[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, June 5, 1996
.1531 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Good morning everybody. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts is convening to consider the items on the order of the day. First of all, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(d), the committee resumes consideration of the fourth report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure.
Do you all have the fourth report?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chairman: Secondly, the committee resumes consideration of the motion moved by Pierre Brien on May 16, 1996, which reads as follows:
- That, in accordance with Standing Order 108(1)(a), Revenue Canada disclose the name of the
persons involved in the matter under consideration.
There were some delays before the fourth report was passed. Paragraph 2 reads as follows:
- 2. That the Sub-committee meet on Monday, May 27, 1996 at 3:15 p.m. to discuss the schedule
of future meetings of the committee.
Today, we should focus on paragraph (1) of the fourth report. This is my suggestion. Would anyone like to move it?
Mr. Harb.
Mr. Harb (Ottawa-Centre): I move that paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the fourth report be withdrawn in order that the committee continue its examination.
The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi.
[English]
Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Chair, I want to make the point that we missed a briefing session on May 29 that we were supposed to have, for which we had witnesses in front of this committee. The issue to be dealt with was Revenue Canada's combating income tax avoidance, which is a chapter of the May report of the Auditor General. This is an issue of great concern to my colleagues on this side. We want to make sure it gets priority because I think it's something Canadians all across Canada would expect us to be acting on.
While we can remove these points, it's very important that we understand that it is a high priority for our side. We want to make sure it's fully dealt with.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, I have no doubt that this item holds a certain interest for our committee.
.1535
This does not cast doubt on the importance for the committee of studying chapter 11. It is simply to have a report that reflects what happened on May 27 and 29 and June 5. These are not the items that we must consider. Let's try not to find problems where there aren't any. Let's try not to split hairs. It is more important to try to go forward and to overcome the impasse. Do you accept that the committee, with regards to future business, is presently at an impasse?
Is there a consensus on the matter? Mr. Harb moves that paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 -
[English]
Does everybody agree? We start to discuss -
[Translation]
Mr. Harb: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for clarification. With regards to the three items raised by my colleague, has the committee had the chance to obtain the Revenue Canada briefing?
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Harb: Fine. Will the committee receive this briefing later?
The Chairman: As soon as we agree on paragraph 1, which deals with the matter of chapter 1 relating to family trusts, the committee will eventually undertake the consideration of chapter 11.
M. Harb: We could have this presentation.
The Chairman: Mr. Harb, you are a substitute member of this committee, and I would like to inform you that on Wednesday, May 8, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts passed the following motion moved by Mr. Laurin:
- That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts consider, at the earliest possible date, the
issue of family trusts as highlighted in the report of the Auditor General of Canada tabled on
May 7, 1996.
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of concern. We are at an impasse. In my mind the impasse is that the opposition has put a motion on the floor that we have debated at numerous meetings, and it essentially has brought the workings of this committee to a halt. The problem is that we can't get to vote on the motion until such time as everybody finishes speaking. The indication we have had is that the Bloc and the Reform will continue to talk on the particular issue, essentially stopping us from doing any other business in this committee.
On our side our members were very concerned about the issue of tax avoidance being a very high priority. Because of procedural wranglings and the fact that we cannot have a vote in which we as a committee can democratically decide what we want to do, a minority can hold up the business of the public accounts committee.
I have great concern that the May 1996 report of the Auditor General, which has twelve chapters, is not going to receive a fair and thorough review. It's not going to happen because of the refusal to put something to a vote in front of this committee.
We have had other business scheduled that we were going to have done, also with the motion in front of the public accounts committee that we would deal with them in a certain period of time, such as the waste in government moves. We have not dealt with that, and it goes back a number of Auditor General's reports already.
.1540
My frustration with number 3 is that the meeting on May 29 did not take place because the opposition would not deal with the other issue on the table. If the intent is to filibuster and thwart the work of this committee, Mr. Chair, we are doing a serious disservice to the public, which expects us to deal seriously with all chapters of the Auditor General's report.
We on our side had numerous hearings on family trust, which is now before the finance committee to ensure that the legislation is reviewed as quickly as possible. If there are changes to be made, they will make those recommendations for changes to the Minister of Finance so that we can pass legislation in the House. That's being handled by the finance committee. We have not dealt with, and nobody else is dealing with, the issue of tax avoidance, a major problem from the revenue side in this country. That's something we want to get on to dealing with.
Mr. Chair, I hope that you might address when you see us coming to a vote on the motion before this committee. Is it the intention to keep the filibuster going? If it is, we have wasted precious time both at the subcommittee and at this committee itself. There are issues we were to have dealt with at this committee that have not been dealt with.
[Translation]
The Chairman: According to your proposal, Mr. Telegdi, I understand that there is no consensus to withdraw paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Williams has the floor.
[English]
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): I raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Telegdi keeps talking about a filibuster on a motion. Can you tell me the motion being debated at this point in time?
[Translation]
The Chairman: The answer is no. The motion put by Mr. Brien will be debated when we deal with item 2 of today's order of the day. We are still at item 1, which deals with the passage of the fourth report. I get the feeling that there will be a debate on future business.
[English]
Mr. Williams: If there is no motion on the floor being debated, I'm hard-pressed to understand why Mr. Telegdi is talking about a filibuster. If it is the case, Mr. Chairman, that there is no filibuster and that we are trying to set the agenda, then I would like to offer my two bits if I may.
As you know, the Auditor General tabled a report on May 7, 1996, and included in it several chapters, all issues of serious consequence that he wished to bring to the attention of the House. We all know that the Auditor General is an officer of the House of Commons. He reports to the House. His report is referred by Standing Order to this committee.
This committee moved that we debate and investigate chapter 1. We commenced to discuss and investigate chapter 1, but the whole agenda this committee had set up has been derailed and I'm not exactly sure why. For some reason or other we cannot get the agreement of a majority of this committee to bring back the witnesses we had before this committee once before.
As I've said before, Mr. Chairman, because you are the chair and a member of the official opposition, the public accounts committee deals with issues of the past. Even though Mr. Telegdi finds it rather unfortunate in this particular case that we look into the past, the whole emphasis of this committee - everything we do in this committee, Mr. Chairman - is to investigate things that have happened in the past, including chapter 1 of the Auditor General's report of May 7, 1996.
.1545
I mentioned that you, as a member of the official opposition, are in the chair because the public accounts committee is deemed to be the audit committee of the House of Commons, where the opposition is a watchdog or keeps an eye on the government. That's the theory behind the whole process.
Yet it seems to me the desire of the opposition members of this committee to fulfil their mandate, which is to investigate the chapters of the Auditor General's report that are laid before this committee, is being thwarted.
That is my concern, and that is why I think we have to, in good faith, ask the members of the opposite side on this committee what their serious objection is to us bringing these witnesses back to this committee and to us and this committee fulfilling the mandate that has been given to us through the Standing Orders.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Tremblay.
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont): I completely agree with Mr. Williams.
By questioning the reasons why the majority of the members of this committee refuse to debate the resolution that we had dealt with, it is understandable that the motion put by Mr. Brien regarding the names of beneficiaries of family trusts is a concern for the majority of members.
Mr. Chairman, I have already said this and I repeat it, our only goal was to ensure that we get the information. If the committee agrees to work, we are ready to withdraw it. We are also concerned by the confidentiality of tax figures.
Nonetheless, the tabling of this motion has allowed us to get a legal opinion on the powers of this committee. This legal opinion confirms that we have this power and that the witnesses who disclose confidential information to the Committee would be protected under the law, which gives an idea of the extent of the Committee's powers.
It is no accident that the Committee is chaired by a member of the official opposition. The committee is chaired by a member of the official opposition precisely because the House wants the committee to keep an eye on the government, on its behalf.
I say to you clearly that we have a letter from Mr. Brien stating that he is ready to withdraw his motion.
Our only goal is to properly establish the vast powers of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It's mandate with regards to the government is to be a watchdog and we recognize the concerns raised with regards to the confidentiality of figures.
Nonetheless, I don't understand why, for another reason, the government majority is preventing us from fulfilling the mandate that was given to us permanently by the House of Commons.
The committee's order of the day is not imposed by a minister. The reports of the Auditor General, like the Public Accounts of Canada, are deemed to be sent continuously to this committee whose duty it is to study them. I even think that this is in accordance with the Act.
Only two committees, the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, are chaired by a member of the official opposition, precisely because they must be watchdogs and ask for explanations from the government and the public service as a whole.
We have clearly established our goals by moving this motion and we are ready to withdraw it. However, we intend to deal with the work on this item as quickly as possible, as the committee had accepted to do.
.1550
I don't know if this could help us to overcome the impasse, but our goal is to try to reach a working agreement with the majority. If things continue in the present direction, the status itself of the committee will be questioned.
We want to cooperate, to continue the debate and get your opinion. Let's try to set up conditions that will allow us to fulfil our mandate.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd (Durham): I believe there are basically two issues here. One Mr. Williams spoke of, and that is the mandate of this committee. The second is that, as I understand it, by recommendation of the official opposition, another committee of the House undertook a study of an identical section of the Auditor General's report, and indeed some of these members here today have appeared before that committee as well.
It's clear to me - and we've talked about this before - that having two committees studying the same thing in parallel doesn't make a lot of sense. We talk about duplication and overlap; that's basically the procedure we're entering into. It doesn't make any sense to have the same witnesses appear before this committee as are appearing before the finance committee.
So the question then is the question Mr. Williams raises, and that is trying to break that linkage between the past, the present and the future. In this area of taxation law, which is a very complicated area, I don't think the law that applied to these transactions back in 1991 or 1992 still is the law today, so the past and the present are very much part of that process. It seems very appropriate to me. I don't know how the members of the opposition feel, but I think the finance committee is dealing with the matter in a full and forthright fashion.
Secondly, it hasn't pre-empted this committee in any way, shape or form. Basically it's saying once the finance committee has completed its investigation, if this committee is not happy with those proceedings, we'll come back in here and take over from where they left. So I don't think we've mitigated against the responsibilities of the committee. I think it's just a sensible procedural situation that we should only have one committee doing one thing at the same time. That makes sense to me.
I was at the finance committee only yesterday, and we haven't resolved this. We're still talking about bringing other witnesses before us, and I know some of these very members have also appeared there. So it doesn't make sense for us to be running back and forth between committees to resolve this.
The second issue, which is Mr. Brien's motion, to me is one of the very alarming things about this committee. In some small way maybe it's an indication of what this committee has done and what the thought process is in this area, because it's clear to me that the attitude - and it's been brought up here a number of times - is to contravene the confidentiality of the income tax system.
This has been mentioned by a number of people specifically from your party, Mr. Tremblay.
Mr. Tremblay: [Inaudible - Editor].
Mr. Shepherd: I have the floor. Excuse me.
Do I have the floor or not?
[Translation]
The Chairman: We might let Mr. Shepherd finish.
Mr. Tremblay: I already -
The Chairman: We will let Mr. Shepherd finish.
Mr. Tremblay: I rise on a point of order. We can't -
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: You'll have your time. You'll have a chance.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Mr. Shepherd, a member of this committee cannot be accused -
The Chairman: We will let Mr. Shepherd finish.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: The point I want to make is if you contravene the confidentiality of one taxpayer, and it doesn't matter whether he or she is a millionaire or a pauper - The whole taxation system of western democracy is based on one fundamental, and that is that those records are confidential. The fact that at an early stage this committee has not realized that and has gone even further to question the confidentiality of the income tax system by requesting a judicial opinion tells me they are willing to tamper with that confidentiality of every taxpayer in this country.
.1555
I'm telling you that's not within the mandate, even though it may well be possible that there's a legal opinion that says you can do it. The bottom line is you should not do that. That is what I've seen there.
So I think we have two things: we have duplication and overlap, which are not necessary, and we have a question of competence in some small ways that I've heard in this committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay: Our goal is to reach an agreement and I think we must be very serious. I repeat that the status of the committee is being questioned.
I rise on a point of order and I want to do so in a very serious manner. According to a legal opinion, the House of Commons gives this committee its powers.
As opposed to what you have just said, the legal opinion clearly confirms the powers of the committee with regards to all confidentiality laws. So, what you are saying is in contempt of the powers that Parliament has conferred on us. This said, I agree with you and with the members of the committee that we must use our powers in a cautious manner.
I have already talked about our goal, which is to give a clear signal regarding the seriousness of this committee to all members of the committee and to all the witnesses that come before us. I will never accept any blame with regards to the committee's decision and to Mr. Brien's motion.
Our goal is not to get names, but to ensure that we can get to the bottom of the matter of accountability of decision-makers, which is at the heart of our mandate. It is serious.
The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau.
Mr. Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Chairman, right away, I can inform you and the committee that, pursuant to paragraph 106(3) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, four members, two from the Official Opposition and two from the Reform Party, have presented a request to Mr. Fournier, clerk of the committee, that reads as follows:
- In accordance with paragraph 106(3) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, we
politely request that you inform the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee of our wish to hold
a meeting of this committee, within a required time of ten days, dealing with chapter 1 of the
report of the Auditor General of Canada.
- Please accept our most cordial greetings.
- I table this officially along with the version in the other official language.
The Auditor General, within the framework of his mandate, discovered that in 1991 dealings occurred that deprived the Canadian income tax base of, in his opinion, hundreds of millions of dollars. During this transaction, $2 billion worth of Canadian assets became American assets.
In the opinion of the Auditor General, there are certain issues that need clarification. When the Auditor General notices and writes this type of thing on behalf of Canadians, it is because the public interest is at stake. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts, if one is to believe the brochure that is a public document, is to some extent the "Canadian arm" of the Auditor General's work. As parliamentarians, it is our duty and privilege - I consider it a privilege - to sit today on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
.1600
It is our duty to follow up on the Auditor General's work in the public interest. We will do so without being acrimonious or aggressive. It is in the interest of our colleagues across the table, of our colleagues from the Reform Party and especially of our constituents, that we represent through popular will. As objectively as possible, I appeal to your sense of ethics and responsibility, as I did during the last meeting.
It's up to our colleagues to carry on the fight in their caucus to ensure that the findings of the Auditor General receive follow up in order that we truly know what occurred and in order that the Standing Committee on Finance find better ways to protect the future of the Canadian tax base. If those people, who have fortunes that allow them to set up such sizeable family trusts, do not pay their share to the State, then modest Canadian taxpayers will pay for them.
It's in this context that old age pensions are presently being cut. It's in this context that we are forced to increase tuition fees everywhere. It's in this context that we will perhaps cut into hospitals in Canada, because tax transfers are no longer occurring. Why? Because the tax authorities are short.
Those who are able to pay and that must do so are not doing so, perhaps because of tax gimmicks. I do not wish to cause a scandal because that might compromise the possible conclusion of an investigation. The investigation, according to the obligation of accountability, could be done here, Mr. Chairman. We, the Official Opposition, and our colleagues of the Reform Party want to shed light. Perhaps it is not the place - But the Auditor General is perhaps right to be concerned.
He states that hundreds of millions of dollars have been cleared out. So, the first responsibility of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is to examine Chapter 1 of the report of the Auditor General.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shepherd raised two clear issues, and I think he has pretty well identified the issues of concern at the moment, but I'm not exactly sure that he explained them properly. He talked about the duplication of the two committees: the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The finance committee had been given a mandate by the Minister of Finance to examine the situation regarding the concerns of the Auditor General as expressed in chapter 1 of his May 7, 1996 report and to make recommendations as to what the Minister of Finance should do, if anything, regarding the issue from that point forward. But that is not the role of the public accounts committee, Mr. Speaker. There are other issues that are outside the mandate given by the Minister of Finance to the finance committee, such as the empty files, no documentation. How did this ruling come to be made that seems to be in opposition to the recommendations by the policy experts within the departments?
I'll paraphrase Mr. Elkin, of the Office of the Auditor General, from when he was before the finance committee, Mr. Chairman. His words were along the lines that as an auditor, when he's auditing and he finds empty files with no rationale, justification, or documentation, what else is he, as an auditor, supposed to do but report to his superiors? That's exactly what the Auditor General has done in chapter 1. They are fulfilling their mandate as auditors, and have found what they report as a serious breach of process by the departments involved.
That's the issue this committee investigates, Mr. Chairman. We are not going to recommend to the Minister of Finance what the law should be. That's not our mandate; that's the mandate of the finance committee.
.1605
It's our mandate to investigate what the law said in 1985 and 1991, look at the rulings that were issued then, and find out if they can be upheld according to the law. We are to investigate why decisions were made in a vacuum and find out what explanation there is for people in, for example, the Department of Finance to write a letter to the Deputy Minister of Revenue saying that here is a new interpretation of taxable Canadian property.
Where does that idea come from, Mr. Chairman? It's a brand-new issue that was laid on the table with this particular tax ruling. That is what we, as the public accounts committee, are charged to investigate, not what the laws should be or what the Minister of Finance should do now that this situation has been brought to light.
The other point, Mr. Chairman, concerns what Mr. Shepherd raised regarding confidentiality. I have to say that I do support him. Mr. Tremblay also said that we have great powers in this committee, which have to be exercised widely and carefully. When such issues as taxpayer confidentiality are at stake, we must use our powers very carefully indeed. I'm glad to hear that the members of official opposition have volunteered to withdraw the motion that is on the table.
The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi.
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to try to expedite what's before us. We have before us a report of the subcommittee. Here's the reason for the report of a subcommittee. In normal times, those in the subcommittee get together and draw up an agenda. They bring it before the committee, and the committee votes on it. The committee then knows what the committee's going to be doing. We have an agenda for the future.
I would have a friendly amendment to the motion by my colleague, which is to replace number 3. Next Tuesday we will be getting a briefing in camera on chapter 11. We'll also deal with the same issue on chapter 11, which is tax avoidance, on Wednesday.
My next amendment to it, so we can bring closure to our apparent impasse and can go to a vote, is that we reconvene hearings on the family trust issue at the first meeting in November.
The Chairman: Which year?
Mr. Telegdi: This year.
I think this would enable the committee to get on with its work. I must remind the committee that we have 12 chapters in the Auditor General's report. We will be receiving another Auditor General's report next fall. We have some past business to conclude.
I want to give some direction to the committee, because if we go off and meet as a steering committee we're going to be unable to come to a consensus, which was the situation in the last number of meetings. I would suggest that we plan now so we will actually get some work done before this committee.
The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi,
[Translation]
I would simply like to try to understand. You say that you will put off the family trust issue until November. This would change or clarify the motion passed by the committee on May 8, according to which the Standing Committee on Public Accounts should study as soon as possible -
It was passed unanimously. If we amend the motion, does this mean that the words "as soon as possible" now mean the month of November? Have I understood correctly?
.1610
[English]
Mr. Williams: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I asked you earlier if there was a motion on the floor and you told me that there wasn't. Am I correct in saying that?
The Chairman: A motion?
Mr. Williams: Is this agenda on the floor?
The Chairman: Yes, we are -
Mr. Williams: Has this agenda been amended already, Mr. Chairman, because it talks about May 27, May 29, and today, being June 5? These other items, 2 and 3, are obviously irrelevant and out of order because the dates are not appropriate.
Also on a point of order, would the clerk confirm that he has received a letter signed by four members of the committee under citation 106(3) of the Standing Orders, which requires him to hold a meeting on chapter 1 within ten sitting days? If that letter is in order, then the amendment by Mr. Telegdi is obviously out of order and can be ruled as such.
[Translation]
Mr. Harb: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect for my colleague, I wish to say to him that I put the motion at the beginning of the session.
The Chairman has suggested withdrawing paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the report of the sub-committee. I accepted to move that motion and it is now in front of the committee.
My colleague, Mr. Telegdi, tabled an amendment. I think that before the committee considers another motion, it must first of all deal with the one before it.
Then, if the committee so wishes, we can examine other motions. However, we must first of all decide on what we have before us.
[English]
Mr. Williams: On a point of order, I asked if the clerk was in receipt of a letter signed by four members of this committee under standing order 106(3), asking that a committee meeting be held on chapter 1 within ten sitting days.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Yes. The clerk can answer that question.
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: I've never had one of these requests, but the way in which I understand they have been interpreting the standing order is that the chairman must within ten sitting days of receipt - so within ten sitting days of today - call a meeting to consider the request. He doesn't call a meeting with the witnesses on family trusts. He calls a meeting of this committee pursuant to this in order for the committee to decide if they wish to pursue this matter.
So we can proceed with any type of motion such as the ones that were moved today, and it doesn't prevent the chairman from calling a meeting within the next ten sitting days to consider this request.
Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I may raise Standing Order 106(3), it says that within ten sitting days of the receipt by the clerk of a standing committee of a request signed by any four members of the said committee, the chairman of the said committee shall convene such a meeting provided that 48 hours' notice is given of the meeting, and that for the purposes of this section the reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request.
The request says that we deal with chapter 1 of the Auditor General's report.
[Translation]
The Chairman: According to my interpretation of this item, I must call a meeting for the committee to consider the request.
I would like to say to you that I should consult. The clerk gave one interpretation. It is his interpretation and I do not want to question his integrity. On the contrary, we have an excellent cooperation. However, I would like to consult the legal services of the House in order to know if the goal of the four members who signed the letter is to force a committee to take a decision on future business.
I am not able to make a decision on that today.
Mr. Harb: My colleague has read paragraph 106(3) which says that four members of the opposition can ask the committee to convene a meeting to study any issue.
.1615
It is understood that this letter requests the committee to meet in order to study the issue in the request. We are not saying that the committee should make a decision regarding the request, but it must meet since it has been asked to do so. Those are two completely different things.
Mr. Chairman, there is a motion before the committee and I hope that we can deal with it as quickly as possible in order that the work of the committee can continue.
The Chairman: Mr. Tremblay.
Mr. Tremblay: The Standing Orders clearly state that the Chairman must convene a meeting on that matter. However, we must be aware that you are going to ask for the opinion of other people and not only of the Liberal majority.
Our understanding of this item of the Standing Orders is that it exists in order that we be able to study a specific topic during a meeting convened to specifically study the reasons stated in the request.
I'm extremely disappointed by the turn of events today. We are being asked to put off studying an urgent issue until the month of November. In addition to the issues mentioned earlier, there's also the whole matter of when this ruling was made public and why it was an advance ruling. I don't understand, and that is why the opposition is asking you to reconsider the decision that you are making and that you want to settle here today.
We are asking you to reflect seriously on the mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. You are questioning that mandate and this is why we want a meeting on it. We understand that this requires a change in your strategy. We do not understand why you have adopted that strategy, but we want to give you the chance to take a few more days and to come back as quickly as possible to the examination of Chapter 1. Our approach is completely correct, and you must be aware that your attitude questions the committee's mandate.
Even if the committee is chaired by a member of the Official Opposition, it is made up in majority of Liberals. If things continue like this, if the Liberal majority is deliberately preventing us from fulfilling our mandate, we will have to request that the make-up of the committee be changed in order to give a majority to the Official Opposition.
This committee has evolved over many years. In the past, it was chaired by a member of the government majority. It is the same thing for the mandate of the Auditor General. More and more, the role of the Auditor General is evolving. The Auditor General has received important powers directly from the House of Commons in order to freely criticize government decisions, to demand that the government review some decisions and to ensure that we have procedures that protect the public good.
We must respect British tradition and fair play because we operate according to British fair play. The government majority must respect this committee's mandate, which has existed in its present form for some decades now. We know that British parliamentarism is based on a long tradition.
I am presently looking in Beauchesne for the passage where it is said that traditions have power of law.
.1620
I do not have the same experience as some of my colleagues, but I have not seen one single occasion when the government majority forced the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to not study an issue that this committee felt was a priority issue two weeks before hand.
You are setting a precedent. For the first time in Canadian history, the government majority is preventing us from examining an issue that everyone felt was a priority three weeks ago. You are questioning the very meaning of the Standing Orders of the House and the tradition which, under British law, has force of law. No one will understand that. Imagine if we did the same thing with the regulations. The very essence of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is to ensure the accountability of senior officials and of the government with regards to the application of legislation and to the use of public funds.
This is the reason why this committee is chaired by a member of the Official Opposition. Before the government's majority stops us from studying such an important issue, it should think carefully. In accordance with paragraph 106(3) of the Standing Orders of the House, we request that the Chair convene a meeting and we ask you to consult your colleagues and your caucus and to think carefully about what you are doing.
You are questioning one of the pillars of parliamentary powers. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts is a public extension of the Auditor General's work. It is so important that the Liberal government tabled and passed, in 1994, an act requiring the Auditor General to table a number of reports in a year rather than one single report as was the case previously.
The aim was to ensure that every time the Auditor General suspects that the law was misinterpreted or that money was spent in a manner not in keeping with the law, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts could immediately deal with the matter. Moreover, your own colleague, Jean-Robert Gauthier, now in the Senate, was a strong defender and promoter of that law. Now, the Auditor General can present a number of reports during the year. Yet, we are practically being told that we will study this next year. It's extraordinary!
The Auditor General himself said to us: "It would be important that you consider - you remember - the opinions of the Justice Minister. Just yesterday, the Auditor General said, as can be read in La Presse: "The mandate of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is to ensure the accountability of the government and senior officials".
This will give you the chance to think about it. I don't see how you could want another order of the day when we have not resolved that matter.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Hopkins.
Mr. Hopkins (Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke): Mr. Chairman, a lot has been said here, and I can honestly say that there's nothing worse for the public accounts committee than an overdose of political rhetoric.
.1625
I'd just like to set a couple of things straight. There's no question, we're into a logjam here, but it's a logjam that can be broken. It can be broken with some common sense exercised and with many people's strong feelings on certain subjects toned down.
I want to zero in on item number three on your fourth report, which is presently under discussion. We've heard today that Mr. Brien is willing to withdraw his motion. He's not here to do it.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to you very specifically that on May 29, at the meeting last week, where we spent an hour and a half on a logjam, on a filibuster, getting absolutely nowhere, at that time -
Mr. Tremblay: [Inaudible - Editor].
Mr. Hopkins: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I've read part of the finance committee meetings too, where Bloc members have been trying to cut in on other people's comments. I never cut in on Mr. Tremblay, and I request equal opportunity.
Last Wednesday, Mr. Chair, the question was put to you, ``At what point are we going to vote on this?'', with ``this'' meaning Mr. Brien's motion, which reads as follows: `` - Revenue Canada disclose the name of the persons involved in the matter under consideration.''
One of the long-time rules in Canadian history is that you never reveal the name of a taxpayer. And if you do it once, where does it go from there?
As a public accounts committee, in thinking responsibly, should we not be defending the privacy of taxpayers of this country? And if there is a fault in the system, then we fix the fault. We don't plaster people's names all over the place. That could be one of your constituents. A constituent of anybody around this table might become the victim of this at some time in the future.
We have a problem here to be heard about. This is going to take some time. It's not going to be done in one or two meetings, and even if you started today and had committee meetings until we rise in two full weeks after today, you are not going to have a report ready for the House in the month of June. We are reporting after the fact. It's already done. That's what we report on as a public accounts committee. We don't report on the present or on the hereafter.
The finance committee is sitting right now, handling its share of this work, and if anyone's going to have a good authority or a good base to put forward recommendations to the government to fix this problem in the Income Tax Act, it's going to be the finance committee itself. I'm sure that with the publicity this item has received, finance will deal with it rather quickly once they get the recommendations.
I want to repeat again that we are not going to have recommendations as to what happened in the past by the time we rise in two weeks' time. I want to point out here that Mr. Brien said ``never'' to his motion.
We spent an hour and a half on May 29 last week discussing this very thing - this motion - and we wanted to bring that motion to a vote and the opposition parties did not want to have it come to a vote. They kept talking and finally the meeting was adjourned.
.1630
Let's not put forward any issues here today that blame the government members for something that's happening here. You could have had Brien's motion voted on last week, and you could have been on to business, but let's face it - Here's the Auditor General's report, and we're all shouting about one issue in it. That issue is a big one, and it's going to take us a considerable amount of time to handle it. It's already being handled by the finance department and after certain requests it's being handled by the finance committee rather than the department. As you know, the hearings are very strong and are ongoing in a very informative manner. They've had some good witnesses.
We could have had the Auditor General and his officials before this committee last Wednesday. Instead, Mr. Brien's motion to disclose the names of taxpayers of Canada and make them public held us up for an hour and a half and we got absolutely nowhere.
Let's put all the facts on the table here today. Are we going to get rid of Mr. Brien's motion? When? How? Maybe we should vote on it now. I recommend that we bring it up and have a vote on it today to get it out of the way. Then, Mr. Chair, I suggest that you have a steering committee meeting so that we can get on and put some order into this business. As long as you're going to have this logjam going on, we are wasting our time.
I want to bring to the attention of members again that it's been insinuated that someone's thwarting the process or that someone has something to hide. I can tell you, I've chaired this committee for a number of years and I know where you're sitting, Mr. Chair. I know what I can see around the table here today in debate and I can see the politics of this item. It's the duty of this committee to study the issue, not to milk everything for every political issue that we can. That's not the Parliament of Canada and that's not what people sent us here to do.
Mr. Chair, in order to clear the air on one item at least, I suggest that you arrange to have the vote called on Mr. Brien's motion today and get it out of the way. Then we can go on and talk about the duties of the public accounts committee, the research we have to do on these issues and the hearings we have to hold. I'm sure this is going to be a long hearing, but let's get on with it. Let's get down to business. I don't like to see a logjam like this in a committee of the public accounts.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Hopkins, I would like to say from the outset that I have an enormous amount of respect for your experience, especially because you chaired this committee for three years. I simply wanted to make some things clear.
We studied the report of the sub-committee on agenda and procedure. It is exactly the same order of the day as last week. The impasse that we are in has to do with paragraph 1 of the report of the sub-committee on agenda and procedure, which reads as follows:
- 1. That the sub-committee wait for the legal opinion [ - ] before deciding whether the
committee should hold another meeting with the witnesses heard on May 16 -
Last week, we tried to pass the fourth report, as we are trying to do at present. I have to correct that.
Earlier, you asked when we would debate Pierre Brien's motion. It is at item 2 on today's order of the day. Once we have agreed on the report and on the future business of the committee, we will be able to discuss Mr. Brien's motion. Our colleague, Benoît Tremblay, said that we might be ready to withdraw it.
.1635
Mr. Hopkins, I also wanted to tell you that with regards to my understanding of the mandate of the Standing Committee on Finance -
[English]
This is the second point. They will decide what they will do.
[Translation]
I have here Mr. Paul Martin's letter to Mr. Peterson. It says in the third paragraph:
- The Committee has the mandate to study and make policy recommendations relating to the
taxation of non-resident earnings on Canadian equity property and on the processing of capital
equity property belonging to immigrants or emigrants of Canada.
I think that the mandate of our committee is to study what occurred on December 23, 1991 regarding a 1991 ruling so that the responsibility of government officials can be established and that light be shed.
These two committees can work in a complementary fashion. This is why the Standing Committee on Public Accounts decided, as of May 8, to pass the resolution that we dealt with earlier.
[English]
Mr. Hopkins: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect - and I always respect the chair and the speaker in this place - that's precisely what I said. The finance committee is dealing now with the issue and the corrections for the future. With all due respect, I said just a few minutes ago that this committee deals with the Auditor General's report based on the past and we bring in our recommendations on that.
I get the impression that you're going after me here because I didn't have my facts straight. I had them very straight on those two items.
The Chairman: Mr. Harb.
[Translation]
Mr. Harb: Mr. Chairman, there is a motion before you and I hope that it will be voted on soon.
The Chairman: Yes, I hope so as well, but some of our colleagues wish to speak.
Mr. Harb: Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about the agenda for an hour and a half now. I therefore ask you to call the question.
Mr. Tremblay: Point of order. It's important. Some things were said, including that Mr. Brien should be here to withdraw his motion.
Earlier on, I said I had a letter from Mr. Brien. His wife gave birth this morning in Abitibi. He is at home with her. He now has a son called Félix. Be reasonable! I have called you back to order twice now.
We asked for the names after receiving the legal opinion. Let me remind you that the legal opinion confirms what the opposition had said. We were perfectly entitled to ask for the name, but that requires a ruling, and I agree with you on that.
All the deputy ministers told us we could not ask for the name, but we now know that we can. It is in that context that we made our request.
Mr. Hopkins, with all due respect, I ask you to reread the committee minutes and you will see that the opposition's objective was to obtain a clear definition of this committee's authority.
I said earlier, and this is not an accident, that I have a letter from Mr. Brien here, withdrawing his motion. It is no secret to anyone, I hope, because I had informed you thereof earlier. So I am ready to table it.
I ask for your good faith in this matter, et I am tired of the attacks - In the House, you are not even allowed to say that a member is absent. In this case, you must admit he has a very good reason for not being here. I am tired of you questioning his good faith.
The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau.
Mr. Rocheleau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
Mrs. Barnes (London West): I have a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you would find unanimous consent, if it were sought, to enable that motion of Mr. Brien's to reveal taxpayers' identity to be withdrawn. Am I understanding the Bloc to say that after arguing last week they're now prepared to withdraw this motion asking for taxpayers' information?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is there consent to table the letter with the Clerk? Do you have copies for everyone?
[English]
Mrs. Barnes: Excuse me. In this meeting, with the people here, I believe there would be sufficient rules to have this motion withdrawn with unanimous consent in the absence of Mr. Brien.
.1640
The motion I'm asking is the same motion we dealt with last week, which was asking for revealing taxpayers' names. Now you want to withdraw that. I want to be very clear.
Mr. Tremblay: He presented just one.
Mrs. Barnes: There is only one. The one where the Bloc asked to reveal taxpayers' names is now being withdrawn by the Bloc. Am I clear there?
Mr. Tremblay: Excuse me.
Mrs. Barnes: It's difficult when somebody's talking in your ear; I understand that.
I just want to be clear that we're giving unanimous consent to withdraw your motion where you were seeking originally to reveal taxpayers' names. You are now withdrawing that motion, and we can do this right now with unanimous consent.
Maybe I can just ask our clerk if that's available.
The Chairman: No, no. I will chair the committee.
Mrs. Barnes: Yes, certainly.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent for the committee to discuss item 2 on the agenda?
[English]
Is it agreed, Mr. Williams, that we move right now on the second point?
Mrs. Barnes: Wait a second.
The Chairman: This is the first unanimous consent. Do you agree?
Mrs. Barnes: No, that's not what we just talked about, Mr. Chair. Number two on the agenda is about future meetings of the committee. I find this -
The Chairman: Do you have the same agenda I have? It's the agenda.
Mrs. Barnes: Oh, I'm looking at your report. I apologize.
The Chairman: On the Liberal side, who can answer?
Do you agree, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Do I have the floor now, Mr. Chairman? Thank you.
The Chairman: No, no. I'm seeking unanimous consent to move on the second item of this meeting. Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Williams: I think I would grant consent, Mr. Chairman. It seems rather irregular, but I will grant unanimous consent. We have several motions now on the floor, and I'm not exactly sure which is which.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to table Pierre Brien's letter in absentia?
Just to make sure Ms. Barnes understands, I will reread the motion as it appears in item 2 on the agenda.
Is there unanimous consent to table Pierre Brien's letter and to read it?
[English]
Mrs. Barnes: What does his letter say? Can you read it?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent to table it?
Since there is unanimous consent for the tabling of the letter, I will read it. It is a letter from Pierre Brien, member for Témiscamingue, addressed to Mr. Bernard Fournier, Public Accounts Committee Clerk, House of Commons:
- Subject: Withdrawal of Motion
- Mr. Fournier,
- On May 16, 1996, I tabled a motion before the Public Accounts Committee. I hereby wish to
withdraw it.
- I trust the above is in order. Yours truly.
- It is signed Pierre Brien, member for Témiscamingue.
The Committee resumes consideration of the motion moved by Pierre Brien on May 16, 1996 - it's the same date - which reads as follows:
- That, in accordance with Standing Order 108(1)(a), Revenue Canada disclose the name of the
persons involved in the matter under consideration.
Since we have settled item 2, let's move on to item 1 on the agenda, namely the adoption of the Fourth Report of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure.
On that note, I give the floor to Mr. Rocheleau.
[English]
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I thought I should have had the floor several speakers ago. I do have to leave to attend our national convention.
The Chairman: Excuse me.
[Translation]
I gave the floor to Mr. Rocheleau. Did you have something to say, Mr. Rocheleau?
Mr. Rocheleau: Yes, but Mr. Williams wants to speak.
[English]
Mr. Williams: I'm leaving to attend our national convention in a few minutes and I would just like to make a few closing remarks before I leave.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent? I had given the floor to Mr. Rocheleau, Mr. Telegdi and Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams, you have a very legitimate reason, I agree.
Is there unanimous consent for me to give the floor immediately to Mr. Williams?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.1645
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Harb says yes, because Mr. Williams is a fine guy. Go ahead, John.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the unanimous consent.
I appreciated the comments of my colleague Mr. Hopkins, who always puts forward a level, common-sense opinion in any committee I have seen him work on. He obviously wishes to break this logjam as much as I do, and I hope I speak for all members of this committee. We have achieved one small success, Mr. Chairman, in the fact that the motion has been withdrawn.
Mr. Hopkins has pointed out quite clearly that even if this committee were to sit all night and all day from here on in, we likely will not be tabling a report before the House rises for the summer recess. I understand the concern of the government members that we may be duplicating efforts and so on, and we only have a few more sitting days before we rise for the summer recess. We've had Mr. Telegdi put forward a motion that we don't discuss this issue until November, which I object to.
Therefore, again in the interests of trying to break the logjam, Mr. Chairman, and in the interests of common sense in trying to promote harmony within this committee, I would hope that before I leave - and I have to leave right away - the committee would consider bringing this issue up as the first order of business when we reconvene in September and that we deal with some other issues in the meantime.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): We're meeting in October.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, we may not be coming back until October, but I'm saying that in the interests of common sense, in the interests of trying to break a logjam, in the interests of trying to build harmony, and recognizing that we will not be able to table a report before the day we're supposed to rise, I am prepared to deal with this issue as the first issue of business when we reconvene in the fall. That is somewhat in the middle.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have to leave and I hope the committee will consider that as a serious proposal.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau.
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: Before anyone starts -
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: It's my turn.
The Chairman: Mr. Rocheleau.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind Mr. Hopkins, who may not have been at the meeting when the Deputy Minister of National Revenue, Mr. Gravelle -
The Chairman: There is indeed a problem. Mr. Telegdi had asked for the floor before you.
Mr. Rocheleau: Before me.
The Chairman: I wrote your name down afterwards.
Mr. Rocheleau: I will be able to speak after Mr. Telegdi?
The Chairman: That's right. Mr. Telegdi.
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Chair, I really wish we would follow the order of the people we're supposed to follow in terms of the speakers list. My colleague over here was on the list and we had other people on it, and that's the way they're supposed to be appearing. Once we go through the initial round, every member gets to speak, so I think it's important that we follow the process.
I am quite prepared to go along with the suggestions of Mr. Williams. The reason I said November is that we don't come back until October, when the committees are reconstituted. The first meeting in November seemed like a good enough time, but I'm quite prepared to have it at the first meeting of October. We can discuss it once we return to Parliament.
I am very pleased that we have gotten rid of the motion that would have revealed taxpayers' information and made them public. If we want to deal with that motion and that gets some agreement, then I would suggest that we do it quickly.
.1650
I suggest that we then move on to the issue of tax avoidance for next week so we will have something concrete to do next week when we show up at this committee, instead of going through the same process as that we have gone through, whereby we accomplish absolutely nothing.
I hope that maybe in the future Mr. Tremblay will become an associate member of the committee, or a member of the committee, because he has not sat here dealing with all the issues that we have dealt with and he probably doesn't share my frustration that so little gets done. I would like to see more get done in terms of what the Auditor General's report says. While I appreciate Mr. Tremblay's passion when he does come, I suggest that he might consider becoming a member of the committee - either a regular member or even an associate member - and then he'll attend more meetings.
Mr. Chairman, if we could deal with that motion, then we would have something that we could deal with next week. Then we can move forward and we can get together in a steering committee meeting and hopefully come to some kind of agreement for the last week.
The Chairman: Yes, because
[Translation]
we need unanimous consent to amend your motion that referred to November. If there is unanimous consent, we will amend the motion.
Mr. Rocheleau.
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the floor. In light of what he said earlier, my first remarks are for Mr. Hopkins. Could Mr. Hopkins listen to me?
I don't know if you were here when Mr. Gravelle, the Deputy Minister of Revenue, appeared and we discussed the disclosure of holders of family trusts. Mr. Gravelle was somewhat offended, saying that the Act prohibited him from disclosing those names. That is what led members of the Official Opposition to ask for a legal opinion, which tells us - I don't know if it tells you anything, Mr. Hopkins - that this committee's authority goes beyond the powers set out in the Act in section 241, which was referred to by Mr. Gravelle, if I remember correctly. The legal opinion says:
- Despite the fact that section 241 forbids an official to knowingly provide any information that
would reveal the taxpayer's identity, this provision cannot bind the House or its committees
because no express mention is made of them. If Parliament had wished the House -
- In the preceding paragraph it says:
- Legally, the canon of interpretation is that neither the Crown nor Parliament is bound by a law
except by express words in the law or by necessary implication.
- I now continue my first quote:
- If Parliament had wished the House or its committees to be bound by section 241, it would have
so stipulated, as it does in the case of non-disclosure of taxpayer information in connection with
legal proceedings.
Mr. Chairman, the matter before us is very serious, and I would like to draw a parallel between this matter and the conclusions the Auditor General makes in his report. In paragraph 1.47 of his report, it says:
- Furthermore, we believe the transactions circumvent the overall intent - That is very
important, because there is a parallel to be made between what the Auditor General noted and
this committee's business.
- ...of taxing the accrued capital gains on property, other than "taxable Canadian property", when
that property leaves Canada.
So, given the letter to the Minister and the motion of May 8, Mr. Chairman, members of the Official Opposition would like this committee to deal with Chapter 1.
.1655
The Chairman: No one else wishes to speak? Mr. Hopkins.
[English]
Mr. Hopkins: I want to comment on Mr. Rocheleau's remarks, Mr. Chairman. He is reading one legal opinion. He knows, as I do, that you can consult different lawyers and get different opinions. I am not prepared to have the privacy of the taxpayers of this country bound up in one legal opinion. Sometimes when the Supreme Court of Canada meets on issues there are nine very distinguished judges who divide along the lines of five votes to four.
I am not satisfied with the legal opinion he has raised and I'm not satisfied that it protects the continuity of the stability and privacy we've had for the taxpayers of Canada. That's whom I'm concerned about. To read one opinion into the record of the public accounts committee, Mr. Chairman, is not enough to satisfy me nor is it, I think, enough to satisfy the taxpayers of this country, who don't want their tax matters discussed publicly in the future.
The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi.
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Chair, we're running out of time and are going to be adjourned, but before we do - Part of my frustration sitting on this committee is that we have a number of members in the opposition who come here, make great speeches and take a great deal of time, and then all of a sudden they find they don't have any more time to stay at this committee and they end up going off to do something else. This has happened on all sorts of occasions.
Mr. Chair, can we have agreement to proceed with the vote on this issue, and then have the steering committee meet next week and give ourselves some agenda items to deal with in the next couple of weeks instead of wasting our time and the time of taxpayers and their money? Can we please proceed with the vote?
[Translation]
The Chairman: Yes, if you stop making comments about some members comings and goings. I have never made any comments on your comings or goings. Let's move on.
Let me ask the question again, since there are no longer any members who wish to speak. Is there a unanimous consent to accept the amendment to Mr. Telegdi's motion, whose purpose is to postpone this matter until November?
Is there unanimous consent?
Mr. Tremblay: We don't want to do it that way.
The Chairman: There isn't unanimous consent. So we will have to vote on the main motion.
Mr. Tremblay: Do we have to vote so soon? It seems to me we haven't finished hearing you on this.
The Chairman: Hearing me?
Mr. Tremblay: We are still discussing this matter. I know there is a motion on the floor and Mr. William's amendment, but can we continue? A compromise has been suggested and the Reform Party agrees with it. There will be some discussions with members of the Liberal Party, including the whip, I believe, who was here. If we suspended this sitting for five minutes, perhaps we could reach an agreement. Could we suspend this sitting for five minutes and come back afterwards to decide? May I ask for that?
The Chairman: You are offering -
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: Certainly, Mr. Chair, but there is just one thing. We were prepared to have the first meeting when we come back in the fall to deal with this issue. I don't know if Mr. Tremblay heard that.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The committee will take a five-minute break, maximum.
.1659
.1704
The Chairman: There is a motion on the floor. Are there amendments to the motion?
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Chair, I'd be quite willing to have the committee deal with the issue of family trusts at its first meeting when we come back. I guess that would be in October. If there is unanimous agreement on that -
.1705
The Chairman: Okay, a colleague will present this subamendment, because you're the mover.
Mr. Shepherd moves
[Translation]
to replace the word "November" in Mr. Telegdi's motion with the words "at the Committee's first meeting in the fall".
[English]
Is that all right?
[Translation]
All right, I will call the question.
Mr. Rocheleau: I would like it to be a recorded vote.
[English]
The Clerk: This is on the subamendment to change the wording of ``the first week of November'' to ``the first meeting in the fall''.
Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2
[Translation]
The Chairman: The sub-amendment is carried. We will now deal with the amendment. The Clerk will read the motion as amended.
[English]
The Clerk: I'll go slowly, because we don't have it translated and we don't have it in writing. But Mr. Harb assures me that what I have here reflects what was moved.
So what we have is Mr. Telegdi amending the motion of Mr. Harb, and the motion of Mr. Harb was that we delete ``items 2 to 4'' of the subcommittee report.
The amendment of Mr. Telegdi proposes that the motion be amended by deleting the words ``items 2 to 4''. Item 2 would be the only one deleted. You would amend item 3 by substituting the date to read ``Tuesday, June 11''. You would amend item 4 by substituting the date to read ``June 12''. Then you would add an item 5, which would say ``as amended by the subamendment, that the committee meet in relation to family trusts at the first meeting in the fall''.
The question is on that amendment.
[Translation]
The Chairman: We will have a recorded vote.
[English]
Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 2
Mr. Telegdi: I move that we adjourn.
The Chairman: Before we adjourn, the clerk mentioned that we must deal with the amendment by Mr. Harb concerning deleting -
[Translation]
It has not been settled.
Motion as amended carried
The Fourth Report of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure as amended is adopted [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Before moving on to item 3 of the agenda, namely the adjournment to the call of the Chair, I would like to remind colleagues that I received a letter signed by four members and that in accordance with a Standing Order, I must comply with the request. I would just like to inform colleagues that I will check with the Table Clerks about the agenda for that meeting.
.1710
Should we meet to discuss whether the Committee should meet, or should we decide whether the Committee will meet to deal with the matter at its next meeting? We have to consider the letter that was signed by the four colleagues.
The meeting is adjourned.