HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 22, 2001

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, I would like to call this meeting to order.

The order of the day is a question of privilege raised on October 15, 2001, by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast regarding the matter of the media receiving information on the contents of Bill C-36 before members of Parliament.

Before I introduce our witnesses and proceed to that item, there are a few things I would like to say.

First of all, I wanted to make sure you all have the documents for this meeting. They were sent out by messenger.

There's the “Administrative Review of Unauthorized Disclosures Of Information Regarding Anti-Terrorist Legislation, November 20, 2001”. Also by messenger there is a comparison between the National Post article of October 13, 2001, and ministerial public announcements and Bill C-36.

If you don't have those two documents, so indicate now, and you can get them while I'm doing the rest of this stuff here.

• 1110

I do apologize that we did not have a meeting on Tuesday, but I thought it was much more appropriate. It was a question of the translation of the documents and various other things. And it was much better that you had it in your hands, rather than have such a complex document at the very last minute and try to deal with it here in the meeting.

No, I won't suggest anything until we've finished the discussion.

Next week, as we agreed, we're going to have at least two back-to-back meetings on the question of votable private members' items, and those back-to-back meetings are next Tuesday and next Thursday.

The supplementary estimates that were tabled in the House on November 1 affect us to some extent. There is nothing to do with the Chief Electoral Officer, no supplementary estimates, so that side of our mandate is not there. There are some aspects that deal with the House of Commons. I welcome—now if you wish—in future any suggestions on whether we should consider those. They have to be reported back to the House of Commons by December 5. I think it will be up to individual members of the committee or the parties to decide whether we should look at them.

Yes, Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): We had a meeting of the subcommittee on private members' business last night and actually didn't find any votable bills, but we have an—

The Chair: No, sorry, I'm coming to that. I was dealing with estimates up to this point.

I've now received from the clerk a report on electronic voting, which is something the House was considering before I became the chair. I will circulate that to you as soon as possible. We will discuss when we discuss it and how we deal with it at a later date.

I have a briefing note prepared on the review of the provisions of our 19th report, which is the televising of committees, the broadcasting of committees. I would suggest that we deal with that briefly next Thursday at the end of our meeting on votable items. Okay?

There is the matter that we have tried to address, which had to do with the guidelines for drafting by legislative counsel, and the Alliance has some concerns with that. I would be grateful if the Alliance would get back to me or to our staff to see if we can discuss privately whatever it is that is in doubt, and then I'll bring that back to the committee.

Now, Carolyn Parrish, the subcommittee on private members' business...

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I don't want to interrupt the presenters. I don't mind if you leave me five minutes at the end, but it's fairly important.

The Chair: Okay, but my understanding is that we don't need to deal with it until Tuesday.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, except there's a Senate bill there, and this time the committee is recommending we don't make both—

The Chair: Could I make a suggestion then? If there's time at the end of this meeting we would return to it, but failing that, we would deal with it on Tuesday, because I do believe we're okay until Tuesday.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: All right.

The Chair: Colleagues, perhaps I could now introduce our witnesses, and I'll give their titles again.

We have Richard Fadden of the Privy Council Office. He's the deputy clerk, counsel, and security and intelligence coordinator.

Richard, we welcome you here again.

We have Oonagh Fitzgerald. She is assistant secretary to the cabinet, legislation and House planning, and counsel.

We have Valerie de Montigny, because Don Smith was unable to be with us.

Valerie, I don't have a title for you. Perhaps you could give us a brief indication.

Ms. Valerie de Montigny (Senior Analyst, Office of the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Communications and Consultation), Privy Council Office): I'm with communications in the Privy Council Office.

The Chair: Thank you very much for that.

Colleagues, Mr. Fadden has suggested that we have the report; we have the two documents. He doesn't have a preliminary statement, and I'd be glad to proceed with the documents.

Dick Harris.

Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): I have a question. Was anybody from Deloitte & Touche asked to come here? I was ill for our last meeting.

The Chair: I understand your point, but I have to say no. We simply invited people who'd been involved in the investigation of the report.

Mr. Richard Harris: Okay.

The Chair: Colleagues, how would you like to proceed? Do you have the documents?

Paul Macklin.

• 1115

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Based on the documents and what I've read, and on the witnesses we've heard today, I'd like to propose a motion that we report back to the House that in fact we as a committee have not found a contempt in this matter.

My reasoning for that is this. With all of the information we have before us and the witnesses' statements, I believe you have to show an intent in order to have a contempt of Parliament. I don't think there's anything here that comes close to suggesting that there was any intention. If in fact there was leakage, it was, at best, inadvertent. Accordingly, I believe this matter should be put to rest, based on the evidence we have before us.

Mr. Richard Harris: I don't entirely agree with Paul. Just because there may not be found any contempt doesn't mean it's not a breach of privilege in some way.

Mr. Chairman, it's really imperative that we seek to have someone here from Deloitte & Touche, who prepared this report. There are some questions we have arising out of the form or the method of the investigation of the interviews. Based on some statements in the Deloitte & Touche report, we would like to clarify how the interviews were done, etc. So I would like to make that comment.

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm concerned. First of all, I support Paul's position. That's not a surprise. I think a majority of this committee does.

Looking at the material that's been done and the time that's been spent, I would guess $1 million worth of staff time has been used on this.

I am convinced, and I think most of the people in this room are. To beat a dead horse and keep going and going and spending more money and wasting more time, to me is not an effective use of taxpayers' dollars.

So I would not presume to tell you how to run a meeting, Mr. Chair, but I wouldn't mind calling a vote on this. If the majority of the people in the room agree with Paul's position, then we can get on with some more business that's more pressing to the nation.

The Chair: I'd be glad to accept motions. I'd be glad, one day, to call a vote, but in the meantime, I think there should be discussion of it.

John Reynolds and then Joe Jordan.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): I don't disagree that this is over. They've done their job; they're going to cover it up whatever way they can, and that's fine. But I have a couple of questions before we get to that.

For Mr. Fadden, the report identifies three people who spoke with the reporter in question prior to the tabling of Bill C-36. What departments were those people working for?

Mr. Richard B. Fadden (Deputy Clerk, Counsel, and Security and Intelligence Coordinator, Privy Council Office): I believe they're from the Department of Justice, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. John Reynolds: You believe, or they are?

Mr. Richard Fadden: My colleague is checking.

The Chair: Do you want us to proceed while you're checking or is it instantaneous?

Mr. Richard Fadden: Yes.

The Chair: Could we proceed, John, then, while they're looking?

Mr. John Reynolds: Sure. I agree the one we have in this report, the National Post... but Tonda MacCharles of the Toronto Star also covered this story, and in hers it said “officials speaking on condition of anonymity...”

Mr. Fife has quoted officials. It would seem that everything I've seen that's been done was to verify that they've made their stories up. And I doubt that any reporter would put in his story that he talked to officials of the department, because I believe he did. And they asked for anonymity and he gave it to them. Any good reporter would accept that.

The fact is that we've done a lot of work to try to show that didn't happen. I don't agree with it. That's life.

The Chair: Okay. I can see we're getting the information from John's first question.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I want to pick up on Mrs. Parrish's point. Do we have a price tag on this? Is she accurate with the $1 million number?

Mr. Richard Fadden: We don't have a price tag relating to the staff time, Mr. Chairman, although it would not be inconsiderable. This report has cost $35,000.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Can you guesstimate on the staff time?

Mr. Richard Fadden: It would be a fair bit, but I would be less than honest with the committee if I tried to.

• 1120

The Chair: Marlene Catterall, I didn't know if you wanted to... because if you did, you're on first.

It's Marlene Catterall and then Dick Harris.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Had this not been referred from the House as an issue for the committee to examine and report back, what would have been the reaction within government to the fact that a story like this appeared prior to the bill being tabled? What would you have normally done?

Mr. Richard Fadden: In the normal course of events, Mr. Chairman, I think we would have initiated an internal inquiry, an administrative inquiry, by the Privy Council Office. I wouldn't say we do this as a matter of routine, but we do try to monitor these potential leaks, if I can call them that, as well as we can. We would have asked officials from my security service branch to look into the matter and try to ascertain where it came from.

In this case, because of the interest of the House, we've done rather more than that.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If you were to find that somebody had spoken inappropriately to a reporter, what action would you take?

Mr. Richard Fadden: The matter would have been referred to his or her deputy head, who has the authority under the law to apply disciplinary measures.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Would this be considered a violation of their oath of office, or what category would it fall under?

Mr. Richard Fadden: Mr. Chairman, I think the short answer is that we would have probably approached it more from the perspective of detailed administrative rules having been violated rather than the quite broadly worded oath of office. There are provisions in the government's security policy and elsewhere that govern what can and cannot be made public. We would probably have referred the deputy head in question to those particular provisions.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: As a result of the discussions and the interviews and so on that took place on this, are you making any changes to those guidelines, policies, whatever they are?

Mr. Richard Fadden: No, Mr. Chairman, we are not. What we are doing and have done is to remind people that everybody is bound by these rules. In this particular case, to state the obvious from our perspective, we have not found anybody who has violated them. Had we, we would have gone the other route.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Whether the committee does or does not find any contempt here I don't think obviates our concern about this sort of thing happening. That's why I'm asking about what measures might be taken.

I know, Mr. Chair, the report notes that recommendations were made with respect to the treatment of information like this. Could our witness share with the committee what those recommendations are, to provide us some assurance that there's less likelihood of similar situations arising in the future?

The Chair: Could I intervene? When you're doing that, Richard, perhaps you could explain to us what “infra” means in this context.

Mr. Richard Fadden: I can, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: And why the recommendations aren't in the report.

Mr. Richard Fadden: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: That probably has to do with what “infra” means.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Richard Fadden: Initially, Mr. Chairman, Deloitte & Touche interpreted the consulting contract or the investigatory contract that we gave them as including in that a request that they make general recommendations relating to the handling of secure information. So their initial report contained a variety of suggestions relating to the general handling of information. In fact, our contract with them was to review this particular potential breach. In the end, we agreed that they would stick to the contract they had with the Privy Council Office.

Having said that, we did have a brief discussion with them on what they believed we might do, and I think some of those potential changes were alluded to by some of your colleagues at the last meeting, or I may have alluded to them. They range from trying to limit the number of people involved, identifying more clearly which individuals receive which copy of a particular piece of information.

As I think I indicated the last time I was before you, some extraordinarily sensitive material is treated in that fashion. Every copy is numbered; every copy is signed for. Given the number of bills and given the number of individuals who prepare them, it's practically impossible to do that.

• 1125

So we are looking generally at what we might do to improve the situation. But truly, we believe that if people fully understand and are fully respectful of current rules, we will not have difficulties. Again, as I say, both our administrative review and that of Deloitte & Touche has not revealed any instance of somebody breaking a rule.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Briefly.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Very briefly, and I know Mr. Fadden will tell me if I'm stepping over the line here. It is of some concern to me that recommendations were made that are certainly of interest to members of Parliament and that were obviously removed from the report. I wonder if Mr. Fadden would comment on whether he might share those with the committee at another time.

The Chair: Mr. Fadden, again, I use the word “infra”, which I did mention.

Mr. Richard Fadden: He just meant initially in the report, that they were contained inside the report. They were at the very end of the report. They were taken out, as I said, because they exceeded the mandate that was given to them.

I have some hesitation in responding to the request, not because I don't want to be helpful but because this firm inquired into this particular set of facts, and on the basis of that and that alone articulated some general suggestions on the handling of confidential information. It seemed to me at the time that there was a bit of a leak, but as I said, none of the recommendations, as I recall them, were particularly earth-shattering. They were of the nature I just referred to.

If the committee, Mr. Chairman, is interested, I will call the firm, ask them to tell me orally what they are, and I'll send you a letter.

The Chair: I would be glad if you did, on behalf of the committee, and by the way I'm not convinced that we need to wait for that, but I think it is appropriate follow-up for the committee. I do think that whether there is a privilege in this case or not, the committee is generally concerned about leaks, which it really is, and I think, by the way, we should so indicate.

I have a list.

Mr. John Reynolds: A point of order.

The Chair: By all means.

Mr. John Reynolds: I just wonder why we would ask for it orally. It's part of a report that's printed. Could we not get the actual printout of what they put in the report and what was taken out of it?

Mr. Richard Fadden: Because, Mr. Chairman, they were not mandated to do it; they were mandated to inquire into—

Mr. John Reynolds: Well, I'd like to move that we ask for it.

Mr. Richard Fadden: You asked for an inquiry, Mr. Chairman, into this incident, not for recommendations relating to the handling of confidential documents generally.

Mr. John Reynolds: Is there anything wrong with this committee having a motion to ask for a copy of what they put in the report?

The Chair: As chair, there is no reason why we should not. I think as a committee and as members of Parliament, we should try to listen to what Mr. Fadden is saying to us.

You're essentially saying that they did not make these recommendations with the understanding that they would be public. It was an extra to their main inquiry. Is that right? So it's out of courtesy or respect or something to them that—

Mr. Richard Fadden: I don't know if they intended them to be made public or not. The concern I raised, to be honest—I want to be up front—was that I did not think a firm employed over the course of a couple of weeks, investigating a specific incident, was really in a position to advise a committee of the House on the general handling of confidential information. They may have recommendations to make in respect of this particular case. As it turns out, they did not, or they would have been in here.

We think if the committee wishes to have some information—an inquiry, a report—on the general handling of confidential information, it should ask for it, and we would do our best to provide it. On the basis of really talking to a bunch of people about a very specific case, it seemed to us there was quite a leap going from there to commenting generally on the rules that apply in this case.

The Chair: I do have a list, and, Dick, you're the first on it and Jay is the second. But with regard to this particular point, I have John Reynolds and Jack Saada. Let's do this one very briefly.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): A point of order.

The Chair: It's a point of order again.

Mr. Jacques Saada: It's following this point of order.

The Chair: It's the same point. Let's go to John first because it's his line, and then we'll see where it goes.

Are you okay with that, Jay and Dick? Okay.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'm always concerned, Mr. Chairman, that if someone like Deloitte & Touche puts something in a report and then somebody in the government takes it out, there might be something we would like to see. I would very much like us to ask Deloitte & Touche to provide us with a copy of the full report they gave, whether Mr. Fadden believes we should have it or not. I think we should. It concerns me that somebody would take it out because they didn't think it was part of the mandate or it might be something that could help us.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. I would like to ask a very simple question relating to this point of order.

• 1130

If I understand correctly, only the recommendations have been taken out from the report, which means something that was not included in the contract with the firm.

Mr. Richard Fadden: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jacques Saada: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that Members of Parliament, like this Standing Committee of the House, try to get information from expert witnesses. And I understand that having worked two weeks on such an investigation did not make expert witnesses of the drafters of this report. Why would we treat differently witnesses that we have selected and witnesses that have drafted a report, even if they exceeded their mandate, since they are not experts on the issue? Therefore, I do not agree with asking for what has been taken out. My position is based on Mr. Fadden's statement, which is that only this part would have been taken out from the report.

[English]

The Chair: I don't want to get confused, because I remember it was my main list. Pierre, are you on the main list or on this topic?

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): My questions would be on the general motion.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Is there anyone else on this topic? Caroline Parrish, I have you here.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm reaching back into my background. When I was chairman of the Peel board, we often hired consulting groups to do a specific investigation or a specific evaluation of a program or of proposed spending or whatever. They were given a specific set of boundaries and they reported back based on those boundaries. They didn't give us extraneous material on how they thought the board of education should be run. At the very least, I think it's unprofessional to ask them to give us their background information, particularly since I don't even think they'd want to give it to us because I think they'd assume that they're not qualified to discuss the way the House of Commons operates after two weeks of investigating a particular issue; at the very least, it's unsophisticated to ask. If I were Deloitte & Touche, I would be most offended, because we're going to make opinions of their ability to investigate based on something they weren't asked to do and were not qualified to do.

I think this whole thing... we're shooting at falling stars here. Let's just get on with it.

The Chair: Okay. What I'd like to do... John has been following it. Perhaps we could have one more round, and then I'd like to accept a motion on this topic. Is that okay?

John, please.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman and Ms. Parrish, I'm not asking for background information. Deloitte & Touche felt and put something in its report that the government has taken out of the report. That's what I want to look at. I don't want to see their background information. I trust Deloitte & Touche. I think they're very competent, even in two weeks, of maybe making some positive suggestions as to how these things should be handled in the future. That's all we're here for, to make sure these things don't happen in the future, whether it's a contempt or not. But if something has been in the report and removed because the government didn't want us to see it, I want to see it.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'd like to move that motion, that we see that, and if we need to, after we see it, maybe call Deloitte. But I'd like to see that first.

The Chair: Okay. So what is the motion?

Mr. John Reynolds: I'd like to see the full report that was delivered by Deloitte & Touche.

The Chair: Okay. The motion is that we see the full report delivered by Deloitte & Touche.

Is there any discussion on the motion? Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): Thank you.

Perhaps a question to Mr. Fadden on the motion itself, and if he could help us to understand why it would be... I guess I'm asking him to kind of put himself in the shoes of Deloitte & Touche, which is an uncomfortable thing to do. He may not wish to do so. But since they're not here to enlighten us, perhaps he would comment as to why they would include something in a report and why, potentially, they would object to Mr. Reynolds' motion to have the full report provided to the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Fadden, if you wish.

Mr. Richard Fadden: Mr. Chairman, I first want to make it very clear that what the committee has before it is the full report. Deloitte & Touche would not take out anything that I asked them or anybody else asked them to take out, if they did not want to. We had a discussion about the contract we had with Deloitte & Touche. That contract did not include providing this committee with general advice, general expert information about the operation of the security system. After this discussion that we had with them, they acknowledged our point and they removed their general recommendations. What we saw, initially, was a draft report—no more, no less.

• 1135

You have Deloitte's honest to goodness signed-off report. They would not have given us an incomplete report. Their standards of professional conduct would have prevented it, if we had asked them something improper.

The Chair: Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: I think that answers the question.

The Chair: Okay. I go back to John again. Discussion of the motion.

By the way, my understanding is that we are allowed to ask for documents of this type. We have no power to compel people to give us documents of this type. We can report to the House if such a request has been refused.

John Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I just wonder, trying to say they took it out... you know, Deloitte & Touche also has to deal with the government in the future. If they felt it was important enough to put in there to start with, why wouldn't you just leave it in and let us look at it? It might give us some guidance. The whole idea of this exercise is to try to stop this from happening. I can fully understand that you can't find out who did it, but if they have some recommendations, why couldn't we see those?

The Chair: I want to go back to our general discussion of the report. I have Pierre Brien on this point and then Joe Jordan. After that, I'd like to call the motion.

Pierre.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I want to know two things, and I want to make sure that I understand correctly. I have heard it said several times that it took only two weeks to prepare this report. Was it really two weeks only?

It has been mentioned also that the cost of the report was $35,000. Is that true? If we had to pay $35,000 for two weeks of work, I suppose that lots of work had to be done in those two weeks and that many people were involved. Ms. Parrish seemed to say that the report had been drafted quickly, in two weeks, whereas it still cost $35,000. So, I suppose much work was done anyway.

Mr. Richard Fadden: Mr. Chairman, the cost of our contract with Deloitte & Touche was indeed $35,000. If I understood correctly, only two or three people at Deloitte & Touche worked on this file. Most of their work consisted of interviewing many people.

In answer to Mr. Reynolds' suggestion, I would like to add that their work was extremely specialized, so much so in fact that they were not able to make relevant recommendations on the operation of the security system to the government or to this Committee.

[English]

The Chair: Joe Jordan, briefly.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Fadden, I think I understood you to say you would contact Deloitte & Touche to get the substance of these recommendations and put them in a letter to the committee. Is that correct?

Mr. Richard Fadden: I'll do it, although I continue to be of the view, Mr. Chairman, that if the committee wants advice on the operation of the security system, there are any number of ways of getting better advice than asking a firm that was given a very specialized contract over a couple of weeks to comment on the operation of a very complex and comprehensive system.

The Chair: I have Geoff Regan and Carolyn Parrish, but only if you have something to add to the specific issues.

Geoff first, then Carolyn.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that if a consultant were giving the government advice on how to improve security so that people might be caught if they were leaking something, or things of that nature, it might not make sense to have that information and those recommendations become public in the same way that advice about police investigations and some methods that police use ought to be kept secret. So I can certainly understand why that would be the case.

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish. That wasn't an addition to the argument, Carolyn.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It is an important addition. My colleague, who is a lawyer, explained to me what “infra” means. It is information given ahead of being asked for it.

What they've done is to tantalize us. They've suggested the $35,000 contract is not quite enough, and if we want to know how to operate a security system, hire us to give you a full Monty for a million dollars and we'll tell you how to run your system.

I go back to what Mr. Fadden has said. They weren't asked for this. Two weeks is not even a beginning to knowing how to work a security system in an organization that's a hundred-and-something years old. I agree with him. That was a teaser, and we're not going to bite.

The Chair: If I can call John Reynolds' motion that we see the complete report, including the...

Go ahead.

Mr. John Reynolds: Send for the draft report of Deloitte & Touche—the draft report.

The Chair: Thank you. You've heard the motion.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: If we can return to the list, it's Dick Harris, then Jay Hill, and then

[Translation]

maybe

[English]

Pierre Brien, because you were on the original list.

Dick.

• 1140

Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Chairman, I can certainly understand the government members' rush to put this to bed. However, there are some questions that have come to us as a result of reading the Deloitte & Touche report, their honest to goodness signed-off report, as Mr. Fadden put it. It appears to me that the investigation by Deloitte's was based on some specific instructions, probably from the PCO. They were asked to be involved in specific areas of investigation but not in any inquiries conducted at the department level. They interviewed people only identified to them by the PCO. They use words like “believe”, as on page 11: “...it is believed that three persons spoke with Mr. Fife...”

We'd be interested to know why they used the word “believe”. Were they not able to ascertain that? In a report like this, whether it cost $35,000 or $350,000, where there is a question of possible contempt or a possible breach of privilege, it would sure be nice to have the people from Deloitte's here to answer some of the questions arising out of their reports. I don't think that would be out of order. That being so, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion that we invite representatives—whom I would have expected to be here this morning—from Deloitte & Touche to answer some very worrying questions we have about the report itself.

The Chair: Colleagues, you've heard the motion, and the motion is in order. Is there any discussion now of the motion? We're digressing from the main list of motions again.

Dick Harris.

Mr. Richard Harris: Just speaking to the motion, I'd like to remind the government members that while they would like to put this to bed, what we're doing here today is going to be used as a precedent-setting thing on any other cases that may arrive. If they vote against this motion, Mr. Chairman, they could be thought to have a desire in some sense to put a blanket over some areas of discussion and information the government may not want parliamentarians to know. This will certainly be recorded. You may not always be in government. You may be sitting on this side of the table. They may be, Mr. Chairman. So think down the road, past this current issue, if you would.

The Chair: We have a motion to call Deloitte & Touche as witnesses.

Can I, as chair, then read the caveat? This report is full of Latin, by the way. This is for the information of all members. I know you're ready, but this is just to remind you.

The report, I assume by Deloitte & Touche, says in the caveat on page 15 of the English version:

Our report contains our findings current to the date of the report. Deloitte & Touche has no obligation to update the report based on any events or information that may arise following the date of the report. We disclaim any responsibility or liability for loss, damages or costs, which might be incurred by anyone as a result of the circulation, reproduction or use of our report. By accepting this report, PCO agrees that it will indemnify and save harmless

—which is a very interesting phrase—

Deloitte & Touche from any cause of action or other proceeding arising from our administrative review, our report and any error or omission contained therein.

I would think that's a very expansive legal statement.

Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: In English, sir, does it say that if they do come here, we get another bill for their...

The Chair: No.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I think it does.

The Chair: Does it? Well, again, I don't read either Latin or law.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Could we ask Mr. Fadden?

Does this mean we have to pay more money if they come here?

Mr. Richard Fadden: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Their contract with us has been fulfilled. They might be prepared to—

The Chair: For a committee, as a courtesy they might respond.

Mr. Richard Fadden: They might.

The Chair: They might still come. Okay. I just wanted to read that so you'd know...

Carolyn Parrish, briefly on this point, and then I'll call the motion.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would like make it very clear I will not be supporting this motion.

I would like to thank Mr. Harris for putting his reminder notes at the end, because what he's telling me is that it is setting a precedent. We will be doing this over and over again at great expense to the taxpayers. I thank you for pointing that out.

The Chair: Dick Harris.

• 1145

Mr. Richard Harris: As Mrs. Parrish said, if you do it right the first time it will set a good precedent for committees that follow.

The Chair: You've heard the motion about witnesses from Deloitte & Touche.

(Motion negatived)

Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Chair, can I get back on the speakers' list?

The Chair: We are now back on the speakers' list. It's Dick Harris, Jay Hill, Pierre Brien.

Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Fadden a question.

Page 7 refers to a memo from Mr. Robichaud of the PCO. Do you have a copy of that memo? And if you do, could you provide it to the committee so that we can get a full understanding of the guidelines put in place by the PCO for conducting this investigation? Can we see that memo?

Mr. Richard Fadden: Mr. Chair, we don't have it with us. We'll make it available to the clerk by the end of the day.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a quick point to make. First of all, I'll make a disclaimer. I've never worked, and don't intend to work, for Deloitte & Touche. I found it a little bit offensive that Ms. Parrish was making an allegation that the reason why they included some recommendations in the report was that they were seeking a further contract. I think that's especially inappropriate, Mr. Chairman, when they're not here to defend themselves.

Having said that, I do have a question for Mr. Fadden. The spreadsheet you've prepared for the committee isn't numbered, so I can't refer you to a specific page.

Mr. Richard Fadden: I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, my question revolves around a part of the spreadsheet in which they endeavour to lay out what was contained in the National Post article written by Mr. Fife, and then what ministerial statements had been made prior to this that might have led him to believe what would be contained in the legislation, and then what was in the actual bill. Is that accurate?

Mr. Richard Fadden: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jay Hill: I notice the one here that says, under “Offences”, “No membership offence”. In fact under that you found, I think it would be fair to say, that what was contained in the article was in the bill, but there had been no ministerial statements on that particular point, or at least I'm led to believe that by your report, your spreadsheet, or whatever you call it. Is that right?

Mr. Richard Fadden: I'm checking, if you'll give me 30 seconds.

Mr. Jay Hill: Sure.

Mr. Richard Fadden: Thank you.

The Chair: Jay, can you give us the reference for your points?

Mr. Jay Hill: I think it's about eight pages down. As I say, it doesn't have a page number.

The Chair: No, I understand your difficulty.

Mr. Richard Fadden: The member is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jay Hill: In the Deloitte & Touche report, Mr. Chairman, on page 4, they say “Based on the information”, and then they put in a disclaimer, “obtained to date” to suggest that there's still a possibility, I suppose, that more information could come to light in the future—they found no evidence to suggest information was “purposely provided”. Below it they say “The possibility does exist that information may have inadvertently been provided... through error or other non-malicious means.”

My question, Mr. Fadden, is this. Given that this instance here, on what would be page 8 of your spreadsheet, is pretty specific, I would ask how, in your view, something that specific... I can't imagine that the reporter, Mr. Fife, could have just guessed at it and then actually it would be confirmed that it was in the bill. How would you suggest that this had been inadvertently provided?

Mr. Richard Fadden: I think it's a fair question, Mr. Chairman. The only answer I can come up with, which I think is still a substantive reply, is that a minister, I think it was Minister McLellan, did suggest the general scheme of the act in respect of this matter would mimic that of the organized crime legislation. In the organized crime legislation, Parliament decided to take a particular approach concerning memberships as opposed to actions that are being prescribed. It's the same approach that was used in Bill C-36.

• 1150

So we believe it's not an unreasonable extrapolation, knowing that the same approach was used by the government, and then confirmed by a minister, to make that leap.

Mr. Jay Hill: If I understand your answer correctly, you're suggesting that Mr. Fife, or others who helped him prepare his story for the National Post, just pulled this together on the basis of Ms. McLellan's statement. In other words, what Deloitte & Touche is suggesting, that the possibility does exist that something was provided in error, is incorrect.

Mr. Richard Fadden: No, I'm simply saying that Mrs. McLellan had indicated that Bill C-36 was going to use the same general approach as Bill C-24, and that in respect to the matter the member raised exactly the same approach was used. I don't mean to suggest today, and neither did I mean to suggest at my first appearance, that no inadvertent or advertent passing of information occurred. What I am trying to suggest is that neither we in the government nor Deloitte & Touche have been able to find any evidence of that having taken place.

I go back to the statement I made at my first appearance, that we do believe, on the basis of the information contained in this little spreadsheet, that anybody as competent as Mr. Fife could have put together that article on the basis of the numerous ministerial statements that did contain a fair bit of detail.

Mr. Jay Hill: I guess to enlighten the committee further, Mr. Fadden, in your opinion how would information be inadvertently provided to a reporter? Are you suggesting that it was sent to his fax number by mistake, or something like that?

Mr. Richard Fadden: I didn't so much mean that as a reporter calls some official and asks a question, the answer to which is contained in the public domain. You start a conversation and then inadvertently add a fact that you shouldn't add, or something of that nature.

Ms. Oonagh Fitzgerald (Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Legislation and House Planning; Counsel, Privy Council Office): I'd refer you to page 10 of the report, where there's an indication of what some of the telephone conversations were like. In the third paragraph, under 6.2, there's an indication of the types of questions that were put to people.

Mr. Richard Fadden: I think it refers to Mr. Fife's fishing expeditions, Mr. Chairman, which is a bit what I meant. I mean, when you talk with a reporter, they try to get information. I think people try not to pass out information they're not supposed to, but I would be the last person to suggest there is perfection on that point.

The Chair: Pierre Brien, Cheryl Gallant, Joe Jordan, and Paul Macklin.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: There is something I find surprising in this report. Twice they allude to trial balloons but they reject this possibility because the event happened only two days earlier. Therefore, it could not be a trial balloon. Would a trial balloon have been more acceptable if it had been tried ten days earlier?

Mr. Richard Fadden: According to the rules in force in the public service, Mr. Chairman, the answer is absolute: No, it would not have been acceptable.

Mr. Pierre Brien: All right. Here is my second question. I read in the report, on page 10:

Finally, Minister Boudria had made it crystal clear to his colleagues at the ministerial level that there were to be no leaks surrounding Bill C-36.

I am quite surprised that the Government House Leader would have felt it necessary to mention that to other ministers. Would that not be obvious? Aren't all ministers supposed to know that? Why would it be necessary for a minister to remind his colleagues? I find it very strange.

Mr. Richard Fadden: Mr. Chairman, I believe that Mr. Boudria made this comment because of the particular circumstances of the bill. The process in government had been expedited. Consultations went much faster than usual. Since they were operating in a very short time frame, he just wanted to remind his colleagues to be careful. Also, if I understand correctly, he'd had discussions with the other House leaders on the tabling of the bill and he did not want to risk his colleagues from the other side of the House feeling he had acted in bad faith if some information was leaked to the press. So it was just a general reminder to his colleagues but you are quite right, the ministers are very aware of those regulations.

The Chair: All right. Are you through, Pierre?

[English]

Cheryl Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to Ms. Parrish, I'm wondering where the figure of $1 million arose from. Was that including the cost of time on the part of the staffers who were interviewed?

The Chair: Would you like to respond to that, Carolyn, immediately and briefly?

• 1155

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It was a flight of fancy based on the fact that I've worked in bureaucracies before. Any time you go into an investigation that requires hundreds of people to be interviewed for hundreds of hours, you're looking at $40 an hour and a lot of money.

The Chair: It was her opinion.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: My opinion.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I'd like to follow up on what I had been questioning Mr. Fadden about in the last meeting.

Mr. Fadden had claimed that ministerial responsibility had evolved and that today, ministers do not have to resign. Just two days ago we pulled off the Internet, from the responsibility in the Constitution:

The principal of ministerial responsibility provides for the foundation of our constitutional system for the control of power.

And it goes on:

This responsibility is honed by the ever-present possibility that in particular circumstances ministers may be embarrassed, suffer the loss of prestige, weakening themselves and the government, jeopardize their standing with their colleagues and hence their political future, or even be forced to submit to public inquiry, possibly resulting in censure and loss of office as a result of the way in which their power has been used.

Now, this is just from two days ago, so it's evident that we have embarrassed the government.

The minister's record of contempt has cost a minimum of $35,000 for this report. We did find the minister in contempt, as in Bill C-15, so really, given this report, if we want to make sure this doesn't happen again, we do, as a committee, have to ask for the minister's resignation.

A voice: What minister?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Justice.

A voice: For what?

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I want to pick up on something Mr. Hill said. I don't fault Deloitte & Touche for pursuing market opportunities—I think that's what they do—but I think they should be very offended by the statement that they're part of some cover-up that the Alliance has made. I think that attacks their professional credibility and they need to be concerned about that.

What we have here is a report with certain conclusions. The official opposition isn't happy with those conclusions so they drop down a level and start attacking the process. They're not necessarily satisfied, but then they want to bring the people up here so they can attack the people. We've just had an example of that from Cheryl Gallant.

Mr. Chair, I hope you'll move to Mr. Macklin now and entertain his motion to return a statement that there is no contempt here.

The Chair: I will. I hear these things, but this is a very open discussion, a very public meeting, and so it should be. I only want to say to colleagues, though, if we're going to continue this at any great length, if we get to the point of deciding how we're going to report or something like that, it might be well to release the witnesses.

I go to Paul Macklin and then to Dick Harris.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: My point was simply that I wanted to bring forward my motion and put the motion to this committee. Do you have a copy of the motion that you could put on my behalf?

The Chair: I have. It's moved that the committee report to the House with respect to this matter that the committee has not found a contempt.

We will move to discussion of that motion, bearing in mind that I do have Dick Harris on the list. And if we're going to get to that point, can I ask about the departments of the three people who are mentioned in the report that John Reynolds asked for earlier on?

Mr. Richard Fadden: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I was wrong. It was PMO communications, the communications branch of the Department of the Solicitor General, and the Office of the Leader of the Government in the House.

The Chair: Okay.

I go now to Dick Harris, because he was on the list. The motion though is before us, Dick, just so you know. Keep it to the motion, can you?

Mr. Richard Harris: Yes, I will speak to the motion, and I'd like to make an amendment to the motion, if I could.

The Chair: Fine with me.

Mr. Richard Harris: Again, I can understand the government members wanting to put this to bed as quickly as possible. However, Mr. Chairman, on almost every standing committee in this House that I've ever sat on, when an agency or a group of consultants were asked to deliver a report on a particular subject, I would say that 99 times out of 100, when the report was presented to the committee, there were representatives of the people who prepared the report, in the event that there would be questions arising out of the report. That's the issue I have today, Mr. Speaker—I mean Mr. Chairman; I've just given you a raise.

• 1200

The Chair: “Mr. Speaker” is fine.

Mr. Richard Harris: So I would like to add an amendment to that motion. If I could just hear the main motion again, I'll tell you where I'd like to put it.

The Chair: I'll try to read it properly, assuming it's written properly:

That the Committee report to the House with respect to this matter that this committee has not found a contempt.

Mr. Richard Harris: So after the word “That”—the first “That”—we add the following words, and I will tear it off here:

That subject to outstanding questions arising out of the Deloitte & Touche report being answered by Deloitte & Touche, either in written or verbal form...

Then we would go on; in other words, subject to these questions being answered.

The Chair: We'll get that in a minute and we'll work it out. It's after the very first word. So it's:

That subject to outstanding questions arising from Deloitte & Touche... the committee report to the House with respect to this matter that the committee has not found a contempt.

That's what the revised motion would be, and I'll give you that exactly. But I think you understand the sense of it. We're now discussing the amendment.

It's Jay Hill and then Jacques Saada.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just a point of order on this, Mr. Chairman. It would seem to me that the amendment completely changes the intent of the motion, because if subsequent information being provided were to reveal even the possibility of some sort of contempt, then the whole motion is irrelevant, I would suggest.

I would question the chair to make a ruling, or however you do this, about the validity of the amendment.

The Chair: Your point is, Jay, that it completely changes the motion.

Mr. Jay Hill: The intent of the motion.

The Chair: By the way, I don't believe it does. I think the main part of the main motion is that we have not found contempt. In the future, new evidence might appear and we could discuss it again. I would rule it does not change the intent and that the amendment is in order.

Jay, is that it?

Jacques Saada and then John Reynolds.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I can understand that politicians want to make political statements and I did not react the first time, I did not react the second time but, the third time, I will not let that go through.

Mr. Harris claims that we are trying to put down a fire—because he believes that the House is on fire—as quickly as possible to prevent any embarrassment to the government. I want him to know that I value as much as he does my M.P.'s privileges. If they were breached, I would demand that the situation be corrected. He has absolutely no right to suppose that those privileges are not important to me.

To all practical purposes, his amendment is a non-confidence motion. It is a kind of non-confidence motion about the ministers. Since the report seems to exonerate all ministers, they are now trying to put a non-confidence motion blaming the messengers.

As a matter of fact, this fits in quite nicely with what Ms. Gallant was saying earlier. They are looking for a scapegoat, at all costs. Mr. Hill is quite right, this amendment changes completely the intent of the motion. Neither the amendment nor the motion are worthy of our support.

• 1205

[English]

The Chair: I agree with you on the technical point. I understand the other argument.

John Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I'm on the general... I'm not on that.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Is there any further discussion of the main motion?

John Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I want to follow up on the report identifying the three people who spoke with the reporter in question prior to the tabling of Bill C-36. Is there any reason why we didn't also ask who was talking to Tonda MacCharles, from the Toronto Star? Her article also had comments in it... “officials speaking on condition of anonymity...”.

I'll agree with Mr. Saada. There's no proof in here that the minister did anything wrong. There's no proof anybody did anything wrong, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I remind members who talk about the cost of this that all members of the House voted for this motion to look into this, not just my party. We brought the issue up. This is a very serious issue, because it has happened more than once, and this committee actually did chastise the minister once when this happened.

I'll agree with you, Mr. Fadden, you've done a good job in some areas.

I'd still like to see that full report, but the questions have been asked and nobody has been found guilty. The fact is reporters don't lie in their articles.

Oh, Ms. Parrish thinks they do. That's all right.

When they say they've spoken to an official of the department, they've spoken to an official in the department. When they say they were interviewing a minister's senior official, they've done that.

Even in the report, I notice where it says, “Sometimes it would have been a lot tougher if they'd seen the full bill...” Well, they know not to be that tough because they don't want to spill the whole beans.

The fact is I think the government wants to end it all. We'll have a vote and we'll get it over with. That's life.

The fact is we should be able to talk to Deloitte & Touche and ask about these three people and what kinds of questions they were asking to find out how the information was elicited from them, or if it was not, and also look at some of the memos they refer to. But the government has the majority. They can do what they want to do.

The Chair: Tony Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): I've been listening with much interest. I think in all good conscience and faith that this committee agreed at the outset of this exercise that there were grounds here for an inquiry, to ask some questions on what might have happened, a possible leak as a result of, let's keep in mind, a newspaper article that does not specifically name anyone, or is not specific in having within it any shred of evidence of indeed a leak. I think that's been agreed to.

Mr. Reynolds, by his own admittance, says there's no proof here that anything was done wrong, but perhaps something was. I'm wondering how far we want to take this.

There's been an inquiry. Mr. Fadden has appeared now for the second time. As a result of a lack of direction from this committee to actually bring in representatives from Deloitte & Touche... has felt comfortable in representing the document, because it is still in the inquiry stage. Due to the fact that there's any evidence at all of a breach or contempt, I think if we continue down the road, it takes on more of the nature of an investigation. Based on what? If you were to put this in front of the average Canadian and show him the documents and the cost of these documents as opposed to the article in the National Post and ask him, “What are you more offended by, what's in the National Post or the cost of these documents?”, I would hazard a guess as to what the answer would be.

I think enough has been done on this to conclude the inquiry, and we should move on with Mr. Macklin's motion, which I would support, and stop this witch hunt.

The Chair: Thanks, Tony.

It's Pierre Brien.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien: I would like to put my position on record.

• 1210

I find it hard to believe that the reporter could have drafted his piece only on the basis of public statements, which is what the other side is suggesting. They even tried to prove that by tabling a document.

It seems quite obvious to me, as the reporter stated in his article, that he got his information from various sources. As far as I am concerned, there had been leaks.

On the other hand, it is very hard to find out who is responsible for those leaks. It is obvious that it is impossible and that we do not have the investigating powers that would allow us to go further on this matter. I understand that but I do not accept the idea that reporters are ready to put unfounded statements in their papers and that we should doubt their word when they say that they got their information from reliable sources. I do not doubt their word. I believe the reporter did his work properly and that he got his information from reliable sources.

Some claim that we should put an end to this because it is very costly. In that case, one wonder why we should have paid $35,000 for a report drafted in two weeks by only three people. Perhaps there is another issue here if this is so costly. I am flabbergasted to hear that such a document could have cost the government $35,000. Honestly, I don't understand. I read this, I try to think how it was prepared and I find it absolutely unacceptable. I find it unacceptable that this would be the product of the contract and that we should have paid $35,000 for this.

This inquiry will go nowhere as we all knew right from the start. That being said, there is still a problem and I would want the government to review the security systems to avoid leaks in the future. This is not the first time it happened and it won't be the last. However, I would like us to be at least more careful and to avoid giving people the impression that they can do whatever they want since, in any case, they would be protected by the fact that it is impossible to find out who is responsible.

It was not possible in this case, I agree, and we had no proof that the information came from a given department, but I cannot accept the claim that there have been no leaks.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Next are Dick Harris, John Reynolds, and Jay Hill.

Mr. Richard Harris: The government members have argued vigorously that contempt should not be considered here because the action was unintended. That has been their case. Of course, a precedent was set already prior to this meeting.

The Chair: It's not for me... My understanding from the report we're considering is there was no leak. I'm just saying that to you, as chair. It's not that it was unintended, it was—

Mr. Richard Harris: I'm speaking of the motion.

The Chair: Excuse me. Okay, please, go ahead.

Mr. Richard Harris: I believe the words of the motion were, “because there was no contempt found”. In the 14th report of this committee that was received on Bill C-15, where the minister was indeed found in contempt and in breach of privilege, I'm sure the members are very familiar with the last paragraph that says:

Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of Parliament's constitutional role in legislating.

The 14th report says that in this case it was unintended, but in spite of that it found the minister in contempt and in breach of privilege. That's my argument. How can you rationalize that motion, based on the argument that because it was unintended there was no breach?

So I'm speaking against that motion.

The Chair: I appreciate it, Dick.

Next are John Reynolds, Jay Hill, and Joe Jordan.

Mr. John Reynolds: I just want to finish something here so we don't misunderstand. I didn't say nothing was wrong; I said the report hasn't found who made the leak. This House agreed that what was in those reports was unacceptable to us. We just haven't found out who did it.

You can't go back now and say those articles are fine. We all agreed in the House there was contempt. Looking at those articles there was something wrong and we wanted to look at it. We just haven't found out who did it, and that's the whole issue here.

The fact is, I don't think any of us like to see these leaks in the newspaper, whether it's a day, two days, or a month before a bill's introduced in the House. So I would hate for us to go away from here... You try to be as non-partisan as you can in these things, but I don't think any of us want these things to continue happening. If this does nothing else, it will maybe tighten up the system.

• 1215

The Chair: It's Jay Hill, then Joe Jordan.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just by way of perhaps a final statement, as it looks like we're moving toward having a vote, I agree with the Canadian Alliance that it seems that while there's been no clear evidence to suggest who is responsible, the fact remains somebody must have done this. Even the report on page 11 sums it up quite nicely under “Unattributable/Incorrect Statements”. It says that while they've been able to

...attribute almost all of the information contained in the article to statements publicly made by Ministers and others. The disquieting aspect, however, is that a small portion of the article contains or alludes to information, which, at the time prior to the tabling of the bill itself, was

—and I emphasis this next term—

classified secret and was subject to protection as a confidence of cabinet.

Mr. Fadden, with all due respect, suggested that during the interviewing process he was comfortable—I forget the exact words—that the people involved understood and were respectful of rules and procedure, but obviously somebody wasn't respectful of the rules and procedure, or this wouldn't have happened.

If we take the minister at her word, her annoyance, dismay—or whatever term you want to apply to it in the House when confronted with this—would suggest that all members, including the minister, who the House is attempting to hold to some level of accountability for this leak that's presumably from her department, are concerned about this.

The reality is that whether we vote for or against this motion, because the investigation has gone as far as it can on this specific incident, we have an upcoming budget, and past history tells us this is going to happen again.

Somebody's going to float some trial balloons and it's going to leak out there. It's the contention of many, and even MPs from the government side, that it brings the entire Parliament and all of the members into disrepute in the eyes of the general public when that information is provided to media prior to it being provided to the House of Commons, as it's supposed to be.

I think we need to send a clear message. I'd certainly be appreciative of any comments Mr. Fadden or others could make on what will be done to attempt... I recognize that we're all human here, and investigative journalists are extremely good at their jobs; I don't want to detract from that fact. However, we must find ways to ensure that people who have this sensitive information are, as Mr. Fadden said, more respectful of the procedure.

I'd be interested in hearing any comments he may have on how we're going to do that. No matter what we do with this particular incident and investigation—I agree it's already cost more than enough—we're still left with the very real probability that it's going to happen again in the future unless something is done about it.

The Chair: Obviously, Mr. Fadden can do whatever he likes, but it seems to me we're dealing with this one case now. On the general case of leaks, all our colleagues... We have all the whips on this committee, and this committee in particular should be concerned about leaks. I think we've taken this matter very seriously. I'm not convinced that a discussion of the general question of leaks is appropriate at this moment, unless Mr. Fadden has something immediate to say. He does not.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we need to make a distinction. Mr. Harris was talking about the 14th report. In that particular case, the minister had put in place a structure that breached privilege. She came into the committee admitting it was a mistake, and we took action to fix it. This is an entirely different situation, and to somehow build a cumulative argument using that example is a foundation built on sand.

• 1220

The problem we're having here—and I certainly don't speak for my colleagues—from early on in the questioning we had, when Mr. Fadden was here before, is if somebody has done this maliciously it's very difficult to find that out.

The document that strikes me is the comparison between what was in the National Post article and what was in the bill. I would say to Mr. Reynolds that one of the reasons perhaps they didn't look at the Toronto Star article was his own point of privilege—he only talked about the National Post article. But from my read of this, they have only one or possibly two points out of ten. I could get better odds at the crap table in Hull.

I don't think that is a reason to take this any further. I just don't think there's any point in continuing this. I would like to call the question here.

The Chair: Colleagues, I call Paul Macklin's motion:

That the Committee report to the House with respect to this matter that this committee has not found a contempt.

Mr. John Reynolds: I would like a recorded vote.

The Chair: There will be a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 5)

The Chair: Colleagues, I'd like to suggest we release the witnesses. I would also ask you whether it would not be appropriate—we're going to discuss the report briefly—that we move in camera for discussion of the report.

Mr. Richard Harris: I have one more motion.

The Chair: Okay. Go ahead. Do you need the witnesses?

Mr. Richard Harris: Yes, but I don't wish to—

The Chair: Would the witnesses please stay?

Let me hear this.

Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Chairman, based on the fact that we still are not satisfied because of a number of questions arising out of the Deloitte & Touche report, I would like to move the following motion. I move:

That this committee direct Mr. Fadden to receive from members of this committee questions arising from the Deloitte & Touche report and that he would further direct those questions to Deloitte & Touche for response and ensure that such responses be delivered back to the members submitting them.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I second the motion.

The Chair: Marlene Catterall, on a point of order.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: On a point of order, I suspect the committee has no authority to direct Mr. Fadden to do anything. He is a public servant. He's not accountable to the committee; he's accountable to his minister.

The Chair: Jacques Saada, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, can we speak twice on the same issue during the same meeting?

[English]

The Chair: It's not exactly the same motion. We're not necessarily dealing with it twice, Jacques.

By the way, if I can comment on it procedurally, it might be better to ask than direct. The committee can ask for anything, and as chair I have to say that.

You've heard the motion. Is there any discussion?

Mr. John Reynolds: I would like a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 4)

• 1225

The Chair: Colleagues, I want to thank our witnesses, Richard Fadden, Oonagh Fitzgerald, and Valerie de Montigny.

I would like to ask you now, colleagues, should we, as we're going to be discussing a draft report, move in camera? Is there any objection? No objection. We'll move in camera. If others could leave the room and the members would stay, please, this will not be long.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]