Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 14th, 2008

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion we did receive from Madame Lavallée yesterday asked that the following be reported to the House. Now, there's a stark contrast between what she has done today and what she indicated yesterday she was going to do. We would have actually welcomed that. It says “That the following be reported to the House:”, which is substantive. It goes on:

That the Speaker of the House issue any necessary warrants for the appearance of witnesses who received a summons but who, for no reason, failed to appear before the Committee to testify in connection...

blah, blah, blah, blah.

With that in mind, we would very much like to see that happen, so I do have an amendment, since these are her words and not mine. I'd like to suggest an amendment to her motion that says that the chair take all necessary actions to report to the House on September 15 all of the persons on the committee-approved witness list who have not yet appeared before the committee, and that the chair consult the Speaker of the House for direction.

The reason I feel that is necessary is that I do believe--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Do you have this written out? Could the clerk...because sometimes you drop a word.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

You can pass it around.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

The motion basically says to report to the House the list of the witnesses who haven't appeared before the committee and consult with the Speaker of the House for direction. That is very vague, and I don't know exactly.... Well, that is my read: effectively, to give the Speaker a list of those people who haven't appeared and ask for direction.

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. I think we'll write it up. Probably the simplest thing to do is just to delete all the words after the words “to” and “replace by”; otherwise you're going to get....

All right, the amendment is in order. You had the floor on debate and you moved an amendment. Okay.

Madame Lavallée, on a point of order.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Is this amendment in order? I am asking that you make a decision on this point because it completely changes the spirit of my motion, which is the carrot after the stick I presented yesterday. I do not recognize either the spirit or the letter of my motion in this amendment, which is in no way supplementary to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame, I understand your point. It still deals with the list of witnesses. The change is that rather than our continuing to try to squeeze these witnesses out, maybe we'd better check with the Speaker first for any consideration before we actually go that far. So it somewhat limits what your original proposal is. It still may occur that we would try to schedule them after consulting with the Speaker. I would think that would be our....

I raise, sort of as a precedent, the fact that when we debated the original motion, there was an amendment to extend it to all other parties. That's a fairly substantive thing and that was in order.

So as you can see, yes, there could be a lot of differences.

I believe my ruling is correct that we are still dealing with the witnesses and moving that forward. It just happens to be a slightly amended route on how we address some of the problems. It's debatable; it's an amendment. It has to have its own vote. If that vote does not carry, we obviously are still back at your motion as was originally proposed, as you're aware.

Mr. Del Mastro, on debate on this matter, because you can't sever witnesses and speak...but you can speak to this matter for the edification and we will eventually have a vote on the amendment.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There is a reason why this is substantively different, why it is in fact much more powerful than the original motion.

We have maintained on this side of the table that this committee is in fact not authorized to be conducting this investigation. We've in fact had our witnesses rejected. But the members opposite have always maintained that this is a legitimate process, that they were within their right to summarily end debate and to vote against us last June to cause these hearings to occur this August.

We did voice displeasure with the Speaker at that time, and the Speaker did not give any indication one way or the other, except to say that until there is a report from the committee, he could not rule whether any of these hearings were in order.

The committee has gone to an extraordinary degree by issuing summonses to individuals, asking them to come to something that we, the five of us, certainly have been arguing all week is illegitimate. We've referred to it as a kangaroo court. We've talked about the limitations that were placed on us and how this was really framed. The opposition members clearly worked together as a tyranny of the majority to try to force their will upon this committee.

That said, if they believe that everything they have done is justified—and I hope the people with the pens in the back are paying attention—then they should have no hesitation whatsoever to report this to the Speaker and to have the Speaker rule on their side, that people have in fact ignored summonses and that there should be an action that follows that.

In fact, that's what Ms. Lavallée asked yesterday. But then she spoke to you, Mr. Chair, and I don't know who else, and suddenly she doesn't want anything reported to the House anymore.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

That's kind of ironic. Why wouldn't we want something reported to the House from this committee? I came here and spent this whole week here. Why aren't we reporting it to the House? Mr. Martin was jumping out of his chair yesterday that it was so outrageous that these people have ignored these summonses. Then why in the world would you not want to report that at the earliest possible time?

Pat, you know yesterday you were beside yourself with anger.

Through the Chair, Mr. Martin was beside himself with anger yesterday that he wanted these people here—yes, the cussing cowboy, him.

But in any event, if he believes that, if he really believes it—goodness, I hope people in the back are paying attention—then submit this to the chair, vote in favour of this motion, and demonstrate that this is not a kangaroo court. Prove us wrong; vote in favour of this amendment.

That's what I submit to you. And if you don't want to report it to the Speaker, then guess what? What you've proven by extension is that everything we have been saying is true, everything we have been maintaining is correct, that this is nothing but a kangaroo court and you are afraid to have this sent back to the Speaker for him to adjudicate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Pacetti, please.

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

I'm amazed at this committee. It takes forever to debate a motion, something so simple. I even forget what I was going to say.

My point is very simple, Mr. Chairman. This makes it very clear. All it does is.... Ms. Lavallée, out of respect for you, I think, has put it in writing, but I think you already have all these powers as the committee chair. As a former chair, I think these powers are nothing additional. It just means that you should go ahead and perform your duty.

I am in favour of this motion, and I will be voting against Mr. Del Mastro's amendment. I think we should go ahead and call the question and vote on it, because we still have Mr. Goldstein to deal with.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We now have Mr. Martin, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, my first instinct is that we have to send a message to those who willingly and knowingly defy a summons to a parliamentary committee. There have to be sanctions associated with thumbing your nose at Parliament or this committee and, by extension, Parliament and the people of Canada. We're representing the people of Canada here.

There is a list of people who defied this, by conspiracy, by design: Nelson Bouffard, Pierre Coulombe, Michael Donison, Doug Finley, Irving Gerstein, Byng Giraud, Susan Kehoe, Benoit Larocque, Patrick Muttart, and Michel Rivard. At least those 11 were scheduled to be here.

I believe they got some advice from their lawyer, probably Mr. Hamilton sitting right over there--“You don't have to come. Don't bother coming. It's just a parliamentary committee. They'll lose their steam. They'll run out of gas. They won't have the guts to come after you. We'll buy some time, and either there'll be an election or Parliament will prorogue, or something will happen so we can avoid this embarrassing testimony.”

These people have insulted me personally, they've insulted the committee, and they've insulted Parliament. There have to be consequences, because I'm concerned about the precedent. I've made this point. I'm very concerned that all future committees will be neutered, rendered impotent, in terms of enforcing any kind of summons in the future.

We can't allow this to happen. We have an obligation to uphold the integrity and the effectiveness of Parliament, as committee members. We're at the front lines here. We're at the vanguard. Parliament is being attacked by these people. I don't think they're fit to govern. I don't think they're fit to manage a national political party in this country, and they're certainly not fit to be the government of the day. This is the brain trust, the think tank behind the Conservative Party of Canada. If they have that little respect for Parliament, we should find people who do respect Parliament to govern this country, not this gang, not the Darwin's waiting room over here and their bosses.

We've heard Mr. Del Mastro's idea that we report to the House. I sympathize with Madame Lavallée's point of view that we should keep our eye on the ball here.

The real objective is to get these witnesses before this committee. Maybe that will take some humility; maybe we're going to have to swallow our pride a bit. They've insulted us profoundly. We will never forget that. They will answer for that, and there will be consequences, I hope. If our objective is to get those witnesses before our committee where they have to swear under oath what they did or did not do, then I think we should take the path of least resistance towards achieving that objective. Therefore, I support Madame Lavallée's recommendation.

I oppose Mr. Del Mastro's latest mischief, whatever he's up to here. He's a modest man, who has much to be modest about. I understand what he is trying to do here today, but we're not going to be diverted. We're not going to be knocked off our game. The slippery slope that's established by ignoring these people's reprehensible insult to Parliament cannot be forgiven. It cannot be ignored.

We want them here. We want bums in those seats. I want Mike Donison and Doug Finley right in that seat, so we can grill them properly with the fullness of time and do a thorough job of it. So I'm going to vote against Del Mastro and for Madame Lavallée.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Did you want to go to Karen and then you?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Well, I was going to inform the committee that Mr. Martin is misleading the committee again. None of those people were summonsed. But I realize that's not a point of order, so I'll pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right. I won't mark that one against you.

Madam Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's not my wish to prolong this debate. I, too, take the summons to this committee very seriously, but I look across at my five colleagues, and they've had other representatives of the Conservative Party. I think there is some validity to say it is summer and some people are on vacation and some people may or may not have gotten the summons; and I think this is a very reasonable next step. I think it's respectful of people who are on the list that this committee agreed to have come to testify.

I have found this a very enlightening week. I think we've all learned things and I do believe a lot of light has been shed on a very important issue. And this committee is charged with a very important issue, which is dealing with the ethics for public office-holders. Because of that, I believe Madame Lavallée has brought forward a very cogent, supportable next step. If at the end of September we haven't heard from these people and it's very obvious that they're either resisting or refusing to come, I think there is a next step.

Many of us are parents, all of us deal with process, and there are some logical steps to be taken. This is the middle of summer; the timeline was fairly short. It was one week of four days of meetings, and perhaps it didn't work with some people's schedules. I think Madame Lavallée has chosen a very supportable step, so because of that. I will support her motion and not the amendment, because I think that is merely an attempt to truncate the very important work of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Goodyear.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Well, I'm going to appeal to members to support the amendment, because I don't think it takes away from the actual motion. In fact, I think what it does do is exactly what the committee wants. Certainly, through you, Mr. Chair, I think it does what Mr. Martin wants. Ultimately these folks have ignored this committee, and Parliament has an additional set of powers and authorities to sanction them.

Now, through you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Martin continues to speak of having to sanction these people. He's insulted. What can the committee do? We're certainly not going to suggest we send Mr. Martin out to swear at these people until they get here. So I think we should ask the committee to invite these witnesses again or summons them again, which is the extent of the committee's authority, and if we have indication that they're not going to honour that, then we should absolutely report that to the House. The House would be sitting by then. We need to report that to the Speaker of the House, and the Speaker of the House can throw another level of sanctions, another level of authority.

I hope I'm not interpreting and I very much respect what Madam Redman said. She's absolutely correct. These folks deserve a second chance; maybe there are legitimate reasons. But I think if we try to summons them again and they don't show up, guess who's delaying the process? It's been indicated that somehow there's this conspiracy, that we don't want to get this done before some election that we all know isn't happening. But if that's the argument, then I think we need to move, and as Madam Redman said, no, this isn't a bad first step, and then this other thing could be the second step.

I think the amendment simply says we're doing steps one and two at the same time. That's absolutely reasonable. Without a report to the House, I see this thing dragging out and dragging out, and I just don't think that is the intention of what we need to do here. We've got formidable business going on. I support the amendment, but unless we're going to report it to the House, it basically falls back to the same kind of authority the committee has, and Mr. Martin yelling at people and cussing at them isn't working. These folks actually are getting scared away, in my opinion, by the behaviour of this committee.

So without reporting to the House, I don't see that we would have the additional authority to seriously sanction, and any suggestion otherwise is absolutely false and misleading. I will not support the motion, because it's impotent. I will support the amended motion, where we actually go to the House of Commons and ask the Speaker of the House to step in and lay the hammer down on these folks, and it's as simple as that.

So without the amendment, I won't support this motion, because it's purposeless. It's a political stunt, chapter 13, and I won't continue to do that. We have work to do here. If you're serious about getting to the truth, then the amendment makes sense because it's the double hammer and it happens all at the same time. It speeds things up; it's exactly what you've been saying you wanted. Let's see whether or not that is true or false.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to go back—

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Pacetti, on a point of order.