HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, March 14, 2002

Á

1105

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

M. Proulx

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Proulx

Á

1110

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

Á

1115

The Chair

Mrs. Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Á

1120

M. Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Saada

Á

1125

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Á

1130

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Kenney

The Chair

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

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.)

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

The Chair

Á

1140

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Brien

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Á

1150

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Brien

The Chair

Mr. Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Â

1200

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

Mr. Regan

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Godin

The Chair

Â

1210

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Jay Hill

The Chair

The Chair

Â

1215

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

Mr. Benoit

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 055

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, March 14, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, I'd be grateful.

    This meeting is going to be fully televised, so I'd be grateful if the other cameras would leave. The other media are welcome to stay, of course, but if the other cameras could leave, I'd be grateful.

    Thank you very much.

    Colleagues, if I may begin without going through the normal procedures, we'll get to our main item of business in a moment. We have our colleague Marcel Proulx here, who is the chair of our subcommittee on private members' business. He's here with a report concerning votable items. I thought if we can do it quickly we should proceed. If we can't--Marcel in fact has to leave--we'll postpone it and do it at another meeting.

    Marcel, if you could deal with your report, we would be most grateful. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you and your colleagues on the subcommittee for the important work you do. I believe colleagues all have a copy of what Marcel is going to be referring to.

    Marcel can't move the motion to adopt. The motion to adopt is moved by Joe Jordan.

    Marcel, please continue.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.): Merci, monsieur le président.

    The subcommittee met yesterday afternoon. We are honoured to say that we've chosen as votable two proposed bills and two motions. You have the report in front of you with the details. That's it.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Colleagues, is there any discussion of this motion?

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie--Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, the report indicates that we are to vote on two motions and two bills, or in other words, on four items. How many items were drawn in total? Is there any kind of report? How many motions and bills will be debated?

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    Marcel.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: There was room for nine to be made votable, Mr. Chair. The committee decided there were going to be four made votable. There were, altogether, something like 14 that had been drawn, of which 13 proposers--if I can call them that--were in front of the committee yesterday explaining why they felt their proposals should be made votable.

    The Chair: It sounds like business as usual.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Any other comments on this motion?

    Yes, Leon Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Could I get a bit of an explanation of what that consensus actually means? From what I've heard, it sounds as if it's pretty much that the direction the government wants to go in is what happens in a lot of cases. I would just like an explanation.

    The Chair: Leon, it is our subcommittee.

    Marcel, if you care to reply to that, we'll go to Michel in a moment.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chair, let me address the question.

    To start with, I don't know how Mr. Benoit could have heard us, because whatever happens in that particular subcommittee--as in other subcommittees--we discuss in camera. So I don't know how he could have heard anything.

    Because this is a public meeting, I'm not at liberty to identify the motions nor the proposed bills, because this is to remain confidential until presented in the House. But Mr. Benoit will quickly realize these are not all, or necessarily all, government-driven motions or bills.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: Okay.

    Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm shocked, and disappointed to hear these comments from my Canadian Alliance colleague Mr. Benoit. Let me give you two reasons why I feel this way.

    First of all, the governing Liberal party is in a minority on this committee. The Chair is a Liberal, as is one member. However, there are four members representing opposition parties. That's my first point.

    Secondly, this sub-committee never holds votes. It operates by consensus. Therefore, the argument whereby these are the Liberal government's goals does not wash, in my opinion. Colleagues on the committee act in good faith and do no allow their actions to be dictated by a policy. Our work on this committee transcends party lines.

    The best evidence of this is that together, we can achieve a consensus without having to vote. The result is a bill sponsored by a member of the conservative and democratic coalition, a bill sponsored by a member of the New Democratic Party and two motions put forward by members of the Bloc Québécois. I find it strange defending the government, but if the government had wanted to overstep the mark, I imagine it would have tried to push at least one item in four through. I don't want my colleagues opposite accusing me of protecting the government because we have other arguments in store for them later.

[English]

    The Chair: Michel, je te remercie pour ça.

    Seriously, I know Marcel has to leave and I know, by the way, we're here for other business. I have two very short interventions from Leon Benoit and Carolyn Parrish.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: My point was, Mr. Chair, that only four out of fourteen made votable isn't acceptable in itself. No Canadian Alliance motions were made votable in this case, but certainly the bottom line is why they aren't all votable and why so few are. That's the real question.

    The Chair: Okay. Leon, I know you're a visitor to this committee. We've spent many hours on this topic, and we've agreed to spend more hours on it.

    Carolyn Parrish.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'd like to make one comment. I'm going to submit this to Marlene Catterall as the government whip and to whoever else makes decisions on this committee. As you know, I chaired it for five years, and I've done a little bit of research into this.

    When this committee was formed many years ago, there were only three official parties in the House. So it was set up to be very small and very non-partisan. When I first started chairing it, there was one member from the Bloc, one member from the Reform Party, one member from the Liberal Party, and a chair from the Liberal Party. It consistently functioned in a non-partisan fashion. It was small, it was streamlined. What you have now, as Mr. Guimond accurately pointed out, is four opposition party members and two from the Liberals. So in my opinion, watching it function, it's becoming a little bit more partisan.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Don't interrupt me please, Peter.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: I'm not interrupting you; I'm just looking at you with great interest.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: All right. I believe that in order to have it continue functioning efficiently in a streamlined and non-partisan fashion, as it is convened every other month, two members of the opposition and two Liberals should sit there. The next month, two other opposition people and two Liberals sit there. You'll keep it down to four and you'll go back to operating on consensus. You won't have four opposition voting against two government members.

    I'm glad Mr. Benoit brought it up and I'm glad Mr. Guimond is supporting what's going on there. I think Mr. Proulx is doing an incredibly good job. As you know, I opted out of the pleasure and joy of chairing that committee recently.

    So the thing is broken, it needs to be fixed, and I think we need to look into it.

    The Chair: Thank you. Carolyn, we do know of your work.

    There's a motion before us moved by Joe Jordan:

    “That the Report from the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business be adopted as the Committee's Report to the House and that the Chair present the Report to the House”.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Marcel, je te remercie beaucoup.

    Michel Guimond, you have a point of order or something?

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Continuing on the same topic, far be it for me to accuse Ms. Parrish of making a mistake, but when she was chairing the committee last year, I informed her predecessor, Mr. Lee, that it was important to try and keep to a minimum the amount of time allowed to elapse between the adoption of a motion, and the tabling of the report to the House. I repeat, I'm not trying to lay any kind of blame on Ms. Parrish and she shouldn't feel targeted in any way. However, the report isn't official until it has been adopted by the House. Unfortunately,the full text of the report appeared in The Hill Times. Clearly, someone leaked the contents. At the time, I suggested to Derek Lee, who chaired the committee before her, that unanimous consent be given to tabling the report as quickly as possible, because the contents are not supposed to be disclosed to colleagues retained in the interim. I imagine it won't be a problem making this public as quickly as possible.

    The Chair: Thank you very much for that, Michel. I'll try to get to it at the earliest opportunity.

[English]

     Colleagues, if we could, we'll move to the order of the day:

    “Pursuant to the Order of Reference from the House of Thursday, February 7, 2002, consideration of the question of privilege raised on January 31, 2002, by the Member for Portage--Lisgar concerning the charge against the Minister of National Defence of making misleading statements in the House”.

    Perhaps I can once again try to bring you up to date as to where I think we actually are. Everything we've requested from the witnesses has now been circulated. One document requested by our colleague Jay Hill was deemed confidential, and we know about that. Seven documents have been circulated. Two of the documents, which I held up last time, are extremely voluminous. They are available in the clerk's office for anybody who wishes to consult them. We're still waiting for the translation of six of those documents.

    Where we ended at the last meeting was that we were debating the second of six motions. The first motion had been defeated. We were in the middle of a motion moved by Leon Benoit but originally moved, I think, by Vic Toews that the Minister of National Defence be invited to appear before the committee again. With respect to my list, the Canadian Alliance had spoken at some length, and as I recall, they had taken up a good deal of their time. I had Michel Guimond, Yvon Godin, Jacques Saada, Carolyn Parrish, and Jason Kenney, who had made a small intervention. So if we could, let's pick it up from there, bearing in mind that I did say that in dealing with the future motions I am going to take into account the fact that the Alliance did take a considerable amount of time on that previous one.

    So it's Michel Guimond on motion two: that the Minister of National Defence be invited to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity.

Á  (1120)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to advise you that I will be voting in favour of this motion tabled by our Canadian Alliance colleague. I trust the committee will also support it for reasons that I will quickly outline to you, as I have no wish to prolong matters unnecessarily.

    First off, the committee must consider, pursuant to the order of reference, whether the Minister of National Defence misled the House.

    In light of some new facts brought to our attention by witnesses appearing before the committee and also given that some witnesses contradicted the facts as presented by the Minister, Mr. Eggleton, and considering that the Minister himself, in his testimony to the Committee, contradicted himself on more than one occasion, I think this motion should be adopted. I remind you that on Tuesday, my colleague Benoit presented a rather lengthy list of apparent contradictions. There is no need for me to repeat them at this time. I think everyone recognizes that a number of contradictory statements were made.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Michel.

    I'll go to Yvon Godin and then Carolyn Parrish and then Jason Kenney.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I too would like the Minister to appear before the committee. I think it's important that he do so. In fact, the Minister himself stated in the House that he was interested in testifying before the committee if his presence was required. I don't want to put words in the Minister's mouth, but I seem to recall him saying that if the committee deemed it necessary, he would be happy to appear a second time because he had nothing to hide.

    I think we must also recall the decision reached by the committee. Let me read the following to you:

[English]

    “That the primary list of witnesses be appended; that other witnesses may be called; and that if the committee deem it necessary, witnesses may be called for subsequent appearances.”

    And that's the decision this committee has taken.

    The Chair: That's absolutely true. No question about--

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay. I'm just saying it because they're starting to say it was a list that was accepted. And Mr. Jordan said “If I knew that was not the list, I probably would have stopped it when the minister came in and not brought any other witnesses.” I just want to refer to this. That's not the decision of this committee.

    A voice: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Secondly, another reason why I believe this is important is that a number of contradictory statements were made. According to the experts, it's impossible to read people's minds. If would be far simpler if the Minister himself admitted that he had misled the House. Failing this, it will be far more difficult to prove that he has. However, if the committee has gathered enough evidence and has reasonable doubts, or good reason to believe that the Minister is guilty, then perhaps it can come to some kind of decision. That's my interpretation of this decision.

    However, Vice-Admiral Maddison testified before the committee that when he spoke to the Minister on the 29th, something twigged in his mind, namely that the Minister had started to put the dates together. He didn't say that the Minister had acknowledged recognizing the dates. He stated that something made him believe that the Minister had suddenly recognized the dates. We heard more or less the same story from the general, although in his case, it's as if someone turned on a switch and suddenly he saw the light and made the connection. How is it that the Vice Admiral can see into the Minister's mind and how is it that the General can also read the Minister's mind and suddenly see the light?

    I'd like to be able to speak to the Minister in person. If the government refuses our request, most likely it's because its trying to keep the Minister under wraps. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I recommend that the committee recall this witness. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Yvon.

    Jacques Saada, followed by Carolyn Parrish.

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The arguments that I'm about to present hold for all witnesses, but in particular for the motion in question.

    First of all, it's true that during the negotiation stage, before the matter was referred to this committee, we had accepted the principle of a preliminary list—an initial list—with the understanding that additional names could be added to the list or certain witnesses recalled, if the committee deemed it necessary.

    Therefore, the issue is not whether we agreed to this or not. I believe we are in agreement on that. The issue is the relevance of hearing from new witnesses or recalling certain witnesses who have already testified. That's the real issue. All of this brings us back to the fundamental question. We all agree that the Minister made some contradictory statements in the House. We all agree that these statements are not the real problem. The problem is determining whether or not the Minister intentionally misled the House. The general consensus is that if he did, this would constitute contempt. However, without proper evidence, no charge of contempt of the House can be made.

    The purpose in calling the Minister, and indeed all of the witnesses, to testify is to ascertain if the Minister intentionally misled the House by making contradictory statements. One cannot consider intent without also considering motivation.

    I noted one very interesting thing about all of the testimony given—of course I can't be 100 % certain—but in my opinion, most of the questions were not aimed at establishing the Minister's intent, but rather in trying to determine which statements were contradictory and to whom these statements were made. In other words, I got the impression that more of an attempt was being made to put the Minister off balance rather than to establish what his real intent was. I don't pretend to know the absolute truth. I'm just conveying to you my impression of what transpired.

    The Minister testified for quite some time and everyone had an opportunity to ask him questions. The Chair was quite generous when it came to recognizing members and giving them time to ask questions. There was no evidence to suggest that the Minister was driven by any ulterior motives or particular intentions. Therefore, I fail to see what purpose it would serve to recall him as a witness.

    You may recall, Mr. Chairman, the first witness we heard from, the actual author of the motion to the House, Mr. Pallister. On the issue of intent, what was the crux of Mr. Pallister's argument? He argued that the Minister's actions were connected to the current political context. He failed to present any substantive arguments. He merely raised some political arguments. In other words, by wanting to recall the Minister at this point in time—and again let me say with all due respect to those who believe otherwise—I get the impression that an attempt is being made to turn this into a political issue, rather than to determine if indeed the Minister's actions constituted contempt of this House and its members.

    For these reasons, recalling the Minister would be pointless. I believe we have collected a considerable amount of evidence during the course of these hearings. We do have proof of one thing, however, and that is this: no one was able to identify any motive for misleading or intent to mislead the House. That's why I see no point in calling any of these additional witnesses to testify.

Á  (1125)  

[English]

    The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to begin by saying that I don't agree at all with calling any more witnesses. I noticed in the papers the last couple of days that the opposition is accusing the government of trying to shut down discussion, and while that sells newspapers, I don't think it does a lot for the credibility of this committee.

    This committee has actually been my favourite committee in the House of Commons for almost nine years, and I think it's essentially because we operate in a relatively non-partisan way here.

    The issue we're talking about here is confused testimony, and I think we're partially responsible for that. I was watching it on television when I couldn't attend, and what struck me was that we had people of modest ability--and I would include myself in this--questioning people of the highest calibre, such as Mel Cappe in government and many of the others in the military who appeared here. It was quite similar to a lay person spending hours questioning a heart transplant specialist on the techniques of transplantation. The questions themselves--with all respect to the people on both sides of this table--were not of the highest calibre.

    What you have here is a move to dig into matters of national security, which the opposition must thoroughly enjoy but which in any other country wouldn't be tolerated.

    I am most concerned about public perception. The public out there... I happened to be in the hospital watching in a common room on television. I flipped it on to great cheers from the rest of the waiting patients, and several people asked, “What the hell are they doing? Mr. Eggleton goofed, but it's over. Let's get on to matters of real interest to the government and the people of this country.”

    He's admitted he made a mistake. He's told us he had no intention of misleading us, and I think further delving into chicken entrails for 10 or 15 more hours in this room is not going to make any difference about the basic fact that Mr. Eggleton goofed. His intent was not malicious, nor was it deceitful.

    I really believe that if you continue to call witnesses, you're simply giving the opposition an opportunity to play in areas of national concern. I don't think you're doing us any good, and whether we're in opposition when we sit here or not, the people out there watching on television believe we are a committee that works as a unit. We are all elected by those people out there to do government business, to worry about the dollar and to worry about serious matters of national security. We're not here to listen to Mr. Benoit as he splits hairs for hours and hours or to anybody else on this committee. I really am concerned that if this goes on much longer, we're going to look very foolish.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: If I can, before Jason gets his ten cents' worth in and I call the vote, I think you did miss the clerk's appearance here. The thing that interested me about that--well, various things interested me--was his general commentary on the Parliament of Canada and its openness, not just on matters like this but in other ways. It's not a pretentious statement. This is the senior committee of the House, one to which the parties assign significant people, limited though we may be, and I do agree with you.

    It is very appropriate that we be as open and as broad-minded as possible in operating a committee of this type, and I'm very glad that we're in a tradition, as the clerk noted, that has endured since Confederation.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what you've just said, and I also agree that at some point it logically comes to an end.

    The Chair: That is your opinion, and I understand it.

    Jason Kenney, and then we'll have the vote.

    Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, the members of the government seem to be deliberately obfuscating why the opposition is seeking to bring the minister back to this committee. It is not because of the contradictions he made in the House and for which he has apologized. Frankly, it has nothing to do with what he said in the House; it has to do with what he said at this committee, which was a whole new round of contradictions.

    We have in testimony before this committee the Minister of National Defence being contradicted by the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff. There cannot be a more serious issue for a committee of the House to seize itself of. That is why we're seeking to have the minister come back and explain why he told us that he had sought over three days, the course of a weekend, to get briefed on this matter, that he had asked questions, and that he had got more information, this when the head of our military says that it didn't happen.

    Mr. Chairman, it's that contradiction we must now pursue. He's apologized for having goofed in the House of Commons, yet then he came and did it again in this committee. Frankly, I believe the Chief of the Defence Staff. I think we have every right to ask the minister why he came to us and told us a fib about seeking more information on the weekend when the top military officers in this country say it never happened. If the committee members opposite are really interested in openness and transparency, they'll vote for this motion and stop the cover-up. Bring the minister here and let him answer as to why he contradicted the Chief of the Defence Staff.

    The Chair: Jay Hill briefly, and then the vote.

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

    Obviously I'm not going to launch into the same arguments I made on this same motion two days ago, but I have to reply to Ms. Parrish on this confused testimony issue. We have to assume that the testimony given by all of the witnesses who appear here is accurate. Otherwise, how can we do our work? I think the argument that we should excuse confused testimony is a bogus one and is meant to bring this inquiry to an end.

    The other issue, very briefly, Mr. Chairman, is motivation. There are many theories out there in the real world about what would motivate a minister to deliberately mislead his colleagues in the House of Commons and thereby the Canadian public. But it is clear that the motivation in this particular case could have been to delay the public learning that our troops had actually taken prisoners and turned them over to the Americans at a time when that was a huge controversy.

    The week in question, which we've been delving into for some time now in this committee, was a week of intense controversy over how the Americans were potentially going to treat prisoners. That's still a controversy today, if you look at the situation. So every day the minister could delay it becoming public that our troops were responsible at least in part for taking some prisoners and turning them over to the Americans allowed the government to spin this story the way they try to spin so many stories.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Colleagues, I feel very comfortable about relaxing our normal procedures, and I think it's going very well. But we've had members speak a couple of times on the same issue. The Alliance, as I've mentioned, has had a remarkable amount of time, if we were to add it all in.

    Leon, if you're going to intervene, give me some indication of how long it's going to be.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: It will take a minute and a half.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much.

    I'm not going to go over the three clear areas of contradiction I pointed out in some detail last time. That was important, and it's on the record.

    Mr. Jordan said in a follow-up that we can't take seriously the testimony of the Chief of Defence Staff and the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff and how good these briefings were because they can't possibly--

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds--Grenville, Lib.): I never said that.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: --know what the minister was thinking. The minister said publicly that he understood that first briefing. He said that. So that's a bogus point, Mr. Chair, and it's important to note that.

    We've laid this case out. If the government chooses to ignore these contradictions, then it will clearly appear to be a cover-up. Canadians deserve to get the answers to these questions. The only acceptable procedure with those contradictions between the minister, the Chief of Defence Staff, and the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, some of which were made here at committee.... If this government isn't willing to deal with those issues, I think the Canadian public will be led to believe what is really the case: that the government wants to shut it down because they're afraid of further embarrassment.

    The Chair: Joe Jordan, very briefly.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, in the spirit of Herb Gray, I reject the premise of Mr. Benoit's statement. That's not at all what I said. I tried to lay it out simply. I think I'm going to have to resort to drawing pictures.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: The minister of contradiction.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: The point from my perspective is that there's a very high burden of proof, and the people on this committee who heard the testimony of the clerks understand the position we're in. The only case we could find in parliamentary tradition where a minister was held in contempt for deliberately misleading the House occurred in Britain, and the minister in question confessed.

    So we have to try to build a circumstantial case, and we've tried to do that.

    This is not going to go on indefinitely. It's all about motivation. Motivation is fine, but what's the motivation here now? We're on a televised committee. We have people here who aren't members of the committee. It's great to get your face on TV. This is turning into a witch hunt, and it's going to stop soon.

    The Chair: Okay, Joe.

    Colleagues, a lot of these arguments can be included in the report stage of our proceedings.

    We have Leon Benoit's motion that the Minister of National Defence be invited to appear before the committee at the earliest opportunity. We will have a recorded vote.

    (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

    The Chair: The next motion is Pierre Brien's motion that Wendy Gilmour, political adviser to the--

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Jay Hill: Point of order, please.

    The Chair: Can I finish this first, Jay?

    His motion is that Wendy Gilmour, political adviser to the Canadian joint headquarters, U.S. central command, be invited as a witness by this committee.

    Point of order, Jay Hill--then Pierre.

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

    I have a point of order on the procedure we're following. In light of the outcome of the first two votes, I wonder if we could directly put the question on these last three motions. It's very clear what the intent of the government members is, and we might as well get this over with.

    The Chair: I have four more motions. Do you mean the last three concerning witnesses?

    Mr. Jay Hill: The three that are in writing and then--

    The Chair: I'm in the hands of the committee. I'll look around; let me see.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: It's up to the movers.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Did you say no, Pierre?

    Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): I didn't say... [Editor's note: inaudible] ...but since I haven't been able to attend the hearings until now, I would at least like an opportunity to state my views before we dispense with the motion. I'm prepared to do that. This is my first chance to speak to these proceedings, and after listening to the testimony presented, I'd like to talk about my two motions.

[English]

    The Chair: You have the floor.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Brien: Throughout the course of these attempts to shed light on this affair and to hear from witnesses, one thing has concerned me, one contradictory element that has been presented. The Minister of National Defence stated that he was the only civilian in possession of information. The Privy Council stated that no one else in government should have that information in his possession. The Deputy Minister of Defence claimed to be unaware of the situation. Yet we learned from a written submission to the committee by Commodore Thiffault...Let me repeat that I 'm talking about written responses, not about some casual remarks. I'm certain Commodore Thiffault, aside from providing more or less the same answer to most questions, namely that he was not part of the chain of command, took the time to review his answers. I'm certain he took the time to respond correctly and that this submission was seen and reviewed before it was sent off to the committee.

    According to this report, the Foreign Affairs official in Tampa Bay was advised on or about January 25, a fact that was contradicted by the Privy Council, by the Minister of Defence. To my mind, this is not without significance. From the moment the statement was made and the document tabled, followed by the Privy Council's admission of surprise, less than 24 hours elapsed - in this instance, the government chain of command moved quickly - before we were suddenly informed that the minister admitted to having been wrong, that the date in question was not January 25, but later the following week, most likely shortly after the 29th.

    I question the credibility of the second statement. I detect a major contradiction that warrants further examination. I would have liked to hear from Ms. Gilmour, the official with Foreign Affairs. First, Commodore Thiffault quoted the date as the 25th, while later on, he said it was the 29th. Perhaps Ms. Gilmour has something of interest to say about when she was informed. Maybe if she testified before the committee, we could hear her version of the events.

    These are not trivial matters. I heard Mr. Saada say earlier that motivation was the key to proving contempt. If we discover that others were aware of these matters, then we're dealing with an entirely different situation. I can understand their wanting to have us believe that no one else was in the loop, but I now have trouble believing that. Do we have any definitive proof at this time? No, but we could have pressed our point further had we been able to question other witnesses.

    Like my colleagues opposite, I have concluded that the government and the government party have no desire to pursue this matter any further. I do not wish to go on at length, but I find it regrettable that government members have hastily agreed to put the lid on this affair.It's regrettable to be preached to, to be told that the opposition is being partisan, to hear Mr. Jordan talk about opposition members who were not present for the committee's proceedings. On looking at the members opposite, I can't say for certain whether they listened to these proceedings. Do any of them know who this Ms. Gilmour is? Therefore, we need to keep certain comments in perspective.

[English]

    The Chair: Leon Benoit, Joe Jordan, and then Yvon Godin.

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

    The Bloc member has made the important point that motivation is one thing we want to look at with this witness, Wendy Gilmour, being called.

    I think what's happened here is very clear. The Liberal caucus has been very divided. At the time, it was very divided on the issue of whether Canadian troops should have turned prisoners over to the Americans. The motive could well have been that they didn't want that discussion in caucus. I think it's been pretty clear that this is a high possibility. I think this witness could help clarify exactly who knew about this and whether that is likely to be one of the motives the minister had for misleading the House.

    In terms of deliberately misleading the House, with the contradictions I pointed out carefully at the last meeting, it's hard to imagine that the minister himself said he understood completely after the briefing on January 21--he made that clear--and then he went on to tell the House of Commons something entirely different. Well, that has to be deliberately misleading the House. For this committee to reach another conclusion would be hard to imagine. But the motive may help to solidify that, and this witness, Wendy Gilmour, can help make clear to the committee what one of the motives probably was.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Joe Jordan.

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

    What triggered this line of inquiry is that we sent something like 60 questions down to Commander Thiffault to answer. The rationale for that was that his hobby these days is running Operation Apollo, and we didn't think it was appropriate to bring him up here, because he wasn't in the loop. If you look at the questions, a lot of them couldn't be answered and a lot of them had the same answer because he absolutely knew nothing about it.

    The reference to Ms. Gilmour was when Commander Thiffault said in one of the answers that he first learned about it when the political adviser to the Department of Foreign Affairs, who had seen the photograph, brought this to his attention. He then sent a letter of clarification saying that when he checked the newspaper she had, the picture, that triggered the date of when it was and it was actually January 29. Fine.

    But let's be clear about what we're doing here. This is the danger of these kinds of political witch hunts. We're essentially saying we don't believe Commander Thiffault. He sent us a letter correcting the record, and he signed it. We're not prepared to accept that? I think that's absolutely ridiculous. It's shameful.

    We've also now sullied the reputation of Ms. Wendy Gilmour. Joe McCarthy's smiling at us right now. This is absolute nonsense. This is why I'm saying the burden of proof has not been met. If we just continue down this road, willy-nilly, with no care or concern about the reputation of these individuals, I agree with Mrs. Parrish that we're going to be making fools of ourselves.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair, at this point I just want to make a comment. I take it as a great insult when on the other side they're saying we are partisan on the opposition because we want to find the truth and we want to resolve this problem. That's part of the parliamentary process, if we live in a democratic society. When they say that here we have people who only have a one-track mind, well, I could remind this committee that we had John Harvard on the Liberal side, who only raised one strong question to the minister, appear in the newspaper and never show up back to this committee. I want to put that on the record. Thank you.

    The Chair: I would remind you all that if we're in the House of Commons, we don't normally refer to presence and absence of members, particularly by name.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: For starters, I have two quick comments to make. The first is directed toward Mr. Benoit.

[English]

    After all these hours of investigations and listening and hearing and so on, the argument to prove that the minister had the intention to mislead the House is the following sentence: It's difficult to imagine it was not intentional. That's the value of the evidence Mr. Benoit wants to base this on; he wants to go in the direction of intention. I think it's so light and so ridiculous that I just don't see why we should really waste a lot of time on it.

Á  (1150)  

    I'd like to comment on the issue brought up by Pierre Brien.

[Translation]

    Ms. Gilmour never contradicted herself and that includes when speaking through Mr. Wright, the Assistant Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs who testified before the committee. The committee was informed that she only learned about the capture of prisoners after the news was made public. The problem lies elsewhere. Therefore, there is no new reason at this time, unbeknownst at the time the preliminary list of witnesses was drawn up, to call Ms. Gilmour to testify. Her statement is fully consistent with the testimony given by the other witnesses and consistent with what we already know. Therefore, I don't see any point to this.

    There's one final point that I would like to make quickly. I wish to officially state at this time that I agree with Mr. Hill and Mr. Brien. These motions should be considered together, as a package.

[English]

    The Chair: Carolyn Parrish, then Michel.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: This is a question for you, Mr. Chair. When Mr. Hill made his comments about clustering the next three motions together, was that considered an officially proposed motion, or is the motion on the floor right now Mr. Brien's motion?

    The Chair: No. The reason I didn't--and by the way, I would have--was that in fact the motion had been moved. We had moved motion three, we are considering motion three, and it's my intention--it wasn't a formal motion--to return to that point as soon as we finish this discussion, if we ever finish it.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: All right. Then I would like to call the question.

    The Chair: It's up to Michel.

    “No, no, no”, he says.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, I have a point of order.

    The Chair: Please, yes.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I used to run board of education meetings, and when a question was called there was no more debate.

    The Chair: I know that. At boards of education they also have seconders and all sorts of things. In the House of Commons, Carolyn, if you really look at it, things are much looser. If you want us to run this very technically--by the way, it wouldn't be like a board of education--we could do so, but it's not. So that does not take precedence.

    It's odd, isn't it; people prefer to--

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Can I keep interrupting and calling the question after every speaker, then?

    The Chair: You can do that as much as you wish, but it won't have any formal effect.

    Michel Guimond, and then the vote.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't commenting on Mr. Saada's final remarks. I wouldn't want to do that which I accuse him of doing all the time, that is focussing on every little word that may have been uttered over the course of eight minutes and 29 seconds. He's an expert at doing just that. I have no desire to return the favour. However, when he claims Ms. Gilmour never once contradicted herself...

    We've become so bogged down in contradictions that as soon as we say we want to hear from someone, the assumption is made that this person made a contradictory statement. True, Ms. Gilmour did not contradict herself but we do have some questions for her. Our objective is not to have her admit that she contradicted herself, but that other persons may in fact have done so. That's our reason for wanting to hear from her.

    Since these proceedings will soon be drawing to a close, I would like to comment briefly on the other three motions calling for the committee to hear from certain witnesses

    It's important to hear from Ms. Gilmour and from Mr. Young because the steering committee was unaware of their existence when it drew up the preliminary witness list. I did not attend the steering committee meeting but I was told that no one at the meeting mentioned that Ms. Gilmour might have something to contribute to the proceedings. She was an unknown entity, as was Mr. Young. Committee members found out who George Young was when the Minister mentioned that he had spoken to his political attaché, a man by the name of Young.

    Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say why the committee should have heard from Commodore Thiffault. Least we forget, Commodore Thiffault has had a week to respond. He received a series of written questions. The first time, he responded in writing. Nevertheless, we received an e-mail in which he changed some of his responses. He should have been called. I can understand his not being able to leave his post, but we could have found some way to have him testify by teleconferencing to give him an opportunity to explain why he contradicted himself.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Thank you, Michel.

Á  (1155)  

     On a point of order.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Someone stated that Mr. Young's name did not appear on the preliminary list and I would just like to set the record straight. His name was in fact on the preliminary list submitted by the Canadian Alliance when...

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, let's leave that; that in fact is the next motion.

    Those in favour of Pierre Brien's motion that Ms. Wendy Gilmour, political adviser to the Canadian joint headquarters U.S. central command, be invited as a witness by this committee, please so indicate.

    An hon. member: I call for a recorded vote.

    The Chair: For the recorded vote, please respond to the clerk.

    (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

    The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to call motions four and five concerning George Young and Commodore Thiffault together? No, I don't.

    Pierre Brien, would you care to move your motion? You wanted us to go through this.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Brien: I won't repeat myself, but I still think we should have called in these witnesses. We could have taken care of this quickly. However, I won't take up any more of the committee's time, given that government members intend to sweep this whole affair under the rug without further ado.

[English]

    The Chair: Colleagues, we're dealing with the George Young motion at the moment.

    From the Canadian Alliance, whichever one of you it is--is it Leon Benoit? Sorry, Jason Kenney.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chairman, the reason I'm going to vote for this motion to call George Young, executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence, is the following.

    We have before this committee a very serious contradiction. I'm not talking about the obvious contradictions that occurred in the House, which led to the charge with which we are dealing. But the minister came to this committee in order to clear that up, and what he did was make it even more muddy by contradicting testimony offered by the Chief of Defence Staff. The minister came here and said that over the weekend, before he presented this information to cabinet, “I began a series of meetings and conversations by telephone. Everybody from the Chief of Defence Staff, to the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff...”.

    But the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff said that on that weekend the question of the prisoners “was not discussed”, and General Henault, the Chief of Defence Staff, said “I can't tell you why the minister would have said that, because I can confirm for you here that was not the case on my part”.

    Now, Mr. Chairman, I studied formal logic in college, and the first thing I learned--the first rule of logic--is the principle of non-contradiction. Either a thing is, or it ain't. Either the minister is right, or the Chief of Defence Staff is right.

    That's why we need to bring Mr. Young to this committee: to help answer those questions. Who are these people the minister claimed he spoke with and sought additional information from in preparation for the cabinet meeting? If the government is not willing to bring the minister to answer for his own contradiction for having misled this committee, deliberately or otherwise, perhaps they'd be willing to bring his staff to help us answer this question.

    Leaving that question on the floor, quite frankly, in response to Mr. Jordan's absurd accusations of McCarthyism, impugns the credibility of our Chief of Defence Staff and the Vice-Chief of Defence Staff, as long as the government accepts the minister's account of this contradiction.

    I want to ask any government member to tell this committee, who do they believe was telling the truth about these phantom meetings and discussions on that weekend? Was it the minister, or the Chief of Defence Staff and Vice-Chief of Defence Staff? Who do they believe was telling the truth, and who do they believe misled this committee? And don't they understand that bringing Mr. Young could help us get to the bottom of that?

    The Chair: Joe Jordan.

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

    My intervention is simple. There are two issues and a number of levels. It's a very complex thing, so I'll go through it slowly.

    The issue of the discussion about prisoners over the weekend was a general discussion about policy and the lack of clarity in the United States over the classification and the legal definition of “illegal combatants” versus “prisoners of war”. That was the issue that was percolating prior to the deployment of the Princess Pats.

    The questions that were put to the CDS dealt with the JTF-2. It's a separate issue. We're not talking about a contradiction here. We're talking about picking pepper out of fly crap. The statements do not conflict. I reject the notion that we've got contradictory statements here. Any careful analysis of this testimony will explain those discrepancies, but it takes a little bit of understanding about the number of different issues that were floating around and what was going on in terms of process.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: All in favour of Pierre Brien's motion that George Young, executive assistant to the Minister of National Defence, be invited as a witness to this committee, please respond to the clerk in a recorded vote.

    (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

    The Chair: Can I call the vote on Michel Guimond's motion that the committee invite Commodore Thiffault as a witness in person in Ottawa, in Tampa Bay, or, as he indicated earlier, by teleconference?

    I have Jay Hill and then Leon Benoit.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Just before you do that, Mr. Chair, I think we could have sped this up by doing it as a group, as I suggested earlier.

    I want to pose a question, in particular to Mr. Saada, but to the government members present, to explain to the Canadian public this process we're undertaking.

    When we met in good faith.... Madam Parrish explains how this committee is always going to operate in a non-partisan, good-faith process and manner. I believed when we met to discuss how we were going to proceed with this investigation or inquiry, whatever term you want to use, that we had assurance--and I can check the record, I'm just going by my memory--that Mr. Saada, in representing the government, in answering our expressed concern that at some point in time the government would just say it doesn't matter what comes up during testimony, it doesn't matter how many contradictions there appear to be...at some point in time the government would just shut it down, as they did with the last inquiry that was before us, concerning statements by, at that time, Minister of Justice Anne McLellan. Because we were burned in that instance, we expressed some real reservations about even beginning this process.

    If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Saada said oh no, that's not going to happen. He assured you as chair and all of us as opposition members that wasn't going to happen, that this was just an initial...I don't know what term was used, but the impression was left that it was just an initial set of witnesses, that it could be expanded if need be, if there was more testimony that appeared of a contradictory nature.

    As I said, I don't know, without looking back in the minutes, what was said, but Mr. Saada clearly left the impression with us that this would not happen, that what is happening today would not happen, that there wouldn't just be eight-to-seven votes to wrap this thing up, no matter how many contradictions, as Mr. Kenney has pointed out, are still before the committee.

    I want to register my opposition to this whole farce that this has become today.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Leon Benoit, then Yvon Godin.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, regarding this particular witness, Commodore Thiffault, he is heading up, on behalf of Canada, our operations in Afghanistan. That's an extremely important mission he's leading on behalf of the Canadian people, and he's extremely busy with that. It's so unfortunate that this minister and this government would screw up this whole thing so badly that he would become involved in this in any way.

    Now, I have a problem here, because I am going to vote against Commodore Thiffault coming. He has a war to run on behalf of our country, along with our American allies, and I don't want to take him from that work. I was hoping that the government would accept Wendy Gilmour as a witness here so she that could clarify why the commodore made contradictory statements in his written testimony.

    I take the commodore at his word, but Miss Gilmour could have explained that and some other things that we needed clarification on. I didn't want the commodore to become involved in this. I'm still going to vote against having the commodore come, because I'm not willing to take him from that work, but it bothers me to no end that this government and this minister would make such a mess of this whole thing when we should have been congratulating our troops, the JTF-2, on doing their job--that is, capturing prisoners and turning them over to the Americans, who were leading the mission.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: You got that part right.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: It's so shameful that the Canadian public... That message was lost. That whole message, of pride in our military serving this country well, was lost because this minister screwed up, and now we have a cover-up at committee. All the government members are voting against every one of these motions to call these witnesses. They're willing to leave these totally contradictory statements made by the minister himself on two different occasions, and between the minister and the Chief of the Defence Staff, the head of the Canadian military, and between the minister and the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, who briefs the minister on these issues.

    These were absolutely bold contradictions, despite what Mr. Jordan and some of the others have said. That's clear. I laid that out clearly last time. It's in the testimony. It's there on the record.

    Now, what does this government think the impact will be of shutting down this committee before we've had a chance to clarify those contradictions? What will the impact be? Our Minister of National Defence and to some extent the Prime Minister are going to operating under a cloud, under a real shadow of uncertainty, when you look at how Canadians are going to view this. The government has covered up these contradictions rather than giving the minister himself a chance to come back to committee to try to explain why the contradictions are there.

    To me, that isn't democracy working at all. I hope this government will reconsider, and I hope committee members will say, no, let's clarify these contradictions and go on from here.

    In terms of this particular witness, then, I just can't; I can't vote in favour of calling him here when I know what his duties are. I wish the government would reconsider and have Wendy Gilmour come and clarify at least some of the issues that are outstanding before this committee.

    The Chair: Yvon Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    First of all, before we vote, I would like Mr. Benoit to read the motion, because the motion says: “That the committee invite Commodore Thiffault as a witness in person, in Ottawa, in Tampa Bay, or by teleconference.” I hope he reads the motion and that he is able to agree with us that this is a key witness. We are dealing with the Minister of Defence, who is in charge of our men and women in a war, and we want him to clear the air here in Ottawa; he's the person in charge, totally responsible. With all the contradictions that are happening around him in the House of Commons and in this committee, we need the witnesses to clear the air. That's what it's all about. If he wants to vote against clearing the air with some very important witnesses, he should do so. This motion is very clear, and I hope he can read it before he votes. It's by teleconference if he cannot come down. This committee or, rather, the people who put the motion had in mind, I am sure, the importance of bringing Commodore Thiffault here to Ottawa.

    The other thing is that when we were in committee and we decided on the list of witnesses, it was very clear at that time, if you recall, Mr. Chair, that one thing we said was that we wanted the minister to be the last one to come to the committee. They voted and said that we should have him first because he was the accused and that we would call him back if we needed him. That was the intention that was put forward at the committee, that we would call him back, and that is what we agreed to. Now they just want to shut it down, and I think that is not right and this is not the way we should go as a committee.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: All those in favour of Michel Guimond's motion regarding Commodore Thiffault, please so indicate.

    (Motion negatived: nays 11; yeas 3)

    The Chair: Colleagues, if we could, we'll move to the sixth motion, and you've all received copies of this from Jay Hill.

    Jay, I'll read it in English if that's okay with you. This is so the people watching can know what it's about. This is the motion Jay proposed the other day, and we now have it in writing in both official languages.

    “That, in light of the letter received from Mel Cappe, dated February 28, 2002, identifying Foreign Affairs Minister Graham as the Acting Minister of Defence during the absences from Canada by Defence Minister Eggleton, the Committee inquire in writing to Chief of Defence Staff General Henault and Vice-Admiral Maddison as to whether Minister Graham was briefed at any time between January 20th and January 29th 2002 about JTF2 taking prisoners and turning them over to Americans.”

    You all have that before you.

    Jay.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Jay Hill: I so move.

    The Chair: So moved. Discussion?

    Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, we discussed the motion in camera. We never got to it last meeting, and we never made the request, but I spoke to Jay before the meeting.

    I checked with the principals involved and the acting minister. In a situation like this it's mainly a procedural thing, which means that the acting minister would have signing authority or would cover for the minister in question period. The acting minister would not be engaged in operations or policy, especially if the minister were in contact with officials through secure telephone lines or whatever, which was the case here. To make a long story short, Minister Graham was not briefed at all about this in the interim. In fact, I think he was out of the country himself.

    The Chair: Jay Hill.

    Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate Mr. Jordan trying to clear that up.

    I would ask that the motion stand and that we receive as quickly as possible--it could be done by fax, I am assuming, so there wouldn't be a long delay--a reply that basically would come from General Henault and Vice-Admiral Maddison and that would substantiate Mr. Jordan's statement. But I appreciate that information.

    The Chair: Leon Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I think it bespeaks an awfully high level of arrogance for Mr. Jordan to think the committee would, just on his say-so, let him speak on behalf of the foreign affairs minister and respond for the foreign affairs minister. It's hard to imagine. It's a new height of arrogance.

    I would hope that we would accept this motion. Let's have the letter. Let's have this in writing. Why is that so difficult?

    The Chair: Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I think we could call my Sunday school teacher, and she could confirm the honesty I was brought up in.

    Mr. Chair, we've a long-standing tradition in this House to accept the word of honourable members. It just disgusts me when I see this.

    The Chair: Okay, colleagues.

    Very briefly, Leon, because I'm going to call the vote.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: On a point of order, I must say to Mr. Jordan that the point is that we want to hear it from the minister. We want it in writing, and that's the issue here. It's not a matter of your honesty. How could you possibly know what the minister has been briefed on?

    The Chair: Jay Hill.

    Mr. Jay Hill: I have a point of order before we vote, because Mr. Benoit seems a bit confused about what my motion actually says.

    I'm not asking anything of the minister. I'm asking that we inquire in writing of General Henault, Chief of the Defence Staff, and his deputy, Vice-Admiral Maddison, as to whether any briefing was given to Minister Graham. There's nothing in this motion requesting anything of any minister.

    That's just so we're clear as to what we're voting on, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Does everyone understand that?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Colleagues, that means there's a piece of information we still lack from our hearings in addition to the documents that are being translated. That's just so you know that. I do accept the fact, and I think it's something we can obtain very quickly.

    Colleagues, I would propose that we proceed now to consider the nature of our report. Agreed?

    Monsieur Guimond, on a point of order.

  (1215)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like additional information regarding the steering committee discussions on the preliminary witness list. Were the discussions held in camera?

[English]

    The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Therefore, you feel these discussions should remain confidential.

[English]

    The Chair: I didn't interrupt while there was discussion of what went on in camera. One of the rules of the House of Commons is that we don't discuss what goes on in camera, particularly any mention of names--I didn't mention that.

    Michel, the records of the meeting are available in the clerk's office to all members of the committee, and I know they've been consulted by at least one member.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: That's not what I was asking. Must the discussions held by the steering committee remain confidential?

[English]

    The Chair: Michel, if I could, I would repeat first of all that they are available in the clerk's office--that is standard procedure--to members of the committee. Is your point that, theoretically, it can be agreed that in camera records will become public? Is that the point?

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Let me explain what I mean by giving you a specific example.

    Earlier, in response to my 5 minute, 12-second statement, Mr. Saada mentioned that the Canadian Alliance has submitted the name of Mr. George Young as a witness.

    As I see it, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Saada breached the confidentiality...I learned that Mr. Young's name was on the Alliance list. Mr. Saada breached the confidentiality of the steering committee. Is that standard procedure, in which case I'm concerned that the steering committee will be hard pressed to hold confidential meetings in the future. Of course, I can't speak for the other opposition parties or for my colleague Mr. Brien. Transparency is important and steering committee meetings will have to be open to the public from now on. What's more, today's meeting is being televised.

[English]

    The Chair: Jacques, I'll come to you in a moment.

    First of all, Michel, I didn't interrupt, but I tried to make the point before that there were a number of occasions when members here were talking about what went on in camera. I didn't interrupt because of the flow and so on. That's one.

    Second, Michel, I would have to say that our steering committee is unusual. I chaired it, but the other five members, with the exception of the deputy whip on the government's side, were the whips of the parties, and they did know what was in those lists. So each party had somebody there who knew what was in the lists. I had to say that.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I'll try to choose my words very carefully. If certain names were submitted for inclusion on a preliminary list and these names remained confidential and were known only to committee members, wouldn't it be a little too easy for someone who was not at the meeting to allege that certain names were omitted from the list?

    That's the gist of my point of order. I believe his takes precedence over mine, Mr. Chairman.

    It's too easy to broach confidential matters in a roundabout way and then hope that no one will be in a position to respond to the query because the matter is confidential. My point is very simple and you are right to clarify matters, Mr. Chairman. Often during the course of our proceedings we have referred in good faith to certain things that transpired during a steering committee meeting.

    I wasn't the one who mentioned the list. It was Mr. Guimond. I don't wish to see the transcripts, but as I recall, he mentioned that the two persons in question were not on the lists. I had a duty to set the record straight. I wasn't the one who opened the door. He did.

  (1220)  

[English]

    The Chair: I'll have something to say about this in a moment, because we're getting close to the point where this should become formal.

    Leon, would you comment?

    Mr. Leon Benoit: I didn't realize Mr. Saada was speaking on a point of order. I just wanted to say let's get on with the business we're here to discuss.

    The Chair: Let me go back to Michel Guimond, who brought this up.

    Michel, I made the point that a number of people referred to things that went on in camera. Technically, such revelations would prompt a motion that it's a question of privilege. By the way, this is in the committee. If that's so, I think you should make such a motion in this particular case and we should vote on it. We should discuss it and then vote on it in the normal way.

    Bear in mind what I said, and I'm quite serious about it. A number of members here referred to what went on in camera. Perhaps it's my fault; I didn't stop it at the time. The reason the House of Commons has this rule has to do with what we're doing now. We don't go in camera very often, particularly this committee, except when we're discussing reports and preparing plans for future business.

    Michel, did you want to move essentially that the member is in contempt? In that case, we'll debate that motion and we'll vote on it.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: That was not my intention, Mr. Chairman. I merely wanted to underscore this fact. I'd like us to get back to the matter at hand.

[English]

    The Chair: I appreciate that, Michel, and I apologize. In the future I will be more vigilant when we get into discussions of what goes on in camera. This was a particular case.

    Colleagues, I would propose that we now move to consider the nature of our report. Is that agreed? If that is so, colleagues, we will move in camera.

    Leon Benoit.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to know what you mean by the nature of the report. We have outstanding information to come. What do you mean by the nature of the report?

    The Chair: I deliberately recited earlier what I thought was outstanding.

    As I see it, what will happen is we will give direction to the research staff. You will give direction to me as to how we move to prepare a report, on the assumption that we receive all the materials that are here and in light of the 12 hearings we've had.

    Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. We won't go through discussing what the content of the report should be until we receive all of the information, is that correct?

    The Chair: Again, I'm in the hands of the committee. But it does seem to me that even if we have all those materials--the six additional documents and this letter or fax that we're going to receive--the staff would need considerable time. I think we can give them a fair amount of direction, and be protected. It will be a draft report, Leon, when it comes, and we would discuss the draft report in the usual way.

    Again, I look around. I can't require that. I think it's the only way to move on. If we delay it, and just keep waiting and waiting, they will simply sit there, not prepare a report, and not know how we're going to do it. It's all a matter of dissenting reports, the usual things.

    I'm in your hands. Colleagues, I propose we move in camera. That's agreed?

    I'm going to suspend for two or three minutes.

    By the way, I thank all the people who followed these hearings. I would be grateful if those who are not immediately associated with the committee would leave the room, and I'd be grateful if CPAC would switch off the cameras.

    The meeting is suspended for two or three minutes.

    [Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]