PACC Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

0905

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

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

0910

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

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

0915

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC)

0920

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

0925

The Chair

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

The Chair

0930

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC)

0935

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Brian O'Neal

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

0940

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons)

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

0945

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

0950

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

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

The Chair

0955

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Rob Walsh

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Rob Walsh

The Chair

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

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

1000

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

1005

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Clerk

1010

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

1015

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Dennis Mills

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

NUMBER 012

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 23, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): Good morning, everybody.

The orders of the day are basically committee business, motions relating to chapter 3, the sponsorship program, chapter 4, advertising activities, and chapter 5, management of public opinion research, of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

So this is a housekeeping morning, and after this public meeting we will move to Room 306, West Block, for a steering committee, which will be in camera, and continue on from there.

There are a few things. First of all, I would like to introduce to the committee our forensic auditors, who have been engaged through the Library of Parliament. We have Mr. Greg McEvoy and Mr. Mark Brenning. Greg and Mark are both senior managers here in Ottawa with KPMG. They have been engaged by the Library of Parliament, as we requested some time ago, and they are here to assist us in assembling, assimilating, and bringing to understanding the piles of documentation that are coming our way, to help us to develop a strategic plan so that we can move forward on an organized basis, and all other things necessary for the smooth running of the committee.

We welcome you. You're under the direction of the senior manager from Montreal, Mr. Paul Levine, who is the partner in KPMG who has the contract with us, I believe, but we'll be working primarily with the two of you, Greg and Mark. I will try to have a chair at this end of the table for you from here on in.

Does anybody have any questions they want to address to Mark and Greg at this point in time?

They will be here, as I say, on a regular basis. I've actually asked if there's a vacant MP suite on the Hill so they can use that rather than their offices down on Elgin Street. With this weather and commuting back and forth, it's just a waste of time.

We contacted the Sergeant-at-Arms yesterday to find out if there's a suite available. He said the decision has to be made by the whip, so I talked to my whip for the Conservative Party. I understand there's a meeting of the whips and House leaders today, so it will be raised there, and hopefully we can get that resolved. If you have any comments, you can talk to your own whips so that we try to get them a suite on the Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Desrochers, you have the floor.

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): I'm looking at the agenda and I hope the motion that I filed on March 10, 2004 is included in Mrs. Jennings' melting pot of sorts.

¿ (0910)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Which motion is that?

The Chair: Mr. Desrochers.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I'm looking at all of the notices of motion listed and I'm hoping you haven't forgotten the one I filed on March 10, 2004.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Again, which motion would that be?

Mr. Odina Desrochers: We had agreed, Mr. Chairman, that all motions concerning requests for documents be rolled into a single motion.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That particular motion had to do with all Cabinet committee papers and we had already adopted it.

[English]

The Chair: We'll get to motions. If you can raise that when we get to motions, that will be appropriate.

There are a few other things--

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, I've asked a question and have yet to receive an answer. There is no mention of this motion in the agenda. All of the other motions are mentioned, except mine.

The Chair: One moment please, Mr. Desrochers.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I hope you'll allow me to be a member of this committee.

[English]

The Chair: Where's the motion? You said that on March 10 you proposed--

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: That's right.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Do you have something to say to this?

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. If memory serves me well, the motion does not appear on our agenda because it was unanimously adopted. Motions listed under committee business are those for which notice has been given, but which have yet to be passed.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I simply want to be certain that this happens.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Desrochers initially filed a motion calling for all Cabinet committee documents and minutes of proceedings...

Mr. Odina Desrochers: There was also a reference in the motion to the Privy Council Office's national unity fund.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That's right. I had also filed a motion requesting the minutes and all records from all meetings of any Cabinet committee or ad hoc committee wherein communications and sponsorship activities or programs were discussed between January 1, 1994 and February 10, 2004. Mr. Desrochers ultimately agreed to withdraw his motion because its scope was far more limited. The committee debated the motion and passed it unanimously. That explains why it is not listed here.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I see then.

I asked the question, Mr. Chairman, because we've dealt with so much paperwork and so many motions that I just want us to be clear about things, so that the committee can move forward with its investigation.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Desrochers.

The clerk advises me that I read a letter into the record last Thursday requesting that information based on your motion, Mr. Desrochers. I will ask the clerk to confirm that your motion has been approved, as Ms. Jennings has indicated, or a motion that superseded your motion, so your point is taken forward. But I don't want to get into motions at this time. I want to get into some other information first.

I'm concerned about an article in the Globe and Mail this morning that talks about testimony that was presented to the inquiry behind closed doors. As you know, we have a public accounts committee that meets in public. We have a steering committee to set out the longer-term plan and decide the plan of the public accounts committee that always meets in private, with one exception where we agreed to do that in public. We also have the subcommittee on witnesses, and we all agreed that it would meet in camera privately, that there would be no public notice of these meetings, that we could bring people forward who may or may not have something to say, may or may not be comfortable with the television cameras, because we do not want them to be apprehensive if they do have something to say; they're not accustomed to having their names in the paper. It disturbs me a great deal that when we have a meeting--and this isn't the first time, but the second or third time; I think we've only had two or three meetings--I read about the details in the paper before an announcement of any kind is made. I am getting more than a little frustrated by this. If it continues, we'll change the process.

Monsieur LeBlanc.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I haven't the experience on this committee that other members have. It would be useful for me, and I think for all of us, if you would remind us of the rules with respect to in camera sessions, with respect to what might be termed an informal meeting. I worry whether, if potential witnesses meet members of the committee not in an actual committee or subcommittee context, that, in and of itself, becomes something we can put out in the public domain. I would be interested in your recapping for us the wishes of the committee with respect to this kind of testimony.

The Chair: First of all, meetings that happen at the side of a room or that consist of a small group of people are informal meetings, and we never arrange informal meetings.

We have arranged formal meetings in camera with translation, a normal meeting, and they are completely private. I don't expect anybody to talk about whom they met with or what was said at that meeting. One representative of each party is at that meeting--it's as small as possible--to determine if the witness has something to contribute to this investigation. If that committee agrees that the witness has something to say, even if it's only a small thing, then we will ask that witness to come forward. But we must protect their desire to stay away from the full glare of the media if that intimidates them, because it's more important that we get the information on the table.

For that reason--and I have been trying to be as strict as possible--while I could tell the media who we have potentially lined up for the next week or ten days, I don't. Until the clerk sends out the notice of the witnesses who are to appear at the next meeting, we will not talk about who is coming. Sometimes we will have names that are prominent in the media. Last week, of course, we had Mr. Gagliano. Mr. Gagliano is a name that is prominent in the media. He was a member of Parliament and a minister for a number of years. There are some people who are not prominent in the media, and I don't want the media knocking on their door, phoning them at all times of the day, and catching them on the street with the cameras and asking what they are going to say to the committee. I don't want that. I want them to come, speak, and leave, because that is their right. They have to go back to their jobs and continue on with their employment. For us to destroy the rules and the opportunity for this committee to hear what they have to say is doing a disservice to the country. So I will insist that it be respected. If it's not respected, I will find another way to deal with this issue.

Mr. Jordan.

Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, how do we handle questions from the media about what went on in those meetings? That particular article does quote a member of this committee concerning the content of that meeting. Is the appropriate response that we don't discuss the details of what went on in that meeting? Is that the line we should stick to from now on? I think that would make a lot of sense.

The Chair: The appropriate response is that you will not acknowledge the meeting was held, who was there, or what was discussed. That's all: I'm not at liberty to say the meeting was held, who was there, or what was discussed.

Mr. Toews, you had something to say about the fact that you were mentioned.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): I received a call from the media yesterday. Not only did the media know exactly what was said at the meeting, but also the names of all the witnesses. At no time did I confirm that any of those witnesses were there. I was quite surprised when what I thought I heard at that meeting was confirmed by this newspaper reporter. I understand that particular witness may have spoken independently of evidence given at the committee. If that's correct, then it's something that the witness has done by herself. But I never disclosed the name of any witness or the substance of the evidence provided.

One of the things we've received some criticism for is the idea that we're holding hearings in secret. What I have made clear to the media is that we hold these meetings in camera to ensure that only those witnesses who have something substantive to add are in fact called, that we don't reveal the names of individuals who simply occupy a position and then get called because somehow they fit into that chain of command or office.

That's all I want to say about that. I just want to say that I've respected the confidentiality of the evidence given.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I can certainly understand and sympathize with the situation in which Mr. Toews found himself, because I had a similar experience surrounding that same meeting of the subcommittee. I received a call from a journalist who said they knew the meeting was happening at which time, they knew the witnesses who were going before the committee, but the only thing they didn't know was the location of the meeting. I refused to confirm that we were in fact having a meeting, that we were going to be meeting any witnesses. I said I simply had no comment.

It was really interesting, because they asked if they could come and meet with me and interview me on Mr. Gagliano's testimony, and what I thought it would be, and the types of questions that need to be asked. Certainly, I said, because the notice had gone out and it was public that he was going to be meeting with us.

When they came, after interviewing me on that, they asked if they could have a picture of me on my way to the subcommittee for witnesses. I said “I have no comment as to whether the committee is meeting or not, and, no, you cannot have a shot. If you want shots, you can take shots of me in the office, in my own office.” So I can understand perfectly.

I think the advice given by the chair, which is simply to say “no comment” on anything, and even if the witnesses themselves have gone to the media, either before or after meeting with our subcommittee, that we still have no comment.... Unless and until this committee decides that we're going to meet with someone the subcommittee has met with and then issue a public notice, it should remain “No comment. I have nothing to say on the matter.” I think this would then sort everything out for us.

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Desrochers.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, I won't identify the person who may be summoned to testify on Thursday, but the press knows this individual and is familiar with her name. I don't wish to prejudge her actions, but she is anxious to give testimony. What she revealed in camera represents only a fraction of what has been reported in the press over the past week or two.

I arrived here and was told that someone was coming to testify. I wasn't the one who...In the case of persons who have already in contact with the press, which is what happened here, we need to be certain that they too do not disclose what goes on during closed door proceedings. I'll address the matter of in camera proceedings further at 10 a.m. Right now, we're discussing future business.

[English]

The Chair: We have Ms. Phinney and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, and we'll cut if off there.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I want to mention that even if we're all very careful, the media are not stupid. I went into the Wellington Building two or three weeks ago, and there was extra security, so I just asked the security people what was going on, and they named the fact that this committee is meeting and that Ms. Bédard was expected through there at any time, etc., and it was the security at the door. We have to be a little bit realistic about all of this.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr. Chair, I appreciate your raising the issue. I think it is something we have to resolve. I understand that you would like to continue with our present approach as long as confidences are kept. Perhaps it is worth trying that. However, it has been difficult, as you know, for all of us to get these calls from media with all the details, just as Mr. Toews has said.

I'm surprised the media has any detailed knowledge of our meeting in camera, when members of the committee did not even have a list of names before us. I dare say it would be hard for any one of us to name all the witnesses we heard that day. So perhaps we're up against other influences and other pressures that we're not aware of.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, if confidences can't be kept, that in fact we pursue the suggestion that was raised earlier of having all pre-screening done by our legal counsel and recommendations made to the committee as a whole.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

As I said, if it's not respected, we will find another way. I do insist that this be respected. My preference is that all political parties be represented, but if it doesn't work, we will do it a different way.

We're not closed with that statement. Everybody is aware of how the chair feels and how the committee members feel, and I hope it doesn't happen in the future.

This next item has nothing to do with our current inquiry; this is dealing with a motion in the House that has been referred to this committee. This is a question on the Order Paper by Mr. Merrifield from Yellowhead:

With regard to grants and contributions made by the government in the riding of Yellowhead for each fiscal year since 1999-2000: (a) what was the amount disbursed to each recipient; (b) which government department was involved; (c) what was the name of the recipient organization or business; and (d) what was the address of the recipient organization or business?

As you know, the new rules are that if the government does not respond within 45 days, this question is referred to a committee selected by the member. Mr. Merrifield from Yellowhead obviously requested that, because of the lack of response by the government, this motion be referred to this committee. This is, I think, the second time this has happened. The last time the answer was forthcoming just the following day, and the parliamentary secretary to the particular department happened to be here at the time and was able to confirm that.

My suggestion is that we have the clerk write to the departments, which are Justice, Canadian Heritage, and Public Safety, and ask them to respond to the member within 10 days, and failing that, it will be brought back to this committee. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: You all have the synopsis of evidence by Mr. Allan Cutler, with tabs. That has been distributed to each and every one; that is tabled and is a public document.

Now we're going to move on to the fourth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which I believe I did table but we didn't adopt. Let me read it once again:

The Subcommittee met on Thursday, March 11, 2004 and agreed to make the following recommendations:

That, if required, the Committee sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and on Wednesdays from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.

That the Committee hold one meeting to consider both the Public Accounts of Canada for 2002-03 and Vote 20 under FINANCE of the Main Estimates 2004-05.

That the Auditor General of Canada be invited to appear before the Committee for 15 minutes on Thursday, April 1st, 2004 in order to present an overview of her March 2004 report.

That Charles Guité be invited to appear before the Committee on Thursday, March 25, 2004 at 9:00 a.m.

Now, before we move adoption of the report, there are two things. One, the Auditor General has asked that the 15-minute presentation of her report be moved to the same meeting where we deal with public accounts and the main estimates, which will be on Wednesday afternoon, March 31. We're proposing a change; the Auditor General preferred that, and I think it's appropriate we do that.

Number two, this is for your information about the item “That Charles Guité be invited to appear before the Committee on Thursday, March 25, 2004 at 9:00 a.m.” That was superseded by Mr. Tonks' motion that he be subpoenaed to appear on or before April 1. I signed the subpoena last week requesting that he be here at 9 o'clock, April 1.

Madam Jennings.

¿ (0930)

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Again, the second paragraph, “That, if required, the Committee sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and on Wednesdays from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.”, does not reflect the motion I presented--

The Chair: No, it's coming up later on.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: --and asked the committee to adopt; the “if required” is to be deleted. So in English it's “That the Committee sit on Tuesdays and Thursdays”, and in French it would be:

[Translation]

that the committee meet on Tuesday and on Thursday from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, along with the amendment that also was agreed upon before, that the committee will meet these times--not “if required”; it will meet.

Are we all agreed with the fourth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay.

Carrying right along, as I mentioned, I will just read this into the record. It is the summons to Mr. Charles Guité, care of Mr. Michael Edelson:

Take notice that you are hereby summoned and required to appear at Ottawa and give evidence before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts of the House of Commons of Canada on matters relating to the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada (referred to the committee on February 10, 2004), on Thursday, April 1, 2004, at 9 o'clock a.m., in the House of Commons Committee Room No. 237-C, Centre Block, and to remain in attendance until duly discharged.

The summons is issued by order of the committee and is signed “John Williams, Chair”. That has been sent.

Now we have--again, not dealing with the investigation at hand--the peer review of the Auditor General of Canada. The question of who audits the auditor has been raised many times. It may be timely that we have a couple of auditors sitting right in front of us now. But the question is, of course, who audits the auditor?

The Auditor General's office, through the International Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions, I believe, has arranged for the mutual examination of procedures and effectiveness to ensure that they are providing value for money to their respective taxpayers. There has been a peer review of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada. That report was given to us by Ms. Fraser and Mr. David Rattray, the Assistant Auditor General, last week or the week before. And now, because she is an officer of Parliament, I think it's appropriate that this report be laid before the House of Commons. I will read it into the record of Hansard in the House of Commons when I table it.

Have you all had a chance to review this draft report prepared for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts? I'll defer this to the last item on the agenda to give you a chance to peruse it, and we'll deal with it then.

Is there anything else?

Mr. Forseth, please.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, CPC): In all our struggles to raise our standards, it's just interesting that this report should also highlight and identify certain opportunities to improve the quality of the office's value-for-money policies and practices. Then Ms. Fraser told the committee that her office would respond to these issues. So even her office has had some comment about her improvement, and even she is trying to raise her standards.

So what she and her office have criticized, in her actions it looks like she has also submitted herself to the same process and is making the same efforts to improve.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Forseth. Yes, accountability is always good.

Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would endorse what Mr. Forseth has said. But in paragraph 4 of the report, the fourth sentence, on the line that begins “quality management framework”, the next sentence is: “The report also identified certain opportunities to improve the quality of the Office's value-for-money policies and practices”. Then it goes on, yes. Well, do you know what? It was a little bit more than that. To me, that line is similar to what we get from ministers after an Auditor General's report.

The report specifically stated that there were areas the Auditor General audited and drew conclusions about but in no way went to the next step, which was to actually provide some form of direction and assistance to the audited department on how to correct the deficiencies that were pointed out. I think it would be good to actually put that in the report, because it's key.

This is a complaint we've been getting even from members around the table here, that it's all very well and good for the Auditor General to say there's this deficiency, there's that deficiency, but if it's a value-for-money issue, the Auditor General also has the responsibility, if the Auditor General has the wherewithal, to assist those departments in correcting those deficiencies. That was what the audit of her department pointed out.

So it's a little bit more than just that.

The Chair: We take your comments seriously, Ms. Jennings. I think we will add that line, if there's agreement.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: In response to Ms. Jennings, she's talking about the divide between an audit function and a management function. It's part of the coordinating role of PCO and the chief clerk, Mr. Himelfarb, to help the public service.

Unless the Auditor General receives a different direction from Parliament in her mandate, she's going to stay within the audit function, because you have to draw the line somewhere. So she's living within her mandate, and until there is a different fundamental direction from Parliament, she's not going to get into that kind of management function.

The Chair: Thank you.

We don't want to debate this back and forth indefinitely. I think Ms. Jennings has a point, that this was pointed out to the Auditor General by her peers who reviewed her work. This is not a directive to the Auditor General. It is her peers noting what they perceive to be a deficiency in her work. Therefore Ms. Jennings would like a little stronger language or to have that point identified in the report. I think it's a valid point.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: I'm suggesting we make the editorial change.

Are we ready to adopt this report?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: With the....

The Chair: With that amendment, yes.

The motions are that the report be adopted as the fourth report of the committee with the editorial.... I'm sorry; I think the first motion is that the chair be authorized to make editorial changes that do not change the substance of the report.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: So the motion now is that the report be adopted as the third report of the committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The rest of the motion is that the chair present the report to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The other issue we have is that of the Privacy Commissioner. You may recall that issue from last summer. We did hold some hearings on it.

Do we have a report ready for this?

Mr. Brian O'Neal (Committee Researcher): Yes, Mr. Chairman, we do.

The Chair: Has it been circulated?

Mr. Brian O'Neal: I believe it has been, yes.

The Chair: It has been circulated, and we need to do something with it.

Mr. LeBlanc.

The Clerk of the Committee: If I may, Mr. Chairman, on the instruction of the steering committee, the draft report was circulated to all members of the committee last week. There aren't copies of it here today.

The request that was made when it was circulated was that members review the report and come back to either me or Ms. Kingston, the other clerk, with an indication as to how much time they thought the committee would require to adopt that report in order to allow us to better schedule our time.

It has been a week now since it was sent out, and we haven't had any indication back from members as to how long they think it would take to adopt the report. That's what we were hoping we would be able to get today.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: Okay, you're all going to put it on your calendars. This is Tuesday. Today is a busy day for all members, so how about we bring this up again Thursday? If you can all try to get your comments back, what we want to do is slot a specific time. We don't want two meetings. We don't want four hours, ten hours. If you have any significant changes to the report, tell us so that we can move it forward quite quickly.

So that will be brought back on Thursday.

Now we are going to move the motions that have been distributed by the clerk.

Number one is the motion by Mr. Toews that the committee request the Privy Council Office and/or the Prime Minister's Office to send to the committee all documents setting out the mandate given to Mr. Gagliano in his capacity as Minister of Public Works and Government Services, including all instruments of advice, notes, memoranda, and other similar or related instruments. That's moved by Mr. Toews.

Mr. Murphy.

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Chair, if I could speak to this motion, I have no problem with the motion in principle, except the last few words, “including all instruments of advice, notes, memoranda, and other similar or related instruments”. Would Mr. Toews allow an amendment to include “that pertain to the sponsorship issue”, all those notes and memoranda?

I have no problem with the mandate. I think we should say that. But any of the notes and memoranda should pertain to the sponsorship....

The Chair: I think that's appropriate, Mr. Murphy.

I think we will also ensure that when we're talking about cabinet documents and so on they all come to us via the law clerk, who, if he feels they are straying beyond the mandate of this committee, will talk to me or to somebody and have them deleted.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: I have no problem with that. Perhaps we could just simply say, along the line of your words, “other related instruments within the mandate of the committee.” I don't want to get involved in some technical argument that this is not sponsorship, this is advertising.

The Chair: Are you okay with that, Mr. Murphy?

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Yes.

The Chair: We'll bring everything from cabinet and these sources through the law clerk, so that they are vetted before we see them. If they do have confidences that are not germane to the discussion, they will be deleted.

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I like the phrase “documents setting out the mandate given to Mr. Gagliano.”

The Chair: That's a given.

Mr. Paul Forseth: But I am mindful of the testimony we've heard, and I want to have not only the mandate given to Mr. Gagliano, but the mandate Mr. Gagliano may have given to his deputy minister.

The Chair: That has to be a separate motion, because this is to the Privy Council and the PMO.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Next is a motion from Mr. Peter MacKay that based on the evidence presented by the former minister Alfonso Gagliano in reference to briefings, all documents pertaining to those briefings, including briefing books, notes, memos, agenda items, day timers, etc., be tabled and made available to the committee for examination in these deliberations. The first one is dealing with instruments, advice, etc., this one with briefings, which is a different matter.

Mr. Jordan.

Hon. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, I spoke briefly with Mr. Walsh before the meeting. I am wondering if we can ask him, because I know the issue of agendas is one that is currently before some judiciary body, concerning the Information Commissioner, where exactly that issue is, as it is a matter of the legality of it.

The Chair: Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, I've been trying to ascertain the answer to Mr. Jordan's question in the last few minutes, and I haven't been able to get that information as yet. But if memory serves, that is an action by the Information Commissioner pursuant to steps he was undertaking under the Access to Information Act, which doesn't apply to the House of Commons. It may well be that whatever legal issues apply in that context wouldn't apply in this context, in any event.

Hon. Joe Jordan: Thank you.

The Chair: Are you ready for the question?

(Motion negatived)

¿ (0945)

The Chair: We move on to the first motion, from Judy Wasylycia-Leis, that the committee request that a copy of the daily agendas for all ministers of the crown between November 1993 and December 2003 be forwarded to the committee's counsel for his review; and that the committee's counsel forward to the members of the committee those portions that are relevant to the committee's study of chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's November 2003 report.

Madam Jennings, then Mr. LeBlanc.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

It's clear that while this committee isn't bound by all of the various legislation, etc., given that we enjoy parliamentary privilege, it's also clear that Canadians expect us to proceed in a fair and equitable fashion. I think this committee has a certain obligation not to go on fishing expeditions, and when we require documents from any witness, whether it's a witness who works in the public service or a political person, elected official, or someone in the private sector, we should do so on the basis that we have justification.

In this case I would say we have clear justification to require the daily agendas of Mr. Gagliano, Mr. Ranald Quail, and Mr. Chuck Guité, because we've had conflicting and contradictory testimony. We've had Mr. Quail come before us as a former deputy minister and state that there was constant and regular contact between his subordinate, Assistant Deputy Minister Guité--and I think it's important to say Assistant Deputy Minister Guité, because although his title was director general, it was in fact the position of assistant deputy minister--Mr. Guité's staff, and the office of the minister, including the minister himself. Mr. Gagliano came before us and testified that to his recollection, he would have had three or four meetings--in that neighbourhood--with Assistant Deputy Minister Guité. I think on that basis we are justified in asking for the daily agendas.

We have not, however, had any testimony here that brings into question or would require us to ask for the tabling of the agendas of anybody else. So I would amend this motion and say that the committee requests that a copy of the daily agendas for the former deputy minister or retired deputy minister, Mr. Ranald Quail, and the former Minister of Public Works, the Honourable Alfonso Gagliano, from November 1993 to December 2003 be forwarded to the committee's counsel for his review. The rest would remain the same.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. LeBlanc, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, and Mr. Toews.

Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Dominic LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with Madam Jennings.

I think a very broad request for all ministers of the crown, which would potentially include, for example, the Prime Minister.... It is sub judice. I was told that issue is in fact before the courts.

I'm from Atlantic Canada, and I have some experience with fishing, and the danger when you're fishing is that you can have a bycatch, which is an incidental catch to something you're not authorized to be fishing for.

I think there are some personal issues here, and I would urge that we amend the motion as Madam Jennings suggested.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

The Chair: Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, by the way, is the mover of the motion.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would be prepared to accept this amendment as a friendly amendment to the motion, because it was not the intention of this motion to go on a fishing expedition.

I would say I may give some thought to a further motion that would perhaps enlighten us as to the contacts between the ministers of Public Works for this period of time and the other relevant institutions and persons identified in the Auditor General's report. So I may come back with a further suggestion pertaining not just to daily journals, but also to expense accounts and telephone reports for that sort of sphere of influence--

¿ (0950)

The Chair: You're agreeing with Madam Jennings' suggestion that it be restricted?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: For now.

Mr. Vic Toews: I'm a little concerned, and perhaps the mover of the motion is jumping a little too quickly to agree to an amendment to this, because I think that the motion does in fact ask for material that is relevant to the committee's studies of chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's report. So this is not a fishing expedition. This is a very narrow request for information with respect to ministers' agendas that is relevant to the committee's study of chapters 3, 4, and 5.

The Prime Minister has indicated that there was political direction. Mr. Gagliano has stated that he didn't give the political direction. So if Mr. Gagliano didn't give the political direction and the Prime Minister says there was political direction, obviously some other minister had to be involved.

So insofar as the committee's counsel finds that there is relevant material dealing with the study of chapters 3, 4, and 5, that should be brought forward. And if the mover of the motion is going to amend it, I'm going to bring that motion forward again, because we're eliminating a potential avenue of evidence that may indicate political direction, as the Prime Minister has indicated there was.

The Chair: The last word to Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would like to bring a further amendment to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis's motion that it not just be a copy of the daily agendas for the former Minister of Public Works, Alfonso Gagliano, and the retired Deputy Minister of Public Works, Ranald Quail, but also a record to include the record of all incoming telephone calls to the offices of those two.

I disagree with Mr. Toews, but if he wishes to bring forward another amendment, that's his right.

The Chair: Okay. I think Mr. Toews was saying he would have to bring forward another motion.

Mr. Murphy.

Hon. Shawn Murphy: Mr. Chairman, we have to step back and take a deep breath and ask ourselves what we're doing here. The first motion talks about a ten-year period for every minister; we're talking about probably 80, 90 ministers. How many trees have to die in this process?

I think we have to get on with the business we're tasked with and be very specific with a rifle, not a shotgun. I disagree totally with the record of any phone calls. We all know how many phone calls come into an MP's office in the run of a day. In the minister's office, I would suggest, you're probably talking about thousands a day, for a ten-year period...every phone call.

The Chair: Okay. I'm not sure that it's the volume that's important. It's the content that's important, Mr. Murphy.

So what we have here are two amendments. Madam Jennings suggested that it be curtailed to Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, Mr. Quail, and Mr. Guité, rather than all ministers. That's one amendment. The second amendment is that it be broadened to include telephone records.

I will deal with Madam Wasylycia-Leis' motions. So I will give you the last word.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. I would just like to indicate to you, Mr. Chair, that I'm prepared to accept both those suggestions as friendly amendments to my original proposition. And I would also like to reiterate for Mr. Toews my earlier suggestion that I would, in consultation with others, spend a little time coming forward with a more thoughtful motion that would deal with some of his concerns.

The Chair: You have a point of order, Mr. Mills?

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Yes. I'd like to know the counsel's view, if it's appropriate that we be seeking--

The Chair: One moment, please. I have to confer with the clerk.

Okay, Mr. Walsh, Mr. Mills has a question for you.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Dennis Mills: I'm just concerned about the appropriateness of this amendment that would suggest that we be tracking all of these telephone calls from all of these principal players over the last five years. Is that the type of thing that you feel to be appropriate?

Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I take the amendment to be one that's seeking documents, and the documentation, apart from the agendas, is documentation--if there is any--that reflects incoming phone calls to these individuals, not the substance of the calls but just that on a certain date a certain call came in from a certain person. That's all.

You know these pinks slips you get when you get a telephone message? There is often a carbon copy in the book. That book of carbon copies might be destroyed--I don't know--or maybe it's kept, but that's all that is available, that I would think of, in a documentary form, in documentation. That's the beginning and the end, I would think, of the amendment here.

Mr. Dennis Mills: But, Mr. Walsh, I'm trying to understand advice that you gave us last week, where you told us that we are not a court of law here. We're trying to get to the bottom of the flawed process and ministerial responsibility, and I support all that, but when I hear about getting people's telephone messages, I wonder if you consider that to be appropriate.

Mr. Rob Walsh: In regard to the mover of the amendment, I'm sorry, I was taken to other business, but I have heard the explanation for the amendment. I think it arose, as did the main motion, out of concern about apparent inconsistencies between the testimony of the former minister and testimony of others. In legal terms, you'd call that a credibility question, so you'd look for some documentation that might resolve this conflict of testimony. So to the extent that the committee is trying to resolve a conflict in testimony, yes, it's appropriate.

I agree with the member, Mr. Chairman, that to the extent that it's an attempt to get into a lot of detail that arguably is beyond this committee, it's inappropriate, but to the extent that it's trying to resolve a conflict relative to the former minister's testimony, arguably it's--

The Chair: All right. We're going to have Ms. Ablonczy, Mr. Jordan, and Ms. Phinney, and then we're going to wrap this up. We have two or three other motions that are fairly straightforward, but we want to get them done, because we have to.

Ms. Ablonczy, Mr. Jordan, Ms. Phinney, and Madam Jennings.

Ms. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): I just think we should go back to basic principles, that this committee was charged by Parliament with getting to the bottom of this situation. I don't know how you're going to catch any fish if you won't go fishing. That doesn't mean the net should be spread over the whole ocean, but certainly there's a reasonableness to these motions.

Somebody was involved in this through meetings and phone calls--right? So if we don't examine very closely and very carefully the meetings and phone calls that took place with the people who we know were involved, or may well have been involved, then we're not going to find anything. So I can appreciate the sensitivity, but surely we have to have some trust in our law clerk here to sift through this and to give us the proper information.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, Ms. Phinney, Ms. Jennings.

Hon. Joe Jordan: I just want to point out, Mr. Chair, that I have a real problem with getting into these phone records. The conflict of testimony right now is based on a Globe and Mail article. We haven't heard from the witness. We haven't heard from Guité. There may be a time at which we're at an impasse and this may be a course of action, but I think we're being a little premature now in asking for this kind of quantity of data.

The Chair: Ms. Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney: The only way I could see this material being provided is if it only went to counsel, because there might be things.

As soon as it comes to this committee, it's public for all the media. Maybe you don't want somebody to know that you go to your dentist at 4 o'clock in the morning, or you do such and such. As soon as we have it, the media has it. Because these people are phoning in with different things, I think the Privacy Commissioner....

I think this could cause a big lawsuit.

The Chair: All right.

Let me again draw to your attention that the concept is to ask for these documents and give them to the law clerk. We will not see them and he will cleanse them of all things that are not pertinent to our investigation, and the PCO can make representations through the law clerk saying this is not germane to our investigation.

So all that information is removed before we see it. That is important to understand, because we fully agree with you, Ms. Phinney, that there should be no way we would be asking for telephone calls or documentation from any cabinet minister that's not germane to this motion, as it says.

À (1000)

Ms. Beth Phinney: [Inaudible—Editor]...that he has to go through it, etc., and ask him to review it.

The Chair: Well, that was the intent, that he review it, and--

Ms. Beth Phinney: I think that would have to be clarified.

The Chair: This is Mr. Walsh. So it would be reviewed, and anything not germane to our investigation would be removed. That was the intent.

An hon. member: It isn't there--

An hon. member: It is there.

The Chair: It says right there that it should be reviewed, giving us what is relevant and nothing else.

Madam Jennings, you were the last speaker.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: That's fine.

The Chair: Okay.

I'm going to call the question, first of all on the motion that it be expanded to....

First of all, there's the motion as presented, there is the restriction that it be only for Mr. Guité, Mr. Quail, and Mr. Gagliano, and then there's the expansion to include more documentation.

So the first one I'm going to take is more documentation, including telephone call records. Shall the motion be expanded to include telephone call records?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Next, on the motion being restricted not to all ministers but to Mr. Gagliano, including Mr. Quail, the deputy minister, and Mr. Guité, who Madam Jennings referred to as assistant deputy minister, are members in favour?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Therefore, the final motion as amended is that we call for these documents, that they be reviewed and...“cleansed” is not the appropriate word; that anything not germane to our investigation be removed by the law clerk before it's given to us.

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We'll move on to the second motion, that the committee request the names of all special assistants and special policy advisers to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services who had responsibility for the sponsorship file between June 1997 and June 2002.

We've been calling for names and more names, and this is more names.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We also have a notice of motion from Marlene Jennings, that at its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 9 a.m., the committee determine its witness list and exact date and times of each witness will be called to appear on such dates it shall determine.

Madam Jennings, I want to bring that up with the steering committee, which immediately follows here. Is that okay?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, I'd like it to be debated and voted on here.

The Chair: Okay.

Madam Jennings has a motion that we deal with the witness list now. I said that we were going to deal with it at the steering committee. Nonetheless, that's the motion Madam Jennings has put forward. I don't think it needs debate.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: If it's okay with you, Madam Jennings, I'm going to go through the next two motions. Then we'll come back to the points dealt with by this motion. Is that okay?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

The Chair: So we'll go through these motions first, then we'll come back to your point.

The next motion is that the committee meet to hear witnesses on Monday, April 5, from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., on Tuesday, April 6, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and on Wednesday, April 7, 2004, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Of course, that is the break week.

Mr. Desrochers.

À (1005)

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I'm willing to go along with that schedule, but I would still like to know who will be summoned to testify and what exactly the committee will be looking at on the 5th, 6th and 7th, because I feel we're spinning our wheels. We need to hear from witnesses to expedite matters. Therefore, I'll agree to the schedule, but I do nevertheless have some reservations.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. If you have reservations, then I'll have to leave that motion and come back to it. We'll deal with Madam Jennings' first motion first.

Why don't we just get to the part where...?

Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, the problem is that we just adopted my motion that refers to “the date and times each witness will be called to appear on such dates it shall be determine.” If we do not deal with my second motion, when we're determining those dates, we cannot add in, we cannot schedule witnesses Monday, April 5, Tuesday, April 6, and Wednesday, April 7.

The Chair: I think that if we adopt the witness lists I am about to present--I've consulted with the clerk, the researchers, our forensic auditors, and the law clerk--that automatically means we will be sitting on these dates. So we'll deal with the report.

Mr. LeBlanc.

The Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We don't have copies for distribution, do we?

The Clerk: I have copies for the steering committee meeting. I'm having some additional ones made now, and they'll be sent around.

The discussions we had, as Mr. Williams indicated, were about trying to lay out a schedule for the next two or three weeks, including the dates that were suggested by Ms. Jennings's motion, April 5, 6, and 7. What was suggested through the discussions, as Mr. Williams has indicated, was that we meet tomorrow with Madame Bédard--this was reported in the newspaper today--and on Thursday with one of the people we screened last week, a former employee at CCSB. It is proposed that we meet with the person who conducted the internal audits at PWGSC, a gentleman named Norm Steinberg, on Monday the 29th, which is when he's available, and that's because we're not having a meeting on Tuesday the 30th, because of the lock-up for the Auditor General's report that's being held that day. On Wednesday the 31st it is proposed that we hold the meeting we'd agreed to have with the Auditor General to have her present the contents of her March 2004 report and to deal with the public accounts from 2002-2003 and the main estimates for 2004-2005, all in one meeting. It was proposed that we do that on Wednesday the 31st from 3:30 to 5:30. For Thursday, April 1, we've already summoned Mr. Guité to appear.

To go into the break week on Monday, April 5, it was proposed that we meet with a gentleman from one of the advertising firms, whose name has appeared in the media, Alain Richard, who worked at Groupaction. On Tuesday the 6th and Wednesday the 7th it is proposed that we begin looking at some of the people from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A list of names was submitted to the committee from the RCMP, as from other crown corporations. We would begin hearing from those people who are involved in the RCMP 125th anniversary on the 6th, and we would hear the commissioner from the RCMP on the 7th.

Those are the proposals that were discussed with the researchers and the chair.

The Chair: Followed by our report....

The Clerk: Then we would start considering on the 20th, the first Tuesday after we return after the break week, a status report, which is something a number of members have been asking for.

As I said, we're getting copies of this calendar made. I was anticipating having this discussion with the steering committee, but we'll get that list circulated.

The Chair: Madam Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney: What's going on between Tuesday the 6th and April 20? Nothing?

The Clerk: If I may, Mr. Chairman, there was a motion from Ms. Jennings suggesting that the committee sit on April 5, 6, and 7, which would be during the first week of the Easter break, with the RCMP on the latter two days.

À (1010)

Ms. Beth Phinney: This is two weeks. I don't see any of the heads of the advertising companies, I don't see any crown corporation heads here. On Thursday of this week why aren't we having two or three people in, why are we only having one? On Monday I think we could have more than one person in. On April 1 we were going to have Mr. Guité, but so far he has said no, so are we going to wait until that day to say we don't have anybody, or are we going to put somebody on standby?

The Chair: This is a discussion I would prefer to have in the steering committee, Ms. Phinney, but the motion says we do it in public.

Ms. Beth Phinney: As long as they don't pass it before the steering committee comes.

The Chair: This is right. As far as....

Ms. Beth Phinney: Why don't we do it here, right now?

The Chair: As far as the meeting on Monday is concerned, I feel, in consultation with the law clerk, that we will need a four-hour meeting with the auditor. That's my perception.

Ms. Beth Phinney: On Monday, it says Norm Steinberg.

The Chair: I feel we will want a four-hour meeting with Mr. Steinberg.

Ms. Beth Phinney: What about Thursday's meeting?

The Chair: This coming Thursday.... As I mentioned the other day, this is the first real attempt for us to get out ahead with a long witness list. We have Madam Tremblay coming this Thursday. I believe we feel that is sufficient for a four-hour meeting because of the number of questions that may be addressed to her.

You may recall that I suggested that as we screen the witnesses, we determine at that time whether they come forward and make a statement, with one intervention from each party then they can leave; or if they have more to say and we feel that would not be an appropriate way to handle it, that we will allow the full committee to ask questions.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Chair, could I...?

The Chair: As you could appreciate, it's difficult to try to determine how much interest there will be in a witness. At the same time, we do not want to have a media circus for these witnesses. That is why we have to tread gingerly.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Mr. Chair, you mentioned the other day that there are at least 120 people. The rate you're going at this, we will be here until next April. I'm just wondering if there isn't some way to speed this up.

The Chair: Yes, there is.

I have had discussions with the staff. It is suggested that we write a letter to these 125 people so that we don't interview them all and we proceed on that basis. Like you, Ms. Phinney, I don't want to be here until next April. I want the job done as quickly as I can.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Who is deciding the priorities? I would like to see the advertising agencies here. Who is deciding the priority?

The Chair: In anticipation of the steering committee meeting that is going to follow right after this, I intended to make a presentation--to have a full discussion with the steering committee. I am now having this discussion with the full committee, in public. And I'm not sure....

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes, that's good too.

Ms. Beth Phinney: That's good.

The Chair: If you feel that's the way you want to do it, then that's the way it shall be done. I'm trying to give direction to the committee and say here is a plan. If you feel it should be changed, we will change it.

I have Monsieur Desrochers, Ms. Jennings, Mr. Mills, Ms. Ablonczy, and Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Surely you recall, Mr. Chairman, that when the committee heard from Mr. Cutler, it was agreed that another priority witness should be Mr. Dingwall. I'm wondering if any steps have been taken to have Mr. Dingwall appear either on April 5, 6 or 7, because he was mentioned directly in Mr. Cutler's testimony. If we want to proceed in a coherent, logical fashion, we need to hear from these individuals. I have nothing against the RCMP or Commissioner Zaccardelli, but the thing is, the press and the public expect us to move forward with our investigation. Therefore, have the persons whose names appear on the first list tabled, namely the five former Public Works ministers, been contacted?

If so, I'd be willing to wait until later to hear from RCMP officials and Commissioner Zaccardelli.

[English]

The Chair: Absolutely, Mr. Desrochers.

I expect the committee will want to call Mr. Pelletier, Mr. LeFrançois, Mr. Jean Carle, and Mr. Vennat from the Business Development Bank. We will want to call someone from the Old Port of Montreal. We have already suggested that we have Mr. Zaccardelli from the RCMP. We want to continue to call others as we identify them: Mr. Dingwall, Ms. Marleau, Mr. Boudria....

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, hearing from Mr. Dingwall was deemed to be more of a priority.

À (1015)

[English]

The Chair: It may be your priority, Mr. Desrochers, but it's not necessarily everybody's.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, everyone agreed that Mr. Dingwall should be summoned. If it's a matter of indulging in a little power trip, Mr....

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Desrochers, I have made a suggestion and now I am getting input and feedback to my suggestion. That is why sometimes it's better to do these things in camera rather than in public, but if you want to do it in public, that's fine.

I have made a proposal. If you want me to bring in Mr. Dingwall at the earliest opportunity, I will bring in Mr. Dingwall at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Good.

The Chair: This is not me making these determinations. I have given you a proposal. If you want to amend it, we will amend it. If you want to say let's bring in Mr. Dingwall after Mr. Zaccardelli, fine.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Before.

The Chair: You want him before. Okay.

Who thinks that Mr. Dingwall should come in early?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order.

Mr. Chairperson, I would suggest that we adjourn and reconvene as a full committee in the other location that you've recommended. There are folks who need to get into this room for the budget lock-up.

It's foolish for us to continue down this path. I think we all need to meet together, but let's regroup in another room as soon as possible.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Dennis Mills: I have a point of order.

I realize that we have to leave this room, Mr. Chair, but as members of Parliament, we are all dealing with the Auditor General's statement and have to find whether or not the taxpayer got value for money.

One of the things that I find incredibly difficult is that we do not have anyone on this witness list who deals with the sectors that were involved. We should have the Advertising Standards Council of Canada here, and we should have the Exhibit and Display Association of Canada here, because very few of us have spent our lives in this particular sector. We should have advice from the experts on how this particular sector operates.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, Mr. Mills, but a point of debate and proposal.

However, I think Ms. Wasylycia-Leis is right.

But before we go, the law clerk is pointing out to me that in the motion we approved, the word “special” could too narrowly define...if nobody carried that title. We would get no names as a result. I think we're talking about the assistants and policy advisers. So is it agreed that we delete the word “special”?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Hon. Joe Jordan: I'm just wondering if we can't deal with Mr. Mills' motion before we adjourn.

The Chair: No. Mr. Mills' motion was a point of order, not a motion.

Hon. Joe Jordan: No, he has a motion too.

The Chair: Okay, if we can deal with it quickly, we'll deal with it now:

That the Committee be provided with all documentation related to all production costs associated with the $83,829,488 allocated to the 1986 separate sponsorship program approved events from 1997 to 2003, as outlined in the documents provided to the Committee by Mr. Marshall, Deputy Minister of PWGSC, entitled “Sponsorship Program, Estimated Expenditures and Events Sponsored”.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, we've checked and the wording included in the motion I filed doesn't appear here. Therefore, I would like the motion I filed on March 10 to be approved. I verified this with the committee staff.

[English]

The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I don't understand your attitude, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We'll convene in Room 306 in the West Block.