Evidence of meeting #46 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 witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I know.
The clerk's report to me is only in one official language. So as you know, we have to deal with this. I want to make sure--
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The quote here from this one person is that—and this is the statement by the clerk who took the call—“He informed me that the party has told them to decline all invitations.” That is a quote that has been recorded in this report on trying to get witnesses.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You have nothing in writing. All you have is a written report from the clerk as to conversations she's had.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
It is from the phone calls of the clerk to the proposed witnesses as approved by this committee. That is following the rules to make contact. I could indicate to you that my instruction to them, first of all, was to get a preliminary indication of their availability at any time during the four days we had agreed to meet.
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
2:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I think something's wrong here. I have the right to ask these questions.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. Order, please.
I understand this is a very serious issue, and you know that I raised it tangentially last week when it was reported in the press that the word was out. I think that was the way it was reported. I take this very seriously.
We will deal with this. Because we're dealing with future witnesses and meeting dates, we will probably want to go through all 79 to just confirm to the members.
This is not translated into French, though, is it? And it's updated daily, so....
Let me see what I can do. We will deal with this, Mr. Tilson. Thank you for raising the point.
Now, there was another. Mr. Del Mastro, you had a point of order.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Yes, on a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm just concerned. It seems there's been a bit of a departure from the precedent that was set when Mr. Mayrand was here. Mr. Mayrand was allowed to exercise sub judice privilege. He was also not sworn in.
We seemed, on a whim, to change that precedent today. It seems that once again we're establishing a double standard whereby certain witnesses will be held to a certain standard, others will not. Some will be held to a certain expectation of forthrightness, others will not.
We would very much like you to consider that. Certainly if Mr. Mayrand is coming back, I hope he will be held to the same account as we're holding these witnesses to, understanding that that is in very stark contrast to the expectation he was held to the first time he appeared.
I hope that's going to be the case; otherwise I think we're clearly setting up another double standard at this committee, yet another double standard at this committee, and I hope that is not the case.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.
Your point is of interest. I can indicate to you that the question you raise was dealt with fully at our last two meetings when we dealt with the sub judice convention and why Mr. Mayrand was permitted to not answer certain questions that were before the investigation.
You weren't at those hearings, but if you have a look at them you will be satisfied that I explained to the committee right at the outset that a condition precedent for Mr. Mayrand to appear was that he would not be put in a position to have to answer questions that could potentially prejudice or compromise his investigation. As chair, I agreed to that condition, and that's one of the reasons he did not respond to certain specific questions directly related to the investigation.
As to swearing in, it is a decision of the committee. There was no request for Mr. Mayrand to be sworn in. I didn't see any reason for him, as an officer of Parliament appointed by the Prime Minister, in one of the top responsible positions of the government, to be sworn in. So I did not take that step. It was not an omission; it simply was not viewed to be appropriate.
So that deals with the two points you raised.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Supplemental to that--this is important, Pat--may other witnesses invoke the same privilege to sub judice rights at this committee? Since we've extended it to one, can other witnesses invoke the same right, just in the name of consistency and levelling the playing field?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I wanted to be absolutely sure this was clear, so at the beginning of the meeting this morning, and maybe you weren't--
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I indicated to you that I did get an opinion from the law clerk of the House of Commons.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
--and the sub judice convention is not sufficient reason for a witness to not answer a question. That is the opinion of the chief legal officer of the House of Commons.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Could we get that in writing, Mr. Chair, please? It's important.
