Evidence of meeting #4 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 schreiber.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
My view is that I think the committee has done the right thing. We've summoned the individual. Let's assume that he'll meet the summons. There was a discussion about whether he gets to go home and change and look at his documents, but he seemed to have his documents to do his affidavit.
If he's here on Thursday as we requested with the “and/or” piece in the motion, and if two hours is not long enough, I think it's up to the committee's obligation to extend the meeting. We have him out of jail; we have him here. We can extend the meeting all day, if we want to talk to him all day. It has nothing to do, at this particular moment, with the special warrant piece or a motion from the House. I think we can do our job with Mr. Schreiber if he agrees to appear.
If he does not agree to appear on Thursday, then I think this committee has an issue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Wallace.
Of course, the committee is the master of its own destiny. It can, as a consequence of our discussions, decide that it would like to have an opportunity to recall Mr. Schreiber after Mr. Mulroney appears. That is also a possibility, but that decision has not been taken. It is a subsequent decision of this committee.
We have now finished discussions specifically about my report, but if any members have any questions for me for clarification or if they require any information whatsoever, please ask. You can have anything I have. I have no secrets, no notes, that you can't have. It's open.
Now I would like to move to our motions. We're going to have a little difficulty here—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Because I've had some preconsultation, and....
We have received six motions in total. I am advised by the clerk that the final two from Madame Lavallée have not had 24 hours' notice. For us to consider them, the committee would have to give its consent. But as is our practice, I asked the committee for its concurrence. The committee, I believe, agreed that we would deal with the motions in order of the date and time they were received.
So the first motion to be addressed is a motion from Mr. Pat Martin. I think he knows which one it is. This is to deal with the Speaker's warrants.
Is that correct, Mr. Martin? Are you prepared to move that motion?
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It's my firm belief that as interesting as this academic exercise has been, the plan of action undertaken so far has failed to yield the desired results. As evidence of that, Mr. Schreiber is not here today. I believe there are fatal flaws in the plan of action as it currently stands.
Therefore, I would like us to switch to plan B, which is the motion that I put forward, and then I would like to speak to the motion very briefly.
I move: That this Committee directs the Chair to immediately contact the Speaker of the House and urge him to issue two Speaker's Warrants, one to compel Mr. Schreiber to appear before the Committee, and another to compel the head of the institution where Mr. Schreiber is currently in custody to turn Mr. Schreiber over to the custody of the Speaker. Further, that this Committee directs the Chair to obtain agreement from the Speaker that arrangements will be made so that a) Mr. Schreiber can have continuing access to papers which are in his possession; b) Mr. Schreiber be able to appear before Committee in business dress and without obvious security measures; c) that Mr. Schreiber be brought to the Committee as required by the Committee and for so long as the Committee may require his appearance as a witness. The Committee recommends to the Speaker that guarded house arrest be considered an appropriate arrangement.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to that just briefly to explain four brief points. It is less than one page.
First of all, Mr. Schreiber may want to attend voluntarily, but he is in custody, and he has no control of his movements. So the head of the institution where Mr. Schreiber is confined has no authority to permit him to attend committee meetings or to permit him to attend out of custody, and we believe that only a Speaker's—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I apologize, Mr. Martin, but a point of order has to be recognized.
Go ahead, Mr. Tilson, please.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman and Mr. Martin, as I understand what has just been said by Mr. Walsh—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Tilson, what is your point of order? If this is debate, I will hear from you.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
It's out of order. What I am trying to say is that the motion is out of order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
All right, please speak to the point of order that this motion is out of order.
Thank you. That's in order.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, as I understand what Mr. Walsh has said to the committee, the process that is to follow—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You can't have a point of order on a point of order, Mr. Asselin.
Please, let's deal with these in an orderly fashion.
Mr. Tilson, please, I want you to continue. Finish your comments on your point of order.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
As I understand the process, Mr. Chairman, the committee, through you, brings a motion to the House asking the House to direct the chair to issue a Speaker's warrant. That's what I understood the process to be from Mr. Walsh.
This motion doesn't say that.
That is the appropriate procedure. That is the procedure of this place, of Parliament. The motion says that “ this Committee directs the Chair to immediately contact the Speaker of the House and urge him to issue two Speaker's Warrants”. If I am interpreting what Mr. Walsh says, the Speaker can't do that. The only way the Speaker can do that is on the direction of the House. That isn't what this motion says.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the motion is out of order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
Mr. Walsh, is there anything you have to offer on this in terms of the process and whether what Mr. Martin's motion prescribes would be entertained?
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I couldn't comment as to whether the motion is or is not in order as a procedural matter, but at a more substantive level, to the extent the motion proposes that you, as chair, would simply speak to the Speaker about getting warrants issued, I think that would not be possible, given what the procedure requires. Now, whether that makes the motion out of order or not, I don't know.
