Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 14th, 2008

[Chantal Proulx]

“Him” being the commissioner?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes, madame.

[Chantal Proulx]

We have spoken with the commissioner. We have provided advice to Elections Canada in relation to a number of matters.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

You haven't replied to the other part of my question in the sense that should you find there is sufficient evidence or sufficient questions for charges to be laid, or if there is sufficient information or sufficient proof and charges could be laid, what could be the potential penalties or potential accusations.

[Chantal Proulx]

I'm not able to answer that question in the abstract.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Okay.

Mr. Chair, is there time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You have two minutes, sir.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'll switch them over to my colleague Mr. Pacetti, if you don't mind.

Merci, Madame Proulx.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mrs. Proulx. I know there are questions you can't answer, but we are looking at a scenario that presents obvious problems.

In what cases does the Public Prosecution Service of Canada give advice to Elections Canada or the Commissioner?

[Chantal Proulx]

It is up to the investigative agency to contact the Public Prosecution Service to request advice during an investigation. It is the investigative agency that decides to proceed with certain steps, for example to appear before a judge to obtain some authorization.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I don't want to interrupt you, but I only have two minutes.

So it has to be really serious. Elections Canada doesn't come to you and ask how it's going or whether it's going to rain tomorrow. If it decides to ask for your opinion, it is because the allegations are serious.

Could criminal penalties go as far as prison sentences?

[Chantal Proulx]

It is not uncommon for an investigative agency to ask us for legal advice about all sorts of offences that will have different consequences. All sorts of investigative agencies contact us very frequently about this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

There's a half a minute left, if you have a quick one.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I'll just pass, then. Thank you.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, we'll finish off the half minute.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

No, we're done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You're done? Okay, we'll go to our next questioner, but Mr. Goodyear has a point of order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In fact, the point of order has to do with a question from Mr. Proulx. I saw that Massimo got into his question, so I waited out of courtesy so as not to interrupt him.

Mr. Chair, we just heard the witness choose not to answer the question, and I do recall you said at one point we would deal with this issue on a case-by-case basis. I don't believe the witness has been offered an exemption, what we call the Mayrand accommodation. Can you now deal with this issue? I would like an answer to that question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Goodyear, you know that when the committee adopted the motion to do this investigation on the in-and-out scheme, the committee made a decision to proceed.

Order, please, Madame Lavallée.

The committee also decided that we would have Mr. Mayrand appear and that the chair should undertake to have him appear. Mr. Mayrand was contacted by me to have some initial discussions to inform him. He expressed some reservations about appearing at all, because there was this ongoing proceeding—the investigation by Mr. Corbett—as well as the case of the two official agents of two ridings who were challenging or trying to quash the Chief Electoral Officer's decision not to approve the expenses claimed in their advertising expenses. At that time, and as we discussed, at the first opportunity we raised this with the committee that to have Mr. Mayrand appear, it would be with the understanding that he would be able to invoke basically the—

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, we are actually on a point of order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

We have a 45-minute speech going here, and I really just wanted to know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me, sir, you made a point of order and you asked a question, and I have to answer it.

The committee was apprised that the condition of Mr. Mayrand appearing was that he could invoke the sub judice convention if it was a matter that would potentially prejudice or compromise any other proceeding, and I'm sure that our witnesses are aware of this as well. That was the understanding, and we've had this discussion before the committee three or four times, so everyone understands what the situation is with Mr. Mayrand.

Subsequently I received an opinion from the law clerk of the House of Commons. That has been circulated to all honourable members. Any witness, including Mr. Muttart, I believe Mr. Lepsoe, and a couple of others who had raised this issue—RMI, Retail Media, had raised it—all of them, received a copy of the law clerk's letter explaining the application of this issue of not being able to answer it because it's before another proceeding.

It has to do only with those people who have a direct involvement in the proceeding. They have to be parties to the proceeding. Mr. Mayrand certainly is. RMI was, in regard to another proceeding--not the one that Mr. Mayrand was, but there was a proceeding--but that never came up yesterday and they answered all the questions.

So the question is, then, that should questions come up to these witnesses, there's no special accommodation to them. They are aware of the law clerk. If they have a solicitor-client relationship on certain matters, they will declare that, and of course we can't ask them on that.

With regard to other matters that may come up, which may, for good reason, as Mr. Walsh laid out in his letter, they would indicate that they can't answer it for that reason, and then we would consider the validity of the reason.

That did not occur. The question from Mr. Proulx was posed, the witnesses answered, and we moved on.

So there is no special arrangement for anyone else. The rules of the House are clear. The existence of the sub judice convention is not an excuse for a witness not to answer a question. Okay?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I have a point of order on a different issue, then, Mr. Chair, please. I do apologize. It seems like I keep doing this.

The point I'm making now is that with all due respect to our witnesses, in fact, they are the solicitors acting for Elections Canada. The whole thing is client-attorney privilege. I totally respect that it has to be accounted for.

So again, with due respect for the witnesses, I don't see the relevance to these witnesses. If all we're going to do is hear about what the department does and doesn't do, I can look that up on the website. I don't see the relevance here at this place.

We had a witness who was totally involved in this situation. You yourself just said attorney-client privilege can be respected. Correct me if I'm wrong—I'm not a lawyer—but it sounds like these are the attorneys to the client, Elections Canada.

You're contradicting yourself. I just don't know what to say anymore. This is as confusing as it possibly could be. Could it run any worse than this? I don't think so.