Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

I would simply ask Mr. Tilson to specifically state the rationale for a point of order.

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

The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that I believe Mr. Thibault should recuse himself from this committee. He cannot use this committee as an examination for discovery--or a question, as it is now known in the legal field--to further his personal action. Justice must appear to be done, whether it's in the courts or whether it's in this committee.

With all due respect to Mr. Thibault, and you, sir, I don't even know whether you have the jurisdiction to recuse him. You probably don't.

I'm going to rely on his honour, because I don't think he should participate in this debate. I don't think he should participate in any voting on any of these matters, because he is personally involved. If this were a municipal council, he'd be out of here. He'd be gone. He would have to recuse himself. Otherwise he would be sued.

I believe that because of his conflict of interest in these proceedings, Mr. Chairman--and the clerk may have to assist you; I don't know whether you have the authority to recuse him. You may not. If you don't, I'm going to rely on his honour to recuse himself. If he doesn't recuse himself, I will guarantee you that further action will be taken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Tilson, on the questions you have raised with regard to a potential conflict of interest of a member who is sitting before this committee and participating as a full member, I take your point. I understand it clearly. I'm going to reserve my decision on that, and we'll get back to you and to the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that it's probably an unusual question. I don't know how many times it has been asked in this place, but because we are now on the verge of debate, Mr. Martin is going to make his motion. Presumably, we're going to get into debate on that discussion and ultimately we're going to vote on that discussion, and I believe your decision should be made before any debate and before any vote.

I would suggest that you adjourn and consult with the clerk and consult with whoever you wish to consult with, but this matter should be resolved before Mr. Martin proceeds with his debate and certainly before this matter is voted on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

I take the point. I'm going to reserve my decision. I understand that Mr. Thibault is not going to be.... On the same point of order, I believe Mr. Thibault has asked to speak to that point.

Would you like to yield on that?

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

No.

Madame Lavallée asked before I did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame Lavallée, do you wish to speak on this point of order, not a new one? Okay.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

First, when a committee member raises a point of order, he must be allowed to speak immediately. This is the nature of a point of order. I was not asking to speak, I was raising a point of order.

That said, I think that Mr. Tilson's remarks are completely out of order. His comments are not on the agenda, and he is making them specifically to waste our time. This is another stalling tactic taken right out of the little manual they have for malicious Conservatives with something to hide.

Mr. Chair, I would like us to refrain from all these allegations against Mr. Thibault and to begin dealing right away with the motions that are on the agenda and that have been distributed for some time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

On the same point of order, Mr. Thibault.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I hope the chair will take due time to consider this matter and consider it seriously. I'd like Mr. Tilson and all members to consider what they're suggesting. What's being suggested--and I know it's common practice and it's well accepted--is that if a member of any committee has a pecuniary interest in a matter that is being debated at the committee, they recuse themselves...if they have a family business interest in that thing.

As to alleged, supposed, proposed, maybe, might be legal action, personal legal action, against a member of the committee, I don't know that that would meet that test. I think if we did succumb to that, it wouldn't be very long before we would have 308 lawsuits in this House of Commons against everybody for minor matters, dilatory matters, to try to remove members of Parliament from being able to debate questions of interest where it would serve somebody out in society better to have them not participate.

So in the interest of democracy, Mr. Chairman, and of parliamentary tradition, I hope you have a serious look at this preposterous suggestion by Mr. Tilson.

The second question I ask is, how could Mr. Tilson possibly be aware of a legal action that I'm not aware of?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Having heard the statements of the members...Mr. Thibault, I understand your point, but the member has asked an important question. It is a matter on which we should seek proper assessment by legal counsel, and I will undertake to do that immediately--have the officers arrange for the information to be provided to me and for the committee. I'm going to reserve until I have the legal opinion as to the rights, because the member has the right to move the motion. Mr. Thibault also has the right to participate, unless the case is made clearly that it is inappropriate for him to participate.

I assume that Mr. Thibault is not going to participate in debate at this time.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I don't know where you would get that assumption. I am sitting here as a member of committee, signed in by my party. I have the full right to participate, unless told by the Speaker of the House of Commons that I don't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, absolutely. I was anticipating, since we are going to go to Mr. Martin's motion.

So I have reserved, then, and I would ask Mr. Martin to move his motion.

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

On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman—and I appreciate Mr. Thibault's comments—I don't even believe he should be at this table at any time when this discussion is coming up. He has tried to distinguish the issue between owning a business and a lawsuit. However, he does, with due respect to Mr. Thibault, have a pecuniary interest. He is being sued for a lot of money. That's called pecuniary interest. And it is in his personal interest that the plaintiff in that particular action look badly. I don't think he should have the right to vote in this committee, nor should he have the right to vote in Parliament.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate--I understand that you want to consult with people, and there are parliamentary legal people in this room right now as we speak, because I recognize them--before Mr. Martin proceeds, that you adjourn these proceedings for a short period of time so that you can consult with the clerk and the legal people in order that you can make the appropriate decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Tilson, I hear your arguments, and I would like to take the opportunity to do such consultation. I will reserve my decision.

Now I'm going to have another point of order.

Mrs. Lavallée, please.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

You made a ruling and the subsequent discussion had nothing to do with that ruling. So, I suggest that we move to another stage. If your decision is upheld, we move on. I suggest that we put a stop to Mr. Tilson's flim-flam; these are not points of order, he is just wasting our time. Once more, he is delving into his little Conservative manual; it must have been on his bedside table yesterday.

I move that we now proceed with the agenda.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

I will call on Mr. Martin to move his motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee, for this opportunity to put this motion. I believe I served notice of motion on the 14th. That's my understanding.

I would like to move the motion and speak briefly to it. Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that I have the floor? I move the motion and then address the motion, or should I make some remarks first?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Please read the motion into the record, and then we are on debate and you will debate your motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I, Pat Martin, move:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics undertake a review of matters related to the Mulroney Airbus libel settlement; including any and all new evidence, testimony, and information not available at the time of the settlement so as to determine if there were violations of ethical and code of conduct standards by any public office holders; and to report to the House on its findings, conclusions and recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, I have some brief rationale and explanation as to why I put this motion forward. I believe Canadians deserve some straight answers to some very simple questions. I'm very concerned that a public inquiry may either never take place at all if Mr. Schreiber is sent out of Canada, or if such a public inquiry does take place, it may be so massive and cumbersome that it may in fact collapse under its own weight before Canadians get some of these straight answers to very simple questions.

I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that the matter is properly before this committee. I won't go into that at any length because I appreciate your ruling after your investigation of the matter that we have an obligation, as the ethics committee, to ensure that the House of Commons and all public office holders are operating at the highest ethical standards and that the codes of conduct are thorough and robust enough to ensure there is in fact that appropriate action.

The last point I will make on why I think it's important for our committee to study this is that we also need to visit the regulations dealing with lobbyists on Parliament Hill, because surely at the root of the whole Schreiber kickback Airbus scandal, or the allegations associated with them, is one rogue lobbyist who is accused of lining pockets and peddling influence around Parliament Hill.

Even though we tried to address the regulation of lobbyists in the Federal Accountability Act, those regulations have never been implemented. To this day, nothing has really changed that would preclude another person from peddling influence in the same fashion as these allegations.

So if for no other reason than to make recommendations to ensure that our code of conduct is robust enough to keep public office holders to the highest ethical standards, and to revisit and perhaps amend the regulations pertaining to lobbyists, our committee should get busy and review these allegations—not in the context of guilt and innocence and accusing people, etc.; that's not our job, our expertise, and it's not our mandate. We can concentrate on, and make some real substantial progress on, the code of conduct and ethical standards of all public office holders.

The last thing I will say is that timeliness is everything here. Timeliness is of the essence, not just because we're dead up against the extradition of Karlheinz Schreiber on the first of next month, but because all of us in this room have been tainted by these allegations, by the terrible optics of the possibility of a former Prime Minister taking bags full of cash in secret hotel room meetings. That image in the public's mind stains every one of us in this room, and it also further harms the jaded perception the electorate has of politicians and their democratic institutions generally.

So for those reasons, I appeal to my fellow colleagues on the committee to support this motion to undertake this study.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

I have the speakers list. I'm going to go to Mr. Hubbard, but I would like to now rule on the point of order raised by Mr. Tilson with regard to Mr. Thibault.

Coincidentally, a similar question arose in the public accounts committee this morning that was related to a conflict of interest and a question of whether a member should recuse himself from any activity of the committee.

It was the opinion of legal counsel, and I concur, that the member has rights as a full member of this committee. He is assigned to this committee at this time, and there is no requirement, obligation, or reason for him to recuse himself. That is his decision, should he become aware of a reason that would require him to recuse himself. The committee cannot force a member to recuse himself.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hubbard, please.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make an amendment to Mr. Martin's motion by deleting all the words after the first word, “that”, and replacing them with the following:

in order to examine whether there were violations of ethical and code of conduct standards--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Where would it be amended?

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

It would be after the first word, “That”. So it would read as follows:

That in order to examine whether there were violations of ethical and code of conduct standards by any office holder, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics review matters relating to the Mulroney Airbus settlement, including any and all new evidence, testimony, and information not available at the time of settlement and including allegations relating to the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney made by Karlheinz Schreiber, and in particular the handling of allegations by the present government, including the circulation of relevant correspondence in the Privy Council Office and Prime Minister's Office; that Karlheinz Schreiber be called to be a witness before the committee without delay; and that the committee report to the House its findings, conclusions, and recommendations thereon.

Mr. Chair, I believe this would further clarify to the public of Canada just how this matter has been handled. We've heard allegations in terms of correspondence being received and affidavits being presented, and I think as parliamentarians we have every right to see the trail those affidavits and correspondence have made, no matter which office holder holds them or where they were disposed of, and in particular what the result was in this particular case.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'll now hear from Mr. Wallace--