PACC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

¹

1540

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

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

¹

1545

¹

1550

The Chair

¹

1555

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Peter Adams

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

º

1600

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC)

The Chair

º

1605

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

The Chair

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

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Hon. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

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

º

1610

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

The Chair

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

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

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

º

1630

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

º

1640

The Chair

Mr. Peter MacKay

The Chair

º

1645

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Jason Kenney

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 046

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 11, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

    We are back in session here. 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 witness this afternoon is, as an individual, the Honourable Don Boudria, PC MP; however, we are in the middle of debating a motion, with which we will continue.

    But before I do that, I have one document to table. This is a letter from the Auditor General of Canada, dated May 10, 2004, addressed to me as chair:

Dear Mr. Williams:

At its meeting of May 6, 2004, I agreed to provide the Committee with information about when the Office had reported on the divestiture of the Canada Communication Group's printing and warehouse/distribution services. The Office published a chapter in its October 1997 Report, Chapter 20, Public Works and Government Services Canada--Privatization of the Canada Communication Group.

I trust that this responds to the Committee's request for information.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Fraser, FCA.

    With copies to the clerks, that is tabled and is a public document in both official languages.

    We'll go back to the motion we have, which is Mr. Murphy's motion, dated May 6, 2004, which reads:

That this Committee spend the allotted time on Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday afternoon and Thursday of next week to meet in camera and discuss the issues with the Research staff, KPMG and the Law Clerk; synthesize the evidence and attempt to prepare and table an interim report on the evidence adduced to date, and any conclusions that can be drawn from such evidences.

Furthermore, that the Research staff be prepared to speak to this issue on Tuesday afternoon.

    These days of the week pertain to this particular week, based on the date of May 6, which is the date of the motion.

    We have Monsieur Guimond, who was speaking when we last adjourned. The floor is yours, Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to pick up where I left off before we broke for lunch. I had spoken for a mere 30 minutes.

    Some committee members may recall that when former Minister Stéphane Dion tabled Bill C-20, the so called Clarity Bill, to prevent Quebeckers from making a determination about their future, I made a short presentation to the committee that lasted all of five hours and 45 minutes. I'm going to try and best this time, Mr. Chairman, but I might change my mind along the way.

    Before the break, Mr. Chairman, I was saying how important it was for voters to have as much information as possible before casting their ballot. An election is apparently in the offing. Rumours are swirling that the call will come either on May 21 or May 23, with voters going to the polls on June 28. Let me first say, Mr. Chairman, that the Bloc Québécois is not asking that the election be delayed. It's no secret that some MPs, whether members of the committee or not, might be tempted to grandstand after making a comment of this nature. I want it to be clearly understood that the Bloc Québécois doesn't want the election postponed. We're simply saying that the committee should hear from certain witnesses this week in order to shed light on the political direction behind the whole sponsorship scandal.

    This morning, Mr. Chairman, I stated that despite the laying of charges and the arrests of Charles Guité and Jean Brault, the fact remains that these individuals were merely right-hand men who were carrying out orders. We want to know who the mastermind behind this whole affair was and who was calling the shots in this sponsorship scandal. Even Prime Minister Martin has acknowledged that there was surely some political direction. I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that we're not in a position to establish who was giving political direction.

    Remember what I said to you, Mr. Chairman. I concluded by saying that there were seven or eight points to consider. I don't intend to review all of them again, but I did say that Quebeckers wanted to know why Paul Martin, who was Finance Minister at the time, did nothing, whereas in February of 2002, the chairman of the Liberal Party of Canada policy committee wrote to Mr. Martin to warn him of the rumours circulating to the effect that communications firms were funding the Liberal Party of Canada. Quebeckers want to know why Paul Martin, in his capacity of Finance Minister as well as Vice-President of the Treasury Board, the purveyor of funds and the man responsible for signing cheques from 1992 to 2002, failed to pick up on the problems identified by the media, by the opposition and by various internal investigations.

    Mr. Chairman, Paul Martin maintains that he was unaware of this situation. I would remind him that between May 2000 and December 2003, the Bloc Québécois raised 441 questions about this very matter in the House. What was he doing during Question Period? Does he only appear to be listening? Does he mute the sound? Four hundred and forty-one questions, and he's unaware of any sponsorship scandal! Let me repeat what I said to you this morning. Is there someone, anyone, on Sparks Street who actually believes Paul Martin didn't know what was happening? I don't think so.

¹  (1545)  

    Mr. Chairman, Quebeckers also want to know why Paul Martin himself gave preferential treatment to Earnscliffe Strategy. Quebeckers want to know why Earnscliffe contributed $12 million to his Liberal Party leadership bid. We want to know what Earnscliffe's return on this investment was. Earnscliffe is one of the players in the advertising programs and in this whole investigation, as noted in chapters 3, 4 and 5 of the Auditor General's report. Quebeckers want answers to these questions.

    Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that the Liberals are not interested in the truth. Their sole concern, their sole motivation, is the timing of the election. By virtue of Mr. Murphy's motion, the Liberals are willing to accept a truncated, partisan report, merely to satisfy their election agenda.

    Mr. Chairman, Prime Minister Martin has accused you a number of times in the House of wanting to seize control of the Public Accounts Committee proceedings. I'm sorry, but that's not quite true. You know it's not true, because you served as my vice-chair in 1996 and 1997. When the Bloc Québécois formed the Official Opposition, I chaired the Public Accounts Committee. Although you're a member of the Official Opposition and a Conservative MP, it's important to explain to everyone that the Liberals hold the majority on the committee. Although the committee is chaired by a Conservative MP, a member of the Official Opposition, Liberals MPs can adopt or reject motions tabled by other committee members. We mustn't lose sight of that fact.

    Prime Minister Martin accused you of controlling and manipulating the committee. You're a competent person, but people mustn't be taken for fools. Liberal MPs are in the majority on this committee. Therefore, it's utterly ludicrous to imply that the Official Opposition controls this committee.

    It will all be clear later when we vote on Mr. Murphy's motion. You'll see how members will vote. The Liberals had pledged to address the democratic deficit and to take a new approach to governing. Yet, in many respects, Paul Martin's Liberals are behaving much the same way Jean Chrétien's Liberals have behaved since 1993. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Nothing whatsoever has changed. They're trying to spin this as a new Liberal government. I'm sorry, but what we really have here is a fourth Liberal government.

    Consider how the witnesses who have testified are connected. Alfonso Gagliano served alongside Prime Minister Paul Martin. When Paul Martin claimed he knew nothing about the sponsorship scandal, he was serving in Cabinet with Mr. Gagliano. Then, all of sudden, Alfonso Gagliano was out of the picture. Bye, bye Alfonso. What happened to him? He was appointed Ambassador to Denmark. Did you know, Mr. Chairman, that Alfonso Gagliano is the only person who was hired, and fired, as a result of the sponsorship scandal? His name is bound to go into the Guinness Book of Records, Mr. Chairman.

    So then, the Liberals hold the majority on the Public Accounts Committee and they control the agenda. Paul Martin, the man who said no stone should be left unturned, told the National Post as recently as May 8, 2004 that Canadians had enough information about the sponsorship affair. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but that's not the case. We sit on this committee and we've heard from witnesses. I'm sorry, but we can't really say that we know all of the facts about the political direction behind the sponsorship scandal.

¹  (1550)  

    MP Marlene Jennings, the Vice-Chair of this committee, looks to the Prime Minister's Office for direction and then carries out orders. On May 4, 2004, she admitted that if it had been up to her, she would have closed down the committee a month earlier. How could a member of this committee say such a thing, when we had not heard all of the evidence to come to any kind of conclusion with respect to the AG's report, specifically to chapters 3, 4 and 5? How could she possibly have made such a statement over one month ago?

    As I said, Mr. Chairman, the Liberals are in a hurry to draft a truncated, partisan report before the election, when in reality they dragged their heels for over two years. In point of fact, in July 2002, the Liberal majority on the Public Accounts Committee decided to shut down the committee's investigation into the sponsorship contracts awarded to Groupaction.

    We have to remember that Mr. Brault and Mr. Guité were charged yesterday in the wake of the three photocopied Groupaction reports produced at a cost of $550,000 each. While Groupaction in fact produced the first report, the second and third reports are merely photocopies of the initial one. That's a hefty price tag per copy, namely $500,000. I don't know what kind of photocopier Groupaction used, but leaving the taxpayers to pick up the tab for half a million dollars is completely unacceptable. Hence the reason for laying charges yesterday.

    Members should also remember that in July of 2002, the Public Accounts Committee had begun its investigation, but the Liberal majority invoked closure and shut down the committee. The Bloc Québécois, on the other hand, has been calling for an independent public inquiry since May 2002. The announcement didn't come until February 2002, a full 20 months later. When Paul Martin ordered this investigation, he gave us a mandate to examine the Auditor General's report, specifically chapters 3, 4 and 5.

    Whereas opposition parties wanted to hear testimony from key witnesses in the hope that some light would be shed on the issue of political direction, the Liberal members on the committee kept throwing a wrench in the schedule by suggesting witnesses who were only minor players in this affair. I could give you a few examples, with no disrespect to their abilities as human beings: Mr. Patrick Boyer and Professor Franks. I do not believe that the testimony they presented was very significant. These are witnesses whose names were suggested by the Liberal majority. The three opposition parties, on the other hand, wanted to hear from key witnesses who might be able to shed some light on matters.

    Summing up, Mr. Chairman, and I'll conclude on this note, I'd like to know why we should be drafting a report at this stage, when the political figures responsible for this scandal have yet to be identified. For all of these reasons, I wish to move this amendment to Mr. Murphy's motion. The clerks have received a copy of it in both languages. Would you like to pass it around at this time, before I read it?

[English]

    The Chair: The motion is being distributed. I have it in both official languages. Does everybody have a copy of the amendment?

    The amendment is that the motion be amended by, at the first paragraph, adding the following--and I'll just read the first paragraph so that people will know what we're talking about:

That this Committee spend the allotted time on Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday afternoon and Thursday of next week to meet in camera and discuss the issues with the Research staff, KPMG and the Law Clerk; synthesize the evidence and attempt to prepare

--delete the words “and table”--

an interim report on the evidence adduced to date, and any conclusions that can be drawn from such evidences.

Plus, we are adding the amendment:

and that the committee not table a report before hearing from the following witnesses: Jean Chrétien; Paul Martin; Warren Kinsella and Jean Carle, so that their evidence can be included in the report.

    That is the motion.

    Now, speaking to the amendment and the amendment only, I believe it would be--

¹  (1555)  

    Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think there's another part to that amendment.

    The Chair: There's another part to your amendment?

    Mr. Peter Adams: With the words “and table” be deleted.

    The Chair: Yes, when I read it out I mentioned these two words were in the motion, in the body of the motion, and I mentioned that they be deleted.

    Mr. Peter Adams: I apologize, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: So speaking to your amendment, monsieur Guimond, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to spend 45 minutes speaking to my amendment. I'd simply like to say that the aim of the amendment is not to prevent the publication or drafting of a report. However, in light of everything I've said, in light of the Prime Minister's acknowledgment that surely there was some political direction behind the sponsorship scandal, in light of the fact that despite everything the witnesses have told us since the outset, we're still not any closer to getting an answer, in light of the fact that some witnesses merely hinted at the political ties, I suggested that the committee call four more witnesses.

    Had I tabled on behalf of my party an amendment calling for the committee to hear from 88 additional witnesses, then everyone here would have been justified in saying that I was playing for time. However, that's not what we're doing. We settled on a list of four potentially significant witnesses.

    I won't re-state my argument as to the roles played by Jean Carle in the office of Prime Minister Chrétien, by Warren Kinsella in Mr. Dingwall's office, by Jean Chrétien himself, since his name has been mentioned, both directly and indirectly—you will recall that his Chief of Staff Jean Pelletier dealt directly with Mr. Guité—and by Paul Martin. I'll simply say that given the latter's ties with Earnscliffe, given that he was Vice President of the Treasury Board, given that he pumped money into the national unity reserve fund, and given that he was second in command in the Chrétien government, we'd like Paul Martin to explain to us what he meant when he said that there was surely some political direction behind this whole affair.

    For all of these reasons, I'm convinced that all committee members will endorse this motion that I consider reasonable.

    I issue a challenge to the Liberals, who often say that common sense is lacking, that there is a democratic deficit and that the role of MPs and committees needs to be valued once again. This is a golden opportunity for them to show us that their promises to address the democratic deficit were more than empty words. I challenge Liberals MPs to put their money where their mouth is.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

º  (1600)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Guimond.

    Mr. Murphy, please.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I've sat here for the last hour or hour and a half of the committee meeting and I've listened to Mr. Kenney and Mr. Guimond go on, and obviously we're into a filibuster situation, but I submit that Mr. Guimond has totally missed the gist of my motion.

    First of all, what I'd like to do is read the motion, because I think the intent has been totally missed in the discussion. What we're saying here, and I'll read it to you, and I'll change it to the context, is that the allotted time.... We can forget about that.

    On Wednesday afternoon and Thursday, tomorrow and the next day, let's say, we will meet in camera and discuss the issues with the research staff, KPMG, and the law clerk, synthesize the evidence, and attempt to prepare and table an interim report on the evidence adduced to date and any conclusions that can be drawn from such evidence.

    I am not in any way saying we discontinue the future hearings of the committee. That is not the intention of the motion. I am also not saying we are mandated by this motion to write a report. The committee may decide that it will not write a report.

    I am also not suggesting what form the report will take. The report can take the form of some conclusions; it can take the form of recommendations, but not necessarily so; it very well may take the form of just what we did the last time, when we did the very same procedure about six weeks ago, when we went in camera and discussed it.

    It appears to me that there's a probability that it will follow Mr. Kenney's suggestion, and when we step back and look at the whole situation in its totality, we may say, no, we're just going to ask the clerk to give a very detailed summary of the evidence so that anyone out there who is interested can go to the Internet or can obtain copies of the synthesis, like the last time, and that would be distributed to the interested public. But again, I'm not going to preclude what decision this committee will come to after it discusses the situation as a whole, after getting the views and opinions from every person.

    But I repeat myself, Mr. Chair, that Mr. Guimond has somehow read the motion and took the comments that I made earlier this morning, and he has been speaking for over an hour now, I believe, although he claims he's capable of speaking for five hours and 43 minutes--

    The Chair: And has already proved that.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: He has proved that he's capable. I will not question that, and I congratulate him. I'm convinced in my own mind that he's quite capable of going for another four hours and 43 minutes, and if that's the case, that's the case. But I just want to reiterate that I believe he has missed the gist of the motion. I'm just here to try to be of some help.

    Let's just step back. Are we in a position to do so, and if so, what form will it take? I have no idea.

    Again, those are the comments I would make, and I'm against this amendment.

    The Chair: Are we ready for the question on the amendment? Do you want to continue debate?

    Sorry, Mr. Kenney. Your name is on here.

    Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, CPC): Just very briefly, because I was mentioned in Mr. Murphy's intervention, I want to respond by saying it was not my intention or my intervention to launch into what he characterizes as a filibuster. I can very easily do that over several hours, and I know the opposition members could easily filibuster several hours here. My point, and I believe Mr. Guimond's point, was to raise our substantive concerns about issues still to be examined by the committee and do it in a somewhat detailed fashion. But I certainly don't have any intention of being dilatory or filibustering just for the sake of doing that.

    The Chair: Are we ready for the question? The question is on the amendment, and I will read the amendment again. The amendment is that the words “and table” be deleted from the motion, and that at the end of the first paragraph the following words be added:

and that the committee not table a report before hearing from the following witnesses: Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, Warren Kinsella and Jean Carle, so that their evidence can be included in the report.

    All those in favour of adopting the amendment--

º  (1605)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: On a point of order, I'd like a recorded vote, please.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, a recorded vote, please.

    (Motion negatived: 9 nays; 7 yeas)

    The Chair: Mr. Jordan asked to be recognized before we go back to the main motion.

    Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I was reluctant to break into my colleague's speech because he was on a bit of a roll. My concern with this motion is that I think we might be debating a false point here. Based on my somewhat limited experience, if events play out the way everybody is assuming they're going to, and that seems to be what's driving the flavour of this debate, I don't think it's physically possible to get a report out of this committee and have it tabled in the House. I'm wondering if perhaps we could pick up on Mr. Kenney's earlier suggestion.

    The other thing I would add to that is that I think Mr. Walsh's comments need to be taken into consideration. My concern is that if we start trying to draw conclusions or recommendations, we're essentially finding a fix, which indirectly is finding a fault and may cause us some problems. I think today might be shot, but tomorrow and Thursday, if we were to do the summation of evidence, as we did before in camera, and not have it be a report of the committee that would then be tabled in Parliament--it would be a document similar to what we produced last time—and stay away from conclusions and recommendations, because it's my sense that's not going to be allowed to go forward anyway, maybe that might be a better use of the committee's time than what we're currently engaged in. But that's just a suggestion.

    The Chair: Mr. Murphy, how do you feel?

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: If you read my motion, I never intended, Mr. Chairman—and actually Mr. Guimond's second part really is a redundant issue—to state in my motion that we manage to write a report. All I'm doing is saying let's spend three or four hours talking among ourselves collectively to determine if the collective will is there and, secondly, if there's any will there, what form it takes. It's entirely up to the committee the form this report can take, whether it's a summary of evidence, a synopsis of evidence, or a more developed report. Again, that's entirely up to the committee. I have no preconceived notions or opinions on that.

    The Chair: Well, I'm trying to find my way through here and find out if there is consensus.

    Hon. Shawn Murphy: I have no problem, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Mr. MacKay, just a brief intervention while I'm trying to figure out what I'm going to do here.

    Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, CPC): A very brief intervention, Mr. Chair.

    I get the sense, particularly on the part of Mr. Jordan, that there is some willingness to find common ground here and to look for a way in which we continue this process—for lack of a better word and using a word in Mr. Murphy's motion—to synthesize the existing evidence, that is, to repeat the process that we went through in presenting a document that says this is the evidence we have heard to date. But I seize on the words of Mr. Jordan when he says we're not at a place where we can form conclusions or draw any official recommendations at this point or make official recommendations. If that spirit of cooperation exists, we're certainly prepared to move in that direction, but there has to be fairly precise language. Let's be frank about that.

º  (1610)  

    The Chair: Mr. Jordan, you wanted another intervention.

    Hon. Joe Jordan: I think we're all at different places, but I'm just trying to be realistic. Clearly there are some machinery-of-government recommendations that some people feel strongly about, but I don't think there's enough consensus to go.

    The other thing I suggest that we could do, again trying to be realistic about where we're going, is this. With the KPMG document and the strategic plan, if we were to take a summation of what we've done to date and plug it in as to how that fits into this plan, I think we would be doing whoever picks up this ball and runs with it a huge favour in terms of giving them a document. The newly struck committee, in the fall or whenever, could go back at this. That might be something useful. I just don't think wasting the week is useful.

    The Chair: Before we go way down in that direction, Mr. Jordan, what I'm proposing...and as I say, I'm not sure if this is actually procedurally correct, but there seems to be a consensus around the table that we do move in the direction of going in camera to discuss the evidence heard. The Library of Parliament has been able to produce a synthesis of the testimony to date, and without producing a report with recommendations, we get this document, this synopsis of the testimony, on the table for Canadians to read.

    I'm proposing that we suspend for five or ten minutes to perhaps rework another motion, as Mr. MacKay said, to get the language precise. Then we would come back, and if there's unanimous consent to replace Mr. Murphy's motion with the one that's being drafted, we could debate that and perhaps adopt it.

    Is there consensus around the table that we suspend for 10 minutes, or do you want to go with the formal debate process?

    An hon. member: Suspend.

    The Chair: You want to suspend for 5 or 10 minutes?

    Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I object to a suspension of these proceedings. I don't want to be a stickler for the rules, but I'm well aware that the Liberal majority has tabled a motion, is uncomfortable with it and is trying to wiggle out of it. If either Mr. Jordan or someone else wishes to amend Mr. Murphy's motion, then go ahead and we'll have an open, transparent debate. I object to our reaching a consensus on the sly, if you will. I debated my amendment openly before everyone. I suggest the Liberals do the same. I'm just letting you know that I disagree with this approach.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Guimond, you presented a motion in public that was debated and that was defeated. That was the amendment to Mr. Murphy's motion. Now, there's either going to be a desire to come to a consensus and a decision around this table or, as Mr. Murphy said at the very opening statement, political fever can run quite high and it can prevent us from moving forward.

    I prefer that cooler heads prevail. I think Canadians would prefer that cooler heads prevail. Therefore, I am going to suspend the meeting for 10 minutes or so, and we will come back. We'll see what happens in that 10 minutes.

    The meeting is suspended for 10 minutes.

º  (1613)  

---

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: We're back in session.

    Mr. Lastewka, please.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    We've had some discussion, so I'd like to present a proposal. It's referring to Shawn Murphy's original motion.

    The amendment would be to delete, after the words “synthesize the evidence”, “and attempt to prepare and table an interim report on the evidence”, leaving in “adduced to date,” and deleting “any conclusions that can be drawn from such evidences”. So the wording after “Law Clerk” would read: “synthesize the evidence adduced to date, and that the working document be made public.”

    Those are the same words we made after the April report.

    The Chair: Okay, this is an amendment by Mr. Lastewka to delete the words “and attempt to prepare and table an interim report on the evidence”, leave in the words “adduced to date,” and add at the end: “and that the working document be made public”. So the motion would now read, if amended:

That this committee spend the allotted time on Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday afternoon, and Thursday of next week to meet in camera to discuss the issues with the Research staff, KPMG and the Law Clerk; synthesize the evidence adduced to date, and that the working document be made public.

    Speaking to the amendment....

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: I think Mr. Murphy tried to make his point that the main item wasn't the interim report; the main item was to synthesize that we have the information to date and that the working document, similar to one from April 1, be made public.

    Maybe we should put in at the same time, just so we don't get mixed up, that what we mean is Tuesday afternoon, May 11; Wednesday afternoon, May 12; and Thursday afternoon, May 13.

    The Chair: Mr. Lastewka, I'll take that as an editorial comment rather than an amendment.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: Okay, as long as it's understood.

    The thought process here was that, especially with events of the last couple of days, the law clerk needs to spend some time on defining some information for us, and we should hear from our research staff on what they have put to date, and also hear from KPMG. There might be some differences of opinion on the conclusions that people have put together, so it would be good for us to take that extra time to synthesize all the information we've heard to date, starting from the beginning, but more importantly, from the last report.

    The Chair: Madam Ablonczy, and then Monsieur Desrochers.

    Madam Ablonczy, please.

    Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, CPC): Mr. Chairman, I'm a little puzzled about why the committee would be adjourning, would be sitting around while a motion put forward by one member gets rewritten and fixed. Having done that for reasons that escape me, I think it's clear that what I and other members have been saying all along is that we're not in any position to issue a report on this matter.

    That being so, I believe Canadians deserve better than our doing nothing for Wednesday and Thursday except going over evidence that we've already been sitting here for hours to hear. Why would we do that, Mr. Chairman?

    We've been here, we've received the evidence, and what Canadians want is to hear from some of these 90 witnesses who are still on our witness list, so that we can get as far down the road as possible in trying to discover what actually happened and who was behind it. To sit Wednesday and Thursday just to go over evidence that we've already heard is, I think, a disservice to Canadians. It simply blocks any new evidence from coming forward, for no purpose, because the Liberals have already admitted now that they are not in a position to bring a report forward. If Canadians are interested in the evidence, the blues are available, the documents are all available, and we don't have to sit here and go over a summary. It doesn't make any sense at all.

    This is not in the interests of Canadians, and it's not helping us carry out our mandate in any substantive way. I do not believe this motion should go forward in any sense, Mr. Chairman.

º  (1630)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mrs. Ablonczy.

    Monsieur Desrochers, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As far as I'm concerned, this amendment provides no new information. The amendment moved by my colleague was discussed and rejected. I'd like us to get back to the main motion.

    Mr. Lastewka, you maintain that you want this document to be made public, and I understand your position somewhat because...

[English]

    The Chair: Remarks are to be made to the chair, not to Mr. Lastewka.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, as I see it, all my Liberal colleague wants is something on paper. Since 11 a.m. this morning, all we've seen is election maneuvering. Why are they in such a hurry today to get an interim report out, when we still have many witnesses to hear from?

    If the Liberals opposite want an actual report in hand before Canadians go to the polls, then they should be honest about it. I've studied the motion from every possible angle, and that's the only conclusion I can draw.

    For starters, Mr. Chairman, we've already wasted the entire afternoon on Mr. Murphy's initial motion. There's talk of the committee sitting on Wednesday and on Thursday afternoon. We'll have two hours Wednesday afternoon and possibly five hours on Thursday to summarize the testimony presented and to take a stab at drafting an interim report. Why the rush? What is motivating the Liberal majority to push for an interim report at this stage, if not the desire to show Canadians and Quebeckers that this committee has accomplished something?

    Mr. Chairman, let me remind you of certain dates that were changed completely. The committee started to go off the rails when the first deadline of April 4 was set. Then April 25 was announced as the new deadline, followed thereafter by May 9 and now, by either May 21 or May 23. These dates all coincide with the possible dropping of an election writ.

    Moreover, as I recall, when we were working on a report, before Chuck Guité had testified, we agreed that any interim report that did not include Mr. Guité would be omitting some important players.

    I repeat, we still need to hear from some other key players. My colleague submitted a list of names, but his motion was defeated. My Conservative colleagues are of the same opinion. Regardless of how the main motion is amended, the Liberal majority has but one goal in mind, and that is to produce a draft report in an attempt to show that the committee has accomplished something. We've been strung along every way imaginable. Because an election is looming, the media have been pointing the finger at us for the past month.

    I have a message for the Liberal majority: call the election and we'll deal with the sponsorship issue on the campaign trail. In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, take steps to ensure that the committee continues to sit. There's no question that this partisan, pre-election atmosphere is paralyzing our proceedings.

    Anyone watching us this afternoon will come to the conclusion that once again, these are merely philosophical musings, broad principles, motions and amendments put forward for one single purpose, that is to produce a report a report that can be used on the campaign trail to defend the party's actions. And that is totally unacceptable.

    Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to the amendment and I'd like us to vote on the main motion, which naturally I reject as well.

º  (1635)  

[English]

    The Chair: Merci beaucoup, monsieur Desrochers.

    Mr. Tonks, please.

    Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I'm a little disappointed in the tone of this part of the deliberations of the committee. I'm disappointed, Mr. Chairman, because I thought that after we had cleared away some of the political undertones, in fact there was a degree of consistency in the nature of the questioning of the witnesses we've had before us. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I found it helpful to follow up on some of the questions that were made by members on the other side.

    I've said publicly from time to time, Mr. Chairman, that this is a very different kind of process than I have ever been involved in. In fact, I think it's a very different process than the normal investigative role that committees have played. And you know, Mr. Chairman, because you've spent a great deal of time, along with others of your colleagues who have been in the House far longer than I, attempting to democratize and mobilize the committees to be far more effective in any mode they might be engaged in, whether it's to look at estimates or whether it's to provide oversight. And so, Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed because I thought that you were bumping and nudging this committee along in that type of role, a changing role, and that you yourself were having to play a different role.

    I have heard criticism of you, for example, that you have vacated the chair and have had your opportunity to question and have had your opportunity as an individual to respond to the media. And, Mr. Chairman, at first I was one of the detractors of that particular approach, to some extent, but after a while I realized that you yourself were having to divine, if you will, a different role and that you are not only the chairman of the committee in an investigative scenario, but you are also an individual on the committee who was from time to time having the opportunity to voice your own particular opinion. Mr. Chairman, I, and I think members of the committee generally, started to appreciate that this was a different role.

    So I use that, Mr. Chairman, to say that I'm disappointed because I thought we were adapting to a different character and nature of the role of the committee, a role that in fact has had successes in the past, but at this particular point a role that seems to be seized with the politics of the moment as opposed to the objective. I thought the objective was to take the Auditor General's report within the parameters of this committee and to answer the questions in chapters 3, 4, and 5 that the Auditor General had raised. The other issues, with respect to criminal activity and with respect to those issues that were ex parte to the nature of a parliamentary committee, would be done by a judicial inquiry with different resources, tools, and mandates at its disposal, with a judge of the Supreme Court to lead them through that particular process.

    Mr. Chairman, I think we have a wonderful opportunity here, without prejudice, to allow our researchers, who are not owned by any side in this committee, to attempt to lead us through the next part of the process, a process that we have to take with a certain degree of faith. This is the same faith, Mr. Chairman, that the public of Canada have placed in us—that from time to time we can transcend our political and partisan natures and identify with our professional bureaucracy a course that is in the higher interests of Canadians.

    So, Mr. Chairman, I think, without prejudice, if I may suggest humbly, that we should follow your lead in terms of what you have attempted to do. We should follow at least the intent of the motion and not try to read any ulterior motive in it other than faith to allow, for the next two days, the researchers, the KPMG professionals, and Mr. Walsh to try to bring us through toward a summary of findings or whatever.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Chairman, there may be those in the committee who are skeptical of that particular approach. But let me say, on behalf of Canadians who have been watching these proceedings, I believe that at the very least they may distrust our motivation, just as there is distrust here, but they won't mistrust our intent if we are to bring something forward that they will be the judges of.

    Mr. Chairman, at the end of the day, that's what elections are all about. There is nothing to fear in this process other than if we allow the partisanship of the moment with politics to drive us away from the objective that the Auditor General put out for us.

    Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would support what has come out of this part of the process, and at least for the next few days, without prejudice, that we would attempt to bring forward something to the Canadian public so that they can be the judges of whether we have done our job or we haven't.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tonks.

    Mr. MacKay.

    Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Chair, I think we have to take a step back and see what happened when we presented a report, which was a synthesis of evidence, in the last session when we heard from some 40 witnesses.

    My recollection--and I stand to be corrected by you or other members of the committee--is that we did not break for two days. We took half a day, or four hours, to examine what our clerks had presented to us for discussion, much of which we spent not debating the substantive elements of what was being put forward, but debating whether it was going to be put forward as a report or a synthesis of evidence. We've plowed this ground a little bit before. I don't think that what Canadians benefit from, and what this committee benefits from, quite frankly, is more spinning of the wheels.

    What I'm hearing is that if there are other witnesses we need to hear from--and clearly there are--we should get on with that work. Mr. Murphy himself, the mover of the motion, said at one time just last week that there were other witnesses who had to come forward. He names Jean Carle in particular. Jean Carle is on the witness list. Attempts have been made, I understand, to secure his testimony. We had Mr. Boudria sitting in this room ready to testify today.

    I take no issue with the attempt by Mr. Lastewka to amend this motion and to pare it down, if you will, from an actual report to a synthesis of evidence, which we have done in the past. What I do take issue with is the suggestion that we need to break for two days--valuable days, I would suggest--with this imminent election, when we know there will be a dissolving of Parliament and a dissolving of this committee, as my colleague Mr. Kenney said so aptly in the House. Why would we throw away two days of testimony? We could have the clerks present this synthesis of evidence. We could do it after hours. We could extend hours to examine that synthesis of evidence, if necessary.

    In the meantime, let's get back to the business of calling witnesses, asking relevant, probing questions about what took place in this sponsorship scandal. That's what I would suggest Canadians want, and that's what we should do as a committee.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacKay.

    Since there are no further questions, I will call the question on the amendment. This is on the amendment put forth by Mr. Lastewka that the following words be deleted from Mr. Murphy's motion--that “and attempt to prepare and table an interim report on the evidence” be deleted; that the words “and any conclusions that can be drawn from such evidences” be deleted; and after “adduced to date,” the following words be added: “and that the working document be made public”.

    The vote is on the amendment.

º  (1645)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: On a point of order, I request a recorded division.

[English]

    The Chair: A recorded vote. Okay.

    (Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 6)

    The Chair: Now we have the main motion, without any alteration, by Mr. Murphy.

    Are there any further speakers to this main motion?

    Some hon. members: Call the question.

    The Chair: You're in favour of the question being called.

    To call the question on Mr. Murphy's motion, which reads:

That this Committee spend the allotted time on Tuesday afternoon, Wednesday afternoon and Thursday of next week to meet in camera and discuss the issues with the Research staff, KPMG and the Law Clerk; synthesize the evidence and attempt to prepare a table an interim report on the evidence adduced to date, and any conclusions that can be drawn from such evidences.

Furthermore, that the Research staff be prepared to speak to this issue on Tuesday afternoon.

    A recorded vote, please.

    (Motion agreed to: yeas 8 ; nays 7)

    The Chair: Because the motion is carried, we will now move in camera.

    A point of order?

    Mr. Jason Kenney: Yes. Mr. Chairman, this morning I gave notice of a motion. I wanted to seek unanimous consent for immediate consideration. You said that would be delayed till later in the day.

    The Chair: Order, order.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: I therefore seek unanimous consent that my motion regarding sitting from Monday through Friday of next week be now put.

    The Chair: Okay. Is there unanimous consent for Mr. Kenney's motion?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr. Chair, there is not.

    The Chair: There is not unanimous consent. The answer is no.

    Mr. Jason Kenney: But I thought you wanted the committee to keep hearing witnesses.

    The Chair: Order, please.

    The meeting is suspended for a few minutes so that we can move in camera, in accordance with the motion.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]