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
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thanks for the opportunity to maybe clear up some misunderstandings.
First of all, nothing in this motion precludes other witnesses being called--many, many witnesses--but let me explain again the timeliness.
We're up against the wall not just for the extradition date of Mr. Schreiber, but we're also up against a federal election that's likely to happen, could happen, in February. So this is my thought process, Mr. Chairman.
The fact is, the public wants to, and I argue needs to, hear both sides of this story to satisfy straight answers to very simple questions. We don't need to replicate the complexity of the public inquiry around this table, so therefore, Mr. Chairman, my motivation here is to make sure that at least these two principals get two days each—three days each, I originally planned, but one day is shot already—to tell their side of the story very briefly, to answer some of these simple questions, to lay the foundation for the work we need to do. That's why the language was “to answer questions pertaining” to the “Ethics committee investigation”.
With all due respect, I'm a little suspect of my Liberal colleague's motivation for not being interested in this. They say that villainy wears many masks and none so treacherous as the mask of virtue. Sometimes all is not as it appears around here. It may be that there are people who would like to have us only talking to technocrats and never get Karlheinz Schreiber and Brian Mulroney before this committee before a general election is called.
I'm of the opposite point of view, and I think it's in the interests of my Conservative colleagues to have these two respectful meetings with these two principal actors in this whole drama. So that's my motivation. It was an insurance policy, if you will, and by no means was it to preclude hearing an expansive witness list of other people whom you want to hear from.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understand the passion, which was on display last Tuesday, from Mr. Martin, and the urgency with which he wants to investigate these matters, but the scattershot approach he's taking is simply not aiding our committee whatsoever.
I look at this motion and I think to myself, it must be out of order, because it says that this committee should call a witness today. We can't call a witness today. It's simply not possible to fulfill the motion as it's stated, so it's irreparably flawed. I don't think, Mr. Chair, that we should be allowed to vote on this motion.
To further that, the motion that was just passed by this committee, with only the assistance of the opposition party, was that Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber be called as a witness before this committee without delay. Does that not in fact accomplish the very thing Mr. Martin is trying to achieve with one of his many motions, the one that's currently up for debate?
Could you rule on whether or not this motion is in order, Mr. Chair?
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Despite the fact that it calls for a witness today?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
There is a motion that is technically flawed but not in violation of any of the rules under the Standing Orders or procedure. The members always have recourse in terms of their vote.
Mr. Wallace.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If you're paying attention, I will just move a motion to amend the motion that's in front of us.
I move that all the “ands” between the 27th and the 29th...and then he has “on Tuesday December 4th, Thursday December 6th, and Tuesday December 11th”. I would like to put the word “or” instead of “and” in there. I will even go with “and/or”. Let me do that; I'll move “and/or”.
That gives this committee some flexibility, that if we had the answers we want from the individuals in front of us, whatever the date is, we're not having a witness here for three meetings in a row, if it's useless, if it's a roundabout way of doing things, for show and not for action.
So for me to even consider this motion, I need at least “or” so that we can decide whether it's a two-hour meeting or a four-hour meeting, and not six hours, without any flexibility.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I would like the clerk to just clarify his understanding of your amendment to Mr. Martin's motion. The amendments are going to have to do with replacing the word “and” with the words “and/or”. The clerk could maybe read it out as it would be with the changes there.
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
After “Karlheinz Schreiber before the committee”, Mr. Wallace, I believe, is proposing that.... Today is not in the equation because Mr. Schreiber is in Toronto, so the next one would be “Tuesday November 27th and/or Thursday November 29th; and/or Brian Mulroney on Tuesday December 4th”—
The Clerk
—I'm sorry. And then “Thursday December 6th and/or Tuesday December 11” . I believe that's correct.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just a clarification, because “and/or” was read in just before “Brian Mulroney”. I don't believe that's correct. It should be “and”; that “and” stays. Is that understood by all?
“Thursday November 22nd” stays there, even though it's moot, unless you also want to delete—
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I'll move the deletion of that and include it in my amendment, if that makes it cleaner.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Will members accept that this was the intent of the amendment posed by Mr. Wallace? Today's date, obviously, is not possible--it would have to be deleted from this motion--and the “and/or”s would be put in the appropriate spots.
Is everyone clear on the amendment? I'm going to put the question on the amendment of Mr. Wallace.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We now have the next motion, a motion by Madame Lavallée, dated November 22, 2007.
Madame Lavallée, is it your pleasure to move this motion, or would you like to withdraw it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The motion is withdrawn.
The first report of the steering committee has been circulated to all honourable members. I believe the members have viewed the items from the steering committee, which met after the second meeting of this committee just this past Tuesday. As you will note, we have identified areas for study that we believe are a priority for recommendation to the committee.
What we have not done, because of the outstanding matter with regard to the motions before the committee that weren't discharged, is we have not calendarized these.
So this committee is presented with the report.
I'm going to see if there's a motion that the committee's report as presented be adopted. Is there a mover for that motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Is there any debate?
I call the question then. Mr. Martin's motion is that the first report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be adopted.
Is everybody clear on the question?
(Motion agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Now we'll go to future business.
If I may, Mr. Martin is asking for the floor and I will recognize him. We have some time left in the meeting.
We have adopted a motion. Mr. Hubbard's amendment amended Mr. Martin's initial motion. It does call for the calling of witnesses, and it says specifically that Karlheinz Schreiber be called to be a witness before the committee without delay. That has been adopted by the committee, and therefore I indicate to the committee that we will take all necessary steps to make that happen, and we'll use all the resources of the committee and of the House to make that happen as expeditiously as possible. Is that acceptable to the committee?
