Order. Good morning, colleagues.
First of all, I would like to ask the indulgence of everyone in this room to maintain as much silence as possible so that everyone can hear. It's important there be no distractions.
Secondly, I would implore people to please turn off your cellphones now.
Today we start our formal work on the study of the Mulroney Airbus settlement pursuant to the resolution adopted by the committee on November 22, which reads—and this is important for the members to be reminded of—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 related 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 Right Hon. Brian Mulroney made by Karlheinz Schreiber and, in particular, the handling of allegations by the present and past government including the circulation of relevant correspondence in the Privy Council Office and Prime Ministers 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.
The members will also know that a supplementary motion was passed to call Mr. Schreiber to be here on or before November 29, and also that Mr. Mulroney be called on December 4 and/or December 6 and/or December 11.
Let me propose that I first report to the committee on what has been done since the adoption of that order; second, that I deal with motions from members for which I have received proper notice; and third, that I have Mr. Rob Walsh, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Commons, advise the committee on certain legal and procedural matters to guide the members in the conduct of our examination of witnesses; and finally, that if the committee concurs, that we move in camera for the last part of the meeting—if there is any time left—to consider matters related to the decorum and productivity of the committee.
In discharging the specific instructions of the committee, I used the resources of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Walsh; the clerk and his staff; and Mr. Derek Lee, MP, a lawyer who has authored a book, The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records. Over the last five days, I have sought their advice as chair, but I take full responsibility for the actions taken on behalf of the committee.
On Thursday, November 22, the day of our last meeting, I had a brief meeting with the Clerk of the House of Commons to advise her of the decision of the committee and to ensure that the resources of the House were available to assist as necessary. I then spoke personally to the justice minister to advise him of our decision and that a formal letter was forthcoming.
Just after question period, I received a letter by fax from Mr. Edward L. Greenspan, counsel for Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber, in which he asked to be consulted about the dates and to be advised about the authority under which we claim to be able to call Mr. Schreiber to attend.
By 6 p.m. of the day we last met, a letter was sent to Mr. Schreiber to formally advise him that the committee had called him to appear before us on the Mulroney Airbus settlement on November 27 or November 29, and that he was to reply promptly.
At the same time, I sent a letter to the justice minister formally advising him of our decision and seeking his cooperation to make Mr. Schreiber appear before the committee.
On Friday, November 23, I faxed to Mr. Greenspan a letter, together with a copy of the letter sent to his client, Mr. Schreiber, and offered to speak with him by phone or to meet with him in his Toronto offices on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, at his convenience. That afternoon, Mr. Schreiber, as you know, issued a public statement in which he said he was willing to appear before the ethics committee with certain conditions, some of which this committee discussed, including being able to wear a suit before us; access to his papers; and sufficient time to prepare for his appearance. He also asked for bail, which is being sought by his own legal counsel as part of their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court on the extradition order on Mr. Schreiber.
I also received a phone call from Mr. Greenspan's office and confirmed an appointment in his office at 1 p.m. on Saturday, November 24.
Finally, at 5 p.m. this past Friday, my office received a letter of reply from the justice minister, in which he writes—I'd like to quote from the letter so that all will know—in the middle of that letter the following:
In your letter, you have sought my cooperation in ensuring that Mr. Schreiber appears before the Committee. I have assured the Court of Appeal of Ontario that Mr. Schreiber will not be surrendered before December 1, 2007, and I continue to stand by that commitment. It is important to understand that should the Committee seek to enforce the attendance of an individual before it, this will be a matter for the House of Commons and Speaker to consider.
On Saturday, November 24, I met with Mr. Greenspan and his associate, Ms. Vanessa Christie, for two hours to answer their questions about our proceedings and authority under which the committee can compel Mr. Schreiber to appear before us. I left Mr. Greenspan with a copy of our Standing Orders and a copy of Mr. Lee's book for his reference.
Following that meeting, I had numerous telephone conversations with our clerk and with Mr. Lee to consult with them on certain issues I needed advice on to discuss the timing of our next step.
On Sunday, November 25, due to my concern about the shortness of time and the fact that it became apparent it was unlikely Mr. Schreiber would be able to appear today, I contacted the clerk and instructed him to proceed with the drafting of a summons to require Mr. Schreiber to appear on Thursday, November 29.
Following numerous consultations throughout the day, the decision was taken to proceed with that summons and serve it on Mr. Schreiber on Monday morning. I returned to Ottawa that night to ensure I was in my office early Monday morning to sign the necessary documents.
On Monday, yesterday, the summons was signed in the early morning and was delivered to Mr. Schreiber, with copies to all required persons. I respectfully declined all media interviews on the status of our efforts to have Mr. Schreiber appear, because the committee members themselves had not been fully informed. The law clerk and other legal advisers had been reviewing the process we had followed and the necessary steps yet to be taken.
After question period yesterday, I met with Mr. Walsh and his legal staff, the clerk and assistant, as well as with Mr. Lee to resolve contradictory opinions with regard to jurisdictional authority. There were conflicting views between the Ontario Attorney General's office and the federal justice department as to who could vary the Schreiber court order. At one point, it appeared we would have to go before an Ontario court judge to vary a court order so that Mr. Schreiber could be brought to Ottawa and appear.
Some questions were still not clear, so we had a conference call with Ms. Vanessa Christie from Mr. Greenspan's office. Ms. Christie confirmed they had received no answer on their bail request for Mr. Schreiber, nor did they receive an answer from the federal justice department for a stay on extradition pending their application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. If there is no stay in the extradition, Mr. Schreiber will not be able to appear before us on Thursday and he could be extradited as early as Saturday, December 1.
Ms. Christie also explained, however, that Mr. Schreiber was initially held under a committal order, which is in provincial jurisdiction. He was in the custody of the province.
However, in 2004—previous government—the committal order moved to the surrender stage, which put Mr. Schreiber effectively in the custody of the federal government. So as of today, Mr. Schreiber is in the custody of the federal government. This ministerial order was signed by the then federal justice minister in 2004, and that responsibility carries on to successor justice ministers until Mr. Schreiber is either extradited or cleared.
We had access to these historic documents to confirm that Mr. Schreiber was, in fact, in the custody of the federal government, and that the current Minister of Justice has the full authority to vary his order so that Mr. Schreiber's extradition would be stayed and he would be able to appear before us on Thursday and for as many additional days as the committee felt was necessary.
As a consequence, it was recommended to me, and I agreed, to send the following letter—this was yesterday—to the Minister of Justice:
Further to my letter dated November 22nd and your response of November 23rd, the Committee has issued a Summons to Karlheinz Schreiber ordering him to appear before the committee before 11 am on Thursday, November 29, 2007. I have attached a copy of that summons to this letter. Pursuant to the Order of Surrender under the Extradition Act, we understand that it is within your authority to delay completion of that Order until other matters are resolved. The Committee would hope that you would take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that Mr. Schreiber appears before the Committee in compliance with both the Summons and the motion adopted by the Committee....In particular we seek your assurance that Mr. Schreiber will not be extradited to Germany until such time as the Committee no longer requires him.
I thought it was over, but this morning at 10:10 I received a reply from Mr. Nicholson. It's important, and I want to read it into the record also:
Dear Mr. Szabo: Further to my letter of November 23, 2007, and my assurance to the Ontario Court of Appeal, I confirm that Mr. Schreiber will not be surrendered to Germany prior to December 1, 2007,
—i.e., Saturday—
and consequently, his extradition will not prevent his appearance before the Standing Committee on Access to Information Privacy and Ethics on November 29th. You have asserted that I have the authority pursuant to the Extradition Act to delay the execution of the order surrendering Mr. Schreiber to Germany until the resolution of “other matters”. The Extradition Act provides me with no such authority.
Let me repeat: according to the justice minister, the Extradition Act provides him with no such authority to vary that order.
While surrender may be delayed pending an appeal, judicial review, completion of outstanding criminal proceedings or the service of a Canadian criminal sentence, there is no broad general discretion to delay. I would therefore encourage the Committee to proceed expeditiously. Finally, with respect to Mr. Schreiber's attendance before the committee in compliance with the summons issued on November 26, 2007, as I emphasized in my letter of November 23, 2007, the enforcement of the attendance of a witness by the Committee is a matter for the House and the Speaker to consider.
The justice minister says it is not our decision. It is a matter for the House and the Speaker to consider.
In our system of government, having regard to the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, it would not be appropriate for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to seek to enforce the summons of a Parliamentary Committee.
Section 108(1) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons empowers all standing committees to call for persons, papers, or records. There is no disagreement by any person with whom I have consulted or who has advised me that we have the full authority of Parliament to summons Mr. Schreiber to appear.
If Mr. Schreiber is able to appear but fails to appear without justification, he could be cited by the House for contempt of Parliament. Furthermore, if the Minister of Justice ignores this order of Parliament and does not vary his surrender order to permit Mr. Schreiber to appear, he may also be cited by the House to be in contempt of Parliament.
In my opinion, I fully expect Mr. Schreiber to appear before us on Thursday, November 29. The ball is now in the minister's court.
I will now ask Mr. Rob Walsh to approach the witness table. He will assist me in responding to any of your questions or comments.
Julia is going to make a speakers list, so please advise me if you have any comments or questions.
Mr. Dhaliwal is first, then Mr. Hiebert, and Mr. Martin.
Yes, Mr. Martin, on a point of order.
