Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to agree with Mr. Thibault, because this is a very important matter. Over the weekend, I was meeting my constituents. They watched me on TV and they were asking what was happening with this committee. This committee is often of interest to British Columbians and also to Canadians.

The reason I personally support this motion is that it will give us at least a plan for our holiday season, so we know what is coming, and so that we can plan, because we do not want to plan a day at a time. We know that this will take longer than that. I personally will support this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame Lavallée, s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, I'm quite satisfied with Pat Martin's motion as it is worded. However, there is some urgency. The urgent need to hear from Mr. Schreiber and his eventual departure were important for me.

Second, I thought it would be normal for us to extend our meeting times to allow Mr. Mulroney to respond before the holidays. I don't see the urgent need to do that in January, but, if my colleagues convince me that it is urgent to do so in January, before Parliament returns, that will be fine. Essentially, I have nothing against it, but I would like us to take all the necessary time between now and the holidays to hear the testimony of Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Mulroney.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

And finally, Mr. Del Mastro.

This will be the final one. Then we'll deal with the votes on the amendments.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Walsh, I have a very specific question. This motion that we're currently debating lends to the understanding that there is urgency that this committee must deal with all of this forthright and get as many people in as possible, that we'd better not do things like seniors clinics, or passport clinics, or tax clinics in our riding, or any kind of constituent support, we'd better be here because this is really important stuff we're dealing with.

But in 2004, before the public accounts committee, you expressed concern with the redundancy of a committee study and a public inquiry going on at the same time....

Hold on, this is important.

I need an opinion on this motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

We're dealing now with Mr. Martin's motion.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

No, with due respect, Mr. Chair, I have the floor, and I have the right to raise my concern.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Please understand that Mr. Walsh is here to assist in terms of answering the questions. You're moving too close to debating with Mr. Walsh.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I am not debating with Mr. Walsh, I'm asking Mr. Walsh for an opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

But the motion does not involve Mr. Walsh, it involves Mr. Martin.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'm not suggesting it does, nor did I.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It's Mr. Martin's motion that the steering committee effectively consider a plan to have, if we need them, extended hours. It's not necessarily that you must have extended hours, but the steering committee would consider a plan, probably consult with all of the members, to find out what's possible and come back with a recommendation. As you know, what the steering committee reports back to this committee is not binding, it has to be adopted, or any part of it adopted, by the committee--it's just rather than us taking up all our time here.

So I would ask you respectfully, please let's deal with the intent of the motion. I'll give you some latitude--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I am dealing with the intent of the motion, because the motion is putting forward that there is urgency. It proposes that we extend hours, that we extend dates, that we come back over Christmas break. That's what the motion is, that there is urgency. Absolutely that's what the motion is saying.

In my personal opinion, all of the parties screamed for a public inquiry. There is a public inquiry and that is going to commence. The outlines for that public inquiry are going to be tabled prior to us returning. We'll know what that is and certainly once that is set this committee can proceed in an organized fashion and might, who knows, actually produce a report that has some value.

I just cannot understand the urgency that's being put forward. If this isn't a witch hunt, and this motion isn't trying to support the ongoing commencement of a witch hunt, then I don't understand what the motion's brought forward for.

I will be voting against the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. Thank you kindly.

I believe the motion is self-evident. I think what we're going to do, first of all, because we did have an amendment, is ask the clerk to clearly advise the committee members what the amendment is and exactly where it goes in this motion, just so that you are clear what we are voting on. Is that acceptable?

Mr. Clerk, would you please do that.

[The Clerk]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Monsieur Thibault moved—this is subject to his correcting me—that in the second line we delete the words “meeting for two hours twice a week”, and in the end of the third line delete “for”, and on the fourth line “each hearing, extended hearings each week, and”.

I believe we have that correct, Mr. Thibault? Those are deletions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, they're all deletions. There are no insertions.

Does everyone understand the amendment?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I've scratched out what you told me. Could you read it now, as scratched out?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You want to know, if the amendment passes, how it would read. That's fair enough.

Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk]

The full motion, with the amendment included, is that it is moved by Pat Martin from Winnipeg Centre:

That notwithstanding the usual format of the Committee, that the Committee subcommittee on agenda and procedure meet today 27 November to develop a plan for extended hours and sitting when the House is not sitting so that hearings on the current topic before the Committee can be concluded and a Report transmitted to the House on a timely manner, and that the subcommittee report back to the Committee at the beginning of its hearing on 29 November.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

I want to take a moment, please.

Members have heard what the motion would say if the amendment carries, so I will now call the question on the amendment of Mr. Thibault, as explained to you.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

So that is unanimous.

Now the motion as amended; I think we've had enough here.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

First of all, I want to thank the committee very much for giving me the latitude to make my report and to have a round table of questions. Equitably, it shows good faith on behalf of all members. I think it was productive, and nobody was worried about equity. Everyone was given a fair opportunity. So I thank you for that consideration.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, what I care to do now is to have Mr. Walsh—because I fully expect Mr. Schreiber to be here on Thursday—to provide us with some words of wisdom, which he in fact provided to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates when we were considering the case of George Radwanski, former privacy commissioner. We were in the in camera hearings dealing with matters of privilege, which ultimately led to Mr. Radwanski leaving that post.

It was extremely helpful to the committee members then, and I think his advice to us, his thoughts to us, would be helpful, so that we understand what the boundaries are of our questions, given the mandate of the committee and the order, and also some of the legal rights and privileges of us and others appearing before us, etc. I think the knowledge of that is going to be extremely important.

At this time, I'm going to move to Mr. Walsh to give us some advice. After he gives a brief presentation, then maybe there'll be some questions for him as well.

Mr. Walsh, how long do you need? Five minutes?

Okay, please proceed.

[Rob Walsh]

I'm very flattered by what you just said, Mr. Chairman, but I don't know how much of it would stand the test of time.

However, much of the advice that I might offer from time to time is a function of the particular situation that the committee is in, so it's hard for me to speak now without having a particular situation that's emerged.

Let me just offer these general guidelines. When—and I won't say “if”—Mr. Schreiber is here Thursday morning and speaks to the committee, there might be some sub judice consideration for committee members. In other words, I expect he still will be awaiting a response to his application for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada, and that matter itself should not be the subject of comment by committee members.

Also, in the course of his testimony it may be that he makes allegations or provides testimony that reflects on third parties who are not yet heard by the committee. I would recommend that committee members be mindful of the fact that these third parties to whom he might refer would not have had an opportunity to say anything yet, and what he may say about third parties should not be used in a manner that's detrimental to the good reputation of third parties, beyond what is necessary for the purposes of hearing Mr. Schreiber's testimony. It's a sense of fairness. That's all I'm saying.

Sometimes, as happened with Radwanski, if my memory serves, it can happen that there are some issues emerging of a kind where third parties are coming up, private citizens. The committee went in camera to hear the testimony, at least initially, to see that nobody was unnecessarily injured or offended by what the testimony might say. I seem to recall on many occasions when the committee came back out of camera that the same testimony was led, because it turned out there was nothing there that was injurious to any third party.

It's a matter of exercising some care about the interests of third parties who may come up in the course of his testimony. You can't predict this; it just may happen. But if it does happen, one should be cautious and not pursue that recklessly, because it may well prove to be untrue, or there may well be an answer by the person that would put a serious qualification on what he's saying. It's a question of fairness, that's all.

Apart from that, the sub judice rule is something to consider.

I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether I can offer much more than that at this time. We just await the unfolding of events and deal with situations as they emerge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We have a couple of people who wanted to ask you some questions.

Mr. Hiebert, followed by Madame Lavallée.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a number of questions, and I'd like to start by asking Mr. Walsh to clarify for this committee what the sub judice principle actually is in terms of its application to this committee.