Evidence of meeting #3 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The next motion we have was submitted by Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Hubbard, is it your pleasure to move that motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, kindly.
The next one is a notice of motion that was submitted by Mr. Martin.
Are you familiar with that one submitted after Mr. Hubbard's?
Are you prepared to move that motion?
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I have to be honest, Mr. Chair, I do not have a copy of this motion, and I don't recall getting it electronically either.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I received it.
In any event, notice was properly given, and it was calendarized in accordance with the convention we've established. It is the next motion that the committee must deal with to discharge it off our paper in whatever fashion the committee wishes.
Mr. Martin, will you read your motion and debate?
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move:
That the Standing Committee...calls Karlheinz Schreiber to appear before the committee on Thursday November 22nd, Tuesday November 27th, and Thursday November 29th; and Brian Mulroney on Tuesday December 4th, Thursday December 6th, and Tuesday December 11th; to answer questions pertaining to a potential Ethics committee investigation.
If I could speak to it briefly, Mr. Chairman, I will explain my rationale.
This motion was submitted quite a few days ago when I was still optimistic that there would be cooperation amongst the committee and even believed we could have had Karlheinz Schreiber appearing before the committee today. That's no longer possible, and I would be interested in an amendment to the motion to correct that, but I also believe there's some urgency to getting Mr. Schreiber here on Tuesday, the 27th and Thursday, the 29th, because the deportation date, as it stands currently, is still the first of next month.
I also believe that after those brief preliminary meetings with Mr. Schreiber we should immediately hear from Mr. Mulroney, because he indicated he was interested in telling Canadians his side of the story. While it's fresh in people's minds what the testimony was from Schreiber, we should hear from the former Prime Minister as well.
This is the reasoning behind the motion, Mr. Chairman.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I have a speakers list, and it is Mr. Hiebert, followed by Mr. Wallace, Mr. Dhaliwal, and Mr. Thibault.
Mr. Hiebert, please.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I simply want to make the point I was trying to make a few minutes ago, that if this committee is going to investigate this matter, I do not want to see it turn into a circus, as it seemed to begin to do last Tuesday. We'd prefer that we investigate this matter in an orderly and reasonable fashion.
I think to do so we need the advice of Professor Johnston, who is currently setting the terms for the public inquiry that the government has chosen to proceed with. He's reviewing the volumes of documents relating to this matter as we speak, and I believe he would be in the best position to provide advice to this committee as to how to approach this subject.
He has a deadline of January 11, but there's certainly the possibility that he could be completing his work well before that date--in fact, even possibly in short order. If that's the case, what better way is there to approach this matter than to have the individual who's most aware of all the issues at stake come before this committee and provide us with his advice and his guidance as to how we should approach this?
Therefore, it would be my recommendation, moving forward, that this committee adopt the procedure of having Mr. Johnston speak first before any other witnesses come before the committee.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Yes, a clarification for me, Mr. Chair, so I understand what we're doing here. The dates that are listed here--obviously, one is today, so that's no good. There's an “and” between all the dates. Is the mover of the motion indicating that those individuals will be here for three days in a row, or is this an “or”? I don't know what the expectation is. Is that six hours of testimony or is that two hours of testimony? I wonder if you could clarify that.
Secondly, I think Mr. Schreiber is actually in jail. Do we have the right to call somebody out of jail to come here? I'd like to know what that process is.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
As the chair, I don't participate in debate, but if the member is asking a procedural question, if he checks the Standing Orders under section 108, it does in fact prescribe that the committee can call for persons, papers, etc., unless otherwise expressly ruled by the House itself.
We're resuming debate, and--
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
The question on “and”--could you ask the mover, because I can't ask the mover directly?
Liberal
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I'm debating the.... There's a motion in front of me, and I want to know, before I vote on the motion, whether we are expecting the individual to come on all three dates, or does “and” mean “or”? I don't understand, and I should be able to have an understanding before I vote on the motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Possibly the mover of the motion may want to get on the speakers list and clarify, if he wishes. If not, the members will have to go on what they presume.
I'm going to move now to Mr. Dhaliwal, please.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I see it is Thursday, November 22, so we're going to open up that door and I'm sure Karlheinz Schreiber is going to walk in right now.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to speak in favour of this motion, even though there might be a few changes to make. That is up to the presenter here. This issue is before the committee, and Canadians want to know the truth, because it is the PMO's office and integrity that are at risk right now as well. In fact, we--all members--were painted in the same way when political donations were taken by the previous Prime Minister, in bags, in cash. I think this is a priority issue, because Karlheinz Schreiber can be deported at any time.
So I would love to support this motion presented by Pat Martin.
Liberal
Liberal
Robert Thibault Liberal West Nova, NS
I find it a little unfortunate that this motion is presented in the way it is. When we discussed and made the motion that was an amendment to the NDP motion, we specifically named Mr. Schreiber in that motion because there is that possibility, ever present, of him being deported, and we wanted to invoke the ability of the House of Commons to compel him to remain and force the government to keep him in the country so that he can make a presentation.
I want to hear from these two individuals, I want to hear everything they have to say at the committee, and I want them to participate in the inquiry. But when we look at our timeframe, and if we're going to make a logical study of the inquiry, is it the smartest way to use our time and our energies to hear from these two individuals at the beginning without having heard from other witnesses for those periods? This brings us pretty well to the break when we leave for Christmas and we will have heard from only two individuals. We will not have heard from individuals at PCO. We will not have heard from individuals at PMO. Mr. Wallace indicated he was interested—was it Mr. Del Mastro or Mr. Wallace who said they were interested?--in the way the matter was dealt with that led to the original $2.1 million. We will not be able to hear those individuals. We are slotting all those spots away.
It's unfortunate that it's going that way. I have a hard time voting against it because I want both those individuals to appear, and I probably will end up voting for it, but I will be hoping that the committee has some sober second thought that if we are going to do a serious study of this matter, we do it in a serious way, and not just because two individuals attract a lot of camera light and a lot of things that they necessarily will be the first to appear at the committee for that long. I find it quite distressful that we are bringing this motion at this time.
The reason the amendment we proposed named only one witnesses--there may be 100 witnesses to appear, but we named one because he's at risk of extradition. That's the reason we named him. We didn't name anybody in the justice department, any of the RCMP, anyone from the former minister's office from one government or the other, or Mr. Mulroney himself, because they are in the country; they're not at risk of extradition.
With that, I may vote for it, but I'll certainly be trying to encourage my colleagues to have sober second thought on how we go through with this study.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I don't understand what Mr. Thibault said, quite frankly. He's either for it or against it, and I still continue to say that by his participating in this debate and voting on these matters, which he's indicated he's going to do, he is tainting the proceedings and is bringing this committee into disrepute on this particular matter.
With respect to the motion, Mr. Chairman, I have trouble with it, and I'll be voting against it because I interpret the motion—and maybe Mr. Martin is on the list after I speak and he will clarify this, and I hope I'm not interpreting it this way, but that's the way the motion seems to be written and submitted--that he's saying he only wants these two people to come. He doesn't want Mr. Johnston. He doesn't want anybody else. He just wants these two people to come and that's all he wants. For that reason--he's shaking his head that he doesn't intend that. Well, I suggest he reword the motion because that's what the motion says. The motions says that we just want these two people to come. We want Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney to come and let's have a free-for-all, a circus.
