For the first time since 1913, the Speaker of the House of Commons, acting on the authority of the House, has ordered an individual, through a Speaker's Warrant, to appear before a committee of the House. And so, today, Karl-Heinz Schreiber was transported from a Toronto jail to Ottawa so that he may testify in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.
Pat Martin (Winnipeg South) is the NDP member of that committee and he answered questions from several reporters outside the House of Commons today:
Reporter: What are the questions you want Mr. Schreiber to answer tomorrow?
Martin: Well, the top-of-mind questions for most Canadians is, was the $300,000 payment to Mr. Mulroney in any way connected to a kickback associated with the Airbus purchase. Those are the obvious ones. Then of course we can go into more depth and detail to find out the extent of Mr. Schreiber's list of friends in Ottawa. We believe Mr. Schreiber had a list of contacts that spanned both of the major parties over many different governments. The obvious top-of-mind questions would be what was the $300,000 for and why cash? And what did you expect from Mr. Mulroney in return for that $300,000? I think we have to keep our line of questioning fairly simple and straightforward to get to those main top-of-mind issues that most Canadians — that's bothering most Canadians.
Martin: …. Really, we were charged with the responsibility of looking at whether public office holders breached ethical standards and whether our current codes of conduct are robust enough to prevent that from happening again and I think it would be wise for the committee to limit itself to that course.
Martin: No, I think one of the things that we're looking at is perhaps [the committee's legal advisors] should open up and set the tone for the meeting by introducing the witness, perhaps giving some council and advice to the witness about his rights and responsibilities. For instance, not everyone's aware that you do not have the right to remain silent in this setting whereas witnesses in court do. So I think it would be good for Mr. Walsh to set the tone, perhaps swear the witness under oath to make it clear what his rights and responsibilities are.
Reporter: Do you know whether it is illegal or unethical under the code in 1993 for an MP to accept money while in office?
Martin: Well, I don't think Mr. Schreiber would be an expert to ask that question to but I do intend to ask that question to Mr. Mulroney before Christmas. Mr. Mulroney, the obvious question is why did you swear under oath in 1996 that you had only a passing acquaintance with Mr. Schreiber when you were meeting privately with him in 1993 and 1994 accepting big envelopes full of cash? That would be a logical question to ask Mr. Mulroney.
Reporter: You're asking the question, right, not the parliamentary lawyers, right?
Martin: Oh absolutely. The MPs ask the witnesses in our normal rotation as agreed to – the Liberals first, the Bloc next
Reporter: (Liberal MP and committee chairman Paul) Szabo suggested perhaps lawyers could ask the questions.
Martin: No, Mr. Szabo is toying with ideas to make sure it's run in an orderly way but all we've talked about so far is that the lawyer would begin the meeting by setting some ground rules and some parameters. The order of questioning is still as per a normal committee meeting, limited to seven minutes plus each turn for the parties in each of their turns.
Reporter: (Schreiber) may not say anything if he comes up here. What do you make of that?
Martin: Well, Mr. Schreiber does not have the right to remain silent and that will have to be made known to him and how that's enforced remains to be seen but his rights and his obligations are different as a witness before a parliamentary committee than they are under a court of law.
Martin: …. I'm having a meeting as soon as I walk away from this mic with the Speaker on behalf of the committee to urge the Speaker to allow Mr. Schreiber to stay in his own home with access to his own papers and his own clothes. We want a well-rested, cooperative witness, not an angry, hostile witness who has been up all night listening to drunks be dragged in and out of the Ottawa Detention Centre. That's not conducive to a productive exercise. Let's remember, Mr. Schreiber's never been convicted of anything and I don't believe he's a flight risk. He should be allowed to stay in his own home where his papers are and where his clothes are and sleep in his own bed so he's well-rested and cooperative.
Reporter: Has that been agreed to?
Martin: That has not been agreed to. I'm going to urge the Speaker. He's in the custody of the Speaker. It's completely within the rights of the Speaker to dictate the terms of his custody. That's the approach I'm going to make on behalf of the committee in two minutes now.
Reporter: The issue of decorum, the issue of decorum. Quickly, grandstanding often happens when the cameras show up. You're a pretty dramatic fellow. Are we going to see a lot of grandstanding?
Martin: No. We've all stipulated ourselves to the highest standards of conduct because of the importance. We don't want to blow this. This is really important to all Canadians and I resent those who say it's going to be a circus and a gong show. We're the elected representatives of the people asking questions on behalf of the problem and we're going to do it properly and with the dignity that a parliamentary committee deserves.