Evidence of meeting #23 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was siksay.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Jacques Maziade

3:35 p.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jacques Maziade

Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum.

We can now proceed to the election of the chair.

I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

I would move Shawn Murphy.

3:35 p.m.

The Clerk

It has been moved by Mr. Easter that Shawn Murphy be elected as chair of the committee.

Are there any further motions?

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

3:35 p.m.

The Clerk

(Motion agreed to)

I declare the motion carried and Mr. Murphy duly elected chair of the committee.

Before inviting Mr. Murphy to take the chair, if the committee wishes we will now proceed to the election of vice-chair. I'm now prepared to receive a motion for the first vice-chair. The first vice-chair should come from the government party.

3:35 p.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

I move Ms. Davidson.

3:35 p.m.

The Clerk

Mr. Albrecht moves that Madam Davidson be elected first vice-chair of the committee.

Are there any other motions? No?

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

3:35 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

3:35 p.m.

The Clerk

(Motion agreed to)

I declare the motion carried and Madame Davidson duly elected first-vice chair of the committee.

I am now ready to receive motions for the election of the second vice-chair.

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

I am more than happy to nominate my colleague Mr. Siksay.

3:35 p.m.

The Clerk

Mrs. Freeman has moved that Mr. Siksay be elected second vice-chair.

Are there any further motions?

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

3:35 p.m.

Some Hon. Members

Agreed.

3:35 p.m.

The Clerk

(Motion agreed to)

I declare the motion carried and Mr. Siksay duly elected second vice-chair of the committee.

I now invite Mr. Murphy to take the chair.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

Thank you.

I want to welcome everyone to this committee. It's a very interesting committee. It's a very important committee. A lot of you may be aware that for the last five years I've had the pleasure and privilege of chairing the public accounts committee. Although I guess by now I have an understanding of the public accounts, I don't know that much, nor do I pretend to know that much, about access to information or ethics or protection of privacy. So I'll certainly need your help and guidance as we move along here.

What I'd like to do after this meeting is to have a meeting of the steering committee, just to start talking about the future business of the committee. I'd like all members of the steering committee to remain after that.

Also, I should point out that the way I'd like to conduct it--and this is similar to the way we did it in public accounts, and I found it worked very well--is that the steering committee would meet weekly, preferably on the Monday or Tuesday of each week, with the meetings lasting no longer than one hour, in camera, of course, so that we can sort out if there are any differences of opinions or views. Hopefully we can sort those out at the steering committee. That's everything I have to say. I do hope everything works well with the committee, and I believe it will.

Before we adjourn, Mr. Siksay, you have a motion you want to present on notice, which is fine. I'll give you the floor to do that and then we'll adjourn.

3:35 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to read it. It's a bit lengthy, but it pertains to the work that the committee was doing before we rose for the summer.

I'd like to give notice of the following motion:

That the Committee report the following to the House:

On Thursday, April 1, 2010, the Committee agreed, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi) and the motion adopted by the Committee on the same day, to undertake a study on allegations of interference in access to information requests. A copy of the motion adopted by the Committee is appended to this report.

1) In the course of this study, the Committee chose to invite Sébastien Togneri to appear before it. Here are the facts:

On April 12, 2010, the Committee sent Sébastien Togneri an invitation to appear before it on May 6, 2010. On April 28, 2010, Mr. Togneri's lawyer sent a letter to the Committee saying that Mr. Togneri would not appear before the Committee. On May 4, 2010 the Committee adopted a motion (appended) to summon Sébastien Togneri to appear before it. Sébastien Togneri appeared before the Committee on May 6 and 11, 2010, and was informed at both meetings that his summons to appear remained in effect.

On May 25, 2010, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons made a statement regarding the attendance of ministers' employees before parliamentary committees. A copy of that statement is appended to the report.

The Committee received a letter dated May 31, 2010 from the Minister of Natural Resources, noting that he had “instructed Sébastien Togneri and Jillian Andrews that I will appear before the Committee in their place”. A copy of this letter is appended to the report.

Mr. Togneri refused to appear at the June 3, 2010 meeting even though he was not duly discharged.

2) In the course of this study, the Committee chose to invite Jillian Andrews to appear before it. Here are the facts:

On May 25, 2010, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons made a statement regarding the attendance of ministers' employees before parliamentary committees. A copy of this statement is appended to the report.

On both May 27 and 28, 2010, the Committee sent Jillian Andrews invitations to appear before it on June 8, 2010. Jillian Andrews never replied to those invitations.

The Committee received a letter dated May 31, 2010 from the Minister of Natural Resources, noting that he had “instructed Sébastien Togneri and Jillian Andrews that I will appear before the Committee in their place”. A copy of this letter is appended to the report.

The Committee decided to summon Jillian Andrews to appear before it on June 8, 2010. The bailiff in charge of serving the summons made many attempts to contact Jillian Andrews to make arrangements to serve the summons (see bailiff's reports appended). Although Jillian Andrews was aware of the bailiff's various attempts to contact her, Ms Andrews did not reply to the bailiff. Jillian Andrews did not appear (or show herself) at the meeting of the Committee on June 8, 2010. On June 8, 2010, in light of the many unsuccessful attempts by the bailiff to serve the summons to appear on Jillian Andrews, the Committee adopted a motion (appended) that the summons be considered duly served, given its public nature, and to require Ms. Andrews to appear no later than June 16, 2010.

Ms. Andrews did not attempt to arrange an appearance before the Committee by June 16, 2010.

3) In the course of this study, the Committee chose to invite Dimitri Soudas to appear before it. Here are the facts:

The Committee invited Dimitri Soudas to appear before it as part of its study into allegations of interference in access to information requests. Mr. Soudas was scheduled as a witness at the Committee's May 11th meeting and he was present in the committee room on that date. However a fire alarm interrupted the Committee meeting and the Committee did not hear from Mr. Soudas or question him.

On May 25, 2010, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons made a statement regarding the attendance of ministers' employees before parliamentary committees. A copy of this statement is appended to the report.

On May 25, 2010 Mr. Soudas was scheduled to appear before the Committee. He telephoned the Clerk of the Committee prior to the meeting to say that he would not attend citing the announcement by the government that political staff would not appear before Committees.

On both May 27 and 28, 2010 the Committee sent Dimitri Soudas invitations to appear before it on June 10, 2010. Dimitri Soudas never replied to those invitations.

The Committee received a letter dated June 1, 2010 from the Prime Minister in which he stated that, “the intent of this letter is to inform the Committee of my instruction to Mr. Soudas that he will not appear before the Committee.” A copy of this letter is appended to this report.

The Committee decided to summon Dimitri Soudas to appear before it on June 10, 2010. The bailiff in charge of serving the summons made many attempts to contact Dimitri Soudas to make arrangements to serve the summons (see bailiff's reports appended). Although Dimitri Soudas was aware of the bailiff's various attempts to contact him, Mr. Soudas did not reply to the bailiff. Dimitri Soudas did not appear (or show himself) at the meeting of the Committee of June 10, 2010. On June 8, 2010, in light of the many unsuccessful attempts by the bailiff to serve the summons to appear on Dimitri Soudas, the Committee adopted a motion (appended) that the summons be considered duly served, given its public nature, and to require Mr. Soudas to appear no later than June 16, 2010.

Mr. Soudas did not attempt to arrange an appearance before the Committee by June 16, 2010.

Conclusion

In light of these matters, the Committee has reason to believe that a breach of privilege may have occurred. The Committee feels it is its duty to place these matters before the House at this time so that the House can take such steps as it considers appropriate.

That's the motion, and there is a list of appendices appended to that that have already been mentioned.

Thank you, Chair.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

Thank you very much, Mr. Siksay.

Of course, that is just tabling a notice and it's not going to be discussed now.

The only comment I would make, Mr. Siksay, is that it is a lengthy motion and it really ought to have been done in both official languages for tabling in the committee. You did read it, and I assume that's why you read it, but in the future I'd like to see it in both official languages.

Madame Freeman.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

Mr. Chair, the motion Mr. Siksay moved today is very interesting and relevant. All last spring we worked on the Access to Information Act, and we tried to get information from various witnesses who were mentioned in Mr. Siksay's motion. Not only did we have a hard time obtaining evidence, but we were faced with what could be seen as filibustering by some ministers who refused us access to witnesses. I feel that, in the motion that was moved...

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

I'm going to close this off. We're not debating the motion now. Mr. Siksay only tabled it for the purpose of notice. That was the sole purpose, Ms. Freeman.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

Mr. Chair, Mr. Siksay moved the motion, and I move that we debate it.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

We're not going to debate it now; Mr. Siksay knows we're not going to debate it now. It will be done at some future time during the committee's agenda. That's understood by Mr. Siksay, so it's not going to be debated now.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

I want to discuss it, Mr. Chair.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

The only way you can do it, Ms. Freeman, is if you have unanimous consent of the committee. The rules are very clear on that point. The motion was tabled for notice only. Mr. Siksay understood that. He tabled it. He read it into the record because he didn't have it in both official languages. That would come up at some future time in the committee's agenda, if and when Mr. Siksay wanted to bring it up, and that's the way the rules are.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

Mr. Chair, Mr. Siksay moved his motion. It hasn't been presented in both official languages, but since he has moved it, it is in order. Therefore, there is nothing stopping us from discussing it.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Shawn Murphy

No, my ruling is clear. It's not going to be discussed until the 48-hour notice has expired, and it started about seven minutes ago.

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC

Notice has already been given. The motion is now before the committee. We do not need a 48-hour notice. The motion is on the floor.