Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 26th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

Mr. Easter, if I understand you correctly, you are amending the minutes of the steering committee to comply with the wording of the motion that you had before the committee. I'll just read it into the record:

That Nigel Wright provide copies of any recusal conditions that he has agreed to abide by as chief of staff to the Prime Minister to ensure that he's not in conflict of interest and copies of any agreements with Onex Corporation for him to return from temporary leave to the corporation.

Is that correct?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

And that these documents be provided within five calendar days, which would give us time. This is Tuesday, so going to Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. That's probably fine.

So you're moving that amendment, Mr. Easter?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Now we have a discussion on the amendment.

I have Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Chair, on the amendment, I think it's redundant. It was clear in this last paragraph that he's going to provide the Onex material, he's going to provide the recusal conditions, so I don't understand why we would go back to this redundant amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I appreciate Mr. Easter's desire to be as punctilious as possible. It's not exactly clear to me what his amendment adds—

[An hon. member]

Nothing.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

—other than to show that the committee will write its own wording and not take any suggestions from anybody outside the committee. I suppose if the goal here is to really flex our muscles and teach people a lesson, that we write our own stuff and that nobody better think they can write something for us, then maybe we should get busy and start writing more and more material. But I think we have everything already captured in this.

The relevant documents will be here. You can refresh my memory or correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Mr. Wright has agreed to submit them before he appears, giving the committee some time to review them. He's committed to come to the committee to offer testimony and to be questioned on the materials he will have furnished us with. I'm not quite sure what more Mr. Easter's amendment adds to the discussion than what is already there. On that basis, I would vote against it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Before we go to Ms. Davidson, I note that one side of the table has delivered a copy of the letter to the other side of the table. I just want to point out the reason it has not been circulated. I did read it into the record this morning at the steering committee, and I will read it into the record now if someone wishes, but it was not provided to me in both official languages. Therefore, I was not able to circulate an English version of the letter.

Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of points. When I look at the amendment that Mr. Easter is proposing, it's very broad. He's talking about any agreements and he's talking about recusal conditions that are not the conflict screen. We just spent an hour and three-quarters with the commissioner, having her explain the difference, in particular, with regard to Dr. Bennett's references to what happened with recusals by former members and how that was not the correct terminology. So I just don't think this motion uses the correct terminology. I think what's in the motion before us, or in the minutes, is correct.

I would also question how someone who wasn't at the steering committee or subcommittee can change the minutes. The minutes of this meeting from this morning are a reflection of what was said at the meeting, not a reflection of how the full committee wants to add to them. If the full committee wants to add to the subcommittee, they have every right to do that, but I don't understand how they can legally change the minutes of something that actually happened at that meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

To answer your question, the minutes of the steering committee are not binding on the committee. It's the committee itself sitting as the committee of the whole that makes the final decision. So it would be rejected.

Madame Thi Lac is next.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Chair, you brought up something I wanted to discuss. I am a little disappointed to see that the letter is circulating when it has not been translated. You read it this morning at the subcommittee meeting and you did not submit it because it was not in both official languages. I object to the circulation of the letter. All the members should not have it since it has not been translated.

Furthermore, you have the letter in hand. I agree with Mr. Easter in that all the members do not have the letter and that we are not able to assess all the ins and outs involved. You read it, I admit. I also admit that it was translated by interpretation services. But it is always preferable when we, the members of a committee, have paper copies of documents in both languages when we are deciding on a motion.

I agree with what you said, as well: even though there is a steering committee, it is the main committee that makes the final decision and approves requests. That was what I was referring to regarding the letter. As chair, you noted that the letter was circulating, but you should have gone a step further and asked that the letters be recalled, as they are not in both official languages and should not be circulating in committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Well, Ms. Thi Lac, I didn't circulate it, and I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. I couldn't circulate it. I did read it into the record this morning. I can read it into the record if you want me to do that now, but I think it has probably been pretty well circulated—according to the media, anyway.

Let us vote on Mr. Easter's amendment.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a point I'd like to make, Mr. Chair. I really don't understand the government's resistance to the amendment, which is taking direction from the committee itself rather than the incoming chief of staff. The government will have ample opportunity in the future to take orders from the new chief of staff, but the motion that I put forward certainly sets a clear deadline that we receive the information prior to his appearance. I think that's an important point as well.

We really need these documents as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Calandra.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you.

I know the motion the member brought forward is pretty much similar to the letter that we know has gone around or that most of us understand to be the same. I understand that sometimes maybe it plays well back home to be a tough guy, or something like that; I don't know. But sometimes when you take orders from higher powers, maybe on the gun registry, when your leader tells you to vote on the gun registry and you don't want to...sometimes we have a certain level of fake indignation with respect to that.

What I'm trying to say, Mr. Chair, is that, quite honestly, if the committee is going to seize itself with rewriting the exact same way, every single time because we feel like pumping our chests out and being tough guys or tough men and women and really promoting how tough we are as a committee...regardless of the fact that you said the exact same thing that we want, we're rewriting it and putting our name at the end of it.... If that makes the member feel better.... I'm not sure how the members opposite work. I know they take orders from their leader's office and I know it stresses them greatly. But here you have an opportunity to hear from the potential chief of staff prior to him becoming a member, so that we can avoid problems and we can maybe make some suggestions. I think that's a good thing and not a bad thing.

I think it's actually spectacular that he's being as open and honest with his commitments. I think it's also quite unique that he's coming to this committee. We hear so often how disappointed they are or stressed they are when they don't get the appropriate people in front of them. Here you have the opportunity to hear what the terms of references might be, to make some suggestions in advance of him signing on to become the chief of staff.

I'd say to the honourable member, I know that you probably got some talking points from the leader's office that told you to act tough so that you could suggest how the new chief of staff was put in his place by the Liberal Party, and I suspect that in the next two minutes you might flip-flop on that, as you have on so many other things....

But having said this, if that's the usual practice here—and granted, I'm only here two years and I don't have that institutional knowledge that some of the members who have been here too long have—if it makes them feel better and if that's how the committee operates, they just ignore what the subcommittee does and they feel better about it, then it's a pretty sad commentary that members of Parliament would behave in such a fashion, and that this is how we would be starting a relationship with a gentleman about whom I had hoped, regardless of what party he is with...that we would all respect the office and the position he's taking. I don't think that's the way we've started here today, that's for sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.

Ms. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

I think the subcommittee this morning felt there was a consensus that we need the documents before Mr. Wright testifies in order for us to look at them and do some sort of scenario planning in terms of what if, what if, what if, kinds of questions.

I think Mr. Easter's motion is really just adding a deadline to make sure we will have time to prepare properly for when Mr. Wright appears.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I think that closes the gap a lot. If all that Mr. Easter's motion adds is a deadline, as Ms. Bennett says, then there should be no problem with that. We can put the five-day requirement on the existing subcommittee report, which was unanimously agreed upon by committee members this morning, and let's move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

So what you're saying....

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I would propose, then, that we amend the subcommittee report to include Mr. Easter's five-day deadline, that the documentation be furnished to the committee and its members within five days, and away we go. That would be my proposed amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay.