:
Ladies and gentlemen, I first want to ask for your indulgence to have silence in the room. It is very important so that those who are posing questions or answering questions are not interrupted or distracted from their business.
This is the fifth meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Our order of the day, as passed by the committee, is that in order to examine whether there were violations of ethical and code-of-conduct standards by any office-holder, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics review the matters relating to the Mulroney Airbus settlement, including any and all new evidence, testimony, and information not available at the time of the settlement, including allegations relating to the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney made by Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber, and in particular the handling of allegations by the present government or past governments, including the circulation of relevant correspondence in the Privy Council Office or Prime Minister's Office; also, that Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber be called to be a witness before the committee without delay, and that the committee report to the House its findings, conclusions, and recommendations thereon.
Our witness this morning is Mr. Karlheinz Schreiber.
Good morning, Mr. Schreiber.
:
First of all, as I already said, good morning.
I am somewhat delighted that finally my request for an inquiry to clean up all these things is in your hands. Whatever I can do I'm prepared to do, under the right circumstances.
I have an opening statement to make. I would like to read it to you, if you don't mind.
Before I start reading I would like to ask you to keep in mind that my mother language is not English. I try to do my best, as much as I've learned over the years, but once in a while it's a little bit tricky between the rules. But I will do my best. Therefore, I am reading. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask for clarification.
My name is Karlheinz Schreiber. Yesterday morning I was taken from the Toronto West Detention Centre in a van by two officers from the Ottawa Detention Centre. I was handcuffed. I was in leg irons. I wore an orange jump suit. I do not understand why that was necessary, given that I have been on bail for eight years and three months pending an extradition request by Germany.
I'm a Canadian citizen and I am proud of that fact, the day when I chose to become a Canadian. I was very upset when the Prime Minister of Canada said that I should be sent home for trial. Canada is my home. It has been determined by the court that I'm not a flight risk. I've absolutely no interest in leaving Canada. My sureties have been impeccable, and I would do nothing to hurt them. You know who they are.
I first got bail right after I was arrested, with an extradition warrant to send me to Germany. I got bail right after the extradition case was filed with the Court of Appeal of Ontario. Every time until now, I have received bail on every judicial review that I have brought from the minister's decision. Because of the desire of the Minister of Justice to have me removed from Canada, my counsel, Edward Greenspan, in order to avoid my removal agreed that I would not seek my further release until after November 15, 2007. At the conclusion of my appeal on November 15, 2007, the Court of Appeal of Ontario dismissed my appeal and accepted the Minister of Justice's assurance that he would do nothing to remove me from Canada until December 1, 2007, which means 12:01 a.m. this Saturday.
Mr. Greenspan wrote to Nancy Denison at the Department of Justice on November 22, 2007, after filing a notice of application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada on the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. Following the filing of said notice, Mr. Greenspan wrote Nancy Denison at the Department of Justice seeking immediate confirmation that there is a stay of the surrender order in place pursuant to section 62 of the Extradition Act. Having regard to the fact that the notice of the application for leave had been served and filed and having regard to the position taken by the Department of Justice on other extradition cases, there was no response from the Department of Justice.
On November 26, 2007, counsel for the applicant wrote another letter to Nancy Dennison at the Department of Justice seeking a response to the letter of November 22, 2007, by 1 p.m. Counsel for the Department of Justice called our office at 12:36 p.m. and stated that she anticipated having a response before the end of the day, but not before 1 p.m.
On November 26, 2007, at 6:55 p.m., the Department of Justice faxed a letter to counsel for the applicant indicating that she was unable to respond to the letter dated November 22, 2007, and was still seeking instructions.
The Department of Justice has in the past obviously taken the position that section 62 of the Extradition Act does apply to the Supreme Court of Canada leave application—several times before in my own case, and in many other cases.
My counsels informed me that pursuant to paragraph 62(1)(b) of the Extradition Act, there is an automatic stay of the surrender order pending the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Any other reading of the section of the act would render the section pointless, because there would never be any appeal from an appeal or judicial review. No one would ever be able to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, because leave is always required.
Nancy Dennison then wrote to my counsel, Edward Greenspan, on November 27, 2007, and said:
It is the position of the Attorney General of Canada that section 62 of the Extradition Act does not provide for an automatic stay of an outstanding surrender order pending the outcome of the leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada. On behalf of the Attorney General of Canada, I am prepared to consent on strict terms to a judicial stay of the surrender order pending the outcome of your application for leave pursuant to section 65.1 of the Supreme Court Act.
As affirmed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario per Doherty, J.A. on November 15, 2007, the Minister is “entitled to give significant weight to finality concerns”. Given the history of this matter, including two previous unsuccessful applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, my consent is contingent on your agreement to file all the materials in support of your leave application on an expedited basis and by no later than December 10, 2007.
Mr. Greenspan wrote back on November 28, 2007, and said:
I acknowledge receipt of your facsimile received by my office at 5:32 p.m. on November 27, 2007, responding to our letter to you dated November 22, 2007.
It is, of course, our position that section 62 of the Extradition Act provides for an automatic stay of surrender pending the determination of the leave application to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, we are concerned that, in light of the Minister of Justice's public statements with respect to his claims of limited discretion, in the absence of a court ordered stay of the surrender he will surrender Mr. Schreiber in breach of section 62 of the Extradition Act.
It is apparent from your letter that the Minister is prepared to respect the court ordered stay, as he has publicly stated that he would not surrender Mr. Schreiber until the stay ordered by the Court of Appeal of Ontario has expired on December 1, 2007. Furthermore, it would appear that in your letter, you take the position on behalf of the Minister, that he is prepared to extend a court ordered stay upon an imposed abridgment of the time limitations for the filing of leave applications.
As you are aware, my associate Vanessa Christie has been involved in this matter for a number of years and has been responsible for the preparation of a great deal of the materials and memoranda filed with the Court. Unfortunately, I have just been informed that she had a family emergency in New Brunswick [reason stated in letter to Department of Justice but felt it to be too personal to state in this statement] and Ms. Christie will be leaving today to join her family. In addition, I am scheduled to commence a Superior Court trial in Sudbury which will occupy the week of December 3, 2007 and am to appear in Chicago for the sentencing of Conrad Black on December 10, 2007. Even if I were prepared to accede to an artificial abridgment of the rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, I would not be able to file the necessary materials in accordance with your manufactured schedule.
I would request that you seek instructions to consent to a court ordered stay of the surrender in accordance with the rules established by the Supreme Court of Canada. The rules require that all materials with respect to our leave application be filed by January 15, 2008. We are, of course, prepared to honour a strict adherence to the rules and would request that the Minister do likewise.
It is our position that neither Mr. Schreiber nor the Court ought to be dictated by this artificial timetable.
I hope I got it all right for you.
I have just been informed that at 9:30 today, the Department of Justice wrote Eddie Greenspan and said,
In view of this unforeseen change of circumstances (the family emergency of Ms. Christie) the Attorney General consents to file our materials on January 15.
Until the court hearing in Toronto tomorrow determines the length of the stay, I am unwilling at this time to testify until the court of appeal decides how long the stay will be in effect.
I'm sorry, we had to write this down first.
Mr. Greenspan has advised that this matter is not resolved now. We have a right to file on January 15. We do not need the consent of the Attorney General.
As I understand, my case will be dealt with tomorrow in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and a decision will be made. Until that time, I will not speak or answer any questions of this committee. As well, I am here as a result of a Speaker's warrant. It requires me to give material evidence. I do not know the scope of your inquiry, and therefore wish to have it properly explained to me so that I can prepare to answer material questions with material evidence.
Further, the Speaker's warrant says, “That you allow Karlheinz Schreiber access to any place to retrieve any necessary document as may be needed as papers before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.”
I was not given an opportunity to go to my home. I was not given any opportunity to retrieve any necessary documents, and I have not been given any opportunity to review what I have available to me in order to properly prepare myself to testify.
Mr. Greenspan believes that the Speaker's warrant therefore is unlawful and unenforceable and that I should be immediately returned to Toronto. When the issues in Toronto have been resolved and when I have a clear opportunity to prepare myself, then I will voluntarily speak.
I am not entitled to have counsel ask questions or cross-examine anyone. I'm not entitled to have counsel make legal arguments on my behalf. And unless safeguards are taken to protect my rights, like the safeguards that are fully provided for in any public inquiry, I will not speak.
I have nothing more to say now. I have made it clear that I wish to speak, but not in circumstances that are calculated to be degrading and humiliating.
:
Thank you for that. Thank you for your statement, Mr. Schreiber.
Just for clarification and to advise you, this committee does meet Tuesdays and Thursdays while the House is sitting, from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. We have meetings after this on December 4, December 6, December 11, and December 13. The committee has also under consideration to have additional meetings in December. As well, there are recommendations to the committee to have additional meetings through January. We do have lots of time to hear you, and I think it would be in the best public interest and your interest and this committee's interest that you be permitted, if it is a legal obligation and all the things are cleared, to be able to do what you have to do with regard to other proceedings, if those are in order. We understand that. But I want you to understand that we do have time to hear you, and we are flexible on that time to take into account your other obligations, which we understand very well.
Secondly, Mr. Schreiber, you indicated that you were not clear on our mandate or what the committee is here for. Did you receive a copy of my letter of Thursday, November 22, 2007, to you with regard to the call to bring you before the committee?
I also had a meeting last Saturday for two hours with Mr. Greenspan and explained it fully to him in great detail, and our procedures, and of course that you have parliamentary protection--that anything you say here cannot be held against you in another jurisdiction, another court of law.
You also understand that this is not a court; this is a committee of the Parliament of Canada, which is looking into matters and wants to have information related to its order of reference.
We are going to proceed. As you know, the Speaker has provided you with a Speaker's warrant, which lays out specifically that you have access.... And I want to read it into the record: “That you allow Karlheinz Schreiber access to any place to retrieve any necessary document as may be needed as papers before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics”.
We want you to have full access. We want you to have the time to properly review them so that you can come before this committee and give fulsome answers to the questions that are posed to you, if you are able. We will certainly respect this order to the letter.
I would also want to indicate to you that the committee, also under this Speaker's warrant, indicates that your attendance before this committee is required from time to time until that attendance before this committee is no longer required, and that the committee will continue to deal with your testimony and members' questions--not cross-examination with lawyers, but the questions the members have--until such time that it is completed, other witnesses are heard, and it is determined by this committee that your presence would no longer be required. At that time we will give you formal affirmation that you are no longer required for the purposes of the committee. I can assure you that it will be some time, and we will keep you apprised on a regular basis.
I think we understand that you are at a disadvantage right now. We do want you to be fully prepared to address it. In discussion with the members of the committee, it was agreed that in order to facilitate you to be aware of the kinds of questions, the nature, the scope of those questions, we are going to move now to the round we would normally have to pose those questions. Those questions will be on the record. The members have a seven-minute time slot to advise you of the areas of interest.
You may wish to answer any or all of those questions if you are able, but I understand if you are unable you will undertake to answer those at a future meeting. We will provide you within one hour of this meeting with a transcript of these proceedings verbatim so that you have full knowledge of the questions.
When you return.... Will you be able to return here next Tuesday? Maybe you can consult with your lawyer as to whether next Tuesday at 11 a.m. is acceptable.
Clearly, Mr. Schreiber, you've had an opportunity for some time to anticipate that you'd be coming before this committee. It's been speculated in the papers and in the media for weeks now. I would tend to believe that, with that in mind, and with its inevitability, you may have perhaps put some thought into preparing for this particular committee.
I have no doubt that you need access to the papers that are contained in your home, and we know that the Speaker's warrant provides you the right to access those papers. But I would simply suggest, sir, that if we give you the opportunity to access those papers, to review your notes, to consult with your counsel, that we reconvene, as we've all been anticipating this opportunity to speak with you for some period of time. We're certainly ready, and we want to give you the chance to be ready. That's why I'm moving this motion that we reconvene tonight, or, as you suggested in your opening statement, if you simply cannot speak before the application is heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal tomorrow, that we reconvene tomorrow after that application has been heard. Certainly that would give you the freedom to speak openly to this committee at that time.
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.
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.
:
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.
:
At this point, Mr. Auger, maybe you can just confirm with the directions you've been given by policing authorities who are responsible for the custody of Mr. Schreiber whether there are any restrictions on him having his papers with him while he is no longer in the custody of Parliament on the Hill here. Could you advise him on whether he has...or make a consultation right now? We'll take the time for you to get the answer to that question. Advise him so we can be absolutely sure that once he leaves here, no matter where he's going, and is required to go, that he will have access....
In fact the order, the Speaker's warrant, is clear. It says that Mr. Schreiber has “access to any place to retrieve any necessary document as may be needed”. That means he specifically is authorized by this Speaker's warrant to go to his home to get the papers and all the documents he needs, so that he is satisfied that he has what he needs to be able to come here to give fulsome answers to the questions that are posed to him.
Could you please make that inquiry right now of whatever authorities? And if it's not possible to do within the next few moments, I will suspend this meeting until you get an answer for this committee.
Thank you.
Go ahead.
An hon. member: What are we doing?
The Chair: The motion before us, if I may, and the member is correct, is that Mr. Schreiber, after we release him from here, will have his papers and have an opportunity to review them. My concern would be if he is taken immediately back to the detention centre, and the order does not allow him to have those papers with him in the detention centre, then there won't be a meeting tonight because he won't be able to do what we're asking him to do.
So I'm asking to establish, please, right now if possible, or I'll suspend this meeting until we get this answer, that you, Mr. Schreiber, will have full opportunity to review your documents, so when you return before us, whenever the committee decides, you will be in a position to give fulsome answers to the questions posed. Can you consult with your lawyer and find out how we determine who is responsible to answer that question: can Mr. Schreiber have his papers at the detention centre?
Mr. Van Kesteren is the next on the list with regard to Mr. Hiebert's motion.
In light of what Mr. Schreiber has just told us, I really see no reason why this isn't an excellent idea, that we could just begin proceedings tonight and tomorrow.
Many of the questions that we will be asking you, sir, will be of such a nature that I don't think you will need much documentation, or any documentation.
We too want to get to the bottom of this. It would appear that the opposition, who were just giddy about extra dates and going on into December and January.... It's somewhat puzzling why they wouldn't entertain such a motion, and more than that, be very receptive to it, because we can shorten this and get to the bottom of it.
I think this is something that, again, has been stated, that the Canadian public expects. Let's get started. I would encourage the opposition to not delay this. Let's get started with the proceedings and let's get to the bottom of it.
Thank you.
:
Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, this witness has been served with a summons. And then he was served with a Speaker's warrant. I believe that he's had all the time in the world to prepare for this thing.
I cannot believe that his counsel hasn't been to see him when these documents were served on him. I cannot believe that.
We want to proceed with this matter. This committee has given him notice. This committee said to be here today to proceed, and he's saying, “Well, sorry, I'm not ready. I'm not ready to proceed today. I need more time. I need to get some papers from Switzerland, Toronto, and Ottawa.”
I find that unacceptable. I am prepared to proceed now. However, I understand why.... I'm prepared to support the motion and not delay it until next week, which is what the opposition is suggesting, but start right today. And I understand if he needs some time this afternoon, considering the time he's already had. He's already had time to consult with his counsel, at least two counsel. He has a counsel here and he has Mr. Greenspan he's been talking to. He's been having all kinds of consultations. So he's ready.
And I propose that we meet tonight, as the motion says.
:
Perfect. The sound is now coming through clearly.
I imagine that we will start the clock up again, Mr. Chairman.
It was predictable that you would come here somewhat at the last minute, without your documents, and that you would not have all of the information needed to provide precise answers to each one of our questions. You do however know some of the answers and you are therefore able to respond to some of our questions.
If you will allow me, I will give you an overview of the questions the Bloc Québecois will be asking you during the course of your appearance on Tuesday, and perhaps on the following Thursday as well and in further meetings possibly. I would like you to prepare yourself properly.
Given that it will have been very kind of me to provide you with this overview, I would, at the end, appreciate your responding to one single question. I do not want your usual answer, but the real answer. Agreed?
The questions that the Bloc Québecois plans on putting to you can be classified under three headings. The first one is the matter of the $300,000. What happened to these $300,000? Where did the money come from? Why give the money in cash? What work did Mr. Mulroney do in order to deserve these $300,000? Those questions are pretty much the ones Mr. Thibault asked. I want to know everything about this matter. That is our first series of questions. Obviously, that would also cover the political contributions you have made to various politicians, in the Conservative camp, for example.
The second part pertains to the management of the correspondence within the Prime Minister's office and Privy Council. This is a serious concern for the Bloc Québecois. We do not know if the ethical rules were respected. You have sent at least two letters to Mr. Steven Harper and he says that he has never even seen them. We find this quite troubling. I have questions for you concerning the letters you have sent and the types of answers you have received, if there have been any. I really want to get answers in this area.
Then, with regard to the handling of this whole affair by the Conservative government, how is it that the Conservative government receives letters and then does nothing? How is it that it hears the statements you make during English language televised broadcasts but that no one has lifted a finger? I would like to hear what you have to say in this regard. I have questions and sub-questions to ask in this area.
That gives you have an idea of the nature of the questions the Bloc Québecois will be asking you.
Now that I have so kindly given you advance warning, I would like to put one single question to you. I would like to get a real answer. Is that agreed? Following that, we will resume next week.
I would like to know precisely what work Mr. Mulroney did in order for you to hand him $300,000.
:
Mr. Schreiber, we want to know if, during the 1993 election campaign, you made a $500,000 payment to Mr. Marc Lalonde. If such is the case, what were the reasons for this payment? We would like to know when and where you met Mr. Lalonde.
We want to know why you made a $10,000 donation to the Liberal Party of Canada in 1993.
We especially want to know what you mean in the letter you sent. You state that Brian Mulroney is an excellent advocate. The Act respecting the Barreau du Québec sets out, in its regulations, very strict rules for lawyers charging fees to clients. The term “advocate“, in the English version of the Loi sur le Barreau, is reserved for members of the Bar.
In using the term “advocate“ to describe Mr. Mulroney's work, are you inferring that he did the work of a lawyer? If so, that might imply all sorts of things, because there are provisions of the Code of ethics of advocates that prohibit one from giving false evidence. There are rules that very clearly prescribe the way one must maintain one's bookkeeping and invoicing.
We will have to know if Mr. Mulroney had the slightest pretence of acting as an advocate, within the meaning given to the term in the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec.
:
Thank you, Mr. Schreiber.
Mr. Schreiber, Canadians want to know what Mr. Harper knew and when he knew it and why he distanced himself so quickly from Mr. Mulroney. So Mr. Schreiber, I'm going to ask you questions about your correspondence with Mr. Harper. To assist the committee, I'm happy to table the copies of the letters that you sent to Mr. Dion earlier this month.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to table these copies here for your convenience.
I should let you know, Mr. Schreiber, that upon viewing this package, Mr. Dion asked that a copy of this be sent to the RCMP. Can you confirm that in your March 29, 2007 letter to Prime Minister Harper, you included the information that Mr. Mulroney was looking for financial help in the summer of 1993, and you met him at Harrington Lake on June 23, 1993?
Thank you very much, colleagues.
I have some instructions, please. The gavel has not gone yet. Order, please.
Mr. Schreiber, at the beginning of your statement this morning, you gave us a number of dates of court appearances, either for you to be present or for your counsel to be present. I'm not sure that those were all the details you wanted to give us. I would like to have the details of the commitments and the full reasons why you or your counsel cannot be available on certain dates.
However, our next scheduled meeting is on next Tuesday coming up, which is Tuesday, December 4. Again, it's from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., and the committee requires you to be here prepared to answer the questions, which will be re-put to you, for those you did not have an opportunity or were not prepared to answer.
We are going to be sending out to all those who are required to be given notice, pursuant to the Speaker's warrant....
Order, please. There is far too much.... Just give me a moment.
Formal notice will go to all who are covered by the Speaker's warrant that we require your presence here on Tuesday, December 4, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.; and in the interim, that you, as pursuant to the Speaker's warrant, will have full access, appropriate access, to your documents to prepare yourself, and that you should, I would imagine, bring those documents with you when you appear before us on Tuesday, December 4, so you can make further reference, if necessary.
Those are the instructions of the committee at this time. Are they understood?
:
Let me briefly, Mr. Chairman....
I think we're not giving enough weight to the Speaker's warrant. I understand Mr. Tardi's point, that the current arrangements are tripartite in a way: the custody of the Province of Ontario, and then escort by other police, and then once he got into the precincts the Sergeant at Arms took over.
But in fact it's a Speaker's warrant. He's in the custody of the Speaker, and it's within the power of the Speaker to dictate the terms and conditions of the custody. That's the legal advice that we have.
My motion is simply a recommendation as well, Mr. Chairman, to the Speaker: that if this committee agrees Mr. Schreiber would be better off in his own home under supervised house arrest, if you will, we would recommend strongly to the Speaker to make it so. And I argue it is within the power of the Speaker to make it so.
The last thing I would add is that you can't possibly believe this guy is a serious flight risk, if that's the reasoning behind it. I don't believe it.