Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Maybe Mr. Goodyear would concur that before you can make a motion you need to be recognized and have the floor, and you did not, sir.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

You recognized me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, you had invited questions from the floor, and I made a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I had a list already. It's not I who had a list; the clerk has—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Normally you have a list for something, and you don't have a list for something. Is it a list to have a chat?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

With regard to the matter I was addressing, I concluded by saying that I needed instructions from the committee. The members who had already asked—Madam Redman, Mr. Proulx, Mr. Martin, Ms. Lavallée.... Mr. Del Mastro had already put his name in, and now, sir, you're asking that your name be put in as well. I'm going to follow our normal practice and take members in the order in which they asked to appear on a list on this matter.

Our first person on the list is Madam Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's wonderful that Mr. Goldstein is here, and I think we should hear him. However, I suggest that it would be more appropriate to make the same offer to Mr. Goldstein as you made to Mr. Finley when he showed up at a time other than when he was scheduled, and that is that we would hear him after we've heard the scheduled witnesses.

So I would suggest that we hear from these witnesses and Mr. Mayrand, and when they're done, then we could schedule having Mr. Goldstein come to the table and at that point in time hear his testimony.

And I would like to raise a point of order after we have resolved this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think that sounds like a very reasonable accommodating suggestion, that after we deal with the two scheduled witnesses, we would then hear from Mr. Goldstein. And we'll go to—

[An hon. member]

We have two possible—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, this is one. Our witnesses are the public prosecutor, the electoral officer, and then Mr. Goldstein. Is that acceptable?

[An hon. member]

Of course not.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

How is your list coming, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's the suggestion.

Mr. Proulx, do you want to make—

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

That was a motion. I moved that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That was a motion? Okay.

[An hon. member]

I'm on the speakers list. I demand to be noticed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand that.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I want to know about the list, Mr. Chairman.

[An hon. member]

I want to speak to the motion.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

How's your list coming?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madam Redman has moved that we hear from Mr. Goldstein after the two witnesses, which is the same arrangement we had offered to Mr. Finley.

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

I agree with Ms. Redman's suggestion and motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Our next one is Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I wish we didn't have a motion to that effect on the floor, but I will speak to the motion if that's the basis on which I've been given the floor.

I feel strongly that we should finish the scheduled agenda for today and then consider whether or not to hear Mr. Goldstein, following the same reasoning as we had with Mr. Finley.

You don't get to pick and choose when you appear before our committee. We accommodated him and gave him the date that he said was most convenient—in fact, the only date he said he was available, August 12. That's when he was scheduled. He chose not to be here. His official agent was here and gave a lot of very valuable, important testimony. It was very balanced testimony. The story of Trinity—Spadina's election campaign has been heard, in fact, so there's no compelling, pressing reason to stop us in our tracks and entertain Mr. Goldstein because he feels he wants to speak today.

I'm very concerned that his testimony, given the way he's conducted himself so far, is going to be fairly inflammatory and maybe even disruptive to the committee's work.

And I have the same point as I wanted to make yesterday. We want to book a considerable amount of time today, which may be the last day we have to deal with these matters for weeks, to study and hear from the law clerk to determine just what steps we take to sanction those witnesses who thumbed their noses at our committee and chose to ignore the summons. That's going to take a fair amount of discussion and a fair amount of conversation, because it's a complicated method, as you expressed, Mr. Chairman.

I'm concerned that we will be out of time after we thoroughly deal with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I have many questions for the Chief Electoral Officer. I think that will take us at least the morning session, and I want the afternoon session reserved for the business that we were promised today and that we prepared for.

No one could have foreseen that Mr. Goldstein was going to show up today and ask to be heard. If we are going to be generous and try to accommodate him today, then maybe after the afternoon session, which would probably be from two o'clock to 3:30 or even two to four o'clock—maybe at four o'clock—we could hear Mr. Goldstein and get it in today, but not before what you promised us would be, and what we agreed would be, the agenda items of the day.

So I speak against Madam Redman's motion for that reason. In fact, I would put an amendment to the motion: that we make legitimate efforts to hear Mr. Goldstein today after the scheduled agenda items that were promised to us yesterday.