TRGO Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

1100

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, Lib.))

1105

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ)

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Williams

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Williams

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Williams

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

1110

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Alcock

The Chair

M. Williams

The Clerk

Mr. Williams

The Chair

Mr. John Williams

The Chair

Mr. Williams

The Chair

Mr. Williams

The Chair

Mr. Williams

Mr. Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Williams

Mr. Reg Alcock

1115

The Chair

Mr. Alcock

The Clerk

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

M. Williams

The Clerk

Mr. Williams

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

Mr. Williams

1120

The Chair

Mr. Williams

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1125

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ)

1130

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Williams

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Ms. Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

1135

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

1140

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Alcock

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Szabo

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Lebel

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Clerk

Ms. Val Meredith

1145

The Chair

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais

The Chair

Mr. Reg Alcock

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

1150

The Chair

Mr. James Moore

The Chair

Mr. André Harvey

1155

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Szabo

Mr. Mario Laframboise

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Szabo

M. Lebel

Mr. Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mr. Marcel Proulx

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

Mr. Reg Alcock

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

1200

The Chair

Mr. Mario Laframboise

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Paul Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Ghislain Lebel

1205

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

NUMBER 048

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1100)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Ovid Jackson (Bruce--Grey--Owen Sound, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call the meeting to order. I like to start my meetings on time.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), we have a number of items. We have Mr. Goldring et al. I don't know who is going to move that motion.

Mr. Lebel.

Á (1105)

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Chairman, it involves a letter that I submitted within the prescribed amount of time, pursuant to Standing Orders 106(3) and 108(1)a) asking the clerk to convene a meeting.

To respond to what Mr. Proulx was saying last week, the Standing Orders provide for a meeting to be called at the request of four members for the purposes of debating an issue. Mr. Proulx accused my researchers of being out in left field, and I have the transcripts of what was said. That's the gist of the motion. The letter was sent by four members of the committee, namely Peter Goldring, Darrel Stinson, Mario Laframboise and myself. We are requesting a meeting at some future date to discuss the whole issue of contracting and appointments at the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

This request is directed to my colleagues on the committee. In my opinion, there are a number of issues that need to be explored, if only to reassure our constituents that everything is fine in this department and that allegations of favouritism in the contracting process are false, that there is not attempt at misrepresentation and that all rules are being observed.

And, since one must always assume that people are acting in good faith, I trust you assume the same about my actions, Mr. Proulx. In my opinion, the committee should at least hold a meeting in the near future to shed light on this whole matter.

I've been a member of this committee for some time now and I respect the fact that much of our focus until very recently has been on transportation. Perhaps we have neglected somewhat the other component...

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: On a point of order, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, we have four motions that I brought before. Have we moved all those motions and are we dealing with them one at a time?

The Chair: We aren't on the four motions, we're on the one where four members of Parliament signed. So that's the very first one we're dealing with.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): Which one is that?

The Chair: The one under 106(3), which was signed by four members. So that's the first one. Then Mr. Lebel brought one and the other four will come after that.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull--Aylmer, Lib.): We had the meeting last week, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I see. So you're saying the meeting was called.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The letter was dated January 15--

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: --requesting a meeting.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We had a meeting on January 31.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What more do they want?

The Chair: They want the decision of the meeting.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: And we voted.

The Chair: No, there was no decision on that particular point.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: They weren't asking for a decision in their letter, Mr. Chair. They were asking for a meeting.

Mr. John Williams: They were asking for a meeting, Mr. Chair. We would expect that the committee would likely agree with the request of four members of the committee to have a hearing on an issue that would appear to be in the public interest.

We, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to hold the government to account and to listen to and investigate allegations of impropriety, which I think are here. The accusations were made by a prominent member, the chairman of a crown corporation, and therefore appear to have substance.

Therefore, as the Parliament of Canada responsible to Canadian citizens, Canadian taxpayers, I think that at the request of four members of Parliament who sit on this committee, the committee would surely want to hear what the people who are making allegations have to say, and give the opportunity for the person against whom the allegations are being made to either admit or clear his name. It seems to be a fairly simple thing to me.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We discussed it last week.

Mr. John Williams: As parliamentarians we have that obligation, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No. The motion is that hearings be held. We haven't made a decision whether we're going to hold those hearings or not, so we'll be voting on a motion of whether or not we're going to have hearings based on the request. That's the way to deal with it. It hasn't been dealt with, as the clerk said.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Point of order, Mr. Chair. What motion are we discussing? Are we discussing the one following the letter signed by the four members asking for a meeting, because if that's the one--

Á (1110)

The Chair: I'll get the clerk to explain. Richard, maybe you could get it out in the clear before everybody becomes an expert.

A voice: Yes, exactly.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: You have received a request, pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), signed by four members: Mr. Goldring, Mr. Stinson, Mr. Laframbois and Mr. Lebel. You have one version of the letter in French, and two versions in English.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Excuse me, but what is the nature of the request?

[English]

The Chair: It's just clarification of what the clerk has said.

Mr. Clerk, do you want to respond to Monsieur Proulx? The request is that hearings be held, is that right?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No.

The Chair: Richard, do you want to answer the question? Go ahead.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: If we're reading all the same letters, the one signed by Mr. Lebel and Mr. Laframboise is dated January 15, 2002. I'm going to be doing some translation saying we request a meeting of the committee.

We had a meeting of the committee last week. It was meeting number 47 on January 31. We've discussed this exactly, so what more do they want?

A voice: Excuse me.

The Chair: Just a minute.

Are they right, or do we have to answer this question before we move on to the next item? That's the question.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Debate began last week, but the Chair adjourned the meeting at 1 p.m. and postponed further consideration of this matter until today's meeting.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): We debated a similar motion.

The Chair: Point of order, Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: If that refers to a specific standing order, would you read the standing order please?

[Translation]

The Clerk: Standing Order 106(3) reads as follows:

Within ten sitting days of the receipt, by the clerk of a standing committee, of a request signed by any four members of the said committee, the Chairman of the said committee shall convene such a meeting provided that forty-eight hours' notice is given of the meeting. For the purposes of this section, the reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request.

That's what you have.

[English]

Mr. John Williams: Okay. I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Williams has the floor.

Mr. John Williams: Has 48 hours' notice been given of this meeting?

The Chair: It's already been done.

Mr. John Williams: I'm just asking the question: has it been done?

The Chair: It has been done.

Mr. John Williams: The meeting has been called. The agenda is set out in the letter.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. John Williams: Have the conditions of Standing Order 106(3) been met? They have been met.

If the conditions have been met and the standing order says there shall be a meeting, let's have the meeting and let's call the witnesses.

Mr. Reg Alcock: The motion is that we have meetings and call witnesses. That's what I understand. This is a request from four members, that we have meetings and call witnesses. Is that what the committee wants to do?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Williams.

Mr. John Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the standing order gives you leeway to decide whether you're going to have it or not. When it's signed by four members, you're required to have the meeting. Am I correct in saying that?

The Chair: No. Four members do not control the committee.

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. John Williams: Let me ask the clerk.

If, according to Standing Order 106(3), if you receive a letter signed by four people, are you required to hold the meeting?

The Clerk: Yes.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Mister Chairman, did I understand the clerk to say that any four members of the committee can request a meeting and the committee then must meet?

Á (1115)

The Chair: Right. That's what this is all about.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Just to go a bit further with that then, may I ask, does that deal with the subject on which they must meet, or is it simply on the holding of a meeting?

The Clerk: It's to decide whether or nor you are going to accept the request, but you have to meet at least once, and then there's a vote on the request.

Mr. Reg Alcock: So, John, we do not go ahead with the substance of letters; the meeting is simply to call the meeting so we can now have the vote.

The Chair: Exactly.

Mr. John Williams: That's a different ruling from the one he gave a few minutes ago, so let me just clarify with the clerk.

I asked you, Mr. Clerk, a letter signed by four members of this committee having been received, whether or not a meeting must be held on the issue. You're now saying a meeting must be held to decide if we're going to have a meeting.

The Clerk: That's correct.

Mr. John Williams: Would you read Standing Order 106(3) again, please.

[Translation]

The Clerk: It reads as follows:

The Chair: Mr. Lebel.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: For those of you who can't read, allow me to summarize the letter in question sent by four members of this committee. It stipulates the following:

On January 9, 2002, we learned that the actions of Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister responsible for the Canada Lands Company, were again the object of serious allegations of patronage and favouritism. Serious allegations are floating around.

And we go on to list some of these allegations and to point out that the government's integrity has been called into question.

Mr. Jon Grant, the former Chair of a Crown corporation, who was discredited here last week, alleges the following: that he was forced to hire a friend of the minister, a certain Mr. Tony Mignacca; that a contract was imposed pursuant to which the Canada Lands Company had to pay a $5,000 monthly retainer to a Michèle Tremblay, a public relations person, for services that CLC did not need; that CLC was forced to do business with companies that had not submitted the best offer; and that attempts had been made to take away CLC's decision-making authority in Quebec - that's a serious allegation, Mr. Chairman - through the Chair's Chief of Staff who insisted that decisions involving Quebec go through the Minister's office.

Based on these allegations, four members, myself included, requested that the committee meet to determine whether any further investigation of the allegations was warranted, to call in and to hear from witnesses.

That is the issue under debate at this time. In my view, the allegations are serious enough to warrant a response from a serious, responsible committee... I don't see how, given the nature of the allegations, we can turn a blind eye to this matter and not hold a special meeting to hear from some witnesses and probe into this whole affair.

I'm not saying that this is always the case, but certain gifts or plums have been awarded to certain individuals. At least, that would appear to be the case and those members sitting opposite need to understand that we need proof that this hasn't in fact happened. If the evidence shows these allegations to be true, then action is warranted. In essence, that's the aim of the letter signed by four members.

That's all, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Actually, I was getting clarification, and Mr. Alcock already got it, so it's fine.

Mr. John Williams: I hate to take exception with the clerk, Mr. Chair, but when I read Standing Order 106(3), it says that upon receipt of a request by four people, a meeting shall be convened. If I can quote, Mr. Chair, it says, “For the purposes of this section, the reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request”.

The request says they want a meeting on Canada Lands, etc. It doesn't say the chair will then call a meeting to decide whether to have a meeting. It says the purposes of the meeting shall be stated in the letter. The letter doesn't say let's decide about having a meeting; it says we want a meeting on this issue. We don't want a meeting to decide whether to have hearings on the issue. The letter says we want to have hearings on the issue.

The standing order says that “For the purposes of this section, the reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request”. The reasons for the meeting are stated in the letters. They're quite clear.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Mr. Williams, I'm going to rule on this and we're going to move on. Four members of a committee do not make the orders for the committee. They could make a request, as I understand it. The request has come to the committee. It takes nine members to get anything done in this regard, and that's the way I see it.

I will move to Mr. Proulx now.

Mr. John Williams: I object, Mr. Chair. Can I be on the record on this basis?

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Mr. Chair, my understanding of the letter is they're asking for a meeting. My personal opinion is that we've had that meeting. Nevertheless, the idea of the meeting is to go through the four motions tabled by Mr. Lebel at the last meeting, so why don't we just go ahead and proceed with these four motions, vote on these four motions.

The Chair: No, but you have to deal with this. This is a separate request from the four, so we have to deal with this here and then we'll move on to the four. They are specific.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay, Monsieur Harvey and then Mr. Szabo.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In essence, Mr. Chairman, the four co-signers of the letter are requesting that a meeting of the committee be convened. Obviously, that's the purpose of the letter. However, the letter is tied to a motion tabled by Mr. Lebel to the effect that the committee hold hearings as soon as possible to hear from all witnesses that could shed light on these allegations. The letter dated January 9 which we received this morning in effect requests that a meeting of the committee be convened .

The committee is in fact now meeting. We began debating this issue at our last meeting, and this morning, we received this letter. We have also received four formal motions, one of which complements the letter and formally requests that hearings be held into allegations directed toward an individual who is now retired. That is the issue under debate.

Obviously, we'll have an opportunity to vote on Mr. Lebel's formal motion calling for hearings to be held. Now we must decide as a committee whether to hold hearings and hear from retired individuals who make allegations after neglecting to do so while still on the job. It really boils down to this. Otherwise, the committee will be transforming itself into a royal commission of inquiry and we'll never be done with it. Every time someone retires, we'll be holding hearings. That's not how I like to work.

We have on the table a formal motion which reflects the general spirit of the letter. This committee is in session and members must vote on four motions. Let's debate these motions then.

[English]

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Szabo, Mario, and then Monsieur Lebel.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, it's important for committee members to be clear on what's happening here. Mr. Williams, I believe, is quite correct--the interpretation that has been given to the standing order and what we do about that seems to be at odds with--

The Chair: It is not. I'll get the clerk to read it right now.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I want to explain that, Mr. Chairman. The standing order as he read it to us, Mr. Chairman, was that the request was in order. It was a request by four members to convene a meeting. And if you need to reread the thing, Mr. Chairman, it says “to present the reasons for that meeting”, and Mr. Lebel has now laid out those reasons. There is no vote on that, as a consequence of the reasons laid out by Mr. Lebel.

Now he should pose a motion that we, given the reasons before the committee, take a decision about whether we wish to proceed. That is separate and apart from Meredith's motion on this issue, which we dealt with last meeting. It is separate and apart from the four motions Mr. Lebel has also tabled.

What we need now, I believe, to get us out of this little rut is simply a motion from Mr. Lebel, based on the presentation he's made to us--which is the contents of the letter and the reasons requesting that we convene a meeting to hear those reasons, as is required by the standing order--to now have the committee decide whether it wishes to proceed on the recommendation of the member, based on his reasons, to have those hearings.

The chair is also right, though. The committee as a whole is responsible for determining the agenda of the committee. If that were not the case, then clearly any four members could continue to hijack the agenda of the entire committee. Certainly that's not the way the committees have operated, in my knowledge, and certainly not the way I think we would like committees to operate.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, if you agree with this assessment, I think it would be in order to accept a motion from Mr. Lebel that the hearings he has outlined would be necessary to deal with the points he's raised be agreed to by the committee and that they adopt this agenda item.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Okay, I agree that perhaps it was ambiguous. We want to know exactly what we're voting on, so Mr. Lebel would have to move that motion so we can vote on it. But before we do that I want the clerk to read into the record exactly what the rule says.

The Clerk: I'm going to refer you to Marleau and Montpetit, on page 843. I quote:

“The matter under consideration at such a meeting is whether or not the committee wishes to take up the requested subject, rather than deliberations on the subject itself. There is no obligation on the committee either to conclude debate on the proposal to study a particular topic or to reach a decision on it.”

The Chair: Okay. Will you move the motion so that we can determine whether the committee agrees with your motion, which is to meet and hold meetings with these witnesses? Then we'll vote on it.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, while there may be some points directly related, the request submitted by four members of the committee is not necessarily...

[English]

The Chair: The point is, Mr. Lebel, we're not going to debate it until we know exactly what we're voting on. You must say what the request is; then we'll debate the request and vote on it. If you don't want to make a request, then somebody else can make it.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Standing Order 106(3) stipulates that the reasons for convening a meeting must be stated in the request. That's what I've been attempting to do for some time now, except that my colleagues opposite keep throwing up roadblocks.

An investigation was ordered by the Canada Lands Company. It was conducted by an outside firm, Deloitte & Touche, and serious allegations were made.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lebel, I don't want to interrupt you, because I know you have a point. You must state exactly what the motion is. You're into the debate and you haven't stated what the request is, so start with your request and then go to the debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, the motion calls for the committee to hold hearings so that some light can be shed on this whole affair. That's the gist of the motion.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. We have the motion. Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mario.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ): Mr. Chairman, in my view, the letter is clearly worded. It was drafted in accordance with Standing Orders 106(3) and 108(1) and the reasons for requesting a meeting are clearly stated. Now, the committee must decide whether or not to hold hearings into this matter.

In my opinion, the intent of the letter is clear. The committee now has to decide if it wants to discuss a number of serious allegations that have been publicly made by respected members of the press as well as a letter signed by members, pursuant to the standing orders. Their request is also in compliance with the standing orders. The committee has the right to decide whether or not to deal with this matter. That's the issue under debate.

I get the feeling my Liberal colleagues have no desire to discuss this matter. That's their choice. However, those members who signed the letter are entitled, under the standing orders, to make this request and to list in the letter the allegations they wish to discuss...

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): [Editor's note: inaudible]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'm assuming you're right about the choice. Later, we'll see what decisions...

Mr. André Harvey: [Editor's note: inaudible]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Careful, Mr. Harvey. Don't talk to me about what's honest or not. You have a long way to go before...

Therefore...

Á (1130)

[English]

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, is it possible to have order as to who is talking so we can get on with this, rather than the bantering back and forth?

The Chair: No heckling or interruptions from the members of the Liberal Party, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: If you'll allow me to finish then, Mr. Chairman, we expect the committee to come to a decision as to whether, yes or no, it is prepared to hold hearings into the allegations made in this letter - a letter in which a meeting is requested, in accordance with the standing orders.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. I take it you're ready for the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, we'll have a recorded vote. I understand Mr. Williams wasn't substituted by your whip, so he's not a member.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 5)

Mr. John Williams: The Liberal majority wins again.

The Chair: We'll move on to the next part of why we called this meeting, for which we had four requests last week. The first request....

Yes, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, the third motion that was tabled by Mr. Lebel at the last meeting requests that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services appear before the committee. I've discussed the matter with the new minister, Don Boudria, and he enthusiastically looks forward to coming before the committee on its invitation. So given that the minister is open to come before the committee, whether it be on this or related matters, or other responsibilities related to public works and government services, he's very much in favour of doing that. On that basis, I believe we can dispense with motion 3. The committee then could just decide if there's a particular date they want them, and send the invitation.

The Chair: Okay. We'll start with item 3. Do we have consent on that?

Yes, Madam Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: Are we talking about the request for Mr. Boudria? If that's the case, why don't we just vote on it?

The Chair: Okay. Is there unanimous consent that the minister appear here?

Mr. Reg Alcock: What is the motion?

The Chair: The motions were already tabled last week. We have the motion. The members are aware of the motion.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Are you asking the general question of whether the minister should appear, or are you asking us to vote on the motion that requests the minister to appear?

The Chair: We are voting on the motion to request the minister to appear. That's the only way we can do it, because that's the notice that has been given.

We are on the third request.

Yes, Mario.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: It's important that you proceed in the order in which the items appear on the agenda. Four motions were submitted in accordance with...

[English]

The Chair: That's fine, okay. Motion number one then is that we hold hearings similar to the motion we voted on before. That's the very first motion last week, that we hold hearings on these allegations with regard to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Gagliano.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, PC/DR): We've already voted on that.

The Chair: No, this is a separate motion we haven't voted on.

We've had discussions on this. Are you ready for the vote on it?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Which one are we voting on?

The Chair: The very first request from Monsieur Lebel.

Mr. Clerk, do you want to read it? It's in French, maybe, so that...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The one in the letter...

The Chair: There were four requests from Monsieur Lebel given us before the 48-hour notice, and we're doing them in the sequence in which he requested them. Mr. Szabo wanted to go to the third request. They're saying let's go one, two, three, four.

The first one was to hold hearings. The second one had to do with asking the ethics commissioner to appear. The third one...

Mr. Lebel.

Á (1135)

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Since I tabled the motions, I think I should present them. I am entitled to speak to my motions and explain my reasons for moving them. Then, we can proceed to vote.

[English]

The Chair: All right, tell us the motion and then go ahead and tell us your explanation for it.

Yes, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the chair or maybe the clerk can assist us on whether this motion is different from the motion we just voted on before this committee. This was covered by the details in the letter. I believe it is identical.

If this is the case, then we either don't table this motion, or if you'd like to take the vote again on the same motion, then I call the question.

The Chair: It is identical, except if it has one word differing then it's not. I haven't looked at it with such scrutiny. Substantively it's the same motion, but we should vote on it to clear it off the books.

Monsieur Lebel.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The motion calls for Mr. Gagliano, the former minister, to be invited to appear before the committee to shed light on serious allegations of patronage, favouritism and interference in the management of the Canada Lands Company. The motion appears on page 5 of the agenda.

It's impossible for us to sort out everything that has been said by or printed in the electronic or print media without first hearing from the responsible minister about his department's modus operandi. That is the aim of the first motion.

[English]

The Chair: Mario.

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Do we have the right to speak on this motion?

Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Mr. Chairman, it's impossible for me to overstate that the allegations made by respected members of the media concerning the actions of the former minister, Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, are of a serious nature and that the public is entitled to know the facts. Our colleagues opposite can continue to argue that ultimately, this is nothing more than a case of a deposed corporation chair airing his dirty laundry in public. The fact remains that the public has a right to know if these allegations have any basis in fact.

I'm confident that with all of the officials working for the Liberals, you'll be quite capable of defending the honour of your former minister, Mr. Gagliano. I would have expected you to jump at the opportunity to save face.

Basically, Mr. Chairman, I believe our job here is to defend the interests of members of the public. Since they are somewhat in the dark as to how the wheels of government turn, we have a duty to shed some light on the subject for them. As members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations, our job is to represent our constituents and to raise those questions that Canadians and Quebecers would want to put to these prominent individuals, namely the former chair of a Crown corporation and a former minister, concerning serious allegations that have made the headlines.

At least if we can't save the honour of the Liberals, we might succeed in saving Canada's honour.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Are there any further discussions on the motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Will you poll the committee please, Mr. Clerk?

(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 8)

Á (1140)

The Chair: We'll move to the second request, Mr. Lebel. The motion and then an introduction to the topic, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: The second motion calls for the committee to invite the ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson, to appear. Apparently, Mr. Wilson reported back to the Prime Minister on this unfortunate matter and I think he could tell us a thing or two about the workings of his office, how it conducts its investigations and how it concluded that everything was just hunky-dory.

I have to believe that my colleagues opposite won't go so far as to discredit Mr. Wilson, just as they discredited Mr. Grant. I can't imagine that they will claim he is totally unworthy of testifying before the committee.

I rather think they should be honoured that we want to invite their ethics counsellor to appear - if he is an ethical individual, he won't refuse - to explain how his office conducts investigations.

[English]

The Chair: Monsieur Lebel, I've been advised that it's not within the purview of the committee to invite the ethics counsellor here. He reports to the Prime Minister, and as such we have no authority within the documentation that we have to do so. But as a servant of the committee, I'll allow a vote on it to dispense with it.

Mr. Reg Alcock: We can invite him.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: May we debate the motion? May I...

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: It's either in order or out of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I'd like to raise a question of privilege.

You have just made a rather serious statement. You just said that the ethics counsellor personally reports to the Prime Minister, that he works exclusively for him and is paid by him. Is that in fact what you just said, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: I'm not making it up. I'll get the clerk to read the exact documentation again, so you've all the exact words.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: These weren't the clerk's words. They were your words.

[English]

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): The chair made the statement, not the clerk.

The Chair: No, no, I paraphrased what the clerk told me. He's going to read into the record the exact... He'll corroborate what I've said.

Richard.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Wilson has responsibilities for two areas. He oversees the application of the Lobbyists Registration Act and it is within the purview of the Industry Committee to invite him to testify in this capacity. However, the Industry Committee cannot ask him to appear in his capacity of ethics counsellor, because it is not within its mandate to do so. If the Industry Committee cannot invite him to testify, I'd have to say this committee can't either.

[English]

The Chair: I'll go with Val, Bev, and then Reg.

Ms. Val Meredith: I'd like to ask the clerk if his opinion, and I may not agree with it, is that Parliament cannot call the ethics counsellor to appear before Parliament.

[Translation]

The Clerk: I was referring to committees. I can't answer that particular question.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: I ask that because the committee has the same jurisdiction as Parliament, as I understand it, so if Parliament can call before it an officer, it's done through committees.

I would hope that anybody who works for the Prime Minister's Office or the House of Commons could be called before Parliament. If that's the case, the ethics counsellor should be able to be called before Parliament, and thus this would happen through the committees. I would hope that the ethics counsellor could be called before Parliament.

Á (1145)

The Chair: I just want to say at this point that I have allowed this question, so it's up to the committee.

So you're voting on whether or not you want to call... You've had the advice, but we're not taking the advice, necessarily. It's up to the committee.

Madam Desjarlais.

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I was going to ask the same question. If we're going to take a vote, I'm willing to acknowledge that we'll vote on it. Should the request go in and be out of order, someone with higher authority than all of us will set their decision. So if we take the vote, at least the committee will have dealt with the motion.

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: just want to differentiate between two things here. The committee can request the ethics counsellor to come; the committee cannot compel him to come. The ethics counsellor did appear before the industry committee, so there's nothing to prevent us from doing it. My opinion on whether we should or not would be the same as the opinion I expressed last week, when we discussed this item. I see no merit in it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mario.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: My initial comments tie in with what my colleague before me said. As a committee, we have the right to invite the ethics counsellor to appear. Of course, he is free to accept, or turn down, our invitation.

Obviously, he'll claim that he cannot put in an appearance because of scheduling constraints. This will prove once again what we have been saying for months, if not years, namely that the ethics counsellor reports to the Prime Minister.

Yet, the ethics counsellor has gotten involved in the matter at hand. My colleague's request is justified. That individual made some public statements concerning this matter and said he saw no reason for continuing on with his duties.

Therefore, once again, to shed light on this matter for Canadians, we have the right to ask this individual who spoke publicly to come before the committee to explain himself. If that person cannot put in an appearance, then he'll have to explain his absence to us. Of course, we might then come to the conclusion that one of the reasons is the fact that he is the Prime Minister's ethics counsellor, that he reports only to the Prime Minister and that everything else is secondary to him.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to, since all these motions are related probably, put on the record a couple of statements.

First of all, one of the principal issues here is the allegations by Mr. Grant. I believe it should be noted that Mr. Grant made no allegations of illegal activity--it's very important that I underline that, no allegations of illegal activity--and that Mr. Gagliano publicly gave his explanations to the statements of Mr. Grant, which is well known and on the record.

The ethics counsellor also has publicly stated that there was no code of conflict violated by Mr. Gagliano. That was a public decision.

In addition, the other issue that has come before the committee, generally, is the question of the relationship of ministers who are responsible for crown corporations. As the minister is the sole shareholder, how does that relationship exist? The Prime Minister, when this arose some months ago, in fact had the matter referred to the ethics counsellor. The Prime Minister has received now recommendations from the ethics counsellor on that matter and now the new Deputy Prime Minister is reviewing those to determine whether or not the rules can be strengthened.

So I think, in summary, it should be noted that we are not dealing with illegality, we're dealing with alleged conflict of interest. A decision has been taken by the ethics counsellor that there was no conflict. And finally, the relationships and the clarification of relationships, and whether or not there should be more specificity or some tightening up in the rules regarding the relationship between a minister and a crown corporation for which that minister might be responsible, are presently being considered by the Deputy Prime Minister.

So in view of all of that, those are the reasons why I'm not supportive of the motions raised by Mr. Lebel. I think it's important to have it on the record.

Having said that, I have talked with my minister with regard to this matter and others. And I'm aware that estimates are going to be tabled on February 28. I think that in view of this time element, and since we're not sitting next week, it might be appropriate to extend the invitation to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to appear before us to deal not only with matters like this, but also with other issues, because, as you know, when you deal with estimates it's a wide-open stage anyway. So I think that would be probably a good opportunity to have the minister come before, if it's acceptable to the committee. I put that on the record.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Mr. Moore.

Mr. James Moore: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is the debate on the motion relative to Mr. Wilson, right? Am I correct?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. James Moore: Paul, if I have your position correct then, Mr. Wilson has not alleged any illegalities; he has not alleged any unethical behaviour. And if that's the case, then why wouldn't the Liberal government welcome him coming to the committee and putting that on the record? Why is the government so opposed to full disclosure, so opposed to full openness?

Mr. Szabo, you said that Mr. Wilson made a public statement that there was no illegality. But the statement was not made on the parliamentary record with parliamentary scrutiny and with parliamentary follow-up questions. I do respect the country's media and their capacity to ask follow-up questions in interviews. However, to say therefore that a media interview is sufficient and parliamentary scrutiny is not is to hold the media's interviews of people and public officials at a higher standard than parliamentary interviews and scrutiny, and that does not do a service to this place or to parliamentary democracy and representative government.

I would also say that the government has consistently made the statement, both in the House and here, that there were no illegalities, so the ethics counsellor and the ethics commissioner don't have to come here. But legality and ethical behaviour are not synonymous. They are different standards and require different scrutiny.

I don't know why this government is running scared from openness if they're so sure that nothing unethical has happened.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the political dynamics at play here, but when a person comments publicly, maintaining that nothing illegal has been done, clearly... Right now, we're discussing a motion involving Mr. Wilson, but later on, we'll be focussing on another of Mr. Lebel's motions involving one of our colleagues, Mr. Boudria, the newly appointed minister. Later, we'll have to consider that motion as well.

I certainly believe Mr. Boudria will be able to address all of our concerns and answer all of our questions without our having to become a commission of inquiry and call in witnesses who feel that absolutely nothing untoward has happened.

If I were to state publicly that nothing serious had happened, that the whole matter had been blown up out of proportion, that I received a resume and that while I felt somewhat uncomfortable, nothing illegal had transpired, I don't see how the committee could take things any further. I don't think the matter is serious enough to warrant more in-depth consideration or to get us to draft a new code of conduct for lobbyists. Quebec will soon be turning its attention to such matters, Mr. Chairman. I invite them to participate along with Mr. Landry in Quebec City in the process of drafting a code for lobbyists.The federal government already has such a code in place.

The person to whom these public comments are attributed has even stated himself that nothing illegal transpired and that the matter should be put to rest. It's difficult for a committee to invite a person like this to testify.

In short, the committee should focus instead on an important motion calling for Mr. Boudria to be invited to appear before the committee to respond to these public allegations. That is a legitimate request. I'm confident the minister will be able to answer some very specific questions that have been raised publicly, but to invite everyone to come and testify...The committee's agenda is already quite full, what with legislation to consider as well as the issue of truckers' hours of service in this global economy, among other things.

Personally, I'm quite prepared to vote on that motion and I'm eager for us to discuss the timeliness of inviting the new minister to appear before our committee. Thank you.

Á (1155)

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

Mr. Lebel.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: The argument put forward to counter this motion is that Mr. Wilson does not have the authority to testify before the committee. Opponents cite Mr. Wilson extensively: Mr. Wilson said this, or Mr. Wilson said that in the newspapers. He's being used to defeat a motion calling for him to come before the committee and explain some of his statements.

Let me be frank.Some Liberals have been enjoying their cake for far too long now. They refuse to see the facts and to raise questions about this whole affair. That's why parliamentarians have so little credibility. That's why a mere 7 per cent of the population trust parliamentarians. Attitudes like this are the cause. Reject the motion and keep Mr. Wilson sheltered and tied to Mr. Chrétien's apron strings and see how the public reacts then. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Are we ready for the question?

Mr. Paul Szabo: Recorded vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'd like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 5)

Mr. Paul Szabo: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be helpful for the committee if at our next meeting the clerk could come back to us with some specificity with regard to the ethics counsellor. I've seen the ethics counsellor appear before other committees. I was taken aback by his statement, by the interpretation that we don't have a right to call him. I think there's a conflict here in that--

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: That's not a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chairman, if that is the clerk's interpretation, then in fact the motion as tabled by the member was out of order in the first instance and should never have been on the list. So you can't have it in order and debated, but make the decision that you can't do it.

The Chair: Mr. Szabo, with all due respect, I allowed it because I think it is in order for us to have the request, but I'll have him clarify that. I allowed it, and I didn't rule it out of order. That's the main point here, and we voted it down.

Mr. Paul Szabo: But Mr. Chairman, just as a point, if it in fact is not an order--

The Chair: Okay, let's move on, Mr. Szabo.

Monsieur Lebel, your third motion, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Now then, I'm sure my colleagues opposite will be pleased with my third motion calling on the committee to invite the minister...

Mr. Marcel Proulx: What a good idea!

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: ...to apprise us of the measures he intends to implement in order to ensure transparency in all the operations of his department, the implication being that there was no transparency in the past.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: We are very transparent.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I think they'll agree with that. Once again, we're going to be fed a pack of lies.

[English]

The Chair: Mario?

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: Can we speak to the motion, Mr. Chairman?

Â (1200)

[English]

The Chair: Sure, Mario. Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Mario Laframboise: I'd be delighted. This is, after all, a serious matter. My colleague's request is of a very serious nature. The motion calls for the committee to invite the new minister to appear to apprise members of the measures he intends to implement in order to ensure transparency in all the operations of his department. Our colleagues seem quite interested in having the new Minister of Public Works appear at the earliest opportunity. It's important that we hear from him and learn about the new measures he has implemented to avoid a recurrence of the incidents involving the former minister, Mr. Gagliano.

That's the gist of this important motion tabled by my colleague. I trust that members opposite will show some integrity, give the request some serious consideration and not insult our intelligence, as they regularly do in this committee.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Laframboise. It's quite clear in your request here, which is going directly to the minister should it be the wish of the committee.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo: I agree with the motion, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to suggest that the minister be invited for our first meeting following the tabling of the estimates.

The Chair: That's not a request here, though; that's something else.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, I'm making the recommendation because an invitation has to be sent out. I think the minister probably should be given either a date or a range of dates.

The Chair: Yes, but we're voting on this request. It cannot be altered unless you make an amendment to it.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Not an amendment. If we pass it, then--

The Chair: Yes, but it has nothing to do with the estimates.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 12; nays 1)

The Chair: Monsieur Lebel, we'll hear your fourth request.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: My final motion is of utmost importance. I move that the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations hold hearings as soon as possible to hear from all witnesses that could shed light on serious allegations of patronage, favouritism and interference involving the former Minister of Public Works.

One of the witnesses I had in mind was Mr. Basque from Moncton. Until recently, I believe he was on the board of directors of the Canada Lands Company and I saw him...If Mr. Wilson was speaking the absolute truth, given that the cameras were rolling at the time, then I trust Mr. Basque was being equally truthful, since the cameras were also rolling when he spoke about the workings of the CLC.

We should also hear from representatives of the outside auditing firm of Deloitte & Touche. A spokesperson for the firm was quoted in the press as saying that it had made a number of recommendations to this corporation and despite the fact some serious allegations had been made, no further action had been taken. We could also ask Mr. Charest, who collected a paycheque every 15 days, what his duties entailed and whether his remuneration was justified. We could also hear from Ms. Tremblay and inquire as to the kind of services she provided to the Canada Lands Company. We could then determine if the outrageous fees she received were justified.

That's the gist of the motion. Again, I have no illusions about its ultimate fate.

Â (1205)

[English]

The Chair: A recorded vote has been requested.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 5)

The Chair: We'll move on now to in camera. We'll suspend for two minutes while they get the recordings done. We'll resume right after so we can get some direction on how we want to follow this particular work plan for truckers' hours of service.

[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]