Information & Ethics Committee on Feb. 25th, 2009

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order. This is the fifth meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

We have two orders of business. I have been advised by Mr. Walsh that he is aware of the other business we have carried forward from our last meeting, and he is available to be called to appear should he be necessary.

The order of the day is the motion by Madam Freeman, which has received the necessary notice of the committee. The motion has been circulated in both official languages to all honourable members, so I don't believe it's necessary to read it into the record.

Madam Freeman, are you prepared now to move your motion?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm wondering about this. I saw the agenda that you had prepared. Would it be more beneficial to hear from Mr. Walsh before we deal with the motion? Would anything he would have to say to us to any of our questions have any bearing on the debate that we have regarding the motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I can only speculate, but Madam Freeman's motion was on for Monday's meeting, and with only 48 hours' notice, and it is the right of all honourable members to have their matter dealt with when they're prepared to move it after 48 hours. In addition to that, Mr. Walsh was scheduled to appear after that item in any event, so that point could have been brought up at an earlier time.

The practice is to respect the rights of the members and to deal with unfinished business carried forward from the last meeting. We had a very good meeting with the Privacy Commissioner on Monday, but it did take the entire meeting and we were unable to get to the remaining business, so we have to give the member an opportunity to exercise her right to move the motion. Thank you.

Madam Freeman, have you moved your motion?

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right. Perhaps you'd like to speak to it, then.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Yes, I would like to say a few words about this.

I move this motion because I think it is crucially important. We need to go on with the committee's study on the financing practices of the Conservative Party. I remind the hon. members that in July and August 2008, before the election, the committee sat for six days to hear witnesses on the issue of the election expenses of the Conservatives during the 2005-2006 campaign. The committee heard the chief electoral officer and a few Conservative candidates and organizers. But that study was never completed. Several people refused to appear, and we did not hear the main strategists of the Conservative Party.

We think it is imperative to complete this study and make a report of this issue, so that our efforts are not in vain. We should keep in mind that all the work has been done, and that a report should come out of that. We think this study should be completed because the issue is most serious. The Conservative Party allegedly spent $700,000 more than it was allowed. For its own interest, the Conservative Party should demonstrate that it does not have anything to hide, especially since it ran on a platform of openness in 2006. It should also be noted that nothing has changed since the last meeting of the committee, in August 2008. The questions that were asked then have still not been answered. We do not know who was responsible for this scheme, how much money was illegally spent and who knew what about it.

Legal proceedings are ongoing, and it is quite possible we will have another general election before we know what happened. Like I said in a previous meeting, this situation is very worrisome, since some people who were involved in this scheme have named by the Prime Minister to public positions. Let me mention among others Michel Rivard, who was called to the Senate on December 22, 2008 and Mr. Irving Gerstein, who was also named a senator on the same date and was until recently the chair of the Conservative Fund Canada. Both he and Mr. Rivard were summoned on July 31, 2008, but both of them refused to appear before the committee.

As a second point, I would like to emphasize the need to take action concerning those who refused to appear. A number of people like candidates, financial agents, and organizers of the Conservative Party who were summoned did not appear before the committee. I think this constitutes contempt of Parliament and its committee et should not go unpunished. If we turn a blind eye to this problem, we will jeopardize our work in the future, since witnesses could duck out as they see fit. The power to compel witnesses to appear is a parliamentary privilege, and it should be respected. We all know that the Conservative Party urged its candidates and organizers to refuse to appear. This is unacceptable.

We suggest that this committee should give these witnesses a last chance to appear because they perhaps did not realize how serious their refusal to obey was. Some of them may have had good reasons not to appear because they were sick or had other reasons, but it would be hard to admit that they all suddenly became sick. If they still refuse to appear, we should take steps to condemn them for contempt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Madam Freeman.

Just so we are clear, I want to read into the record the motion that was passed by the committee to do this work in the first place. I think it's important we understand what the--

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

We weren't discussing this motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand that, but Madam Freeman has made some statements that I believe have gone beyond the scope of what the study was in the first place. I think it sets the committee up for doing much more than the committee in fact undertook to do.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, just before you proceed on those lines, based on what you're about to review and based on the history of this issue, I would like to get a ruling from you as to whether this motion is in order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The motion is to resume business from the prior Parliament. It is in order.

This is only four lines long. The motion was:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election, in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for certain election campaign expenses in order to determine

--this is where our mandate comes in--

if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office-holders.

Just to remind all honourable members, in the Parliament of Canada Act, a public office-holder is a cabinet minister, a parliamentary secretary, or other order in council appointee.

The reason I wanted to put this into the record is that Madam Freeman raised the question about how we don't know who is responsible, etc. This is going beyond what the committee was doing. It is not our job, not our authority, and not our jurisdiction, and if that is what this motion is intending to do, madam, it would be totally irrelevant to the debate because it is not within the scope of the work that was being done by the committee.

I want all honourable members to understand that we are dealing with only the ethical standards expected of public office-holders. That's what we were studying: whether or not there are some ways in which we can identify potential changes to the existing conflict of interest guidelines or the code of ethics prescribed for public office-holders as defined.

Please, let's not make this a matter that is related to the jurisdiction of the courts or some other jurisdiction. It is not ours. Our mandate is specified clearly under the Standing Orders. I have here, and would refer members to, meeting 38 in the last Parliament, in which I ruled on the admissibility of the motion in the context of the mandate of the standing committee, as specifically laid out in the last paragraph for our committee in the Standing Orders. Having said that, let's be clear on the scope.

I have a speakers list going. Members, please get the attention of the clerk if you wish to speak. I have four members already: Mr. Hiebert, Mr. Dechert, Mr. Dreeshen, and Mr. Siksay.

Would you like to change that?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Yes. We'll switch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Mr. Dechert, Mr. Hiebert, Mr. Dreeshen, and Mr. Siksay.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

One of the reasons my colleague had suggested we wait for the testimony of the law clerk is that it was our thought that he might help enlighten us as to (a) what the mandate of the committee is in terms of the review of the ethical standards for, as you've pointed out, public office-holders, which is at issue here, and also (b) to address the issue of contempt of Parliament, which is also at issue here. It seems to me that to proceed without the benefit of his advice would be counterproductive. I would suggest to Madam Freeman, if she would agree, that we wait until Mr. Walsh has had an opportunity to testify so we have the benefit of his advice. If that's not acceptable to her, then I would say we will have to vote against this motion at this time.

I can go into greater detail, if you wish, about why I think this motion is not within the purview of this committee, but perhaps Madam Freeman would like to respond before I do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. I think it's in the interest of the committee to hear from Madam Freeman on that specific question.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I will read my motion into the record:

That the Committee resume the study it began during the Second Session of the Thirty-Ninth Parliament regarding the Conservative Party's election campaign expenses during the 2005-2006 election campaign; that it deem the hearings held during that Parliament to have been held during the Second Session of the Fortieth Parliament;

This is the first part of my motion.

Let me be perfectly clear. This motion says that a committee sat until the month of August and its intent is that we go on with the work and hearings of the committee so that we can write a report on the work that has been done.

The motion also provides:

that the Committee issue notices to appear to all witnesses who did not appear during the study; and that it report its conclusions and recommendations to the House of Commons.

Some witnesses did not appear. Maybe they did not understand that had to, or maybe some of them had good reasons, like sickness, not to come. We want to give them a last chance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame, I think you're going beyond answering Mr. Dechert's question. I think he has asked whether or not you would be prepared to suspend the debate on your motion, pending hearing from Mr. Walsh.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

No, I do not think it is necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, Mr. Dechert, I'll give the floor back to you.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

All right. Thank you. It's unfortunate because I think he may have some things to say that may change the way people might view the appropriateness of the study of this particular matter.

In my opinion, it is not within the mandate of this committee to review this matter for the following reasons. One, none of the people identified would have been public office-holders at the time of the events that are under question, including the Conservative party; it's not a public office-holder. I think that you stated earlier, Mr. Chair, what an appropriate definition of public office-holder is and we agree with you. It's a cabinet minister, a secretary of state, a parliamentary secretary, or other order in council appointee.

You also--on June 19, I believe--went on to say that in your view, political parties are not public office-holders and that MPs are not public office-holders. I think you were correct in your interpretation of the mandate of the committee at that time, and I certainly support that and I believe my colleagues on this side of the table do as well.

In addition, if you look at Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi).... I'll just read the provision. It is that the mandate of this committee include “the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives which relate to access to information and privacy across all sectors of Canadian society and to ethical standards relating to public office holders”

I believe, as I've stated, that nothing in Ms. Freeman's motion refers to public office-holders. Secondly, I believe the word “and” is instructive in that it is conjunctive and not disjunctive. It would suggest to me that you have to read the ethical standards relating to public office-holders as modifying the preceding part of that phrase. If the drafters of this mandate wished us to review the ethical standards of any public office-holder, regardless of the preceding language, they would have used the word “or”.

I think that's pretty clear. That's a well-understood rule of statutory interpretation.

So that's my primary argument on whether or not the mandate exists. I assume we will have a discussion at a later stage about what might constitute contempt of Parliament, and so perhaps I can leave that argument until the appropriate time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Hiebert, I believe. Did you want to speak or delay a little bit?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I'm happy to speak.

Mr. Chair, the reason for my earlier intervention, in terms of questioning whether this motion was in order, goes back to the issue raised during the last Parliament before this committee. There was extensive debate and discussion about a different motion that was ultimately put before this committee, and that issue was so contested by all the parties that ultimately it landed in the lap of the Speaker. The Speaker himself, at your request, made a ruling as to whether the root motion, which we're kind of addressing here, was in order.

I will unpack this in just a minute. My question to you, Mr. Chair, is whether the committee can actually pick up on a study that you yourself, as chair, ruled out of order in a previous Parliament.

Let's think about this. When the motion came forward, after extensive debate, you ruled that a motion that did not address public office-holders--we all agreed that it did not; there were no public office-holders present during that 2006 election--was out of order. It was acknowledged that political parties are not public officer-holders, so they were not appropriately addressed. Based on that ruling and based on Standing Order 108(3)(h)(v), it was your conclusion that the motion was out of order. It was only as a result of the strong-arming of this committee, breaking all reason and direction provided by the Standing Orders, that we were forced into this study in the first place.

You brought this to the Speaker's attention after that, and I quote the Speaker's ruling, because he cites your efforts. This was March 14, 2008--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Are you referring to the minority speech again?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

It might very well be. This was almost a year ago. I'm starting a little bit into it. It says that the member for Mississauga South--that's you:

...indicated that, as chair of the committee, he had ruled this motion inadmissible as it did not include any reference to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members or any ethical standards that may have been violated but rather actually made direct reference to potential violations of the Canada Elections Act.

It goes on:

The member for Mississauga South contended that the access to information, privacy and ethics committee has now embarked on a study which is beyond its mandate...

He's citing your words, Mr. Chair. You were saying that this study was beyond our committee's mandate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Can I hang onto that?