Information & Ethics Committee on July 16th, 2008

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

That's true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. And that's exactly what I did. And then the meeting was over, and the next thing I did, after contacting Mr. Mayrand, was send the letter to him and circulate it to the committee.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

That's not what you said two minutes ago. That's not what you said five minutes ago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm sorry. Maybe I misspoke, but I don't think any record will show from that Thursday meeting that I undertook to contact all of the members on anything. I was authorized by the committee to do it myself.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

By yourself. So you were authorized.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, the committee authorized me to make the arrangement.

Now, first--

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

To make the arrangements for the witness to appear, I totally agree. But as for instructing the witness which questions to ask and which questions not to ask, I don't recall giving you authorization to do that. I don't recall being asked if we could limit the witness questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, order.

You're putting words in my mouth, Mr. Goodyear.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I'm absolutely not doing that, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The fact is that--and I think Mr. Mayrand may back this up--on the contrary, I never discussed with him the questions he could or could not answer. In fact, in the letter I wrote to him I actually said that I wanted to give him all the time he needed to put the information on the table for the benefit of the members. And it's in the letter.

Now, this is somewhat debate. I think the transcript of that Thursday meeting, the last meeting of the committee before the House rose, will show what the committee authorized the chair to do, and that's precisely what I did.

Now, with regard to the sub judice issue, I have made a ruling and I want to proceed on that basis. I've made the decision. I believe we should get on with the questions, and I'm sure that Mr. Mayrand will answer as many questions as possible. But if they are simply going to be starting at the beginning and just reading all the questions that were asked in the court and asking him to answer on behalf of Elections Canada again, he probably will invoke the sub judice convention.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Now, I hope this is a point of order.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes, on an entirely separate matter, on page 78 of the same book, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, a reference is made to restrictions placed on members of Parliament to make reference in the course of debate to matters awaiting judicial decisions. All the matters that we are discussing in these hearings are awaiting judicial decisions. I'd like to seek your guidance on how we can discuss any of this if we are not allowed to discuss that which awaits a judicial decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

That's not a point of order. That's debate.

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

Sure it is. It's a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That is debate, and I have ruled on this matter.

Colleagues, I can tell you that the first and most important matter I dealt with, with Mr. Mayrand, in making the arrangements for Elections Canada to appear before us was to give him my full assurance with regard to matters that may prejudice or compromise any court or judicial proceeding.

Notwithstanding others' opinions and arguments or references, I can suggest to you that my word is good, Mr. Mayrand, and that I made the understanding with Mr. Mayrand on the full authorization of the committee to go and make the arrangements with Elections Canada. If I've overstepped in terms of doing that, the members may want to deal with me personally. This has nothing to do with Mr. Mayrand. That was my word to him, it was confirmed in writing, and it was also laid out by Mr. Mayrand in his opening remarks. That was the purpose of his opening remarks, to remind us that there was this issue of other proceedings.

So I was clear with Mr. Mayrand and he was clear with me. I thought I was clear with the committee. I thought Mr. Mayrand was clear in his opening statement. I've reaffirmed all this and I've made a decision. That's my ruling.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

On a point of order, Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

This matter is now over. That ruling has been made.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I have a separate point of order.

Given your last ruling—and I'm not going to challenge that ruling at all—that members are not able to repeat questions that have been asked in court proceedings, it is consistently flowing from that ruling that there be another ruling that the Chief Electoral Officer not be permitted, then, to repeat arguments that Elections Canada has made in those same proceedings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, Mr. Poilievre. Again, thank you for the debate. That's not a point of order, and I would ask all honourable members to be careful about interrupting the committee on points of order that are in fact simply opportunities to say things before this committee. We shouldn't abuse that privilege that members have.

I want to move on now to—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I have another point of order. This is related, but—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You've made a ruling. I think your ruling is wrong, but I'm not going to challenge it, because I anticipate that you would be sustained by the other side. They've sustained you in wrong rulings you've made in the past, causing this entire hearing, in fact, to be out of order. I've made that debate in the House of Commons, and you can consult Hansard as to what I said.

I predicted this would become a court of star chamber and I urged the Speaker to effectively suspend the committee so that this court of star chamber wouldn't occur. It now appears to be unfolding as I anticipated. I anticipate that he will find the report not receivable on that basis.

I also argued that the very holding of the committee meetings would effectively do the damage that the Liberals and other opposition parties are seeking to do in tarnishing reputation by dealing with matters before a court.

Having made that preamble, Mr. Chairman, I don't doubt that following your ruling it will now be possible for Mr. Mayrand to say effectively, “On the advice of my solicitor, I refuse to answer that question because it deals with a matter that might reduce my capacity to win a case currently before the courts.” However, it also seems to me—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'm just about to get to the point.