Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 29th, 2007

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am unable to support this motion or to vote in favour of it. The Committee is sitting and has its agenda. A witness is before the Committee. It is possible for us to put to him questions that are general in nature, that are not specific. We will be able to put our questions to the witness once he has had reasonable access to his documents.

We could perhaps consider the possibility of adding hours to the Committee meeting if need be. We have already, through a motion, encouraged the Steering Committee of this parliamentary committee to add to the schedule additional meetings in December or January.

We are not in agreement with the motion that would allow us to adjourn this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I now have Madame Lavallée, s'il vous plaît.

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

The Bloc Québecois is it too in disagreement with the idea of adjourning now, which Mr. Hiebert's proposal amounts to. Mr. Schreiber is here to provide evidence before the Committee. We have questions of a general nature to put to him. I believe we should allow him time to answer our questions.

As for the addition of other meetings, Mr. Hiebert, you will remember that the Committee discussed the possibility of doing this in December. This would indeed grant Mr. Schreiber time to better prepare himself. I believe that between now and Tuesday morning, it should be possible for him to review most of his papers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

I will now move to Mr. Pat Martin, on debating the motion of Mr. Hiebert.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have serious reservations about the motion put forward by Mr. Hiebert.

People should be aware that right up until late last evening, we were trying to convince the Speaker to allow Mr. Schreiber to go to his home and stay there under supervised house arrest, where he would have had free access to his documents and to his clothes and hopefully where he would have an opportunity to have a restful night's sleep in his own home. I still think that's the direction we should go, but seeing as we couldn't convince the Speaker to release him into that kind of supervised custody, I think he has a valid point about access to his documents. I think a lot of this testimony will rely on verification by documents.

Having said that, there's no point in adjourning this meeting at this time because I believe there's a great deal to be gained from Mr. Schreiber by asking questions of a general nature, or outlining the types of questions that our various parties might want to pursue in the future, and in effect serving advanced notice of the types of documents and research Mr. Schreiber might want to look into in the coming days.

Having said that, I would like to add one final point. Mr. Schreiber has said he is not willing to speak to us or answer questions at this meeting. I think perhaps we should ask the law clerk to remind Mr. Schreiber that he does not have the right to remain silent in this setting. This is quite different from a court of law, as I understand it. I would like that verified by the senior law clerk, perhaps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

There has been proper instruction to Mr. Schreiber and Mr. Auger. Let's not be too hard on the words. He has clearly indicated he is willing to appear before this committee and to answer our questions on a fulsome basis.

I'll now move to Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is about a point of principle. Canadians want to know the truth, whether there is an abuse of public trust, and it is very important that we should listen to Mr. Schreiber.

He's here today. We should put questions of a general nature. If he can answer, he can answer yes or no. He can tell us that he will come back to these questions later. So I personally do not support this motion to adjourn this meeting, because we would like to continue with this meeting now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will be supporting the motion because what the opposition parties are portraying this motion as is exactly not what we want. You've all spoken about trying to get to the truth. We've added days. All this motion does is add some time.

The Speaker's warrant requires or asks the witness, in this case, to review his papers. He claims he has not been able to do so. We're providing some opportunity this afternoon to be able to go, in this motion, and do that. If that is not available to him, after the application that is in front of the Ontario Court of Appeal is heard tomorrow, it gives him that opportunity to review the papers.

It is not a delay tactic. I think that is a very misinformed position to take on this. In fact, we're trying to speed it up, not slow it down. We are trying to get to those questions.

Mr. Schreiber has clearly indicated in his opening statement--which was completely about his extradiction and not about the case of the settlement, which is what the motion was about--that he's not going to talk to us or say anything to us of substance until he looks at his documents. This motion provides him that opportunity to look at his documents.

Let's get back at it this evening, if possible, instead of waiting until next week. If you do not support this motion, you are delaying this process for another four or five days.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Tilson is next, followed by Mr. Mulcair.

A point of order, Mr. Asselin.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Could you please state the nature of the point and then you can get into the details?

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am indeed making a point of order. The basis of the motion moved by the member and the debate that has followed aim to postpone this meeting to this afternoon or this evening.

This is a motion to adjourn, Mr. Chairman. Earlier, you said that that was not the case. I challenge that decision. I am asking that you consult the clerk, because I am convinced that the substance of the discussion has provided proof that this is a disguised motion to adjourn to this afternoon or this evening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, thank you, Mr. Asselin.

Let me submit that the members can at any time move a motion to adjourn. That is not debatable and we should have a vote. If there is a motion to adjourn with conditions--such as we meet again--then that is not an immediate vote. There is debate and it is subject to amendment, etc., as you know.

Thank you for bringing that forward, but it's not a point of order.

Mr. Wallace is complete, then it would be Mr. Tilson, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I concur with Mr. Martin that Mr. Schreiber should have some time to review his documents. I don't know how much time he requires. He wasn't really clear about that.

I simply dismiss the opposition's comments that we're trying to delay this matter. We're suggesting that the matter be held tonight and tomorrow, so I don't know where Madame Lavallée, in particular, gets that into her head.

Mr. Schreiber, as I understand, three weeks ago submitted....

First of all, as a question to you, Mr. Chairman, the other person who's at the table with Mr. Schreiber--Richard Auger, it says--I assume that's his counsel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, Mr. Tilson.

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

It was mentioned at the beginning? Thank you.

As I understand it, Mr. Schreiber was able to prepare an 81-page affidavit three weeks ago. I suspect that his papers are in order. He certainly concluded that they were in order--it was about three weeks ago--to prepare a very detailed affidavit of 81 pages. But I understand that he may not have seen those papers for a few weeks. So I believe there would be sufficient time for him to review that affidavit and other documentation this afternoon. Therefore, I would encourage members of the committee that we sit tonight and tomorrow to hear Mr. Schreiber's testimony. I do concur with Mr. Martin that he should have some time. I would think, If we put this off until tonight, Mr. Schreiber will have this afternoon to review his papers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

The clerk has advised that he has received papers to sign Mr. Mulcair officially into this meeting, replacing Mr. Martin at this time. So I will now give the floor to....

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I have a point of order.

Just for our clarification, I'm pleased that Monsieur Mulcair is joining the debate, but it's been my understanding when we've dealt with this in committees in the past that you couldn't replace a regular member of the committee if that member of the committee was still in the room. If he had to leave the room to go to another committee or to vote, then he would have a replacement, but not while he was present.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The clerk advises, and I do recall, that the Bloc has done this on a number of occasions, that they have substituted another member.

I have received the papers for duly signing in Mr. Mulcair, and I give the floor to him.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The warrant for witness signed by the Speaker of the House of Commons on November 27 clearly states that Mr. Schreiber must have access to any place to retrieve any necessary document as may be needed as papers for his appearance before our Committee.

Mr. Chairman, contrary to Mr. Hiebert, I believe that we could make good use of our time this morning. As other committee members have well said, Mr. Schreiber will remain under the authority of our warrant for witness until we have finished our work. Nothing prevents us from finding other dates.

If Mr. Hiebert is suggesting that we sit this evening or tomorrow, we will not object, unless he is telling us to stop now. We are here and we can indeed put questions of a general nature.

We are opposed to what has been suggested, but when Mr. Wallace talks of this, he takes his premise for an axiom. It is not true that Mr. Schreiber has had access to his papers; he told us that he did not access them. The fact that he was able to prepare an affidavit does not mean that he had access to his papers.

This is a most formal order and, personally, I rise up against the fact that Mr. Schreiber has not been offered the access required under our warrant for witness. This is unacceptable. The very respect for our parliamentary institution is in question. I want you, as Chairman of our Committee, representing this institution, to do what is required so as to ensure that the will of Parliament is fully respected in the pursuit of our work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.

I'll move to Mr. Del Mastro, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, I fully support my colleague's motion. What my colleague has put forward is a suggestion that Mr. Schreiber be allowed the time to consult his documents, to go home, read through those, and then return to this committee and be prepared to answer questions. Because these matters are not new to Mr. Schreiber. It's not as if he's being asked to testify about something that happened to someone else; these are his personal dealings. He has personal experience with this. I would think a little bit of refreshment--I can't imagine that he's had that much to do for the last couple of weeks, and as my other colleague pointed out, he did recently write a very lengthy affidavit. I cannot imagine that he has anything that he really needs to refresh himself on. But in the event that he does, we support that and give him the opportunity to refresh himself and come back to provide testimony.

Mr. Chair, based on the comments that have been made by Mr. Schreiber, I feel that this is nothing but an extradition delay tactic and has nothing to do with the truth. Canadians want the truth. They would like Mr. Schreiber to answer a few basic questions so that we can get to the truth. What they aren't looking for is for this to continue on and on, a soap opera type of hearing that is only going to allow Mr. Schreiber to avoid extradition to face very serious charges in Germany.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Now, Mr. Schreiber, you may be able to assist us with some facts. Could you please advise the committee where your documents and records are located?

[Karlheinz Schreiber]

In Toronto, in Ottawa, in Switzerland.

I enjoy that I give you some pleasure.

I want you to understand something: these events are 25 years ago.