Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on the same question of privilege that the hon. member opposite has raised.
It is in the context of what he said that I wish to address the House. In particular, it is the pattern that is being developed that I find a little disturbing.
It seems to me that there has been more than one breach of the privileges that ought to be observed for members of parliament. We are here to represent the people and to represent the best interests of the people, and also to be judicious in the way in which public funds are spent.
What the minister announced was in direct agreement with what the auditor general announced two days before. He asked that such an advisory board be established. That advisory board was suggested many years before. In 1992 a similar suggestion was made by the auditor general and nothing was done. To the extent that the minister is doing what the auditor general suggested should be done, that is fine. I do not disagree with that. But I do disagree with the fact that he took away the privilege of letting members know what the government is doing in this regard.
We are not dealing with a $100 million expenditure. According to the auditor general's figure, we are dealing with a number of $1.4 billion. Reparations to the parliamentary precinct were originally approved, if my memory is correct, at about $250 million.
To date, projects worth $423 million have been approved. Not all of that money has been spent, but the projects have been approved.
Recently the minister appeared before the committee and suggested that there would be considerable additional expenditures.
Now the auditor general has said, upon examining the issue, that it is going to be $1.4 billion. That is no small amount. That this group should now act as an advisory board I think is a good thing. However, the minister should have made the announcement here in this House. That is the issue.
A couple of days ago the House leader for the official opposition said that there are leaks happening in the committees. He does not like those leaks taking place and neither do I. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you do not like what is happening. In fact, you expressed yourself to that effect and I commend you for doing that.
Before that we had the Minister for International Trade announcing the creation of a Canada-China parliamentary association before parliament had even created it.
The government appointed Mr. Landry to the millennium scholarship foundation at a time when there was no legislation before the House to set up the foundation.
There was a similar case with the Canadian Wheat Board. Once again the government began implementing measures before the measures were approved by parliament.
I raise these issues because there is a pattern developing.
When this parliament began, the government set up a CPP board before the legislation authorizing this board was adopted by parliament.
The Speaker said on November 6, 1997 that “the dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices”. That is the issue that I wish to address.
The sole source contracts that were addressed by the auditor general is another issue. There were $4.4 billion in sole source contracts and 85% of them—