SPAC Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 12, 2004

Á

1115

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

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

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

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

Á

1120

Hon. Joe Jordan

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

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

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

Á

1125

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Á

1130

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Á

1135

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

Á

1140

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Á

1145

Hon. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Hon. Walt Lastewka

The Chair

Mr. Odina Desrochers

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

---

CANADA

Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts

---

NUMBER 001

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 12, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, CPC)): Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the steering committee of the public accounts committee.

    We are indeed breaking new ground, because not only are we trying to do this in conjunction with a public inquiry and a police inquiry, but we are now having our steering committees in public. I think this is a first.

    I'll just give you some overview.

    We have had a number of commitments by the Auditor General this morning, including a suggestion that there be a presentation to the committee about how the whole process works. It would therefore seem to me appropriate that we instruct the Department of Public Works and Government Services, the Treasury Board, and the Auditor General to put that presentation together at the earliest opportunity.

    In addition, the other commitments made by the Auditor General should be delivered to the committee, again at the earliest opportunity.

    Then we normally just talk about the witnesses coming from the report--and remember, the report does contain ten chapters, and some are perhaps of more public interest than others, but let's go around and see what each member has to say.

    Mr. Jordan.

    Hon. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Chair, just to give you the benefits of our discussion yesterday--and I think the Auditor General and our experiences last summer confirmed this--I think it would be appropriate and useful if this committee retained a counsel to be here when we meet, to give us guidance on the issues surrounding the privileged testimony before this committee, and perhaps that person could liaise with the other three streams. I would suggest that you, Mr. Chair, and the clerk undertake finding such an individual.

    The Chair: Are you suggesting outside counsel, or the Law Clerk of the House of Commons?

    Hon. Joe Jordan: I think it should be outside counsel with experience in these matters.

    Following on that, I think the next step should be that the various parties give some thought to their witness lists, and we should probably notify anybody who is on those lists that they're on the list and they should be prepared to come forward. But what we need to do next is to meet with legal counsel so that we can get a better understanding of the interplay between these streams.

    The Chair: We don't have any money to pay that legal counsel--

    Hon. Joe Jordan: Do we have to have a motion for that, or where do we get that?

    The Chair: We have to have a motion. We have to have an order of the House.

    Hon. Joe Jordan: Okay, can we initiate that procedure?

    The Chair: Is the committee agreed that we have...

    Monsieur Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière—L'Érable, BQ): Mr. Chairman, last time, we received excellent advice from House of Commons staff. The Public Accounts Committee reports to the House of Commons. In my opinion, the person we had before did an excellent job. Imagine what we would have to go through to hire someone and to ascertain if that individual was truly objective. We're dealing with an extremely delicate matter here.

    Mr. Chairman, I would rather we call upon the services of House of Commons staff.

Á  (1120)  

[English]

    Hon. Joe Jordan: I agree. If the opposition is okay with that, that's fine. But the point I'm making is that counsel be here all the time.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Can we get unanimous consent from the opposition that it's internal, then?

    The Chair: Is it agreed that we use the Law Clerk of the House of Commons?

    Hon. Joe Jordan: Yes, sure. That's fine with me.

    The Chair: There's no disagreement?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Then it's agreed that the law clerk will attend all meetings of the public accounts committee dealing with the issue of the sponsorship programs and advertising contracts with the Department of Public Works.

    And of course Mr. Jordan has asked that we all bring our witness lists forward. I think that witness list will in many cases be determined by the presentation we receive at the earliest opportunity.

    Does anybody else have any other issues they would like to raise?

    Madam Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I'm assuming that all of this is covering the study that the public accounts committee will be doing, particularly on chapter 3.

    The Chair: You're talking about chapter 3, which was the sponsorship program.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Yes--the audit done on the sponsorship program by the Auditor General, the call for each member or party to prepare a suggested or proposed witness list.

    I have another issue I'd like to raise, which follows out of the Auditor General's testimony. She made the point that while she hopes we do a complete and comprehensive study of chapter 3, she hopes the work of the committee will not be limited just to chapter 3. She raised the point of the national security branches, whatever we want to call it, that we're finding in various government ministries that lack virtually any independent oversight. She made the point quite clearly that she hoped this committee would devote time to that issue.

    You know where I am: I'm on independent oversight. So you know that when I hear that from the Auditor General, it's music to my ears. I don't know if it's music to the ears of the other members. I'd like to know if the other members are also prepared to devote time to looking at that very serious issue.

    The Chair: As I mentioned, we do have a full report, rather than two or three chapters. I don't know how long it will take Treasury Board, the Department of Public Works and Government Services, and the Auditor General's office to put together this briefing for us. Can you leave it in the hands of the chair and the clerk? If they're going to take a couple of weeks to put that together, maybe we could have a hearing on the other chapters as we're waiting. I believe it's March 23 that has been set for another report, the spring report, which will be another 10 or 15 chapters coming along, plus perhaps we may have a short spring session schedule.

    First of all, what we normally do is identify people's priorities. So outside of chapters 3, 4, and 5, I'll just go around....

    Mr. Jordan, what are your preferences for other chapters?

    Hon. Joe Jordan: Clearly, we need to focus on chapters 3, 4, and 5 initially.

    The Chair: But in addition to that.

    Hon. Joe Jordan: I will defer to my colleagues.

    The Chair: Mr. Lastewka, do you have any preference in addition to chapters 3, 4, and 5?

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: I have no priority order, Mr. Chair, but at your discretion we need to call a meeting to discuss each of the chapters.

    The Chair: We can't discuss all ten chapters; we will never have time. So in addition to chapters 3, 4, and 5 do you have any preference?

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: No.

    The Chair: Madam Jennings, you have indicated the oversight chapter.

    Mr. Desrochers, do you have a preference?

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Obviously, I'm interested in chapters 3, 4 and 5. There's also the matter of the two aircraft that were purchased.

[English]

    The Chair: The Challenger jets.

    Madam Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): First of all, are we finished the discussion on chapters 3, 4, and 5, or are we coming back to that?

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: No. What I am saying is that, as we always do in the steering committee, we find out the preferences for what we will look at. We can't look at them all, and we are going to look at chapters 3, 4 and 5.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure. I can give you my preferences, but I also have some other issues to raise.

    The Chair: Okay. I'm talking about preferences at this time.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What I would like to see us do is go to chapter 2 as well, because it relates directly to chapters 3, 4, and 5, and it does make a very specific recommendation about our committee needing to look at similar areas and similar problems for which we could roll this together and do an independent review of the depth of the problem. I say that partly in relation to the issue I raised with the Auditor General. I had a chat with her afterwards about it, and I think she would concur with this suggestion. It pertains to a scandal that is maybe not as large in terms of dollars robbed from the treasury, but just as egregious and heinous in terms of the breach of public trust, and that is, of course, the Health Canada scandal and the ongoing RCMP investigation.

    Mr. Chair, I would hope we could deal first and foremost with what is on the minds of people, and that is this tremendous breach of trust, lack of accountability and transparency, and loss of millions of dollars of public funds--

    The Chair: We are going to do chapters 3, 4, and 5. We want to know what in addition.

    My preference regarding chapter 2 is that the government operations and estimates committee would look at the governance structure of that. I think that is more within their realm than ours.

    You had other issues. Do you have any other issues you would like to raise, Madam Wasylycia-Leis?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. If we have an agreement that we will focus first on 3, 4, and 5--

    The Chair: That's agreed.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: --I would like to make a suggestion that is relevant to that decision. If we are going to be leaving no stone unturned, as has been suggested will be the case by government members on the committee, and if we want to have fairly wide-open criteria in terms of witnesses, then we also have to look at the issue of protection.

    The Chair: You're talking about whistle-blowing legislation.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes. In terms of that, all we have from the government is a commitment to bring in such legislation on March 31, when of course we are probably at the end of our work and we're going into an election.

    I would like to suggest that our committee have a motion to call on the government to bring in such legislation on an urgent basis. We have models before the House now. We've tried it before. What's the holdup? Let's get on with the bill so that at least we can protect people who come before us.

    The Chair: The government has indicated this. I would suggest--and I think everybody would give you the floor at the full committee--that you make a point of order to move that the committee report to the House that the government introduce whistle-blowing legislation at the earliest opportunity.

    Would that be agreeable, that she make a motion at the committee that the committee report to Parliament that this is the wish of the committee?

    Mr. Lastewka.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: I want to make a comment first before I agree to it.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis talked about the government not supporting it. I did not want to object there because you were doing some questioning. I think it should be noted very clearly that there was a private member's bill by a government member on that specific subject.

    So I take exception when you say the government objected. I guess the procedure here will be to object when members say something inaccurate.

    The Chair: Normally we have these in private, so there is no record. We don't need to be grandstanding because we're on the record.

    I'm trying to determine the priorities we have. Everybody agrees on chapters 3, 4, and 5. We've agreed that the Treasury Board, Public Works, and the Auditor General will put together these briefings at the earliest opportunity. I don't know how long that will take. I don't think it will be done over the weekend. We can meet next Tuesday and next Thursday. We may not have anything to do next Tuesday and Thursday--

    Hon. Joe Jordan: I think if we bring in counsel... Judy makes an excellent point.

    The Chair: Just let me get there. I have to try to figure out the best efficiency of this committee in the short time we have. Two meetings a week is normal, unless the committee decides to meet more frequently than that, to try to ensure that we are as productive as possible. We have legal counsel to think about, a briefing for the full committee. I am fully aware of that. Then the briefing by the government as to what has transpired has to be done. We have to absorb and receive from the Auditor General the commitments she has made today.

    I have heard two things. Ms. Wasylycia-Leis said chapter 2, which I felt should go to the government operations committee, and Madam Jennings feels the oversight should be dealt with. I haven't heard any other recommendations.

    Mr. Lastewka has a point.

Á  (1130)  

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: I wasn't finished.

    The Auditor General brought out that as a committee we should at some point understand what has been done in the Department of Public Works since 2001 and 2002.

    The Chair: I expect that will be part of the briefing.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: That was going to be my question. You are going to make sure the department understands that that should be part of the briefing.

    The Chair: We want to know what happened and what has been fixed. That's part of the briefing. There is no point in us putting in a report that says fix it if it has already been fixed.

    My recommendation is that chapter 2 go to government operations, and we only have one other recommendation on the table.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would like to put the motion, the reference in terms of whistle-blowers, if I could.

    The Chair: I'll come back to that in a minute.

    Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Desrochers raised the issue of the two Challenger jets.

    The Chair: I beg your pardon. You're right.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So there were two other chapters.

    The Chair: We have two issues: the Challenger jets and oversight.

    Are we agreed that our priority list is the Challenger jets, oversight by Madam Jennings, and chapters 3, 4, and 5?

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: If there is agreement that we should actually raise the Challenger jet issue as our next undertaking, I would suggest that we just agree to put chapter 10 on as our priority following chapters 3, 4, and 5, which allows us to--

    The Chair: Chapter 10 covers a number of things.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, it does, a number of pressing issues that are timely. So I would suggest that the Challenger jet issue could be dealt with, but so could the question about the RCMP involvement in anti-terrorism initiatives, and so could--

    The Chair: Well, that's part of the oversight that Madam Jennings has brought up.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Right. So you agree that chapter 10 should be on our--

    The Chair: Chapter 10 covers, I believe, employment insurance, the Challenger jets, and we're not talking about employment insurance.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well it's part of oversight. With a $42 billion--

    The Chair: But CSIS and its oversight is an entirely different subject from the surplus in the employment insurance fund. We can't have all the witnesses at the front talking about apples and oranges.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Fair enough.

    The Chair: Are we agreed, two issues?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay. Now, it's normally left up to the chair and the clerk to organize the order in which these things can be done. I wouldn't be surprised that next week we may be dealing with the Challenger jets and the CSIS oversight, because it may take time to put together the briefing. If that is the case, we also have to hear from the law clerk to make sure we're up to speed. So we will work on these issues.

    Monsieur Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the report is very broad in scope. It also touches on the subject of employment insurance.

    You opened the door earlier when you referred to the extraordinary contents of the AG's report. If we were assured that all committee members would agree to meeting more often, do you think we could cover another chapter? Employment insurance is a topic of general interest that has also received considerable media coverage.

    We're in somewhat of a bind. We're scheduled to table a report on March 23 and at the same time, the prospect of an election looms large. Therefore, we, that is the Public Accounts Committee, need to accomplish as much as we can.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    Is there agreement that perhaps we can meet three times a week? Any disagreement that we meet three times a week?

    Madam Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: If we're going to meet three times a week, is it possible? I understand our block on Tuesday normally is nine to eleven and the block on Thursday is nine to eleven. This meeting is actually the second meeting. So it means that we've had two meetings today and there were two notices that were sent out. So is it possible that the members would agree that, for instance, on Tuesday we would do a block nine to eleven and a second one immediately following--or conversely, one block on Tuesday and two blocks on Thursday morning?

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: We'll leave it to our competent clerk to work out the logistics.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Well that would be my preference. And if that's not possible--

    The Chair: You would have a four-hour meeting, two back-to-back meetings. Okay.

    Is that agreeable?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Monsieur Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: Mr. Chairman, could we also add the chapter on employment insurance to our agenda, now that we'll be meeting three times a week?

[English]

    The Chair: Any disagreement to that?

    A voice: It depends on what order.

    The Chair: We normally work that out. The highest priority is chapters 3, 4, and 5.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: And if perchance we can't have a meeting on chapters 3, 4, and 5 then we will bring in these others ones, because we've decided these are a priority.

    Now, getting back to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, on whistle-blowing legislation, two things. First, you must give the committee 48 hours' notice of an intention. And I think the committee would likely accept and give you the opportunity to ask for the committee to report to the House that whistle-blowing legislation be introduced at an early date. You can form the motion and bring it to the clerk and he will have it distributed in both languages.

    Is that agreeable?

    Mr. Jordan.

    Hon. Joe Jordan: May I just add that I agree with the issue that if we're going to follow the facts we need to get the facts. So we have to put in place reasonable protections. But I go back to our experiences in the summer. I think that if on Tuesday we can get in the law clerk, and maybe anyone else he thinks necessary, and have a discussion about those issues.... I think what you're referring to is once we have a clear idea of what the committee's parameters are.

    The example I'll use is that testimony for this committee is privileged testimony. And with the best intentions, we can hit roadblocks, in the sense that if somebody were pursuing a criminal prosecution they would not want us bringing witnesses willy-nilly. That's why I think that if our legal capacity is coordinated with the other three streams that are going on simultaneously, we can try to prevent those things ahead of time. But the idea of what do we do about a public servant who wants to bring forward testimony and doesn't want to have any repercussions is a very critical issue. I have no problem bringing it to the committee, but let's talk to the lawyer about the issue and then I think we can work our way towards a motion, because retroactivity is important too. If it's not retroactive it's not going to be overly helpful.

    The Chair: I thought there was agreement that Ms. Wasylycia-Leis could introduce a motion at the committee asking that the committee report to the House requesting that whistle-blowing legislation be introduced at the earliest opportunity. You'll table that. Then the researchers will draft a report, which will come back to the committee. Once it has been adopted, I will table it in the House.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Agreed.

    I wanted to clarify for Mr. Lastewka that I wasn't referring just to the private member's bill that was defeated but to an actual motion on whistle-blowing protection before the special committee dealing with the Radwanski affair. It was defeated by one vote, and I understand that it was defeated by government members. I want to prevent that from happening again, given this new climate of cooperation and getting to the bottom of things.

    The Chair: So that's agreed.

    Mr. Dupuis has just advised me that this is, of course, a new session of Parliament and there was some old business left hanging at prorogation, which disappears off the table unless this committee has a motion to reinstate the testimony, the reports, and so on. Is it okay for me to get the clerk to draft a motion to bring that agenda forward? It's a normal motion we do after prorogation.

    Madam Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: This does not have to do with that. It's not an issue I was going to raise, but given that both Mr. Lastewka and Ms. Wasylycia-Leis have discussed this whole issue of past government positions on whistle-blowing, I'd just like to bring to the attention of everyone who's watching this meeting that in fact when the standing committee on industry reviewed the government legislation on protection of personal information and e-documents, I was the member who raised the issue of giving the commissioner the authority and the powers for whistle-blowing protection, and I was able to convince the then Minister of Industry, Mr. Manley, to go back to cabinet to get approval for amendments to the bill. So the government has not always opposed whistle-blowing.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: We now also have that on the record. Thank you very much.

    Is there any other business coming before the committee?

    Mr. Jordan.

    Hon. Joe Jordan: Just a quick point. I have found that sometimes panels are better than having sequential witnesses, especially if it's not an adversarial environment. For instance, if we were to call in officials or even ministers, such as from the Treasury Board, because they've worked together, I find it better to have them there at the same time. Or if we were to bring in someone from the special commission and the RCMP and the special counsel and have them all together in a panel, I think that if we're really trying to get at the facts, it would be better not only in the interest of time but also in terms of the level of discussion that goes on. It's just something to think about.

    The Chair: I'm not exactly clear on what you have in mind. Perhaps we can discuss that.

    Hon. Joe Jordan: Rather than bring in one witness for a set time and then they leave and the next witness for a set time and then they leave, bring in the panel and let us discuss with them and let them discuss with one another where we're headed with this. I think it's a better use of the committee's time.

    The Chair: I think the time to deal with that would be when we discuss the actual witness list, Mr. Jordan.

    Does the clerk have anything else he wants to bring forward?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What about the deadline for the submission of witnesses?

    The Chair: We won't talk about witnesses until we have the briefing. Then we will talk about the witnesses. I think it's too early to--

    Hon. Joe Jordan: I think it's ongoing. I don't think we need a deadline because testimony will lead us in certain directions.

    The Chair: From my perspective, I think we need to understand the framework within which this all happened.

    Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I don't disagree with you except for the fact that we're under a very unusual time constraint.

    The Chair: I know.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Given the anxiety of the Canadian people out there over this huge scandal, on which we've taken no action, I think we need to take some immediate action. If we spend the next two months doing this review with the Auditor General and trying to figure out what's happening and we don't get to witnesses, we won't have served the public very well. I recommend that we set a deadline by which we would start to hear witnesses and that we perhaps consider putting the present Prime Minister, Paul Martin, at the top of that list so that we can at least begin the process of trying to make the links to what the Auditor General has identified.

    The Chair: I'm thinking that we would have this presentation by next Thursday, hopefully. They would have to have a real reason to go beyond next Thursday. That gives them a week. It's going to be a complex thing, so I don't think they can do it by Tuesday, but I would want it done by next Thursday. And I only want one meeting on it. There will be a steering committee right after that meeting to decide about witnesses.

    So I'm not going to drag my feet on this. I want this to move forward, and I understand the time constraints within which we are working.

    Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: I understand, Mr. Chairman, but you may recall the motion I put forward at the public meeting. I wanted the steering committee's discussions about the witness list to be open to the public. Are you now telling me that given the complexity of the reports and the lists to be supplied to us by the AG, and given the work to be undertaken by Treasury Board, we won't be able to come up with any witness names today? If we can't identify any witnesses at this time, given the consent I received, when the time comes to discuss the witness list, I would like the process to be a public one and I hope the meeting will be open to the public. As for the complexion of the AG's report, I can understand that, but there is also a political side to all of this. Witnesses will be called to testify. Could we not draw up a witness list before we learn the outcome of the work undertaken by the AG and by the departments?

[English]

    The Chair: As everybody knows, normally we try to work with consensus in the steering committee. People are perfectly capable of going out of this room and complaining that they didn't get their way at the steering committee. If there's no consensus, they can take it to the main committee for a vote and see what happens there. So to debate in public, at the steering committee, the witnesses who should and should not be here.... It's not the appropriate place, the steering committee. This is where we try to determine the agenda of the committee. If you don't agree with the list, take it to the main committee and debate it in public at that point in time. That's what I want to do.

    Mr. Jordan.

Á  (1145)  

    Hon. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, just to pick up on that point, I don't see me objecting to any potential witnesses, but I do think we have to figure out exactly what the mandate of the committee is in concert with what else is going on. Everybody wants to play Sherlock Holmes, but we have to be very careful here. I would be a little concerned about throwing out lists of names, in public, of people who may or may not have anything to do with this. I think we have to be careful. The committee will decide when it needs to go in camera, but I would be nervous about us just listing names, because there is this inference that somehow, because they're named at this committee, they may be more involved than they are. I think we have to be cautious about that.

    That's one of the discussions I want to have with legal counsel on Tuesday. So maybe that's the best place to move forward from.

    The Chair: Mr. Lastewka.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: I'm trying to stay away from political speeches and get down to the work of the committee.

    The Chair: Ignore the cameras.

    Hon. Walt Lastewka: You understand the task in front of you, Mr. Chairman. I know that you have to contact many people in order to get the ball rolling such that we could have our meetings on Tuesday and Thursday and then try to get an extra double meeting. I think you understand from all of us that we're anxious to get the job done. I think we have confidence in you to lay that out in front of us.

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

    Mr. Desrochers.

[Translation]

    Mr. Odina Desrochers: My colleague advises me to be careful about naming any names publicly. Nevertheless, the AG has said that Mr. Alfonso Gagliano has been questioned about this matter. To my knowledge, naming a person doesn't necessarily tarnish that person's reputation. Heads of Crown corporations have also been named, in particular Mr. Ouellet, Mr. Pelletier and Mr. LeFrançois. These names have cropped up in the press for the past two days. Why then should the committee meet behind closed doors to discuss potential witnesses? I don't understand the process.

    I have another objective in mind, Mr. Chairman. I don't want us to get bogged down in procedure and to fail to uncover the truth before elections are held. That's my goal. I say “yes” to the AG, but “yes” to transparency as well. We want to get to the truth of the matter before the next elections.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, okay, we're not into grandstanding, Mr. Desrochers. I understand your point.

    The issue is that until we get the briefing by the Auditor General, we have many names; we don't even know who they are. We have many people in positions of responsibility; we don't know who they are. Until we see the diagrams and charts showing who was responsible for what, we won't know who we want to call at this point in time.

    It always seems to me that if you want to find out what the people at the top are doing, you have to understand how they're supported by the people underneath. You can't cross the river until you build the bridge, and that's where this presentation is vitally important. I'm glad the Auditor General offered to do that.

    I think we're not going to shed any more light on this issue.

    Madam Jennings, you do have more light to shed?

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I'd simply say that I am completely supportive of the position that you have just outlined, as chair of the committee, as to how the work of the committee should move forward. I'm a little dismayed, if I'm interpreting the comments correctly, that at least one member of this committee seems to not have as much confidence in your abilities as chair.

    The Chair: Thank you for that compliment.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Perhaps the individual has not had the opportunity to work with you as long as I have.

    The Chair: With no further business before us, the meeting is adjourned.