Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 12th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Colleagues, this is meeting 47 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Our order of the day is the motion approved by the committee, that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for certain election campaign expenses in order to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office-holders.

Colleagues, this morning we have four witnesses, all of whom received summons. I regret to inform you that they have not appeared. Accordingly, I suspend until 2 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

We are resuming the committee's proceedings on the motion adopted by the committee, which is that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for certain election expenses in order to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office-holders.

This afternoon we had six witnesses who were to appear before us. Mr. Ken Brownridge was summonsed and subsequently provided a statement of health problems and is not here. Mr. Michael Gilmore expressed reservations about appearing, was issued a summons, and did not agree to appear. And Mr. Sam Goldstein, who was issued a summons, is willing to appear but not today. He offered to do it another day.

We do, however, have with us Mr. Douglas Lowry, Mr. David Marler, and Mr. Geoffrey Webber.

Gentlemen, thank you kindly for appearing. And I would ask....

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

On a point of order, Mr. Tilson.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned that you've given an explanation as to why some of the witnesses aren't here today. It was rather unusual, your performance here this morning, when you opened up the meeting, and I believe four or five witnesses were not present.

Sir, you didn't allow any time for debate or questions as to what the committee would do or whether the committee was concerned about that. These meetings are very expensive to hold. It's expensive for members to come. It's expensive for the staff to be here. It's expensive, and to simply dismiss that was rather uncalled for.

Most of those three witnesses--I think there were five witnesses, rather--all came from the province of Quebec. We don't know why they weren't here. You didn't indicate whether they said they would not be here. You didn't seem to know. You didn't say. They may all have been travelling together. I don't know. Maybe they were travelling by train. Maybe there was a delay somehow. Normally what you do, Mr. Chairman, from any experience I've had either in committees or in courts of law, is number one, the person in charge of the hearing, who is you, consults with other members of the committee and possibly suspends the meeting, not for three or four hours but for half an hour, to see whether these witnesses are going to telephone the clerk's office or whether they're going to come. But you haven't allowed that.

So sir, once again you've blown it. We now have no idea whether these witnesses appeared some time between 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock. We don't know that, because you suspended the meeting.

My point of order, sir, is that in the future.... I think you were out of order in suspending the meeting the way you did. In the future...I believe this is not your show; this is the show of the ethics committee, and we should all be consulted as to what we're going to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson, for your input.

Sorry?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I was just asking for the floor.

Go ahead, please. I'm asking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Tilson, as I was saying, the issue of witnesses not appearing came up at another meeting. I had indicated that this was a matter the committee would have to address, and I proposed that we deal with it on Thursday, because we don't know who will come or not come and what the committee's decision.... It is a committee decision as to what steps may be taken.

In regard to the four witnesses scheduled to be here today, they were all issued a summons to appear at 10 o'clock this morning. There was no communication today, as I recall, about this morning's forum. There was no communication from any of the four witnesses today to advise us that they weren't going to appear. I do not know the reason they did not appear. That deals with part of your point of order.

With regard to suspending for a short while and discussing and so on, I had indicated that it is a matter this committee is going to have to deal with in regard to witnesses who have been summonsed who have made no effort whatsoever to cooperate. Some did get back to us and just said that they wanted to decline. There's a range of circumstances.

The members raised this with me yesterday. I believe it was you, Mr. Tilson. You asked if you could get a copy of the clerk's report on the various calls. I immediately asked the clerk to have it translated and to make sure it was updated right up to the end of yesterday's hearings.

Questions have been raised about privacy issues. There are personal phone numbers and addresses here of persons who, if this document were to get out into the public domain.... I want the committee to instruct on that and to maybe get advice from House counsel on the privacy considerations. But I have no problem sharing the information with the committee in both official languages, on an embargoed basis, with the copies returned after we deal with them. That would be one possibility.

This is a matter I want to discuss with the committee. It's important. I hope the committee will be prepared to suggest to all colleagues how we might approach this. So thank you for raising the issue. It is important, sir.

Now, we have our four witnesses. I want to ask the clerk to please swear in the witnesses.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I have a point of order first, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We'll have Mr. Goodyear on a point of order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chair, I came to you before this meeting and respectfully asked that you offer me the floor so that I wouldn't have to get “ruckusy” on you and demand a point of order. I don't know whether I have a point of order here or a point of clarification or a point of procedure or a point of incompetence. But if I may just speak for a moment, I would like to suggest to you that the interpretation I clearly have is that when this whole process began, and you and your staff began contacting witnesses based on, apparently, a conversation with three of them, you went ahead and issued some 30 summonses. One might consider that to be intimidating.

Then on Monday, when the witnesses showed up—all of them except one—you informed the witnesses that you had changed your mind, and the accommodation, the deal you made with Monsieur Mayrand, the Mayrand accommodation, would not be offered to these witnesses. You also brought in a new procedure. And I would like to know if the witnesses were informed that they would in fact be sworn in. That, to me, indicates that perhaps witnesses might want to have legal counsel. Those procedures, to me, suggest further intimidation.

On Monday, when we had an opening because a witness didn't show, you refused to allow Mr. Finley, who did inform your office that he wouldn't be available later in the week. It is fully customary for chairs to make every effort to accommodate witnesses' schedules. You did not allow Mr. Finley to do that. And besides that, you went to the unprecedented measure of bringing in officers and removing him. That, sir, is intimidation.

That's not to mention that witnesses are watching these proceedings and the number of changes that are being made. Witnesses know full well that these decisions aren't really made by the committee--they're made by the majority on the committee--and that all the Conservative witnesses were deemed to be irrelevant by you, sir, and not allowed. None of the witnesses the Conservative Party put forward were even allowed to be here, because you deemed them to be irrelevant. However, we've seen so far—and I'm sure the witnesses we have today do not fall into this category—that there were a number of these witnesses who offered nothing to this committee.

So sir, I'm suggesting to you that you have to accept responsibility for the falling apart of this committee and the proceedings here. It's your conduct, or lack thereof, that has provided a level of intimidation of witnesses, who possibly do not believe there is any fairness to be had here and that the only fairness they can get is in a real courtroom with trained cross-examination. So sir, I'm suggesting to you that not only have you failed to provide committee members....

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

You can't interrupt me on this. Nice try.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please. Mr. Goodyear has rights. He has the floor, and I'm going to let him complete his statement.

Order, order.

Carry on, Mr. Goodyear.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My point is that we've seen a number of changes, and even if witnesses knew the normal process of committee they would be surprised by them. Offering witnesses closing statements that clearly disallow any questions on what they may or may not say--these types of things are just unprecedented. I suspect that at this point witnesses are realizing this is not the forum where they can speak the truth or get the truth out, and they perhaps have decided to wait for the court.

I'm suggesting to you, Mr. Chair, that not only is this true, but you have not provided this committee, or at least this side of the room, with all the documentation. You admitted this morning--or perhaps it was yesterday, because we weren't offered any time.... Yesterday you said with feigned surprise, “Do you not have the documents from Monsieur Mayrand?” No, we don't have them. How can we ask witnesses questions when we don't have all the research?

Anyway, Mr. Chair, I can tell you that if Canadians haven't already seen this to be a kangaroo court, a forum of complete unfairness...this is not going to result in anything close to the truth. I've suggested that's not what we're after anyway. We are asking you to abide by the rules, follow the fairness and traditions of parliamentary committees, and let's move forward.

We asked yesterday for a review of the witness list, and it was voted down, sir. You will say it was by the committee, but it is not fair to say that. It was voted down by the tyranny of the majority on committee.

We demand the following documentation from you forthwith, with no delays or excuses. We would like a list of all summonses that were issued--all of them. I want a copy of the script that was given to the clerks of the committee for use when they attempted to contact all the persons on the witness lists. I want a copy of the phone logs or similar records, and I want the names of the clerks who made those phone calls and the content of the discussions between the clerks and the witnesses. I want a copy of the affidavits of service. I do not believe that all the witnesses have received their summonses, contrary to your implications. I want copies of all correspondence where accommodations or other arrangements for witnesses were discussed, suggested, or agreed upon.

I apologize to you for not having faith in your word, but I do not have faith in your word. I want to see documentation. I no longer want to see you going out to the media and saying that the Conservative Party is doing this or that when you have absolutely no evidence. These are very aggressive and egregious accusations from a chair who's supposed to be non-partisan but is clearly partisan.

If I can ask one more thing, please do not ask your colleagues across the way to put forward motions that will help you get out of these proceedings. Yesterday you asked one of your colleagues.... I don't want to accuse Mr. Hubbard; I think it was Dominic LeBlanc, but it does not matter. But you turned to your Liberal buddies and said, “Please move a motion to adjourn.” That is not the conduct of a chair; that is the conduct of a puppet. Maybe that's why the witnesses are choosing not to appear before this kangaroo court.

There will be no fairness had here; there will be no truth had here. I've said this before and I'm absolutely sure of it now. The jury across the way has long ago made up its mind because it's politically advantageous to move in this direction. A court of law will provide the absolute truth.

This proceeding is denigrating parliamentary procedure, and you, sir, are at the forefront of it. If you had any decency, sir, you would remove yourself from the chair.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I will repeat myself, if you didn't hear me, Madam Redman. If I moved the motion, it would be voted down. So I'm offering the chair an opportunity to restore his respect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order. Order, please.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I'll leave you with that, but I do expect the documentation in writing and full proof immediately.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please. Order.

Parliament is a place for free speech. We do have rules and procedures. The point of order was obviously not a point of order, but obviously Mr. Goodyear needed to express himself here. I decided to allow him to express his views on a number of matters.

I tried to write down all the points, but to make absolutely sure, I will get the blues so that I have all the matters you raised, sir. I intend, at an appropriate time, to respond to each and every one for this committee. It will take me a little bit of time, because there's a fair bit.

With regard to documents, the letter from Mr. Mayrand, which has been circulated to you now, was just received by the clerk today. I got mine on Friday, or something like that. We have it in both official languages. It has been circulated.

Mr. Mayrand had some undertakings with regard to affidavits from Madame Vézina and Ms. O'Grady. They were sent to my office last week when I wasn't here. I concluded that the clerk also had received them from Mr. Mayrand. They are not in both official languages. We have a convention that documents can be circulated to members in the language in which they are provided, extensive documents, as in the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings, but they are to be translated at the earliest possible time and circulated.

It appears right now that I am the only one who has a copy of these documents. They are exhibits and so on. I won't go into what's there. No other member has them. As you know, I don't ask questions, so they have not been of benefit to any member over another member. I want to do that, but we have business to do.

I would like to, please, if it's acceptable to the committee, move to the witnesses. I'm going to ask the clerk to please swear....

We'll have Mr. Del Mastro on a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you. It's a procedural matter, Mr. Chair.

I'd like you to consult page 857 of Marleau and Montpetit, where it discusses the role of the chair. I would like you to review it, because I have serious concerns about your conduct, including this morning. I have personally set aside time, as have other members, for a special committee meeting. But without permitting any debate--and it was incredibly disrespectful--you banged a hammer and terminated this morning's meeting. I had meetings with constituents this morning in my constituency that I could not attend because I am here.

I do want you to review page 857 of Marleau and Montpetit. Specifically, I would like to know where within that you see you may, at any time, enter hearsay evidence without any documentation to back it up, as you did several times during yesterday's meetings. I would like to know where in there you see that you may look to your Liberal buddies and ask them, direct them, to put motions on the floor so you can effectively terminate the committee. That's what you were looking to do yesterday. I would like to know where in there you determine that you can make rules as you go. Several times yesterday I read a statement that you indicated would govern the rules, the questions, the scope of this committee. You disregarded it continuously. You are making rules as you go.

Last--and it has been mentioned by Mr. Goodyear--I have never, in any committee, seen where there were closing statements provided that do not allow for cross-examination.

Your conduct is well beyond and way, way far removed from the role of the chair as outlined on page 857 of Marleau and Montpetit. I request that you review that.

I also request that you do not disrespect the members of this committee by banging the hammer when you have scheduled a special committee meeting, caused us to incur cost, and caused us to depart from our ridings where we are working. I don't know about you, but I haven't taken any holidays. I work every day and meet with my constituents. I am missing those meetings. I am not in my riding because I am here. That was incredibly disrespectful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think I can quickly respond to the member's intervention.

[An hon. member]

Is it a point of order or not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, he's questioning a procedural matter. It's a point of order.

If you give me a moment, I think I can discharge this to the member's satisfaction.

Number one, Mr. Goodyear read the same point about yesterday's adjournment, following our witnesses. Respectfully, sir, I didn't need to ask anybody to move a motion for adjournment, because all of the witnesses had been heard and there was no other business before the committee. That's what you do: you adjourn the meeting. So that takes care of that allegation.

With regard to this morning, I think Mr. Martin raised a very good point with regard to Mr. Finley, who came before his scheduled time. Mr. Martin indicated that when you have a witness, you have to properly prepare for a witness. Members had come prepared to question six scheduled witnesses, who were here and sitting at the table in a two-hour time slot. To then say, “Well, just make room for this person”, we couldn't do it. It was not respectful to the witnesses who had made an effort to communicate with us and agreed to be here voluntarily.

This morning we had scheduled four witnesses. All had been summonsed. None of them had given us any confirmation or any communication to indicate they would not be appearing. The members had to prepare for those four witnesses.

With witnesses not appearing, that is a matter that I hope, the committee will address on Thursday, as to how we might move forward on this with future meetings and future witnesses and business that the committee cares to deal with. However, at that point, with only four witnesses scheduled, no other business scheduled that we could deal with, the chair had no business to transact except to suspend until we had the witnesses coming at two o'clock. That was because there were no more witnesses to hear and we'd already dealt with the other matters that weren't already scheduled.

Finally, on the issue of closing statements, it's not a rule that you must have an opening statement and you must have a closing statement. The committee decides. I think—I think—I proposed with the first witnesses that that was the way we would proceed, and that was acceptable to the committee. And we're treating all the witnesses in the same fashion.

We have had closing statements, as you know, in the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings. All of the witnesses who appeared had that opportunity, so I think that answers your third point.

I take note. I want to look at the transcript again, all the words that you said, sir, to make sure I've answered them. I undertake to fully answer any other points you may have raised, but I did want to deal with those.

Thank you very much.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Could I add a supplementary, please?