Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 14th, 2008

[Marc Mayrand]

It refers to the mandate of the committee regarding technical considerations for public office-holders. I guess it would be helpful for understanding such items as what transpired, how it relates to the Canada Elections Act, how you conducted your work, and the status of the matter, which are matters that were covered on July 15 and 16.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Do you believe that you and I cut a deal?

[Marc Mayrand]

We had a discussion, which was confirmed in writing, that determined the parameters under which I was agreeable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Are you familiar--

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, I'm in the middle of questioning. I'm sorry.

Mr. Mayrand, are you familiar with the sub judice convention?

[Marc Mayrand]

I'm not an expert, but I'm aware of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Is it your understanding that it is a voluntarily imposed convention, which means that you would have an opportunity to say before another proceeding, “I can't answer this question”?

[Marc Mayrand]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

So it's self-imposed.

Did Mr. Mayrand get a copy of Mr. Walsh's opinion? It is basically confirming that it is self-imposed, and that should someone claim the sub judice convention before a committee of Parliament, that is not a reason not to answer the question, but the person has an opportunity to make the case as to why he or she cannot. It could be solicitor-client privilege. It could be developments in an investigation. The chair, and in fact the committee, ultimately decides whether the question should be answered.

Is that your understanding of the process?

[Marc Mayrand]

It is my understanding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Is that process applicable to all persons who appear before us?

[Marc Mayrand]

I can't comment on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

In fact, according to Mr. Walsh's letter, which all members have received, these are precisely the terms and conditions that apply to all witnesses who have a judicial proceeding going on that's relevant to this matter. Therefore, any deal that Mr. Lemieux has referred to is in fact not a deal. These are in fact the rules of Parliament as they exist and as they have been articulated by Mr. Walsh, the law clerk. So all of this nonsense and waste of the committee's time about cutting deals with people is simply to delay, deny, and deceive by the member.

Now I want to move to Mr. Proulx on the second--

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

I have a point of order, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes.

[An hon. member]

Order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

No, no, you're not the chair, but I appreciate.... You're a very kind man, sir, but the chair has that authority.

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Goodyear, on a point of order.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Could I ask that the clerk, perhaps, supply us with any documentation, in the history of mankind, on when a--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

--chairman conducted his own trial during a committee meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's not a point of order, sir.

Mr.--

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

Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We'll have Mr. Lemieux on a point of order.