Information & Ethics Committee on May 29th, 2008

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

In my view, Mr. Chair, the mover of the original amendment—and I'm in favour of the subamendment, in terms of timing, and I'll get to that very shortly, because I don't want to get ruled out of order.... The initial idea of putting a date in there was that if a commission began--or, in my view, if a commissioner were announced--we would not have to proceed with calling back the former prime minister. But in actual fact, based on the wording that's in front of us, that is not the case. It just puts a deadline on when the actual call would happen to try to get the former prime minister back.

Having said that, and having the understanding that it's not one or the other, and that this is actually doing both, I'm more supportive of the September date, and my reason is strictly practical. In my view, Mr. Chair, the parliamentary calendar from here to I think June 18 or 19 would mean that we would probably wait until June 12, which was originally the date for the request, and then have to send a letter or correspondence or make a phone call to require Mr. Mulroney to appear.

I'm assuming that there would be some sort of debate about when and timing and so on. My concern would be that, based on the date that has been presented in the original amendment, the likelihood of our being here as parliamentarians would be slim, and we'd have to have a special meeting and come back during our summer break. I have plans in my riding that I'm hoping to accomplish in July, and coming back to Parliament was not one of the plans I had in front of me.

That is why I think, colleagues, that you should consider the subamendment regarding September strictly from a practical point of view. If we want to be effective and have the public here, and the attention of Parliament, which I think is what people are looking for, then not having it commence till we get back in September would be ideal.

That's my position on the date. I know you can't move a subamendment to a subamendment, but I think the subamendment should be clarified, Mr. Chair. All this is doing is putting a deadline to the event of requiring Mr. Mulroney to come back, and it does not in any way end just because the commission.... Really, I think the concern of the mover of the initial motion was sort of an impetus to get this commissioner in place and the commission started. Neither this subamendment nor the amendment actually accomplishes that particular goal. All it does is give us a deadline.

But if that's what the committee wants, I think it would be much more practical to have a date in September, so that we will be able to look at this. I think that if this September date passes, which I would support, Mr. Chair, it would be wise for this committee to revisit this motion when we get back, if the commissioner has been in place and the commission has started its work, whether it's in the planning process or in actual hearings or it has dates on which hearings are going to happen.

There should be something in this motion that requires it to be revisited or automatically rules that it's no longer needed. That's not the case right now. And the amendment to change it from June 12 to September would at least give this committee an opportunity to look at that issue, if it presents itself as what might happen.

My understanding is that June 12 is pretty close. The September date gives a lot more flexibility. I am relatively confident. I don't have inside information, but from my inquiries I know they have been working at it for the last couple of months. It is not completed yet, but they are working on securing a credible commissioner. It's not an easy job. I certainly wouldn't want the position myself.

I think it's reasonable for us as a committee to expect the government to at least have the individual expressed to the public by September--about six months. That makes sense for the way the process works around here. It makes sense, as the previous speaker said, using other examples. I wasn't here for the Gomery inquiry, but I know it took a while to get up and running. That's reasonable.

I would look to the mover of the subamendment and the amendment to work on the wording so the date is acceptable and there is a condition in it. As the chair has indicated, there is no condition in it. I would be much more supportive of the September date, on the condition that the commissioner has not been named or the process has not started.

I think that is a legitimate position for this committee to be taking, and a legitimate approach. Of course, I'm speaking to the amendment. I can't speak to the main motion because I've been ruled out of order a few times.

If the committee in its wisdom decides to move ahead, how many of us will want to come back in July to make that happen? I want you to seriously think about that. I think it would be much more reasonable and effective to put the September date in there, leave it open, come back, and have a look at where we are with the condition in there. The September date will force us to revisit this. Put those conditions in there and have a look at it. If we proceed, people will be satisfied that we're proceeding. That would be a much more effective use of our time and a much more professional approach that this committee could take.

Mr. Chair, I know it's hard for you to believe, but that's virtually all I have to say on that particular matter. But I do want to come back to the main motion, and I want to be on the speakers list when we get to it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Colleagues, this is an interesting proposal because of the arguments that have been made. I'm going to see if there's an appetite for amending the date to make it September 2008. That is a significant concession. It appears that Mr. Wallace is supportive of that happening. Is there anyone over here? No.

Mr. Hiebert has the floor on the subamendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It sounds like you're actually somewhat inclined--not that you're allowed to vote--toward this amendment that would change it from June to September. That is the subamendment I'm speaking to.

In case some members aren't fully convinced of the benefits of moving it to September, I want to outline some of the advantages of delaying it until then.

I thought Mr. Murphy's arbitrary two-week deadline was a bit abrupt. He suggested that it was a way to hold the government to the fire. I suggested it was a form of blackmail, and maybe a little bit of bullying on his part. So if we moved this from June to September, nobody could make the accusation that Mr. Murphy was trying to be a bully, or blackmail the government. Nobody could raise the spectre of such an assertion, and Mr. Murphy could face his constituents with a good conscience, knowing he hadn't tried to do such a thing.

That's my first point, and it's an important one.

My second point is that it gives Mr. Mulroney more time to fit us into his schedule. As I said earlier, this might be a very legitimate concern on his part. He's a busy guy, doing international consulting and that sort of thing. If we opened up the parameters at which he could look at his schedule, it's likely he'd be busy over the next two weeks. Is it likely he'd be busy for the entire next three or four months? It's possible, but I don't think it's likely.

I couldn't hear Mr. Martin's comments. His mike wasn't on.

I suggest it would be a little more respectful of the former prime minister to give him a larger widow of opportunity.

Mr. Chair, it appears that a lot of people are talking. Perhaps you could get their attention. I'd like to think that my comments are of value.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You're quite right, Mr. Hiebert.

Honourable members, please respect the rights of all members to be heard. I think we all understand that. I know it's getting a little late. We're only going to be here for another ten minutes, so let Mr. Hiebert make his points. I'm sure everybody will respect others when they speak.

Carry on.

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

Thank you for that intervention, Mr. Chair.

Where was I? Oh yes, I was talking about Mr. Mulroney's scheduling.

I think I made the point, and I'm not going to repeat myself, that we have to respect his schedule. Two weeks is a little bit short; I think three or four months he should be able to accommodate.

The third point is that I don't know about the members opposite, but I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that I spend a lot of time preparing for this committee. My staff and I are doing the research; we're considering the possible issues that might come up; we're reviewing previous testimony. It takes time. Even more so was the case during the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings. We put an enormous amount of time into preparation, reviewing the testimony of the previous witnesses on a previous day. In fact, as it continued, the volume of testimony we had to consider was immense.

Knowing how important this matter is to the members of this committee, and certainly to Mr. Martin, who tabled this motion, I could see an advantage to delaying from June to September, giving Mr. Martin and anybody else plenty of opportunity to review the testimony of Mr. Mulroney and to really ask themselves the hard question about whether there's anything left to be answered.

You can't just walk into this. This is a national event. It is an historic event, as we saw, and you don't want to simply show up on the day that he's agreed to come and not be ready.

Giving members more than two weeks, by moving this from June to September, giving them plenty of time to consider all the elements that need to be considered so that they can craft worthy questions, substantive questions, the kinds of questions that Canadians would expect from their members of Parliament, would be appropriate.

That wouldn't be just for us. I think it's also fair to say that Mr. Mulroney would want the additional time to prepare. I'm sure he would take great comfort, in fact, in having more than what could be just until next Tuesday, but three or four months to put his mind to the possible questions we might ask and be ready to do that.

Mr. Martin talks about questioning whether or not he needs the time to prepare. The issues we're dealing with were a long time ago. They didn't just happen yesterday. So I would suggest that giving him the appropriate time to prepare would be another good reason to do that.

My fourth point about why we should change this from June to September is more of a psychological one. Basically, I think, given the additional time, cooler heads might prevail. We don't want to be rushed. Let's give ourselves a chance to take down the temperature. I know there has been a lot of partisan bickering and a lot of disunity and perhaps questionable conduct in committees. If we give ourselves the additional months that we need to just take some time over the summer, have some ice tea, and spend a little time in our constituencies, we might all come back a little more refreshed, a little less on edge, and more in a state to properly address these matters without getting under each other's skin, as seems to be happening more now than just a couple of months ago.

My fifth point is that June to September is a lot of time. What could happen in that period of time? Well, it's quite possible and I think Mr. Martin would be pleasantly surprised, that Mr. Mulroney, of his own initiative, could voluntarily or indirectly answer some of the questions that he was prepared to ask. It's quite possible that he might submit a letter to the editor or make a public statement or might even write to Mr. Martin directly, answering the questions, the probing questions that Mr. Martin claims he has.

It's quite possible, perhaps not likely, but possible, that Mr. Martin's wish might get answered independently of this committee. If that were the case, then we wouldn't have to take any of our committee's time to address this matter.

I know we're running close on time, so I'll wrap up rather quickly, Mr. Chair.

My sixth point is that perhaps members themselves might change their minds over that intervening period of time. Perhaps we'll come back in September and members will be inspired to continue our study on privacy and we can finish the job we started, that very important work we need to do, as has happened in the past.

The only reason I make that point, Mr. Chair, is that it seems the members opposite have a tendency to change their minds all too quickly. I just want to make one example. That is, a couple of weeks ago, maybe a month ago, we initiated this study on privacy, and here we go getting distracted by other motions and time is taken away from what we are here to do.

In closing, Mr. Chair, this is my final point. Perhaps this is a point that's been made. I'm not sure, as I haven't been here listening to all the testimony because I had to step out momentarily. It would give us a chance to find out if the inquiry itself will commence before it is necessary for us to proceed to this matter and to force Mr. Mulroney to come. It's possible--I would like to think likely, but I'm not sure--that the inquiry might commence before September, and that would mean it would no longer matter.

With that in mind, I will complete my comments at this point. If necessary, I do have an amendment. I think the rules might suggest.... I'm not sure if now is an appropriate time, so I'm not going to make this amendment, but I want to put it on the record that we could add at the end of “no later than September 12, 2008” the words “unless a judge is appointed to head the inquiry”. I'm not going to move that yet. I'd like to see how the voting will unfold, which I hope we can commence right away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

[An hon. member]

We're ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Are we ready for the question on the subamendment?

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

I would like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

The subamendment is to change the date to September 2008, as opposed to June 12, 2008.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

When we return, we're going to pick up the debate on the amendment proposed by Mr. Murphy.

[Some hon. members]

Call the question.

[An hon. member]

We want to get this done here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

I understand that the members are asking for a vote on Mr. Murphy's amendment. Is that correct?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

And by recorded vote?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. I will put the question on Mr. Murphy's amendment, with the June 12 date.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 )

So we have the motion of Mr. Martin, as amended by Mr. Murphy.

Is there debate?

[Some hon. members]

Call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, we'll call the question then.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

The time is 5:30. We have—

[An hon. member]

I move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm sorry, but our meeting was called till 5:30. The time has expired.

The meeting is adjourned.