Evidence of meeting #49 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 elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Yes.
Mr. Goodyear, I know I went through it very quickly, but if you have anything else for me that you want me to respond to, please let me know now.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Yes, thank you. And thank you for the opportunity to be dignified.
Sir, there are two things that I think remain outstanding. One, I would like to say that my records indicate that Robin Sears was not a point of order, it was a motion moved by Mr. Martin. Also, the witness list you stroked off, and Madame Jennings challenged your ruling, which ended debate, and then there was no debate, there was a vote by the committee.
One of the things that I believe we're still missing is that there was a reference made by one of our Bloc colleagues about the need for a contract in the Canada Elections Act. I don't believe that exists. I asked for proof for that. I'm not sure if you have the authority to ask a Bloc member to provide documents, but I did ask for that.
You can tell me if you don't. That's fine.
And I did ask for the dates from Monsieur Mayrand when he created the four or five factors that he spoke about at our last meeting.
That's my short response.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. I will undertake to try to get the answers to those for you, sir.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Colleagues, it's almost five o'clock, but we've had some diversions. I guess we have to take a list, but Madame Lavallée has been very patient with me.
Please, Mrs. Lavallée.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I think it is understandable, Mr. Chair, that I would be impatient after four days.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I give the floor to you. I don't know whether you had a point of order or just wanted the floor, but right now, with your patience, I will give you the floor or a point of order, whichever is your preference.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you.
First, Mr. Chair, I am going to ask my Conservative colleagues to show a little respect when I speak, that is, to listen to me as attentively as I do when they speak. If they should ever happen not to like something I say, I suggest that they get up, go and get some air and come back, but do not interrupt me. I think that is completely disrespectful. If they are not polite, I am going to read the email we have just received from Mr. Fisher, in Alberta, in which he has some questions about the mental health of the Conservative members.
There are two ways to get reluctant witnesses to testify. I have made a motion, which you have all received, to ask that the Speaker of the House issue the necessary warrants to secure the attendance of the witnesses.
I would say that this approach is the stick, but there is another approach, which I would call the carrot. I want the stick to become a sword of Damocles over the heads of the witnesses, so they will be fully aware that that motion is still possible. I do not want to make it now, but I want to keep it on hold so it can be made today, or tomorrow, or another day.
First and foremost, I invite the people we have summoned to the committee to think about the consequences of their actions. The carrot I am proposing as an incentive for Conservative party workers to appear is the motion I want to make, which consists of asking the Speaker to take all necessary action to set an appearance date, between September 15 and 30, 2008, for all of the people whose names appear on the witness list approved by this committee who have not yet appeared. I am also asking that you, Mr. Chair, provide committee members with a weekly report on the action taken.
Among the people who have not responded to our invitation there are senior officers, Conservative party workers and a number of candidates and official agents. Obviously there are Conservative M.P.s and ministers, but you know that we have no way of compelling them to testify. I want to keep my motion on hold so that the Conservative party workers and senior officers will have to reconsider their decision not to appear this week.
Mr. Del Mastro, could you go out and get some air? Thank you.
This week, in light of the testimony we have heard, we saw that Conservative officials abused the trust of party workers and their media placement agency. The official agents, among others, were misled by their party, and that is a very serious offence. The Conservative Party is the party in power, the party that forms the government and makes the laws. It enforces the law and it has to obey the law itself. Well, it has failed to obey the Elections Act and failed to provide correct information to its workers, by encouraging them not to appear. We know that this is a contempt of Parliament, a violation of parliamentary privilege, but we will come back to that another time.
The Conservative party workers have got to respect the institutions and standing orders of the House, even though their officials seem to be quite lawless themselves and devoid of principles or ethics, and most importantly to believe they are above the law. We know and we are aware that the Conservative party workers, as is to be expected, are being loyal to their party. No one is asking them to be disloyal in any way. Myself, I want to appeal to their sense of duty and ask them to obey the law. Law and order are so dear to the hearts of the Conservatives, so let them come and prove it to the committee.
From September 15 to 30, that is less than a month from now. Using the motion they all have in hand, I want to tell the Conservative party workers to take the time to think about it and get information. No one is accusing you of anything. No one wants to accuse you of anything; we simply want information. Consult a lawyer—not the Conservatives' lawyer, someone who is non-partisan, someone you know and trust. With that person, read the Elections Act, read the Standing Orders of the House. It is clear that at present, the people in the Conservative Party are afraid of the consequences of what they have done and they may be giving bad advice.
As well, take the time to get organized. That is in one month, between September 15 and 30. People will be able to change things in their lives. They may be able to make reservations on the train, or a plane, or whatever. They will be able to request leave from work. They have over a month to make arrangements to come to Ottawa.
I also want the Conservative party workers to think about the effects of their actions and the actual consequences. A motion could be made in the House to compel reluctant witnesses to appear at this committee by force. The Conservative officials who are giving them advice are not the ones who might ultimately find themselves in handcuffs in front of the TV cameras. It's easy for them to advise witnesses not to appear.
I would like the Conservative party workers and organizers to demonstrate that sense of duty that is so dear to their hearts, and do their duty as citizens and appear before the committee. This motion is to give them a month to think about it and make arrangements with you, Mr. Chair.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Before I go to Mr. Tilson on a point of order, I should indicate that this motion does not require notice. It is receivable.
It calls for me to schedule all the persons. I will read that as “all the persons possible”. If there are some people who still do not want to appear, you put me into a situation where I have to issue summonses again. However, maybe we can hear some debate and get some clarity, but all the members have the precise wording of the motion.
Before I go to Mr. Del Mastro.... Mr. Tilson, I'm sorry I didn't recognize you immediately before. She was kind of winding down and still in the middle of her presentation on her motion.
5 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You have commented that this motion is in order. I just raise the issue that I received the notice of motion yesterday—
5 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Well, I gather it's the topic that's under discussion. But sir, I submit that you do need notice, because before you get to the topic of discussion, you have to have a motion. So she made this motion without the topic being on the agenda.
The topic that was on the agenda was her notice of motion from yesterday and that's what I have in my hand. The first time I see this document is right now. So all of a sudden she's changed everything, and I submit, with due respect to you, sir, that this document she's speaking on now—she seems to have ignored the one she filed yesterday and someone has told her to do this one. I would submit, sir, that you reconsider what you say, that this does have to have notice.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, if I may, Madame Lavallée submitted the first one to the clerk, saying she was putting this in because she wanted to give notice, and the clerk actually advised her that she didn't need to have notice because it's related to the business we are currently working on.
But the clerk also says that the first one mechanically was not a good, tight motion and that she should consider an alternative. So on that advice—and I have to take some blame too—the clerk and I collaborated and suggested that if we just gave her the assurance that no 24-hour notice is required, that would give her a chance to tighten it up and make sure she gets a good motion.
So my ruling, sir, was that it is in order.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
The motion...I don't think she even moved it. She started talking about it, but I don't recall an actual motion being made.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
That's why it was circulated to us right now, because this is what she was moving.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
All right, I understand what you're saying, although I don't even think she's made the motion yet. She simply chatted with us.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, it was tabled with the committee and circulated. This is the motion, and that's why--
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, consider that I have tabled my motion in proper form.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand and I accept it.
I believe the intent here is that we need to work a little bit harder to see if there are others who would like to come before us, if we could provide the accommodation.
I have a list of speakers, and if anybody wants to make...otherwise, when the that list is exhausted, I will put the question.
I believe Mr. Del Mastro was first, then I have Mr. Pacetti, then Mr. Martin.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
I have a point of order on that, Mr. Chair. I think I misheard you, so I'm asking, only for clarification. I think you suggested that Madame Lavallée's motion is asking for any witnesses that we might think we need to hear from, but I think it says “committee-approved witness list”. Am I wrong?
5:05 p.m.
An hon. member
That's what it says.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
It says “committee-approved”. It's actually the witnesses--
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Oh no, no. We're not talking about new ones, no. That still could come up if the committee wishes to propose that, but she's saying we need to work a little harder on the ones we didn't get. By making a little more effort, we might be able to accommodate their attendance. Is that okay?
Does everybody understand that the intent of this motion is not new witnesses? It's the unheard witnesses of the original 79. All right.
Mr. Del Mastro.