Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 11th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

This is the 46th meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. It has to do with the Conservative Party of Canada's activities during the 2006 election in relation to certain election campaign expenses, and the ethical standards of public office-holders as a consequence.

Colleagues, as you know, the committee submitted a list of 79 witnesses. I want to first report to the committee that the clerk's office did an excellent job in making all attempts to contact these proposed witnesses. The chair had no direct contact with any witness at any time, other than Mr. Mayrand, whom you know I spoke to in our last meeting, and Mr. Saunders, the public prosecutor, who contacted me with regard to questions about their appearance.

I'm not going to give a full report on the 79 witnesses, but I can indicate that a very large number of them gave valid or compassionate reasons for not being available to appear before us during these four days of hearings.

I also will indicate that on July 31 I did in fact issue summonses for 31 persons. These summonses were issued because there was no response to our invitation to appear, or they declined to appear, or they would not confirm their attendance on the day. Those who responded, as I indicated, with valid or compassionate reasons were not summonsed.

I want to also indicate to members that I have received an opinion from the law clerk of the House of Commons in regard to the sub judice convention. As you know, it is a voluntary convention. It basically is a statement that a witness will not be able to answer a question because it involves another proceeding in which they are a party. However, in regard to our hearings, since Mr. Mayrand's situation was specific, the law clerk has indicated that the sub judice convention is not--and I repeat, not--a valid reason for not answering a question. Mr. Mayrand did invoke that privilege as it was agreed upon as a condition of his appearing as a witness, as you know.

Finally, with regard to general process, this morning we have six witnesses on the orders of the day. On Friday, one witness wrote to the clerk advising that this was the only day they would be available, but that did not happen until after summonses had been issued and the notices of meetings with the witness schedule had been put in place. This morning we do have five of the six witnesses, I believe, who have appeared. This is a two-hour session. It's going to take the two hours to deal with them. However, the witness who wrote to the clerk, which I found out about on Friday, has appeared this morning. That is Mr. Doug Finley. As you know, he's the campaign manager of the Conservative Party of Canada's campaign.

I responded on Friday to Mr. Finley that we did not have time this morning to hear him. He was scheduled to appear on Wednesday. I also offered, because of our light schedule on Thursday, that this would be another opportunity for him to appear. At this time I'm proposing to move forward with the actual scheduled witnesses, and should there be time at the end, we will deal with Mr. Finley, if that's acceptable to the committee.

Finally, with regard to—

[An hon. member]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, please—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Let me just finish my opening statement.

Finally, with regard to the timing of the various sessions, although they're generally specified, as you know, the committee can go for a period that they feel is appropriate to a logical stopping point. We're going to be somewhat flexible. I'm not going to just cut people off.

The last thing is that I'd like instruction from the committee. As you know, during the hearings before the public accounts committee, all witnesses were sworn in. I'm seeking whether or not the committee is of the view that witnesses in this proceeding should be sworn in.

Could I get an indication?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

To swear them in? Okay. So all the witnesses will be sworn in.

That said—

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I have a point of order, please, Mr. Chair. You're jumping ahead. You have to recognize the point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I will.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

You have to recognize it right away, Mr. Chairman. It may pertain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Then on the matter of points of order, as you know, Mr. Goodyear, points of order relate to repetition, relevance, or procedural matters. If you have a point of order, sir, I'd like you first to indicate the basis—is it repetition, relevance, or procedural—before you state your case.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Well, this is procedural, but now you've raised a second point of order. I would like to see the standing orders that say a member has to do that in calling a point of order. Once again, Mr. Chair, you're inventing the rules as you go.

But that said, on my procedural matter, with respect to the witness, Mr. Doug Finley, I would actually request that the chair allow this witness to appear. As members know, Mr. Finley was in fact—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please. Order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I'm speaking to my point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order. You are debating, Mr. Goodyear.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

No, I'm not. This is a procedural matter, where the chair has the right to change the schedule.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

It's a procedural matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand that.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

My point of order is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please. Order, sir.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

—that I appeal to the chair to simply accept the rules—

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

—that the chair can make the decision to add a new—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Goodyear—

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I don't know why you don't want to hear from one of the most important witnesses. Why are you trying to control the witnesses' testimony? Do you not want to hear the truth, Mr. Chair?

We have one of the most important witnesses before us today who has said that he's not available on Thursday. We have only three witnesses this afternoon. It's quite easy to get all these witnesses in today. I would appeal to you on procedural grounds that you stop being partisan and allow the witness, Mr. Doug Finley, who played a major role in the campaign that we're talking about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.