;

FAIT Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

0905

The Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.))

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP)

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

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

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

0910

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

0915

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Stan Keyes

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

0920

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London--Fanshawe, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

0925

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

The Chair

Mme Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

0930

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Casey

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

0935

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Canadian Ambassador-designate to the Kingdom of Denmark)

0940

0945

0950

The Chair

M. Pallister

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

M. Pallister

0955

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. George Baker (Gander--Grand Falls, Lib.)

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. George Baker

1000

The Chair

Mme Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mme Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. George Baker

1005

Mr. Baker

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1010

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

1015

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

1020

The Chair

Mme Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Stan Keyes

1025

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1030

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

1035

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mme Francine Lalonde

Mme Lalonde

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mme Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

1040

The Chair

Mr. George Baker

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1045

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Lalonde

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

1050

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Assadourian

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mme Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Assadourian

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

1055

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Baker

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

1100

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Baker

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

1105

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Bill Casey

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

1110

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

1115

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

1120

The Chair

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Williams

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. John Harvard

1125

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

1130

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Pierre Paquette

M. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

M. Szabo

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

1135

Mr. Szabo

The Chair

M. Szabo

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

1140

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Svend Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Robinson

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. George Baker

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1145

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

Ms. Marlene Jennings

1150

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano

The Chair

Mr. Robinson

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

1155

The Chair

Mr. George Baker

The Chair

Mr. Goldring

1200

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Svend Robinson

The Clerk

Ms. Francine Lalonde

1205

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Mr. Bill Casey

The Chair

1210

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

NUMBER 065

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 19, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke--Lakeshore, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, we have an examination of Order in Council appointments. I will begin by reading what's in the Standing Orders as well as in the House of Commons manual of procedure, under which we will be operating.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby--Douglas, NDP): On a brief point of order, Madam Chair, we've just received a document that's been circulated to all members of the committee, and it's headed “Head of Mission Pre-Departure Programme 2001”.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Madam Chair, could we clear the room of the cameras first, please.

The Chair: Continue, please, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be brief.

We've just received a document, circulated to all members, entitled “Head of Mission Pre-Departure Programme 2001”. If we are to have a serious examination of this witness under the relevant provisions of the Standing Orders, surely this information should have been circulated to the committee previously.

I spoke this morning with a senior official in the Department of Foreign Affairs who indicated that this material had in fact been forwarded to Ms. Roxane Dubé by Adriaan De Hoog, who is the head of the Foreign Service Institute, last week. I must ask, Madam Chair--and I don't want to prolong the discussion--why it was that we're not receiving this important document, important background information, until literally minutes before our questioning starts. I wonder if we could get clarification on that.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, Lib.): On a point of order, Madam Chair, it's my understanding that the document was only formally requested yesterday and that it was submitted to the clerk at noon yesterday. I think that the honourable member's point of order is out of order.

The Chair: Let me add a bit of clarification to this as well. There was a motion from Mr. Pallister that this document be obtained and that this document be circulated. I think this is what has happened. Again, I concur with my colleague.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, the document is clearly relevant to the work of the committee. It was submitted last week to Ms. Dubé, who is a very effective person. Why was it not forwarded to this committee?

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, it's almost a moot point at this time simply because it was a document that was requested. It was not part of our study. It was a request that was made by Mr. Pallister on a motion, so we would not have had this had that motion not have come forward.

¿ (0910)

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, if I may add something as well, this is a training document that is, according to my understanding, normally only given to ambassadors several weeks after they've begun their actual work. Therefore, I fail to see how it would be pertinent for these proceedings, notwithstanding my honourable colleague's request to have it distributed.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll move on.

To continue with the issue of Standing Order 110, I want to make a few points of clarification to ensure that we're all on the same page:

The committee... shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.

I hope we're all clear on this.

The House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pages 875-877, says the appointee or the nominee will answer questions respecting his or her qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated. It says:

The scope of a committee's examination of Order-in-Council appointees or nominees is strictly limited to the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post. Questioning by members of the committee may be interrupted by the Chair, if it attempts to deal with matters considered irrelevant to the committee's inquiry. Among the areas usually considered to be outside the scope of the committee's study are the political affiliation of the appointee or nominee, contributions to political parties and the nature of the nomination process itself. Any question may be permitted if it can be shown that it relates directly to the appointee's or nominee's ability to do the job.

A committee has no power to revoke an appointment or nomination and may only report that they have examined the appointee or nominee and give their judgement as to whether they candidate has the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.

So those are the rules under which we will be operating, colleagues.

Mr. Gagliano has been asked to appear on his qualifications to be an ambassador. The issue for the committee is, therefore, his ability to represent Canada based on his qualifications.

Before we begin, I would urge you, my colleagues, to stay within the rules. The period for a question and response to the question is five minutes for all parties. We have had before us similar appointees in the past. We've conducted ourselves respectfully and have got from the appointee the answers to the questions that we were attempting to probe. It is my hope that today's appointee will walk away from the committee room feeling that he was scrutinized fairly and respectfully on his competence and his qualifications for the job.

Mr. Ambassador, may I welcome you and may I ask you to commence with an opening statement.

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage--Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Madam Chair.

The Chair: Are you calling on a point of something?

Mr. Brian Pallister: I have a motion I presented to the committee, which I think is very relevant and which I think should be dealt with before the applicant speaks to us, and it concerns the issue of the document that was raised by another member of the committee earlier and that was presented to us just moments before we began our deliberation today. I would like to explain my rationale to the committee as to why I believe it's important that we discuss this motion first.

The Chair: I thought we had dealt with that.

Mr. Brian Pallister: No, we have not dealt with that. No, we have not dealt with my motion and I would like to speak to the motion.

The Chair: All right.

Could we call the question on his motion since we had some discussion?

An hon. member: Call the question.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I didn't have the opportunity to speak to my motion, Madam Chair.

The Chair: I thought we had dealt with it once we had spoken.

Mr. Brian Pallister: No, we haven't. We haven't dealt with it.

I would like to speak to my motion, if I may.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Brian Pallister: First of all, this head of mission pre-departure program--

Mr. Stan Keyes: A point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Keyes, on a point of order.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Can I hear the motion first, please, before we discuss.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Brian Pallister: The motion has been distributed to the committee members in advance of the meeting.

¿ (0915)

The Chair: The motion is the one about the media coverage, is that it?

Mr. Brian Pallister: No, it's about the issue of the document, Head of Mission Pre-Departure Programme 2001.

The Chair: All right.The motion reads:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade call upon the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to provide to Committee Members forthwith the document “Head of Mission Pre-Departure Programme 2001”, which details the knowledge, qualifications and competencies of Canadian Heads of Mission.

That was delivered to us...

The Clerk of the Committee: That was circulated yesterday afternoon, Madam Chair.

The Chair: It was circulated yesterday and the document delivered today.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'd like to continue on my point of order, if I might. If the motion calls for the distribution of the document and it has been distributed, then why is there any discussion on the motion?

Mr. Brian Pallister: Because, Madam Chair, if I may...

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'd like a ruling from the chair on why we're discussing a motion--

Mr. Brian Pallister: I would like to speak to the point of order the member has raised.

The Chair: No, we have a motion before us. The motion was discussed via an earlier explanation as to why it appeared before us. At this point in time we will--

Mr. Brian Pallister: Madam Chair, there was misinformation put on the record earlier. I'd like to have the opportunity to clarify the misinformation, if I may.

The fact that this document was produced this morning as a result of my motion is the very issue we should be discussing here. We requested this information on February 26. We followed up with calls to the department on March 4, 5, 13, and 15. We asked for this information numerous times. We were told during our last call that the report would “not be available until after Tuesday”. This of course caused me great concern.

We asked the official why that would be the case. He said that he would have to check with the minister's office before giving us a reason. Now, this leaves the obvious impression that the minister's office has somehow tried to block the flow of this kind of information. It leaves that impression.

The rationale for my motion is clear. For me to do my job here, for me to do an effective job here of asking this applicant questions, I have to be able to completely understand what the nature of the priorities of the position are. We're asked to deal with qualifications and competence to perform the tasks. This document is the training material that's been designed to try to equip this gentleman to be an ambassador when normally, of course, people take 20 years or so to be considered for ambassadorial positions.

The information is not secret. There is no rationale other than deception for why this information would not have been made available to us a considerable time ago. I am not blaming the Department of Foreign Affairs here, because it is clear to me that they've been instructed not to give us access to information.

Now, it's one thing for the government--

The Chair: Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: --to try to spin their information or try to block the flow of information--

The Chair: Mr. Pallister, please be respectful.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I am being respectful, Madam Chair.

The Chair: What I'm attempting at this point in time...we have spoken about the document. You were given an opportunity to meet with the officials. You were given a personal briefing by officials.

Mr. Brian Pallister: This document, Madam Chair, was made available to me seconds ago.

An hon. member: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Mr. Brian Pallister: The disrespect that is being experienced here is for members of this committee. Madam Chair, when something is made available just before a meeting takes place--

An hon. member: Madam Chair, point of order.

Mr. Brian Pallister: --is absolutely an abuse of information and the blocking of information. It's something that should not be permitted by any member of this committee, the blocking of relevant information.

An hon. member: Madam Chair, point of order.

The Chair: Order. Mr. Pallister, you've had your few minutes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Madam Chair, the motion received here...as far as I know, the Standing Orders say you have to put a date on your motion. There is no date on this motion. I assume it's out of order.

The Chair: They are all dated yesterday, Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, this is on the same point. Mr. Pallister has raised a very serious issue. He's indicated that he had requested this documentation some time previously. That's clearly at variance with the information I was given just a few minutes ago on this matter, and I'd like clarification on that.

But more importantly, Madam Chair, I understand that the document in question was forwarded at approximately noon. Ms. Dubé is here, and she can clarify the matter herself if we have to ask her.

I understand that this document was forwarded at about noon yesterday. Is that correct, Ms. Dubé?

I want to ask why, if this document was forwarded at noon yesterday to the committee, we didn't receive it until this morning? What's going on here, Madam Chair?

¿ (0920)

The Chair: I'm not too sure what's going on here, but I think what has happened... We've given you the explanation that the document was received, and the document--

Mr. Svend Robinson: It was received at noon yesterday by the clerk, and it wasn't forwarded until this morning. Why is that?

The Chair: The clerk is saying that it's not correct. And, Mr. Robinson--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, Madame Dubé is here. She said it was forwarded at noon.

The Chair: No, Mr. Robinson. As you've said, you are a senior member, and you know the rules. You know that you can't call on the staff person who is sitting out there. There is just no way you can do this.

I know that we are being televised, and everybody wants to get their few minutes on television--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, that is totally out of order. Can the clerk clarify at what point he received this document?

The Chair: He did.

Mr. Svend Robinson: What time did he receive it?

Mr. Knowles.

The Chair: Yes, speak to that.

The Clerk: Madam Chair, I didn't keep a strict log of this, but I did have a conversation with the department. The understanding was that the document would be delivered by the department around two o'clock yesterday afternoon. As a result of doing other things, I picked this document up a little bit later. I can't tell you the exact time. As of 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. yesterday...let me correct that. I had a meeting with the chair, so that means it was about 5:45 p.m. when I returned to the office. I inquired about the document. I was informed that the document had been retained in the East Block by security and at this point there was no way that I could get it. As a result, we called for it first thing this morning, and it was delivered to my office.

That's the chronology, more or less, as I recall it.

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London--Fanshawe, Lib.): I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Having had that explanation from the clerk, I don't think anything terribly nefarious took place.

But as I read Mr. Pallister's motion, just on simple procedural rules, the motion asks the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to call upon the department. This is the first opportunity this committee has had to deal with this motion. You don't just put a motion forward as a member of a committee and unilaterally think you can pursue that course of action. This motion calls on the committee to deal with a valid request from Mr. Pallister. Now, Madam Chair, you are doing that at the earliest opportunity, so let's get the procedural thing straight.

The Chair: Yes, go ahead, Madam Jennings. You've been waiting.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, I appreciate your willingness to allow us to speak to Mr. Pallister's motion.

Mr. Pallister's motion, as my colleague just mentioned, calls for a tabling of this document, which is entitled Head of Mission Pre-departure Programme 2001. It is my understanding that the committee formally requested the document of the department only yesterday, as I believe has already been explained.

The Chair: That's right.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Given that, and notwithstanding all the other issues that have been raised, if the motion was tabled, if notice of the motion was given to the committee yesterday, and if the committee formally requested the document of the department and received the document--even if it was not physically within its hands--yesterday, and it was only today given with our--

The Chair: That was sufficient.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: That's right. That's the first thing.

Secondly, notwithstanding Mr. Pallister's grandstanding on the issue of this document, it's my understanding that normally appointees, people who are named, receive the training before they depart, but there are training sequences. It happens--and has happened in the past--that when someone is named to a diplomatic posting out of sequence--meaning the training sequences have already taken place--then their training happens after they depart.

But I think all of that is moot, because the motion requests a tabling of a document. The document has been tabled and distributed to all members in a timely fashion. Therefore, I see no need for further discussion on the matter.

An hon. member: It has to come to the committee.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: No, the issue of when and if the member requested a document for himself directly from the department is not an issue for this committee. The issue is that the member tabled the motion, gave notice of a motion to have a document distributed in committee. It was done yesterday, and the committee, upon receipt of the motion, immediately requested the document of the department. The department released the document to the committee, and it was distributed today. This is all within...the committee requested the document of the department only yesterday.

Some hon. members: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Pallister is a whole other issue. If Mr. Pallister asked for the document...

Some hon. members: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: May I continue without interruption, Madam Chair?

If I requested a document for my use two years ago and I haven't received it from the department, it's not an issue I can bring to this committee. If, on the other hand, I table a motion to the committee that the document should be tabled in the committee and the department does not do so in a timely fashion, then that's a matter for this committee.

Mr. Pallister may have made three million requests directly to the department. That's not an issue for this committee. But once Mr. Pallister tables the motion before this committee requesting that the document be tabled in this committee, then it's a matter for this committee. And when we examine the facts, the formal request was made by the committee to the department yesterday, and the department delivered the requested document yesterday.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: I'll go to Madame Lalonde before I come back to you, Mr. Pallister.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Chair, what is extremely troubling is that this document exists. Either it is useful in our examination of the ambassador's nomination or it isn't. If it is useful and it exists, it should have been sent to us by the Department. Ms. Jennings has just confirmed that it has been in existence for a long time, and that is what is troubling. It is even more troubling since I found a document on the Internet, which I have passed on to you this morning, that is an overall human resources strategy and talks about, on page 3, the new culture of total transparency that we need.

Madam Chair, if there is truly a culture of total transparency in the Department, it seems to me that things are off to very bad start this morning. I wanted to say it because it is truly shocking.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, if we could continue--

[Translation]

Mme Francine Lalonde: If it was important, we had to have it. If it isn't, say so and let's move on.

A voice: The question is how many documents are there?

[English]

The Chair: Order, order.

There are many, many, training documents out there. Let us go to Mr. Harvard with a point of order and then I'll come back to Mr. Pallister for conclusion.

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James--Assiniboia, Lib.): On the same point of order, Madam Chair, first of all, I don't think this discussion is reflecting well on the members of the committee. I think we should get to the ambassador. However, let's deal with this in a very factual way.

Mr. Pallister has brought forward a motion for the distribution of this particular document we're talking about. We haven't even passed the motion yet. Technically, Madam Chairman, we shouldn't be distributing this document until the motion is passed. It seems to me that what you have done is gone ahead in anticipation of the passage of the motion. This distribution should not have taken place without the authority of the committee.

So we can either pass the motion now very quickly, simply to authenticate what you've already done, or do something else. I think it's the will of the committee to have this document distributed. As it has been distributed, why don't we just pass the motion and then hear from the ambassador?

The Chair: Okay, a final word on this, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Madam Chair, let's set aside for a moment the obvious--very obvious, painfully obvious--strategies involved in not making this document available to committee members when they had requested it. I requested this information three weeks ago as a consequence of a meeting organized by Mr. Casey through the committee--and I appreciated his doing this. We spoke about this as a committee before then--

¿ (0930)

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Was it through the committee you requested the information? I don't recall seeing a motion to this committee three weeks ago.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I don't recall interrupting you, Madame Jennings, when you were speaking.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland--Colchester, PC/DR): I have a point of order.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Now, setting that aside, this committee, and the members who've spoken with a wish to get to the end of this process rather than the bottom of it, have no idea whether this represents the complete information in the training program or not. At the briefing Mr. Casey organized we were shown a binder at least four times as thick as this. We don't know what the remaining three-quarters of the information is because it's not in our hands. The information we have in our hands, multiple pages, was presented to us seconds before this meeting began.

Now, all that being said, the reason for the my motion is obvious to members of this committee. I don't like this. I don't like being deceived and I don't like having a minister's office tell his department not to make information available to me as a member of this committee.

This is a one-day opportunity to question this gentleman, a one-day opportunity, a one-time wonder for your spin masters on the other side. And the fact of the matter is that, at the very least, your spin-conscious government could make sure it doesn't deceive and hold back relevant information from committee members so they can do their job.

The Chair: Okay, that's it. I'm calling the question now. All those in favour of Mr. Pallister's motion that we circulate this document.

Mr. Bill Casey: Madam Chair, I have a point to make and I've been asking to make the point for some time.

The Chair: All right, go ahead.

Mr. Bill Casey: I just want to make the point that earlier, at the very beginning, I moved a motion to have witnesses who could help us understand the process of appointing ambassadors. I was told we didn't need witnesses because we would have full access to the Department of Foreign Affairs and we could get any document we wanted.

Mr. Pallister was just following the directions of the committee and the parliamentary secretary, who told us at that time that we had full access to the foreign affairs department for any information we wanted--briefings, documents, anything.

He asked for three weeks for documents. I asked for the same documents. I was assured I would have them yesterday; I didn't get them until this morning. But we were following the instructions of this committee, which said we didn't need witnesses because we have full access to the foreign affairs department. We were following the committee's instructions exactly and we've been denied this.

The Chair: But my understanding was that you did get a briefing and you did have full access.

Mr. Bill Casey: We did have a briefing, but we did not have full access to the information. That's the information he asked for three weeks ago, on the instructions of the committee, instead of having witnesses. So we've been denied our materials to prepare for this committee.

The Chair: Okay, are there questions on the motion?

An hon. member: Read the motion.

The Chair: The motion reads:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade call upon the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to provide to committee members forthwith the document “Head of Mission Pre-Departure Programme 2001”, which details the knowledge, qualifications and competencies of Canadian heads of missions.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I would like a recorded vote.

The Chair: We will have a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. Can I just get clarification? I've given notice of a motion with respect to the nomination of Mr. Gagliano. I'd like to ask at what time this motion will be considered by the committee.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: I think we'll consider your motion after we've heard Mr. Gagliano. In reading the motion, it seems to me you are pre-empting his presence before us.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's fine. I want assurance there will be ample time to consider it.

The Chair: At the conclusion, after we've said thank you to Mr. Gagliano, we'll have time to discuss your motion, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson's motion will be held until we have finished with our witness.

Are we ready to go to the witness?

Again, Mr. Ambassador, you may commence with an opening statement.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Canadian Ambassador-designate to the Kingdom of Denmark): Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

Madam Chair, members of the Committee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before this Committee, and to see a number of my former colleagues from the House. I look forward to reviewing with you my appointment as Canada's ambassador to the Royal Danish Court. i also look forward to sharing with you some of the key elements of my mandate, and how i propose to advance Canadian interests with respect to our relations with Denmark. I have only been in Copenhagen for just under three weeks, so my impressions and views remain initial. However, I am already active, together with my excellent team at the Embassy, in pursuing our strategy and interests in Denmark.

[English]

The overarching objective of our Canadian head of mission at one of our embassies abroad is to contribute to the fulfillment of the priorities of the Government of Canada. One of the government's top priorities is ensuring the continued prosperity of Canada and Canadians through economic growth and job creation. Canada's prosperity depends very much on our ability to sell Canadian goods and services and to attract quality investments to Canada.

I am committed to advancing this priority in our relations with Denmark. I will also work hard to promote a greater understanding of what modern Canada is all about and has to offer culturally, in terms of our academic excellence, and in our strength in science and technology, to name but a few areas.

Denmark is an important partner for Canada in terms of advancing our peace and security agenda and our human security interests. Effective relations with Denmark will also have a bearing on our broader agenda of interests with Europe, notably through NATO and the EU, and with respect to the northern dimension of Canada's foreign policy.

Before I address some of the key areas of interest in our relations with Denmark, I would like to say a few words about the country to which I've been appointed.

Denmark is an important partner and a valued ally for Canada in Europe. Denmark is also a neighbour in the north. We share a common border, where Nunavut meets Greenland, aligned in the sea over which our Inuit peoples join hands. Denmark is a constitutional monarchy with vibrant and active democratic institutions. Danish society shares many values with our own. For example, both Danes and Canadians remain strongly committed to multilateralism and to supporting the poor members of our society and our planet.

Before going to Copenhagen, I received a thorough briefing on Canada-Denmark relations from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I also received briefings from other relevant departments and ministries in the government that are active with Denmark. I was in close consultation with the excellent team I have at the embassy to help prepare my arrival and begin my program of calls, meetings, and events as ambassador-designate. In short, I was well briefed, and I have a team of excellent advisers in Copenhagen, so I could start my work immediately and effectively.

With respect to our trade and investment interests, I have begun work with the commercial section of the embassy on the elaboration of our strategic plan for fiscal year 2002-03, to be implemented starting April 1, 2002, which aims to increase two-way trade and investment. This plan has my full support and I will be participating in a target corporate outreach program to meet with Denmark's top CEOs and potential investors in Canada to help advance some of the key objectives of our commercial strategy.

Since my arrival in Copenhagen, I have been working with my staff at the embassy to encourage further expansion of our bilateral trade with Denmark. In the coming year, we want to focus on sectors in which Canada has a competitive strength, for example, fields such as information technology, biotechnology, environmental industries, and so on.

I have already participated in a number of embassy events to promote Canadian goods and services, as well as in a special presentation by the National Research Council in Denmark on Canada's biotechnology sector.

¿ (0940)

[Translation]

Defence cooperation is another important sector in our relationship with Denmark. In fact, the Danish Chief of Defence, their most senior military officer, and the Permanent Secretary for Defence (equivalent to Deputy Minister), will be visiting Ottawa and Moose Jaw later this week. While in Ottawa, the Danes will be meeting with their counterparts for consultations. In Moose Jaw, both the Danish and Canadian Chiefs of Defence will attend the graduation ceremony for Danish Air Force Officers who have completed their flight training in Canada. Interestingly, the Danish Chief of Defence himself did his training in Canada, an important personal link to our Canadian Forces and our NATO flight training programs. Denmark was the first country to sign on to this program, which provides training in the Prairie Provinces and Newfoundland.

Our multilateral cooperation with Denmark is also very active, because we share membership in a range of key fora like: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the multinational United Nation Standby Forces High-Readiness Brigade (SHIRBRIG), the United Nations (UN), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the Arctic Council.

Denmark is also an important ally in the campaign against terrorism. Like Canada, Denmark is military engaged in Afghanistan (where a number of Danish soldiers in the British-led ISAF forces died recently while trying to defuse ammunition). Denmark is also a world leader in Official Development Assistance (ODA as a percentage of the GDP: Denmark is at 1 per cent; Canada is at 0.3 per cent). Consequently, Denmark has provided humanitarian support and assistance to those in need in Afghanistan.

As mentioned earlier, Canadians and Danes share many values, including a strong commitment to human rights, the principles of peace and human security, and the importance of sustainable development. Since my arrival I have made sure that the Embassy distributed to key Danish contacts a copy of the report of the International Commission on Intervention and Sovereignty of Nations entitled The responsibility to protect, and which was produced with Canadian assistance and support. We share interests with Denmark on such issues.

[English]

As of July 1, 2002, Denmark will assume the presidency of the European Union. Covering the Danish EU presidency, which ends on December 31, 2002, will be a top priority in the work of my embassy this year. In fact, I have already been involved, together with senior officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in what is called the pre-EU presidency consultations that took place in Copenhagen in mid-March. A key objective of this meeting was to review the priorities for the Danish presidency and identify possible themes for Canada-EU during the Danish presidency.

We discussed a range of issues, including the campaign against terrorism, Afghanistan, and Canada's action plan for Africa--as you know, the Prime Minister has made Africa one of the priorities for the G-8 summit in Kananaskis. We also discussed transatlantic trade in the context of the new WTO round launched at Doha, the progress that the EU is making on enlargement, as well as the EU's common foreign and security policy, and cooperation in the north.

During this EU consultation, I took part in bilateral consultations and meetings in Copenhagen, together with Mr. Paul Dubois, our department's Assistant Deputy Minister for Europe.

While some have argued that the EU is becoming too big, unwieldy, and fortress-like, I believe the contrary. In order to make headway with the EU on issues of concern to Canada, much depends upon the effectiveness of relations with the member states themselves. In other words, stronger relations with the capitals, between Ottawa and Copenhagen, for example, is helpful in steering the EU and its institutions and policies in the right direction--that is to say, in a direction more favourable to Canadian interests.

Personal contacts and developing an effective official network, developing face-to-face instead of fax-to-fax contacts--to quote another Canadian ambassador--is also key in advancing Canadian interests in countries like Denmark or with key institutions like the commission in Brussels. My considerable experience in government and the cabinet and the wide range of portfolios for which I was responsible will serve me well as Canada's ambassador to Denmark and in defending and promoting Canadian interests in Europe.

The promotion of culture and Canadian values, the so-called third pillar of our foreign policy, is also a priority in our relations with Denmark and Europe. International cultural cooperation is an important sector in its own right. Experience has shown that in Europe, culture can and does play a special role in helping promote a modern and sophisticated image of Canada and our talents, and in supporting our commercial, political, and branding interests as well.

My staff at the embassy is working hard to identify suitable opportunities during the Danish EU presidency and beyond. We want to showcase the quality of Canadian art and culture and the excellence of Canada's brand as a diverse and multicultural society. In the past, for example, the embassy has been supportive of cultural events in Denmark by the Cirque du Soleil, Marie Chouinard, and Canadian participation in cultural and music festivals ranging from jazz to the classic and pop.

I would like to take just a few more minutes to illustrate an important link with Denmark on the cultural side.

Danes have shown a great interest in the translated work of Canadian writers and poets. The embassy assisted in their participation at last summer's first Danish-North American poetry festival, entitled “In the Making”, which took place in Copenhagen from August 14 to 19, 2001. I understand that these works are selling very well.

This year, we are looking at encouraging Canadian participation at the Copenhagen Jazz Festival from July 5 to 14, 2002, the Tonder Folk Festival in August, and the Aarhus Festival in late August and early September.

There is also an active program in Denmark that supports Canadian studies, especially at Aarhus University, which has a Canadian studies program, and where a Nordic Association of Canadian Studies seminar was held in November of last year, at which the embassy was present.

¿ (0945)

[Translation]

Bringing Canada to Denmark is one side of the exchange. Danes already love coming to Canada, so I am confident that the launch last week of the “Discover the USA and Canada” tourism marketing seminar in Copenhagen will make Canada an even better known tourist destination, and will make Danes even more interested in discovering new regions of our wonderful country. This tourism seminar was co-organized by the Representative in the Nordic Countries of the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC), based in Denmark. I am pleased to report that representatives of Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec, together with representatives from Air Canada, were at this launch.

Moving on to the Northern Dimension of our Foreign Policy, as I mentioned earlier, Canada and Denmark are neighbours in the North. We both are committed to make progress on the Northern Dimension on a range of fronts: socially, politically, the environment and sustainable development. Both countries are active members of the Arctic Council (created in Ottawa in 1996, with rotating Presidencies). We both have an interest in developing that Northern Dimension of the EU's agenda, and will work with Denmark on this during its EU Presidency. To this end, we welcome and encourage the idea of a Conference in Greenland next August on the EU's Northern Dimension. Another northern activity which we encourage and support are the Arctic Winter Games already underway, and held jointly in Nuuk, Greenland and Iqaluit, Nunavut. The Games were opened last Sunday (March 17) and will carry on until March 23^rd. This is a wonderful event at which the young athletes of our two countries will come together for the most positive of reasons.

¿ (0950)

[English]

Madam Chair, allow me to conclude by saying that the role of an ambassador is to represent Canada, its people and government, to the best of his or her abilities. An ambassador is also a leader of a team and must strive to inspire, manage, and motivate the team to produce excellence in the pursuit of Canada's interests.

Our embassy in Copenhagen, like many of our posts--and I do know this from past travels--is and will continue to be a very busy place. I promise to do my best in the service of this great country. I have an excellent team in Copenhagen and an excellent team of experts and advisers in Ottawa at the department. They have done a superb job in briefing me and advising me so that I could do my job as ambassador to Denmark smoothly and effectively.

I want to thank you for this opportunity, Madam Chair, and I want to thank the members of the committee. I am now ready to answer any questions you might have.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ambassador. The issue of the presidency, the arts and culture, the business--so many ways in which our two countries share....

We'll go directly to questions. We'll start with Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Paragraph (2) of Standing Order 111 states:

(2) The committee, if it should call an appointee or nominee to appear pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.

This will be the focus of my statement and my questions today. Our diplomatic core is vital for the effective execution of Canadian foreign policy, including the representation of Canadian values and culture abroad. As the applicant's noted, this is one of the three pillars of Canada's foreign policy laid out in the last white paper.

Canadian ambassadors are, therefore, the standard bearers of Canadian values. Given the importance of this role, they should be selected according to a rigorous screening process, but when they are political appointees this is not the case. New ambassadors recruited from within the foreign service typically possess at least 20 years of experience as diplomats. There is a very competitive and exhaustive process to ensure that all of the merits of the applicants are taken into account before they are made ambassadors.

This nominee has no diplomatic experience. This committee is the only means we have to review his merit or lack thereof. Before Mr. Gagliano goes to Denmark, he should have participated in the head of mission pre-departure program. As we've discussed earlier, the minister's office has instructed DFAIT not to give us the document that outlined the program until it miraculously came this morning.

I understand that this program covers subjects designed to assist new ambassadors in their role in carrying Canadian policy and in representing Canadian values. Those subjects include employee assistance, protocol, and ethics. Ethical behaviour is vital for an ambassador. After all, one must adhere to the values Canada wishes to project abroad in order to be able to represent those values adequately.

Oxford defines ethics as “the moral principles governing or influencing conduct”. Most Canadians consider fairness, honesty, and merit as ethics we should follow at all times. There have been numerous accusations against this nominee that call into serious doubt his adherence to those ethics. In particular--

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

Mr. Brian Pallister: --Jon Grant, respected former head of the Canada Lands Company, said when this applicant was the Minister of Public Works--

The Chair: Okay, Ms. Jennings has a point of order.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I simply wish to know if there is a question in there.

The Chair: Madame Jennings, I think he has a thesis and he is pursuing it.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I will pursue it.

The Chair: Hopefully at the end of his thesis there will be a question, so let's give him an opportunity to...

Mr. Brian Pallister: Notwithstanding the ever-present rudeness of Madame Jennings, I will proceed.

In particular, Jon Grant, the respected former head of the Canada Lands Company, said that when Mr. Gagliano was Minister of Public Works he repeatedly tried to obtain jobs for political friends and influenced commercial dealings of the crown corporation.

¿ (0955)

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, Madam Chair...

The Chair: No, somehow I think we can't go there.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Why? Somehow we can. We're talking about ethics, Madam Chair.

The Chair: No, no. We just cannot go down that road in looking at his--

Mr. Brian Pallister: His record as a minister.

The Chair: His record as a minister. We can't go down that road.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Madam Chair, in this applicant's introductory remarks he made comments specifically relevant to his experience as a minister. I quote now from his presentation. He said, “My considerable experience in government and the cabinet--”

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, Madam Chair....

Mr. Brian Pallister: “--will serve me well as Canada's ambassador”. Surely, if the applicant can reference his experience as a minister in his presentation in making the case for his appointment, I can ask questions about his conduct as a minister--

An hon. member: No, you can't.

Mr. Brian Pallister: --in my questioning of him. Other examples of alleged misconduct are here. Is that not a valid point?

The Chair: No. We cannot go back to some of the comments that were made on his ministerial responsibility, or however you want to frame it, and use those as a question.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Madam Chair, I quote from Standing Order 111, if I may again.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, Madam Chair....

Mr. Brian Pallister: It says, if I may, that we “shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post”. If this is to be anything but a charade, then surely we can ask--

The Chair: But where is the question?

Mr. Brian Pallister: I am building to the question, Madam Chair.

The Chair: All right. Could you get to the question, because you'll be losing your five minutes.

Mr. George Baker (Gander--Grand Falls, Lib.): It's the chair's rule.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, I believe Mr. Baker indicated the chair had in some way ruled, but I'm not sure if that's the case.

My point of order, Madam Chair, is with respect to the scope of examination by members of this committee. I'm raising it now because you've intervened in the questioning of Mr. Pallister and this obviously will affect the nature of all of our questioning. I think it's appropriate to raise it at this point.

Madam Chair, Mr. Gagliano, as a head of mission as defined in the Department of External Affairs Act, was required before or upon his appointment to sign a document pursuant to the provisions of the Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for the Public Service. I have this code before me. Mr. Gagliano was required to sign this document--

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, could you make your--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Perhaps I could just finish my point. He was required to sign this document and--and I quote--“as a condition of employment, they will observe this Code”. Principle 6 of this code of conduct states:

(a) employees shall perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in such a manner that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced;

The Chair: All right, thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: This questioning goes directly, Madam Chair, to Mr. Gagliano's ability to perform, and his qualifications--

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, that's not for debate here.

Mr. Svend Robinson: --can be debated under the provisions of this document. Therefore those questions are entirely in order.

The Chair: All right. You've made your point.

Let's go now to the question, please, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

The Chair: You have one minute and a half left.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Given the reality of numerous allegations of misconduct--and I will generalize and summarize on that basis--such as giving contracts to friends and awarding contracts to former staff members, and so on--

The Chair: Would you give the question, please?

Mr. Brian Pallister: In reality, these allegations remain unresolved, and very likely because of this appointment they will continue to remain unresolved. The reality of this is that it calls into question this appointee's competence--

The Chair: Question.

Mr. Brian Pallister: --to carry out the very important role we are here to discuss.

So I ask the newly nominated ambassador how he could possibly purport to represent the values of Canadians abroad when he has not cleared his name of allegations that he himself violated Canadian values often and in many serious ways.

Mr. George Baker: I have a point of order.

The Chair: You have a point of order. Go ahead, Mr. Baker.

Mr. George Baker: I wonder, Madam Chair, in response to Mr. Robinson's previous point of order--and I understand of other members as well--if we could provide members with an opportunity to express an opinion on whether or not this and similar questions are in order before we continue, or the entire meeting is going to be broken up with no response at all from the witness.

So if we could at least express an opinion as to whether or not these types of questions are in order, I so request a couple of minutes to do so. And I'm sure Mr. Robinson wants to do the same thing.

À (1000)

The Chair: All right. What we need to do, then, is go around the room and hear from committee members. As your chair, I am here to do the bidding of the majority.

We'll go to Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Mme Francine Lalonde: On a question of order, Madam Chair? What are you proposing?

[English]

The Chair: On the point of order.

[Translation]

Mme Francine Lalonde: Very well, but I am anxious to hear Mr. Gagliano speak.

This is what I have to say on the question of order. The French text of paragraph 111(2) is even clearer than the English one. It says:

“Le comité [...] examine les titres, les qualités et la compétence de l'intéressé et sa capacité d'exécuter les fonctions du poste...”

The committee... shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post...

The (French) text clearly indicates that qualifications and competence do not ensure capability. In the case of someone who has not followed the diplomatic route, and I underline the fact that this is the first time that an ambassadorial nominee who does not come from the diplomatic milieu causes such problems and has such allegations against him. In such a case, examining his capability to perform the duties of the post assumes that we look at the person's experience and what he has learned from it. Again today the newspapers were complaining about Mr. Gagliano's past at Public Works. We cannot therefore render a judgment on his capability to represent Canada, the Canadian State and not just its government, which could be satisfied with it, without examining what he has done in the past and what we read about everywhere in the press. Knowing him, I am sure he wants his reputation cleared.

We are in the Internet age, Madam Chair, and in the Internet age, in Denmark, people follow what is going on here.

[English]

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Baker.

Mr. George Baker: Madam Chair, it's a very important question and a subject we should decide on right now while we still have a couple of hours left.

However, I want to caution members that when this standing order was approved in 1986 and when the subject was first broached in 1976 by the standing committee representing all parties in this House... I was a member of that committee. I know that sounds--

An hon. member: Ancient.

À (1005)

Mr. George Baker: In fact, Stanley Knowles, Walter Baker, James Jerome, and I myself, as a committee, examined this issue in 1976. Then in 1986 the report of a great Newfoundlander by the name of James McGrath enacted this change of having a witness appear before the committee.

Madam Chair, as the honourable member from the Bloc just said, there are two things: qualifications and competence. The qualifications portion is not too difficult to identify. The word “competence” was taken from the U.S. Senate directive that says they get to examine witnesses. They examine ambassadors. It's in the Constitution that you have to do it in the United States.

When looking at qualifications and competence, the chair has to be very firm on what competence means. The reason for it is this: section 863 of Beauchesne, a famous section, says that a witness must answer all questions even if the answer would lead to self-incrimination. He can't use as an excuse that he took an oath. He can't use solicitor-client privilege. He can't use any of the things you could use before a court of law. It's the same in Erskine May.

There always has to be a saving portion. For example, for witnesses who appear before the courts, subsection 5(1) of the Canada Evidence Act says you have to answer a question, but subsection 5(2), which is a saving section, says it can't be used against you in a court of law. The saving portion of this rule is where it says that the questions must be related to their qualifications and their competence concerning the role they are to be nominated for or to which they have been appointed.

Madam Chair, if you take the interpretation of competence that the honourable member wishes you to take, you must then allow a question that says, what did he do in cabinet? What decisions did he take?

There's such a thing as cabinet solidarity, but it doesn't fit under section 863 of Beauchesne. That is why, Madam Chair, the restricted definition of competence was accepted by an all-party committee and the questions must relate strictly to the role and not go beyond that. That's the historical significance of it.

Madam Chair, I agree with your interpretation of the rules as stated at the very beginning, but I think it has even more meaning in its historical context, that the honourable member must at least be able to rely on something. Normally, a witness in his position would have lawyers on each side of him. That is approved in our Standing Orders. He could have had lawyers sitting with him, but he chose not to do so.

I think that after this discussion takes place around the table, as the chair you have to come to the conclusion that there must be a restricted meaning for the word “competence”.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm probably the only other member on this committee who was actually here in 1986 and recalls the discussions of that committee, chaired by a distinguished Newfoundlander. I certainly don't recall any discussion of a restricted definition of competence, and I'm sure the record would confirm that.

Competence means competence. Certainly nowhere in the report of that committee to the House of Commons--I know Mr. Baker, as a very distinguished parliamentarian, has read it with care--not a jot nor a tittle, does it define competence or restrict the definition of competence. Mr. Baker has agreed with that. So this notion of restricted competence is a somewhat fictitious one.

Having put that on the record for the sake of accuracy, I think the key question here--and I appreciate the opportunity because I think this is a threshold issue--is to what extent are we able to pursue questions about the conduct of Mr. Gagliano when he was minister? In answering that question, I think there are a couple of points I want to make.

As for any other job, we want to look at the qualifications. What are the qualifications for that job? What are the standards for that job? When we've looked at the standards for that job, clearly to the extent Mr. Gagliano's background is relevant to those standards and qualifications, we can ask questions.

I asked the department what standards applied to ambassadors, to heads of mission. I received a document headed, “Conflict of Interest and Post-employment Code for the Public Service”. These are the standards that should guide us as we examine this witness.

This code states, and I quote, “it applies to a head of mission, as defined in the Department of External Affairs Act”. In other words, it applies to Mr. Gagliano. It states as well that either before or when Mr. Gagliano is appointed, he has to sign a document that certifies he has read and understood this code and, as a condition of his employment, he will observe this code.

That's what we're talking about. But what are those standards? Well, here they are. These are the key relevant principles under section 6 of this code. I'm not going to read them all, but I'm going to read the ones that are relevant to the question Mr. Pallister wants to ask and that I certainly want to ask.

[Translation]

I assume Ms. Lalonde also wants to ask questions.

À (1010)

[English]

There are three that are relevant here. It states:

6. Every employee shall conform to the following principles:

--and that's every employee, including Mr. Gagliano--

(a) employees shall perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in such a manner that public confidence and trust in the integrity... and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced;

(b) employees have an obligation to act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law.

The final relevant standard in terms of this question is standard (f):

(f) employees shall not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person.

Those are the standards, Madam Chair.

In addition to that, there have been a number of statements made within the department. In fact, at a meeting of the executive committee of the Department of Foreign Affairs on December 6, 2000, it was stated under the heading “Values and Ethics at DFAIT”, that “...values and ethics are the very foundation of the Department”-- the very foundation of the department.

Madam Chair, Mr. Gagliano signed a document saying he would respect these provisions, and this committee, in determining whether he's qualified and competent to do the job, whether he's going to abide by these ethical standards, including in his dealings with other employees, is surely entitled to question him on his experience in these particular and precise areas. That's what Mr. Pallister is doing. That's what I intend to do.

I have one final point, Madam Chair. I questioned senior officials in the human resources department of the ministry on the extent to which Mr. Gagliano, as the head of mission, as ambassador, would be in a position to hire, would be in a position to let contracts personally.

I was informed that as head of mission he would be in that position. He's in a position to hire people. In fact, I was informed that he's already been briefed with respect to conflict of interest in hiring. I'm informed that he has the power to let contracts--contracts with respect to buildings and goods and services--and that he's been briefed on that.

Madam Chair, surely, if he has these powers, if that's part of the work he does, in examining his qualifications and competence to do the job, we're entitled to ask how he has performed those particular responsibilities to date. Any employer, in hiring somebody--the Canadian people in a sense are hiring Mr. Gagliano to represent them, and we as committee members are looking at him--would have every right to ask the potential employee how they fulfilled these qualifications in their previous job. That's exactly what we are doing.

There have been questions raised about Mr. Gagliano's ability with respect to the issue of hiring, whether or not in fact he attempted to muscle senior officials of the Canada Lands Company. Those are questions that have been raised.

The Chair: Careful, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Those are questions that have been raised. We are in a sense asking, given this record--I'm concluding--given the fact, Madam Chair, that there is a cloud of sleaze and corruption over this minister--

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That is a cloud that we have to address.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That is why these questions are in order and are relevant. That's exactly why they're relevant.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, don't cross the line.

Ms. Jennings, again on the question.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think the issue here is on rulings of the chair. The chair has the authority, the mandate, the power, and the duty to determine what questions are relevant or not relevant to the issue at hand. The chair has the duty to make rulings any time she or he deems that a question is out of order and does not relate directly to the mandate that the committee is charged with at the time of its hearing.

It is my understanding that you established the parameters of your interpretation of what would be relevant and what would not be. From what I see, it's being challenged by members of the opposition who wish to have a much wider scope than your ruling allows for.

In that case, I would suggest that if the opposition is in disagreement with the ruling you have made as to what will be allowed, because it is relevant in your view and follows your interpretation of our mandate, and what is not to be allowed because it is not relevant in your view, then the opposition should challenge your ruling. Otherwise, they should abide by the ruling.

À (1015)

The Chair: Ms. Jennings, we will when we get there. At this point...because we have not really ruled....

We're still on that motion, so let's go ahead.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Madam Chair, to speed things up and assist all members of the committee, I would like to read my question and have you either rule it out of order or not.

An hon. member: A point of order.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I have asked this question. You have not, to my knowledge, Madam Chair, ruled anything out of order, and I don't know what we're discussing here. I have asked--

The Chair: Mr. Pallister, please. We were at the point where we had a point of order and there was agreement that we would go around the table to make sure that we were all clear on what we were discussing, and you had asked for that.

Mr. Brian Pallister: To what purpose? To what end? Nothing has been ruled out of order here.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: I think the problem might have been, Madam Chair, and I don't recall, that perhaps Mr. Pallister wasn't at the table when the committee agreed unanimously to let each member...

An hon. member: Order.

The Chair: Order.

Excuse me, there's a point of order here.

Yes, go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): I raise a point of order, Madam Chair.

You have decided something quite unusual, which is that we would go around the table on a call to order. That being said, I would like to be assured that the time we will lose to listen to all those Liberals say exactly the same thing will not be deducted from the time we have to ask questions of this witness. I want to be assured of that.

[English]

The Chair: That's my concern also, Mr. Paquette, but I think it's important that the ones who signalled--

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Will we make up that time?

[English]

The Chair: --when we made that agreement be heard first, and then I will come back.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Madam Chair, as I recall, the committee unanimously accepted Mr. Baker's suggestion that each committee member have an opportunity to speak briefly about the parameters that you established at the start of the meeting of what kinds of questions would be in and out of order. And I'd like an opportunity to comment.

First of all, I find this rather ludicrous to think that any witness has to come before this committee and defend himself or herself about unproven allegations of any type whatsoever. That any witness should have to do that in Canada, let alone someone who's going to be an ambassador representing this country, is absolutely against the rule of law, Mr. Pallister and other colleagues. It is absolutely against the fundamental legal principles of this country that any person coming before this committee isn't allowed the basic fundamental legal right that he or she has to be accepted as innocent until proven guilty. There's no requirement on anybody coming before this committee to even speak to any unproven allegation of any nature about anything whatsoever, in my view.

Madam Chair, there are various police forces in this country. And if there is any sense of any wrongdoing by anybody in this country, then let the police force carry out their actions. But that doesn't mean that as a Canadian citizen I have to respond to unproven allegations, unless I'm in a court of law. This is hardly a court of law, Madam Chair.

Mr. Pallister talked earlier about the fact that this person couldn't be competent because he didn't have some 20 years' background in the diplomatic corps. That's absolutely ludicrous. Various governments of all political stripes at both the provincial and federal levels have made a number of so-called political appointments of people who came from the political world, elected officials who went on to serve their province or country in a variety of positions, and excelled in doing so.

I would recall for you one that I had direct knowledge of. Former minister Ron Irwin, who quite frankly was an outstanding ambassador to Ireland, didn't have any 20 years' background in the diplomatic corps. I was directly and personally involved with his work in Ireland. I can tell you that the Irish and the Canadians both felt that this man did an outstanding job. So there's no requirement for 20 years of service in the diplomatic corps in order for somebody to be qualified.

Madam Chair, I fully agree with your ruling. I fully agree with my colleague, Madame Jennings. At some point, either the members of this committee on either side of the table will agree with your rulings or they have one recourse, and that's to formally challenge your rulings, and then the committee will make a democratic decision.

Madam Chair, there is no onus on this witness whatsoever to speak or entertain unproven allegations. I think he should refuse to do so. It shouldn't even be allowed, because it's totally out of order.

À (1020)

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mme Francine Lalonde: Madam Chair, I wish to raise a point of order. We are not an executive committee. We are in full committee. By the way, if we had had a real committee when we decided to reserve three hours for Mr. Gagliano... But since we did not have that real committee, we find ourselves in this situation.

What is important now is that you make your decision and that we vote on it. In committee, you are the one who, on a procedural level, make the decision. You can even go against everyone else. So make your decision. Many opinions have been expressed. We are spending a lot of precious time. We will ask to have more time to hear Mr. Gagliano.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, three people have indicated that they want to speak on that previous... So we have Mr. Keyes, Mr. Paquette, and Mr. Harvard.

Mr. Paquette is out? Mr. Keyes, do you still want to speak on this? Mr. Harvard?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Yes, please, Madam Chair. I would just make a couple of comments. This is what happens, of course, when you get lawyers involved in any kind of issue. You start losing sight of the actual issue, and you start wandering off into all this legalese.

Beyond that, it's a great day for the opposition, isn't it? We can take an ex-cabinet minister in Alfonso Gagliano, with a distinguished, long career as a member of Parliament and a minister of the Crown, and sit there and, in the comfort and protection of the committee or the House of Commons, make scurrilous accusations and allegations against the minister without mentioning a word of that outside that door, because they know they'd be in big trouble.

The opposition no doubt has a goal, and the goal is nothing more than to oppose. The opposition, specifically Mr. Pallister, makes the allegations again in the protection of this committee and the House. Mr. Robinson...well, I think Canadians are used to Mr. Robinson and his tantrums of mistruths. It's truly showtime for the opposition, but let's think about what the issue is.

The issue that Mr. Pallister has raised in his question, which you have to rule on, has already been ruled on. I remind you, Madam Chair, my colleagues here, and Canadians that it was the Speaker of the House who said that Alfonso Gagliano did not misspeak to Parliament when he said he did not interfere in the affairs of a crown corporation, that while there is clearly disagreement as to the interpretation of the events of that serious issue, the chair finds no evidence that a prima facie breach of privilege had occurred, an issue that Mr. Pallister had raised.

The ethics counsellor of Canada says, after extensive examination of the issue that Mr. Pallister is trying to raise here again in his question for Mr. Gagliano that you have to rule on, they received excellent cooperation from all the parties involved and concluded there is no substance whatsoever to the allegations of extended preference to these two advertising companies that were brought up in the issue--the whole basis of the argument that Mr. Pallister and Mr. Robinson are raising.

If that issue has already been, in the minds of the ethics counsellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons, put aside as resolved, and an appointment was made of Mr. Gagliano and we want to learn from Mr. Gagliano his role as the ambassador-designate presently and eventually ambassador to Denmark, we hope that we get to the questions that matter. So right now we have to decide on this issue the question you will decide on, and based on the results that have already been put forward, the examinations that have been done, and the conclusions that have been reached, Madam Chair has no alternative, no option but to say that Mr. Pallister's approach in his questioning and Mr. Pallister's question directly with the preamble, going back through history on all these allegations that have been dealt with by the House, are clearly out of order.

À (1025)

The Chair: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Madam Chair, I really think we should get to your ruling in just a moment and confirm the position taken by you, but I want to say this.

I certainly agree with Ms. Lalonde that we are wasting time. I find it interesting that we're more than 80 minutes into our meeting, and the opposition in particular has not yet put one question to the ambassador, not even one. That raises questions in my mind.

Let me say this. I'm very glad Mr. Robinson read out those standards. I think it's quite clear, from the way Mr. Robinson read them out, that the standards address the way Mr. Gagliano will carry out his duties as ambassador to Denmark. They say nothing about duties he carried out in the past, whether it was six months ago, six years ago, or 26 years ago. These standards have to do with the office he is either holding now or will be holding in the future.

I just want to remind all members of this committee that this is not a trial and this is not a prosecution. This is a standing committee of the House of Commons, and I think we should show some respect to the ambassador. I think we should confirm your ruling right now.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

We've heard from all sides of the argument, all sides of the table. My ruling at this point in time is that the preamble caused me concern, and I will definitely rule that the preamble was out of order.

If Mr. Pallister has a question that can go directly to the minister without the preamble, Mr. Pallister can ask a question and I'll permit that, since he has about a minute and a half left for the question and the answer.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I will repeat my question for the applicant. I ask him how he can purport to represent the values of Canadians abroad when he has not cleared his name of allegations that he himself has violated Canadian values so often and in so many ways.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: No, no. The question is out of order.

Mr. Brian Pallister: You asked me to repeat the question. I repeated the question.

The Chair: No, I didn't say repeat the question.

An hon. member: Without the preamble.

The Chair: I said the question has to be reframed. I had difficulty as chair with the preamble, and therefore I was asking you to use your minute and a half that's left to ask a question to the minister without all of that preamble.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Just for clarification then, Madam Chair, if I may, we're then being asked--

The Chair: Let's get the point of order.

Remember, every time we call a point of order, we lose time.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, the chair has now effectively muzzled this committee.

À (1030)

The Chair: No, no.

An hon. member: Oh, come on!

Mr. Svend Robinson: In light of that, the chair leaves us with no option whatsoever. If the chair has ruled that Mr. Pallister's question is not in order, that makes a mockery of these proceedings. I challenge that ruling. I challenge the ruling of the chair.

The Chair: I made it quite clear that the preamble caused me concern. The preamble is not in order.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You're not letting him put his question.

The Chair: I was asking Mr. Pallister to frame a question that does not include the preamble.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm challenging that ruling, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Okay. He's challenging the chair. I'm in your hands. Can we vote on this?

I was told by the clerk that I have to put the message quite clearly. Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?

Some hon. members: Agreed. Roll call.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Can we have a recorded vote?

The Chair: Oh, you want a roll call. Okay.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 6)

The Chair: So we'll go back to Mr. Pallister. You have one minute and a half.

Mr. Pallister: Thank you.

An hon. member: How is it he still has a minute and a half?

The Chair: We've been holding his minute and a half for him.

I have to hear the question, please.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Let's try this, Madam Chair. Given that ethical conduct is an important factor and so important in terms of establishing the qualifications of applicants for ambassadorial positions, and given the fact that the committee members are not allowed to ask any questions that might actually shed light on the degree of ethics present in an applicant, I'll just ask the witness before us today to please illuminate us on how ethical he thinks he is.

The Chair: Let him answer. I rule that the ambassador can answer this, please.

Ambassador.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: It's about time that he got a chance to say something.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, and I see that two months after I left things have not changed a bit.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Let me say, Madam Chair, that as an individual I came to this country at 16 years of age. I went to night school to get an education while I was working. I built up a profession, a family, and I've been 25 years in public life, elected eight times consecutively, and I have held positions in this Parliament as chief opposition whip, chief government whip, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs), deputy House leader, House leader, Minister of Labour, Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

Madam Chair, my record stands out there clearly, and I've been serving Canada and Canadians with integrity and honesty.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

An hon. member: Time's up.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I believe I have more time.

À (1035)

The Chair: No, actually by the clock in front of me, you are three minutes over. But we permitted this.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Can I continue?

The Chair: No, you'll get another chance.

Mr. Pallister, quiet please.

We'll go now to the Bloc Québécois, Madam Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Gagliano, the recent Task Force on Public Service Values and Ethics has defined a certain number of basic values that the clerk described in his most recent report as:

the respect for the public interest as defined by the duly elected government; service to Canada and Canadians; moral values such as honesty, integrity and probity, meaning the ability to fulfill a public responsibility and to put the common good ahead of private or special interests, and human values such as impartiality and equity.

What I have just read comes from a document called “Discussion Paper on Values and Ethics in the Public Service for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade”. I add that the sentence immediately afterwards states that DFAIT shares these fundamental values. Further on, we read that it counts on the department heads “to demonstrate such values in their Canadian operations.”

Mr. Gagliano, are you aware of that document?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Not only am I aware of it, Madam MP, I completely share those values. I have practiced them all my life, and especially my public life, which has been ongoing for 25 years. I am aware of them and I intend to respect those principles and apply them wherever I go and in all my decisions as ambassador to the Royal Danish Court.

Mme Francine Lalonde: Thank you, Mr. Gagliano.

Our problem as Parliamentarians is that the entire press, especially in Quebec, has problems with departmental management. If you were in opposition, as you once were, you would be as pointed, if not more so, that we are.

Are you aware of the few following editorials? I will first read a text from Le Devoir newspaper.

During the last few months Mr. Gagliano has been taken to task for interventions designed to circumvent administrative decisions in favour of his friends. (...) Mr. Couillard's statements are troubling. They add...

I am reading. I am reading from a newspaper.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: It's out of order to go beyond your ruling by courting a third party. It's just as out of order for the member to do it directly. I think her comments are totally out of order. You've ruled on it, you've been sustained, and I would call on the member to adhere to your ruling.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, please put the question.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Gagliano, precisely because of what you have told us, do you not find that it is in your interest, in the interest of Canadians and Quebecers, that there be an inquiry to shed light on all these allegations against you?

That is my question.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, that question is out of order. Could you reframe that?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: But it doesn't make sense!

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I wish to raise a point of order.

As for the Danish embassy, the candidate himself has alluded to his past experiences to justify, in response to Mr. Pallister, the validity of his nomination. So why can we not allude to what the press writes? He has the right to allude to his career but we don't have the right to report what the press is saying in general about his career. Surely there is a problem. Either Mr. Gagliano cannot allude to his career to answer our questions...

A voice: I wish to raise a point of order.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: There is a double standard.

À (1040)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Baker, and then Ms. Jennings.

Mr. George Baker: There are two questions being raised here. One, of course, is on the preamble, and the other is the exact question the honourable member just asked.

You've already ruled on the first point of order, that it must pertain to the qualifications and competence regarding the role the honourable member has been appointed to, as ambassador to Denmark.

The second question is regarding a rule on witnesses that anyone who has brought a witness--and this committee has brought a witness before the committee--cannot impeach his credit with general evidence of bad character. Those are the exact words.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Specific evidence.

Mr. George Baker: The honourable member now says we're going to talk about specific evidence instead of general evidence. You notice he's not denying that you're not permitted to impeach the credit concerning somebody's bad character. That is a rule. That rule is there, as I mentioned before, to protect all witnesses who come before the committee.

Every witness who comes before a standing committee does not have the normal protections that somebody has before a court of law. Therefore, I suggest the question is completely out of order as it relates to the exact wording.

The Chair: Madame Jennings, on a point of order.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, it's clear that the question is out of order. My honourable colleague wishes to read into the record an article or editorial that appeared in a newspaper. If she wishes it to be in the record, I suggest that she table it and we will get it translated. At that point, if the committee so desired, it would be distributed. That's the first thing.

Secondly, Madam Chair, it is a well-known principle of law, a law that's respected even in this Parliament that has the latitude to determine its own rules and regulations, that once a chair has made a ruling and that ruling has been sustained by a majority vote of the committee, there's no further discussion of that ruling.

I would hope that my colleagues on both sides would respect the authority of the chair. I certainly intend to do so. I have not seen the same intention evidenced by the conduct of the colleagues I'm facing right now. There has been a consistent attempt to undermine the authority of the chair, and I am appalled that my honourable colleagues would attempt to do that.

Once this committee--

The Chair: I don't feel undermined. I don't sense the undermining. So I'll rule.

Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: The third point, Madam Chair, is that for a member to ask a witness whether he thinks that a public inquiry of some nature would be to his or her advantage, while relying on unsubstantiated allegations that the chair has already ruled cannot be part of the question, is clearly out of order.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Robinson, do you still want in?

[Translation]

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, let us be clear. there is an odour of corruption about this witness, and that is why Ms. Lalonde has suggested that there be an inquiry before this nomination. That question is completely...

À (1045)

[English]

An hon. member: Madam Chair, he is clearly out of order.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Madame Lalonde, I would like you to use your two minutes.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have four minutes!

[English]

The Chair: No. Between your question and the minister's answer you had used up two minutes and some.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: So I will go ahead.

I would like to tell Mr. Gagliano that in his shoes I would not find that very funny. In his speech, on page six, he says: “The promotion of culture and Canadian values... is also a priority in our relations with Denmark and Europe” in the era of the Internet.

If I were ambassador to Denmark, a country whose international aid is significantly above 0.7 per cent, I would like to have a lot of credibility to defend Canadian values. To have great credibility, the newspapers in my country of origin should not be full of allegations about influence peddling, abuse of power and interference.

[English]

The Chair: Put your question, Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Mr. Gagliano, don't you think as I do?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: No, never.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Obviously it doesn't bother you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Gagliano.

[Translation]

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Chair, in the past, and I believe it will be the case in the future, my opinions were different from those of Madam MP. Allow me to try to answer your question and tell you simply that I totally and categorically reject any allegation by you or by the newspapers.

When I was in the post, I had the opportunity to respond to my critics and each time I put specific facts on the table. Let the facts speak for themselves and you will see that everything was above board. I can look you in the eye, Ms. Lalonde, and tell you that I am an upright and honest person. I have no moral lessons to learn from anyone, including you.

Second, as for the newspapers...

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

We go now to the Liberal side, Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First, I want to congratulate you on your election as the chair. Many years ago we worked together on this committee, and then I left. I'm glad we are back, and I take this opportunity to congratulate you on being the chair.

For almost the last two hours, Madam Chair, we discussed this issue, not dealing with the committee's work. It just demonstrates to this nation why the combined total of the opposition popularity is less than the Liberal Party. If anybody wants proof, they just have to listen to this show. My friend calls it “the comedy network.” I think it's a perfect illustration of why the opposition cannot achieve anything against this government here.

Mr. Ambassador, on page 4 of your speech, second paragraph, you make a comparison between us and the Danish government on the official development assistance program. You say that the Danish government provides 1.0% of GDP for official development assistance, and ours is 0.3%. I wonder, Mr. Ambassador-designate, what you would do over the next three or four years to move that from 0.3% to make it higher, because I think we should do everything we can to reflect our values in our foreign policy, especially for the humanitarian needs of foreign countries.

À (1050)

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Definitely, it's very important, and we all know that Denmark has been and still is... even though the latest budget reduced the amount of the Danish participation to the development fund. But definitely they still remain the leaders. We want to work with them, and we continue working with them in different programs with their objectives. Right now the officials at the department are looking at the policy statement they came out with after the February budget.

How can we improve? Definitely there is a lot of need. I think our Prime Minister's making Africa the most important issue in the G-8 summit... I think the outcome will be very important. Definitely Canada and Denmark will be following it, and we will be continuing the dialogue with the Danish officials.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I have a second question, Madam Chair.

In the past the Minister of Finance and the government worked together to reduce the debt of the poor countries in the world, and in some cases, we totally forgave the debt. Can you make a comparison between our position on the debt issue with poor or developing countries and the Danish stand on the same issue?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: The only difference between us and them is that they spend more per capita than we do. But in terms of the objectives of the program, they are the same. They want to work with a country to develop...and lately we have seen an even stronger statement telling countries that need aid to respect human rights, democratic rights, and women's rights. They have indicated that they would pull out of those countries if they don't do so, and I think they are serious. So we really are working together on the issues and improving human conditions around this world.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: Thank you very much. That brings to a conclusion my questions, Madam Chair.

I wish the ambassador good luck in the future.

The Chair: Does another Liberal want to finish off his time?

Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

Ambassador, there was an election in Denmark in the fall of 2001. My understanding is that a new government has come in, and under the new prime minister they seem to have a new attitude regarding immigration.

Now, you just mentioned how you came to this country as an immigrant. Canada was basically built by immigrants, and we have a very open immigration policy in the sense of trying to encourage many peoples of the world to come to Canada and to contribute to building this country.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I want to know how much time is left for questions by the Liberals.

[English]

The Chair: We didn't hear the question.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I want to know how much time Ms. Jennings has left, after Mr. Assadourian, to ask her question.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian had three minutes, so Ms. Jennings is completing his remaining two minutes.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: We're sharing the five minutes.

The Chair: After Madam Jennings, there's five minutes on the Liberal side and they can split it in whatever fashion they want, which they have. Then we'll go to Mr. Robinson after this.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'll put my question to you directly. Given Canada's history on policies of immigration and given what appears to be a new attitude on the part of the Danish government with regard to immigration, how do you see Canada either working with the Danes or helping to encourage the Danes to pursue an open immigration policy?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: There is a new government since November 2001. The question of immigration is not new to Denmark, as I believe it is not new in Canada. The new Danish government has tabled a new policy of immigration. There is debate, not only in Denmark but also in Europe.

I recall that last year, I believe it was, a Danish parliamentary committee came to visit and met with our committee here in Canada to discuss issues. As a matter of fact, I believe about six weeks ago there was a journalist who wrote an article describing the openness in how Canada addressed the immigration and refugee issue.

This will be a continuing debate. I believe in the month of May we might have other visitors from Denmark to discuss this issue. Definitely every time we meet with officials, we offer our collaboration. We have a good system, and they're looking at our experience to make their new policy.

À (1055)

The Chair: Thank you, Ambassador.

We go now to Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Member speaks in Danish]

That, Madam Chair, in Danish means “I'm very proud of my Danish heritage”. You will understand that this means I also have a personal interest in this particular appointment of this ambassador.

I might say that Denmark has outstanding representation in this country. Ambassador SvendRoed Nielsen is a very distinguished ambassador who serves his country very well indeed. Our ambassador represents the people of Canada in a great country, in the country of Denmark. I still have many relatives there who look with interest to who is representing this country abroad.

I want to say as well that I, as one member of this committee, am not opposed categorically to the appointment of qualified parliamentarians as heads of mission. I believe service in this House, service representing Canadians, in some cases for many years, doesn't disqualify one from serving abroad as a head of mission. I want to put that on the record. There have been appointments of qualified parliamentarians on both sides of the House who have served with distinction. So that's not the issue for me here today, Madam Chair.

I want to ask the minister something. First of all, has the minister signed a document certifying that he read and understood the code of conflict of interest?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I believe so. Let me remind the honourable member that I continue to be under the same code of ethics as when I was minister. I met Mr. Wilson, and he informed me that just to sign my statement of declaration.... Therefore I'm not only in the department, but also a Canadian official.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So the minister says he will apply the same ethical standards to his work as an ambassador as he did during his time as minister?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Exactly, sir. I will abide... As I said before, my record is there. I believe in honesty and integrity, as I did as a minister, and I will continue to do so as an ambassador.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The minister says his record is clear and he will apply the same standards. Madam Chair, I think it's precisely that record that gives many of us cause for deep concern. Since we've been precluded from asking specific questions about that record, I want to ask the minister some questions about his work as ambassador.

Does the minister recognize that it would be inappropriate for him, in his role as ambassador to Denmark, to suggest that work for the embassy be done by an engineering firm that employs his son-in-law?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I don't know. Right now, Madam Chair, at the embassy in Denmark, there is no work being carried on, so I don't know what the member is talking about.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, there may be no work being carried on, but I'm asking the minister a very specific question about his work.

The Chair: Are you speculating? Is it speculative--

Mr. Svend Robinson: No.

An hon. member: And hypothetical.

The Chair: --and hypothetical?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm asking the minister a very specific question, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Baker, on a Point of Order.

Mr. George Baker: On a point or order, Madam Chair, no, it won't be taken out of his time, but I'm wondering if Mr. Robinson could tell us where he gets the information that the ambassador calls all the tenders and awards all the contracts for Canadian business in Denmark.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, I'm not suggesting that the ambassador calls all the contracts, but certainly I am aware, and I indicated this earlier, having discussed this with senior members within the department, that the ambassador does have the authority to hire. The ambassador does have the authority to let contracts as well, and the ambassador himself, Mr. Gagliano, would recognize that. So it's entirely in order and entirely appropriate for me to ask just what standards govern this appointee.

What standards govern Mr. Gagliano with respect to his future work as ambassador? Is it appropriate for the ambassador of Canada to Denmark--Mr. Gagliano, for example--to suggest to federal government departments that they hire friends or political allies of the ambassador? Is that appropriate conduct?

The Chair: Ambassador.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Chair, I know the honourable member is trying to ask indirectly something that you ruled on before, but that is not for me to comment on. What I want to say...and maybe this gives me the opportunity to enlighten some members who are so concerned about how contracts are given at the embassy, and so on, and maybe explain how the system works.

Á (1100)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Perhaps the witness might answer the question.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano:Madam Chair--

Mr. Svend Robinson: No, he's not answering the question. I didn't ask about the rules for... I asked this minister whether it is appropriate that he recommend, either in hiring--which he has responsibility for as ambassador--or in letting of contracts, that his friends, his political contacts, or his family get those contracts.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson--

Mr. George Baker: Madam Chair, the ambassador doesn't hire contractors.

The Chair: That's right.

Mr. George Baker: Nowhere is that done. It's done by public tender call, and the minister can--

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: That's what I was trying to--

The Chair: At this point, Mr. Ambassador, you have only a half a minute for a response.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I think I'll need a little bit more than that, but I'll try to give that answer in further questions. But since the honourable member has been very interested in the procedure and how the department works, he should know there are a series of procedures where, once a year, there are inspections of property that the government owns abroad, and they make recommendations.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I asked--

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, excuse me.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: There is a mission management committee. There is a procurement management committee. Then we go back to the department. By the time the ambassador approves, several committees and several people have made their recommendations. Therefore it's not just the ambassador who manages the whole system.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, the ambassador--

The Chair: No, Mr. Robinson, that's it. You've had your five minutes, plus.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you very much.

Welcome to the committee, such as it is.

I do have to ask a couple of questions here. You referred earlier to allegations in the newspapers. I have no idea whether the allegations are right or not, but even as late as this morning, there are allegations there.

I just want to ask you, do you agree that extremely high ethical conduct for an ambassador or a high commissioner representing Canada is a criterion absolutely?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I think it's a very important criterion. It's a very high criterion not just for an ambassador, but for any public officer holder. And I have to say, I've been holding public office for 25 years, and the record speaks for itself.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Exactly. That's the problem.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson--

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: It's your problem, not mine. I can stand before you today and answer your questions.

Mr. Bill Casey: The next part of my question is, if any allegations against any ambassador or head of mission were proven accurate, that reflected inappropriate behaviour or even any improprieties, what should that ambassador do?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I think there is a course of action, there are systems, there are audits in place. And if an ambassador doesn't perform according to the rules, according to the criteria and the policy established by the department and the government, he is recalled. That's what happens in circumstances, whatever the reason is. There is a procedure in place that anybody, anywhere, at any time could place a complaint about an action of not only an ambassador but any diplomat who is in any country representing Canada. There is a procedure where an investigation takes place and the department has a disciplinary committee and both parties have the occasion to make a presentation of the case and to decide whether there is a case or not.

Mr. Bill Casey: I'd like to move along. What is the status of your appointment now? Has it been approved by the Danish government? Have they resolved that?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, the agreement has been approved. I believe it was on April 24 or 25 that we received the agreement of the government.

I went to Denmark on February 27. I met, according to procedure, with the chief of protocol of Denmark. I presented a copy of my credentials and I've been accepted. They instructed me on the things I can do until I present my credentials to Her Majesty the Queen. The date has been set for April 10.

There are another two ambassadors in my situation, one who arrived before me in Denmark and another one who arrived after me in Denmark. So on April 10 I'll present the credentials to Her Majesty the Queen.

In the meantime, I'm working in the embassy preparing the plan of action, the strategic work that we want to achieve in the short, medium and long terms. My action is limited to the foreign affairs department and to meeting the ambassadors.

I've had quite a few meetings on different occasions with other countries' ambassadors and officially participating, as I said, in the PEU presidency consultation. I have had already two meetings...one in Denmark, two here with the Danish ambassador in Canada. We have established a good relationship and an action plan that we can both work on together.

Definitely, this year our objective is that we will have a Canada-EU summit here in Ottawa somewhere in the middle of December. Since Denmark is the president of the EU, that meeting will be co-chaired with Denmark and Canada, so therefore we're preparing for that important summit.

Á (1105)

Mr. Bill Casey: So you're official on April 10?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I'll present my credentials on April 10 and then I'll have full powers, yes.

Mr. Bill Casey: We had a meeting with the Department of Foreign Affairs officials about the criteria for a head of mission. They outlined a wide range of experience and abilities.

When I read your curriculum vitae I don't see anything that connects with the criteria that the Department of Foreign Affairs told us would give a good background for a head of mission. If you look at all the experience you have here as a certified accountant, opposition critic for small business, Quebec Liberal caucus chair and so on... And we were also told at the same time that there are 400 EX level employees and 700 FS-2 level employees who could qualify for the same position as you have.

Why should you get this job and not those qualified people who have an average of 20 years' experience?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all in terms of experience, as I have been saying, I have had 25 years in public life. When I was the school board commissioner I traveled in Europe, for example in France and Switzerland, trying to work cooperation agreements with different school boards here to improve our system of education. Also, as a member of Parliament I visited countries, as most of you have, and dealt with embassies and diplomats abroad. Definitely we get that field experience.

Most importantly, Madam Chair, when I was minister I signed over 12 bilateral memorandum agreements for Canada Post and CMHC with different countries, I would definitely say about a half a dozen, in Europe and eastern Europe. Those are negotiations, government to government. They are definitely related to the work an ambassador and diplomat does.

I could add to my experience. For example, just before the holidays I concluded a very complicated and tough negotiation with the ten provinces and three territories on affordable housing. Believe me, this was tough and it was an historic agreement. I have been signing agreements. I signed them until January 14, different provincial agreements, whether British Columbia or Quebec, with whom we haven't had such an agreement for at least 25 years.

I think my work in the past 25 years qualifies me very well for my new job.

The Chair: Thank you, Ambassador.

We now go to the Liberal side, Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

In listening to my friend Mr. Casey, I find myself disagreeing with him and rather agreeing with Mr. Robinson. I disagree with Mr. Pallister earlier that somehow elected public office disqualifies someone from representing this country abroad; rather, the question would be why Mr. Gagliano should turn it down when offered this position by the Prime Minister. Such appointments have been made by leaders of various political stripes, every political stripe that has held office at the provincial and federal levels, some 36 Conservative positions in nine years. And some of these people have excelled. I mentioned former minister and former ambassador Ron Irwin, who I personally saw excel. Why would the ambassador turn down this opportunity?

In my job as parliamentary secretary to the trade minister, I am a little more interested in some trade questions, Mr. Ambassador. Could you overview our trade situation with Denmark? What potential growth opportunities for Canadian exports in Denmark do you see?

Á (1110)

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: The right amount of trade between the two countries each way is about $420 million or $425 million a year. Definitely there is a lot of improvement. The most important items we trade in actually are aerospace products, machinery, IT communications, fisheries products. There are some agricultural products.

This year is very important because the EU presidency goes to Denmark. We have to work very hard and make our message clear that when one talks about North America, it is not only the U.S., it's also Canada. This is an important job we have to do there. Anyone representing Canada in Europe has to make sure we have our place. We have here a golden opportunity with Denmark because we're neighbours. We are both northern countries. We have a lot of issues in common.

Madam Chair, it will be a long time before we have another northern country as the chair of the European Union. Therefore, the next six months will be very important for us to raise the issues we have.

I see here a distinguished member from Newfoundland. We have a situation where the European Commission does not want to increase the quota of peeled shrimp we can sell in Europe. Denmark agrees with us, even though it is one of our competitors. It agrees that with a more open market both countries can do better business.

We have to drive those issues, and this is what I will be doing in the next few months. Definitely we'll be continuing. We hope to mark...and will probably have the occasion later on.... We have a very aggressive program. Personally, I want to go, after April 10, to meet with individual CEOs and corporations, to say to those who do business in Canada, let's do more, and to those who don't do business in Canada, take a look, maybe there's a possibility. Canada is a very good door into the North American countries.

Trade definitely is a very good complement to the embassy and we have a good trade consulate. We have a good team there.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Good, thank you very much.

Do I have time, Madam Chair?

The Chair: You have two minutes.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: There are, as all too many of my colleagues, if not all of them, are aware, ongoing trade disputes between ourselves and other nations. I know Mr. Ambassador would be aware of the ongoing dispute with the United States over wood. We wish it would be resolved, and we're hoping it will.

Now there's a potential for a problem with Denmark. As I understand it, last year the Danish Parliament approved a proposal on the use of so-called tropical wood, which, by recognizing only one of the many forestry certification programs currently in use worldwide, could negatively affect Canadian access for our timber to the Danish and European markets. And we're already in the throes of what we consider an unfair trade dispute precipitated by the United States, so we don't need any others.

I know you're newly into your briefings and so on, but I wonder if you've had an opportunity to look at this issue at all. If you have, could you share your thoughts with us at this point.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: You're right, Madam Chair. Last June the Danish Parliament passed a resolution, B 197, recommending that the Danish government agencies only purchase tropical timber that was legally and sustainably produced. We still are expressing our concern through the resolution reference at the Forest Stewardship Council.

So we're working with the forestry companies. I met the Natural Resources people here before going to Denmark to discuss the problem. We have raised it and will continue to raise it. Definitely we are concerned, but I think so far nothing is lost. The problem is on the table, and I think we have to be very vigilant and make our case that our forestry meets those standards.

We have only a few issues of disagreement with Denmark; this is one, and naturally the issue of a fish quota is another one, but definitely we're working on it.

Á (1115)

Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Ambassador. Good luck in your new position.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Brien.

We now go back to the opposition, which starts us on what is called the second round, which means that we go opposition, Liberal, opposition, government, down the line. So you indicate if you wish to get in on the round.

We'll start, then, with the opposition, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it must seem remarkable to the ambassador that he's being brought to task today for such things as foisting his friends on government departments and crown corporations at a time when the Prime Minister has just foisted him on the Department of Foreign Affairs and the people of Denmark.

But that being said, we just finished sending the very best people we possibly could to the Olympics for our country. I think of the foreign service as something of at least that much importance, so my concerns today are that we're sending the very best possible people to this position, Madam Chair.

The information that we were able to get from the department told us that there were three main elements in the job description of an ambassador: team building, asset allocation, and working with security organizations.

On the team building category, it would be obvious that allegations of nepotism or patronage levelled against the head of any organization would be very damaging to team spirit. We know that a critical aspect of building an esprit de corps, or building team spirit, is the ability of leaders on teams to take responsibility for their actions.

There's an old adage that coaches talk about that says when things go very well, it's the team's fault; when they go half bad, it's our fault; and when they go all bad, it's my fault. And an ambassador has to be something of a coach to the people and a leader to the people who work in an embassy.

For that reason, it concerns me that this applicant has certainly shown a willingness to place blame, even among his own colleagues, whenever things get very hot. I'm quoting here: “It's very clear, especially in the last six months, that somebody would like my job”, for example.

The Chair: I've been very lenient with you, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I'm talking about the team building criteria of this job.

The Chair: You're just sliding close to the edge, Mr. Pallister.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I am, Madam Chair, and I recognize that whenever I get remotely close to the edge I get heckled by government members and you step in.

But I'm talking about the ability of this member to become an ambassador. I'm trying to raise questions pertinent to information I've received from the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I will not be pressured by an arrogant majority to speed up my questioning to suit their purposes. I will ask my questions.

When there are suspicions that applicants for ambassadorial positions cannot make asset allocations fairly, openly, and with the best interests of their organization--their country--at heart, these are serious concerns.

As an ambassador, Mr. Gagliano will have to work with the RCMP. He will have to work with them in coordinating security arrangements for the mission. He will have to work with them in considering applications for immigration or for visas. This is particularly worrisome in light of the fact that in 1993 the RCMP recommended to the Prime Minister's Office that this applicant not be made a cabinet minister due to allegations that he was involved in organized crime.

Now my question is--

The Chair: Order. Order.

Mr. Pallister, you know the rules by which we all agreed we would abide.

Mr. Brian Pallister: We didn't all agree. The majority--

The Chair: Well, at least the committee agreed. The majority agreed, and you are within that.

Mr. Brian Pallister: I've rewritten the question to the best of my ability, so it's sugar-coated for your purposes, Madam Chair.

Á (1120)

The Chair: It's not sugar--

Mr. Brian Pallister: The fact is, I have a question. I'll go to the question.

The Chair: Okay, go to the question.

Mr. Brian Pallister: How can this applicant assure this committee, the people of Canada, and the people of Denmark that he will be able to conduct an effective working relationship with the very organization that said his reputation was too unsavory for him to be a cabinet minister?

The Chair: No, no.

We'll move on to the next--

Mr. Brian Pallister: The slime is just dripping out.

The Chair: We're on the government side. We'll move over.

Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Canadian Alliance): I have a point of order. I still think Mr. Keyes should withdraw the remarks he made.

The Chair: Mr. Williams, you have not been signed in as a member of the committee.

We will move on to Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I say to Mr. Robinson and Mr. Baker, I don't think there are many around this table who can claim to have spent 25 years in public service. That's a long time. So I would like to ask the ambassador, Mr. Gagliano, a question. Don't you think, having spent so many years in public life and at all levels, that will serve you well in your new duties?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Definitely. I said it in my opening statement.

Mr. Brian Pallister: Point of Order, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Brian Pallister: If we are not able to reference, in any way, shape or form, the behaviour of the applicant in his past conduct as a minister, how in heaven's name can a question that asks the man to refer in a positive way to his experiences be in order?

Surely we're here to just talk about the future and hypothetical behaviour, and not actual acts, or seriously examine the behaviour of the applicant in the past.

The Chair: I agree with you it's out of order.

Mr. Brian Pallister: And that's the farce of it, right there.

The Chair: Would you reframe your question?

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Gagliano, as you pointed out in your opening remarks, you weren't born in this country. You were born in western Europe and you've travelled extensively. I'm quite sure that as minister, and in other capacities, you've been to western Europe many times. I would think that would equip you very well in your new posting.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, it does.

I've been following the European situation for many years, even when I was a school commissioner and chairman of the school board. I went, as I said before, to France and Switzerland to talk about education. I went with CMHC and Canada Post to Poland, the Ukraine, Russia, and Romania to discuss housing issues and Canadian postal issues. We signed a memorandum of agreement. We have Canadian businesses doing business in those countries, building houses.

I think what is important for Canada.... Definitely, our biggest trading partner and ally is the United States. But really there are four: the U.S., Canada, Japan, and Europe.

As I said before, I think we're doing well in Europe. We can do much better. There is this debate over enlargement. Now we're talking about a European Union of 15. One of Denmark's main objectives is to enlarge Europe. A few years from now, we might have 25 members of the European Union. So this bloc is becoming very important, and I think we have a golden opportunity to make sure that while these debates are going on in Europe, we are there and we make our case very eloquently. That's what I intend to do.

Mr. John Harvard: I'm sure Mr. Casey was not serious when he suggested that the Prime Minister should not reach out beyond the foreign service once in awhile to appoint ambassadors.

Mr. Bill Casey: I didn't suggest that.

Mr. John Harvard: Well, I heard that. At least that was my interpretation.

If you truly believe that, Mr. Casey, then I guess you should talk to Mr. Mulroney, who reached outside of the foreign service once in awhile to make appointments.

You did point out in your opening remarks, Mr. Ambassador, that Canada and Denmark share values. Having spent many years in public life, as you've pointed out, you certainly understand Canada and you understand our values. That should make you comfortable in that posting?

Á (1125)

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, it makes me very comfortable.

There are challenges between the two countries when we look at the future. I think by the fact that I understand, I share, and I have been promoting Canadian values.... This is the best country in the world. They definitely understand us. As I said, we have many things in common: borders, Nordic...a lot of history, and definitely literature. So I definitely feel fortunate to be there, to represent Canada in Denmark.

As Canada is the door to North America, Denmark is the door to Europe. I'm going to make my case for Danish business people to come and invest in Canada, and Canadians should go and invest in Denmark, which means in Europe. So we have a lot of things in common.

Culture is a very important element of our relations. We have a presence in the three major universities in Copenhagen with Canadian studies. Canadian writers and poets come. We're translating Canadian books into Danish. Even the Francophonie...we will be celebrating the Francophonie in Denmark tomorrow. There are 12 ambassadors we've already met. We have a program of celebration. We even have a literary prize, where we translate Danish books into French. So we're doing a lot of things there.

I think there is a wonderful team there that is looking for my leadership. Yes, I can build that team. We've already had staff meetings. We are really building that team, and it definitely will be a very important year this year. We'll continue building the program for the years to come.

The Chair: Thank you, Ambassador.

Mr. Paquette.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Since you have decided that we could not allude to Mr. Gagliano's experience and political career to see if he had the required competence for his new post as Canadian ambassador to Denmark, and since his curriculum vitae mentions only his political experiences, I would like to ask Mr. Gagliano if certain of his professional experiences, other than his political ones, could justify his nomination as Canadian ambassador to Denmark, knowing that there are at least 10 per cent of our ambassadors who did not come through the diplomatic route.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Of course I think that without a doubt 25 years of public life gives me good experience, but I would also like to remind Committee members that I am an accountant by profession and that before entering politics I had an accounting practice for many years. I therefore also know professional life. I am a fellow CGA and that will also help me in my new responsibilities.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Aside from your responsibilities as an accountant, are there other elements you would like to point out, perhaps a particular interest in Denmark related to your reading or your hobbies?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Of course an ambassador is not named to pursue his hobbies in Denmark. We name him to represent Canada. However, like everyone, I have my hobbies, my preferences and my reading.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: I fear my question may be out of order if I asked you to name them.

You nomination as Canadian ambassador was announced at the same time as the Cabinet shuffle and without consultation with the Danish authorities. Did that create any personal problems for you or when you arrived in Denmark?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: No. I can tell you that I believe there were consultations before the announcement, but the normal procedures followed. In addition, the normal time for an assent when naming an ambassador is about six weeks. The confirmation of my appointment arrived in the fifth week.

As I said, after my departure I was greeted at the airport in Copenhagen by the assistant chief of protocol and I met the Chief of Protocol the next day. I met the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and three other colleagues and ambassadors from the Francophonie regarding TV5's problems in Denmark.

I participated in other meetings. I participated in consultation meetings on the Danish Presidency of the European Union and, of course, in certain other activities allowed by protocol until I present my official credentials to Her Majesty the Queen.

Á (1130)

Mr. Pierre Paquette: Certain articles published in the Danish press and even the international press, among others an article in Le Monde on a diplomatic indelicacy did not affect you personally? Would you not have preferred that things go otherwise?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I don't decide those things, but I can tell you that a few days after my nomination I met with the Danish ambassador to Canada, Mr. Nielsen, and that we had a good meeting.

To this day all my communications have been good with the Department of Foreign Affairs, with the protocol staff and all the other ambassadors I have met. I was well received, everyone is glad that I am in Denmark and we will certainly work with our colleagues on various issues.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: In your presentation you mentioned: ''An Ambassador is also a leader of a team, and must strive to inspire, manage and motivate the team to produce excellence in the pursuit of Canada's interests."

In the current circumstances, do you seriously think you nave the necessary moral authority to be that leader?

M. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, Mr. MP. In fact, when I arrived I met all the embassy staff and we had a good meeting. The people are glad to have me there. It was decided that we would have all-staff meetings every two weeks. What is interesting, Madam Chair, is that we have set up a rotation system. An employee chairs the staff meeting, not the ambassador or his second-in-command. Each one brings his problems and viewpoints on what is working and what is not, and what needs to be improved.

I also immediately established, Madam Chair, for a calendar of embassy activities to be distributed to everyone so that each employee can know what is going on, what the others are doing, who they represent when they travel, and what their activities are. It is really teamwork and everyone feels they are part of the same team. I believe that is the only way that we can reach our objectives.

So I found a good team on site and I set up the necessary mechanisms to ensure that the team can continue to work with confidence. I can assure you that it's going very well.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Ambassador.

Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Gagliano, I must admit you've shown a great deal of poise at a time when some members have made some very provocative allegations and statements. And I think that bodes well for your appointment. I think also the aspect of team building is unquestioned in terms of your ability due to your experience as the former Minister of Public Works and Government Services. It's probably one of the largest departments in the Government of Canada in terms of management asset allocation. Having a department that is responsible for over $10 billion worth of spending... and the reports that the Auditor General have given you are an attestation to that. Certainly, there is no question with regard to your commitment and knowledge of Canada and your ability to represent.

Mr. Gagliano, I'd like to ask you how you feel about your ability to integrate into the culture of diplomatic service. As a cabinet minister, you've had an opportunity to deal in the political and governmental culture.

An hon. member: You can't go there, Paul.

Mr. Paul Szabo: How would you comment on your ability to integrate into the culture of the diplomatic service in terms of how your background fits in terms of those requirements and, therefore, your ability to achieve your objectives?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: First of all, the honourable member mentioned the Auditor General. One of my first receptions was a reception for the Auditor General and the Deputy Auditor General in Denmark and also for all the auditors general, I assume, in the world. It was a large organization, and she was invited by the Auditor General of Denmark to come to Copenhagen. On that occasion, I invited her to the official residence, and it definitely was a lovely evening. We naturally discussed the different issues in Canada and in the rest of the world in terms of what other auditors general....

In terms of my adapting, definitely let me say that during the past seven and a half years, almost eight years, my capacity in government.... One of the first priorities of any ambassador is to make sure government policies are implemented and are put forward. Therefore, my adaptation, if I can say so, was easy because I had been there for years and I knew how those policies were developed and where the objectives were. So, in that sense, I think it makes my job easy.

In terms of the management of the embassy, Madam Chair, naturally, for the record, I want to congratulate the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for being the professional team we are. In a matter of a few days, they welcomed me into the department and presented me with all the tools so that I can do my job.

So I definitely am adapting very well, and I'm glad I came. I arrived on Sunday and I'm leaving tomorrow so I can go back to my job and my team in Copenhagen, preparing this major program we want to establish for the new fiscal year, which is starting at April 1.

Á (1135)

Mr. Paul Szabo: Madam Chairman, can I have one last supplementary question?

The Chair: You have one minute, 45 seconds.

Mr. Paul Szabo: Thank you.

Mr. Gagliano, as part of this process, you have gone through briefings and other preparatory activity with regard to this designation. I suspect that you have learned a few things from that process that perhaps you weren't very intimately familiar with. I think it would be useful for the committee to hear your own self-assessment about whether or not you feel there are any deficiencies or areas in which you have to prepare yourself further in order to fulfill your role in a manner we would expect.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I have to say that even after spending so many years in government, I didn't know the foreign affairs department that well. I was surprised at their professionalism and all the systems we have in place that definitely make life easier for our diplomatic corps so that we can do our jobs effectively.

As in any other job, you bring your own perspective. As I said in my introductory remarks, the first thing I want to do is build a team spirit. I have already started that, and it's doing very well. I also want to establish a program with objectives that are measurable so that at the end of the year we can measure what we did or didn't achieve and why. I think those are very important.

The Chair: Thank you, Ambassador.

We go now to Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Gagliano, I just want to clarify this. Have you signed the document certifying that you have read and understood the code of conflict of interest for heads of mission?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I signed different documents. I believe I signed that one, because I signed all the documents I was certified to sign.

Let me add that I'm bound not only by the conflict of interest guidelines of the department, but also as a public office holder under the ethics counsellor.

Á (1140)

Mr. Svend Robinson: Exactly. I wanted to--

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I signed my declaration just before coming here.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You do understand that as head of mission in Copenhagen, you do have the power to hire locally engaged staff. Do you understand that?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes. I asked if we had a procedure in place on how we hire, and there is a very good system and we have an excellent manager. I don't want to take credit for that, because it was there when I arrived.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But as head of mission you do have the power to hire locally engaged staff.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: The administrator responsible for human resources will make a recommendation to me, and I'll have the final say.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You also have the power to let contracts with regard to, for example, renovations to the chancery up to a certain limit. Is that correct?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: With regard to renovations of the chancery, first of all, the department has an inspection program, and every one or two years a team does an inspection. A management program has already been established.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You have the power to let those contracts. Is that correct?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Let me finish.

Once the inspection has established what work needs to be done and we have received authorization from the department along with a budget, it goes before the mission management committee. Every item, big or small, has to go before that committee, which consists of the heads of the programs. In our case there are four managers and me. Once we make a decision, which is recorded in the minutes, it's sent to the procurement committee. They have to abide by the rules of the department. Then I'll get their final recommendation.

After tendering and doing everything we should--

Mr. Svend Robinson: Then you do the hiring.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Yes, or the buying.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I want to come back to this question. As we've now confirmed that as head of mission you do have the power to hire locally engaged staff, is it appropriate for you, pursuant to your ethical guidelines, to recommend the hiring of family members for the locally engaged staff at the embassy? Is that appropriate?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: No, it's not appropriate.

But in the manual of the department there are cases where the committee can decide that for a valid reason an exception can be made. It has to be documented and approved by the hiring committee and the management committee and, naturally, we refer it to the department.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Do you believe it is ethically acceptable for you, as the ambassador to Denmark, to recommend for an engineering contract that the work be done by a firm that employs your son-in-law?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I never recommended such a thing in my life. I totally reject your accusation. If you want to make the statement outside this room.... It's appalling that a senior member like you would use your parliamentary privilege in this committee to make those accusations.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm quite prepared to make the same statement outside this House.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, order.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Madam Chair, it's simply unacceptable that this member would harangue and insult.

The Chair: You have a point of order, Mr. Baker?

Mr. George Baker: Madam Chair, the honourable member went from having the minister explain the process for letting contracts as being a bureaucratic process to hiring staff, which again is another process. Then he went to engineering contracts. Excuse me, Madam Chair, but that's quite a stretch.

The Chair: Mr. Baker, as much as I love you, you debated rather than making a point of order.

Mr. Robinson, I was giving you time to get the question out so there could be a very brief answer. All you have would be about 50 seconds.

Mr. Svend Robinson: In the final few seconds, I would ask the ambassador-designate this question. In his decisions with respect to contracts for services, is Mr. Gagliano prepared to assure this committee that he will ensure that those contracts are fulfilled and that--in words he has used on other occasions--every minute, whatever you paid, the contractor would in fact perform those requirements? I'm speaking here of course of the Groupaction contract. If in fact you contract for work to be done at that embassy, will you make sure that even if it's done by friends and buddies of the Liberal Party, the work is performed? Will you assure this committee of that?

Some hon. members: Move on!

Á (1145)

The Chair: Moving on, we move now to the Liberal side.

Marlene Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm appalled by the scurrilous accusations that this member, Mr. Robinson, makes. I am appalled.

I have some questions for the ambassador that I think would probably be a lot more appropriate than slinging mud all over the place on unsubstantiated allegations, which the chair, by the way, already ruled cannot be used as either a preamble to a question or to a question.

The Chair: Okay, get to your question.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Gagliano, the issue of trade was one that you addressed in your opening statement to this committee. You talked about how one of the objectives that you wish to establish with your team over in Denmark will be to improve and increase trade between the two countries. However, we appear to have a problem at least in one sector, that of fishing, where vessels from the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic, notwithstanding quotas established by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, appear tohave been found to be overfishing.

You know that our fishing industry here in Canada, particularly on the east coast, has been hit hard over the last two, if not three, decades and is struggling to continue to be a viable and thriving industry. The federal government has, inasmuch as it can, attempted to help that industry meet the challenges. How can we do that if one of our allies is violating quotas that are established by an international organization whose decisions they vow, at least in writing, to respect? And how do you see you, as ambassador, being able to move that situation to a positive one in terms of our fishing industry?

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Chair, as a matter of fact, I believe there was at the end of January, or the beginning of February, a meeting of the NAFO, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization.At that meeting our official tried to solve this problem where the Faroe Islands don't want to recognize that they overfish. For the past, I believe, two years, they have not made public their surveillance reports... how they respect what they say.

On the same day that we had the pre-presidency meeting consultation, we had a bilateral meeting with the department officials--I and the department officials of Denmark and the Danish ambassador to Canada. We raised this issue very clearly. We said that we don't agree. We are for conservation and definitely we want to continue to rebuild stock in the North Atlantic. Therefore, we want to make sure that the Faroe Islands respect the NAFO agreement and don't overfish more than their quotas. We made it very clear that if this doesn't stop, Canada is ready to go as far as closing ports in Newfoundland to the Faroe Islands' fishing boats.

So they know that we stand tough. We hope for further negotiation so it doesn't go to that extreme. We hope that future negotiation will solve the problem. But they know very well--we made it very clear--that if this doesn't stop, then we'll take drastic measures.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: That's good, but the issue is does Denmark recognize the decisions of NAFO? If they do, why hasn't their government taken action against the fishing vessels from Faroe Islands that have been found to be overfishing?

Á (1150)

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Chair, it's not as simple as that and sometimes--

The Chair: You have only a few seconds.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: --in diplomacy you have to... Definitely you know that the Faroe Islands have a home rule act. They are responsible for their fishing matters, but Denmark is responsible for foreign affairs. So we have two sets of institutions sitting at the NAFO table. I hope, as I said, with diplomatic negotiation we can solve this problem. They know we mean business and that we are serious. They know that. So let's hope. But it's not easy; it's complex. This is the major irritant that we have in our bilateral relations with Denmark.

The Chair: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could I just ask this. The chair assured the committee there would be time left for the discussion of the motion of which I have given notice. I'm wondering when we might be taking up this motion.

The Chair: We said we would do this at the end of our time with the witness. So when we come to the end of the time with the witness, we'll take up the motion.

Mr. Svend Robinson: So we don't have time for debate.

The Chair: We'll have to get the consent of the committee to remain beyond noon. We still have Mr. Casey to ask his second round of questions. If you noticed, we were doing the rounds.

At the end of this, when we're assured there are no more questions for the witness, we will thank and dismiss the witness and then we'll come to the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I just wanted to make a comment first. Mr. Harvard and Mr. O'Brien hurt my feelings when they misrepresented my question. I did not suggest that parliamentarians or ministers should not be appointed. My question was, why does the minister feel more qualified than the 1,200 other people who are in the foreign service? That was my question. I wasn't inferring that our ministers shouldn't be qualified, just asking why he felt more qualified.

With that, Madam Chair, I think we should move to Mr. Robinson's motion.

The Chair: Mr. Ambassador.

Mr. Alfonso Gagliano: I would like to say that I have more than people might think in foreign service... We have an excellent foreign service doing a fantastic job. I think political appointments bring a different perspective, and we work together. I can tell you, from my short experience, we make a very good team. I have people with diplomatic careers in my embassy, and we work together very well. My background and theirs make a good team. I look forward to having that team in place, and I'm sure we're all going to serve Canada better.

The Chair: Ambassador, thank you very much. I think you've spent the three hours with us that we asked you to. We thank you for responding to all the questions that were put to you. We wish you the very best as you pursue your tour of Denmark. Thank you so much.

Members, we have a motion before us that we need to dismiss before everyone leaves.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Can I propose the motion, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Mr. Robinson's motion was duly presented and you have a copy of that before you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thanks.

I'll just read the motion and then speak very briefly, because I think it's self-explanatory.

I move that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade decline to support the nomination of Alfonso Gagliano as Canadian ambassador to Denmark at this time, pending a full parliamentary inquiry into the serious allegations of misconduct by Mr. Gagliano during his tenure as Minister of Public Works and Government Service, which if confirmed would adversely affect his qualifications to represent Canada as ambassador to Denmark.

Madam Chair, there has been considerable discussion of this issue before the committee. I'm not going to set out all of the evidence to which I referred with respect to the serious allegations of misconduct. But members of this committee are well aware of the fact that the minister, as minister of Public Works, certainly is alleged to have participated in very serious misconduct, including up until today under his watch letting contracts for documents, which apparently cost half a million dollars and which were effectively not in any adequate way scrutinized whatsoever, to those who were significant supporters of the Liberal Party.

I'm not going to take a lot of time on these allegations, but certainly for those members who have not yet had an opportunity to read the letter of October 22,1998, of Michel Couillard with respect the conduct of the minister, I certainly suggest that you do so.

In light of these allegations, in view of the fact that there is this cloud of corruption over the minister in his role as minister, which is relevant, I believe, Madam Chair, it is essential that this committee--

An hon member: Just call the question.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Question, Madam Chair, question. Madam Chair, I move the question.

Mr. Svend Robinson: If I may conclude. It is essential that this committee, Madam Chair, in its recommendation to the government, decline to support this nomination at this time and that it call upon the government to ensure that there is a full inquiry into these very serious allegations, including the allegations that have just been made in the last couple of days, before this appointment is approved.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Now we have to go into debate.

On a point of order, Mr. Baker.

Mr. George Baker: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. This motion, Madam Chair, gives the suggestion of a veto. If this motion, Madam Chair, was made in the United States, yes, it's in the U.S. constitution that the Senate or a Senate committee can so do as far as appointments of ambassadors are concerned. It's the same thing with judges of the Supreme Court or cabinet ministers.

But in Canada the all-party committee, of which the honourable member was a part, decided not to allow motions such as this before this committee. It said specifically that there would be veto for heads of CRTC, the Canadian Transport Commission, and regulatory bodies, and veto motions would be accepted before this committee for officers of the House and other persons. But for all appointments under our constitution that are given by the executive branch of government, the cabinet, the all-party committee signed off and agreed by a motion of the House that there will be no veto power, or a suggestion of a veto power, given to any standing committee on appointments and that the word “examine” would be used in its place.

That is exactly what's in the Standing Orders. That's what we have to abide by, Madam Chair, and I would suggest to you, that unless the honourable member is willing to suggest to us how we can change the Constitution in the next two minutes, then his motion is out of order.

The Chair: The chair is going to make a ruling. Let's all just take a deep breath here.

A committee has no power to revoke an appointment or nomination and they only report, and they may only report that they have examined the appointee or the nominee and give their judgment as to whether the candidate has the qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed and nominated.

If the motion is in order, we can call the question. Mr. Goldring wants debate, as does Madame Lalonde, so we'll go back and forth.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I believe that is exactly right. I believe we're here examining the minister's credentials and looking towards his suitability for his future post.

In the minister's own brief, and I repeat in here, he's talking of Canadian art and culture and that he's looking forward to increasing Canada's cultural and artistic visibility in Denmark. While this is happening, in his past experience he had difficulty with a visibility report that did the very same thing, increase Canada's visibility, during his tenure as minister. So the very fact that he's looking at repeating one of those duties and using his experience from the past doesn't bode well to Canada's future, considering that this visibility report is very invisible.

On that very point alone, and when we look at the other credentials and the other suggestions of impropriety from the past, to be able to transport this to Denmark is very unfair to the people of Denmark, who cannot clarify this. We must have these clarifications and this understanding and discussion here. And when we continue through the litany of accusations, whether they are truthful or whether in fact...they have the optics of being there.

The concern for us is to be sending a person in a prime ambassadorial role to another country when we haven't had the discussion here on whether all of these facts and accusations have been cleared from his record. It would be much easier to do it from here, with a discussion on it, than it would be from Denmark.

We have various items on the list, from donors, from advertising contracts, from crown corporation problems, all of the areas of his chief responsibilities over the past years. His past performance as Minister of Public Works is what we're using as a basis for his credentials for the future. And if we examine each one of those departments and areas, we have clouds of questions in practically every single area.

The question is this: how can this form a good basis to support an application for an appointment in a ministerial role to represent Canada in a foreign country when he has these clouds over his head from here?

Â (1200)

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I really think that we should call the question.

Let me say this. I have never been a fan of an American form of hearings, and after listening to Mr. Goldring... he'll understand why I'm not a fan of American-style Senate hearings.

This is not a confirmation hearing. Even though it may be technically in order, as you have already pronounced, Madam Chair, I don't think it's in the spirit of the mandate of this committee. I don't think we have a veto, and I think we should call the question and we should defeat the motion.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Okay. All those in favour of calling the question?

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Madam Chair, you had given me the floor. Honestly, we need a minimum of order. The Chair cannot decide and then change her mind.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. The question. All those in favour?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order. With respect, the chair is not in a position to put the question while there are still members who wish to debate, and I'm sure the clerk would confirm that. It is totally out of order to force the question to be put.

The Clerk: A motion to call a question in committee is out of order.

The Chair: Madame Lalonde and also Mr. Keyes.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's not to embarrass you, but there are minimum rules to follow. Frankly, if you were on this side in the same circumstances, you would have fits and you would have already walked on the tables. It's absolutely mind-boggling. No, you have not rewarded the people who did that. It's absolutely mind-boggling. It is such a show of arrogance that you don't see Canada's interest.

I can tell you one thing. I don't take it well as a Quebecer. There is an attitude in the rest of Canada that sees Quebec politicians as corrupt. There is this attitude that has shown itself in other times and it is extremely important that...

Â (1205)

[English]

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, we have a point of order.

Mr. Pat O'Brien: A Point of Order always takes precedence.

I don't see how the member's comments can be even vaguely construed to relate to Mr. Robinson's motion. She's totally out of order. She's not speaking to the motion, Madam Chair.

It's really refreshing to hear separatist MPs all worried about Canadian values overseas.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I am being interrupted to talk about substance. We need a call to order. I am sorry, but I have the floor. It is not a call to order, it is a question of substance. I was a Chair for 15 years and I know what I am talking about.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Lalonde, we have a point of order.

Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: When Svend Robinson brought in the motion, it was 11:50. We agreed to have the meeting from 9 to 12 o'clock. Now it's five or seven minutes past 12 o'clock. He said he was going to have a short debate. He did his debate. Now we are debating the issue. I'd like to ask you, Madam Chair, considering that the time is up, either to extend the hours by unanimous consent or to stop the discussion now and call the question and vote on the motion, for or against.

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian, there were two people who indicated that they wanted to be part of the debate. I'm trying to get those two individuals to be part of the debate, and then we'll call the question.

An hon. member: To the motion, Madam Chair.

The Chair: To the motion.

Madame Lalonde has the floor.

[Translation]

Ms. Francine Lalonde: I told you that there is a Quebec link with that because Mr. Gagliano has been the chief Liberal organizer in Quebec since 1994 and because the essence of the allegations have to do with things that went on in Quebec. I want even more for Svend's motion to pass because it is important to ensure that politics in Quebec are sound.

I mean that the smell of interference and disrespect for the rules... Groupaction is in Montreal. I am therefore saying that in the interest of the people of Canada and Quebec that light be shed on all the allegations. There have never been so many on anyone for a long time and you know it.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: It's going to blow up in your face.

Ms. Francine Lalonde: Contempt only lasts for a time. I don't know how long because you are strong, but i will be only for a time.

Mr. Pierre Paquette: We are clean. There was never anything illegal.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think I can make this easy for the Liberals. I'd just like to quote Don Boudria, who is the former Liberal House leader and current Minister of Public Works. This is the same Boudria about whom it was said, “Boudria blames predecessors and Gagliano in charge of department”. He said, with respect to the appointment of the ambassador: “I believe that as of today, the Government should immediately place a moratorium on political appointments for a period of two months.” I support Mr. Boudria in that and I also support Mr. Robinson in his motion, so I will be voting in favour of it, as Mr. Boudria clearly would, as Hansard shows. All the Liberals will too, I'm sure.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: All right, we'll call the question on Mr. Robinson's motion. It's a roll call vote.

Â (1210)

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 5)

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you very much. We've had a very long morning and I want to commend you all for your forbearance.

This meeting is adjourned.