Information & Ethics Committee on May 29th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Good afternoon, colleagues.

This is the 37th meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Our orders for the day are committee business.

We will be addressing two motions for which proper notice has been given, and they will be dealt with in the order in which they were submitted. The first is a notice of motion from Mr. Martin. I believe it was circulated to all members. I have reviewed the motion, which was duly submitted with proper notice, and rule that it is in order.

Mr. Martin, if you are ready, I'm prepared to entertain a motion to move that particular motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. It would be my intention to proceed and move the motion I gave notice for.

I'd like to read it into the record and introduce some of the rationale why I think it's important. I can proceed with that right now.

Due to the absence of any action by the government to establish and begin the public commission of inquiry into the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, l move that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics recall Brian Mulroney to appear before the committee to answer supplementary questions and provide further details in relation to the fifth report of the committee presented to the House on April 2, 2008, and the study undertaken by the committee giving rise to the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin, please continue.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, the reason I move this motion today is that I don't think the Prime Minister has any intention of creating the full commission of inquiry that he promised Canadians. Perhaps the Conservative government is hoping that Canadians have short attention spans and that they'll forget all about the commitment, in fact the broken promise, to commence a full commission of inquiry into this affair. They are hoping they can once again sweep this whole thing under the carpet.

There has been no evidence that the government is taking any concrete steps whatsoever to get the full public inquiry up and running, appoint the commissioner, rent the space, hire the staff, etc. I have lost confidence that they have any intention to proceed.

I remind committee members that it was the wish of the committee to recall Mr. Mulroney at the end of our list of witnesses in the study we undertook. It was our intention to call him back, for two reasons: to give him the opportunity to respond to some of the testimony that was subsequent to the evidence he gave, and so we could ask some supplementary questions to flesh out the explanation we were told regarding the work he says he did for Mr. Schreiber to earn the cash payments he received in these secret hotel meetings.

As committee members will remember, we invited Mr. Mulroney to come back a second time, and he declined to take us up on that invitation. He refused to attend, as it were. All committee members know that we had the authority and the ability to compel him to attend and we chose not to, as a committee.

The reason the NDP didn't push the point and summons Mr. Mulroney is that we believed the full public inquiry would be up and running shortly and that those outstanding questions would be addressed by the inquiry, perhaps with better resources and ability than our committee had to dig deeper into some of the unanswered questions. That never happened, so my position has changed.

This is why I am compelled to bring this forward today. I believe we have a finite window of opportunity to ever get some of these questions answered. I also believe that Karlheinz Schreiber will not be in this country forever.

If the government is not going to live up to its word and begin the inquiry, then I believe it is up to this committee. It's within our authority and our mandate to revisit the fifth report we made to Parliament and put supplementary questions stemming from that report. That's why the motion is worded as it is, and that's why, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your deeming it to be in order.

I'm not going to talk at length. I'm won't even go through the questions we might have for Mr. Mulroney. There will be plenty of time for that after we go to a vote.

I appeal to members not to block this motion. It is in the public interest that we conclude our work on the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, if in no other area than the narrow scope of trying to add substance, flesh on the bones, to what I believe is the cock-and-bull story that Mr. Mulroney gave us regarding what he did for the money, which I believe to be nothing at all. If there is any evidence or documentation to verify that he actually did travel the world trying to sell tanks to foreign countries, I don't think it should be that hard to prove. I think it is our committee's role to dig deeper on that.

I urge the support of committee members for this motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I look forward to the vote happening today on this particular motion. However, I will not be supporting the motion and I want to give some detail on why I know that I'm not. I'm hoping to convince my colleagues also not to support the motion.

The mover of the motion has read the motion. Let me start with the first part of the sentence that's in the motion: “Due to the absence of any action by the government...”.

Mr. Chair, I think this is absolutely inaccurate, and that is one of the reasons I'm not supporting this motion. Let us be clear that when the issue first came to be, the leader of the opposition got up in the House and challenged, I would say, the Prime Minister of Canada to call a public inquiry. What was the Prime Minister's response? Immediately it was that he was going to call a public inquiry--so, to begin with, the wording referring to absence of action is completely inaccurate. We took immediate action on the request, on the understanding that a public inquiry is what we felt and what the Prime Minister felt was needed in this case to deal with the issue.

We also have dealt with this issue extensively at this committee. We spent months and months and months discussing the issue, bringing witnesses, and talking to witnesses. We brought some witnesses back two or three times. I think Mr. Martin clearly indicated that we also invited Mr. Mulroney back after he'd been here once, and former Prime Minister Mulroney indicated that he had provided the information that he was able to and had nothing further to add.

So we have been very active. Our committee met, and then during the committee meetings there was a discussion all of a sudden that we should be proceeding--but how do you proceed, as a government, with an inquiry when we have an active standing committee looking at the issue? I felt it was inappropriate. We either have the public inquiry or we have the committee meetings looking at it, but to do it at the same time I think was inappropriate.

The decision was made--and I agree with the decision--that we would complete the work that we have done at this committee to look at the evidence that we and the opposition wanted to see. I want to remind you, Mr. Chair, that in fact this side of the committee room did not call any witnesses; all witnesses were asked for by opposition members, and we dutifully saw those witnesses and asked them questions. We worked our schedules around those dates and times to make sure that witnesses could be here and provide the information that opposition members wanted to hear.

As we were proceeding through the committee, the government, I think rightly, waited. They wanted to wait to hear what this committee's conclusions would be. That conclusion came through the report that I think is mentioned here in this motion: “the fifth report of the committee, presented to the House on April 2...”. I remind you that was just April 2, 2008. We waited to hear back. The government waited to hear back from this committee on the work it had done.

One of the recommendations in that report was to proceed with an inquiry. Did the government delay? No. Did the government indicate that they weren't going to do that? No; the indication was that we would proceed with the inquiry now that we had this report. Part of that process was to ask Dr. Johnston to report back, looking at the report that we did after months and months of activity at this committee--seeing witnesses, asking questions, and doing follow-up. Some opposition members had lunch or dinner with some of the witnesses to get even further detail.

We looked at that evidence. Dr. Johnston was asked to look extensively at that evidence and to give a report to the government on what the scope of an inquiry should be.

Mr. Chair, that action was taken immediately. There was no absence of any action by the government. We had to give Dr. Johnston some time to report, of course. He had to read our report and look at some of the testimony he had heard from the meetings we had had. He looked at other evidence that he had in front of him. I'm just surmising that he looked at how public inquiries have worked on other topics in other areas and what would be efficient and effective as a public inquiry for this particular item. Dr. Johnston did report back on that item. From that item the government has proceeded to try to begin the process of setting up the inquiry.

I want to remind the committee that the report was just accepted in the House on April 2, 2008. This is mid-May. I was in municipal government for 13 years before being here for the last two and a half, and I can tell you that municipal government is slow. The federal government is even slower.

[An hon. member]

Did you say it's mid-May?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Sorry if I said mid-May. My apologies--it is the end of May.

Things take time to happen, but that doesn't mean that things aren't happening. That's one of the reasons we're supporting this.

The Prime Minister has promised publicly to bring an inquiry on this item. He has not indicated, nor has anyone else in this government, that the commitment is not going to be met. We are following the process that has been set out. We all knew well before we started along this road that there would be a process put in place to have a properly constituted inquiry, with the proper framework and the proper principles to be looked at. Decisions would be made about how and where that would take place and the timing of it.

In my view, it will take time to find the right individual to be the commissioner of this inquiry. This is going to be a very difficult issue. Politics are involved in it. Some expertise will be needed from whoever is chosen as the commissioner to do this job so that we will be looking at this in an appropriate way.

The mover of the motion talked about public interest. I would say there's no greater public interest than there is in doing this right. I think Mr. Martin probably agrees with that. Doing it right, thoroughly, and properly is in the public interest. The public interest is not in trying to do something for political reasons or in doing it in a way that would not give confidence to the public.

I have to be perfectly frank with you. During our review of the study we did, I got a number of calls and e-mails from my constituents saying things like “I saw you on TV last night, Mike. I liked what you were wearing. I liked what you said...”. There were lots of those kinds of things, like “I can't believe what one of the witnesses had to say”, or “don't trust that person”, or “are you sure?”, or “ask this question”. I have had a tremendous amount of response to that.

Since the report has been done, since we concluded our work, I have had exactly zero calls and zero e-mails, and no one that I can recall has come to me in person. I've had probably three public meetings since then. One of them was on taxes, but two of them were open sessions in which people could ask me about anything the government is doing, or what I'm doing. Mr. Chair, do you know how many questions I got about the Mulroney-Schreiber study that this committee did? Absolutely none.

The issue is not of the huge public interest that the mover likes to dramatically.... And he's very good at the drama. Perhaps Mr. Martin should try acting after he's done with this career.

[An hon. member]

Don't overdo it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Well, you never know. I didn't say what kinds of movies they would be.

[Some. hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I mean quality of movies.

The public interest in the inquiry is that we do it right. There is no absence of action based on what this government has done, what this government and this Prime Minister have said they were going to do. We are following the procedure that was laid out for us all and clearly told to us by the Prime Minister. That's my first point.

My second point on this item is to ask the purpose of having former Prime Minister Mulroney back. Over and over again witnesses were asked whether there was any wrongdoing in this particular study, by any of the witnesses, any of those officials, the government, or anyone involved. Over and over again we heard evidence from a variety of witnesses that they could not identify any wrongdoing. Now, let's be honest. Many of you and some of us, including me, maybe didn't like what was happening and some of the answers, but they could not give us evidence that they were doing anything illegal, unethical, or anything that you could identify as wrong.

I'm not supporting this motion, because to what advantage is it for this committee, when we're doing very good work on the Privacy Act, when we have other issues that are facing us dealing with actual legislation in front of Parliament? I hear lots about access to information. Madam Lavallée and I have chatted before, and I am not opposed to studying the issue. I think there are issues with access to information. But we have only so much time as committee members to deal with these issues. We are doing a very good job, in my view, of reviewing the issues surrounding the Privacy Act at this committee. We've spent a lot of time already--in my view, relatively unproductive time in terms of moving the issues of what's important to Canadians in terms of legislation and the Privacy Act, access to information, and identity theft. There have been a number of issues we could have been dealing with, but we spent time on the Mulroney-Schreiber issue, and we did the study, and it's over.

During that study we could not find any evidence that would implicate further study on this issue.

We have committed to an inquiry. We're going to go to an inquiry when it's ready to be up and running. It may be taking longer than Mr. Martin would appreciate or like, but we need to do it right or it will not have the authority and the substance that are required.

Let's be honest: when we deal with this around this table, we do not have the resources. I believe Mr. Martin mentioned in his opening statement that an inquiry would be better resourced than the committee would be. I absolutely agree with him that an inquiry has that ability. You can have staff involved in research in a technical way that is not readily available to us as members of Parliament. You can have a very professional inquiry based on the experience and knowledge of legal staff. I myself am not a lawyer. An inquiry would allow for that, and for what I would view as a much more professional approach.

The approach that we had taken around this table during those long months of that inquiry did not produce any evidence of wrongdoing. Our parliamentary secretary, Mr. Hiebert, asked that question consistently of every single witness. Why did he? It was to have it officially on the record in the report that we were not able to find any wrongdoing.

Mr. Hiebert had other questions, but of course he wanted to make sure we all understood that, to be consistent and to be fair to all witnesses that were in front of us, those were the types of questions.... And those were the answers that the public--if you want to talk about public interest--really wanted. Was there any wrongdoing? Was there any evidence of wrongdoing? Were you able to discover any wrongdoing?

Over and over again, week after week, Mr. Hiebert asked the questions, and others asked the questions, and based on the testimony that we heard from folks and on the code of conduct, there was no evidence of it.

So having Mr. Mulroney come back to say I'm not sure what, and why that would be of importance.... That piece of evidence was there.

We could inquire further, but I want to say a couple of other things before I talk about Mr. Mulroney's testimony in front of the committee.

I think it's a dangerous precedent—and I think Mr. Martin alluded to that in his opening statement—to be calling and recalling former prime ministers of Canada to standing committees of the House of Commons.

The Liberals have more former prime ministers available to be called and recalled on a variety of issues. I believe Prime Minister Chrétien and Prime Minister Martin are still available to us if we really want to see them on a number of issues.

[An hon. member]

Joe Clark?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Joe Clark is available. I'm just saying that there are prime ministers.

I think we've gone down a bit of a slippery slope here in recalling former prime ministers to talk about what happened during their governments.

Mr. Mulroney, respectfully, through his lawyers, declined to come. He came the first time, which I think we expected. We as a committee asked him to come again, and he respectfully declined, through his lawyers, to come again.

I'm a bit concerned that from a political point of view, and let's be frank about it, the harassment of former prime ministers could become not just a bad precedent but a bad habit at the committee and at the House of Commons. You know, not all of us see the glory of each prime minister that others may see, or the policies they promoted or implemented, or some of the actions they may have taken while they were in office or shortly thereafter or shortly before. But there is, I think, for me, specifically—and I'm assuming for the rest of us—a general respect for someone, man or woman, who makes it to the office of prime minister.

As you know, being parliamentarians, it's not a very easy job, no matter what side of the House you're on and which party you belong to. Leadership takes a significant toll on us individually and personally and is a 24/7 opportunity. And I'm talking leadership of all parties, not just those who become fortunate enough to lead this great country for the short period of time that they all do. But we all respect that, and I think we should continue to respect that after they have left office.

I think prime ministers are fair game, rightly or wrongly, while they're in office. We have question period every day. To make your point, some use of the press is also available to many of us around the table. While the Prime Minister is in office, that individual has that responsibility, has that accountability. But in my view, once the Prime Minister has left office--and it's not a rule, of course--he is a Canadian citizen and a citizen like anyone else.

I think as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to respect the office and respect the individual who has made it to that office. Having this committee set the precedent of repeatedly asking prime ministers to come back and talk about different things during the time they are in office, or in this case after they've left office, I think is very bad, not just for this committee but for the Parliament of Canada. I think we'll lose respect as parliamentarians if politics follows that individual after they've left office.

The issue for me is that we need to be very careful when starting a process of recalling the prime minister, whoever that prime minister may have been, and for how long. We were fortunate, in my view, that the previous prime minister came in this case. He did his individual duty as a Canadian, in my view, to come to this committee and talk to us. The job is tough enough while you have the job, but to be worried about it for the rest of your life I think is completely inappropriate.

I think the history books will write what they believe to be accurate about a prime minister after they've left. They'll look at their legacy. They'll look at their policy. They'll look at their actions, and history will decide, based on writing and documentaries, what the general view of the prime minister has been. It's not the responsibility of the House of Commons or of parliamentarians to continuously ask to try to reframe or frame the legacy or the work of a particular prime minister.

That is why this motion, which I'm not supporting, when it recalls--

[An hon. member]

You're not supporting it?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You'll know by the time I'm done that I'm not supporting this motion, but we'll be voting on it today. I won't be supporting it when we finally get to the actual vote.

A second appearance of a prime minister is a very difficult thing for me to agree to. In fact, I believe Mr. Martin agreed with that approach at one time when we first thought about it as a committee, when the item was still in front of us about recalling the former prime minister. We got the letter back saying no, and we accepted that no at that particular time. I think that was right.

My issue is I'm not sure what we're going to gain from this. What I brought with me, which I know Mr. Hubbard is interested in, are the minutes....

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

Could you respect members when they have the floor, please, all members?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have the minutes of the meeting attended by Mr. Mulroney. I'm not sure if Mr. Murphy was here that day, but I believe he was. We extended some special time to make sure Mr. Mulroney could be here for an extended period of time. Instead of coming over two meetings, we had it all in one, and we all had an opportunity to ask Mr. Mulroney questions. We had a number of rounds of discussion.

For the record--it seems to be forgotten--I want to go over some of the testimony that Mr. Mulroney had brought to us, and ask why we would ask him back if this is what we already know. That is why I'd like to review some of his testimony.

He did have an opening statement, which he gave to us, in which he talked--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

Mr. Wallace, I have spent a little time looking at the Standing Orders and looking for references. I have been noting down each and every point that you've made and the number of times you've made it. There is quite a long list here already. I am not convinced that reading or reminding us of testimony of witnesses meets the test of relevance to the motion before us.

At this point I simply want to encourage you to do the best you can to stay relevant to the matter presently before the committee. There are a couple of references here about members reading letters into the record and the like. I have a reference, and I won't give it to you right now, but I don't believe that is going to be helpful.

I wanted to raise that with members. I'm going to try to follow our rules on repetition and relevance in our debate of this motion.

I'm going to turn the floor back to Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Can I respond to your relevance issue briefly, since you moved the point of order? I didn't know if the chair did that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I called for order because I wanted to alert all honourable members that should we not be making a proper argument with regard to the motion before us--

[An hon. member]

Mr. Chairman, on that call--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order. Let me finish off here.

I simply want to advise the committee of that.

I also want to remind the committee that the only time members will speak here is when they are given the floor by the chair or on a point of order. Jumping in and having a conversation is not going to be helpful to our process.

I'm going to give the floor back to Mr. Wallace.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Point of order.