Evidence of meeting #48 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 campaign.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Chair, every time his microphone goes on, he takes over the committee again.
Conservative
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
If you have something to report to the committee, do it, but why do you keep accepting this hijacking of our work?
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
I just want to thank you for acknowledging that and to confirm once again that you went to the media yesterday. You just admitted that you had no records of service of documents, affidavits of documents, until three o'clock today. Yet you ran out of here immediately and had, not a press conference, but a scrum.
I can imagine why Mr. Martin is so upset about it, because he took your lead and ranted and raved about parliamentary problems. I would be upset too if I looked like a fool.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Fine. Okay, Mr. Goodyear has completed.
I hope I've given him and all honourable members assurances that all the information people have asked for is in process. There is nothing I can circulate at this instant because it's either waiting for translation or printing. I'm going to spend some time tonight personally supervising the process to make sure the members get it as expeditiously as possible. I make that undertaking to all honourable members. There's a lot of information there.
Now, with respect to the last thing, at the beginning of the afternoon session Mr. Goodyear raised statements that I had made. I was very concerned about it because it drew conclusions that hurt me. I made some representations off the top of my head about the facts, because I didn't have my files with me and I tried to recall.
I want to confirm to all honourable members that I've looked at the papers now--I took a quick look during the break--and that my comments yesterday to the media, in the scrum outside after the meeting was adjourned, were with regard only to those four witnesses. My comments about summonses were only about those four witnesses. My statement specifically was that I had issued summonses.
I acknowledge--and Mr. Goodyear, you're absolutely right--I did not know with certainty that they in fact had been served. But we now have the report, and I can tell you. I want you to know, so I'm giving you the information I have.
Heidy Cornejo is the official agent for member of Parliament Sylvie Boucher. The document produced by the clerks for me on the status of communications with proposed witnesses indicates there were three calls to the official agent Heidy Cornejo. There was no response to any of them. A summons was signed by me on August 1, and it was delivered to Kilrea and associates for service. That's all I knew. But from the report we just received from the bailiff, the summons to Heidy Cornejo was served personally to her on August 6--more than a week ago.
With regard to Henri Gagnon, who is official agent for Daniel Petit, member of Parliament, contact was made. The clerk's report of the phone calls indicated they were going to get back to us to confirm their attendance. There was no phone call. On August 1 I signed the summons. It was sent to Kilrea on August 1, and the bailiff's report affirms it was served on Henri Gagnon on August 6--over a week ago. You're absolutely correct. I did not know it for certain, but I knew we had no responses and that a summons was signed by me and that I requested it to be served.
The third of the fourth is André Laurin, who is the official agent for the Honourable Josée Verner. André was contacted on July 24. He wanted to verify with his colleagues--I'm sure with the minister's office--about commitments, etc., for the week of August 11, which is this week. He indicated that he was willing to appear, but he wanted to check first.
We called back to advise that we had booked yesterday morning, August 12, at 10 a.m. as the time to appear. His return call to us was that he declined for all days, and he stated that no one was going to appear.
On August 1, I signed the summons, and it was sent to Kilrea and associates. He was served with the summons on August 6. That was over a week ago.
The final person who was to appear yesterday was Mr. Marc Duval, official agent for Mr. Luc Harvey, MP for Louis—Hébert, I believe. We left messages both at his home and his work. We called him again on July 24, and at work on July 28--four clerks' employees were making the calls--and they spoke to Mr. Duval. He informed the clerks that the party told them to decline all invitations and therefore he declines to appear. On August 1, I signed the summons. It was delivered to Kilrea and associates. Kilrea reported that they attempted to serve the summons on.... I'm not sure, I'd have to see the report. But as it turns out, he has gone on vacation this week, and therefore it was not deliverable. That's in the report.
I want to acknowledge that Mr. Goodyear is quite right, I didn't know with certainty. But the members now are aware of the efforts that were made to determine this. We do have the information, and I undertake to get this information to all honourable members at the earliest possible time. Certainly tomorrow we'll have a lot more answers.
Now, it would appear that none of the witnesses are here. Accordingly, without any business, I'm going to--
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, on Monday I brought up the point that I was specifically offended by the use of vulgar language here at the committee. That was not dealt with. I have put up with additional use of vulgar language by the NDP member at the table today. He has stepped it up a notch. I shouldn't have to put up with this, and neither should anyone else at the table. If he's frustrated because things aren't going his way, so be it, but he may not....
I'm not going to say what he said, because I don't say it, but I was raised Roman Catholic and go to church, and I don't use the language he used, which was to take the Lord's name in vain. That was on top of the various uses of profanity and vulgar language that he has exploded out on numerous occasions.
I should not have to listen to that. I hope the people at home never heard any of it, because it's offensive. CPAC is family rated, and they shouldn't have to listen to it either.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Del Mastro, I apologize. I did on one occasion hear the words “Holy Christ”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'm sorry that those kinds of things happen sometimes at committees. As you know, sir, I have no power to sanction any member of Parliament for their behaviour. I said during the Mulroney hearings, and I've said here, that I will not ever pass judgment or comment on the performance of any of my colleagues. We are all equal. I happen to be in the chair to try to run a process.
But, sir, I believe you have a very valid point. It is of concern to me, and I'm sure to others. Every member has the right to speak. If they behave in a fashion that is unbecoming or unparliamentary, members have options, and it's up to those members to take that action.
Mr. Martin, did you want to respond to this matter?
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Well, briefly, I think if the meeting was chaired in such a way that it wouldn't drive the other members of the committee crazy, there'd be fewer outbursts like that. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect--and for the large part I admire the patience you've shown in the administration of your duties as a chairman--you can't allow one member to interfere constantly, over and over again, to make speeches, to criticize you and the committee and the work of the committee and Parliament, etc., any time he feels like it. That's what drives me over the top, and that's what perhaps led to some outbursts.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I've been controlling myself. Restraint? I've been using a lot of restraint, believe me.
Mr. Chairman, if you wouldn't mind, stick to the order of the day, stick to the order of business, and don't fall for the goading and baiting these guys are using to try to avoid the subject matter of the study we're undertaking as a committee. I appeal to you. If you do that, I'll stop swearing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
It's always useful to allow a little bit of venting, and I think members have had an opportunity to express themselves. All honourable members are accountable for their actions, and whether there's any remediation to be done as a consequence of those, they'll have to make those decisions and be judged by and accountable to others.
We're going to adjourn shortly, but about tomorrow, so members can properly prepare, I want to confirm to you that we will have Madame Chantal Proulx and Mr. Beardall. Madame Proulx is the deputy public prosecutor, and Mr. Beardall is the senior legal counsel for the public prosecutor. They will be the first two witnesses. I've forgotten who proposed them. Once the members have discharged all the questions to the public prosecutor's personnel, they will be excused.
Mr. Marc Mayrand, the Chief Electoral Officer, will be appearing immediately afterwards. He assured me he will be here by 10:30, so if tomorrow's first session is short he will be available right away. So we're forgetting about the arbitrary timing of appearance.
He has advised me that he has no statements to make. He'll be here to answer any questions that may have arisen as a consequence of all the other witnesses or matters and that members would like to pursue with him. He'll be available for the balance of questioning.
Then we'll suspend. We'll reconvene at an appropriate time to have a discussion on the last matter of future meetings and witnesses. I encourage members to give some careful thought to that. We will wait to hear about circumstances where it was determined that a summons, for instance, was served in adequate time for them to appear but was ignored. The chair will need some direction on whether or not the committee would like to do anything further.
It is my personal opinion that there was a great rush. With 79 proposed witnesses, there was a flurry of activity going on, and I fully expected there would be some glitches. I apologize for that. I'm going to ask for a lot more time to prepare to make sure there's proper notice and contact, etc. We did have some problems. I learned a lot from this and will undertake to make sure we have sufficient time so that proposed witnesses have the opportunity to appear when it is most convenient to them.
I don't think anyone here is interested in doing anything but bringing witnesses to help us with our work--certainly not intimidating or doing anything other than operating a healthy, informed committee on a serious matter.
There is a speakers list.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
A motion to adjourn is in order.
I'd ask you, Mr. Hubbard, to allow Mr. Martin and Mr. Tilson to make their brief comments. I think it's always helpful to have some input. The committee is probably amenable to adjourning after that. Is that right? It seems so.
Would that be okay, sir?
So we'll hear briefly from those honourable members, and then the chair will adjourn.
Mr. Martin.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I was simply going to say, Mr. Chairman, that as you are going through future business I want to make sure there's adequate time blocked out not just to talk about future witnesses or to have a conversation about how we're going to accommodate those witnesses who are summoned so that it's at a convenient time for them; I want adequate time staked out at the next meeting to talk about the consequences associated with those who willingly and knowingly ignored the summons to appear before this committee.
Perhaps we will need some time from the senior law clerk for a lecture to the committee on the consequences and the steps taken to invoke sanctions against those people who would knowingly offend and insult Parliament by ignoring a summons to appear before this committee.
By my count, three out of 26 witnesses who were summonsed have actually appeared at the times they were scheduled on the summons to appear. To me that shows a widespread.... I don't think there was some Jungian thing whereby they all woke up with some collective unconscious and said, let's insult Parliament and not go to the scheduled appearance before the committee. I think somebody coordinated this mass boycott of our committee.
The last thing I'll say is that the reason it's so important to deal with this tomorrow is that it sets a terrible, terrible precedent for all future committees if people can thumb their noses at this committee and ignore a summons. What does that say to all future committees that try to have witnesses appear before them? It means that it's optional to appear before a parliamentary committee, even when a summons has been issued. That is not acceptable.
I want there to be adequate time tomorrow for us to vent this idea thoroughly and completely and to make it publicly known that we will not tolerate this kind of insult by the Conservative Party of Canada towards the Parliament of Canada.
Liberal
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I have a question for you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayrand has appeared before this committee for two days. I have two questions.
First, why is he coming back again? Second, is he going to continue to have this special exemption you've given him, a special exemption that other witnesses don't seem to have?
