Evidence of meeting #37 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Wallace has indicated that he may be doing a number of things, and you've interrupted him--
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Tilson, what is in the standing order? Is it a matter of relevance, repetition...?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Well, sir, that's exactly what I'm going to ask of you. I'd like you to read the authority to interrupt Mr. Wallace.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, you're out of order, Mr. Tilson.
Mr. Tilson, I am not going to have a discussion with you about this. You know the rules.
So I'm going to give the floor back to Mr. Wallace.
Mr. Tilson, I'm not hearing you at this point. You have not been recognized, and you have not come up with a point of order.
Mr. Wallace, you have the floor.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have just a very brief response. I will make it relevant to what we're talking about, by answering what the motion calls for, Mr. Chair: to recall Brian Mulroney to appear before the committee to answer supplementary questions and provide details in relation to the fifth report.
My view is that I am not supporting this because there is no need for supplementary questions, given the testimony that we have already heard.
So I am not reading the phone book, as you indicated, but I am actually reading and taking excerpts out of the minutes of this committee that were part of the report back to the House of Commons.
I think I'm completely in order in questioning whether supplementary questions are needed, and I am using for evidence--for lack of a better word--in my position on this what we have already discussed or debated and the questions already asked, and I'm asking why we need supplementary questions.
So thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to respond to that.
The Right Hoourable Brian Mulroney did come here. It was on December 13, and he did have an opening statement. In his opening statement he said:
My second-biggest mistake in life, for which I have no one to blame but myself, is having accepted payments in cash from Karlheinz Schreiber for a mandate he gave me after I left office. I will tell you today how that came about.
My first point here is that I don't know what the supplementary question could be, based on the fact that in the first part of his opening statement he admits that it was a mistake. Are you going to ask him again if it was a mistake? I think he clearly answered that question, Mr. Chair.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Wallace, it would appear to me that your approach is to go through item by item what has been questioned, but not to suggest or even to look at the work that was done by the committee to consider that. In fact, it's clear that there are questions that were not answered, and that is a prima facie issue, because this committee issued a summons to Mr. Mulroney with regard to his trips to these various countries, asking him for the dates, the locations, and the names of those he met with and those who attended with him.
Mr. Wallace, you also asked about GST information you wanted from Mr. Mulroney. If we pull out the letter, the summons lays out a number of pieces of information this committee asked for. This committee decided not to act on the summons, although Mr. Mulroney did not respond to those questions. It's very clear that there are at least a dozen points of fact that the members had asked for, which this committee approved, and which were served on Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Pratte, and they were not responded to. Our invitation for him to come back to do that was turned down. So with regard to going through the testimony and suggesting there's no supplementary question on this item or that item, that is not going to make the case that there are no supplementary questions that could possibly be answered. We have on the record and filed with Mr. Mulroney questions to be answered.
So the issue about whether or not there are any supplementary questions is prima facie yes, there are. So move on with the rest of your considerations. You can carry on, but to make any argument--
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Tilson, please. We're not going to go there.
It's a clear case. Having all this time to go through Mr. Mulroney's testimony to reach conclusions that there are no supplementary questions is not relevant to the question before us because it flies in the face of the facts.
I will give the floor back to you if you want to carry on with other arguments on the motion before the House.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, but in my view chairing the meeting is running the meeting. If you want to rule me out of order because I'm not following some procedure, that's fine. But to make arguments that you believe there are supplementary questions when I don't, and that I'm wrong because I believe there aren't--
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Wallace, I'm not giving my own opinion. I am reminding the members about facts before this committee. A legal document filed with Mr. Mulroney containing supplementary questions that we asked is not a matter of my opinion. Therefore, all discussion about whether or not there are any possible--
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Tilson, please. You'll get the floor if you're recognized or if you rise on a point of order, but we're in the middle of a point of order.
Mr. Wallace, as you can understand, with due respect, there are questions that can be and should have been asked, to which we did not get the answers. It is a ruling of the chair that we are not going to debate whether or not supplementary questions exist. That's a ruling of this chair. It is not just a personal opinion. It is a matter of fact.
So carry on.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay, I appreciate that.
I think you would need to look at if a question is asked but not answered to your satisfaction, or there's refusal to answer, that makes it a supplementary question. Or is it a fact that you didn't get an answer, and does it make it not answered because you didn't get the answer you wanted?
I'm not sure, based on your logic, whether I can even speak, because I didn't like all of his answers. There's no doubt about it. I didn't like all of Mr. Mulroney's answers. I didn't like a lot of Mr. Schreiber's answers. I didn't like answers of other witnesses we had. But I think if we're going to have a motion that will call Mr. Mulroney back and we're expecting him to answer supplementary questions, it is important for this committee to understand what questions were already asked and answered, whether you like the answer or not. And I think I have the right, as a member of the committee who sat through those long meetings, to make that point. You may not agree with me, and I don't really care, but I think I have the right to make that point as a committee member.
And there are other committee members here today who were not at those hearings and have no idea, when they make their decision on voting on this motion, whether there are other supplementary questions or not. So I think it's vitally important for us to understand what was asked and what was said when the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney was here in front of us.
I don't think I'm out of order on that. I have the right to do that. I can re-question what was said. I have it further down here, but you brought up a good example. I did ask Mr. Mulroney for his GST number, and his answer was that he had no idea whether he would need a GST number, because, as many of you know, you need to make a certain amount of revenue a year before you actually require a GST number. He said he wasn't sure that he was going to make that amount of money and require a GST number.
Mr. Chair, do I need to ask him again? Do I need to recall him to ask him again? No. I got the answer he gave me. Did I like the answer? Did I think it was off the top of his head? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean it wasn't an answer. That doesn't mean my question wasn't legitimate. Do I need to call him back to another meeting to ask him a supplementary question, to say, “Remember, Mr. Mulroney, I asked you about your GST number and you told me you weren't getting one. Why not?”
I'm telling you I'm not voting for this motion because I don't need that information. I don't think it's that important, based on all the other evidence I've heard and on the inquiry that's already been announced and is in the process of being set up by the Prime Minister.
So to tell me that I can't go through the minutes to look at what has been asked, not just by me, Mr. Chair, but by our opposition members, by Mr. Martin.... Is this in Mr. Martin's motion? I should have the right to look at what Mr. Martin asked and what the response was--Mr. Martin probably didn't like the answer, or maybe he did like the answer--and based on that answer, to put to my fellow committee members what supplementary questions could be asked from that.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Mr. Wallace, this is the final time that I will ask you to move on. I made a ruling with regard to whether or not there exist supplementary questions, and it's prima facie: they are in the subpoena served on Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Pratt. All of you have those. There are questions that have not been answered; therefore, we know with 100% certainty that there are supplementary questions or other questions that exist.
Any further debate on that constitutes a challenge to the ruling of the chair. If you wish to make a challenge, you may.
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
We don't want to make a challenge.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand, but I've ruled that there are supplementary questions, so any further discussion about whether or not supplementary questions exist or whether a particular question constitutes a supplementary question would be contrary to the ruling of the chair.
Order, please.
Mr. Wallace, if you persist, I'm going to give the floor to another member on that matter on supplementary questions.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Before I start up again, to meet the criteria you have outlined to me, you were indicating that because there is a letter that has supplementary questions in it, which I don't have here in front of me—maybe you can provide that—there might not be any other supplementary questions. So Mr. Chair, I'm going to go through the minutes and look at what was asked, and look at what else—
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Sorry, Mr. Wallace. Thank you. Order means that the chair has the floor.
Mr. Hiebert, you as well, sir. Order.
4:15 p.m.
An hon. member
Mr. Chair, point of order.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'm in the middle of something. I'll get to your point of order immediately when we conclude this matter.
Mr. Wallace, on three occasions I have addressed the issue that it's not my personal opinion that I've given. It is a matter of fact before the committee. I've asked you three times. I've been very patient, but you have refused, Mr. Wallace, to accept the decision of the chair. As a consequence--and you repeated your argument three times--as is permitted by the—
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand that, but we can't go there further. I've given you three chances already to move on to your next point. There's no discussion once a decision is made. So I am going to move now to Mr. Murphy, please.
4:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
No!
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I still have the floor. You ruled me out of order on supplementary questions.
4:20 p.m.
Some hon. members
No!