PACC Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 1, 2004

0910

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

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC)

0915

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC)

0920

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

0925

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ)

0930

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

The Chair

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

0935

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

0940

0945

0950

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

0955

1000

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Chair

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.))

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1005

1010

The Chair

Mr. Michel Gauthier

1015

1020

1025

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney)

Mr. Vic Toews

1030

1035

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

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

The Chair

1040

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

1050

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

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

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. John Williams

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

1055

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1100

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1105

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1110

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Vic Toews

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1115

1120

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

1125

1130

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC)

1135

1140

1145

The Chair

1150

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

1155

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Odina Desrochers

1200

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

1205

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1210

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1215

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

1220

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1225

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

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

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

1230

Hon. Walt Lastewka

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

1235

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

1240

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Vic Toews

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

1245

Mr. Jason Kenney

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

1250

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

1255

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

NUMBER 019

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, April 1, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

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

The orders of the day are, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(g), chapter 3, “The Sponsorship Program”, chapter 4, “Advertising Activities”, and chapter 5, “Management of Public Opinion Research”, of the November 2003 report of the Auditor General of Canada, referred to the committee on February 10, 2004.

Our witnesses this morning from 9 to 10 are, from the Department of Public Works and Government Services, Mr. Norman Steinberg, Director General, Audit and Ethics Branch; from 10 to 11, as an individual, Stéphane Roussin; and from 11 to 1, from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Mr. Giuliano Zaccardelli, the commissioner.

However, before that we have some routine business. Mr. Steinberg, you may step back while we do the routine business, and I will call you forward at the appropriate time.

There were two issues from yesterday. One was the point of privilege raised by Mr. Toews. That will be dealt with first, followed by Ms. Jennings' motion that was in the middle of being debated, followed by the other motions that have been circulated. Then we will move to the orders of the day.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews (Provencher, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Pursuant to our discussions yesterday, I'd like to move the following motion:

On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, the Honourable Member for Toronto--Danforth, Mr. Dennis Mills, revealed to CBC Newsworld a portion of the in camera testimony given by Mr. Charles Guité to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on July 9, 2002.

The members of the Committee considered the matter on March 31, 2004 and April 1st, 2004 and felt that their privileges had been breached and that the in camera process had been jeopardized because of the disclosure by the Member for Toronto--Danforth.

As a result of the action of the Honourable Member for Toronto--Danforth, the Committee adopted a motion to report this matter to the House.

Your Committee feels it is its duty to place these matters before the House at this time because privilege may be involved and to give the House an opportunity to reflect on these matters.

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting Nos. 18 and 19) is tabled.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Toews. Thank you very much.

Ms. Phinney, on the point you raised yesterday that there were other issues to be added, the clerk advised me that this is the standard format of reporting to the House. However, the issues you raise are contained in the minutes of proceedings, meetings 18 and 19, and form part of the information that will be before the House.

You have the motion before you. Is there any debate on the motion? There is no debate.

Do you want a recorded vote?

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 6)

The Chair: Okay, that is that dealt with.

By the way, I still have the third report of public accounts to the House. I will be leaving the chair at approximately 10 o'clock to present that report to the House. That deals with the Auditor General's peer review.

We are now dealing with Madam Jennings' motion, which, for the record, I will read again:

That, pursuant to its study of Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the Auditor General’s November 2003 Report referred to the Committee on February 10, 2004, this Committee do, in accordance with Mr. Guité’s decision to waive the confidentiality of the in camera hearings wherein he testified in 2002, immediately render his 2002 in camera testimony public and modify the summons so as to change the date of appearance from April 1, 2004 to April 22 and 23, 2004.

Of course, if this motion does not carry, we have a summons for Mr. Guité that was supposed to have him here today. Therefore, a discussion of that would be in effect if this does not carry. If this motion does carry, Mr. Kenney's motion that this committee request the House of Commons to issue a House order stating that this committee has the authority to make public and dispose of as it sees fit in camera evidence received by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in relation to its study of the report of the Auditor General of Canada dated May 8, 2002, on Groupaction Communications during the first session of the 37th Parliament is out of order.

Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, you just read into the record my notice of motion, which actually was originally a motion brought forward by the vice-chair, Madam Jennings. In her prudent and thoughtful consideration of the importance of precedent and respecting Parliament's authority in this matter, she moved that we ought to obtain an order from the House to release this in camera testimony. My preference would be for that motion to pass.

I agree with Madam Jennings' first position, not her second position.

Mr. Chairman, I haven't read the testimony of Mr. Guité. I'm not familiar with it. I wasn't part of the committee at the time. When I came in here on Monday and this suddenly became an issue, I wasn't, quite frankly and quite honestly, aware of all the political implications of this. But when I heard that the Clerk of the House was advising us to seek an order of the House, and when I saw that that wisdom had been reflected by the Liberal vice-chair of the committee, I thought there must be a reason for it.

So I read the letters furnished by Mr. Corbett--the letter of March 24. Then Madam Jennings told us that everything had changed because of the March 29 letter from Michael Edelson, counsel to Charles Guité, in which he provided a conditional waiver of the confidentiality of Mr. Guité's in camera testimony.

Further to that, I said surely prudence dictates that we consult again with the clerk, which is why I put that motion that I've since withdrawn. On Monday afternoon I personally spoke to the Clerk of the House because I wanted to get a better understanding of the issue. He explained to me the precedents outlined in his March 24 letter. I asked Mr. Corbett if the conditional waiver of confidentiality proferred by Mr. Guité's counsel would in any way change his advice that it would be prudent for us to seek an order of the House. Mr. Corbett said no, it doesn't change anything, in his view. This is not simply a matter for Mr. Guité or his counsel to determine--I'm paraphrasing Mr. Corbett--but rather this is a matter that affects the whole House and can establish a long-lasting precedent for the future.

This is one point that I would like briefly to emphasize. This is very serious business. Of course, this is--this particular hearing--but there are not many investigations of this nature in which Parliament is engaged. We are setting precedent for future hearings of this nature, perhaps years, perhaps decades in the future, that will be referred to.

Occasionally it's necessary for parliamentary committees to go in camera to hear testimony that could be incriminating, that for various reasons must be in camera. If we here now create a precedent that a committee can at will, because of political agendas, decide, with great facility, to release in camera testimony, I think we're jeopardizing the value of the in camera seal that we offer to important witnesses, not just in this Parliament but in future parliaments. That, I think, is a critical point.

Mr. Chairman, if this motion passes, and I expect as Mr. Mills said yesterday, “we have the numbers”.... It's been very clear by the presence of PMO staff here and the ferocious spinning that's been going on from Liberal members and PMO staff that they intend to pass this, come hell or high water, as the Prime Minister might say. I expect this will pass, in which case that will obviate my motion, which is next in precedence here.

So I would therefore seek an amendment to Madam Jennings' motion before us now. My amendment would read, on the fifth line...and let me just read it in context:

¿ (0920)

My amendment is to strike the word “immediately”, and after “render his 2002 in camera testimony public” insert the words “on the day that Mr. Guité appears before the Committee and modify the summons so as to change the date of appearance from April 1....” I'd like to speak to my amendment, if it's in order.

The Chair: You may speak to the amendment.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear about what we are seeking. I believe that all the members of this committee from all parties seek, with Mr. Guité's consent, the release of his in camera testimony from 2002.

Let me restate that for clarity, because there seem to be some hearing problems opposite on this point.

The Conservative members here support the release of Mr. Guité's in camera testimony, period. But, Mr. Chairman, we believe that testimony should be released in compliance with the practices and precedents of the House, which is why I'm seeking a House order, and concurrent with Mr. Guité's live testimony before the committee. Why? Because the in camera testimony we are seeking to release immediately under Ms. Jennings' motion relates to only three of the several hundred files that are covered by the Auditor General's report, and the testimony was taken over two years prior to the release of the Auditor General's report. It was taken before there was knowledge of widespread criminal activity. It was taken at a time when the Prime Minister characterized the problem as having been merely administrative, whereas the Prime Minister now characterizes it as being criminal when he says money has been stolen. So, Mr. Chairman, the entire colour of this issue has radically changed since he gave that testimony in camera two years ago.

I believe we are doing ourselves, Parliament, and Canadians a great disservice if we release that testimony severed from our opportunity to question Mr. Guité on the Auditor General's report and on all of the files during his full period in that office.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe there's a reason the Liberal members are willing to run over parliamentary precedent, to create a dangerous precedent for the future, and to release essentially irrelevant testimony on three contracts that was given two years ago before the release of the Auditor General's report, and I think Mr. Mills indicated the reason in his comments yesterday.

The Chair: I'm not sure it's relevant to speculate on their motives.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I'll just close with this. I believe the reason is that members opposite have been instructed, it's quite clear--

The Chair: You're speculating, Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I think I'm free as a member of Parliament to offer some speculation on what's happening here. The Prime Minister's Office wants to drop a writ before we get a chance to ask Mr. Guité exactly what happened. It's clear from Huguette Tremblay's testimony that people are now prepared to tell the whole truth, not a diminished version of the truth. We deserve that truth. Canadians don't deserve to have incomplete testimony that provides an inaccurate version of events. That's why I've moved this motion to release the testimony concurrent with his live appearance before this committee.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kenney.

Ms. Ablonczy, followed by Mr. Gauthier, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, and Mr. Toews.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Chairman, I have some remarks that relate both to Mr. Kenney and--

The Chair: This is on the amendment at this point in time. The amendment basically says do not release the information immediately, but concurrent with Mr. Guité's appearance before the committee.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I would say this, Mr. Chairman. The concern I have about releasing this testimony, before Mr. Guité has a chance to clarify his remarks of two years ago in the current context, is that his testimony can be used for partisan purposes—as I believe we saw yesterday with Mr. Mills' remarks—in a way that does not serve Canadians well with the entire picture of what went on as set before this committee by the Auditor General in her 2004 report.

Remember that this testimony was on a very narrow series of events to do with only three sponsorship contracts. Mr. Chairman, as you well know and as committee members know, we are studying very broad abuse of a sponsorship program as outlined by the Auditor General. To tell Canadians that somehow two-year-old testimony given in a narrow context in a different situation is somehow applicable to our study, without being able to examine the witness who gave that testimony in the present context, would be misleading.

I hope I can be certain, Mr. Chairman, that the Liberal members opposite would not want, in any way, shape, or form, to do anything that might mislead the Canadian public about this extremely grave and important matter.

I support Mr. Kenney's motion. I believe it's in the best interest of Canadians that we proceed in the way Mr. Kenney has proposed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Ablonczy.

Mr. Gauthier, to the amendment only, which is concurrent with Mr. Guité appearing at the committee but not now.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I'm going to speak on this amendment to explain why I think it is a lesser evil. This amendment must be supported for the simple reason that the motion, in its present form, has some absolutely incredible flaws. I think it is unacceptable to make the transcript public immediately and to schedule Mr. Guité's appearance so late, because, according to the pundits, there is a good likelihood of an election being called between these two events.

In this respect, some connection must be made between the two events, and the amendment has some merit, because the in camera committee proceedings record of Mr. Guité's appearance is so partial and incomplete, Mr. Chairman. It does not deal with all of the issues your committee has been studying since the beginning of its work. Consequently, the release of these proceedings must be done at the same time as we hear from Mr. Guité, and that should happen as quickly as possible.

The important thing to understand is that not only is the record of Mr. Guité's appearance two years old, not only was it given before we knew about all the improper things that were going on, as your committee has heard in the last few weeks, but in addition, Chuck Guité's comments absolutely contradict the comments made by the Prime Minister of Canada. He has said publicly that some absolutely unacceptable things went on under the Sponsorship Program, and particularly, that there was a political involvement.

How could we support an interim report based on key testimony that was heard two years ago, during which the questioning focused on only one part of the sponsorship scandal, and, based on the information made public by Mr. Mills, directly contradicts what the Prime Minister has said? How could we ever accept that this transcript be made public without a requirement to hear the testimony of this key individual?

The only thing that would justify the release of an imperfect record, which has been contradicted by the Prime Minister and deals with only some of the facts, in order to draft an interim report without hearing from the key individual, would be that we want to draw conclusions that have absolutely no basis in truth. However, this committee's objective is to find out the truth.

Mr. Chairman, it is therefore imperative that the in camera testimony be released as soon as possible, but that the same day, or the next day, we hear from Chuck Guité, and have him here to answer our questions.

So, Mr. Chairman, I will come back to the main motion, but on the amendment—

¿ (0930)

[English]

The Chair: Carry on, Monsieur Gauthier, but we're going to wrap up.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Is there a time limit?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, you've got the time, but we're moving forward too.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: I have no time limit, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to use whatever time is required.

[English]

The Chair: There is no time limit, Mr. Gauthier, but at the same time, we want to move forward.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: All right.

[English]

Okay, I haven't any problem with that, Mr. Chair. I want to respect the rules. Excuse me, I'm sorry.

[Translation]

So I will begin again, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that the members opposite cannot reject the amendment, because if we were to accept the motion as it is worded, that would allow the committee to present an interim report based on information we know to be very fragmentary from a key witness, and information that runs counter to comments made by the Prime Minister, who acknowledged there was a political responsibility here. Consequently, I will be supporting the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your patience.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Gauthier.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, followed by Mr. Toews.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I want to support the amendment because I believe it is in the best interests of this committee's work to get to the truth on this sponsorship file, what we would call, and I hope others would agree, a landmark scandal for this country. I support the amendment because I believe it is the only way we can be consistent with and in keeping with the traditions of this House with respect to in camera testimony.

I believe the amendment respects the advice we received from the Clerk of the House. I think it is imperative for all of us to consider that advice. We have well-established, long-standing traditions in this House for good reasons. We have provisions on in camera hearings in order to respect people's wishes and to ensure that those who have important information to tell Parliament, but feel they can only do so on an in camera basis, are never inhibited from doing so. If we rush to challenge precedent, if we rush to deny this long-standing tradition, we open the door and set a new precedent, whereby individuals will think twice about ever coming to Parliament with information they believe is fundamental to democracy and to the health and well-being of this place.

It is hard to understand why the members on the government side are so determined to have two-year-old testimony from Chuck Guité released to the public immediately, well in advance of the personal appearance of Mr. Guité. It does not make sense, unless one puts it in a political context, in terms of the electoral agenda of the government of the day. That's not being political; that is the only way one can make sense of this move on the part of Liberal members at this committee. Otherwise, there is no way in the world these members across the way wouldn't want to see this testimony put on the table at the same time as Mr. Guité is in the room, able to put it into context and able to rationalize and to deal with the testimony we have heard already from credible witnesses about the regular contact between Mr. Guité and Mr. Gagliano.

Mr. Chairperson, we are in a very unusual situation. We are in a pre-election period, and this committee is obviously getting caught up in part of that whole process, but we must do everything we can as a committee to fight against that push. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that we are put in this particularly difficult position because the government of the day has failed to move on its independent judicial inquiry.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have two more points, Mr. Chairperson.

I think this amendment is important and we must support it, because Parliament's credibility with Canadians is riding on the work of this committee. There is a bigger issue at stake than just re-establishing the devastated Liberal Party reputation, and we have to stop ourselves from following them into this morass. We have to be clear, as far as possible, that we stick to non-partisan, non-political approaches on this issue. I know we slip; I do myself. We have cameras on us all the time; we play to the cameras. I don't mind being checked on that. But that's a little different from this committee being hijacked by one party, by the government of the day, for its political purposes. That we must resist, and we must maintain the traditions of the House.

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

Mr. Toews, and then I will cut off the speakers' list and call the vote on the amendment.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I noted yesterday that the Prime Minister, the so-called advocate of restoring democracy to the House, jumped into the discussion that is occurring here at the public accounts committee. He basically accused the opposition of turning the probe into a farce, suggesting that the opposition is afraid of getting at the truth.

Nothing I've heard in the testimony to date has indicated any implication of the Conservative Party in any of the wrongdoing that has been so clearly attributed to the Liberals. So let's try to get this whole issue out of the way. This has nothing to do with hiding the Conservative past and everything to do with the reputation of the Liberal Party.

The so-called champion of remedying the democratic deficit, the man who has time and again indicated that committees are masters of their own procedure, has sent a direct signal to the Liberals on this committee that they are to bring down the iron wall, to stop any information that could be relevant to this inquiry from flowing. This Prime Minister, in order to do that, has used strong-arm tactics. He has loaded the committee with privy councillors. This is a remarkable thing, Mr. Chair, to load a committee with privy councillors; to have, while the investigation is going on by the committee, privy councillors sitting on the same investigation.

But it's not only that he is putting the privy councillors there. He has basically indicated that the chairman is not conducting his job. He's not only sending a direct message to the Liberals that they must vote in a certain way; he has gone to great lengths to intimidate the chair of this committee. This is again the person who talks about the committee being the master of its own procedure; yet he states all kinds of things about our chair here.

He has indicated that he wants to get to the bottom. How do you get to the bottom of this matter? The suggestion is that we pull into evidence testimony that is over two years old, was given in a different context, and fundamentally violates the rules of natural justice that this committee must protect.

The accusations made in the testimony were made for specific purposes. But this committee should remember those accusations and statements were made in private. It's for good reason that the courts—not only our law courts, but Parliament as a court—have shied away from the idea that testimony should be provided in private. There's been a huge fight in our constitutional history, not just in Canada but in Great Britain, that accusations not be heard in private because of the nature of that kind of testimony. The Court of Star Chamber was abolished for essentially that reason.

Now the Liberal members are saying, let's revive the practice for our own partisan purposes. Rather than having the witness come forward to provide his testimony in an open forum and being able to cross-examine the witness concurrently on his prior testimony, the Liberals say, “No, we're not going to allow that.”

¿ (0940)

What they're going to do—because, as Mr. Mills said yesterday, they have the numbers, so we know what they're going to do—is defeat this amendment. And they're going to adopt Ms. Jennings' motion, not because of the merits of the motion but because they have the numbers and they have their marching orders from the Prime Minister's Office.

We've seen evidence here of the Prime Minister's Office attending and giving instructions to the Liberal members. This is being coordinated, Mr. Chair, by the Prime Minister, the man who is so publicly stating that he is concerned about the democratic deficit; yet all of his tactics indicate that there he is, the godfather pulling the strings of the puppets here on the committee. We have seen that evidenced this very morning.

¿ (0945)

Yesterday, we had Mr. Mills admitting a prima facie breach of the House rules, that he was in fact in contempt. He admitted it. In fact, his counsel, Mr. Jordan, basically said the jig was up when Mr. Mills made his confession. The members of the committee—

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Is this relevant?

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes, it is.

The members of the committee realized that Mr. Mills in fact had breached privilege, that there was a prima facie case. But they went away overnight, and something happened miraculously overnight. What happened overnight? They got a little talking to by the PMO, saying: “You know, we can't have that kind of thing happen. We can't have one of our own members admitting the truth. We can't have even his counsel, Mr. Jordan, who admitted that the jig was up, admitting the truth.”

The next day they come back and say, as though the world had somehow changed overnight, that the facts have changed, that Canadians are somehow going to be deceived by this little bit of shenanigan.

Canadians aren't going to be deceived by this kind of nonsense. They have seen the Liberals flip just overnight, the same way they're going to flip on their assurances that, “Mr. Guité will appear. He will appear, we'll have the testimony, and we know it's not quite relevant, but you know, Mr. Toews, you'll get your chance to ask those questions a few weeks down the road.”

And what if an election should intervene in between? Well, of course, the members here on the committee, the Liberal members, know nothing about an election coming. They're just carrying out their own independent judgment, snapped into line from time to time by the PMO when the judgment becomes a little too independent and a little too truthful.

I would say that if these Liberals are actually sincere about getting to the truth, about getting to the bottom of the scandal, they will see no harm or damage done in having the amendment accepted so that the testimony is released concurrently with the testimony.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, if they don't accept the amendment, everything I've been saying about them misleading the Canadian public is absolutely true. My prediction will be that the testimony will be provided here in transcript form, but Mr. Guité will never come here to testify. That's the Liberal scam. They can say what they want now, but the truth will out when Mr. Guité fails to appear, and they will try to base a flimsy, irrelevant report on testimony that has absolutely nothing to do with the inquiry we are conducting now.

So I ask the Liberal members, what's more important, the oath you took when you became members of Parliament or a simple political scam orchestrated by the PMO to get you past this particular scandal? That's the question Liberal members have to ask themselves, because that's what Canadians are asking themselves today. What are the Liberals going to do? Are they going to accept a perfectly reasonable amendment that ensures that the transcript is brought forward and that there is an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in a manner that is consistent with the principles of natural justice, in a manner that's consistent with our parliamentary democracy, or are they going to throw it all overboard in order to protect their political skins? Canadians are asking that question.

So it's not just what this committee does here now. I believe Canadians know what's going on. In fact, they want to see the Liberals confirm publicly here today that they are ready to betray the principles of parliamentary democracy by defeating this motion--not because they have any meritorious arguments to pass against the motion, but because, as Mr. Mills said yesterday, “We have the numbers.” And they have the numbers. That's what this is all about. When it comes down to Liberal politics, it's always about numbers, whether it's $100 million to friendly Liberal advertising firms or whether it's numbers on a committee like this. That's what Liberal politics are all about. Canadians want to see these Liberals in fact do what I believe they will do in a few minutes because they have the numbers. They will defeat this motion, not on its merits, but because they're carrying out the wishes of the PMO to get past this scandal and away from the truth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews.

I said that was the end of the list. I will now call the question on Mr. Kenney's amendment, that the word “immediately” be struck and after the word “public” the following words be added: “on the day Mr. Guité appears before the committee”.

Am I correct, Mr. Kenney?

Mr. Jason Kenney: That's correct.

The Chair: Okay, that is the amendment. The question is on the amendment. Do you want a recorded vote?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 7)

The Chair: It is defeated. The amendment did not carry.

We are now dealing with the main motion as it is presented, with no amendments. I understand the speakers' list is Mrs. Ablonczy, Mr. Gauthier, and Mr. Toews.

Mrs. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to the main motion, that the in camera evidence be released--

The Chair: Mrs. Ablonczy, sorry to interrupt, but I have to go to the House at 10 o'clock to table a report. At that time a member would like a photograph taken, so as the chair changes, there will be a 30-second suspension of the meeting in order for a photograph to be taken. Then of course it will resume under the new chair while I'm out of the chair.

There is a motion, which is actually the first motion to be dealt with by Madam Jennings, regarding the order of interventions. I would like that to be dealt with when I'm in the chair. Therefore, if I can ask the indulgence of the mover, if it comes up while I'm out of the chair, that it be the first order of business when I come back....

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I'm sorry, I missed what you said.

The Chair: I said there is your motion dealing with the order of interventions. I have something I want to say on that; therefore, I'm only saying that if I'm out of the chair and it comes up, that would be the first order of business when I come back.

Madam Ablonczy, my apologies.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you again, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to the main motion, the motion is that Mr. Guité's in camera testimony of two years ago on a different matter be released substantially prior to him appearing before this committee on April 22 and 23. I have a few points that I think are relevant and I would ask the committee to consider them.

First of all, the motion refers to Mr. Guité's decision to waive the confidentiality of the in camera hearings. Mr. Chairman, this was not a decision. I believe this is incorrect wording. What Mr. Guité did was negotiate with this committee. He basically said “If you do this, I'll allow that”. It wasn't a decision to make this public. It was a contingent decision; it was a conditional decision. It was not a decision at all. It was simply a proposal, a negotiating position by Mr. Guité.

The wording of this motion, Mr. Chairman, is inaccurate and, I would suggest, misleading as well. Mr. Guité made no such decision. He made a negotiating proposal.

The Liberal speakers yesterday talked about committees being the master of their own procedure, and this is often referred to in the House. Mr. Chairman, that does not mean a committee has unlimited discretion to do whatever it wants. A committee, for example, cannot overturn a court decision. A committee, for example, cannot veto a Privy Council appointment; it can only review it. There are many things a committee cannot do.

In this particular instance, in camera evidence was taken by an order not of the committee but an order of the House. Are the Liberals actually telling us, Mr. Chairman, that this committee can trump the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada because it decides it wants to? Here we have evidence taken in camera under a House order and yet somehow these nine Liberals over here are trying to tell the Parliament of Canada that it can simply reverse, overturn, vary, or ignore an order of the House because it decides it wants to. That is not what is meant, Mr. Chairman, by a committee being the master of its own procedure. It is the master of its own procedure; it is not the master of the procedure of other democratic bodies. This whole motion is undemocratic.

Thirdly, Mr. Chairman, this is a committee that has been mandated by the House of Commons to examine a series of events involving huge sums of Canadians' money. Those events included, according to the Auditor General, the fact that every rule in the book was broken. Mr. Chairman, we are investigating the breaking of rules. Why would a parliamentary committee, anxious to get to the bottom of it to examine the breaking of rules somewhere within the operations of government, be so careless itself about the rules?

We have a ruling by the Clerk of the House of Commons. It says the committee ought not to release, or even try to release, in camera testimony without reference to the House under which that testimony was taken to begin with.

¿ (0955)

That's a ruling. Nine Liberal members here, who are the majority on this committee and have the whole say—we can talk, but they have the power—are investigating rule-breaking, but they are rule-breaking. What kind of example does that give to the rule-breakers we're trying to discover and correct? How can parliamentarians possibly have any credibility in saying to civil servants, the bureaucracy, and people in elected office that they have to follow the rules in a democracy, that they're there to protect the openness and transparency of the operation of our country, when they themselves are careless of the rules?

This is a serious matter. This is not just some small electoral advantage. As my colleague, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, said, this is a very serious matter for Canadian democracy.

I've already made the point that this testimony that would be brought forward weeks before we hear from the witness, if ever, does not refer to our study. It was given in a different and much narrower context, on a different and limited matter. It would be irresponsible of us to put that evidence out on the table and have it talked about publicly, as my good friend, Mr. Mills, did yesterday, so that Canadians are led to draw conclusions from it, when it's not properly part of our deliberations.

We all know that even if Mr. Guité somehow appears on the 22nd and 23rd.... Do you know what we're all going to be doing on the 22nd and 23rd, Mr. Chairman?

À (1000)

The Chair: I don't know.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Toews and I have a very strong suspicion that we're going to be campaigning in our ridings and Parliament will be dissolved. There won't be a committee for Mr. Guité to appear before on the 22nd and 23rd of April because we'll all be seeking re-election.

In the meantime, this limited in camera testimony, which was never meant to refer to our study today, will be used to somehow tell Canadians we have a confession from Mr. Guité--case closed. Isn't that what Mr. Mills was saying yesterday? He has confessed, so why are we wasting our time? All we have to do is put that little statement out—of course, Mr. Mills has already been very eager to do that—and we can quit wasting our time.

Does anyone in this country really believe that one mid-level civil servant could, all by himself, over a period of years, rip off the Canadian public to the tune of millions and millions of dollars without being detected? Yet that's the story, I guarantee you, Mr. Chairman, that these Liberals are going to try to put out so they can whitewash this matter and go to the electorate and say, guess what, we got to the bottom of this.

Improper use of this in camera testimony, which is itself going to be improperly made public by this committee, breaking the rules by the Liberal majority of this committee, is not fair to Canadians.

The Liberals are gambling that Canadians aren't really paying attention, that they're busy working, taking their kids to school, putting roofs over their heads and food on their tables, that they're not really listening to these kinds of complicated arguments. The Liberals are going to go to the electorate with this simplistic report based on limited evidence. They're gambling that Canadians won't figure out what's going on, that this really isn't an answer to the problems that were uncovered by the Auditor General.

The Chair: I'm going to interrupt you there, Ms. Ablonczy. The bells have stopped ringing. The House is in session. I'm going to leave the chair and deliver the third report of this committee dealing with the Auditor General's peer review.

I'm going to suspend the meeting while the chairs are being moved, so a member can get a photograph taken. Somebody wants a photograph taken. If that person is going to take a photograph, they'll have to be quick.

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)): Ms. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I must say, the break in my oratory was certainly worth it to have a change of class in the chair. No offence to our regular chairman, I'm sure.

When we had the slight interruption, I was making the point that there's a perception that somehow what happens in this committee....

A lot of people have spoken on this, and I have something to say. I hope you'll want to listen, Mr. Thibault. I somehow get the impression that you don't care what I'm going to say, and if that is the case, perhaps you should be in another committee, because we have serious issues here to discuss and we have serious considerations I'm putting before you.

Madam Chair, I'm very sorry.

Canadians may not have the time we do to go through the ins and outs of all this, but I can tell you that a lot of Canadians watch the proceedings of this committee. A lot of them know more about what's going on than the Liberals believe. I'm out and about, and I know Canadians are watching very carefully. I'll tell you something, Madam Chair. Canadians are just asking one question: Can we trust that this matter will actually be investigated and corrected honestly and openly? That's what they're asking. When their money goes missing, they care about that; they care an awful lot about that. They work hard for it. A lot of Canadians are barely getting by, and hundreds of millions of dollars come out of their pocket. We don't manufacture it here. In spite of the fact that this committee is master of its own procedure, it doesn't manufacture money. And Canadians know from the Auditor General that something is very wrong in the administration of the country of Canada. Their money has been stolen, their reputation has been besmirched, but more than that, Canadians' trust has been severely stretched.

So here we are, the repository of the public trust, because the judicial inquiry is nowhere. It won't even start hearing witnesses for months. The lawyer who's been hired to recover the money can't do anything until we find out who took it and where it went. So we're it for Canadians, Madam Chair. The only hope Canadians have right now of finding out what went so wrong that millions of their dollars were improperly used and abused resides with us, this group here in this room.

We all know an election is coming. We all know this is a huge election issue, but surely we are bigger, have more public interest. Surely our democratic blood is redder than just to use and abuse this whole exercise for narrow partisan purposes. Surely the Liberals, who have the real power in this committee, who have more votes than all the rest of the parties combined, will not want to bring forward evidence that is not properly before this committee and should not be brought before this committee without reference to the House.

À (1005)

Surely there's something more important here than just short-term political gain. There has to be some principle in our hearts that guides us and overrules even our narrow, shallow self-interest. So this is a huge matter.

It's one thing, Madam Chairman, for the Liberals on this committee to block this committee from looking at Gagliano's papers. That's bad enough. Gagliano was the minister in charge when most of this took place, yet the Liberals won't let us look at his memos and appointment notes, the things that might actually help us get to the bottom of it. They won't let us look at that. That's bad enough. That's a huge broken promise in itself. But now they want to bring forward evidence that was given behind closed doors on a different matter in a different context and use it and twist it to somehow say to Canadians that we've solved the mystery. It's one thing to block evidence, but it's another thing to twist evidence for short-term political gain.

I appeal to the Liberals on this committee, many of whom I know and respect very much. I know they have received their marching orders from the PMO. I've seen them get their memos and whispers in their ears. But surely there is some principle that will guide us and guard us from having to abuse the rules, mislead Canadians, and actually use testimony in a way that it cannot be clarified by the person who gave it. That just can't be.

We all want to hear from Mr. Guité. I don't know why we're giving him three more weeks, quite frankly. He's one of the key players and always has been. Suddenly, though, his two-year-old testimony that was given in another context is good enough. I don't understand that, and I bet Canadians don't understand that either. Madam Chair, we have to be very clear here. Mr. Guité made no decision to make that testimony public. He only used it as a bargaining chip to delay his appearance till after the expected election call.

We do not have the unlimited right to overrule and to vary House orders just because we decide we want to do that. We should not be breaking rules and we should not even be careless of the rules when we're investigating rule breaking. We should not use an improper procedure to get very iffy evidence out in public, rather than hearing from the person first-hand. More than that, we have a duty to Canadians.

The Prime Minister struck a tremendous chord during his leadership campaign when he travelled from one end of the country to the other and talked about the democratic deficit. He struck a chord because it worries Canadians deeply that their voice through their elected representatives, in an open and honest manner, is being stifled more and more. So the Prime Minister, before he became Prime Minister, talked a good game about the democratic deficit. This is so troubling and so disappointing. What do we see when the Prime Minister becomes the Prime Minister? A cynical manipulation of a deeply important matter to Canadians for partisan purposes.

I appeal to the Liberal members of the committee, the majority of the committee, the power of the committee, not to let that happen. Stand up for democracy, for the rules, for openness, and for being completely and utterly honest with Canadians. Stand up and do the right thing.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Ablonczy.

Mr. Gauthier.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In an ideal world, we should all think that Ms. Jennings' motion is extremely important and should be supported, provided there are some discussions or accommodations made in the light of our discussion.

The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that we must be in favour of the publication of the in camera testimony of Chuck Guité given two years ago on one part of the sponsorship scandal, because it is part—and I emphasize part—of the information we need if our objective is really to shed light on this whole matter. However, we must consider this part of the information in the context of the rest of the information that Chuck Guité could give us, because this first part of the evidence will give us some indications about the credibility of some of the comments Chuck Guité made here. This would also enable us to see how his testimony may have changed since his comments two years ago, as has the testimony of a number of individuals in this matter.

In the space of four weeks, the Prime Minister changed his position considerably. We must understand that over two years, where a subject as vast and intensively covered by the media is involved, Mr. Guité could well make some changes to his testimony. So we should be in favour of publishing this part of the testimony, provided we have some assurances that we will be able to hear the rest of his testimony.

The sticking point, Mr. Chairman, is that the motion mentions a very late date. That means that if we were to vote for the motion, we would have only a small part of the information from Chuck Guité, the key witness in this matter, but we would not have all the rest of the information on the rest of this matter, which we could obtain by questioning this witness. This would be like having a trial in a court of law where only part of the information the key witness gave to the police at the time of his or her arrest were made public, and a preliminary decision was to be made before hearing all of the testimony. That makes no sense for Parliament nor for a court of law.

With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois has put forward two motions. Yes, Chuck Guité's testimony must be made public, there is no doubt about that. We want everything to be known. However, we would like the publication and the new testimony to coincide as much as possible—the same day or in the next few days following the publication of the in camera testimony—because the two testimonies could have an extremely important impact on each other and on the committee's findings.

I thought it was impossible that the government party, that the government members, in light of what the Prime Minister said, would not want to have the whole truth known. Consequently, we thought that Ms. Jennings would jump at the chance she had this morning to correct her motion, to retain the spirit thereof, but to correct it in keeping with getting out the truth by having these two events happen at about the same time. However, Mr. Chairman, the government side is unanimous in rejecting the motion and the opposition side is unanimous in requesting that these two parts of the truth be made public at the same time.

So that is where I start having problems with Ms. Jennings' motion. All the more so since Mr. Mills violated the in camera confidentiality rule yesterday. This is a very serious contempt matter, Mr. Chairman. Parliamentary law is very clear: all parliamentarians, beyond any partisan considerations, must help respect to the rules of the House of Commons, unless it has been decided to use the rules of the House and committees for partisan purposes. And that is what happened, Mr. Chairman. Contrary to our expectations, the government majority has chosen to exonerate Mr. Mills. There's been no breach of the Standing Orders. I consider this a precedent.

À (1015)

This is a flagrant breach of the Standing Orders. So let us try to understand together why this happened. Why did Mr. Mills leak, just by chance, all the little bits of Mr. Guité's comments to the effect that Mr. Gagliano never gave Mr. Guité any specific instructions about the awarding of sponsorships? It is curious to note that the little bit of Charles Guité's testimony that was leaked was the only one that exonerated the government and denied any political involvement.

There is one thing I would like to say to you, the members opposite: not only was there political involvement, this has been confirmed by your boss, the Prime Minister, before the entire population. He knows, he knew and he confirmed it and that is how his testimony has evolved; this matter has been very elastic. The Prime Minister has clearly admitted that there was a political decision behind this.

And then, quite by chance, Mr. Mills leaks this small part of Mr. Guité's testimony in which he takes all the blame. Mr. Guité is an extraordinary man who decided to destroy his career to spend $250 million for the benefit of the Liberal Party of Canada. He was so concerned about the financial situation of the Liberal Party that he decided to take the matter in his own hands just before he retired and went off to ride horses in Arizona. Protecting Mr. Mills as they have this morning is one violation of the Standing Orders by the members opposite; another is their disclosure of the government's strategy.

We are going to get to the bottom of things: we do not have to please Chuck Guité by setting such a late date. Chuck Guité is guilty of poor administration, Mr. Chairman, and the Liberals have no business pleasing him. The committee must tell Chuck Guité that it wants him here and that he must come and testify. That is how we should be acting. Why are the Liberals all of a sudden going to try to please Chuck Guité? Is it because he has assumed full responsibility for the Sponsorship Program?

I bet that Chuck Guité, given the way things are unfolding—and he is following this very closely—will be much less boastful and will not tell us that this was all his idea. We have news for him: if he were to say that, Madam Chair, we know where he would end up. So I think Chuck Guité's story, if he were to appear before the committee, could change significantly.

I think that by giving him an opportunity to come and finish his testimony we are allowing Mr. Guité to qualify it. And the Liberals do not want that. Of course, they claim the opposite, to please the public and the journalists who are listening to these proceedings. They say they have spoken to him about this. Apparently Mr. Guité would like to appear on April 22 and 23, Madam Chair. Is he to be allowed to impose his conditions on the committee? Never! Never, as far as we are concerned.

Would Mr. Guité appear before us, quite by accident, the day after or a few days after an election is called? How very fortunate! This Mr. Guité loves the Liberal Party so much, he loves the Liberal government so much that he sacrificed his career to fill up the party's coffers. Now, he is ready to sacrifice his vacation in Arizona at the very time it will no longer be possible for him to appear, which would suit the Liberal Party very well. This is just so blatant, Mr. Chairman.

This unfortunate leak by Mr. Mills has revealed the Liberals' strategy. The strategy is just so obvious, but nevertheless they are trying to defend it. In so doing, the government side is behaving in a partisan manner on this committee, and that is unacceptable. How can we explain such behaviour except if we say that the government is changing this committee into a partisan activity by leaking some of the information, which, in addition to being useful to it, will be part of the interim report and will be used by Paul Martin and his team in their own defence during the election campaign?

À (1020)

I can tell you that they will be trotting this out every chance they get. The Liberals have decided to turn this committee into a partisan forum and a sham of democracy. The fact is, democracy is no longer at issue here: they all vote together and whenever one of them leaves to go to the washroom, he or she is replaced by someone else to ensure that they do not lose a vote. We are not crazy. Everyone here, including our party, has seen what is going on here. The result of the vote was nine to six, and I predict the results of all the votes will be nine to six until the end of our work, because this is an overall strategy at work.

What has become, Mr. Chairman, of this great concern for transparency expressed by Paul Martin, the Prime Minister of Canada? He's the man who said that there were two procedures that would make it possible for Canadians to get to the bottom of this matter: the parliamentary committee and the commission of inquiry.

Canadians have heard, Mr. Chairman, that the commission of inquiry, for its part, would begin its work after the upcoming election. But there is still the committee! That is the argument the Prime Minister uses in his own defence. But now the committee has become a partisan committee whose only objective is to give the Liberals a strategy that will allow them not to look ridiculous in the interim report. This interim report will be the defence used by the Liberals during the upcoming election campaign.

I will conclude with that, Madam Chair. We cannot support this motion, because the date of Chuck Guité's appearance is much too late. This is a strategy on the part of the government and we cannot take part in a strategic political operation, the sole objective of which is not to use the Standing Orders of the House and its procedures to shed light on all these events.

Finally, I would say that if, on this first day of April, the Liberals support Ms. Jennings' motion, we will understand that the establishment of this committee by Paul Martin, and his claim that it was a precious tool designed to get at the truth, was one of the biggest April Fool's day jokes ever played on Quebeckers and Canadians.

Thank you.

À (1025)

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney): Thank you, Mr. Gauthier.

Mr. Toews.

[English]

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I too want to express my concern about this particular motion. Canadians want assurances that we're getting to the truth in respect of this scandal. What Canadians are asking is, who stole the $100 million they worked hard for and sent to the Parliament of Canada to be used for appropriate purposes—purposes such as education, health care, fixing a decayed infrastructure?

Throughout my riding I now have floods occurring. People in my riding want to know whether the federal government is going to be there with help to repair the roads, to ensure that the effects of this flooding are addressed by the federal government. Will the federal government be there to help, or will they say again, “I'm sorry, we don't have the money”? Canadians are making the connection that the lack of money is as a direct result of the money missing because of the sponsorship scandal and other boondoggles that this government has been responsible for.

I want to make it clear again, as one of my colleagues did earlier, that the Conservatives—the official opposition—want to see the release of this transcript. We want to be able to investigate this matter. The transcript in its proper context is a tool that will help in that investigation. We want to ensure, though, that when the transcript is provided, the witness who gave those transcripts of evidence is also available to be here to testify about the context.

I've never read the transcripts, but I understand they relate to three files—three files related to Liberal-friendly advertising firms who got generous commissions for doing nothing. That's my understanding. It's what most Canadians believe as well: that Liberal-friendly advertising firms got $100 million.

It's one of the reasons why the highway between Winnipeg and the international border, Highway 59, is not four-lane and why it's one of the most dangerous highways in Canada. It's because Liberals have taken their tax dollars—tax dollars that should have gone for infrastructure, that should have gone for education, that should have gone for health. That money has disappeared.

We want to find out where the money has gone. Mr. Guité is a key witness in letting us know where in fact the money went. We want not simply the appearance of an investigation, but a true investigation. That means that when Mr. Guité comes here, he should talk not just about the three relatively small files, but about all of his involvement. As the evidence to date has indicated, he was in charge of that $250 million program, a program the Liberals said was put into place to stave off the threat of separatism.

À (1030)

We know that to be false now, based on the evidence we have heard. We know it to be false because we heard in testimony that on November 17, 1994, a full year before the referendum, Mr. Guité collapsed the watchdog functions into one function such that those who procured the contract also made the determination as to whether value was received.

We want not simply to hear about the three contracts and the abuse that may have gone on there; we want to find out the real reason why the watchdog function over Canadian taxpayers' dollars disappeared and why it went in circuitous fashion.... In fact, the Auditor General said there was a deliberate attempt to conceal the origin of money.

We heard in testimony that money went from Public Works to one of the Liberal-friendly ad firms, who skimmed off a commission for no value, then passed the money on to another crown corporation. The crown corporation took the money and recycled it back to the Liberal-friendly ad firm. What did the Liberal-friendly ad firm do? Well, after scooping off their commission again, they sent it on to a promotion agency.

When the witnesses were asked, “What was the function of the ad agency in that context?”, one of the witnesses from the Auditor General's department said in response to the chair's question: “What was the value added? As far as the Auditor General's office could determine, they put the cheque into an envelope and put a stamp on it.” That was the value added.

So we're not looking at simply three contracts Mr. Guité may have testified about two years ago. We are looking at an entire plan: the deliberate hiding of the origin of money and the scooping off of commissions by Liberal-friendly firms for no value.

Liberals say we're going to come up with a report showing there was money and value received. A few days before the election they're going to cook up some kind of report and float it out to the media. We all know that. Mr. Mills has indicated as much. They're going to cook up a little report and send it out in time for the election, but not in time for this committee to be able to examine the report.

Of course, what Mr. Mills should be doing is sending his information to the Auditor General for her examination. When the Auditor General was asked about the $100 million and the chances of this committee actually recovering the $100 million, the Auditor General's reply in effect was: “There was simply no paper trail. We couldn't follow the money.”

It's interesting that the Auditor General, with all of her powers to do this, couldn't find the money. But Mr. Mills, a few days before an election, is going to come up with a report. He's going to have found this money. He's going to have traced this money. He is going to have shown that there's value received.

Will the report in fact come to this committee in time for the committee to examine it, or the Auditor General? Of course not. It will never come here. Why? Because we see a pattern developing, the same pattern we're seeing with Chuck Guité's testimony. We're going to call Chuck Guité's testimony in here a few days before an election, before we have an opportunity to examine him. This is going to be floated as part of the report.

À (1035)

So we'll have Mr. Mills' report, Mr. Mills who miraculously found $100 million the Auditor General couldn't find, the Auditor General who said the paper has all disappeared. Mr. Mills must have all this paper in his office.

The Chair: Mr. Lastewka, please.

Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): I have a point of order, and also a point on the relevance to the motion.

I would hope--and I've been waiting very patiently--that the speakers would speak directly to the motion. With all the political fanfare that seems to be coming out in all the delay, I would request that the speakers keep their remarks relevant to the motion.

The Chair: Mr. Toews, the relevance of your comments has been called into question. Do you believe they're relevant?

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes, and I'll tell you why they're relevant.

The Chair: Before you start, Mr. Toews, I think I should advise the committee that I have been advised that a point of order has been raised in the House on this particular issue. Presentations have been made on both sides of the House, one by the House leader of the Conservative Party and responded to by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, asking that this decision we're currently debating be made in the House, not in this committee.

I understand that part of the presentation was to ask that this committee refrain from releasing the documents until the Speaker has ruled. The Speaker has taken the point of order under advisement and has not issued a decision. Therefore, while the debate on this motion will continue, the vote on whether or not to release this information will be deferred until the Speaker has ruled as to whether it's within the purview of this committee to make the decision or whether the decision should be made in the House.

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you very much.

I understand, then, that the vote on this matter will be deferred while the Speaker.... Well, I hear the Liberal members saying no, it won't. The Liberal members basically--

The Chair: We have a point of order. Monsieur Desrochers, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): I would like to understand exactly what you said and find out whether the Speaker's ruling will be made today. The House is adjourning tomorrow. I do not know whether we are going to continue to debate Ms. Jennings' motion, but the fact remains that if the ruling goes the other way, what is the point in continuing this discussion? What you have just told us is quite unusual.

[English]

The Chair: Well, the motion is before the committee. Because the Speaker has reserved a decision as to whether the decision belongs to this committee or belongs to the House, the committee cannot make that decision until the House has ruled that it's within the proper purview of this committee to make that decision. The Speaker has reserved his decision. I do not know when the Speaker will make his decision, but it's not appropriate for this committee....

As has been pointed out on numerous occasions this morning, we are not above the House. We are a creature of the House; we are a creation of the House. The House gives us its direction when it so sees fit, and it has said that we are masters of our own destiny. We know that is the rule within the powers granted to us by the House. The Speaker has reserved a decision, so it is appropriate that this committee, a creature of the House, listen to what the House has to say as to whether or not we have the power to make this decision before we do so. That is all.

As I say, the debate may continue because the motion is before us. I'm just saying the vote will not be put until such time as the Speaker has ruled on whether it's appropriate for us to vote and decide on this matter or not.

Mr. Lastewka.

À (1040)

Hon. Walt Lastewka: Mr. Chairman, having heard what you've expressed, I would understand, since the committee has its own responsibility--and yes, you say it's a creature of the House--that this committee could make its decision and then the House could overrule it. I would ask that the clerk and the legal counsel define that.

The Chair: I will confer and come back later, Mr. Lastewka. I need time to check out--

Hon. Walt Lastewka: I think this is a procedural item.

The Chair: I know it's a procedural item, and I can suspend the meeting now until I discuss this matter with the law clerk and others to find out where I stand. This is not something we do every day, so I will therefore suspend the meeting until I can come back on your point of order, because I have to confer.

The meeting is suspended.

À (1050)

The Chair: We're back in session.

As I said, the chair made a ruling just before we suspended that because this matter is now before the House and the Speaker has reserved his decision, there should not be a vote until such time as the Speaker has rendered his decision as to whether or not we can, or should or should not, make this decision.

Madam Jennings, I believe you would like to have the floor.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, I appeal your ruling. Call the vote.

The Chair: I'm going to ask the clerk to read the rules here, to give us clarification just so that everybody knows where we stand.

The Clerk of the Committee: Just as a point of information, as we know, the chair has rendered a decision. The committee has the right to appeal that decision, given the fact that the committee is the master of its own proceedings.

The Chair: Do you have anything to add, Mr. Walsh?

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): No.

The Chair: And is that debatable?

The Clerk: No.

Mr. John Williams: It's not debatable, so I will now call the question.

Madam Jennings has appealed the ruling of the chair, saying I cannot delay the vote when debate is finished.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I have a point of clarification.

The Chair: It's not debatable at all.

Mr. Jason Kenney: It's just a clarification. I don't know if a motion can be voted on. Is this the same as a motion challenging the chair? That's what I want to know.

The Chair: The technical wording of the motion is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained? That is apparently the proper wording of the motion.

Call the roll, please.

(Motion negatived: 9 nays; 7 yeas)

The Chair: There are nine people opposed to upholding the decision of the chair and seven supporting the decision. The decision of the chair is overruled.

Debate will continue. At the end of the debate, the vote will be taken.

Mr. Lastewka, is it a point of order?

Hon. Walt Lastewka: No, it's just a point of clarification.

My understanding is that we have two speakers on the list.

The Chair: At this point in time, I have Ms. Wasylycia-Leis and Mr. Desrochers. I didn't cut it off.

Hon. Walt Lastewka: Then we will go to the vote?

The Chair: If there are no further speakers, yes.

Mr. Toews, I did actually interrupt you.

À (1055)

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: So you are actually first.

Mr. Vic Toews: I won't start all over, because I think I would insult the intelligence of many--perhaps not the Liberal members on this committee, but others. So I won't summarize, solely for the benefit of the Liberal members.

We were talking about the $100 million that Mr. Mills thinks he has found. The Auditor General, of course, has said the money's gone, the paper trail's gone, we just don't know where this money is. I have a suspicion, from some of his comments earlier, that Mr. Mills knows where the money is. He hasn't come forward to the committee yet. He hasn't gone to the Auditor General. He hasn't said anything. He has been very quiet.

It could be that he knows all about these Liberal trust funds that went to pay Liberal campaigns in 1997 and 2000. Perhaps that's where the money went and why he would have intimate knowledge about value received for taxpayers' money.

My constituents want to know if that money was well spent. They're weighing it against other issues. They're weighing it against the fact that many of them are pumping out their basements because of flooding in my riding this last week. They're wondering whether they can hang onto their farms, because they're only getting $80 a head from a government program that hasn't given them the money yet--one more program in a long list of programs that has promised them money. There was never any money for my constituents when it came to the issues they were concerned about: matters of their livelihood.

We've heard from testimony here that literally millions of dollars could be moved on the strength of a phone call by a mid-level civil servant, the same mid-level civil servant we're going to have this testimony from, not viva voce, not in person, but by transcript, given in a totally different context--none of the context that was available two years ago, but the context that is available now.

So my constituents are wondering why Mr. Mills knows where the $100 million went, and how Mr. Guité could move this money on the strength of a phone call, but when it comes to addressing the essential issues that affect their livelihood, whether it's infrastructure, their farms, or clean drinking water....

My constituents are faced with boil water orders in areas of my riding. I don't know if you know what that means--boil water orders in Canada in this day and age. My constituents have to boil their water in order to drink it because $100 million went missing to Liberal-friendly advertising firms. That's what's disgusting about this entire issue. That's what's disgusting about this Liberal attempt to avoid at any cost having Mr. Guité come here immediately. Bring the outdated transcripts here and let the committee chew on them for a while before the election is called, rather than actually hearing from Mr. Guité.

Do you know what I found objectionable about this entire motion? I've been a public servant for most of my career. I started out as a prosecutor in the attorney general's department of Manitoba. I have advised governments of all stripes in respect of my career in the attorney general's department. I have always had the belief that our government was getting good advice from its public service, that corruption is the exception, and that public servants simply want to do their jobs so that taxpayers get value for their money.

Á (1100)

What do we hear today? Not public servants trying to avoid the truth, but Liberals on this committee avoiding the truth by trying to bring forward this kind of motion, which they know will pass because, in the words of Mr. Mills, they have the numbers. So that means we won't get to the bottom of this issue. We'll see the transcript. My constituents, Mr. Chair, will still be wondering why they're drinking boiled water and why in some of my areas they don't have clean drinking water, as some of the urban people do. They'll never know where the money went because these Liberals are hiding the source of that.

Let's take the HRDC scandal. We're now hearing the Liberal spin that not that much money went missing. Just a little bit of money went missing. The Auditor General examined a number of programs amounting to $580 million, and what did she find? She found that the controls governing the disbursement of money were gone. They had disappeared under this Liberal government. The Auditor General told us that there was widespread abuse in that particular file. She didn't cover the whole gamut of programs, just those totalling $580 million, I believe it was. So it was nowhere near what HRDC in fact looked at.

Do you know what Liberals are trying to spin now, again on selected information? They're saying that maybe $6,500 were missing. I heard the President of the Treasury Board say that. He doesn't go back to the Auditor General and say, “Madam Auditor General, all your allegations about the collapse of the controls for the expenditures are wrong. My calculation shows that it's just $6,500.” Again, what we see is a very political attempt to bury scandal after scandal after scandal.

We've seen the same thing in the context of the gun registry. How many times did a minister come before the justice committee and say that everything was under control and there was no over-expenditure? Yet the numbers continued to mount. I'm sure that Mr. Mills also knows where the $2 billion went for the gun registry, money that didn't go into infrastructure, highways, health care, and education.

In conclusion, because I don't want to dominate the discussion here--

The Chair: We wouldn't want you to dominate. We want to be fair, Mr. Toews.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Vic Toews: I thank you, Mr. Chair.

In conclusion, what we're seeing with Ms. Jennings' motion is the same kind of cover-up that has occurred in HRDC with the $1 billion—now $2 billion—gun registry boondoggle. We're seeing the same kind of thing again. Now we see what the Liberals are doing, showing contempt for the House and for the Speaker: while the Speaker is considering this matter, they're determined to push ahead without regard for natural justice or due process.

This committee is examining the breaking of rules in a program where every rule was broken. We can only ask why it is that our public servants, in the context of the sponsorship program, felt they could break every rule. The answer is clear: because their Liberal political masters have shown them the way, that it's all right to break every rule.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if it's any mystery to you any more, I will not be supporting Ms. Jennings' motion.

Thank you.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Toews. You'll get an opportunity to express your sentiments when I call the vote.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, please.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I wish this was, as Mr. Gauthier said, an April Fool's joke and that the whole thing would go away. I don't see the Liberals across the way smiling too much or holding back their laughter, so I guess I can't assume this is a joke and that they'll lift this motion off the floor.

If you look at what's happening, it's not a laughing matter at all. I'm really disturbed by what has happened to the credibility of this committee, and I think to the good intentions of committee members. I really think we have been set up—set up to fail. I think we've been framed—framed to take the blame. If you listened to the Prime Minister's statements in the House yesterday, it was clear he was looking for a way to cast blame and to suggest that this committee was not taking its work seriously and not doing its job. I'm offended by that. I believe all members of this committee are hard-working and well-intentioned and want to get to the bottom of the scandal.

We are dealing with a new phenomenon. The public accounts committee has never had to do this kind of work before, and we've tried to adapt to the demands placed on us. We took quick action to get legal counsel involved; we took action to get some extra help for the clerk; we took action to get a forensic auditor—because we knew what was being expected of us was far beyond our resources and our energies.

I get very angry when I hear Paul Martin suggest that some of us are playing games. By that he's referring to the opposition. I think that's very offensive, and we have to take it head on. We're all working hard. Some of us have fewer resources than others. I'm a member of this committee along with having five other critic areas, and I have one staff person to do the research for all those areas. One of those other areas includes the budget, which is up in the House as we speak, and I'm supposed to be there speaking.

It's just ludicrous for the Prime Minister of this land to stand up in the country and scapegoat us, make us take the blame for the fact that we haven't found the guilty person or gotten to the bottom of the scandal. Yet all the while it was the Prime Minister of this land who stood up and said: we take this issue seriously; we're going to get to the bottom of it; and we're going to do it not just by referring the matter to the public accounts committee, because we know that the public accounts committee—a standing committee of Parliament—can only do so much and is not designed to be a court of law. The Prime Minister went further and said, there shall be a judicial inquiry. He announced that on February 10. Here we are on April 1—51 days later—and there's no judicial inquiry up and running.

Oh yes, we've heard it will be initiated on May 7, I believe, and Judge Gomery might start to hear witnesses in September. That's incredible. We've all heard many times over it is possible to do a judicial inquiry, if there is the political will, on a much shorter timeline. The Prime Minister had the choice of finding a judge who was available to begin work immediately and was not about to take an extended holiday.

Á (1110)

The Prime Minister could have selected someone who was able to do the job and start immediately, but he chose not to. Why the heck are we taking the blame here in this committee when the Prime Minister, your leader, refuses to get that inquiry up and running? On top of that, Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister on February 10 said there shall also be a commission to recoup lost moneys.

Mr. Vic Toews: Where is that?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Obviously that commission can't begin to recoup lost money or stolen money until the judicial inquiry has reported. That means if the timelines we're hearing about concerning this independent inquiry are true and this goes on for a year or two, Canadians are going to be out of pocket for that money that has been robbed from the public treasury.

To make matters worse, Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister announced—and he said it again yesterday and is saying it in the ads—“Don't worry, this government is going to bring in tough whistle-blower legislation.” Well, the whistle-blower legislation we have before us, Mr. Chairperson, is hardly tough, is it?

The Chair: You're not asking me, I hope?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm asking a rhetorical question.

Mr. Vic Toews: Why don't you let us know, Mr. Chair?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's hardly up to the task at hand. It's hardly conducive to encouraging public servants out there, who feel, and believe, and know about wrongdoing, to come forward. It's hardly done on a timely basis.

My goodness, the Auditor General's report was made known to the government last November 2003. The new administration was sworn in on December 12. The new Prime Minister would have been made aware of the scathing recommendations of the Auditor General and could have started to put in place the groundwork for some of these bold initiatives that he thought were so important.

Why were steps not taken then to begin to draft legislation ensuring whistle-blower protection that was based on the hard work of Parliament over the last seven years? In fact we have seen private members take the initiative 13 times in terms of introducing private members' legislation to guarantee whistle-blower protection?

How was it that we didn't, on February 10, have a draft piece of legislation then? Why do we get a weak, flawed, unsatisfactory, insignificant piece of legislation on something so significant as whistle-blower protection after all this time?

Mr. Chair, in the context of Madam Jennings' motion—which I oppose—I want to put on record my deep concerns about the way in which the Prime Minister of Canada has manipulated this committee and has hurt the good work of this committee by his unfair allegations and by treating this committee as a political football.

I know that members opposite are taking orders. I know that members of the government are compelled to be held in line, but I can't imagine they are comfortable with this situation. They are all long-standing members who value the work of Parliament, appreciate the importance of committees, and know how the integrity of public accounts is in question today.

The other thing, Mr. Chairperson, that has to be said today is that this motion before us is designed, it would appear, to finger an individual, to name someone, to find someone guilty, to create the impression that this government is close to the truth. As some of us have said before, it would appear to be designed so that “Chuckie” will take the fall, just as we saw in the RCMP scandal with pepper spray, with “Hughie will take the fall”.

I think it's absolutely a disservice to democracy and to the work of the Auditor General to go down the path of trying to short-end the process to quickly be able to finger someone, even if all the facts may not be in place, so that you can go to the polls and say “Look, we really kept our word. We got to the bottom of this despite the awful people on the public accounts committee. Despite the weaknesses of the opposition”—which is a lot of hogwash—“we were able to do this.”

Mr. Chairperson, that's an absolute disservice to our work, to Parliament, and especially to the Auditor General, who even gave direction in terms of what this committee could be doing, and who made the deliberate point and emphasized the need for Parliament not only to find out who was guilty, but to find out why it happened and how it was allowed to take place under the very nose of government.

That's our mandate. That's the importance of our work today.

The judicial inquiry will follow the money. They will collaborate with the RCMP. They will look at wrongdoing, corruption, and make charges and recommendations, but, Mr. Chairperson, that's not our mandate. Our mandate is to try to look at the whole question of responsibility, ministerial responsibility, and from there figure out how in the world this happened. It's not to lay guilt or blame, necessarily, but to say that this is wrong.

Á (1115)

It's not only happening with respect to the sponsorship scandal; it's something that seems to be infesting this government. It's happening in other places, such as Health Canada and the scandal around the Virginia Fontaine addictions centre. The list could go on.

It's that which we are obligated to get a handle on, to research, and to make recommendations so that these kinds of scandals never happen again and so that ethics are restored to government.

Mr. Chairperson, I'm very concerned about what is happening to us, to our committee. Whatever happens here is a reflection on Parliament. We have to find a way to stop falling into a morass; that is, a morass that is really determined, I think--my sense is--by the Liberals trying to save face going into an election.

Mr. Chairperson, I know we have this point of order in the House that is being considered as we speak by the Speaker of the House. At some point soon we will get a message back indicating whether or not this committee has the right to determine whether in camera testimony can be released, as per the motion before us. It would seem to me that the Speaker is in a difficult position in terms of the fact that he has so often said, and the precedent has said, that committees are masters of their own destiny. It may be that he will return to us saying that until such time as the committee sends him a concern about this, he cannot rule.

I would therefore make a constructive suggestion—I hope it will be seen as a compromise by the Liberal members across the way—that we in fact as a committee adjourn the debate on this motion and at the same time send a message to the Speaker, defer this matter to the House, and ask for the advice of the Speaker and the House in terms of our authority as a committee vis-à-vis this issue before us about releasing in camera testimony.

That kind of a motion, Mr. Chairperson, would in fact allow the mover of the motion to bring back this motion at any point, without, I believe, the requirement of a 48-hour notice.

Mr. Chairman, I would therefore move that we adjourn the debate on this motion.

Á (1120)

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

The motion to adjourn debate is not debatable. I will therefore call the question.

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 6)

The Chair: Debate continues.

Monsieur Desrochers, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Now it is my turn to speak about a matter we have been discussing for close to four hours now. We see that there are some very clear political objectives on both sides: the objectives of the opposition and those of the government. I would like to emphasize that releasing testimony before the witness appears before the committee in public is a precedent. If Mr. Guité's testimony is made public and if we have to wait until April 22 or 23 before we find out whether that part of his testimony is in keeping with the Auditor General's overall findings, there could be a serious problem.

Since the beginning of the work on this issue done by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the name Chuck Guité has come up many times. I would like to remind you that when Mr. Allan Cutler appeared before us, he mentioned that as early as November 1994, he noticed that Mr. Guité had some political influence. He even told us that at that time Mr. Guité had met with the then minister, Mr. Dingwall. Subsequently, we had Mr. Alfonso Gagliano appear before the committee. He gave his version of the events and since that time, we have been hearing a series of contradictions of his testimony. For example, Huguette Tremblay told us that Mr. Gagliano was in fact in contact with Mr. Guité almost twice a week. Ms. Tremblay also told us that the sponsorship files were highly political. We then heard Mr. Quail's testimony, who told us that as the deputy minister, he had no say about the little group run by Mr. Guité. Mr. Guité later retired, and Mr. Pierre Tremblay replaced him.

We also heard that people such as Pierre Tremblay, Jean Carle and Jean Pelletier were regularly seen in Mr. Guité's office. We see that Chuck Guité's name was mentioned many times, and the further we get in our work, the more it is clear that Mr. Guité's evidence is essential. It is not enough to make his testimony of July 2002 public. He must also appear before us and quite soon.

Madam Chair, the main purpose of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is to shed light on this matter so that the people of Canada and Quebec can understand what happened. For close to four hours now, we have witnessed various procedural quarrels related to the political objectives of the government and the opposition. It is deplorable to see them sticking to an unacceptable version of a motion because Mr. Guité's testimony must be made public. On the other hand, this testimony must be released close to the same time as Mr. Guité appears before us.

Mr. Guité's name has been mentioned many times, but we have never been able to draw a link between what Mr. Gagliano said, what Ms. Tremblay said and what Mr. Guité himself said. I was one of the members present at that famous meeting held in camera in July 2002. At the time, the only advertising agency discussed by the Auditor General was Groupaction. After some negotiations between Mr. Guité and the Public Accounts Committee, we agreed that we would hear his testimony in camera and that it would not be made public for three years. People will remember that, and I think there will be a breakthrough soon, because following the release of the Auditor General's report, there was a clear indication that the RCMP would have to investigate.

We must also say that when he appeared in 2002, Mr. Guité had the support of the Liberals, who got the motion that he would appear in camera passed by the committee. It will be remembered that it was the Liberals as well who tried to single out certain committee members when there were some leaks to the media.

Á (1125)

Today, the situation is very different. Mr. Gagliano is no longer in the good graces of upper-echelon Liberals, and they are prepared to have Mr. Guité come and testify, but they want to do that under unacceptable circumstances, Mr. Chairman. I've never seen such a thing. I'm not familiar with the case law here in the House of Commons, but I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, if this were a court of law, I do not think many lawyers would agree to this. We're talking about revealing part of the preliminary investigation which is under a non-publication order before the main testimony of an individual is heard.

That is about what they are trying to do here, Mr. Chairman. They are trying to take testimony that was heard in a different area of activity and make it public even before the situation as a whole is dealt with.

I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, that when Mr. Guité testified in July 2002, the only issue was Groupaction. However, the Auditor General identified a number of agencies with direct ties to the Liberal Party of Canada: Groupe Everest, Lafleur Communication, and so on. In addition, many names have been mentioned, including those of several heads of crown corporations. And Mr. Guité's name was always central in all these references.

If Mr. Guité really had the power that the Liberal Party seems to want to attribute to him, I think we would have quite a problem with the public service. I even asked a deputy minister whether any other senior officials had as much power as Mr. Guité, because Mr. Guité could do anything and decide on everything. Because of this power Mr. Guité had from the Liberal government, I think the Liberal government, and the Liberal members who are here today, should agree with our request and summon Mr. Guité to appear before us next week.

Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister gave the Public Accounts Committee a mandate, but at the moment, this mandate seems to have much more to do with an election than with the government, and that is unacceptable.

I will wind up quickly. If we publish the in camera testimony of Mr. Guité today, or in accordance with the decision made, I hope Mr. Guité's public testimony will be heard next week, so that Canadians and Quebeckers can finally learn what really happened between 1997 and 2000. I am sure that the truth will come out and that this truth will demonstrate that this was all a machination conducted by the Liberal Party of Canada.

Thank you very much.

Á (1130)

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur Desrochers.

Mr. MacKay, please.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I listen to the comments of my colleagues, I can't help but be struck by the issue of trust. I suppose, at its very root, that is what this task that lies before this committee is really all about. It's a truth-seeking exercise. We want to get to the bottom of where the money went and who was responsible for the way in which this money was misappropriated or misspent.

As my colleague from Provencher quite aptly stated--and even the Prime Minister has referred to this fact--the money is gone. Somebody is responsible. There have been several versions even from the Prime Minister's own lips as to who was responsible: it was rogue bureaucrats or it was members of the prior administration, anybody but him and not on his watch. Well, that doesn't exactly jibe with the facts we have before this committee, yet we are mired down now, for those who are still watching with bated breath as this committee bumps and grinds its way along.

We are seized with the fact that the person perhaps most central to the entire sponsorship scandal or so-called ad scam has at least given preliminary indication he's prepared to come, although he has sought certain conditions as to when that appearance will be. There very much appears to be a ploy to postpone his appearance and simply have the stale-dated testimony of almost two years ago presented in lieu of his appearance because of this pending election and this rush to put some cloak of finality over what took place in this particular ad scam.

Coming back to the crux of the issue, we're talking about taxpayers' money. I would suggest that it couldn't come at a worse time for average working Canadians as they're sitting around in the dim light of the evening filling out their tax forms. The thought of sending that money to Ottawa for the government to spend in areas that certainly don't jibe with their priorities, like advertising, is simply appalling to the average Canadian.

I have a lot of hard-working Canadians in my constituency of Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, fishermen who get up at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning and go out, often on stormy seas, putting their lives in peril to fish and carry on a tradition they've had in their families for in many cases five or six generations. There are many hard-working Canadians everywhere facing the same type of arduous labour and work, whether that be in steel mills, in the fields, or in factories across the country.

This is something we can never lose sight of, that the money that is sent to the treasury here in Ottawa belongs to those men and women. I guess that's what causes the buzz around the coffee shops and in the malls, when people start to boil it all down and think about how this money could possibly have gone missing, yet no one appears to be responsible.

Well, maybe it was one person, one person who has appeared for some time now to have been set up as the fall guy. Of course, I'm talking about the infamous Mr. Guité, and the characterization that has been placed on Mr. Guité's testimony may or may not be true in this instance. In fairness to Mr. Mills, I'll say that's his interpretation of what Mr. Guité said in July 2002. Yet we know, factually, that his testimony at that time was given before the Auditor General's report had appeared. In fairness to both Mr. Mills and Mr. Guité, we should recognize that the testimony at that time did not take in the full gamut of the discussion we're having in this committee. Neither person would have had the benefit of the very detailed and, I would say, very damning report of Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

Á (1135)

What is disturbing now is that we in this committee seem to be completely mired in a political game, as opposed to the real purpose here, as the Prime Minister said, of getting to the bottom of what took place.

There must be mounting frustration--I can feel it in this room--but there must be even greater frustration among Canadians as they see that this committee appears to be stalled and somehow hung up on how to proceed to get to a point where we can provide Canadians with those much-deserved answers about who is responsible.

So the partisan card is played, and we're all going to accuse each other of the same thing. The government wants to retain power and continue with its agenda. The opposition want to obtain power, form a government, and perhaps take the country in a different direction that wouldn't deal so much with trying to buy Canadians with their own money--or perhaps buying loyalty, which appears to be at the root of what took place here--currying favour, or continuing the favour that was being enjoyed.

I remind committee members and take every opportunity to remind Canadians generally that this report by Sheila Fraser was an examination of one program in one department that uncovered $100 million of misappropriated, misspent funds. It is appalling when you start to add up and calculate the waste that this government is ultimately responsible for in the last decade.

The gun registration was referenced many times, and how completely this has failed any attempt in any nexus to public safety. That registry system continues to bump along to its final, ultimate conclusion, where it will completely collapse. Whatever the final tally may be--somewhere in the range of $1 billion or $2 billion--there will be no benefit.

More disturbing in the context of what we're looking at is what accountability will there be? Who will account for where that money went? It will prove to be the biggest fraud ever perpetrated in our country's history, as to how that money was spent and what value-for-dollar expenditure there was.

I've written to the Auditor General encouraging her to do a full forensic audit, as I know other members of the House of Commons have. I suspect concerns have even been raised by members of the government.

The money that was spent cancelling the helicopter program is another blatant example of $0.5 billion for nothing. Imagine spending $0.5 billion to receive nothing, and then turning around and spending $100 million to buy luxury jets that weren't necessary. Even military officials had warned against and advised against purchasing them.

So all of these decisions, in my view, seem so completely out of line with where Canadians' priorities are. My friend from Provencher talked about some of his constituents who are still experiencing hard times as a result of the BSE in his area. The same is true of Atlantic Canada and throughout the country, but it's most acute in the west. Natural disasters have forced many Canadians to face up to the economic reality that their government has not been able to support them and help them in times of need.

We've experienced massive storms on the east coast in the past number of years. I suggest that those acts of God are exactly the type of emergency circumstances where the government should be able to respond appropriately, and money should be spent to help people in need--the human cause.

How can you equate those types of circumstances--whether it be blight, hurricanes, flooding, or forest fires, as we saw in British Columbia--with $100 million spent currying favour with Liberal-friendly advertising firms and individuals who essentially, for their own gain, were receiving this money--skimming it off?

Á (1140)

What gets lost in a lot of the discussion around this ad scam is that many of the grants that were agreed to were going to legitimate causes, but the money was being funnelled off by these firms. Perhaps we are going to see criminal charges laid in these matters. That in and of itself remains to be seen.

One of the other sad chapters in all of this is that the RCMP themselves were tainted by what occurred here. Money was supposed to be earmarked for their 125th anniversary, and yet for some reason, because of some decision-making, it went to buy things like more horses for the Musical Ride, and trailers to transport the horses. That's not to say that they don't need them, or that it isn't a wonderful thing, the Musical Ride, but that wasn't the purpose. That wasn't what that money was intended for.

So it's back again to this very issue of accountability, of responsibility, of, when faced with facts, simply taking account of what has happened. And perhaps that has been this Prime Minister's greatest failing. We all know--it's an undeniable fact--he was the Minister of Finance. Nobody suggests that he wrote the cheques for the gun registry, or for helicopter cancellations, or for luxury jets, but he was the Minister of Finance, the chief gatekeeper of public spending, sitting as vice-president of the Treasury Board, the person who, time and time again, stood in the House of Commons and thumped his chest as the great slayer of the deficit while denying the fact that those revenues were generated by the GST, which he was going to get rid of, or the free trade agreement, which he and his government opposed.

Those historical facts, like so many, get washed away in the rhetoric of this place.

So we have the Prime Minister, who was, along with the Minister of Public Works and other ministers of the crown, in the best, and I would suggest the only, position to have stopped this corruption and this rot that set in with this irresponsible spending of taxpayers' money.

Only two conclusions can be arrived at. Either individuals like the Prime Minister and others who were in that position knew or they chose to do nothing while this was going on. I for one don't buy the argument that it was a single rogue bureaucrat, or even a group of individuals within any one department, perpetrating this activity, this assault on the Treasury, this blatant abuse and misuse of public money.

I'm sure members of Parliament and senators who have to go back to their ridings as we prepare to shut down this place again, knowing that in just over 100 days of this Prime Minister's tenure we have seen such atrophy, and apathy, and inactivity, with very few new bills coming before the House, and attempts to delay the House of Commons initially from its start-up, perhaps because of the anticipated fallout of this Auditor General's report, and these many recesses that we seem to have....

Mr. Chair, there's a growing cynicism in the country. Perhaps the greatest fear of all is that the cynicism will lead to even greater apathy, particularly among young people. Many of us get invitations to speak at universities or at school classes. There is a terrible malaise of apathy developing in this country. We saw it in the last election, where we had the lowest voter turnout.

I fear greatly for the legitimacy of not only this place but also future attempts to confront issues that are like this, that deal with corruption and with the very heart of democracy and responsible government. Nobody would accuse this government of having been responsible. Certainly that is a word not associated with the behaviour of this government in their tenure, because it “wasn't their fault”.

Perhaps the testimony of Mr. Gagliano, who we saw here not so many weeks ago, sums it up, with the shrugging of the shoulders and the rolling of the eyes. He wasn't even able to give us so much as a name of an individual we might want to call before this committee, because he didn't know. He presided over this huge government department with a massive budget, where hundreds of millions of dollars were flowing through the Treasury, and yet he can't seem to tell us a single thing about what happened on his watch.

Á (1145)

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by referring to the Prime Minister's own words, when he said back on February 13 that “anybody who knew about that and did nothing should resign immediately”. Those were his words. To take him at his word, which I doubt many Canadians would do, would suggest that there is a reason behind why members of this committee on the Liberal side don't want to hear from Mr. Guité.

I won't go as far as Mr. Mills and characterize what Mr. Guité might say, but surely, down on the dude ranch in Arizona, Mr. Guité owes no favours to this Liberal government. He's already been put on the rack, hung out to dry. He's the fall guy, Mr. Guité; he was acting alone.

Well, he must have had one of the most coveted jobs ever in the public service to be able to go around the country and sprinkle that kind of largesse with no accountability, no strings attached, no paper trails, nothing--just absolute impunity to do whatever he wanted. But if that is the case, then surely we'll hear from Mr. Guité and see that this Liberal government has nothing to fear from Mr. Guité's testimony.

For that reason, again, I question why we even have this motion before us, why we haven't made more diligent efforts to simply have Mr. Guité lassoed and brought back to face this committee, and allow us to simply question him on not only what happened over his tenure but also who was giving those orders, who was giving the political direction to this entire affair, this farcical behaviour that reminds me of that television show, Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? I guess Mr. Guité had the ability to decide who wants to be a millionaire, but the sad thing is that it was Canadians who were writing the cheques, doing without, tightening their belts, and saving, scrimping, and worrying about the funding for their children's education, about being able to put away a little money each year.

While tax season is upon us, those are the same types of questions that Canadians should be asking themselves again. Who are the best managers of their money? That will very much be the pivotal election issue. Will it be this Liberal government, with their record, and their malaise, and their decisions of taxpayers' abuse, or a new Conservative government?

Mr. Chair, those are going to be the compelling questions faced by Canadians, who hopefully will turn out in droves to respond at the ballot box.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Are we ready for the question?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The motion is by Marlene Jennings, MP:

That, pursuant to S.O. 108(3), Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the Auditor General’s November 2003 Report referred to the Committee on February 10, 2004, this Committee do, in accordance with Mr. Guité’s decision to waive the confidentiality of the in camera hearings wherein he testified in 2002, immediately render his 2002 in camera testimony public and modify the summons so as to change the date of appearance from April 1, 2004 to April 22 and 23, 2004.

Roll call, please, Mr. Clerk.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 7)

Á (1150)

The Chair: In accordance with what I was saying earlier, the Speaker of the House has reserved judgment on this matter. The committee has now made a decision to release the testimony of Mr. Guité. Because I think the committee should wait until we hear from the Speaker of the House, I will defer implementing the decision of this committee until the Speaker has given his ruling.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I appeal the decision of the chair.

The Chair: Madam Jennings appeals the decision of the chair.

The proper motion is, shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

Did somebody say point of order? No, okay.

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

Roll call, please, Mr. Clerk.

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 7)

The Chair: The decision of the chair is not upheld, by a vote of 9 to 7; therefore, the testimony will be translated, printed, and published.

The next issue is on more motions. I think you all have copies now.

I mentioned earlier that I wanted to talk to the motion by Marlene Jennings, which is:

Pursuant to S.O. 108(3)(g), Chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the Auditor General'sNovember 2003 Report referred to the Committee on February 10, 2004, that thisCommittee when hearing witnesses shall conduct the questioning as follows, i.e. a firstround of eight (8) minutes per member, alternating from one opposition member to onegovernment member back to one opposition member and so on until all members havebeen afforded an 8 minute round. Only then shall a second round of four (4) minutes permember, again alternating from an opposition member to a government member, beginand continue until all members have been afforded a 4 minute round. Any and allsubsequent rounds of questions, regardless of length of time allotted to a member, shallfollow the same procedure.

That the Chair shall only be afforded one round of questions not to exceed four(4) minutes. Said round may be conducted either prior to the first 8 minute round or at thevery end of any round.

As I mentioned, I would like to speak to this motion from the chair. Going back to a little history, prior to 1993, when the Liberals occupied this chair of the public accounts committee because they were in opposition, the chair had the first questions. The chair took up one third to one half of the entire meeting by himself, before anybody else was allowed to answer questions.

That is information supplied to me by Monsieur Fournier, the normal clerk of public accounts, who is not available to be the clerk at this point in time.

Since that time, when the Liberals moved to the government side, there has been a distribution whereby the parties are recognized as being able to speak, rather than individuals.

Because this is a public accounts committee, it's obviously a different kind of committee to all the rest because it is chaired by someone from the official opposition. This is the committee of accountability on the government. That is why there has always been deference to the opposition.

When we had four parties on the opposition side, it was quite difficult at times to arrange a standard order of interventions because sometimes parties weren't actually even in attendance. Plus, of course, we can hear testimony with only five members in attendance, provided both sides are represented.

For this motion to say one opposition, one government side, back to the opposition, back to the government side, if there are only two members from the government side, that means they speak practically non-stop until the opposition side has been heard, and vice versa, of course.

I have tried in the last few months, since we're now only three parties in opposition—Conservatives have four members, the Bloc has two members, and the NDP has one member—that the first round be one member from each party: the Conservatives, Bloc, Liberals, and NDP. The NDP has only one seat at the table; that's it.

Á (1155)

In the second round it's the Conservatives, the Bloc, and two Liberals, to give them the benefit of the fact that they have more people here. The Bloc are now finished because they have used up their two slots, and it's back to Conservatives, two Liberals, Conservatives, two Liberals. That was deemed fair because the government said, okay, we are getting our turn--even though when they sat on the opposition side they dominated the hearings.

The other point is:

That the Chair shall only be afforded one round of questions not to exceed four(4) minutes. Said round may be conducted either prior to the first 8 minute round or at thevery end of any round.

I'm ruling that part out of order. You cannot gag the chair, period. That portion of the motion is out of order. The rest is up for debate.

Madam Jennings, speaking to your motion.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for your point of view.

[Translation]

It is always very interesting to hear the views of the chair of this committee. Sometimes I even share his opinion, but on this, I do not agree with his opinion at all, and that is why I have put forward my motion.

There is a standing order or a procedural matter that was passed by the committee to the effect that on the first round, each committee member would have eight minutes, and that during subsequent rounds, each member would have four minutes, unless there was unanimous consent from committee members to do otherwise. To my knowledge—and I did check with the clerks—there has never been a standing order or a procedural motion passed by this committee as to how the turn should work and in which order people would speak.

So my motion was drafted on the basis of information I was given, namely, that there is a motion, that there is a procedure that was passed by this committee providing that there would be a first turn of eight minutes for each committee member and that on subsequent rounds, each member would have four minutes. However, there has never been an official decision by the committee that during the first hour of questioning, the opposition would have 48 minutes, and the Liberals only 12 minutes.

I think that Canadians and even the journalists who regularly follow this committee's work are constantly wondering when they see that on the first round there are two members from the Conservative Party and then a member of the Bloc Québécois before a government member even gets an opportunity to ask a question, even if his or her name was on the list before that of any other committee member, from whatever party.

My motion therefore seeks to structure the way we proceed during the question period.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, we have a structure and we have what we refer to as a steering committee. I would like this question to be referred to the steering committee, because it is up to the steering committee to decide on the way that the committee is to operate. I do not think that it is up to the full committee to decide how it is to operate. We have a steering committee and I would like you to call a meeting as quickly as possible so that we can deal with this matter and respect the structure that already exists, Mr. Chairman.

Â (1200)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Merci beaucoup, monsieur Desrochers.

You cannot move a motion on a point of order unless there is unanimous consent, and there is not unanimous consent for you to move the motion on the point of order. When you are speaking, Madam Jennings, Mr. Kenney, and Monsieur Desrochers, at that point in time you may move that amendment.

Madam Jennings, please.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I have absolutely no intention of appealing your decision regarding the second paragraph of my motion. However, you had ruled that the first paragraph of my motion was in order and I am saying that this committee should examine not only the duration of the rounds of questions, because the committee has already dealt with that matter, but rather the way that the rounds of questions should be attributed by the chairman and by the committee itself.

To be fair, I think that that should be...

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chairman, you will have noted, I hope, that I did not interrupt the other committee members, particularly not today. Today I have not said one word that has not gone through you.

[English]

The Chair: I will ask that you respect the intervention by all members. They have had the floor. I have to say there's been a great deal of respect by all members this morning. There have been long interventions without interruption. Therefore I hope that will continue.

Madam Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

So I am asking the committee to look into the way that the rounds of questions are to be allocated by this committee, through our chairman, and I'm saying that it would be quite fair to alternate between the opposition and the Liberals. That's it.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup.

Do you have a point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I would like some clarification about Ms. Jennings' comments.

[English]

The Chair: It's a point of clarification.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Yes.

Did I understand Ms. Jennings' motion correctly? Are you referring to the members, the individuals, the opposition? For example, sometimes only one Bloc Québécois member is present at the committee. Does that mean that before this member can have his second round...?

[English]

The Chair: The motion says one member from the opposition--it doesn't say which party--and one member from the government side. If there are only two members on the government side and eight members on the opposition side, the two members on the government side will speak on numerous occasions. Of course, that would apply on the opposition side. If there were a number on the government side and only two on the opposition side, those two would speak much more frequently than the others.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: No, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Is this a point of clarification? Did I clarify your point?

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Even if I'm the only member of the Bloc Québécois, I want to have my two rounds of questions, because otherwise, we would be gagged.

[English]

The Chair: Let me explain again.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Does that mean that all of the Liberals will be able to speak before I am entitled to? That's what I want to know.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, that's right. There is no direction given to the chair in this motion as to which party will speak from the opposition. Sometimes all parties aren't represented here. There is no direction.

Do you want to clarify your intent, Madam Jennings?

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The motion I am introducing is not about taking rights away at all. For example, if the Bloc Québécois, which normally has two regular members sitting on this committee, has only one member present during the first round, this person could have the floor twice. However, we have to ensure that there is some alternation. I'll give you an example. The chairman decides that he will begin with a member from the Conservative Party, Mr. Kenney. Then, he gives the floor to the first Liberal who has put his name on the list. Then, he will give the floor to a member from the Bloc Québécois and then he will come back to this side. But he would not be able to complete the first eight-minute round until all the committee members present who wish to speak at least once have had an opportunity to do so. That is all.

According to the way we work right now, the chairman gives the floor to two Conservative Party members consecutively, and then to two Bloc Québécois members, and it is only after 40 minutes have elapsed that a Liberal member is given the right to speak. The floor is then given to an NDP member for eight minutes, which completes the first round, and we begin the second round.

Â (1205)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings. I do have to contradict you on that point.

I always start with the Conservative Party for eight minutes, the Bloc for eight minutes—that's 16 minutes—the Liberals for eight minutes, and if the NDP is here, they get eight minutes. That is always the way I start.

On the second round, if the NDP are here, it goes back to the Conservatives, the Bloc, and two Liberals. You will have, I guess, 24 minutes for the opposition, followed by 16 minutes from the Liberal side, then one Conservative and two Liberals. You can check the record, but that is the way it has been done.

That's the clarification point. We're on to Mr. Kenney for his intervention.

Mr. Jason Kenney: First, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to this motion that I'd like to put, and then I'll speak to my amendment.

The Chair: On the amendment, when you make your amendment, you will only speak to your amendment.

Mr. Jason Kenney: It doesn't matter. I might as well make the amendment to begin with. I'll read the amendment technically and then give it in context.

I move that Madam Jennings' motion be amended at line 4 by deleting the words “alternating from one opposition member to one government member back to one opposition member and so on”. I further move that the motion be amended at line 7 by deleting the words “again alternating from an opposition member to a government member”, and further, at line 8, to delete the words “Any and allsubsequent rounds of questions, regardless of length of time allotted to a member, shallfollow the same procedure.”

I'll submit this to the clerk.

Further, Mr. Chairman, you've ruled out of order the second paragraph in this motion. If that ruling was to be overturned or challenged, I would be prepared to move an amendment to strike the second paragraph.

A voice: Is it signed?

Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes, it is signed.

The Chair: Do you need clarification of the motion? Can the clerks tell us exactly what this motion is?

The Clerk: The amendment of Mr. Kenney is as follows: to strike out, after the words “eight (8) minutes per member”, the following, “alternating from one opposition member to onegovernment member back to one opposition member and so on”, and to strike out, following the words “four (4) minutes per member”, the following, “again alternating from an opposition member to a government member”, and striking out the words “Any and allsubsequent rounds of questions, regardless of length of time allotted to a member, shallfollow the same procedure”, and the words:

That the Chair shall only be afforded one round of questions not to exceed four(4) minutes. Said round may be conducted either prior to the first 8 minute round or at thevery end of any round.

The Chair: The chair has ruled that the second paragraph, dealing with limitations on the chair, is out of order because the chair cannot be gagged, but the other amendments are in order.

Mr. Kenney, speaking to your amendments.

Mr. Jason Kenney: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I find it highly ironic that Liberal members, who have accused the opposition of obstructing this committee, now that they have achieved what the PMO has ordered from them--

The Chair: Mr. Kenney, I'm sorry to interrupt.

The clerks have advised me that because you have actually given more than one amendment, you have to introduce them one at a time.

My apologies, but that's what the clerks advise me. Your first one is?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would seek unanimous consent that we allow Mr. Kenney's amendments.

Â (1210)

The Chair: All of them at once?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes.

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent that we consider all of Mr. Kenney's amendments together?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: There is agreement.

You may continue.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I find it to be high irony that members of the government here now, having obtained what the PMO demanded of them--which is the out-of-context and dated testimony of Mr. Guité so that we don't have to hear from him before the election--should now turn to procedural matters, seeking to overturn well-established practice on this and other House committees.

There is a reason why opposition parties on committees, particularly on this committee, are given a particular share of question opportunities. That is because in a longstanding practice in the Westminster parliamentary system, particularly the public accounts committee has traditionally given some sort of precedence to the opposition precisely because the function of this committee is to examine and question the government on its spending practices.

What we see here before us, once again notwithstanding all the bluster over the last few months about the democratic deficit, is that we're digging ourselves into an even deeper democratic deficit, that Liberal members of the House of Commons on this committee are being directed in every matter by the executive, by the Prime Minister's Office.

That is why this committee traditionally--here, in Westminster, and in other Commonwealth parliaments--has as the chair of public accounts an opposition member who is permitted, at his own discretion, to participate in debates and question witnesses, and it is why opposition parties traditionally are given more than an equal share of question opportunities, because it is our constitutional obligation to hold the government to account when manifestly, in this instance, the government will not hold itself to account.

That's exactly why this motion is being put by Madam Jennings. We don't have an independent inquiry into this scandal. We don't have any kind of criminal proceedings that are coming forward before an election writ is dropped. We've now kicked the key testimony past the drop of a writ so that he can't implicate his political paymasters in the Liberal government for the scandal, and now, because we have only a couple of weeks of testimony at most before the election is to be called, and because the members of the opposition have asked some uncomfortable questions, we have to limit their participation. Most of all, the intent of this motion is to limit the participation of the chair.

Now, Mr. Chair, I don't agree with all your rulings here, but I have to say that I think you have used a great deal of discretion in your own interventions.

One of the problems with some of the members opposite, quite frankly, not understanding Parliament is that many of them have never sat in opposition before. They forget. They don't have the institutional memory to recall that their predecessors in a Liberal opposition had a Liberal chair who spent an enormous share of the committee's time on matters such as this, asking questions, directing questions, and very directly governing the business of the committee, that Liberal members were given preference, if you will, in terms of question time available to them.

I hope some of them will soon have an opportunity to be acquainted with the obligation of being on this side of the table and holding a government to account. Perhaps they should think about that, because when seeking to change rules like this, what they're trying to do again is to create a precedent that will forever diminish the ability of the opposition in this critical committee to hold the government to account as to how it spends public money.

So that is why I've moved my motion, the effect of which would be to maintain the status quo, although I do agree with one element of the motion of Madam Jennings, which my amendment would preserve, which is to increase the allotments for questions on the first round.

The Chair: Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. Kenney may possibly not have been listening when I presented my motion after your ruling, in which you stated that the second paragraph of my motion as it pertained to you was ruled out of order. I made it clear at that time that I accepted your ruling and would not be appealing it.

The only thing I can understand is that Mr. Kenney did not hear my decision not to appeal; therefore, that's why he's still commenting.

Â (1215)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, you've ruled it out of order, so I gather the member doesn't have to withdraw, but that's part of the context of the motion. I think it's reasonable for me to refer to Madam Jennings' intent--

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Not if it's been ruled out of order.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, and I'll close with this, the problem is that that proposed paragraph is part of the larger context here. It's part of the remarkable performance yesterday in the House of Commons by the champion of democracy, Mr. Martin, who I think without precedent directly assaulted the integrity of the opposition chairman of the public accounts committee. It's part of the smear job. It's part of the government's effort to hijack this committee.

Now we've had two or three votes to overturn rulings of this chair. We've had votes to ignore advice from the Clerk of the House of Commons. Now we have a motion to limit the time available to the opposition. Perhaps realizing that they were overplaying their hand just a little bit, they've accepted your ruling not to effectively shut down the chair's participation in committee.

But this is part of the larger process here, and with no public inquiry, this is the only window Canadians have to get to the facts, to get to the bottom of this scandal. Instead, what we're seeing is the government--on orders from the PMO--essentially trying to shut it down and control this process. People should see it for what it is.

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

I want to point out a couple of things. One, if this motion is adopted, the first round of eight minutes for everybody, with 17 members on the committee, will take two hours and 16 minutes, with absolutely bang on eight minutes. As you know, when witnesses are answering a question, if the question is asked before the end of expiry of the eight minutes, I give them the courtesy of allowing them to answer the question.

So to go through the first round at eight minutes apiece, you're talking likely two and a half hours. Add to that the opening statements by the witnesses, which we limit here to five minutes to allow for questions. Many years ago I remember witnesses would come in here and take 20 to 30 minutes to make their opening presentation and deny members the right to speak, and I said that cannot be; they have five minutes to make their opening presentation to allow people to speak.

However, if this motion is adopted, some people will not speak. This is the place where people have the right to speak. With one full round, if we have everybody here, we will just run out of time. Now, as I said, we have always done the parties. With four parties in this House and a first round of eight minutes each, there are 32 minutes and then ample time for others in a four-minute round.

That decision was made back in the first session of the 36th Parliament, in 1997, where the record states that the Liberal Party will speak third in order of precedence. First it was the official opposition, followed by the Bloc, and at that point in time--before that we used to actually go all the way down all the opposition parties, and there were four at that time who would speak. The Liberals said no, that's perhaps not appropriate. So we said, okay, with four parties in opposition, there will be one, two, the Liberals, three, four. That would be the first round.

Since then we've operated by consensus and by agreement, without division. As I said, ever since then it has always been the first party, the Conservatives, the Bloc, and then the Liberals, followed by the other parties if they're here, and they're not always here, and then there would be the second round, at which time I bring in two Liberals. For every one in opposition I normally go to two Liberals, and sometimes I've even gone to three, to ensure that everybody has the right to speak, because I believe in the right to speak. But if this motion goes through, somebody will not have the right to speak at this committee.

So as long as you're aware of that, debate continues. The next speaker is Monsieur Desrochers.

[Translation]

Mr. Desrochers, you have the floor.

Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, could you tell us what is happening with Ms. Jennings' motion? Mr. Kenney has moved some amendments, and I would like to know what is going on, because there has been a great deal of discussion. Was the motion amended? Were certain parts of the motion withdrawn? I fully appreciate your position, but we are debating Ms. Jennings' motion. Have any changes been made to Ms. Jennings' motion? Are we discussing the amendments moved by my colleague?

Â (1220)

[English]

The Chair: No, there is an amendment on the table. In fact, there is more than one amendment that's sequential.

By and large, if you strike out the following words.... I'm going to have the clerk read the changes en français, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Kenney's amendments are as follows. First of all, after the words "per member", strike out the following words: "alternating from one opposition member to one government member back to one opposition member and so on".

Secondly, after the words "four minutes per member" strike out the following words: "again alternating from an opposition member to a government member".

Thirdly, strike out the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Any and all subsequent rounds of questions, regardless of length of time allotted to a member, shall follow the same procedure."

[English]

The Chair: Madam Jennings, you had a point of order.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Given the explanation that the chair has given as to the way in which he proceeds with questioning from the first round and subsequent rounds, and given some of the concerns and points that have been raised by members of the opposition, I would seek unanimous consent from this committee that the committee defer disposing of this motion, send it to the steering committee, have the steering committee--

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Madam Jennings has the floor. Let her say what she has to say. I believe she's going to seek unanimous consent. At that point in time, you can disagree or agree with the request.

Madam Jennings has the floor.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: As I was saying, I would seek unanimous consent that the committee decide to defer disposing of this motion, agree to send it to the steering committee, and request that the steering committee attempt to, taking into mind all points of views, come up with a manner in which the rounds of questioning be conducted. If there can be consent within the steering committee, I would immediately withdraw my motion. It's on the record. Obviously, if there is no consent, if there isn't a consensus built within the steering committee, then my motion would again stand.

The Chair: All right.

If you'll just pay attention here, there are a couple of issues. Madam Jennings cannot move a motion on a point of order; therefore, is there unanimous consent for her to move the motion under a point of order?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: There isn't unanimous consent, so the motion cannot come forward. Therefore, we revert back to....

Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Chair, if I may not move a motion seeking unanimous consent under a point of order, how can—

The Chair: You can move a motion when you are speaking.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: But as I ruled for Mr. Desrochers, who was suggesting that we go to the steering committee at that time and who got the attention of the chair under a point of order, he couldn't move it at that time.

He now has the floor. Monsieur Desrochers, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: May I introduce a notice of motion? I would like to seek unanimous consent to introduce a notice of motion to refer this matter to the steering committee.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Desrochers, your motion to send this to the steering committee does not require unanimous consent, but it is a motion of precedence and it is debatable.

Debate on the motion of Mr. Desrochers to refer this to the steering committee.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We agree.

Â (1225)

The Chair: I know we agree, but is there a debate? No debate?

Mr. Toews.

Mr. Vic Toews: Thank you.

My concern here is not that the steering committee is incompetent to deal with the issue. My concern is that this is a convenient way for the Liberals to hijack this matter, to bring it under cover so they can then deal with it in terms of--

The Chair: I will interrupt there, Mr. Toews. The discussion takes place in the steering committee and the decision comes back to the main committee to be approved.

Mr. Vic Toews: Just on a point of order, is that debatable then?

The Chair: Yes. The reports by the steering committee to the main committee are debatable when tabled.

Mr. Vic Toews: I want to make a few--

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): A point of clarification might be helpful for Mr. Toews, because he's not actually a member of this committee. The steering committee only has one member from each party, so it's not a case of it going to a body that--

The Chair: No. The steering committee has three members from the government side and three members from the--

Hon. Joe Jordan: We don't have a majority on it.

The Chair: You don't have a majority. We work by consensus. If there is no consensus, the decision is debated at the full committee. Even if there is consensus, the report has to be approved, and it is debated at the main committee.

Mr. Vic Toews: I just want to put a few comments on record on this particular debate.

It's interesting that Madam Jennings would come into this committee, essentially try to muzzle the chair in an unprecedented fashion with respect to this--

Â (1230)

Hon. Walt Lastewka: She withdrew--

Mr. Vic Toews: Yes. She attempted to muzzle the chair in an unprecedented fashion. Then when she realized the folly of her position, she withdrew that aspect of it.

I want to thank the chair for his comment that prior to 1993, when the Liberals were in opposition, a third of the questioning was essentially done by the chair. What we have seen over the course of the Liberal government's domination of this committee has been an increasing democratic deficit in the effectiveness of this committee.

We have seen since 1994--at least publicly, we know--a collapse of the watchdog functions inside the public service. We've seen procurement in the Public Works function being put together with the function of those who were then determining whether the government received value.

Because the opposition has asked some troubling questions, this is obviously a response to try to further limit the effectiveness of the opposition in trying to ensure that taxpayers' money is properly spent. I again want to thank the chair for pointing out that this motion will have the effect of ensuring that one party will not be heard in any normal sitting.

I want to remind members of this committee that the opposition members and the opposition parties represent essentially 60% of the people of Canada. They did not vote for the Liberal Party. Only 40% of Canadians voted for the Liberal Party in 2000. The opposition parties represent 60% of the popular vote. We have a vested interest in knowing what is happening to taxpayers' money.

Not only should this go to the subcommittee on procedure to be determined, but Ms. Jennings should apologize for bringing this motion forward in such an undemocratic fashion. It's an insult to 60% of Canadians, and it tries to shut down their voice on this committee. I won't make that a formal notice. At least Ms. Jennings withdrew the very offensive part of this motion, the second paragraph. She should apologize for the rest of this. That apology shouldn't come behind closed doors, the way she wants to have it done. That apology should be made right here in public--that she would have the nerve to shut down this committee in the way she's trying to do it.

Thank you.

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

The superseding motion is that this be referred to the steering committee for a recommendation to come back to the full committee. There will be no further debate on that.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next motion is from Ms. Jennings:

That in addition to the meeting dates already scheduled, the Committee meet as follows in regard to its study of Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Auditor General's November 2003 Report:

Monday, April 19, 2004, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. for the sole purpose of hearing witnesses;

Tuesday, April 20, 2004, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. for the sole purpose of hearing witnesses;

Wednesday, April 21, 2004, at 3:30 p.m. for the sole purpose of considering the second draft of its interim report;

You may want to speak to that, Ms. Jennings.

Thursday, April 22, 2004, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.;

Friday, April 23, 2004, from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.;

Monday, April 26, 2004, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; and,

Monday, April 26, 2004, at 3:30 p.m. for the sole purpose of considering and adopting its interim report.

There's no time for the adjournment of that meeting.

Ms. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would first like to propose an amendment to my motion. The first point reads “Monday, April 19, 2004, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. for the sole purpose of hearing witnesses”. I would like to delete everything after “5:30 p.m.” If the amendment is adopted, it would read “Monday, April 19, 2004, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.”

The second point reads “Tuesday, April 20, 2004, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. for the sole purpose of hearing witnesses”. I would like to delete everything after “5:30 p.m.”

I move that the third point be amended to read “Wednesday, April 21, 2004, from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.”

The next point, Thursday, April 22, would remain the same, as would the next point, Friday, April 23.

The second to last point, Monday, April 26, would read as follows: “Monday, April 26, 2004, from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.”

I would then delete the last point, which says “Monday, April 26, 2004, at 3:30 p.m. for the sole purpose of considering and adopting its interim report.”

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Colleagues, Ms. Jennings has the floor.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would add the following point:

Tuesday, April 27, 2004, and Thursday, April 29, 2004, in addition to its meeting from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., this committee will also meet from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

A further point would be added, which would read “and that this committee's meetings for the month of May 2004 be held on Mondays from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.”--

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

Â (1235)

The Chair: Mr. Toews, please.

Madam Jennings, you have the floor.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will recommence--

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Will you please respect Madam Jennings, who has the floor?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

I will recommence the last point--

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Excuse me. Can we respect the speaker?

Madam Jennings, please.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: The last point--I'll begin again--would add on:

and that this committee's meetings for the month of May 2004 be held on Mondays from 11 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., Tuesdays and Thursdays from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and Wednesdays from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.

End of amendment.

The Chair: We have a point of order.

Mr. Jason Kenney: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this is in essence a substantially new motion. The point of our 48-hour notice of motion rule is so that we can actually see a motion and consider it, and Madam Jennings has literally added and deleted more from the original motion than was in the original motion. Mr. Chairman, it is my view that this should be ruled out of order and she should be required to bring this new motion forward with the appropriate 48 hours' notice.

The Chair: You're correct, Mr. Kenney. It is deemed to be substantive. Because of the amount of the changes adding, going into, and going beyond the dates of the original motion, these are all substantive changes that require 48 hours' notice, Madam Jennings, unless there's unanimous consent, of course.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Is there unanimous consent?

The Chair: Is there unanimous consent to deal with this?

No, there is no unanimous consent.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Fine. In that case, I would propose the following amendment to my motion, and that is, on the first point, “Monday, April 19, 2004, from 11:00 am to 1:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.,” delete or strike everything following that, the 5:30 p.m.

On the second point, delete everything after 5:30 p.m.

On the third point, it should read “Wednesday, April 21, 2004 from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.”.

The second to last point--

The Chair: Are you deleting or leaving in “for the sole purpose”?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, deleting. That's why we would replace--

The Chair: It is Wednesday, April 21, 2004 from 3:30 to 6:30 p.m., period.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes, and striking everything after that.

The second to last point, Monday, April 26, 2004, we would add “and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.”.

The last point, which says “Monday, April 26, 2004 at 3:30 p.m. for the sole purpose of considering and adopting its interim report” would be completely deleted.

I then give notice of motion--

The Chair: Why don't you just submit them to the clerks and they'll be distributed?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Fine.

The Chair: Before we have debate, the clerks say that even what Madam Jennings is now proposing is substantive and therefore requires 48 hours' notice.

Mr. MacKay.

Â (1240)

Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, can I give written and oral notice of a motion?

The Chair: Is it a long one? Is it short?

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's very short.

The Chair: Is it dealing with this particular issue?

Mr. Peter MacKay: No, it's dealing with the calling of a witness.

The Chair: This is notice of a motion.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Further to written notice that I believe you may have received from Gerald Keddy, MP, South Shore, March 10 and March 22, I would like to move that this committee call both the chairman of the Bluenose trust foundation, Senator Wilfred Moore, and the former Minister of Public Works, Mr. David Dingwall.

The Chair: I'll stop you at this point in time, Mr. MacKay, just to intervene there.

However, we are dealing with Madam Jennings' motion. The clerks have advised me that they consider it to be substantive in nature. Therefore, Madam Jennings, we can deal with your motion with some minor amendments, but not to the point where the clerks feel that you've strayed over into substantive amendments.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It's just been suggested to me that a way in which it would be deemed in order would be for me to propose an amendment to the first point. That would be debated and then voted on. Then I could propose, at that point, an amendment to the second point. So I would like to proceed in that fashion.

The Chair: Thank you, Madam Jennings.

I ruled that all the changes Madam Jennings proposed are substantive and therefore require 48 hours' notice. Madam Jennings has given notice that she will move them one at a time, which is not substantive. However, I will therefore, on your behalf, seek unanimous consent to deal with them all at once. Do you understand what I'm proposing? Does everybody understand what I'm proposing?

Mr. Toews, do you agree?

Mr. Vic Toews: A point of order. If I have this right, she can't move it in a lump because it's substantive. So she can pull it apart and move it one at a time and it somehow miraculously changes from substantive to insubstantive? I don't quite follow that reasoning, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay. I'm going to ask the clerks to give us some clarification here. They're the procedural experts.

The Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe when Mr. Kenney attempted to move a series of different amendments, which did not all have the same effect, there was a ruling that there were too many different things going on within one amendment for it to be allowed, and thus there was consent and it was allowed to go forward with all of those varying parts. The idea is an amendment should amend one portion. All of them are substantive changes, whether you're changing one line or 15 lines or 20 lines; it's all substantive. So the fact that it's substantive or not...it's whether the amendments are a coherent whole or whether they're really referring to different elements all at once.

What I believe Ms. Jennings is suggesting is that we could debate one portion, for example, deleting “for the sole purpose of hearing witnesses”, in one spot or another, have that proposed as an amendment, debate that issue, have the committee decide, return to debate on the main motion, as amended or not, and then perhaps propose other changes at that time.

You're not trying to do all of these things and make it into a completely new motion. You could proceed with amendments one at a time dealing with particular aspects.

The Chair: So you are suggesting, to Mr. Toews' point, where you can't deal with them as a group, you can break them down individually and deal with them because they're no longer substantive. Is that what you're saying?

The Clerk: It's incorrect to say that they're no longer substantive. They're all substantive changes. It's just whether or not they're all having similar effects.

The Chair: Okay. Well, if they're all substantive, I will therefore state that they have to have 48 hours' notice. Is that right?

The Clerk: Amendments are in order.

The Chair: Amendments are in order.

The Clerk: Sure.

The Chair: They're substantive amendments. Does this require 48 hours' notice?

The Clerk: Substantive amendments are in order.

The Chair: Okay. They're substantive amendments. They are in order. We'll deal with them one at a time.

Mr. Lastewka.

Hon. Walt Lastewka: As a point of clarification, it was my understanding that what Ms. Jennings was trying to do is add some additional times for meetings, not restrict the chairman and the vice-chairs as to what could be conducted in those meetings.

The Chair: She's adding new meetings too, Mr. Lastewka.

Hon. Walt Lastewka: Yes, that's what I'm saying. She was adding new meetings, but she was removing any restrictions at the discretion mainly of the chair and the vice-chairs.

The Chair: That's correct. That's basically the intent, and therefore since Madam Jennings wishes to deal with them one at a time, I'm going to move on one at a time.

The first one is “Monday, April 19, 2004, from 11 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.” Debate?

Mr. Kenney.

Â (1245)

Mr. Jason Kenney: I'll explain to Mr. Lastewka why Madam Jennings has proposed striking the words “for the sole purpose of hearing witnesses”. It's because presumably the Prime Minister's Office wants the...it's the PMO-generated whitewash report to be issued the week of April 19. They don't want to kick it back into the next week because the Prime Minister wants to have an option of dropping the writ on April 25. Therefore, we can't possibly allow the committee to defer consideration of the PMO-generated whitewash report until Monday, April 26.

Hon. Walt Lastewka: I asked for your clarification. You concurred with the clarification. I object to that member's remarks. Let's stick to the agenda, Mr. Chairman. That's one of the problems with this committee. It's become totally political.

The Chair: I agree.

Hon. Walt Lastewka: You can tell that by the challenges.

I asked for your clarification and you gave it to me.

The Chair: That's right. What Madam Jennings has done is remove the restrictions of what can be discussed at these meetings and she has added additional meetings. You're absolutely correct. It's a debatable amendment. Mr. Kenney is debating that amendment and he is putting forth his reasons why he is either going to support or--

Hon. Walt Lastewka: I suggest that he temper his.... I'm getting tired of this.

The Chair: If that is your concern, you should have raised it, but you were taking a much broader issue. Mr. Kenney is entitled to debate his position as to whether he supports or disagrees with the amendment proposed by Madam Jennings, to her own motion, by the way.

Mr. Kenney, you are on the list.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Speaking to the amendment?

The Chair: Yes, to the amendment.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Do I have the floor?

The Chair: You have the floor.

Mr. Jason Kenney: I know Mr. Lastewka is getting frustrated with opposition dissent in this democratic Parliament, but he has to get used to it because he might be in the opposition shortly, Mr. Chairman.

The point I'm simply making is this. Essentially, what this amendment seeks to do, for the viewing public, for their elucidation, Mr. Chairman—and what the motion seeks to do, because right now it's the way the motion was originally constructed by Madam Jennings, before she got instructions from the PMO to amend her motion—is to limit these meetings to the sole purpose of hearing witnesses, which is, after all, what we're supposed to be doing, hearing testimony, such as, for instance, testimony from Chuck Guité, testimony that won't happen until the writ is dropped.

By eliminating the words “for the sole purpose of hearing witnesses” in this amendment, the next amendment, and the amendment to follow, what we're doing is allowing the government members to force consideration of what they are referring to as an interim report.

It of course undoubtedly will be drafted in cooperation with the Prime Minister's Office and will have the shocking finding that the Prime Minister had nothing to do with this, that there was no really serious political interference, and that the testimony being released today from Mr. Guité, in 2002, exculpates the Liberal Party, because it will be a finding that it was a rogue group of bureaucrats. We'll go back to the Prime Minister's first story in that interim report, which the government members will force through next week.

I'm only explaining to the public that the reason for these amendments is because the PMO wants to have an option of dropping the writ before April 26 so they can have a whitewash report.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote against this ridiculous proposal.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, Monsieur Desrochers, s'il vous plaît, Mr. Toews, and Madam Ablonczy.

Mr. Jordan.

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

I only point out that this meeting is almost four hours old and these are the first words I've said--

The Chair: I think we're all aware of that.

Hon. Joe Jordan: In terms of where we are with this and what happened yesterday, I think Mr. Kenney has appealed to the sanity of the viewers. Yesterday, we spent two hours discussing Mr. Mills; that was after he confessed. We couldn't figure out how to move that file forward when he threw himself at our feet.

Today we're into our fifth hour.

The Chair: I found it rather interesting that he confessed and we decided to do nothing about it.

Hon. Joe Jordan: Well, it's because the issue needs to be taken directly to the House—and I would encourage them to do that—as Mr. Murphy can take his issue to the House, because I don't think that belongs here.

It took five hours to release Guité's testimony, after he instructed his solicitor to tell us to do that. This is really working out well.

We then had to debate for a while the fact that all members of the committee should be given equal time in an equal way. Apparently, that offended the opposition.

We're now trying to put in place--

Â (1250)

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, I ruled the fact that a two-hour meeting could not accommodate everybody. That meant that some people would not have the right to speak. I didn't say the opposition member or the government side, but I said there would be no room for everybody to speak. Somebody would have to go without.

Hon. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, I said the opposition and not the chair.

The Chair: I know you said the opposition.

Hon. Joe Jordan: The fact that you would now try to restrict my parameters on speaking to this motion, after the litany of crap that we heard from these people for three and a half hours, is pushing my patience, sir.

I have not criticized you in the chair. I respect you in the chair, but for goodness' sake, people have had to sit here, listen to this, and redefine what is relevant to a motion. Hopefully, we don't bind other committees to this precedent, because it is really unfortunate.

I said that members of the opposition—and I want to clarify that—talked about this thing on equal time in an equal way. Part of the problem there was that we would have the first 40 minutes of questions go to the opposition and we'd get one. That very day, if the meeting was in the morning, on the floor of the House, they would work their questions into questions on the floor, and we were put in an impossible situation.

We brought this to your attention in a number of informal ways, and the righteous indignation that we had to witness on that point was a little too much for me.

We've demonstrated as a committee that when someone throws himself or herself at our feet, confessing, we still don't know what to do. We've spent five hours--

The Chair: I'm sorry, there is a point of order.

Monsieur Desrochers, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the motion pertaining to the time allocation scheduled from April 19 to 26, 2004, we are not discussing the way that the committee operates. So if Mr. Jordan had wanted to intervene on that matter, he should have done so earlier. At the moment, I am asking you, Mr. Chairman, to resume the debate on the motion on the table.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Desrochers is calling irrelevance, Mr. Jordan.

Hon. Joe Jordan: I am puzzled by this road to parliamentary Damascus experience he's just had. I have had to sit here and hear about Highway 59, every single political argument they could drag up, in relevance to, I should point out, a motion that, except for the change in date in terms of releasing Mr. Guité's testimony, was a motion we voted on from the Bloc, and they voted for it yesterday. So overnight they've had a change of heart and put three and a half hours of grandstanding in front of the Canadian people.

What this committee is trying to get to is witnesses. I had questions for poor Mr. Norm Steinberg, and yesterday the Auditor General, who was here to talk about national security. Obviously, the fact that for two hours we had to talk about what to do about Mr. Mills after he confessed took precedence over national security and the Auditor General, and today it's been five hours of discussion and rants and everything else they could think of--and the gruel was a little thin near the end--in order for us to decide to go along with Mr. Guité's instructions to his solicitor that would release his testimony.

So when I hear the opposition say they are on the side of angels here and we are the ones who are trying to prevent the facts getting on the table, I have to sit and reflect on that little bit of nonsense, because we are trying to get to the witnesses; we're trying to do our work; and every single motion, like the motion before us right now, Mr. Desrochers, which is essentially a motion that lays out a framework for our meeting dates, has to turn itself into some kind of political circus.

That's what I think the Canadian people--if anybody is left watching this debacle--are going to have to be subjected to here, because this committee can't seem to figure out how to do even the most basic thing without having to be subjected to the political prophecies, the political hallucinations, and all the righteous indignation that those people could muster on a moment's notice.

At the end of the day, I think it's very clear what this committee should be doing, and I don't think it is spending four hours, and this is the first intervention we've had--three and a half hours without a syllable on this side in debate, listening to the opposition rant against a motion that, for all intents and purposes, except for the change of Mr. Guité's testimony date back to the 7th, which they voted for yesterday. In terms of who is trying to play political games here, I'm not prepared to sit and listen to any more of that saliva spray across the way, because it's at a basic level.

I was here yesterday to talk to the AG. I didn't get that chance. We let her sit here and be subjected to this. Today I had very legitimate questions for Mr. Steinberg, and this is the second day we have made that poor guy sit and listen to this sort of stuff.

Â (1255)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Desrochers, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Odina Desrochers: I can understand that my colleague, Mr. Jordan, is a bit frustrated; we are too. However, I would like to point out to him that we are discussing Ms. Jennings' motion and if he has anything else to say about the work, he should do so elsewhere. I want to get back to Ms. Jennings' motion. I believe that she wants to provide us with some clarification.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. On your point of order, I did ask Mr. Jordan to be relevant, and he felt that what he said was relevant.

Madam Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: It appears that the--

The Chair: Is this a point of order?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes. It appears that the amendment I proposed is raising all kinds of suspicions on the part of members of this committee as to the objective wished to be achieved. In fact, when I made the proposal for amendments that I did, striking “for the sole purpose of hearing witnesses”, it was simply because I wanted to ensure that the committee would be able to hear motions, from members from any political party.

I've discussed this with the chair, and I am prepared to withdraw my proposed amendment, and if the committee agrees, I will bring this entire motion back on Monday. I will make the changes required to ensure that there is no hidden agenda that anyone can accuse me of wanting to take care of.

That was simply to allow for motions and to ensure that the issue of considering interim reports be removed.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Some people have a concern that we can't deal with motions next week because that's a break week. We did pass a motion some weeks ago, because we had a break week in early March and one in late February, or whenever it was, and at that time we said that for those weeks we cannot entertain any motions, but that restriction does not apply to the Easter break that's coming up. Therefore, provided there is quorum, motions can be dealt with by the committee when we meet next week.

Therefore, Ms. Jennings, I would suggest that you get that in today so that it meets the 48 hours' notice for Monday. That way it can be dealt with by the committee on Monday.

Is there unanimous consent to withdraw the motion and for her to resubmit it?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: My clock says it is adjournment time. So, ladies and gentlemen, the meeting is adjourned.