Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 14th, 2008

[Marc Mayrand]

No. I think I'll leave it to the committee to make its own conclusions on those comments.

Again, I would simply say that the current regime does not allow for the transfer of expenses among entities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank you for being in front of us this morning, Monsieur Mayrand.

I'd just like to ask you a few questions about the conditions under which you're here. The first has to do with the dates of your first appearance, July 15 and 16.

Were there any negotiations over your availability to appear in front of the committee on those days, or were you just categorically told you must be there on the 15th and 16th? Were there any discussions at all about your flexibility to appear?

[Marc Mayrand]

There was some discussion as to whether I would be available for a certain period in July.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Good. I appreciate that. Actually, I think that's quite reasonable. The committee was convened. It would be unreasonable to just issue you a dictum to be here and then to convene the committee afterwards.

I'm asking because, of course, there are other witnesses in this very block who were just issued dictums: “You will be here at this time; we don't care what your schedule is.” I don't mean you, I mean the witnesses. It was the same with summonses. Some of them were summoned at exact times, with no flexibility shown.

I just want to show that there's a difference here.

As well, I was reviewing your previous testimony and I noticed, then and now, the sub judice argument that you're using to not answer certain questions. For example, you had said, “I will not comment on ongoing investigations of the Commissioner of Elections Canada or the specifics of the case currently before the Federal Court.” I understand that.

You were sitting here during the last committee meeting. You know there were many points of order raised, and the chair, of course, ruled in favour of sub judice. How important is this matter to you, the fact that you can invoke that and not answer all the questions?

[Marc Mayrand]

Maybe as a few points under this matter, I have made representation to the committee, through the chair, about some of the limits I would like to see apply with regard to my testimony. I invoked the fact that there are proceedings before the court or an investigation going on, and at times, as I did today, I refused to comment on matters that were still open at our office.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Right. And sir, I understand.

[Marc Mayrand]

That's as a matter of fairness and due process for everyone involved.

That said, I think it's up to the committee to tell me, or push me, or direct me to answer specific questions.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Okay, I understand what you're coming to, and I think what you're saying is that it's an important issue to you.

Let me just ask another question. Do you feel that it's a legitimate concern you have? In the fact that you're asking for this position to be taken, is that legitimate and valid, in your mind?

I'm not trying to set you up. I think it is.

[Marc Mayrand]

I wouldn't put it forward if I didn't think it was a legitimate one.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Right, I agree, and I think the chair in fact has informed the committee as such. He said basically—and I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm saying what the chair said—that you would not appear in front of the committee unless you had this assurance that you in fact could not comment on matters or questions that pertain to the Federal Court case.

Actually, can I confirm that? Would you have appeared? If the chair had said no, you cannot invoke sub judice; you must answer all questions asked, no matter what they are, would you have come in front of the committee?

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, it's a bit hypothetical because we didn't get there. I would have had to consider whether I required the committee to issue a summons. I would have had to seek legal advice on how to respond to this in my position as an officer of Parliament. If I came to the decision to appear, I would have certainly asked specific direction for questions.

My concern is that my answers could have been quite frustrating for members, if I just showed up here and didn't answer the questions. That was part of my concern. I want to be helpful to the committee.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, I understand that.

There are other witnesses who have not been treated the same, who have not been given the same deference to their requests in this matter. They have very valid concerns too. They have the same valid concerns that things they say could reflect upon the Federal Court case.

I think one of the points I'm trying to bring out here, particularly when it comes to this.... I'll start with sub judice. The chair basically cut you a deal. It's not a reflection on you; it's a reflection on the chair. He cut you a deal that was not offered to other witnesses. Other witnesses had no ability to take advantage of sub judice--only you. Oh, and then we found out today that the Public Prosecution Service of Canada could as well.

I don't know if you've been watching the proceedings. Have you been watching what's been going on this week?

[Marc Mayrand]

Not full time.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Not full time. All right.

You may or may not have noticed that the rules changed. When we started this week the rules all changed. You appeared in July. The sub judice that applied to you didn't apply this week. We ended up getting an opinion from Rob Walsh, the law clerk, which the chair tabled. It completely changed the rules for all of this week--except that today we reverted back to the old rules.

I know you are concerned about Elections Canada. Elections Canada must appear to be neutral and unbiased. I'm wondering if it causes you any concern that the chair has cut a side deal--I've even heard it referred to by others as a sweetheart deal. Is it of concern to you, as the Chief Electoral Officer, that the chair has cut this deal for you, for Elections Canada?

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, it's a matter of opinion and a matter for discussion for the committee. It's not for me to comment on the activities of the committee.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm asking your opinion. It's just your opinion.

[Marc Mayrand]

Again, I put forward some of the reasons, and I advised the chair in advance as to some of the limitations I would be facing in responding to various questions. That was found to be acceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. We're into the second round. I have Mr. Proulx and Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Mayrand, I very much appreciate our relationship, which I believe has been very good from the first time I met you. When I advised you the committee had authorized me to make arrangements to have you appear before the committee pursuant to the motion adopted by the committee, at that time you raised with me, I believe--and you may want to confirm--that you had some concerns about whether some questions could arise that might potentially prejudice or compromise either the investigation or other ongoing proceedings.

Is that your recollection, sir?

[Marc Mayrand]

That's correct, and I think it's reflected in the correspondence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

And is it your recollection that I wrote to you--and I believe it was carbon-copied to all members of the committee--to affirm we understood there would potentially be questions you would be able to indicate you may not be able to answer, but that this was understood?

[Marc Mayrand]

I'm not sure which letter that is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's the first letter I sent you, pursuant to our very first telephone conversation.

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes, is that the letter dated June 25?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, sir.