Evidence of meeting #45 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 questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I'd like to call the question. And I just want to ask a question of....
I'm sorry, Mr. Tilson, but I had not finished. My original reason for having my hand up, before Mr. Goodyear made his point of order, which turned out not to be a point of order, was to ask a question of Mr. Martin concerning his motion. Mr. Martin, in his motion, refers to “the list as...amended by the decision of the chair”. I want to ask this. Did he also mean to say “and upheld by the committee”?
2:30 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
If I may, Mr. Chair, through you, for the record, that is what I intended. I think in the words I used it was implicit that the ruling of the chair had been upheld by the committee.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. The transcript of the meeting will in fact reflect what actually was said. I think we're in good order, but thank you for that observation.
Mr. Tilson asked for the floor.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Before we start the debate, I just want to be clear as to what the motion is doing. The resolution essentially confirms what the chair has done, with the exception of deleting Mr. Sears' name.
In other words—just so I'm clear—the list stands with the exception of all the names submitted by the Conservative Party of Canada. So all the names of the Conservative Party of Canada have been deleted.
I want to be clear on the motion before we start debate, just so I know. I don't see any names submitted by the Conservative Party of Canada left on the list. Are there some left? Maybe the odd one?
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
Ms. Jennings, please come to order.
Mr. Tilson, you had the floor and you made an observation. I've checked the list and you are correct.
This is not a debate, though. We have to debate the motion.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
As I understand the resolution, all the names submitted by the Conservative Party have been taken off, and no other names have been taken off. Is that correct?
I just want to make sure I understand the motion.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We have the motion before us. Is the committee ready?
The motion that Robin Sears be removed from the proposed witness list, that the list as amended be agreed to, and that the chair be authorized to begin inviting and scheduling the witnesses to appear during the week of August 11, 2008, is the motion before us, moved by Mr. Martin.
Mr. Martin, do you wish to speak to your motion?
2:35 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Yes, if I could just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to wait and see if in fact you deemed it to be in order, and I am glad you have.
I would simply say that it isn't a coincidence that virtually every name put forward by the Conservative Party has been struck from the list. It's simply because none of them are in order. None of them had anything to do with the 2006 federal election or the fundraising scheme by the Tories.
I would also say that voting for this motion does not preclude adding witnesses at a later time to our study. It isn't unusual for a committee, at the early stages of a study, to agree upon a witness list that gets us started and sets the first few days of hearing witnesses, and as we reach the end of that witness list, we may want to recall the same witness back for clarification or we may want to call a brand new witness. In other words, the Conservative Party would be perfectly free, and I would think it would be in order at a later time, to put forward other names that they might like to hear as witnesses, as long as it's relevant and within the mandate of the motion that established this particular study of this committee.
That said, those who are voting for this motion should do so with the knowledge that it does not preclude any of the parties from putting forward further names after our meetings in August are wrapped up and if we want to book further dates to hear further witnesses.
Thank you.
2:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
At the top of the witness list I have Mr. John Courtney, Mr. Andrew Heard, and Ms. Heather MacIvor. I note that none of them were involved in the 2006 election; they are being allowed to stay on the list. Why? Because they are prepared--or are at least going to be invited--to offer commentary about that election and the electoral financing of one party during that election even if they weren't part of that election. Logically, if they are being permitted to stay on the list, then so should a whole group of other individuals who might also offer testimony about the 2006 electoral financing practices of the Conservative Party.
So even the pretext, which by itself is unjustifiable, for excluding all of the Conservative-called witnesses--even if it was true--has not been evenly applied, because we are allowing people to stay on the list who had nothing to do with the 2000 election and nothing to do with the Conservative Party practices during that election.
I find it interesting that Mr. Martin wants to have Robin Sears removed. Robin Sears is not being called to comment on past electoral practices. He was being called to comment on the practices of the Conservative Party from the last election on which he has been a commentator. The only reason that Mr. Martin and the opposition want him removed is that he might say something they don't agree with. That is basically the only criterion that is being applied to the admissibility of witnesses here. If the opposition disagrees with the sentiments of or is afraid of the information that a perspective witness might divulge, then that witness is precluded from attending the committee. That is the extent of what we've heard so far.
I can't possibly imagine how that is justifiable.
Let's assume that the opposition was correct, that none of the other parties engaged in the electoral practices in the last election that they accuse us of. If that's the case, then why don't they just let these witnesses appear and prove it? They can come before us; it will only take a few minutes. We'll ask our questions, they'll give their answers, and if the in and out transfers of which we are accused are not applicable to any other party in any other election, then that would become very apparent very, very quickly. Of course, we know at the heart of this that every party has done exactly the same thing as the Conservative Party stands accused of by the opposition. If we are given a fair chance to hear about the practices of the other parties, it'll become patently obvious to all of us that is the case.
Mr. Chair, you have taken your instructions from the Leader of the Opposition's office to banish anyone from the list that they believe would be damaging to the Liberal case. The other parties, in an effort to cover up their own activities and their own electoral hypocrisy, have given you an additional list of people to banish. And interestingly, if you want to look for something consistent in how you have determined the witness list, the only thing consistent here is that every person you have denied the right to testify or removed from the list of testimony is a Conservative submission--every single one of them. Every one that you allowed was an opposition submission. That is the only thing consistent about your ruling. There is no other justification that would apply evenly throughout the list. As such, I will be opposing this list.
In addition, members of Parliament and cabinet ministers are under no obligation to come before this committee, and I doubt very much that they will be participating in your kangaroo court. So you can take that prediction for what it's worth.
Thank you very much.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Chair, the committee confirmed your ruling on the basis that the suggested witnesses that you ruled out of order were out of order. Your ruling was confirmed because there was no credible reason to believe that these witnesses would have any knowledge of the activities of the Conservative Party of Canada, in relation to certain election campaign expenses and the ethical standards of public office holders, during the 2006 election campaign.
One of my colleagues on the other side, Mr. Poilievre, raises the issue of the list of experts on election laws, who were ruled in order and relevant. This committee sustained your ruling on them.
I would simply like to make one point. Mr. John Courtney is a political scientist at the University of Saskatchewan, Diefenbaker Canada Centre, and an expert on Canada's electoral system. Why? Because he actually does scientific research on it.
Mr. Andrew Heard is an associate professor of political science at Simon Fraser University who also does scientific research on Canada's electoral system.
Heather MacIvor teaches political science at the University of Windsor. She is another political scientist and academic researcher who does scientific research on Canada's electoral system.
Mr. Martin made a motion to amend the list, on which you made a ruling that the committee sustained, in order to remove the name of Mr. Robin Sears. Mr. Robin Sears, to my knowledge, is not an academic and has not made a living doing scientific research on Canada's electoral system. My understanding is that he's a communications adviser to the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. If he is not in this position now, he was in the past. He is clearly not a non-partisan potential witness, as the academics are. That's the first thing.
Mr. Chair, I would also propose an amendment to Mr. Martin's motion. My amendment would delete the name of Jean Landry and Lise Vallières. We find them on page four, in the middle. The line begins, “Richmond—Arthabaska: Jean Landry (candidat) et Lise Vallières (agent officiel)”, submitted by the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois. I would suggest that we remove them. I think this would probably make the Conservative Party MPs who are members of this committee happy.
2:40 p.m.
An hon. member
Very happy.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Mr. Landry was actually a Conservative candidate in the 2006 election. I'm proposing, through my amendment, that we remove his name.
I would say that there are plenty of Conservative potential witnesses on this list, so I have a difficult time understanding why Mr. Poilievre, Mr. Tilson, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Goodyear are so upset that a number of their proposed witnesses have been deleted. There are plenty of Conservative members who were candidates in the 2006 election and who remain on the list. There are plenty of examples: Ann Julie Fortier, Liberato Martelli, David Marler, Gary Caldwell, Joe Goudie, Cynthia Downey, Sam Goldstein, Elizabeth Pagtakhan, Louise O'Sullivan, and Steve Halicki.
Mr. Chairman, let me read a couple of others who are on the list and are actual office holders. Where are they? Allow me to name a few: Maxime Bernier, of Beauce; his official agent, Aline Drouin; Madame Josée Verner...
Josée Verner is a public office holder. Her name is still on the list. The Conservatives should be happy. If we look at the witness list, we can see the following names: Christian Paradis, who was just promoted in Mr. Harper's last cabinet shuffle, and his official agent, Manon Blanchette; Stockwell Day, the Minister of Public Safety, and his official agent, Neil Jamieson; Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and Political Lieutenant for Quebec, and Marc Lafrenière, his official agent; and Jay Hill, the government whip, and his official agent, Cecil C. Cranston.
As I said, and I have not named all of them, there are a lot of Conservative members. There are even public office holders who are Conservatives or official agents of Conservatives who are still on the list. I am wondering what the four Conservatives sitting in front of me are crying about.
The purpose of my motion is to remove the name of Jean Landry and his official agent, Lise Vallières.
So I amend it to remove the names of Jean Landry and Lise Vallières from the list of witnesses, and to add to the motion that the chair have the power to issue subpoenas for these witnesses who remain on the list, if necessary.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Madame Jennings has proposed an amendment. The effect of the amendment is to delete two additional names, Jean Landry and Lise Vallières, and to authorize the chair to issue summonses to any witness who may be summonsed—because as we know, MPs cannot be, without a House order—and that the chair be authorized, at his discretion, to summons any witness who may be a witness but who refuses the committee's invitation to appear.
This is an amendment to the motion. It would read formally that the motion be amended by adding, after the words “Robin Sears”, the names Jean Landry and Lise Vallières; and that the chair be authorized, at his discretion, to summons any witness who may be summonsed but who refuses the committee's invitation to appear.
That is the amendment to the motion that is already on the floor. We are resuming debate on the amendment.
Mr. Tilson.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, I have a question on the amendment.
Can the committee do a subpoena without some sort of support from the House?
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The committee, under Standing Order 108, has the right to call for persons, papers, or records. It's a subdelegation. In fact, the amendment that we're dealing with, with regard to the chair's authorization, is the precise motion we passed at the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings because the committee was concerned that, as the clerk and the chair tried to find witnesses, the only way it could issue a summons would be to come before the committee to get the approval of a motion to summons a witness, which meant we'd have to bring everybody to Ottawa to have a meeting just to get authorization for a summons. The solution to that was simply to authorize the chair.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
So you don't need to go to the House as we did with the other hearing?
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, not to call for persons, papers, or records.
We cannot summons members of Parliament. The only way a member of Parliament could be brought before a committee is if there were a House order.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Okay. I hope you're right.
I know you're right about the members, but my question is with respect to individuals. If they choose not to appear, I think you need something from the House.