Public Accounts Committee on April 29th, 2010

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Going back to the root of this instance that gave rise to this letter, the ignorance of the Department of Justice lawyer who initially said we had to apply for this information under the Access to Information Act betrayed an ignorance of parliamentary law. That was palpable and just way beyond the pale.

Those same lawyers are apparently still giving advice to those who wish to drink the Kool-Aid.

The Speaker's decision, which we waited for, was unequivocal. The parliamentary privilege, the power to send for persons' papers and records, is absolute. The only reason he didn't turn to a member for a motion was that Parliament itself was, in this particular instance, dealing with matters of national security underbuilt in its capacity to protect sensitive documents.

There are two weeks available to this House--our colleagues, on that particular committee, the special committee--to build the mechanism capable of protecting the sensitive documents. That doesn't mean the power isn't there. Should we get to the end of the two weeks and there isn't a mechanism, the Speaker might be reluctant, but at some point, someone is going to have to say “turn over the documents”. Someone's going to have to go and seize them.

It is a huge constitutional issue if the government continues to suggest that Parliament doesn't have this power. I have to admit that these issues have gone on. The tension between the executive and the King and Parliament has gone on for 700 years, and this is just another instance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I think it's 800 years.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Yes, 800 years. Magna Carta, yes.

We're coming up to the anniversary. I hope you'll all be out there celebrating.

It disappoints me to see that members are still following so closely what the Prime Minister is suggesting. In fairness to those members, they're part of a caucus where the Prime Minister is their leader and they wouldn't want to vary too much, get outside the loop too much. That's what we're dealing with here today and I respect that.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I have a point of order.

Mr. Lee is impugning motive. I ask him to withdraw it, please.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'm not impugning motive. I'm actually telling--

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Yes, you are.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

In my remarks--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

I don't think it's a point of order.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

He's saying that we are saying what we have said on record here because we've been told to say it. He's impugning motive. It's unparliamentary. I ask you to withdraw it.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm not going to withdraw the remarks. I'm not saying that members have been told to say something. I'm just saying that they wouldn't want to say something that gets too far outside the bounds of what the Prime Minister has said. In fact, we've had the Prime Minister quoted here this morning.

I will close by just reconfirming what's been said all along, what the law books have said all along, and what the Speaker has said all along, that the power to send for persons, papers, and records is absolute. When this committee orders documents, the departments involved have to respond appropriately. If we have to protect sensitive documents here at this committee, we will. In any event, the power exists and this letter reconfirms it. It's an indication to these departments that we will insist on compliance. I support the letter, and I would be prepared to vote in favour of getting it signed and sent out.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Dion.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I don't have a lot to add to what my last two colleagues said, but I would just reiterate that the decision of the Speaker is very clear. The two weeks are not to mollify the principle. The principle is clear. Parliament has the right to see these documents and the two weeks is to find a process for it. We should not twist the decision of the Speaker.

It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that your letter is correct, that it should be sent now, and that the two weeks in question have nothing to do with the process of this committee.

We cannot use the decision of the Speaker in order to try to interpret it in a way that is contrary to what the Speaker has said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Thank you, Mr. Dion.

Mrs. Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I want to add my voice to that of the members who have spoken before me. The ruling of the Speaker of the House, Mr. Milliken, reaffirms the right of parliamentarians to demand documents and persons as need be to throw light on those documents and to understand programs better.

I also want to underline the fact that here, in this committee, we have never exercised this privilege to the detriment of the public interest. The ruling of the Speaker is on a much broader issue and deals with information relating to national security, information that is much more sensitive, I admit. Several Parliaments have established methods to resolve this issue in order to be able to look at this type of records and documents. I believe that, over the next two weeks, the parties represented in the House will come to a solution.

That being said, it does not change anything to the fact that we have to let the various departments know that we do not agree with the answer of the Department of Justice which is contrary to the ruling made by the Speaker on April 27, 2010.

I find the third paragraph of the letter as drafted to be appropriate. This letter could have been much stronger, like the previous one. It is strictly factual and simply reiterates the position of the committee, at least on this side.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to dwell too much on the legality of this issue, because there are others in this room who have much greater experience and knowledge in that respect than I do. Mr. Christopherson did go on about the supremacy of Parliament. I just want to remind him that this is a parliamentary committee, and not Parliament.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

A committee is bestowed with the same powers as Parliament. Learn the rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Order, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

As I said, I don't want to dwell on the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

One speaker, please.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

--legalities at this time. I just want to say that there are really two issues. One is when the letter goes out, and then the issue is what goes out--in what form and whether we're going to make some amendments.

Perhaps we could move to those two issues, which are really the two issues that are at the crux of this whole matter, I believe.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Move the letter.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

So when are we going to send it, and then look at what we're going to send. We have suggestions on perhaps changing the letter to some minor degree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We have the report of the steering committee; the letter was approved by the steering committee. It's before the committee. Committee members can make motions to change it, but I think we should deal with whether the letter should be sent out immediately. I guess that would be the thing. We'll put that to a question, and then we can go with whether there will be any amendments. The minutes from the steering committee state that the letter be sent out.

I'm just going to deal with the minutes of the steering committee. All in favour of the minutes of the steering committee as circulated, please raise your hands.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.