On the question of contempt of Parliament, I think it goes without saying that this is meant to be used very sparingly and in exceptional cases. If members wish to use it as a political baton to score a quick headline, they will find it very quickly loses any value at all, and its meaning becomes null and void.
The other thing to keep in mind—while I know it's a separate committee, I make reference to it—is that Public Accounts did not get a chance to finish its study on whether or not members of the Liberal Party engaged in contempt of Parliament during the sponsorship scandal. They may have, in some cases, testified one thing before Public Accounts and another thing before Gomery, and as such, that committee began its study, Mr. Chair, of whether or not to proceed with contempt of Parliament. I'm not sure if the committee is interested in re-opening that file, but we might want to check with them just to find out how they are approaching it so there is a certain consistency in the way we proceed.
I know you believe in consistency, Chair, and as such, perhaps you would be willing to consult with your counterpart at the public accounts committee and ascertain if there should be a motion coming forward from any of the members of that committee, and I do know some of the members will participate there. Should they decide to re-open the contempt of Parliament discussion with regard to the sponsorship scandal, how and what steps would be taken at public accounts and whether or not we would consider the same sort of process....
Thank you.