TRGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, January 31, 2002

Á

1105

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

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, PC/DR)

The Chair

Ms. Meredith

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

The Chair

Mr. Moore

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Val Meredith

The Chair

Á

1110

Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP)

The Chair

Á

1155

The Chair

Â

1200

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Peter Goldring

Â

1205

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

Mr. Goldring

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Goldring

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Regan

Â

1210

Mr. Goldring

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Goldring

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Goldring

The Chair

Mr. Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Goldring

The Chair

Â

1215

Mr. Lebel

The Chair

Ms. Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Lebel

Â

1220

The Chair

Ms. Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Meredith

The Chair

Ms. Meredith

The Chair

Mr. Pankiw

The Chair

Mr. Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Goldring

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Cannis

The Chair

Mr. Lebel

Â

1230

Mr. Cannis

The Chair

Mr. Lebel

Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Wayne Easter

The Chair

Mr. Szabo

Mr. Lebel

Mr. Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Alcock

Â

1235

Mr. Alcock

Â

1240

The Chair

Â

1245

The Chair

Mr. Pankiw

The Chair

Mr. Pankiw

The Chair

Mrs. Desjarlais

Â

1250

Mr. Alcock

Mrs. Desjarlais

The Chair

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

Â

1255

Mr. Laframboise

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. Cannis

The Chair

Mr. Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Szabo

The Chair

Mr. Szabo

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

The Clerk

·

1305

Mr. Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Lebel

Mr. Harvey

Mr. Lebel

A member

Mr. Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Lebel

The Chair

Mr. Lebel

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations

---

NUMBER 047

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, January 31, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

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

    I'm a little bit tardy this morning because we seem to have some kind of procedural problem in the House, and the parliamentary secretary to the House leader, who was supposed to be here, is in the House moving a motion now. So since he's not going to be here, I'd like to move to the order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 39(5)(b). I'd like to move to the second part, since we don't have Mr. Regan here, which is the 48-hour motions. We had a number of motions by members; maybe we can deal with them.

    If you refer to page 5, we could have the motion moved.

    Is it your motion, Val?

    Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey--White Rock--Langley, PC/DR): Yes, it is.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Yes, Mr. Chair, I gave the 48-hour notice for this motion, and I'd like to place it on the table for discussion. The motion reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), Jon Grant, former Chair of the Canada Lands Company, be invited to appear before the Committee to answer questions regarding all aspects of the working relationship between the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, his staff, and Canada Lands Company, during his tenure as Chair of the Crown Corporation.

    I place that motion on the table, and I would like to be replaced at this time by my colleague, Mr. Jim Pankiw, who will follow up any discussions on this motion.

    Mr. James Moore (Port Moody--Coquitlam--Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): I have a point of order.

    The Chair: James.

    Mr. James Moore: I notice all the Liberal members have left. Is there a vote in the House right now?

    The Chair: I think there is going to be a vote in the House coming up shortly.

    An hon. member: Yes, in 15 minutes.

    The Chair: We'll be coming back.

    Ms. Val Meredith: If that's the case, Mr. Chair, if I could have the floor, I would like my motion carried over until this committee reconvenes after the vote.

    The Chair: Okay, we don't have a bell, so....

    Some hon. members: Yes.

    The Chair: Oh, has the bell started?

    An hon. member: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay, I will suspend, and we'll come back and deal with it.

Á  (1110)  

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Further to Ms. Meredith's request that it be held over, is there a need to second that motion to ensure that it stays on the table?

    The Chair: No. That's fine.

    We'll suspend until after the vote.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: We will resume the meeting. I'd like to have consent to go back to the first order of the meeting because we have Mr. Regan here. Perhaps we can dispense with that and then get on with the four motions. Is that okay with the committee?

    We have Mr. Regan here because of a reference. As you know, there are some new orders, trying to make sure members are heard in the House. Mr. Regan is here because the answers to questions were not made in the House within the 45-day limit. We have five days, once the House refers them to us, to hear them. That's why we're doing this.

    On the decision we have to make, they gave us five recommendations. We may decide on none, of course, but those recommendations are that we censor the government; that we censor the member--I'm just paraphrasing it a little bit, you should have it before you--that we ask the member to withdraw the question because... There are four options.

    Before you make that decision, you may want to call in the bureaucrats. Since the system is new, it's probably a good idea that they feel the heat, so they know when members ask for answers to questions they are forthcoming with them. So you can consider that maybe we can call them in, before you go to that drastic state later on.

    Because it's new, I just wanted to give you a heads up on that.

    Mr. Goldring, you have the floor.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): Thank you. As we're aware--

    The Chair: I'm sorry. I should welcome our guest, Mr. Regan, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader.

    Sorry, Geoff.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you very much, and thank you for appearing here today, Mr. Regan.

    Mr. Chair, you just indicated the importance of this. I think it became very evident, with questions in question period in the House of Commons, that some of the answers I was receiving back could have been clarified and made an awful lot clearer if I'd had these questions answered previously.

    It's absolutely essential that when we put questions to the crown corporations and the minister's office, we have answers to them. This one in particular is about the dealings of the crown corporations and the sale of assets across Canada. We had asked specifically for information on the land sales, going back to 1993.

    As I said, the importance of this became very obvious with the follow-up questions in question period. The minister replied to my questions, and was actually rather complimentary, if you want to look at it that way, when he said I must be an appraiser, or knowledgeable on property values.

    I come to Parliament with certain skills from my previous life, as many others do. One of the areas I've had experience in is purchasing properties--some 30 to 40 properties, as a matter of fact, over a period of years. So I have some skills and some knowledge in it. But I needed the background information from the minister's office on the actual transactions and how they were put together; how they were estimated to be able to be put out to tender; and who had made bids on the projects. This was absolutely essential for me to get an understanding of it. It became apparent I was disadvantaged in question period by not having the full information I needed.

    The concern here was--and it hasn't been fully answered yet--why this information was delayed. My understanding, from the corporation itself, is that the corporation responded some weeks ago with the answers to my questions.

    I guess my question to you, Mr. Regan, is what actually caused the delays, and why was there a delay in forwarding that information? Does that information have to be filtered through the ministry in some way?

    Is that information modified in any way? When I ask a question of a crown corporation, is the information given to me verbatim from the crown corporation, or is it somehow changed through the ministry office? Was the delay there to modify any of the information? Or is the normal procedure to pass all of that information through, and there is some other reason for the delay?

  (1205)  

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you, Mr. Goldring for your question.

    Let me first say that this is my first occasion to appear before a committee, and I am pleased it's before such a distinguished group of parliamentarians. However, I would be much more pleased if I could come today on a different subject. I'm not at all happy to be coming to talk about the fact that a number of departments, crown corporations, and agencies of government failed to respond to your question, Mr. Goldring, within the time permitted. I've come here not to defend the failure to answer those questions on time, but simply to repeat the answer that I've been given.

    Now I'll go to it in a moment, but first I want to answer your question more directly. I can tell you that the normal procedure is that when a question is put on the floor of the House, it is tabled. It goes to the office of parliamentary returns, which is part of the Privy Council Office, and they then refer it to the departments responsible. In some cases it's one department and in some cases it's basically all departments and agencies. Then they in turn respond back to the office of parliamentary returns.

    But before that happens, actually, the parliamentary secretary or minister for that department signs off on the document to make sure the answer is complete and clear. Then it's forwarded to the office of parliamentary returns, which then forwards it to me as parliamentary secretary for the government House leader. It's my responsibility to do the last check and try to ensure the answers are complete and clear. If I sign off on it, then the next day usually, at the next sitting of the House, it's tabled.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: My understanding of it is that my questions were answered by the crown corporation itself, in other words, Canada Lands. The information I have received is that it was answered some time ago. That would indicate the questions were clear, certainly clear enough and precise enough to be able to be answered in relatively short order by the crown corporation itself. Is that correct?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Let me understand here. We are talking about question 99, aren't we? My understanding was that the topic before you in this meeting today was question 99, which had to be answered by some 41 departments, agencies, and crown corporations.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: It was question 94, which was asked December 3--

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I'm aware of your question. But I've been given a very good answer--an answer, at least--for question 99. That's what I have in front of me. I was asked to attend here today to deal with the issue of question 99. In addition to responding to your questions, I was planning to express my discontent that in fact the parliamentary returns officers in 12 out of 41 have not yet responded to it.

    Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you can help me out here for a moment.

    The Chair: You're not here to answer the questions. You're here to tell us why the questions were not answered.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, but which question, Mr. Chairman--question 99 or 94?

    The Chair: Mr. Clerk, will you clarify?

    The Clerk of the Committee: Okay. I'm going to talk in French; it will be a lot easier for me.

[Translation]

    On Tuesday and Wednesday, questions 90, 91, 92, 93, 94 and 99 were submitted to the committee. Since Tuesday, we have responded to questions 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94. We have not responded to question 99. However, technically speaking, all of these questions have been submitted to the committee. Thank you.

[English]

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I had the impression that you were looking at the last question today and that was your focus, but obviously you're looking at all those questions. Certainly the government House leader and I were not happy that those were not provided on time. However, I do point out that it was in 1994, so I believe it was to Minister Manley. Is that correct? Was he the minister?

  (1210)  

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: In that case, of course, as he's pointed out, after the shuffle there was a need for the new ministers to sign off on those documents and review them. Obviously, as many of us know, Mr. Manley was out of the country until Friday, or perhaps last weekend, maybe even Sunday. I think he read them on Sunday or at least late Saturday. He did not have an opportunity to do that during that period.

    My understanding is that the document was ready about two hours after the deadline. In other words, it was ready very quickly, and it's been tabled in the House, as you know. It's certainly not the intention of the government to try to mislead the House or members or to delay information.

    On the other hand, I can assure you that in relation to this general issue of questions not being answered within 45 days, particularly in relation to Q-99... I think in Q-99's case, it's an outstanding question, and it's not one where I can say to you that this delay has happened because of the shuffle and the new ministers in place and trying to get their staff together and deal with things of this nature. It's a different matter entirely. I think the message needs to be sent to the parliamentary returns officers in each department and agency that hasn't responded on time, and perhaps to all of them in all departments, about the nature of this new rule and the importance of responding to these questions in a prompt manner.

    The Chair: I have a couple of things. The question Mr. Goldring asked you is once these people have the document ready, what happens to it? Can it be modified, or is it just a matter of that minister signing off? That's the procedure that happens before it goes through. The document is not changed in any way once it comes from the department.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: It can in fact be modified. For instance, when I see one of these answers before it is tabled, if I feel the wording is not clear or can be improved, then I can send it back and say that they can do better. If I feel they haven't answered the question, which I sometimes do... If I feel it's not a good enough and a clear enough answer to the question that's been posed, then I send it back and say that they can do better than this.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Is there another possible problem or impediment here due to having a ministerial position like Mr. Manley's? Understandably, he's very busy internationally. He has so much on his plate, and now he also has this new area of crown corporations. Would this be an impediment to having questions answered on an earlier basis? Should this area be re-examined? Should that particular crown corporation area have been left under the purview of Public Works, where somebody could attend to it in a more expeditious manner?

    You were saying that the problem was that he was busy internationally. I can accept that as a problem, but I'm saying that perhaps this area should have been left under Public Works. Why was it moved from Public Works?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm obviously not able to respond to that kind of question, but let me simply say that it seems apparent to me that ministers are members of the House, and that when there are questions from the members of the House, the member of the House who is responsible for it--the minister who is responsible for it--has to have the ultimate responsibility for responding. Since Mr. Manley is the minister responsible for crown corporations, he had to be the person to sign off on this. It's unfortunate that he was out of the country quickly after the shuffle and was gone until last weekend.

    I think it's fairly obvious what has occurred here, and I don't think one should read more into it than that.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: So all of these questions have to go through the minister for him to sign off? They cannot be signed off by other people within his ministry to be able to move things forward more quickly? After all, we are simply transmitting information, are we not? We're not modifying, changing, or understanding it.

    The Chair: Well, that's a matter of procedure. I think it's probably up to any individual to make sure they expedite. For instance, in this particular case, I understand this thing was supposed to come to us within five days, and I made sure we got it right away, rather than waiting until next week. So the individual has that power.

    Mr. Szabo.

    Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think the issue with regard to the delay has been explained properly. I just want to be sure that all members are satisfied that there was an appropriate commitment, given the circumstances of the question--I think it's question number 99--that it's going to be answered as quickly as possible. That undertaking is coming forward, and I think we can probably assume that the exceptional circumstance of the shuffle, and so on, is the reason for the delay. That's not anticipated to be an ongoing matter, and therefore considering changing ministerial responsibilities really is not appropriate, unless there is a continued circumstance where questions were not able to be answered because of the minister not being available.

    So I think that undertaking, or at least clarity, as to the remaining question would certainly help the committee.

    The Chair: Geoff, do you want to answer?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Through you, Mr. Chairman, thank you to Mr. Szabo for that question.

    Let me deal with question number 99, if I may, which asks:

How many persons are working on a contract basis rather than a term or indeterminate basis for each department, agency, and government business enterprise (including crown corporations, the RCMP, and the Armed Forces)?

    The Office of the Coordinator of Parliamentary Returns called the honourable member's office on December 13, 2001, after departments had requested some clarifications, and mentioned that the length of time to prepare such an answer would surpass the 45-day limit. A request to remove the 45-day request was refused. Government departments, agencies, and crown corporations had to send their request for information across Canada. There are still 12 entities out of 41 remaining. I've asked the officials in parliamentary returns to look into the matter and hope to have an answer as soon as possible.

    That is the answer I've been asked to deliver to you, but I want to make it clear that every parliamentary returns officer in every government department and agency will be reading my words. I'm not here to defend them for a failure to report, to answer these questions on time. I'm sure they will adhere to this new rule. Perhaps there are some who need to understand it a little better, but I am sure they will all want to adhere to it in the future.

    The Chair: Mr. Goldring, you're satisfied?

    Mr. Peter Goldring: I'm satisfied. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Okay. For the members, I guess we'll deal with this, the fact that the member was satisfied with what happened here. But in the future we'll have these officials here if we don't get some of this correspondence, and I think they have to know as well how members feel about it. So thank you very much, Mr. Goldring.

    Thanks, Mr. Regan. You can get back to your duties at the House.

    We'll move back to the second item on the agenda, which is--

    An hon. member: A standing ovation.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Chair: --which is the notices. We have Mr. Pankiw, who will read the notice and we will debate that one, and then we'll deal with the other three.

    Monsieur Lebel.

  (1215)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): I wish to give notice of four motions, Mr. Chairman. Is this the appropriate time to do so?

[English]

    The Chair: We'll deal with them one at a time. I thought we were starting with Val Meredith's. Is that part of it?

    An hon. member: No.

    Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Chair, because I would like some debate on my motion and the honourable member is just making notice of motion, what we could do is allow him to give notice of motion first and then move on to my motion, which hopefully we'll have some discussion on.

    The Chair: Yes, but these motions were given the 48 hours, were they not?

    An hon. member: No, they were not.

    The Chair: Oh, I see. These are new motions. Okay, go ahead.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: My first motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations invite the Honourable Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, former Minister of Public Works and Government Services, to appear before the Committee to shed light on serious allegations of patronage, favouritism and interference in the management of the Canada Lands Company.

    My second motion is as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations call Mr. Howard Wilson, Ethics Counsellor, to appear before the Committee in order to answer our questions regarding serious allegations of patronage, favouritism and interference involving Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, former Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

    My third motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations invite the Honourable Don Boudria, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, to appear before the Committee to apprise us of the measures he intends to implement in order to ensure transparency in all the operations of his department.

    And lastly, my fourth motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations hold hearings as soon as possible in order to hear from all witnesses that could shed light on serious allegations of patronage, favouritism and interference involving Mr. Alfonso Gagliano, former Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

    These motions shall be tabled in both official languages, Mr. Chairman.

  (1220)  

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Clerk, you said these things have not been here for 48 hours? So we'd have to have unanimous consent to do them?

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Chair: No, we don't. We can do them now. Okay.

    Val, would you say the first motion is the same as yours?

    Some hon. members: No.

    The Chair: You want to deal with that separately.

    Ms. Val Meredith: He's placing them on the table now, right? Can we go back to my motion now?

    The Chair: Yes. Do you want to read your motion into the record?

    Ms. Val Meredith: For the second time, the motion is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), Jon Grant, former Chair of the Canada Lands Company, be invited to appear before the Committee to answer questions regarding all aspects of the working relationship between the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, his staff, and Canada Lands Company, during his tenure as Chair of the Crown Corporation.

    The Chair: Okay, we have a motion on the floor for discussion.

    Ms. Val Meredith: I will give my spot to my honourable colleague.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Pankiw.

    Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon--Humboldt, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As we know, allegations against the former minister, Alfonso Gagliano, were made by Jon Grant, who I think we could unanimously agree is a very credible source. So these are credible allegations, subsequent to which the then minister admitted that he used his influence to obtain jobs for his friends, and that is--

    Some hon. members: Not really.

    Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes, he did. He said it live on Newsworld. He admitted it.

    In 1994 this government brought in the code of ethics, and Mr. Gagliano admitted to violating subsection 23(3). This goes to the heart of integrity and ethics in government, and we have an obligation to determine the extent of political interference that took place. Canadians deserve to know the truth, and that is the obligation.

    We know there was a violation of the Code of Ethics. Failure to vote in favour of investigating it and fulfilling our obligation would be a contempt of Parliament. As a last order of business prior to the Christmas break this committee struck a subcommittee on government operations, and I would submit that that would be the appropriate place to have Mr. Grant appear so we can uncover the extent to which the conflict of interest guidelines were broken.

    The Chair: Mr. Szabo.

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

    I understand the motion and the issues, but I believe the representation of the member who just spoke is not factually correct. There are some allegations, but the minister and the Prime Minister have made statements in the House that hold a different set of facts.

    In my view, unless there is evidence of wrongdoing, this committee should not be pursuing fishing expeditions on such matters. I think there would have to be more specific allegations with regard to any wrongdoing. So on that basis, Mr. Chairman, I would recommend the committee vote against this motion.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Goldring.

    Mr. Peter Goldring: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would disagree with what the member has just said, on the basis of the fact that the answers made in question period in the House of Commons contradict the comments that were made by Jon Grant in public and the minister's comments in public afterwards. There's a great contradiction here, and this is far too important to simply sweep under the carpet.

    With the minister having been given another appointment, frankly, out of the country, we have to bring these factions together to ask very clear and precise questions and have them dealt with here, in committee, to determine where the facts are. This all revolves around what is ethically correct, if not legally correct, and we should have a determination on this. 

    The best way to have this determination is to bring all the factions, all the players, here to committee and ask these questions once again, to determine where the truth really lies. Maybe at the end of the day we'll find nothing legally wrong was done here, but at least we can have some ethical determinations.

    Let's also commend a person like Jon Grant, in a substantial position like that, for coming forward with his concerns. On that very basis alone, let's have a hearing on what these concerns are. These are very serious allegations he's making, and this is a very responsible person from the committee. So from the standpoint of that alone, we should be hearing what Jon Grant has to say, and having some direct and pointed answers from the minister. We simply must bring these factions together and determine this.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I just asked the clerk, for libel purposes, if the committee is exempt, like the House. I just want to remind members to be judicious in your comments, so you don't put yourselves in some situation--without prejudice.

    I'll go to Mr. Cannis.

    Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know the language we use will not put us in any jeopardy, legally speaking. But I listened very carefully to both speakers and Mr. Pankiw, and we talked about contempt of Parliament. I believe we'll be in contempt of democracy and our duties, not just as parliamentarians but as human beings.

    I recall, first of all, that Mr. Grant made no allegations of illegal activity. I recall an interview, live on television--his voice. He was speaking to the CBC about the relationship and stated, with no ambiguity, that there was nothing wrong or illegal. In the public domain, I recall even the minister and Mr. Grant stating they were seeking to hire, “Yes, I submitted a resume.” He didn't hide that. So what was so illegal about that? Inevitably, if they were to make a decision on the selection of a candidate, it was their decision. It has been stated over and over again that it was an arm's-length relationship.

    Mr. Goldring said we had to go on the basis of facts, but I cannot recall once, in following the situation very closely, any statement in public by Mr. Grant stating there were illegal activities or a violation of the rules.

    On that basis, I have not been convinced, by both arguments I've heard here, there is just cause to invite anybody to take this a step further. On that basis, I can't see us supporting this type of request.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Cannis.

    I'll go to Mr. Labelle next.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I totally disagree with my colleagues opposite, who have a vested interest in not seeing this matter go any further. Unfortunately, if I go by what the last speaker said, I would almost have had to sleep with Mr. Grant in order to know what he said, or didn't say.

    The honourable member may have the advantage of being from the Toronto area. Quebec members do not have such ready access to Mr. Grant. Moreover, when one isn't a Liberal, Mr. Grant is even more inaccessible. Therefore, it's critical that Mr. Grant be called before the committee to tell us exactly what he said. It's not up to the last speaker to be the judge of what he may or may not have said. The committee's job is to get at the truth. It's a little like the fable: Animals Ill with the Plague: “They didn't all die, but all were stricken”.

    Let's look at the facts: a transaction took place; land was sold. That alone should be of interest to my colleagues opposite. Land valued at $9 million, according to a municipal assessment, was sold to El-Pine Inc. for $4 million. Qualified municipal assessors determined that the land was valued at $50 per square foot.

  (1230)  

[English]

    Mr. John Cannis: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, was that in the French papers?

    The Chair: He has the floor. I don't think you can... it's not a debate, I'm sorry.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, land valued at $50 per square foot was sold for $14 per square foot to a friend of the government. I realize that a person can occasionally find himself in a bind, be unable to meet his mortgage payments and face the loss or the repossession of his land. I can understand that person being forced to sell his property or land at a loss because his back is against the wall. Can the same be said of the Canadian government? Shouldn't it have waited for a more auspicious moment to dispose of this land? I hope our government is not so down on its luck that it has to hold a fire sale of sorts to dispose of some of its major assets. If current market conditions were unfavourable, it could have waited a while before going ahead with the sale. Such was not the case, Mr. Chairman. It is estimated that the contractor, a good friend of the government, stands to make a $16 million profit on the purchase of this land. Wouldn't it have been preferable to see this $16 million windfall wind up in the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers? The government should show some respect for the Canadian public. My colleagues opposite are being rather cynical. They maintain that nothing untoward has happened, that it's all a bad dream.

    That's not all, Mr. Chairman. Consider the case of a man who would drop by the offices of the Canada Lands Company every fifteen days to collect his paycheque. No one knew what he did or saw him on the job. As fate would have it, his name was Mr. Charest. Every two weeks or so, he would stop by to collect his rather hefty paycheque. It had become a kind of running joke at the Canada Lands Company, because no one knew what his job was. Members of the French-language press put the question to him, and he responded somewhat vaguely that he was a real estate officer of sorts, perhaps working on contract. However, his functions weren't exactly clear. Had he sold any land? He answered that he had been responsible for bringing buyers and sellers together, although he couldn't say if any actual land transactions had taken place.

    As I see it, Mr. Grant is just the person to tell us what exactly Mr. Charest does to collect $323,000 in fees. Apparently, he also incurred expenditures of $21,000.

    Mr. Grant was responsible for the Canada Lands Company. It seems to me that he is just the person to come and speak to us about Ms. Michèle Tremblay, whose real job is writing speeches about everything and anything...

[English]

    Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. This may be a great speech of hearsay, but let's get to the point. I suggest you call the question.

    The Chair: Mr. Lebel has the floor. I don't think....

    Mr. Wayne Easter: How long do you want it to go on, Mr. Chair? All afternoon?

    The Chair: It will go on quite a long time, I think, if you guys just irritate it. I don't think we can do criminal investigations. Somebody is saying it, maybe, but....

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

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: There's no question the truth hurts.

[English]

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Mr. Chair, I do want to hear from Mr. Lebel. He's done a lot of work, but the motion before the committee now is with regard to calling Mr. Grant.

    The Chair: That is correct.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: I think we have to keep the discussion a little more to the motion. I understand that there are other indirect or somehow remotely related items, but I think it would be important for the committee, for its decision, to hear Mr. Lebel's intervention with regard to the need to have Mr. Grant and not the propriety of decisions that may have been made or not by the crown corporation.

    The Chair: Monsieur Lebel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Grant himself could respond to everything I'm saying. He is aware of these matters because at the time, he headed up the company responsible for disposing of surplus federal assets. All of the people I have named worked very closely with Mr. Grant and took orders from him.

    Take, for instance, Ms. Michèle Tremblay whose real job is apparently speech writing. I'm sure she's excellent at her job, because I heard the former minister say to the CBC in Montreal that she alone had earned $10 million doing this kind of work. I'm not exaggerating. She must be an amazing speech writer. However, Mr. Grant had a somewhat different opinion. He said that Ms. Tremblay was paid $5,000 a month, but that her services had never been requested. In fact, he maintained that the former minister had foisted the services of Ms. Tremblay upon him.

    Is there not a direct link here with Mr. Grant, who could come before the committee to relate to us the circumstances in which he was required to hire a speech writer for which he had apparently had no use?

    We could focus on the amazing story of the man who stops by every few weeks to collect a paycheque without actually having to do any real work. It's odd that he can't say how many actual transactions he has concluded or what the nature of these transactions might be.

    Then there's the incident that sparked this whole matter, namely the case of Mr. Mignacca, whose resume was sent to Mr. Grant. We want to know the facts of this case. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I do think the committee has a responsibility to shed light on the circumstances in which Mr. Mignacca was hired or appointed to the Canada Lands Company. Was Mr. Grant himself influenced in any way? He should come and give us the straight facts. I can understand that all of this is commonplace for my colleagues opposite. They are accustomed to small scandals and generally don't take offence, but the same cannot be said of those who are directly accountable to the public, which doesn't often have the chance to reap benefits in the millions of dollars. The public has the right to know the facts. If, unfortunately, some persons are guilty of reprehensible conduct, it will be up to the committee to draw its own conclusions.

    Therefore, I heartily endorse Ms. Meredith's motion calling for Mr. Grant to testify before the committee. If this motion is defeated, I fear the committee, quite simply, will lose face. Thank you.

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

[English]

    I'll go to Mr. Alcock before I come to Mr. Moore.

    Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually first decided to speak simply to correct something that Mr. Pankiw said, but in listening to this I do want to make an additional point.

    Mr. Pankiw, in your comments on the motion you made a comment that the committee had struck the government operations subcommittee. If you read the motion that was set up to strike that committee, it was for a very specific purpose. It doesn't mean that a government operations study couldn't take place, but I'm just a little protective of that particular purpose. The purpose that is set up for is to have a consensus exercise to study something, and I don't want to mix that with things that are in the more normal activities of a committee, because that puts us into a space that is very difficult then to have a consensus on. I make that point simply to say to you that if you want to put forward a motion that creates something to do that, yes, but not that particular subcommittee.

    The second thing I want to say is that I was in opposition for five years in Manitoba, and I know exactly the pressure members opposite are under. The media love these kinds of issues, because they're hot and they're punchy, and you start using big words like corruption or whatever the particular words are, and everbody gets all excited. But if we're to mature as a Parliament, at some point we have to find a way to deal with these things a little differently.

    I happen to be a fan of Alfonso Gagliano. He always treated me very well. I thought he was a good minister. He was always very responsive to the things that I needed done. I'm very sorry, very disappointed, that a colleague of ours has, in a sense, left this place the way he has. The man has had a distinguished parliamentary career. He has left not because of any association, because he had indicated some time ago for family reasons he wanted to retire, and he was interested in doing something in Europe. The timing of the cabinet shuffle was such that he left, unfortunately now, in a way that has stained him. I feel very sorry for Alfonso in this. I think it's most unfortunate that this has happened.

    Now, if there are substantive allegations--I do think, and you've heard me say this before, there are flaws in the way the House works in its accountability functions, reviewing estimates and going through the roles of these agencies--I think it would be very appropriate to ask Canada Lands and other crown corporations to come before this committee in the due course of business and go through a bunch of this stuff. I have no difficulty with doing that.

    The difficulty I have is getting all fired up because we think we've “got somebody”. There, the first test for me is to ask this question: Is there anything substantive about that? When I hear Mr. Grant say what he said, and I know as soon as I'm going to say the name Mr. Wilson, everybody's going to say, oh, Mr. Wilson. I happen to trust Mr. Wilson. I think he is an ethical individual with a long experience in the public service, in the foreign service. I know him. Again, I've dealt with him on several occasions. I don't believe that when he says there's nothing unethical about what has gone on, he's lying to us.

    So we have his statement. We have Mr. Grant's statement, who is raising concerns, but who also in those concerns is still saying there's nothing illegal going on. You have to have more substantive chatter before I feel comfortable dignifying that rumor with this process. That's all. I think we should reflect on what we do to each other.

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Okay, I'll go to Mr. Moore now. We have several speakers.

    Mr. James Moore: I respect Mr. Alcock's statements, but I would submit that what we are trying to do is exactly what he said in his preamble, namely, to find an adult, civilized way of finding some clarity and accountability. We're coming before a committee with a motion asking consent of the majority to bring somebody before the committee to go on the parliamentary record about what was alleged. By not doing that, what we're saying is a media interview is a higher standard and of a higher public value than a meeting before the parliamentary Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations.

    This will be brief. I don't understand what the government members are afraid of. Why are we running away from accountability? Mr. Gagliano would probably still be the Minister of Public Works, were it not for these comments. I would submit that. I frankly would think that most Canadians would say that, if it had not been for this very recent scandal. I think, therefore, ipso facto, Canadians have a right to know the story behind the sheet here so we have a clear sense of what happened and why and have full accountability. I don't think this is a degradation of the system or a degradation of Mr. Gagliano. I think it's quite the opposite. It's holding Parliament to a higher standard. It's holding ministers to a higher standard, and holding the truth to the highest standard. I would encourage government members to not be so quick to sweep things under the rug. We should be more interested in full public accountability.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: Okay, I'll go to Mr. Cullen.

    I'll come to you, Jim, right after that.

    Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The thing that troubles me about this motion is that as you go through the supermarket and you go to pay the bill, you read these “Hollywood Confidential” and some amazing stories that if you believed them all, of course, the world would be coming to an end. A woman gives birth to an alligator, or Hillary Clinton makes love with everyone in New York State.

    I'm not trying to trivialize it, but if you look at a department like Public Works and Government Services, there are a lot of bids, a lot of lands and assets that are disposed of. There are going to be a lot of losers. There are some winners and a lot of losers. There are always going to be losers talking about what was flawed with the process if they got screwed, if I can use that term.

    It seems to me that if the government or the members of Parliament are going to deal with every single story that emerges where something was inappropriate or the probity was in question, then we'd be here all our lives. There will always be winners and losers in anything that Public Works and Government Services does.

    In fact, on the one leading question that I think the official opposition put out in the House the other day, the deputy prime minister answered twice that the government went with the highest bid. He sort of implied that the opposition was saying that somehow there's magical value beyond what the market is saying is there. If there was something of substance in terms of the leading question, then perhaps there's something there. But to go around chasing all these stories where people have lost on bids I think is wasting the time of parliamentarians. If the opposition has some substantive issues, then bring them forward, go to the government, get an explanation. If the explanation does not satisfy you...

    Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, talking about the president of Canada Lands... The most one can deduce is that the minister may have sent a résumé over saying “Here's someone you might want to consider if you're looking for someone to write speeches”. If Mr. Grant construed that as being pressure, he obviously reversed his position, because I think the person was released months later.

    Often we get signals, and we can interpret them as being instructions. Unless there's something more substantive, that he was directed, he was absolutely coerced... I don't think that kind of evidence is around. Frankly, I think this is a bit of a witch-hunt that has no legs.

  (1245)  

    The Chair: Mr. Pankiw.

    Mr. Jim Pankiw: First of all, I'll address a couple of things Mr. Alcock said.

    When I referred to that subcommittee, Mr. Alcock, it was only a suggestion. I wouldn't think you'd want to tie up matters of transportation when you're investigating this. It probably would be better done at that subcommittee. But that decision can be made after the motion is passed, if in fact it passes.

    More generally, with respect to your comments, Mr. Alcock, if that's how you feel, then I can't understand what possible grounds you have for objecting to bringing Mr. Howard Wilson and Jon Grant before this committee.

    Now, Mr. Szabo, we seem to be in a disagreement as to the facts. The Newsworld interview was done live, and Mr. Gagliano was very clear. He admitted that he used his influence to help his friends. With respect to whether or not he would still be a minister, he also said in that interview--

    An hon. member: Point of order.

    Mr. Jim Pankiw: --that he wanted to remain in cabinet, in the position he was in. This committee could get a copy of that video and watch it if there's any doubt on this.

    Mr. Szabo, you said, “unless there are more specific allegations”. Well, I don't know how much more specific you can get. It's not possible to be more specific than the fact that the Liberal minister violated sections 7 and 23(3) of this government's own code of ethics. Section 7 says very clearly, “Public officeholders 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.” Giving a résumé of a friend is a clear violation of the government's own code of ethics, section 23(3), as I said.

    This is a committee of government operations. It is a function of this committee, and an obligation of its members, to investigate these types of allegations and obvious breaches of the code, and for the members here to seek to achieve transparency and accountability in government operations. Failure to do so, failure to vote for this motion and carry out our responsibilities, in view of the breach of the code, would make a member complicit in the cover-up of scandal and unethical behaviour.

    The Chair: That's it, Jim?

    Mr. Jim Pankiw: Yes.

    The Chair: I'll go to Madam Desjarlais before I come back to Mr. Harvey, because apparently I missed her earlier on.

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I was really quiet about it.

    Actually I don't think there's any question, Mr. Chair, that the media exposé and Mr. Jon Grant's comments have created a lack of confidence in integrity within the system, and I don't think as a Parliament we can afford those feelings out there with the public. I think we need to do everything we can when these types of accusations and comments are made. We need to do everything we can to allay the concerns of Canadians that this isn't what's happening.

    I think there's a moral obligation on our part. If we believe the accusations are wrong, we need to get the correct information out there. If we believe the accusations are valid, it's inherent that we make sure that message gets out there.

    Roy, with no disrespect intended for your comments being flippant, it's not okay to be flippant over $5 million of possible loss in a property that belongs to the people of Canada--those dollars belong to the people of Canada--at a time when money is so short. We only have so much money to work with; the crunch is there. We need to be really cognizant of the fact that $5 million puts a lot of roofs over the heads of aboriginal people in my riding; $5 million puts a lot of infrastructure into this country, $5 million into secondary or post-secondary education or $5 million into highway infrastructure. It is a serious situation and if... and I say if, because quite frankly I don't know if Mr. Grant's comments are accurate, and I quite frankly didn't bother listening to Mr. Gagliano's comments because even I sometimes have a tendency not to believe what's going to be heard, and I'm here all the time.

    So there are some members who you know well and you don't think for a second they would ever do anything. Others you don't know so well, so it's going to be there, but there's no question that the comments made have created again further lack of confidence in our parliamentary system, and I think we need to ensure that if everything was above board, that message gets out there.

    If there's fault within the system, if we have a situation where a $9-million property is going to sell for $4 million, maybe we need to have a different process in place. Maybe the process should be that the bid doesn't get accepted and there has to be some additional process in place before that does happen so we don't have a question of integrity or the fact that it was sold off just so someone could make a profit.

    It looks extremely bad if someone is making $16 million on that property now, and I think we all have to do whatever we can to make sure that we do not promote that kind of image out there with the public. We have some of the lowest voter turnout rates ever. What point is there of people voting if they cannot ensure that there is good conduct within the parliamentary system and that there can be oversight?

  (1250)  

    Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Chair--

    Mrs. Bev Desjarlais: I'm not out to have a witch hunt on Mr. Gagliano. That's not my intention whatsoever, but I certainly want to know. If Mr. Grant, who was there, who I believe was acting professionally when he was doing his job, has concerns over the process, there need to be some changes, and I think we need to have him before us to get those questions answered.

    So I would certainly support this motion, and I would hope that we could put this issue to rest as soon as possible.

    The Chair: Okay. Monsieur Harvey.

    There are a number of speakers and they have to have their say. It's just the way the committee works. I'll go to Mario right after that.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi--Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak to this matter.

    I have a great deal of respect for my colleague's motions, albeit somewhat less respect for some of his comments. However, I'm not inclined to open this committee up to someone who, apparently, was reluctant to share his concerns with his own minister when he was in office.

    Moreover, this individual who is making some public allegations is also telling us that it isn't serious, that there is no cause to...I cannot agree to transform our committee into a royal commission of inquiry into an individual who doesn't even take his own statements seriously. Mr. Grant isn't likely to be done in by courage. He didn't even raise the matter with his own minister, despite the fact that he had a six-year mandate...

    Mr. Chairman, when this individual himself says that this matter is inconsequential and that there is no cause to launch a royal commission of inquiry, I'm not inclined to have the committee hear from him.

    As for the comments of my colleague Mr. Lebel, I would suggest to him that if he is truly prepared to work on the drafting of a code of ethics for lobbyists, he should move to the Quebec National Assembly. I think it is truly in need of such a code. I'd recommend that he make his suggestions to Mr. Baril with a view to drafting a code of ethics for lobbyists in keeping with the federal code.

    In short, Mr. Chairman, our committee has several mandates to fulfill. Thousands upon thousands of workers, including truckers, are looking to us to focus on the wide-ranging issue of commercial transportation. My colleague from the NDP made a number of interesting statements prior to the holidays. We must all work together to improve the lot of workers labouring under the NAFTA, which accounts for significant trade. We need to get a handle on this file.

    So, what of this motion to bring before the committee an individual who made some public statements at the end of his mandate, an individual who was reluctant to speak to his minister? Barring any evidence to the contrary, I don't set great store by these statements which attack the reputation of individuals like Mr. Gagliano who have dedicated themselves to defending the interests of all Canadians and Quebecers.

    I would much rather see the committee turn its attention to future business and to more important matters such as safety and trucking, than to have it hear from someone who can only repeat what he didn't dare say to his minister in the first place.

    Thank you.

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

    Mr. Laframboise.

  (1255)  

    Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, BQ): Let me take up from where my colleague André left off. Mr. Grant may not have dared say anything to his minister, but he did feel that the matter was important enough to speak to the press. These statements were made by one of the most senior government bureaucrats, namely the Chair of the Canada Lands Company. True, this matter came to our attention after the holidays. Before then, our focus was more on transportation. This matter was brought to our attention after the holidays, via the media, by a senior, influential government bureaucrat, someone who wields enough authority that I do believe my colleague Mr. Moore is justified in believing that these statements cost the minister his job.

    We're not here to make accusations. We're here to gather information on behalf of the people whom we represent. As I've stated on several occasions, you never cease to amaze me. Today is another case in point. As members of this committee, our mission is to examine government operations. Admittedly, transportation is one component of our mandate, but we also have a responsibility to consider government operations.

    As Members of Parliament, our responsibility is to represent our constituents who have a right to get answers to our questions. This morning, we heard from an official who explained how we an answer questions. From time to time, we call in ministers to answer our questions. We speak for our constituents here in committee. Whatever the mandate of the committee, we call in witnesses that we feel have something important to relate to us and put questions to them that we feel are very important, acting always on behalf of our constituents.

    If, as you claim - and I would agree with my colleague Mr. Moore on this one - Mr. Grant's allegations ultimately resulted in the removal of a minister from office, then I think the matter is important for us to raise a number of valid questions. I can't understand your reasoning. You claim that this individual made a number of allegations. It would be in your best interest to ask him some questions and challenge these allegations, but you don't want to do that. I'm dumbfounded. Given that you have every possible means available to you to contradict Mr. Grant's allegations, I can't understand why you wouldn't want him to appear before us precisely to challenge his words. I'm certain that with the army of officials behind you, you would be able to wrest from him the truth, for the sake of the public and our constituents who indeed deserve the truth.

    I'm here, among other things, to represent the people of Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel who have the right, through me, to put questions to Mr. Grant and to get some answers from him.

    If we get around to discussing Mr. Gagliano, so much the better for him because we will at least have shed some light on these incidents. If he is implicated in some way, then we will have to see what happens... If we decide against calling in Mr. Grant, he'll never appear before any committee of this House. If we decide against this, then we'll never hear from Mr. Grant and Mr. Gagliano will, as you said, be gone. It's true that his reputation has been tarnished. It's true that ending a career while facing allegations of this nature is not a pleasant experience. You have an opportunity to shed light on this matter, but you won't seize it. Too bad then. At least you're being true to yourselves.

    Thank you.

·  (1300)  

[English]

    The Chair: I have Mr. Pankiw on a point of order.

    Mr. Jim Pankiw: In consideration of the time, could we have the consent of the members to take the vote now? I would like a recorded vote.

    The Chair: All right. Is that agreed?

    (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

    The Chair: So we'll move to Mr. Lebel, who has four motions. His first motion is that--

    A voice: No, it's just a notice.

    The Chair: Oh, it's just a notice. We're not going to deal with that today?

    Mr. Lebel.

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: We sent you a letter more than 48 hours ago. It's in the order, so we have to discuss it.

    The Chair: Members, do I have unanimous consent to deal with the first motion here?

    Mr. Paul Szabo: The understanding was that Mr. Lebel would bring four motions to the committee today to table, giving notice of motion that required 48 hours. He's now suggesting that a prior letter actually gave notice of one or more of those motions, or some other motion. If that is the case, then he's quite right. If it is not the case, then his four motions require the proper 48 hours.

    The Chair: We should deal with the ones that have passed the 48 hours.

    Mr. Paul Szabo: Well, answer the question. He tabled four this morning.

    The Chair: Mr. Clerk, will you tell us which ones are under the wire?

    The Clerk of the Committee: On the four motions Mr. Lebel tabled, there is a 48-hour notice. So they will be dealt with at the next meeting.

    The Chair: But are there any within...that we had a letter from him on before?

    The Clerk: If you look on your agenda at point (c), that is a request pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), so you can deal with it today, if you wish.

·  (1305)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: [Editor's note: technical difficulties]

    In conclusion, I would like to read you the following request:

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

Serious allegations are floating around. The very integrity of the department and of your government has been called into question. A former chair of a crown corporation is accusing the Minister of:

- forcing the Canada Lands Company to hire his friend, Tony Mignacca;

- imposing a contract pursuant to which CLC had to pay a $5,000 retainer to a Michèle Tremblay, a public relations person, for services CLC did not need;

- forcing CLC to do business with companies that had not submitted the best offer; and

attempting to take away its decision-making authority in Quebec, through his Chief of Staff, who insisted that decisions involving Quebec go through the Minister's office.

In light of these allegations and pursuant to sections 106(3) and 108(1)(a) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, we the undersigned, members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations, are requesting that a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and Government Operations be convened immediately.

    Mr. Chairman, contrary to my colleague opposite, Mr. Cullen, who maintains that with this type of corporation, there will always be some disgruntled individuals whose bid or contract was rejected...

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Lebel, are you putting that motion on the floor now?

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Yes.

    The Chair: Well, do you want to read the motion first, because you're debating.

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: It's on the agenda, Mr. Chairman. What should we do with this request?

    Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I believe there is some confusion over Mr. Lebel's formal motions and the content of his letter. He's merely requesting that a meeting of the committee be convened. We are now in a meeting.

    Therefore, Ghislain, we'll debate your motions at our next meeting.

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I'm not talking about my motions. I'm talking about convening a meeting of the committee.

    A member: But we're having a meeting now, Ghislain.

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I realize that, but we also need to have a meeting to discuss this matter. Can we schedule a meeting for that specific purpose? It's more than just wanting a meeting because I enjoy your company, Mr. Harvey.

[English]

    The Chair: Monsieur Lebel, this meeting was called for eleven o'clock to one o'clock. It's now one o'clock, and it would appear that the committee would like to deal with it at the next meeting. So we will deal with that and we'll deal with our work plan at the same time. Is that okay?

[Translation]

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: And when is this next meeting scheduled for, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

    The Chair: Next Tuesday, at the regular meeting.

    Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Okay.

    The Chair: Okay. We're adjourned until next Tuesday.