HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

Á

1145

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, PC/DR)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Jordan

The Chair

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

The Chair

Á

1155

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Â

1200

Mr. Jordan

Mr. Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Â

1205

Mr. Godin

The Chair

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Â

1210

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Benoit

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

Mr. Benoit

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

Â

1225

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

An hon. member

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Benoit

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Â

1240

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Â

1245

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Â

1250

Â

1255

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 054

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): We will resume the meeting.

    If there are any cameras here, the media are welcome, but cameras other than the CPAC cameras should leave. Thank you very much.

    Colleagues, we're here now to discuss agenda item (B) on our agenda, pursuant to the order of reference from the House of Thursday, February 7, consideration of the question of privilege raised on January 31 by the member for Portage--Lisgar concerning the charge against the Minister of National Defence of making misleading statements in the House.

    As you know, colleagues, we just had a planning meeting in camera. I tried to summarize outstanding items from our investigation so far. There are a few documents that we have yet to receive. There's one document we have that is being translated, which will be circulated. In addition to that, there are five motions for which we've been given notice. You have them before you, I believe. They're in the order in which we received them. It's my intention to deal with them first come, first served.

    The first motion was by Yvon Godin. Yvon, would you like to move that motion?

    Jay Hill.

    Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George--Peace River, PC/DR): I have perhaps a point of clarification, if not a point of order, Mr. Chairman, before we begin going through the motions. How did you want to deal with the request I made in camera?

    The Chair: My suggestion, Jay, is that is simply a motion, and therefore it is the sixth motion I've received. I should have mentioned it, but I don't have it in writing yet. When we've completed these five that we have in writing, I would ask you to move the motion you mentioned when we were in camera.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

    The Chair: By the way, that's simply because it's the latest we've received.

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, my motion reads as follows:

That Claude Laverdure, Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister and Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet on Foreign Affairs and Defence Policy be called as a witness to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee.

    Given the responsibility of the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet in the matter involving Minister Eggleton and in light of the statements made in the House and the current controversy within the committee, I think it's important to call Mr. Laverdure as a witness, since he was acting on behalf of the Minister of National Defence during the latter's absence between the 21st and the 28th, or the 25th. I'm confident the two were in touch and I think it would be interesting to hear from this witness.

    I believe the committee has a duty to hear from as many witnesses as possible to shed light on this whole affair. As I see it, if we decline to call in a witness, then we must be hiding something. I've always maintained this position. When a person has done nothing wrong, he shouldn't be afraid to testify. However, a person acts differently if he has something to hide. It's important for the committee to hear from certain witnesses. If the Liberals fail to see this, then that's their problem. However, we feel it's important if Parliament is to do its work properly. We hear talk of renewing Parliament. Here is our opportunity to do so today. If that's how they want to go about it... [Editor's note: Inaudible]. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this motion calling for Mr. Laverdure to appear before the committee to shed light on certain matters. If he has nothing to hide, that shouldn't be a problem. If he fails to put in an appearance, then surely he must have something to hide.

[English]

    The Chair: Leon Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. This witness, Claude Laverdure, the foreign policy adviser to the Prime Minister, was actually on the initial list the Canadian Alliance put forth. We've asked to have him once already.

    I think it's important to note that the third motion we'll be debating is on Wendy Gilmour, who's the political adviser to the Canadian joint headquarters in the United States. We were told at this committee that she was reporting to several people. One of those may have been Claude Laverdure. I think that makes it particularly important that we hear from Mr. Laverdure and Wendy Gilmour on just what communications did take place regarding the taking of prisoners in Afghanistan. I think they tie together and I think we need them both.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, the steering committee met and agreed on a list of I think ten witnesses. I think it became apparent as we got to the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth--I won't speak for the committee, but from my own perspective--that we were getting to people... I asked if they had any knowledge that was relevant to the issue the Speaker referred to this committee.

    Clearly, the minister made two conflicting statements. He has admitted that. But did he do it deliberately? He has stated in the House that he didn't do it deliberately, and there is certainly a strong precedent, in the absence of credible evidence, that we accept him at his word. I think the Speaker reflected that in his reference to the committee. But we were confronted with two conflicting statements, so we had to deal with it.

    The argument presented by Mr. Pallister, in the absence of a confession by the offending party, was that there was motivation and intent. So the witnesses we heard were an attempt to build a circumstantial case on motivation and intent. I didn't see anything that came close to meeting the bar of motivation and intent. I think we've had it explained to us.

    In terms of controversy, the taking of prisoners and turning them over to the Americans was clearly the policy. That's what was done.

    This committee has not been charged with doing a critique of the internal processes of the PCO, the PMO, and Parliament. If this is an issue, it may be something the defence committee wants to look at. But it's not what this committee was doing.

    We went down these roads with a great deal of leeway to see if there was a case for motivation and intent, and, as has been pointed out by both the Clerk of the House and Mr. Maingot, it involves an extremely high burden of proof if that's the direction we want to go in. I think at this point that case has not been made. I don't think it's in the interest of Parliament or anything else to continue down this list. We have an explanation and an apology from the minister, we heard some witnesses, and we've spent a number of meetings on this. But at this point I don't see the case being built for motivation and intent, and that's why I will not be supporting this motion.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

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

    I'd like to clarify something Mr. Jordan said in the course of his preliminary remarks. To the best of my understanding, he stated that the parties agreed at a steering committee meeting to hear from 10 witnesses.

    That's most likely true, Mr. Chairman, but everyone seated here at this table recognizes that since the steering committee agreed to this, new players have arrived on the scene. I'm tempted to ask the steering committee members if they are clear on the roles played by Ms. Wendy Gilmour and Mr. Young in this affair. When the steering committee arrived at this decision, was it aware that within the space of 24 hours, Commodore Thiffault had changed his tune, even though he had had a full week to respond?

    I respectfully submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Jordan should temper his comments. We've proposed a list of five or six new witnesses precisely because of new facts that have come to our attention, facts that were not known to the steering committee when it agreed to call only 10 witnesses.

[English]

    The Chair: Next is Yvon Godin, followed by Jack Saada and Joe Jordan.

Á  (1155)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: As I recall, Mr. Chairman, when the steering committee met, all it produced was a preliminary list to get the process under way. The intention was not to limit the number of witnesses. That's what the steering committee discussed.

    I hope the Liberals can agree that this is all the steering committee discussed. We were going to start with a preliminary list. There were certain witnesses that we wished to hear from and we agreed not to squabble, to draw up a list, to get the process under way and to decide at a later date whether to add more names to the list.

    When Mr. Jordan says that the steering committee came to an agreement, that isn't quite the case. The only thing members agreed to was to begin the process and to add names to the list at a later date. An attempt is being made to put one over on us today.

    Mr. Chairman, you sit on the steering committee and I'm sure you'll agree with me that this was merely a preliminary list drawn up to get the process under way. It was agreed that names of additional witnesses would be added later. That's what we would like to do today and I believe our request is justified. We certainly did not agree to anything else.

[English]

    The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.): There's no question that the witness list agreed to was a preliminary list. There's no question that we agreed, based on the testimony we would hear, whether or not to call in other witnesses, or even to recall certain individuals. I also know that Mr. Laverdure's name appeared on the preliminary list submitted by the Canadian Alliance. We agreed at the time that hearing from Mr. Laverdure was not a priority. We decided to wait as see as the testimony unfolded if we wanted to hear from other people.

    I see that we're debating all of the motions together, rather than individually. I thought we were debating the first motion involving Mr. Laverdure.

    Stop looking for scapegoats. We're debating the first motion which specifically identified Mr. Laverdure. His name appeared on the Alliance's preliminary list. His name was initially rejected and I thought we agreed—and you will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong—that if deemed appropriate, we would call in other witnesses, or even recall some, after hearing from the people initially selected.

    I would argue at this time that the testimony we have heard thus far has provided us with no new information about Mr. Laverdure. Therefore, I fail to see any point in calling him as a witness.

[English]

    The Chair: Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: It's certainly interesting, Mr. Chair, to find out that the original witness list was not arrived at by an agreement. If I'd known that, I would have moved that we hear no more witnesses after the minister.

    Your own member, sir, stated in this committee that he felt the minister did not deliberately mislead the House. I sat through the rest of that list because I felt there had been an agreement at the steering committee. I think the notion that this was just the preliminary list, that instead of throwing a line off the dock we now have a fishing fleet, is absurd.

    I stand by my original statement and logic, and I will not be supporting the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth motion here before us today.

    The Chair: Jay Hill.

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

    Well, I think we're getting to the nub of it. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that I raised the issue at I think our very first meeting and possibly at the second meeting as well about whether this committee was going to operate in a partisan manner or not, and here we are several weeks later.

    We can very clearly check the record. Mr. Jordan says that somehow it's merely a “notion”--that was the word he just used--that this was a preliminary list. We stated repeatedly and the chair stated repeatedly immediately following agreement that this would be the start and that we would be able to expand the list as needed later on.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't see the need.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Well, that's fine. You're one individual out of 301 MPs. So you don't see the need, but you can't change the facts after the events have unfolded. The fact is that this was a preliminary list. Both sides agreed that we could add names, so what would you call it if not “preliminary”? That's how we started the negotiation.

    The other point I want to make in reply to Mr. Saada, Mr. Chair, is that he used words to the effect “based on the testimony we heard”. Part of the reason the opposition is saying that we need to call these witnesses is because we've had a pretty extraordinary thing happen during this testimony. Both the Deputy Minister of National Defence and Commodore Thiffault provided statements. In the case of Commodore Thiffault it was a written statement with certain dates about when he first knew about the taking of prisoners, and in the case of the deputy minister it was in reference to questions I asked him in regard to when he was involved in any briefings and consultation with the minister. Subsequently, both these individuals changed their testimony, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Jacques Saada has a point of order.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, are we debating the first motion, or the five motions all together?

[English]

    The Chair: It's not a point of order, but you can comment on that if you wish, Jay.

    Go ahead, Jacques.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    You may well disagree that this is a point of order, but I want to know if I should apply the same arguments to all of the names listed, or whether I should confine myself to debating only the first motion. I would appreciate some direction from the chair.

[English]

    The Chair: Colleagues, I have two more speakers on my list, the second of whom is Yvon Godin, the mover of this motion. It's my intention to call a vote at that point if I can.

    Jay Hill.

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

    For Mr. Saada's information, the point I'm making is that it applies equally to the first or the remaining four motions involving calling additional witnesses who haven't already been called, other than the case of Commodore Thiffault, which is the fifth motion, where there was a discrepancy in his statement and he tried to clarify that with an e-mail. That is the understanding I have as a committee member.

    We all make mistakes, Mr. Chairman. I'm not saying that any individual can't make a mistake. But we're trying to get at the truth as to whether the actions of the minister were deliberate and whether there was intent to deceive the House. That's the purpose of this inquiry. Statements were made and within a day or two they were changed. Then the Liberals said that clears that up; we might as well wrap things up--there's no need to hear from anyone else.

    I would call it extraordinary conditions when in the case of Commodore Thiffault a statement in writing with certain dates was submitted and then in the case of the deputy minister he said he went back to his office and checked his daytimer and, lo and behold, he did have a meeting with the minister. It would certainly have been nice for him and for all of us if he had checked the daytimer before he came to the committee.

    The Chair: We are discussing the first motion, Jay.

    Next is Leon Benoit, followed by Yvon Godin.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Chair, Mr. Jordan indicated he's not going to support having any of the witnesses back, and he's tying that to his belief that this committee hasn't heard enough evidence to indicate that the minister deliberately misled the House. First of all, that's what calling witnesses is all about, to get all of the evidence and to either prove or disprove that. So why are we avoiding that?

    Secondly, Mr. Chair, because Mr. Jordan has taken that position, I would say that we should hold the vote until we've debated all five of the motions on witnesses.

    I say that for a very good reason. In my debate on the second witness in the second motion, which is the Minister of National Defence, I'm going to present what are clear and obvious contradictions in testimony. When you have contradictions in testimony, that provides a reason to call a witness again or to call another witness to straighten that out. I don't know where Mr. Jordan has been, but it's clear that we've heard substantially contradictory evidence before this committee. I'll present that in my discussion of the second witness.

    So if we could hold off voting on the five witnesses we're debating about recalling, I think that would be productive. We'll hear all of the arguments, and then we can vote on them one at a time.

    This issue is extremely important. It's about democracy itself. Have we had open and honest disclosure from the Minister of National Defence at a time when we're at war? It's clearly important. I would hope that Mr. Jordan and the others on the government side would be open to giving this a fair hearing.

    The Chair: I'm going to proceed as I indicated at the beginning, Leon, motion by motion.

    Yvon, I have two more speakers on my list. Do you want to be the last, as it is your motion? I have one more speaker now. Could I go to one speaker and then come back to you?

  (1205)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.

[English]

    The Chair: Tony Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    My comments would apply to any one of the five, so I might as well make them now, get them on the table, and then you'll know where I stand.

    I went back to Hansard to see the decision the Speaker made on February 1. He definitely indicated in his comments that the House had been left with two versions of events, one that merits further consideration by an appropriate committee “if only to clear the air”. Then he invites the member for Portage--Lisgar to move his motion.

    On the basis of that, and since then, we've had some ten meetings, give or take one or two--I'm sorry, I don't have the exact number--some 20 hours of witness testimony and questions, not counting, of course, all the time required by the officials to prepare for those presentations, and the correspondence to Commodore Thiffault and his time that was required in responding.

    Truthfully, I thought by now we would have uncovered something that we didn't already know. What we have concluded, or what we now know, is really no different from what we already knew: that there were misleading statements made. There's been an admittance to that. There's been a statement in the House by the minister addressing that. We've had the Clerk of the House appear before the committee and speak to the fact that this isn't the first time it's happened, and it probably won't be the last time in the cut and thrust of what goes on in the House of Commons and the duties discharged by a minister. Therefore, there is a mechanism in the House by which a minister can go back in and clarify the situation.

    The whole key here is that we were here to look for intent to mislead, or contempt. In the words of the Clerk of the House, Mr. Corbett, that evidence must be of the highest order, if I remember correctly. After all we've gone through and after everything we've heard from the previous witnesses, the highest-ranking officials of the department, both in uniform and civilian, and regardless of who knew what when and who should have told someone, the reality is it wouldn't have changed a thing. There was no direction being sought from the Department of National Defence on this operation that was going on in Afghanistan. They were sent there to do a job. They did it well within regulation and policy, and there was no diversion.

    Now, what we haven't been able to find, or at least I haven't seen, is one shred of evidence of any order, let alone this highest order, that shows that the minister intentionally misled the House. What was the motivation?

    I go back to the Speaker's words, if only to clear the air. We have gone to the highest levels on both sides to get answers, and there have been inconsistencies in statements, yes. There was discussion. But it was a non-event at the time.

    So I don't know. If we agree to go further without further evidence, or if you can't show me what you hope to find with these five that we haven't already heard, then what's become a very expensive opposition fishing expedition is becoming a very expensive witch hunt, and I can't support that.

    The Chair: Yvon, I have another speaker now.

    Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Following up on Mr. Tirabassi's comments, I'd just like to add for the benefit of the committee that the Canadian Parliament is a democratic institution. We are the democratically elected representatives of the people. Mr. Tirabassi stated that the committee has held over 20 hours of hearings and that this has created a great deal of work for committee members and staff as well as for departmental officials. He concluded by stating that the whole process has been very costly for taxpayers.

    My response would have to be that you can't put a price on democracy. Shedding light on this whole affair has nothing to do with money.

    In conclusion, I just want to say that government members could also have tabled motions asking to hear from additional witnesses. This could have happened. I've see it happen in other committees which decided to call in other witnesses in order to wrap up their study. In this particular case, the motions were tabled solely by opposition members. However, we're not asking to hear from 122 more witnesses. I think we've made an effort to be reasonable by requesting five additional witnesses. Had we asked to hear from the entire defence staff, from the corporal on dish duty all the way up to General Henault, then this might have been construed as nothing more than a stalling tactic designed to further complicate the situation. However, we're only asking to hear from five additional witnesses.

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Yvon Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a few closing remarks. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed to hear Mr. Jordan say that had he realized the committee would not have agreed to the list at the previous meeting, he would have voted to hear solely from the Minister of Defence. At least, that's what I understood him to say.

    One evening when the general was testifying, Ms. Catterall commented that if she had two children in the forces, she would prefer to see the general go off and do his job rather then spend his time before a parliamentary committee. Yet, at the start of his presentation, the general said he was proud to be among us to shed light on certain matters.

    Again, someone is saying that we are wasting too much time here. What are we here for then? Why were we elected and why did the Speaker refer this matter to our committee? The Speaker should have ruled on this matter himself, had he been able to. Instead, it was referred to the committee. We have certain responsibilities to assume. I'm convinced we need to hear from additional witnesses to get a clear understanding of the situation. Otherwise, certain matters will be swept under the rug.

    In addition, Mr. Jordan has just rubbed our faces in the fact that one of our members who attended the meeting said we should accept the apologies. He should be looking at his own party's behaviour. Dennis Mills himself said on television that had it been his employees testifying before the committee, he would have advised them to seek employment elsewhere because they failed to support the minister.

    Go ahead if you want to make up the committee, but let me say one thing. When the minister requires three briefings from the general and the vice corporal in order to get the full picture, then I think it's high time for him to tender his resignation.

    That's all I have to say about the subject. Go ahead and vote and deal with your problems.

[English]

    The Chair: All those in favour of the first motion, please indicate.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: It should be a recorded vote.

    The Chair: Yes, a recorded vote. All those in favour of the first motion, Yvon Godin's motion, please indicate.

[Translation]

    The Clerk of the Committee: The question is as follows:

That Claude Laverdure, Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister and Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet on Foreign Affairs and Defence Policy , be called as a witness to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee.

[English]

     (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

    The Chair: The second motion is from Vic Toews. It will be moved by Leon Benoit.

    Will you read it into the record first?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I move that the Minister of National Defence be invited to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity. This motion is made by Vic Toews, the Canadian Alliance member of Parliament.

    If you'll be a little bit patient, Mr. Chair, I'm going to present arguments--

  (1215)  

    The Chair: I'm always patient.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: You are indeed, Mr. Chair, and I'm appreciative of that.

    I'm going to present the arguments here. Many of them would apply to other witnesses as well, but I don't want to have to repeat them for all witnesses. I'm going to make my substantive arguments here for having the minister back, and I think you'll see how they apply to the other witnesses.

    I'd first just like to comment on something said by one of the government members, that this committee was set up just to clear the air. I would suggest it's done exactly the opposite, unless the government's willing to concede right now that the minister deliberately misled the House. But if they're not willing to agree to that right now, I would say it certainly hasn't cleared the air, and for that reason we need the minister to come back again to answer to some of the clear discrepancies.

    I'm going to outline today three serious issues of inconsistency in the minister's testimony. First is the minister's claim that he did not report in the House on January 29 that he had been briefed on January 21 because he was confused. That's was what the minister said--he was confused. I want to go through his testimony and the testimony of others on this issue. You'll see that it's very contradictory.

    In his testimony before the committee on February 20, the Minister of Defence said:

    “It's important to understand the context in which I made my answer to the question on that Tuesday afternoon, because what was clearly in my mind at that point in time was the focus on the photograph, the focus on the briefing I'd received on the Friday. The photograph was of some interest at the media scrum, and it was obviously of some interest in the House, because a question from the member from Portage--Lisgar was relevant to the photograph. This was quickly followed by a question that I answered from the leader of the Bloc Québécois, in which I again indicated the Friday. So it was in that context.”

    That's the minister's quote from committee here. The fact is, what the minister said at committee here clearly does not correspond with the facts we've heard, and I'm going to explain that.

    First of all, the question from the member from Portage--Lisgar was not directed to the minister at all, and that's inconsistent with what the minister said.

    Secondly, the question from the leader of the Bloc Québécois to the minister on January 29 was very specific and did not mention the photograph at all. Yet the minister says in his statement that question had referred to the photograph. It didn't. I'll read the question from the leader of the Bloc Québécois that the minister referred to:

    “Since when did he know that Afghans had been captured by Canadians and handed over to Americans? Since when did he know that? And why did he not inform the Prime Minister, who, as recently as Sunday, stated that there were no such prisoners? Why did he not bother to tell him during yesterday's caucus meeting, before oral question period? What is going on with this minister? Did he know or did he not?”

    That was the question from the leader of the Bloc. The minister's answer was, “Mr. Speaker, I first became aware of the possibility on Friday.” That's from Hansard for January 29.

    I conclude from this that the minister's answer to this committee does not correspond with the facts. He clearly did not tell the House the truth. That's the first point.

    Second is the minister's claim that he was confused because of the vast array of subjects he has to deal with. That's what he said, and here's a quote, the minister's claim that he literally has a mountain of information to deal with:

    “When I say I'm briefed every day, that's just the beginning... The Canadian Forces is a big, complex organization. It's almost like running a city, because it has everything in it--doctors, lawyers, every occupation possible, every kind of issue... There's no doubt there's a lot of information that has to be absorbed every day.”

    That was the minister's testimony between .1710 and .1715.

    First, the minister himself acknowledges that despite this mound of information, his briefings, particularly on vital issues, are very thorough. The minister himself says that, and I quote:

“As Minister of National Defence I receive quality, timely briefings and advice from my officials, both in the military chain of command and in the civilian part of the department.”

    So the minister contradicts himself, firstly, on the information being clear. I think that's important. But secondly, the testimony of Vice-Admiral Maddison confirms that he thoroughly briefed the minister about the mission and about the fact that prisoners were taken. This was extremely clear at committee, and I want to read that, Mr. Chair.

    Alliance member Mr. Toews asked the question:

    “But you did, you would agree, provide the minister with the following information on January 21. You advised the minister that, firstly, the troops were safe, that the mission in respect to the detainees was successful, and that the mission was carried out in accordance with government policies and the rules of engagement.”

    Vice-Admiral Maddison answered: “That was very much the message, Mr. Chairman, that I passed the minister.”

    Mr. Toews goes on:

    “All right, and as far as you're concerned, you provided the minister with all the necessary available information on the taking of detainees on January 21.”

    Vice-Admiral Maddison responded:

    “Mr. Chairman, when the minister was briefed by me on January 21, I stated to the minister that a mission had occurred, that it was a very successful mission, that it was done entirely professionally, it was done entirely within the rules of engagement and the direction our special forces had, and that we had captured suspected terrorists and they had been transported and were turned over to American authorities to their detention facility, as was the direction our people were to follow.”

  (1220)  

    So this is the response from Mr. Maddison. The minister was clearly briefed on everything, including the capture of suspected terrorists. It was a clear briefing.

    Mr. Chair, when listening to Mr. Maddison we got the clear impression, I'm sure, every one of us, that he does give very concise testimony and that his briefings would be, as he claimed, very clear and very straightforward.

    I would like to go on. The third--

    The Chair: Is it long?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. It's going to take a bit of time, but this is the one witness who I'm going to present the case on.

    Mr. Jordan, in his presentation, said that--

    The Chair: Again, bear in mind that this is an argument that you will not be putting again for the other motions.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, that's right.

    The Chair: Please continue.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: It applies to other witnesses as well, as I said from the start.

    Third, Admiral Maddison testified that the minister was closely engaged in the discussion. Mr. Toews asked this question of Admiral Maddison at committee here. Mr. Toews said: “Without getting into any security issue, did the minister ask you any questions on this issue?” Vice-Admiral Maddison responds, and I quote:

    “Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to brief the minister on many occasions over the past number of years, both as the commander of the navy and certainly in my current position. He is one who always ask questions whenever he's briefed, in terms of points of clarification, reaffirming some of the key messages in terms of was this done safely, was anyone hurt, was it done in accordance with the rules of engagement, and the like. Those are the sorts of questions that were asked of me, of which I was able to respond affirmatively.”

    So he's making the point that the minister was engaged, he did ask the appropriate questions, it was a clear briefing, and wherever there was any doubt he received the clarification.

    Mr. Toews goes on to say:

    “Was there any indication from the minister at that time that there was in fact any further need for information then, given his thoroughness? You've indicated he's been very thorough throughout this briefing. Was there any indication that he said 'I need additional information'?”

    Vice-Admiral Maddison responds in this fashion, and this is a quote:

    “Mr. Chairman, I certainly understood, in terms of the briefings I gave him, that there wasn't any further information from the major points in this particular mission that needed to be briefed to him. I subsequently spoke to him later in the week, where I was able to brief him on some very specific security-sensitive details around the mission itself”

    Fourth, Admiral Maddison confirmed for Marlene Catterall in her question that the briefing was unusually lengthy and thorough. Ms. Catterall asked this question:

    “What I hear, Mr. Chair, is that so far in a 15- to 20-minute briefing, 15 different items were raised with the minister, so that would be maybe one minute per item.”

    And this is how Admiral Maddison responds:

    “Except in this case, because of the fact that this was the first mission, as we have said, in which we had captured suspected terrorists, my recollection of the briefing would have been that I was in there about five minutes with respect to this one.”

This is referring to this one issue, which was an abnormally long period of time to deal with one issue, because normally it is one minute. It took five minutes on this issue.

  (1225)  

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West--Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Chair, could you ask Mr. Benoit to repeat the last couple of sentences.

    The Chair: Mr. Benoit, repeat the last couple of sentences, please.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. This was in Hansard; it's in the committee minutes.

    The Chair: That's right, just for the record, go ahead.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Should I repeat your question, Ms. Catterall?

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Please repeat the sentence you just read.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, I'll read Vice-Admiral Maddison's response again:

    “Except in this case, because of the fact that this was the first mission, as we have said, in which we had captured suspected terrorists, my recollection of the briefing would have been that I was in there about five minutes with respect to this one.”

    This was said at 12:35 p.m. of that meeting.

    Fifth, General Henault confirmed not only that the minister was thoroughly briefed about the mission on January 21, but also that he had in fact known this mission was planned for some time before January 20, when it was carried out. The minister was told in advance. Clearly he'd be watching for any information on the mission, if he was engaged in this at all.

    So Mr. Toews asks General Henault, the Chief of Defence Staff:

    “Mr. Chair, we've heard today from Vice-Admiral Maddison that on January 20, 2002, the general was briefed on the JTF-2 participation in the capture of prisoners in Afghanistan. Prior to the briefing on January 20, 2002, I was wondering if the general can advise us whether he was involved in any briefings with the minister regarding the development of this operation and the participation of Canadians, insofar as he is free to disclose that.”

    And General Henault answers:

    “Mr. Chairman, while I can't discuss operational issues and the lead-up surrounding this mission, I can tell you that the minister was kept fully aware of operations, not only for the JTF-2, but other operations that were being conducted in the campaign against terrorism and other operations around the world as they were developing.”

    Mr. Toews goes on, and I quote again:

    “Including then the development of this operation that occurred sometime around January 20--”

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If everyone on this side agrees that there was some confusion in the testimony, if we all agree, could we stop this?

    An hon. member: We were all there. We heard it.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: And those of us who read Hansard all agree that there was some confusion.

    Can we go on and get to your final points?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: With all due respect, Carolyn, Mr. Jordan has said that he hasn't seen any evidence at this committee to indicating a contradiction in testimony.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That was an intentional contradiction, Mr. Benoit, intent. But we all agree that we're still dealing with the issue of testimony.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: We're dealing with the issue--

    The Chair: I tend to agree. I am hoping, Leon, you won't be too much longer.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: It'll take a bit of time still, but I--

    Mr. Jay Hill: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Mr. Hill has a point of order.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I have a point of order as to how we're conducting this. I find myself fascinated by this, but at the same time mildly in agreement with colleagues on the other side as to the length. We've established clear rules on how this committee operates, as far as how much time each of us has when witnesses are present. Are we now each going to have a half hour to give a summation of the events? If that's the case, then we're going to be here a long time just driving home the point of our interventions.

    The Chair: At the beginning I had assumed, and I think you all agreed, that we suspended the rules we had when witnesses were here. I also, by the way--maybe you didn't notice--tried to encourage as much dialogue as I could. I was as flexible as I could be at the beginning.

    And, Leon, I'm being flexible now. You can see colleagues on both sides are becoming restless. Can you give me some estimate of your time? You're well over ten minutes. I think this is the senior committee of the House; we can be as flexible as we like.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: It's 12:30. Is it going to be soonish?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I still need some time.

    There are three points only. I'm halfway through the second point. I think this is the key. Obviously we have a disagreement with the government side and the opposition side on what's happened here before committee. All I'm doing is giving a summary of the evidence presented, which is contradictory.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Without reading so quickly that the translators can't follow, I'd be grateful if you would speed it up a bit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, I will speed it up. And because it is all quotes from Hansard--

    The Chair: Perhaps you can summarize some sections of it.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Because it is from Hansard, I think it's critical that it is presented publicly.

    The Chair: You could always refer to a section of Hansard, you know, and it would be in the record then.

    Anyway, please go ahead.

    Order, colleagues.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I do that as well.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I can understand why the government members would be getting a little restless on this, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: It's not just one side getting restless. I'm seeing members on both sides.

    Colleagues, let's continue, please.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm continuing with the second point of contradiction on the minister's testimony. Mr. Chair, in response to Mr. Toews' question, including the development of this operation that occurred sometime around January 20 of this year, General Henault said yes, indicating that he had been very thorough and that the minister had understood.

    Mr. Toews went on to ask, “Would the general have briefed the minister on the development of this operation?” General Henault said yes, and he made it very clear. You can refer to the minutes on that.

    My conclusion on this second point of disagreement, Mr. Chair, is that the minister was not only thoroughly briefed about the mission on January 21, he was engaged in asking questions about it. He'd been informed in advance that the mission was going to take place. In other words, he knew that Canadian troops would be going into action on or about January 20, so he was engaged on this.

    Surely, as minister responsible for these troops, he would have been anxious to hear what the outcome of their mission was. He could not have forgotten that he had first heard about this mission on January 21, which is what this committee is talking about. If he did forget, how could he have forgotten? How could he have forgotten when he'd gotten advance notice it was going to happen, our troops were going into action, and prisoners could be taken? If he did forget that, then we can only conclude this minister would have had to be almost criminally indifferent to the situation confronting Canadian troops. It has to be one or the other from the evidence that has been presented to this committee.

    On the third and final point, there are clear contradictions by the minister. The minister's claim--and the third one--is that after seeing the photograph on January 25, he needed the weekend to investigate this matter further, and we had this testimony at committee. The minister stated in his written testimony at committee that to prepare for the cabinet meeting on the following Tuesday,

    “ I determined that further discussions with officials were necessary, both to get a better understanding about the mission that I had been advised about the previous Monday but also to talk about the whole question of detainees.”

    I won't read the rest; this is from Hansard. The minister himself clearly said that he'd been given a clear briefing, including information about the detainees, before the cabinet meeting that was held on the following Tuesday. The minister repeated his claim later in his answer to oral questions, and this is a quote:

    “Throughout the days from my return on Friday right up to the Tuesday morning when I went into the cabinet meeting, I was still assessing information, getting information, asking questions of our staff so that I would be in the best position to advise the Prime Minister and my cabinet colleagues about the issue.”

    He's saying that he was still getting further information on what had happened in this mission. Now, here are the contradictions between that and the testimony we heard. These claims were directly contradicted by both Vice-Admiral Maddison and General Henault, the Chief of Defence Staff. I'm just going to quote those, Mr. Chair, and it won't take too long.

    Mr. Hill asked, “Were you involved in any briefings over the weekend?” That would be January 26 and 27, prior to the House resuming the next week.

    Vice-Admiral Maddison says:

    “Mr. Chairman, yes, in fact I briefed the minister on Saturday morning and on Sunday. They were the normal sorts of operations briefings. There was nothing that had changed from the information we had obviously been passed on January 21 and January 25.”

    There was no need to raise any issues surrounding the operation on January 20 in those briefings. Vice-Admiral Madison said in those briefings that there was no need to again go into what was clearly understood by the minister on January 21, which directly contradicts what the minister said.

    Mr. Hill went on:

    “So since nothing has changed, then, I am led to believe that you did not remind the minister during the briefing that you gave him on Saturday morning, January 26, and Sunday, January 27, you did not remind him that prisoners had been taken--or was that discussed?”

    Vice-Admiral Maddison responds: “Mr. Chairman, that was not discussed.”

    This directly contradicts the minister's two separate statements.

  (1235)  

    Mr. Hill, to reconfirm that, says:

    “It was not discussed. But by this point in time, you know--the briefing on January 21, the briefing on January 25, which also involved referring to the photograph--clearly your understanding was that it was very clear to the minister that prisoners had been taken by Canadian forces, specifically by JTF-2.”

    Vice-Admiral Maddison reconfirms by saying “Mr. Chairman, yes.” That was at 12:40 to 12:45 of that meeting.

    So Mr. Hill follows up--I won't go through all of it--by reconfirming that there was absolutely no doubt that Vice-Admiral Maddison was contradicting what the minister had said, and General Henault as well. This is a question to General Henault from Mr. Hill:

    “General, did you have any conversations, either face to face or by telephone, with the minister between January 21 and your participation along with Vice-Admiral Maddison in the briefing of January 29?”

    General Henault, Chief of Defence Staff, says “Mr. Chair, I did not”, again contradicting the Minister of Defence in his two separate statements.

    Mr. Hill goes on to say: “I want to draw your attention to the statement the minister made here, and I want to quote from it.” This is Mr. Hill quoting the minister, from testimony here at committee:

    “So I began a series of meetings and conversations by telephone with everyone from the Chief of Defence Staff to the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, the deputy minister, and the Judge Advocate General to get more information.”

    That's what the minister said. And Mr. Hill said he was referring to that period of time:

    “Since we already know that the deputy minister in his testimony earlier today didn't confer with the minister during that period of time, as the minister had said, then why would you think that the minister would say that he had conferred at a series of meetings and conversations by telephone with everybody from yourself to these other individuals?”

    This is near the end now. Here is General Henault's response:

    “Mr. Chairman, I can confirm for you that I did not talk to the minister between January 21 and 29, when I met him in the afternoon with the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff on January 29. I can't necessarily tell you why he would have said that, because I can confirm for you here that that was not the case on my part.”

    Even when Mr. Hill read to the Chief of Defence Staff what the minister had said, the Chief of Defence Staff still stuck with his position that no, in fact, what the Minister of Defence said was not the truth.

    That, Mr. Chair, is the final point. In conclusion, the minister did not tell the truth when he told the committee that he had to consult with Admiral Maddison and General Henault on the prisoners issue between January 25 and 29.

    These three points, Mr. Chair--

    The Chair: I find I'm not as patient as I thought I was at the beginning of the meeting.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm finished.

    The Chair: Okay, I have three things.

    One, could we have a copy, please? It would help in the elucidation of the transcript when it's finally out.

    Two, that was a good deal of Canadian Alliance time for the rest of this meeting.

    Three, colleagues, I have six speakers, and again I'm in your hands. Marlene Catterall, Joe Jordan, Jay Hill, Michel Guimond, Yvon Godin, and Jacques Saada.

    Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, first I want to say that most of us sat through the hearings. For parts of the hearings we missed, we read the transcripts or we watched the televising, and I don't see a lot of point in rereading evidence that we've already heard, paid attention to, and registered.

    If I wanted to nitpick, I would comment on the testimony of the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff when he said he had been in there about five minutes. Now, I could be nitpicky and say, well, what does he mean? He didn't brief the minister in person, he briefed him by phone. What does he mean, “I was in there”?

    Mr. Chair, in spite of the confusion and so on, there are a few essential elements here. The minister admitted not once but several times that he provided information to the House that was not correct. That's well understood. He said this was a mistake on his part. He acknowledged that. He provided the correct information at the next possible opportunity, which was question period on Wednesday afternoon--the House doesn't sit on Wednesday morning. He's apologized in front of this committee for making that mistake.

  (1240)  

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify for the member, I was talking about the minister and his misleading statements here at committee, not in the House.

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

    Carry on.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm not sure how much clearer the minister could be in a subsequent appearance before the committee. The issue before us is what he said in the House on two separate occasions. He has been very clear. He said “I was wrong, I made a mistake, and I apologize”. How many more times do we want him to say that? I see no need to have him back here, frankly, to say the same thing again.

    The Chair: Next is Joe Jordan, followed by Jay Hill and Michel Guimond.

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

    My reading of this situation is that we heard testimony that said that the JTF-2 had been involved in operations prior to this where prisoners were taken. What differentiated this particular operation from previous ones is that at some point--and for security reasons, we weren't given the details--JTF-2 troops actually took physical custody of these prisoners. Let's be more specific: three people. By the look of the picture, they may have guarded them during transport or something. That's what differentiates this from other briefings the minister would have had on operations saying the troops are safe and prisoners were taken.

    We're talking about a briefing where one is in Ottawa and one is in Mexico. They're talking over a secure line, which is not unlike talking to someone under water.

    Vice-Admiral Maddison can testify--and I found his testimony to be very good, unlike comments made by one of my colleagues--that he gave a clear briefing. He cannot testify that the minister understood it clearly, and he would have had to miss only one phrase, which is “we took custody of”.

    Again, we're going back to intent. The argument is that it was such a huge issue, the minister had to somehow come up with this plan to lie about it to the House. But if he heard in the briefing that they took custody, he didn't ask any questions about that. He asked, are the troops safe and was the mission carried out according to the rules of engagement?

    So I could take the same argument Mr. Benoit is making and use the same phraseology and say that's my argument for saying that perhaps the minister did not clearly understand that we had taken custody of these three individuals at some point after the operation and turned them over to the Americans, which was exactly what they were supposed to do under the terms and conditions of engagement that were set out for JTF-2.

    The larger issue was also hovering. The Princess Pats were on the verge of going over. The terms of engagement weren't clearly defined. There were questions being asked politically: Is it a good idea to turn it over to the Americans? They haven't sworn on a stack of bibles that they're going to treat them as prisoners of war. There was a debate about illegal combatants and prisoners of war and this sort of thing, which didn't change the military side of the operation, nor should it have.

    I think that at the end of the day you have a situation where the minister in Mexico failed to pick up on that one little phrase within many others. It was post-event. He wasn't being asked to decide anything at that point in his subsequent actions.

    In terms of the conflicting testimony, what the minister said is that over the weekend he began a series of meetings on the issue of prisoners, including questions about what Colin Powell and Rumsfeld were saying; what we should do about the terms of engagement for the Princess Pats; and the need to talk about that in cabinet. He didn't say he completed a series of meetings. He began a process. The question to the CDS was, did he meet you there? No, he met him the next day. But you can't argue with the statement the minister made that he began a series of meetings that involved these people.

    Again, at the end of the day, you're nowhere near the standard of proof you have to meet.

    I think the minister gave an explanation. He said before the House that he didn't do it deliberately. His explanation is perfectly believable from my perspective. And yes, I'm only one of 301, but the notion that somehow this is now partisan... If we were going to be partisan, we wouldn't have sent it to committee; we could have been much more obstructive.

    I've sat through questions that disgusted me during a time of war, because we kind of agreed to that. We went down a lot of different roads and we looked for any little thing to try to...

    This is wonderful. I don't get to be on Newsworld a lot, and neither does Mr. Benoit, but we're certainly being asked to be on there a lot now.

    We could keep this going until Christmas. We're talking motivation. This whole thing is motivation. So what's the motivation of the opposition to keep this thing going? We've never been so famous.

    I think we know the truth, and to somehow imply that I'm being partisan--

    An hon. member: Ask Peter Stoffer what the truth is.

    The Chair: Colleagues, the member has the floor.

    Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: We have rules at this committee, sir. You work through the chair.

  (1245)  

    I have come to the conclusion, as the member for Leeds--Grenville, that the minister in the briefing on the Monday failed to make the connection to the fact that we took... This whole thing is about three potential terrorists. He failed to make that connection. It was brought home by the picture. End of story.

    I will not be supporting this motion.

    The Chair: Jay Hill, Michel Guimond, Yvon Godin, Jacques Saada, and Carolyn Parrish.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I'm not implying that the honourable member across the side is being partisan; I'm stating it here as a fact. We're not going to imply it.

    The honourable member has just stated, Mr. Chairman, that his conclusion that he has come to--

    The Chair: Colleagues.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Regan, do you want the floor? You have it and then I'll have my say.

    The Chair: Jay Hill has the floor. Jay.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chaiman, the honourable member has just stated that he has come to the conclusion that Minister Eggleton--and I wrote it down here--failed to pick up on that one little phrase. That's his conclusion after all this testimony: that at the January 21 briefing that the minister received while he was in Mexico, he failed to pick up on that one little phrase.

    We want to clearly understand--I think Canadians want to understand--that at a time when our troops, JTF-2, our special forces, were in Afghanistan in a state of war, our defence minister failed to pick up on that one little phrase. Is that believable, Mr. Chairman? This is the question: is it believable? Mr. Jordan's summation is that a defence minister, at a time when Canada's at war, the first time we've captured prisoners probably since the Korean War--that somehow that slips past him, that one little phrase.

    Well, I'll leave it to Canadians to pass judgment on that. It's just unbelievable that he's ready to wrap up this inquiry because he doesn't see any contradictions and that the minister just somehow missed that one little phrase.

    We've heard from Vice-Admiral Maddison that he felt he was extremely clear. The vice-admiral also made a point that there was a subordinate in the room with him on speaker phone or whatever at that time. We haven't called this subordinate, who I believe was a commodore, before the committee, but I would assume if we were to, the subordinate's recollection of events and of that briefing would be very similar to Vice-Admiral Maddison's: that he was extremely clear.

    Clearly, the minister understood it. And at no time subsequent to that, before making the erroneous statements in the House of Commons, did he ask for further clarification. We've had General Henault state that he didn't have any conversations, either by telephone or in person, between January 21 and January 29 with the minister, despite a direct claim of the minister to the contrary.

    Contrary to what Mr. Jordan just stated, the minister clearly said here that he was getting further information from those individuals prior to the cabinet meeting on the 29th, not ongoing for the next month and a half after that.

    I think we have some very clear discrepancies.

    Madam Catterall said that we have some essential elements. Well, I'll say we have some essential elements. The essential elements are not only has the minister made misleading and contradictory statements in the House of Commons; clearly he has done the same thing before committee. Those statements are refuted by reputable individuals who have come before the committee and told the truth. Something is clearly not right here.

    To state that somehow, because he apologized for his statements in the House, everything should be forgiven and we all make mistakes... Yes, we all make mistakes. I've said that repeatedly throughout this inquiry. All of us agree with that. All of us are human. We make mistakes. But to do it consistently, Mr. Chairman, would be for me to point to the fact that if it's not deliberate, it certainly raises questions why this particular minister seems to have problems making contradictory statements or statements that are contradicted by his own officials.

    Both General Henault and Vice-Admiral Maddison have testified that during the briefing on January 29--I don't have the exact quotes, and I can't refer to Hansard, Mr. Chairman, so you'll have to forgive me--it was like a light went on. I think at another time during cross-examination they said there was almost an audible click.

    That would lend itself to the argument of Mr. Jordan that the minister either didn't pick up on the fact, didn't pick up on one little phrase, that Canadian troops had actually captured terrorists, taken them prisoner, turned them over to the Americans at a time when there was a huge controversy raging about how those prisoners may or may not be treated in the hands of the Americans... Now, that would lend itself to Mr. Jordan's argument except for one fact, and here again the words of the minister himself refute that. He has said, not before the committee but in subsequent media scrums and interviews, that it doesn't take me three briefings to get the picture--or words to that effect--I got it the first time. That was the minister himself saying that, another contradictory statement.

  (1250)  

    He can't have it both ways, Mr. Chairman. He can't say that the briefing was inadequate, or that--as in his statement--the briefing was adequate but somehow he didn't pick up on it, somehow he forgot about it. He can't say that even with all the information, the evidence swirling around this issue of the picture that appeared on Friday, the 25th of January, somehow he forgot when he was making his speech on the take-note debate and in answering and replying to questions in question period.

    He himself refutes this with his subsequent statements, where he says, well, it doesn't take me three briefings to have the light go on. In my estimation, Mr. Chairman, here again is another contradiction. It's a series of contradictions, and for the government members on this committee to now say okay, we've heard enough, there's no need to call more witnesses, because...

    You know, I could even agree with that if it had been a case of the minister making one contradictory statement in the House of Commons and not behaving like most ministers. I used the example of Herb Gray and how he made mistakes in the House in question period. You know what happened, Mr. Chairman? He immediately returned to the House the first time it was brought to his attention, and he stood up, apologized, and said it had been an honest mistake. All of us understand that. In the heat of question period, the to and fro of open debate, it happens.

    This minister clearly did not. He waited until he was forced to address the issue by a question from Elsie Wayne, where he contradicted his earlier statement. Now, why? If it wasn't deliberate, if there was no intent to try to postpone the release of the information that our troops had taken prisoners, if there was no intent to deliberately mislead or deceive the House of Commons and by that Canadians, why didn't he return when he first realized it? He had opportunity. He didn't have to wait until question period to do it. He didn't have to appear at committee and again make statements that have been contradicted by subsequent witnesses.

    Mr. Chairman, if it is the intent of the government members present on this committee to shut down this inquiry because they say there's not ample evidence that this minister has been attempting to deliberately mislead his colleagues both in the House and at this committee, I would like to hear their explanation of why there are these contradictory statements. Are they saying that Vice-Admiral Maddison and General Henault somehow don't recollect the facts? I don't believe that for a minute.

  (1255)  

    The Chair: I have to point out that I have from two parties the idea that we should finish by one o'clock because of question period. Also, you should know that I have four and a half speakers on my list before I can call a vote. If we get to it, you'll see who it is. I'm in your hands, colleagues.

    Either we come to some agreement that we can go beyond one o'clock, try to get to the vote on this second motion, and then adjourn and resume next time, or I cut it off at one o'clock after a couple more of these speakers. I'm quite willing to adjourn now, keep the speaking list in order, and then continue next time.

    Jacques Saada, on this point.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, you may deem it advisable to put the question as to whether future remarks will concern the motion in particular. If comments are of a more general nature, perhaps we could proceed directly to a vote.

[English]

    The Chair: I've been listening particularly carefully, Jacques, to this round, and in my view they did all pertain to the minister. I assume the others are going to do the same.

    Now, colleagues, I'm in your hands. Do you want me to cut it off, or do you want me to try to get to a vote? Cut it off?

    Yvon Godin, on this point, please.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: On this point, I think if you want to stop it at one o'clock, we should stop it. We could do the honourable thing and resume again and listen to what we have to say--

    The Chair: Michel Guimond, on the same point.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Personally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the committee to hear the list of intended speakers, to proceed to vote on the second motion and...

[English]

    The Chair: I could do that. Michel, you're the next, and then Yvon Godin, followed by Jacques Saada, Carolyn Parrish, and then ten seconds from Jason Kenney.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: We were told that the committee would wrap up at 1 p.m. I have other commitments, specifically, I have to prepare for Question Period. With all due respect, it's difficult for me to present my arguments seriously when I'm rushed. I'm truly uncomfortable being put in this position.

[English]

    The Chair: I see general consensus that we should finish. I know there are people who disagree with that, but I do see general consensus. As it is virtually one o'clock now, if it's okay with you, colleagues, I'll keep the speaking list exactly as it is. When we return it will be to deal with the remainder of those speakers and motion number two. Then, as I mentioned, we will proceed through the five motions you have before you, then to Jay Hill's motion.

    Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned at the call of the chair, but it likely will be Thursday at our usual time.