Information & Ethics Committee on May 29th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Carry on.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I heard that you were suggesting that unless the government proceeded with this in a hurry before the deadline, they could set this issue aside, and the government would have no fear about Mr. Mulroney appearing before this committee again, because they would get it done.

Well, Mr. Chair, and respectfully to Mr. Murphy, through you, Mr. Chair, this appears to be a form of bullying. This appears to be the opposition, at least from the Liberal side, basically stating to the government that unless they did what the Liberals wanted, there would be consequences.

I know this is repetition, but it's to make the point. It's literary. Please, don't cut me off.

He said that unless we did as they said, there would be...he didn't say “hell to pay”, but consequences.

I don't think it's appropriate for Mr. Murphy to make that suggestion. Mr. Murphy might have other good reasons to suggest that June 12 would be an appropriate day. It could be that it's his favourite day of the month. It could be that it works in his schedule. It could be that he already knows what Mr. Mulroney's calendar looks like for the next couple of weeks.

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

It could be his birthday.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

He might know at this point that he's not going to be in the House on that day, so there's no harm in having somebody that he's personally not interested in hearing from, I conclude from his previous comments to this committee, and this would be a fine day, or between now and that day would be appropriate.

But to suggest that the reasoning behind his subamendment is to put the feet of the government to the fire I think is going a little bit too far. I think he should reconsider his motives behind this. I think if he genuinely wants to hear from Mr. Mulroney, it would be more appropriate to leave the schedule open.

Perhaps Mr. Mulroney has commitments. He's a former prime minister, and through his own words he has claimed to be an international consultant. He did say those things. Members may laugh, but we have to take his word at face value. I know the chair is kind of muttering and suggesting that we need to hear evidence of what international consulting he is doing. Fair enough--he has claimed that. Maybe it's the case that he's not available.

Instead of putting an arbitrary deadline like June 12, why wouldn't it be better to simply say “no later than the end of June”, or “when he's available”, or “at the earliest possible moment”, or something that doesn't define it quite so strictly? Let's give this guy his due. He's a former prime minister.

I'm now not referring to the busyness of his schedule. I'm saying let's respect his office.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Do you support the end of June?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

We can't simply take our former leaders and put arbitrary deadlines on them. It's disrespectful to the office that he held. It's not dissimilar at a lower stature to the office that Mr. Murphy holds.

I think there's an element of respect here that needs to be accorded to our former prime ministers. There are not that many of them, mind you. We're not talking about a huge class of people here. We're talking about a distinguished few who have earned the confidence of Canadians to the point where Canadians have spoken and said “We are going to trust you with the elements in the arms of government. We are going to give you the authority to make decisions, set the agenda, and represent us on the international stage.” That's no small responsibility.

I would respectfully submit on that point, Mr. Chair, that there's an element of respect that needs to be on that. I'm not repeating myself. I simply want you to get the point.

He also said--and I paraphrase--that we all want to get to the bottom of this. Well, that's absolutely true. I saw heads nodding all around this table when he made that statement. In fact, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Murphy, that with regard to our report, which we tabled not that long ago, the part we all agreed on--because we did go through it fairly quickly before this committee, and the researchers would agree there were very few amendments that were made--was that we have to get to the bottom of this.

We, as government members, did make an addendum or an addition indicating that we thought there was no evidence, and we agreed that if the inquiry were to proceed, it would do so within a limited timeframe.

Yes, I think Mr. Murphy is correct that we all do want to get to the bottom of this. The question is how do we get to the bottom of this? That's where I differ with the member. If we're going to do this right, what we've said in the past is that it needs to have an appropriate context. To come along and say that by June 12, by Thursday two weeks from now, the government has to do this or there are consequences I think is not providing the context of an appropriate inquiry.

I'm not aware of this, but perhaps it's the case that the government is on the verge of naming who the commissioner is going to be, or of naming the location or the dates or the mandate of this inquiry. Perhaps if we wait a couple of days or a couple of weeks Mr. Murphy will get the answer he wants. I don't know. I don't have the answer to that question. But I think if we're going to do this right—and this is a point I made to the chamber when I spoke to our report when it was tabled—we have to provide a context and an environment that allows that to happen.

I simply want to close my comments about this amendment by asking, rhetorically I guess, because we'll have to wait for Mr. Murphy to get on the speakers list again, what he means specifically by no later than June 12. Is he suggesting that if this motion were passed as amended, the clerk would immediately contact Mr. Mulroney and say, “Mr. Mulroney, surprise, surprise, but the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics would like you to come back. I know, Mr. Mulroney, we've asked you to come back before. That was a couple of months ago. I know, sir, that you declined that invitation. Needless to say, the committee is now calling you to come back. And oh, by the way, we need you back here ASAP.”

I'd like to hear from Mr. Murphy. Is he flexible? A couple of minutes ago he was suggesting the end of June. That's what I heard. Perhaps Mr. Murphy would like to clarify if he's stuck on June 12 as a deadline or if that was an idea that was given to him by another member of this committee, or if there's some flexibility there.

We could look at the parliamentary calendar, which I think is an important thing to consider, because remember, Mr. Chair, that you sought to make amendments to hear from Mr. Mulroney and we weren't even sitting. There was plenty of talk around this committee to adopt a different calendar of sitting from what has normally been adopted by the House of Commons. So perhaps it's the possibility that Mr. Murphy would like to say the end of June, the end of July. If this matter is of such great importance, certainly he wouldn't want the parliamentary calendar to prevent Mr. Mulroney from coming back at a time that's appropriate to him and to us.

What if it's the case that June 20 being the deadline—under the current calendar, that's the Friday on which we're currently established to sit—Mr. Mulroney were to say, “Sorry, I'm not available for the next three weeks, I'm overseas consulting”? What if we came back on June 24—if you want to keep it to our regular sitting times, it's a Tuesday—or June 26? What about early July? We don't want to conflict with Canada Day, because that would be an offence, but would he be willing to look at alternate timeframes that he would like to consider?

In essence, those were the points I was trying to make. I'm not sure if there are any other comments that were—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

After you, I have Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Tilson.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Okay. Then I don't want to take up too much time. I'll pass the microphone to the next speaker, or perhaps Mr. Murphy wants to provide some comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

He's not on the list. We have Mr. Poilievre next.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I understand you've worked very hard on this file, as have a lot of people around this table. I wasn't here for the hearings, but I followed them carefully.

I think Mr. Murphy has put forward an amendment in good faith. He is moving toward something that's increasingly workable, but what we have to work on now are the details.

Let's keep in mind that arranging these public inquiries is not easy. They take a lot of time to set up. The last public inquiry we had in the previous Liberal government was on the Gomery file. We remember that then Prime Minister Paul Martin received information on the ad scam in November 2003. Hearings did not begin for almost a year from the time he learned of those revelations. So these things take some time.

I know, Chair, you were around during those times on the government operations committee. As such, you have some familiarity with these sorts of matters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Poilievre, I want to remind you we're presently debating the amendment to establish June 12 as the time limit. It's just the amendment. Your other comments would probably be more appropriate to the main motion. Please comment right now on the amendment.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I brought up those comments because they also dealt with the timeframe. It was September 7, 2004, when the Gomery hearings actually commenced. Of course, then Prime Minister Martin had the explosive details of the Auditor General's report in November of the previous year. So it was basically a year. In fairness to him, he did commit at the outset that there would be a public inquiry, but it took a lot of time to arrange it.

Without revealing any confidences, I think it's fair to imagine that there are probably not a lot of former or active judges who are jumping up and down pleading to be chosen for this role. So I think we have to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt that he is working through his options.

There are a limited number of people in this country who are actually qualified to carry out hearings of this nature. They are very complicated and time-consuming. They require a lot of legal expertise. To find someone who has the intellectual gravitas and the legal experience to head up such an inquiry is not easy. But my understanding is that they're working on a short list, and from that short list we have to ascertain if any of the people on it are actually interested in the job. It doesn't sound like a particularly fun job. That is why the timing is so important.

I know that members of this committee want to pass a motion here that is predicated on good faith. I would ask them to contemplate a subamendment that would stipulate a September deadline to begin those hearings. We have heard from Mr. Murphy that he would prefer a deadline in June.

If you'll allow me to speak to my subamendment, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

I understand that Mr. Poilievre would like to move a subamendment for a date change.

Could you state the amendment, if you have the precise wording? You just want to change the date from June 12 to September 2008.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

That's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, the subamendment is in order.

We're now debating the subamendment, which is effectively the same point of interest as the amendment--that is, a time limit of some sort.

Carry on. You may debate.

Mr. Martin, on a point of order.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I don't believe this is a subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I've already ruled it in order.

Carry on, Mr. Poilievre, please.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

If I could just state at the outset, I've always appreciated Mr. Martin's interventions in these committees, and this is no exception. But I have to respectfully disagree here, as I do think this subamendment is in order.

I appreciate your ruling, Chair. Thank you for that.

On to the substance of the amendment, Mr. Chair, I think that the fair and just minds around this table are unanimous in their agreement that these kinds of inquiries do take some time to assemble. We want to get it right; we don't want to rush in and choose someone to head up the hearings who perhaps would not be qualified and therefore would turn a legitimate inquiry into a circus. I know that members around this table are responsible and do not want to see that result any more than the government does. So in a spirit of non-partisanship and the public good, I hope they would agree that September would be a reasonable timeframe for the Prime Minister to have the wheels in motion on these hearings.

I think that if they took the time to review how long it took Prime Minister Martin to assemble the Gomery inquiry, this would be reasonably comparable. In fairness to Mr. Martin, he did assemble the Gomery inquiry in a reasonable timeframe. I didn't necessarily agree with the terms of reference that he wrote, as I think they could have been broader, but I will give him credit, in a tender moment of non-partisanship, for having assembled it at a reasonable pace. Opposition parties, Mr. Martin included, and members of the Bloc Québécois as well, were fairly patient with him on that point. No one was jumping up and down and saying that Mr. Paul Martin was acting too slowly. We gave him the time, because we wanted him to find someone qualified and have the assembled team of experts put in place in a manner that would allow it to be done properly. I think that because we permitted that to occur as parliamentarians, and because the previous Liberal government did take the time necessary, we had someone who turned out to be quite a good pick, Justice Gomery. I think most people around the table would agree that the choice of Justice Gomery turned out to be a good one, and we learned a lot from the hearings as a result.

Now, that's not to say that the two matters are the same. I think everyone would agree that the Mulroney-Schreiber controversy is not nearly as hideous an issue as the sponsorship scandal was, but the point remains that it does require significant legal expertise and a degree of competence that does take some time to amass for any government.

I've asked the Liberal member, Mr. Murphy, who I understand has a legal background, to consider what I would label as a friendly amendment to permit the Prime Minister and the team he has to assemble for the inquiry to do so sooner rather than later—but before the end of September. In the event this doesn't happen, then we could consider the extraordinary step of recalling a former prime minister.

I also note there's not an emergency here. In times around this place, we get so wrapped up in the drama of Parliament Hill that we forget that this is not an emergency.

I was about 13 years old when the alleged events in question occurred. For the last decade and a half--and it has been a decade and a half--the country has gone along with some ups and downs and has survived without a public inquiry all of this time. So I don't think that if we are to wait a few more weeks the nation is going to come collapsing down. Let's keep those facts in mind.

Mr. Chair, if could add to that, I know you have done some exhaustive work here at the committee. I think that in assembling the team that will carry out the public inquiry, the Prime Minister is also reviewing the work that was done in this committee--some of it very good. That's not to say we agree with everything that went on before the committee, but I think we'll all agree there was a lot of effort that occurred here. I credit members of all sides of the committee for having made those efforts--you among them, Chair.

So having sought, and maybe even received, a degree of consensus around the table that this is going to be an arduous process for whoever the unfortunate soul who heads it up turns out to be.... I think it's going to be very, as I say, unfortunate, because I think it's going to be very challenging work and they're going to deal with some very challenging personalities, chief among them Mr. Schreiber, who has demonstrated a capacity for dramatic fiction that is perhaps unsurpassed in this place for a very long time.

How do you deal with someone like that? That takes time. Finding someone who can rein in the disparate personalities of a conflict of this kind ain't easy. As I look around, I see there are a lot of heads that should be nodding.

That brings me to conclude on a positive note. Every once in a while around this table something special happens, and that's when we all agree on something. I offer a friendly amendment to Mr. Murphy to move this date to September. Wouldn't it be a wonderful way to end this Thursday afternoon, if we were all to agree on that change?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like a clarification, if you could. With the change in the subamendment to no later than.... Is it September, or is there a date in September?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It's September.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Was the original amendment that was put forward that the commission begin, or that the commissioner be in place?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

If the subamendment passed, the motion would read that Mr. Mulroney appear before the committee no later than September 2008.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So in actual fact the amendment does not say that Mr. Mulroney would not be required to appear if a commission began. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, there are no qualifications in this motion whatsoever with regard to whether or not an inquiry has commenced or a commissioner has been appointed or whatever.