions, so it--

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I have not been away, and I have not received it.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Since the last paragraph specifically states that this should be distributed, I wonder if it should have been part of the agenda.

    The Chair: I was not aware of the letter until Mr. Bryden raised the issue--

    Mr. Mac Harb: So you weren't aware. None of us was aware. One of my colleagues found out about this letter. There is a specific request here from a lawyer representing one of the witnesses to provide him with an explanation, which frankly goes hand in hand with the agenda item before us today.

    The Chair: Is the letter addressed to the clerk?

    Mr. John Bryden: Yes, it is.

    The Chair: Have you received a copy of the letter?

    The Clerk: The letter has been received. It has been translated and distributed to members of the committee. What might have happened is that because members have been away, it may be in their offices.

    The Chair: So we don't need a motion that the letter be tabled with the clerk because he already has it, and it has been translated.

    Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chairman, shouldn't such an important letter have been brought by you, as the chair of the committee, to this committee? We are dealing with matters of national importance here. We have a situation involving a witness who appeared before the committee to deal with those nationally important items, and the lawyer representing this individual has not spoken to you as the chair. Did the clerk bring it to your attention? I want to ask Mr. Rumas if he brought it to your attention, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Rumas.

    The Clerk: Once the letter was translated, it was sent to all members, including the chair. The chair was in his constituency, I believe, as many other members may have been.

    Mr. Mac Harb: I want to ask the chair if the chair has read this letter.

    The Chair: The chair has not read the letter. The chair was not aware of the letter until Mr. Bryden brought it to my attention.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Wouldn't the chair agree that this is a very important and alarming agenda item that should have been brought before this committee?

    The Chair: Mr. Harb--

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: I will come to you after I--

    Mr. Mac Harb: I am on a point of order, Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, this is completely aside from the agenda of this meeting. If they want to meet on this, let them call a meeting. I have an agenda here that I asked this meeting to be called for.

    The Chair: Mr. Mayfield, let me first respond to Mr. Harb. The letter is a serious statement by the lawyer on behalf of Mr. Guité. As I said, I was not aware of the letter until I came into this meeting. I haven't been in my constituency office for quite a number of days. Had I been aware of it, I might have had a different opinion. But now that I'm aware of the letter, yes, we have to decide how we're going to respond.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, I would propose a motion that the contents of this letter form part of the agenda of this meeting today.

    The Chair: Is that a motion?

    Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, sir.

    The Chair: Okay, that is a motion. Therefore that would be--

    An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, is that--

    An hon. member: I can't hear you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Okay, just let me think for a minute.

    Can we do this? The clerk tells me that the orders of the day before us are what we have. Now Mr. Bryden has introduced a letter that he said was germane to the debate. We have been advised of the contents of the letter that Mr. Bryden feels is germane to the debate. We have the letter before us. Take it into consideration as you continue the debate on the orders of the day.

À  (1035)  

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, I propose a motion before the committee that this letter be part of the agenda items today.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): On a point of order.

[English]

    Mr. Mac Harb: I'd like to know whether this motion is in order or out of order.

    An hon. member: It's out of order.

    The Chair: I think, Mr. Harb, that the motion is out of order. Let me explain why. I think it is out of order because we have, in essence, a letter before us as we discuss the orders of the day. To have your motion appended to the orders of the day--

    Mr. Mac Harb: I propose that it be appended to the orders of the day, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Let me ask you a question. When you say “appended to the orders of the day”, you're talking about the committee's response to the lawyer?

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, I want this as an agenda item. It is so relevant to what we are dealing with today that I want it to be a part of what we are talking about today. As a result of that, I want to ask the clerk if my motion is in order to require this agenda item to be a part of what we are dealing with today. Can I ask the clerk, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: You have asked the question of the clerk. What's the clerk's response?

    The Clerk: Standing Order 106(3), which gives authority for the chair to call this meeting at the request of the four members, limits the committee to discussing the request in that letter.

    The Chair: Okay. So we are limited to the request of the orders of the day. Therefore, I think your motion, Mr. Harb, is out of order, but people may refer to it in the debate we're going to have.

    Monsieur Lebel has a point of order.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Indeed, Mr. Chairman.

    First, he took the floor on a point of order and took the opportunity to make a motion. That's not right. He should have proceeded as we did and sent a letter to the committee 48 hours in advance. He can't do whatever he wants when he interrupts the committee's work to make a point of order.

    Second, we can't discuss this thing because we don't have the letter in both official languages. I have no copy because I haven't yet received it at my office.

    You'll give 48 hours' notice and the committee will meet again if we have to consider that letter.

[English]

    The Chair: There is no 48-hour rule on this committee, Monsieur Lebel. Motions may be introduced. Therefore, that point is out of order.

    As far as distribution in both official languages, the clerk tells me it has been distributed in both official languages. The letter, I understand, because it was addressed to the clerk, has been translated and has been distributed to all members and is properly before this committee without Mr. Harb's motion. Therefore, it may be part of the debate of the orders of the day. Is that okay?

    We have these technicalities out of the way, so now we're talking about the contents of the orders of the day. Mr. Mayfield has put forth a list of government witnesses that he feels is appropriate.

    Now that we have all that behind us, we're going to--

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: If I may, I would like to table with the clerk the list of witnesses that I have for consideration by the steering committee.

    The Chair: Okay, you may do that.

    Now we're into the debate. I'm going to keep the debate to the issues of the orders of the day.

    Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of points. One is that I very much feel that because the Auditor General is undertaking the expanded investigation, and it was always understood that the Groupaction investigation was dependent upon what the Auditor General had reported on Groupaction, the report we're going to table in the fall is an interim report and there will be a subsequent report when the Auditor General, as we always understood, has looked at the other files, including the companies on this list. At the very initial stage, I find it inappropriate to pre-empt what the Auditor General is doing, because it's precisely what is proposed by this recommendation.

    The reason I introduced Mr. Edelson's letter is that it also touches on another very important point that makes it very difficult for us to proceed in the way proposed by this motion. That is, the key person we would want to talk to, if we were to agree to this motion, would be Mr. Guité again, and we would have to have Mr. Guité in camera for the reasons that were mentioned in other committee hearings--primarily because of the police investigation.

    Mr. Chairman, as a result of the letter we received from Mr. Guité's legal counsel, it is clear that he has a legitimate complaint that the sanctity of the in-camera hearings was broken. We know it was broken. All you had to do was look at the next day's edition of the National Post and the Globe and Mail. The things that sources told the media were said were very accurate and did reflect what came out in the committee hearings. I'm not a lawyer, but I can say that at least one of those statements that was reported from the meeting could compromise the police investigation.

    I really regret it, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I'm also at fault, because it's very difficult not to respond to questions after an in-camera hearing. In fairness not only to Mr. Guité but also to the process, I don't think this committee should undertake a new series of in-camera hearings with Mr. Guité when we have demonstrated such little competence in keeping our confidences.

    Mr. Chairman, I read that letter. I was surprised that the other members weren't aware of it. The point raised in it is a disappointment to me, because I felt that we were doing very good work and that in the in-camera hearings we got important information that would have led--and will lead, I believe--to a very good report in the fall on the file we have covered pertaining to Groupaction.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

À  (1040)  

    The Chair: Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, what's really disappointing me is the fact that as a committee we have conducted our business thus far on a non-partisan basis. As a committee we responded to the Auditor General's reports on a regular basis. On a regular basis agenda items for future business came to the steering committee. The steering committee met in camera and reported back to the main committee, and we moved forward when we thought there were appropriate items to move forward with. When it comes to this particular issue, we have a letter that was sent by four members of the opposition to the clerk of the committee, bypassing the chair or perhaps going through the chair and bypassing the steering committee.

    Having said that, I do understand that there is a partisan nature to this request, Mr. Chair.

    Dealing with the substance of it, as my colleague outlined, we have before us now two situations, both constitutional, one where we have the police doing an investigation that may or may not touch on some of the groups identified by my colleagues, and at the end of the day there may or may not be charges laid against one or more of them. Along with that we have an Auditor General whose office received a substantial sum of money, paid by the taxpayers, and we trust that she is doing the best job that anyone can do. She told the committee on a number of occasions that she is doing a department-wide audit and that she would be reporting back to the committee some time in the future.

    For us as a committee to try to dance between two concurrent, parallel investigations may be outside the constitutional responsibility of the committee, as Mr. Walsh very nicely put it. I would submit to you, Mr. Chair, that it is outside the constitutional responsibility of this committee at this point to do anything further than respond to the report that will come from the Auditor General.

    Furthermore, Mr. Chair, I have absolutely no trust or faith in the word of some members who made a commitment that the in-camera hearings would continue for three years or until charges were laid, if there were any charges to be laid, only to find out that after that commitment was made, some of my colleagues couldn't run fast enough to get in front of the microphones in order to talk about specifics that had taken place in this committee.

    To that extent, Mr. Chair, I want to submit to you that the meeting of this committee is a total waste of taxpayers' money, a total waste of our time, a total waste of parliamentary time and administrative time. Really, the only purpose of it is to bring out partisan matters that should be left to question period. At the same time, those items that are brought before the committee are causing serious damage to a legitimate investigation that is taking place.

    I would suggest that my colleagues stop tampering with the police investigation and stop pre-empting what the Auditor General is doing. Stick to your role as committee members, for those who are committee members, and focus on the mandate of this committee, which is to deal with Auditor General reports and to deal with value for money spent at the end of the day.

    To that extent, Mr. Chair, I submit to you that this committee should send an apology to Mr. Michael Edelson about the unprofessional way in which some of its members conducted themselves after the last meeting we had. That was absolutely despicable, unbelievable, and cannot be understood by any fair-minded individual.

    To that extent, I would be voting against doing anything further until the police and the Auditor General have completed their reports.

À  (1045)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harb.

    Monsieur Lebel, please. You haven't spoken yet, so we'll give you an opportunity to speak on behalf of the Bloc.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I heard what Mr. Harb just said about partisanship. I would point out to him that, if there is anyone around this table who is partisan, it is him. He broke the rules we had set.

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Lebel, please do not make specific allegations about specific members of this committee.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, I believe this committee was struck to investigate and try to unearth more or less underhanded dealings in the administration. From listening to the man who spoke just before me, as soon as there is anything that can be called into question, our committee should withdraw and eventually allow the RCMP and the Auditor General to do their work. What is the committee's purpose if, the moment something questionable arises, we lose all authority and put the matter in the hands of the investigators or the Auditor General? If that's the case, this committee no longer has any purpose.

    We've started a job, and, with all due deference to some, we should carry it out and make a report. I have no illusions. I'm convinced the report will never be unanimous, but we must at least inform Canadians, because that's why we are here, about what has happened to the money they have entrusted to us and of which we are the trustees. We have to tell them how we have managed it. That is the purpose of this committee.

    Even though I did not sign the letter--I would have signed it if I had been present--I support it. We have been told things here of which the public is not aware. The rules for awarding contracts were not necessarily what we thought they were. One witness told us that there was no call to tender. Contrary to all the previous witnesses, who came and told us that the nine firms selected had all been selected pursuant to a call to tender, one important witness told us that there had been no call to tender and that those firms were selected because they had done an excellent job during the 1995 referendum campaign. He told us that that's why the decision was subsequently made to retain their services.

    So there are questions that must be raised here. If we don't raise them, why not simply scuttle the committee because it no longer has any purpose? Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Jordan, please.

À  (1050)  

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I don't disagree with what's been said in terms of the committee's role. The frustration I am having with this process is the timing of it. Clearly, the public accounts committee is a committee of the House. It is mandated to look at the processes that control the flow of money: whether the proper evaluation mechanisms are there, whether there are checks and balances. Through those kinds of investigations we find out whether proper rules exist. Do rules exist that weren't followed? Are the rules bad? That's the role.

    The problem I have with this process is that when we are doing it we are conducting this investigation at the same time the Auditor General is expanding her investigation into government-wide issuing of sponsorship and other contracts, and an RCMP investigation is under way. I think that Mr. Guité's rights, as somebody who potentially may be facing criminal charges, are not to be trivialized. I don't think we should be dismissing the concerns of his lawyer.

    If you remember, I brought this up in the middle of the meeting last time. I was extremely concerned with what I was hearing outside this committee room. I was not at all happy with the answer I got from the legal representation in the committee room at the time. The problem is that this gentleman who appeared before us in camera talked quite frankly, I thought. I'm not saying I was happy with the testimony; I was concerned about some of it, as everybody was. But I think we have to let the criminal investigation take precedence.

    We have now injected ourselves in that process. There are certain members of this committee who are going to find themselves involved in that criminal process. At the end of the day, the parliamentary privileges this gentleman enjoys, the same as you and I.... The argument I'd make if I were his lawyer is how did this get in the public domain? And if some of the information that was particularly frightening got into the public domain because it was leaked from this committee, guess what--you just let him off.

    Look in the mirror and ask yourself, is that serving the interests of the taxpayer? Or do we want to get to the bottom of this, get the facts, get what the RCMP come up with, get what the Auditor General comes up with--and certainly I don't think anybody in the opposition is going to suggest she's going to sugar-coat what she says. Then I think this committee can get very aggressive at looking at what happened, why it happened, who was at fault, and how do we fix it. To undertake that now, you're doing the exact opposite of what you profess to do, and that is to make sure that the people who committed these mistakes are held accountable. So the political attraction of the scrums and the attention now is pretty short-term gain for what I would suggest is long-term pain and frankly irresponsible.

    My last point is that it's general practice in my short career here that when you're discussing potential witnesses you do it in camera, and you do it in camera for a reason. To just sort of say somebody's name on national television, people out there don't know whether this is a witness, this is somebody who may have done something wrong. For goodness sake, can we use our brains? We're not on a witch hunt here. To throw around people's names out of context as if maybe they've done something wrong is damaging the reputation of those people, and I think it's absolutely irresponsible.

    I think this committee should just shut this thing down and wait until we do it in the proper order. For me, the proper order is when the RCMP and the Auditor General have completed their work. Otherwise, all we're going to do is screw it up for short-term political gain.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jordan.

    Ms. Meredith, please.

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): I'm finding this very interesting. I am new to the public accounts committee, and I look at our job as making sure that the management of the taxpayers' dollars is done in a transparent manner and in a non-fraudulent and honest manner.

    I don't think this committee is asking too much to be allowed to continue looking at the process of the sponsorship program and how the government officials manage these programs. It's their job to make sure the rules are adhered to and that the spending of public funds is done in a proper manner.

    I see nothing wrong with continuing that process. It's not up to us to question whether or not somebody is breaking the law; it's whether they're managing the money properly. Quite frankly, I don't think Mr. Guité is an issue with this particular study. I don't see why he would be called back, quite frankly.

    I think this can be handled in a manner that is responsible and that gets to the bottom of whether the rules are appropriate. Maybe the administrative processes have to be changed. Our job is to make sure that this never happens again.

    We talk about wasting taxpayers' dollars. We're talking about $5 million that may not have been spent in a proper manner. That's a waste of taxpayers' money. When you talk about value for money, that's what Canadians want to know. Was this program value for money? Was it done properly? Were all the controls that are in place to make sure it is handled in an appropriate and transparent manner used?

    I don't think we will have done a full job of looking at this until we meet with some of the people who were part of the process and talked to a broader range, and I see nothing wrong with continuing the process.

    If you want to talk about partisanship, I think the vote on the last motion to shut this thing down and the attitude--

    An hon. member: That was also in camera.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I didn't say what the vote was, did I?

    I think the attitude of not wanting to do the job of the committee until other people have done it shows what's going on here. I think the committee has a role, the Auditor General has a role, and the RCMP has a role. Let the committee do the job it's supposed to be doing.

À  (1055)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Martin, please.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I agree with Ms. Meredith. I don't understand how the Liberal members who have spoken at this committee hearing today can in all good conscience take steps to shut down the work of this committee at this particular time.

    The Chair: We haven't had a vote yet.

    Mr. Pat Martin: At least one member said that he'll be voting against the motion before us today to expand the investigation. I don't think it's divulging any state secrets to say that the Liberal members have spoken against expanding the investigation. I don't understand how in all good conscience they can do that, because this is not about partisanship. This is about acting on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer. This is about doing our job as members--

    An hon. member: —[Editor's Note: Inaudible]—

    The Chair: Let him have the floor.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, I have the floor. I shouldn't be heckled and have to listen to catcalls when I have the floor. I've waited patiently for my turn to speak.

    On the issue of the specifics that may have been divulged from the other in-camera hearings we held, those facts were not gleaned from the testimony given at those hearings. They were available from other sources to many members of Parliament. So if the justification for not holding more investigations is because some secrets may be divulged, the member should investigate further as to what facts may have been divulged and the sources. I will prove that they were from other sources.

    Also, the members who have been speaking against expanding the investigation are showing a wilful blindness to what the real motion is and the list of witnesses that were called for today. No one has called for bringing Mr. Guité back. In fact, some of us feel that would be pointless. Mr. Guité stonewalled us. He told us nothing. Mr. Guité--

    Mr. John Bryden: I absolutely object. You're talking about an in-camera meeting. That does not represent what the witness said. I do not agree.

    The Chair: Mr. Martin, you should not be making comments on your impressions of what happened at the in-camera meeting. I presume a point of order has been raised.

    Mr. John Bryden: It is a point of order.

    The Chair: Therefore, I uphold the point of order and ask that you refrain from talking about the in-camera meeting.

    I've asked him to refrain, Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chair, I'd still like to speak to my point of order.

    The Chair: You may speak to your point of order.

    Mr. John Bryden: I reviewed--

    Mr. Pat Martin: I have a second point of order.

    Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Martin, it's a point of order, and you'll have an opportunity to speak to it.

    The Chair: Mr. Bryden has the floor.

    Mr. John Bryden: What distressed me about Mr. Edelson's letter is that when I reviewed what was written in the press, not only did I find many things that accurately reflected what occurred in the in-camera meeting, I also found statements that made allusions to the behaviour of the witnesses, the credibility of the witnesses, and the responses of the witnesses that I deemed from my experience in that in-camera meeting to be untrue. In other words, I felt that statements were made about the witnesses who appeared in camera that dishonestly reflected on their testimony.

Á  (1100)  

    The Chair: That is your opinion, Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. John Bryden: That is why, Mr. Chairman, it's important that we do not make this mistake again.

    The Chair: I have ruled, Mr. Bryden, that we will not talk about impressions or testimony received in the in-camera meeting.

    Mr. John Bryden: And we do.

    The Chair: Therefore, I will rule you out of order if you continue down that vein, Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Fair enough.

    Now, it's our belief that there is good reason to continue the investigation as the awarding of these sponsorship contracts pertains to other communications contractors, and not necessarily through the witnesses we have already heard. You've already heard Mr. Mayfield call for a completely different witness who was the executive director of the CIO, which ran the partnership initiative, which also awarded sponsorship contracts to pre-qualified advertising firms in a manner that was commented on by the Auditor General to where there was a distinct lack of value, in her opinion, for the money paid out. In some instances it was a money-for-nothing contract situation. That in itself should warrant further investigation, without reprisals and without calling the same witnesses forward, if that is some of the concern.

    I don't think the members opposite have been listening that well to the actual motion before us today and the other witnesses called for.

    If I can say one thing--

    The Chair: Final point.

    Mr. Pat Martin: --in closing, my final point is when we do have witnesses before this committee, it's a point of legal ethics that a lie by omission is still a lie.

    The Chair: I hope you're not talking about the in-camera meeting again, are you, Mr. Martin?

    Mr. Pat Martin: Certainly not, Mr. Chairman. I'm simply pointing out a point of legal ethics. We should keep in mind when we call witnesses before this committee that a lie by omission is in fact a lie, and we should be conscious of that fact when we interview people.

    The Chair: Okay. Mr. Mayfield, followed by Mr. Bryden, followed by Mr. Thompson.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I regret the statement that this has been called for partisan purposes. I reject that, sir. First of all, while the committee regularly uses the Auditor General's reports as a basis for calling its meetings and calling witnesses, I don't think the committee is limited to that by the terms that I have studied.

    I think this committee has for a long time been seduced by a culture that the government does it and we will sort of follow the lead. That's a dangerous thing. I was happy to see the committee exercise its authority when a witness was invited and he refused to come. In fact the committee has the authority to subpoena, and did that.

    I also am strongly convinced that we are not here to make any judgment about criminal activity. That's not what we're here for. We're here to look at procedures and determine if things are done correctly or if there is maladministration.

    Now, it seems to me there's a question of maladministration that does need to be examined by this committee. This is an argument I've made in this group many times. We have looked at the maladministration of prescription drugs and seen the consequences of people dying as a result of that maladministration. This committee did not follow strictly the Auditor General's lead in calling witnesses in that instance.

    I think the committee needs to have some independence and express some view. I call upon my Liberal colleagues: for goodness sake, we're looking at administration, we're not making political judgments on the bureaucracy. It's the bureaucracy we're looking at. Where something has been done, we have a responsibility to our taxpayers and to our parliamentary system to see that the system works the way it's supposed to. And if it doesn't and it falls on its face, who's to blame? We're here and we're not doing our job.

    Liberal colleagues, we're not trying to bring down your government. We want to see the administration serve Canadians the way they should be served.

    An hon. member: You were doing pretty good up till then.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Not today. We'll do that later. But this is not--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Hold on, friends. Hold on. Hold on.

    The Chair: Order. My gavel is coming apart here.

    Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: When you defend maladministration, you look bad, sir, and we all look bad, because we appear to be putting it aside as not being important. When Canadians in my part of the world, constituents who think a million dollars is a lot of money, which it is, and that they really don't have their rightful share of the wealth that is being generated, see what's going on here, the only fatigue they get is the fatigue of nausea. I want to tell you that this is important to them. If we simply push this aside, we will bear the consequences of it by watching our parliamentary system unfold and deteriorate.

    Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that the witnesses I have suggested were put forward because I believe they may have information that would help this committee come to a decision about whether or not there was maladministration. The RCMP can worry about the criminal stuff. I'm not interested in that. I'm not a policeman.

    Thank you, sir.

Á  (1105)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Bryden, please.

    Mr. John Bryden: Let me say, first and foremost, that I agree with almost everything Mr. Mayfield and Ms. Meredith have said.

    On this side we have been very conscious of the fact that this committee has to go outside of the box and pursue maladministration, and we did so. We showed, I think, a very rare initiative for a committee to ignore the fact that there was a police investigation and to pursue the Auditor General's report on Groupaction. But the original mandate we had was about the Auditor General's report on Groupaction. I had great sympathy with Ms. Meredith when she said she would have liked to have pursued other witnesses, I presume in the context of the Groupaction investigation.

    When it came to deciding that we should not proceed any further on calling witnesses on the Groupaction investigation, I debated it in my own mind, and one of the reasons I did not support going forward was because I thought that we had identified some significant areas of maladministration. Secondly, I thought it was very important that we get a report out as soon as possible--hopefully, as soon as the House reconvenes, because in my mind there is a danger of prorogation, and we may lose the work we've done. I'm also very conscious of the fact that the Auditor General had a follow-up report that was going to deal with the companies named here, which, I remind you, were dealt with by the very executive director we had before us in camera. I felt that we had enough at least to do an interim report. It was always an interim report in my mind.

    When the Auditor General came down with the more elaborate report that touched on the companies that are mentioned on the agenda today, then there would be the occasion to look at all the other people who have been affected. It's not just about one or two people who have administered badly; it's also about the negative effect that has on the whole culture in Public Works.

    So I have 100% sympathy with the positions taken by the Canadian Alliance. My difficulty when I came to this was that I only had before me what was in the letter. I felt that we had dealt with the issue of whether or not we should carry on with the Groupaction investigation. We had decided--you may not agree, and you obviously don't--not to continue. But what we had in the letter was the prospect of extending an investigation that was beyond the mandate of the Groupaction investigation we undertook originally and that would duplicate or pre-empt what the Auditor General is undertaking.

    I can assure you that when the Auditor General's report comes down and as she comes across these other companies, we'll be right there with you to pursue it, as we always have been on this side, because we can't afford to have Canadians lose confidence in their public servants. That is what this really is all about.

    I have disagreed from time to time with my Bloc colleague. I don't feel it's the mandate of this committee to determine whether or not Groupaction or any of these other companies have acted in a responsible manner with these contracts. That would be the purview of another standing committee entirely. This committee is focused on government administration and bureaucracy and making sure it performs to the high standards that Canadians expect of it.

    I certainly don't like the thought of partisan volleys going across here. I thought we had wonderful cooperation. But the reality is there has been a problem with respect to the breach in the confidence with respect to Mr. Guité. I feel very keenly that we, as a committee, do owe him an apology. This should not have happened. I'm not going to move a motion like that, because a standing committee of Parliament is a very distinguished body, and it should never make apologies to anyone. But I feel keenly, as an individual, that I have been part of a collective and have failed in my responsibilities.

    If I came across strongly before, it's in no way to undermine the sentiments expressed by the members of the Canadian Alliance and the Bloc. I do find myself at odds somewhat with Mr. Martin. I think Mr. Martin perhaps is looking at this in terms that aren't to do with government administration but with political administration. I don't think it's the mandate of this committee to either consider the companies or to consider the political bosses. This committee is about public administration.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

    Mr. Thompson.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chairman, I missed the in-camera meeting for family reasons, but I will tell you that I did see the media reports, including the CBC and the other networks, on the spilling of the guts, if you will, after that. I must say I don't think anything, in my opinion, came out of that in-camera meeting that was not already out in the public domain. That's my opinion, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Well, that's fine, but we're talking about the orders of the day, Mr. Thompson--

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, if you would show the same leniency with the opposition members as you do with the government members, I'd proceed in that fashion.

    The Chair: Okay, well, as I say--

    Mr. Greg Thompson: I think you've shown a fair amount of flexibility on the other side, Mr. Chairman, and in all fairness I expect the same sort of charitable reflection on this side of the table.

    That being said, may I proceed?

    The Chair: You may proceed.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things here.

    When the government members were talking about allowing the RCMP and the Auditor General to do their job and when that's completed they'd have no problem bringing it back to the committee, that's absolute hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman. It's very clear that the government's mode of operation is to wait long enough and the problem will go away or the public will forget about it.

    The fact of the matter is that we're assuming that criminal charges are being laid. I don't think any of us can assume that criminal charges are going to be laid. The fact is, the RCMP gather their evidence in a very sophisticated manner. They are professionals. When they do gather evidence it's documented with timelines attached to it, so that it will in fact survive the closest scrutiny, and in fact cross-examination on the stand if necessary.

    For us to assume that we're going to bring evidence forward in this committee that would jeopardize a potential criminal trial is wrong. It is wrong on the part of this committee to assume that, Mr. Chairman. The fact of the matter is that the Keystone Cops would uncover just about anything that came forward in this committee as a part of an investigation. We're assuming we're going to uncover deep and dark secrets of the government that the RCMP couldn't possibly uncover.

    I believe the committee should move forward, because I believe the public has a right to know. We do know that moneys were misspent. How did it happen?

    I suggest that the most it could do to the government is embarrass the government, embarrass some high-ranking politicians, including ministers, in terms of political interference. It is my opinion at this point that it's unlikely we'd uncover something the RCMP does not already have. In fact, when the legal counsel appeared before the committee, Mr. Chairman.... I think the committee members would be hard-pressed to identify a circumstance in this country in the last hundred years where evidence that was brought before a committee jeopardized a future criminal trial.

    We're being overly cautious, Mr. Chairman. My opinion is that none of these meetings should be in camera. They should be public and the committee should be allowed to do its job.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Thompson.

    We will now move on to Mr. Pratt.

    Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As you know, Mr. Chair, I'm not a regular member of the public accounts committee, but I'm certainly drawn to some of the procedural questions that have been raised by some of the issues we've discussed here today.

    One of the things that strikes me about the letter that Mr. Bryden read was that, in my view, it should be ringing alarm bells with this committee. It's a risky endeavour indeed to throw the committee into an area where the RCMP could possibly be investigating. I was drawn, in that regard, to a few of the statements made in the letter that came from Mr. Edelson. He says at the bottom of his letter:

    “Committee members were well aware that I had genuine concerns with respect to the attendance of Mr. Guité before the Committee if the proceedings were held in public, which would permit not only the media to attend but also the RCMP, to whom the Auditor General has already referred this matter for criminal investigation.”

    He goes on to say:

    “Accordingly, it was undertaken that the evidence of Mr. Guité would be received In Camera and, as explained by the Chairman, John Williams, would not be released for three years or until such time as the RCMP investigation and/or any charges, trials or appeals were finally disposed of.”

    He goes on to say:

    “To convene an In Camera hearing and make representations to a witness that the proceedings will be secret, only to leave the room and disclose the content of the hearing in whole or in part is contemptuous, in my estimation.”

    I was drawn to some of the procedural issues related to this in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, where it talks about, on page 862, references to committee meetings and hearings of a sensitive nature. It says, and I quote: “Witnesses appearing before committees enjoy the same freedom of speech and protection from arrest and molestation as do Members of Parliament”. That particular item is footnoted: “As with Members, freedom of speech is extended to the testimony given by witnesses before committees and has been held to include protection from any possible prosecution. The House may waive this protection if it sees fit.”

    It's my understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that neither this committee nor the House waived any protection with respect to that particular witness.

    The discussion of witnesses goes on to say, on page 864: “As with the House, committees respect the sub judice convention. The convention is applied not only in the discussions held amongst members of the committee but also in the questioning of witnesses.”

    Although this matter is not before a court right now, it doesn't take too much in the way of prudence to believe that there may be issues that have been raised in relation to these matters that may at some point in fact be before a court.

    I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not a defence lawyer, but I don't think it takes too much of a fertile imagination to believe that some of the things that have happened in this committee over the course of the last few weeks could potentially be a defence lawyer's dream. I leave it at that.

    I am frankly astounded by some of the leaks that appear to have come out of this committee. I don't know of any committee that would allow that sort of thing to happen under these sorts of circumstances.

    I was also drawn, by the way, to Mr. Mayfield's comments with respect to the issue of what the role of this committee is, in fact--that it is to investigate economy and efficiency of administration. These are very important issues. These are issues that Canadians take very seriously, and I'm led to believe that this committee takes them very seriously as well. I think you should focus on those issues, and not necessarily get yourselves potentially into something that you may regret at some point in the not too distant future.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

    Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As you probably have noticed, Mr. Chair, over and over again we're going back to the same point: whether or not we should call future witnesses. I submit to you, Mr. Chair, that the credibility of this committee is in jeopardy.

     No witness would ever want to appear before a committee that, in my view, has shown from its past performance--at least some members have shown--to have leaked what amounts to double what the Exxon Valdez leaked in terms of information to the outside, some of which, Mr. Chair, may not be true. I would not comment on that.

    We have as a committee decided to hold our meetings in camera. We broke that promise. I think, Mr. Chair, that it's a matter of whether or not some members of this committee may even have broken the oath they took to respect the rules of Parliament.

Á  (1120)  

    Ms. Val Meredith: I have a point of order. Mr. Chair, with all due respect, you disallowed some of the opposition members making comments about other individuals. You seem to be giving a lot of flexibility--

    Mr. Mac Harb: I did not give names, Mr. Chair. I talked about “some members”. I made reference to the letter from the lawyer, Mr. Chair.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I have the floor under a point of order.

    The Chair: Mr. Harb, Ms. Meredith has the floor.

    Ms. Meredith.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I think you're giving Mr. Harb a lot more leeway than you have given some of my colleagues on this side.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Meredith.

    Mr. Harb, we're not into debating the oath of office that was taken. I think you've made your point.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, the point doesn't seem to have been made with some of my colleagues.

    The Chair: Well--

    Mr. Mac Harb: Let me finish my explanation as to why I'm making this point.

    The whole issue today is whether we should hold more meetings and hear from additional witnesses. I submit to you, Mr. Chair, that at the heart of this matter is a lawyer representing one of the witnesses telling us that this committee has broken its own rules. Therefore, Mr. Chair, I think it's very much in order for me to say that the committee's credibility is at issue here. It's very much in order, Mr. Chair, for me to say to you that the decision made by this committee to go in camera, which was unanimous, was not respected by some members of the committee. I'm not stating that fact by myself, Mr. Chair, but the representative of one of the witnesses--

    The Chair: You have already made that point.

    Mr. Mac Harb: May I finish, Mr. Chair?

    The Chair: No.

    We now have a point of order by Mr. Mayfield. We'll hear from Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, I think there's an important point to be made here. I don't think the credibility of this committee can be called into question because one of its members goes out of the room and says something to whomever. That has nothing to do with the committee. The committee meets in this room, and what individuals do outside the room is their individual responsibility. I don't want to be held accountable for what someone else says outside the door. To say that this committee is no longer credible is wrong, and I would not like that to stand unchallenged.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Harb, I think you have basically made your point.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, there are two points of order. I was in the middle of it, and my train of thought was interrupted--

    The Chair: Wrap it up. You're saying the same thing again.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, I hear you. The point is that no matter how often we say it, it doesn't seem to be sinking into the minds of some of the members of this committee. I submit to you, Mr. Chair, that this committee should let the police and the Auditor General do their work. We have every trust in their ability to do that. Let's focus on what's before us.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harb.

    I've given everybody who wanted to speak an opportunity to do so. Some people have spoken more than once, and some people have spoken more forcefully than others and so on.

    Now I'm going to call the vote on the order of day, which basically says that a meeting be held to investigate the issuance of government contracts, etc. Are we ready for the question?

    Monsieur Lebel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I request a recorded vote on this.

[English]

    The Chair: He wants a recorded vote.

    (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 5)

    The Chair: That would seem to wrap up the meeting.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, I would like to propose a motion, if I may.

    The Chair: Yes, Mr. Mayfield.

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: I will move, or cause to be moved, that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts discuss holding a meeting to explore the new contract regulations for the government sponsorship program that were issued on 3 July 2002 by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and call whatever witnesses the committee deems necessary.

    The Chair: Just a second. Mr. Mayfield has given notice... That was a notice of motion?

    Mr. Philip Mayfield: That was a notice of motion.

    The Chair: Okay. I'll take that notice of motion and it will be before the steering committee in the normal process.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion that I would like to move as well.

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Thompson.

    Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I move that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts investigate the circumstances surrounding the granting of a $750,000 loan by the Business Development Bank of Canada to 1172580 Ontario Limited, and call whatever witnesses the committee deems necessary.

    The Chair: Is that a notice of motion?

    Mr. Greg Thompson: That is a notice of motion, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Okay, that will also be referred to the steering committee.

    Mr. Harb.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion to be voted on now: that no further meeting take place on any matter relating to Public Works or any other government agency until such a time as the Auditor General and the police complete their investigations.

    The Chair: There are two things, Mr. Harb. One is the clerk has said that is beyond the orders of the day. Therefore that motion is out of order.

    Mr. Mac Harb: I thought, Mr. Chair, we could put a motion.

    The Chair: You can put notice. That was notice of motion.

    Mr. Mac Harb: I thought the rules of this committee allowed members to put a motion without a notice of 48 hours. That's what I thought. Do they not?

    The Chair: The clerk is telling us the Standing Orders are quite specific.

    Mr. Mac Harb: I thought, Mr. Chair, we had a number of motions being proposed, for the record.

    The Chair: Just a second. There are two things. Mr. Harb, you cannot override the Standing Orders, which give me the responsibility to call a meeting if I have received a letter. That is a standing order, so I think your motion is likely out of order on that basis. But the clerk is also saying.... What's the clerk saying?

    The Clerk: Mr. Harb is right, there is no notice requirement for this committee. However, as that standing order enunciates, the meeting is called for the single purpose as contained in the letter.

    Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, let me submit to you that this is a legitimately called meeting, so the meeting is in order. As a result of that, since the meeting is in order, then any member of this committee has a right to propose a motion to be dealt with at the time when the committee is meeting.

    Is that correct, Mr. Rumas?

    The Chair: The point that Mr. Rumas raised was we have normal meetings, normally under Standing Order 108(3)(e). These are the normal meetings of the committee. This meeting was called under Standing Order 106(3) of the Standing Orders, which has one specific reference, and that is to deal with the letter we received. That was the sole purpose of Standing Order 106(3). This is not a normal meeting of the public accounts committee. This is a special meeting called to consider a letter.

    Mr. Mac Harb: I just want clarification. Does that mean I cannot propose my motion now, Mr. Rumas? I need the answer, please. No, no, let him just answer.

    The Chair: The clerk advises me that your motion is out of order because we're dealing under Standing Order 106(3) rather than Standing Order 108(3).

    Just a second. Just to recap, I received a notice of motion from Mr. Mayfield. I said thank you and I referred it to the steering committee. I did the same with Mr. Thompson. That motion is out of order.

    Mr. Jordan, do you have something to say?

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I have just a question of the clerk.

    Would it be possible to get the legal resources of the committee to look at the letter we received from Mr. Guité's lawyer? We may very well be in a position where our subpoenas to testify are no longer enforceable. I think we should get a legal opinion of that before we continue this Perry Mason activity.

    The Chair: You're off the topic here, Mr. Jordan. However, what I will do, because none of them apply to this, is I will take it to the steering committee and at that point in time I will bring whatever information, including legal opinions, I feel necessary for the steering committee to discuss to consider their response to the letter.

    Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Last item, Mr. Chair. I wonder if you could give us an indication of what date the steering committee will meet. Perhaps we should set a date while we have everyone in the room.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: I had no real intention of calling the steering committee until the House resumes in September. The calendar says we come back in September. The committees, of course, have to be reconstituted, as you know, and elections have to be held. I think it is best to allow that process. That was my intention.

    There being no further business, the meeting is adjourned.