Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My motion was simply that I move that Professor Johnston appear before this committee as the first witness on the study involving Mr. Schreiber. It is not inconsistent with any other motion that has been passed by this committee to this point. We have motions that call for Mr. Schreiber to come without delay. We have motions that set particular dates as to which he might be available. This motion does not conflict with any of those attempts to hear from Mr. Schreiber. We're simply moving a motion that would provide this committee with an opportunity to hear from the one individual who is most aware of all the issues involved with this study. It's incumbent upon us to have the advice of somebody who's in a position to give us that information. Therefore I ask that he be the first witness before this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Understood.

I will now hear Mr. Asselin, followed by Mr. Thibault.

Mr. Asselin, s'il vous plaît.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, if you declare Mr. Hiebert's motion in order, I will move an amendment that Mr. Johnston be the first witness after Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The motion of Mr. Hiebert is that Dr. Johnston be the first witness to appear. Mr. Asselin is moving an amendment to the motion that we add at the end of that motion “after hearing Karlheinz Schreiber”. Is that correct? So he will be the first witness after the committee hears from Karlheinz Schreiber.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

After Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

And Brian Mulroney.

Just so it's understood, because it wasn't submitted in writing so it's necessary, we are amending Mr. Hiebert's motion to add “after hearing from Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney”. That motion is in order--the motion to amend.

We have a speakers list: Mr. Thibault, Mr. Wallace, Mr. Del Mastro, and then Mr. Martin.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Well, Mr. Chair, I suggest to members to take a step back, breathe through the nose a bit, relax, calm down. What we're doing here is getting a little bit more ridiculous all the time.

We took a motion that said we would do the study and we would call Mr. Schreiber as quickly as possible, because we know he has a chance of being deported, so we want to be able to take the actions. Then, for greater glory of another motion on the books, we have another motion that says the next six meetings will be for these witnesses.

Then we have another suggestion that Professor Johnston come. I think it's a good idea that Johnston should come, and he should come relatively quickly, because he's to finish his report on January 11, or sooner would be even better. So we have to see him; we have to hear from him and be able to give him some advice, if we have any to give, as quickly as possible.

But we're trying to manage the affairs and the witness list rather than looking at the full list and what we want to do at the end of the six-week process, or whatever time we have. We're going by motion in doing our list and not giving any latitude to the clerk or to any steering committee.

Now we have a motion that says on next Tuesday we should have Mr. Schreiber here. If he can't come, if for some reason the actions of the clerk and the House can't make him come that quickly, then shouldn't the clerk have the latitude to call in Professor Johnston? Wouldn't that be reasonable?

But do we need to try to do all these things by motion and hamstring the chair? I don't know which motion comes first, the one that says we have Schreiber first or the one that says we have Johnston first. Is it the first one that was voted second, or how does it work?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Thibault, if you follow your own logic—you made your point—we should not be supporting the amendment. The chances of having Mr. Schreiber here next Tuesday, when we aren't even out of here on Thursday at one o'clock, are slim to nil. Let's be realistic. The realistic time would be next Thursday that he'd be able to get here. That means we wouldn't be able to start our study based on the amendment until after that happens, but that wastes a Tuesday.

The motion that is in front of us, not the amendment—I'm voting against the amendment—is so that we can call the professor for next Tuesday if Schreiber is not available.

Pat, you may be shaking your head; you may know the penal system better than I do, but I think it's going to be hard. We can start with that first witness who's looking after the public inquiry, which all the opposition parties were asking for, which this government granted. We will have him first. Then my expectation would be that Mr. Schreiber would be available by....

We'll probably have to give the system at least a week to be able to get him here. So I would suggest that we vote against the amendment, we vote on the main motion and pass the main motion, we start the process next week, we have the two witnesses that we discussed earlier, later next week and the week after, and the very first person we'll see, if Mr. Schreiber is not available on Tuesday, which I think is very likely, will be Dr. Johnston from the University of Waterloo.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That is presuming that he is prepared and able and willing before he finalizes his recommendation. There are a lot of unanswered questions here.

I'm going to go to Mr. Del Mastro, and then we have Mr. Martin and Madame Lavallée.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Very quickly, Mr. Chair, the amendment to the motion is contrary to the motion itself. The motion had very clear intent. The amendment completely changes the intent of that motion. Therefore, I think everybody should be voting against this amendment, because Professor Johnston, when he comes to this committee, will provide the committee with guidance that I believe this committee needs in moving forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We are rapidly running out of time, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I was only going to say that I think a lot of this work really should be subject to the lists that are sent in by each party by Thursday, the 29th. Any more motions dealing with the order of witnesses will be really compounding the complexity of all this.

We've already agreed as a committee what course of action we're going to take, and if anybody wants to argue the order of witnesses after Schreiber and Mulroney, it should take place after the witness lists have been sent in by the various parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

We now have Madame Lavallée, s'il vous plaît.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chair, I cannot vote for Mr. Hiebert's motion because we have just passed a motion saying that we would submit our witness lists next Thursday. We cannot get involved with the list of witnesses right now. If he suggests Mr. Johnston, I can just as easily suggest someone else. It will become a real circus, and no one here wants that.

Let us take things in order. Let us hear from Mr. Schreiber first, which is all very logical because he may well be extradited. Then we could hear from Mr. Mulroney, because it would be terrible not to hear his testimony immediately afterwards.

In the meantime, we can look at everyone's list of witnesses. Mr. Johnston will be on it, and we can examine Mr. Hiebert's proposal calmly.

As for Mr. Schreiber, I do not see why he would not be available next Tuesday. Given where he is now, I doubt if his schedule can be very full.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

We have the motion by Mr. Hiebert, which basically says to call Dr. Johnston first. Then we have an amendment by Mr. Asselin that he be called first after we hear from Schreiber and Mulroney.

We're going to call the question now on Mr. Asselin's amendment. Does everyone understand the amendment?

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Now I will call the vote on the motion by Mr. Hiebert. Does everyone understand the motion? Good.

(Motion negatived)

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Could I seek unanimous consent from all present that should Mr. Schreiber not be present at the next meeting of the committee, the chairman be invited to ask Professor Johnston to appear?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Your motion was moving things away.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's a point of order, and you can't make a motion on a point of order.

I would ask for latitude from the committee, if it's their pleasure, that we do in fact have our regular meeting on Tuesday. We will make every effort to take into account the wishes of the committee. If those are unable to be fulfilled for a valid reason, I would ask that the chair be authorized to circulate the notice of meeting with agenda items from the steering committee report, which we could at least deal with in a fashion so that we don't waste the committee's time. Is that acceptable to the committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

We're adjourned.