Evidence of meeting #2 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'd just like to reference some of the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Poilievre, from Public Accounts. He initially stated that voters don't care about these issues and he referenced the past election. In fact, there is a deep cynicism in the public about political processes. It's not a matter of voters not caring.
Voters care a great deal about how their elected representatives conduct themselves. Voters care a great deal about how those for whom they have made that leap of faith and put an X next to their names conduct themselves in ethical and honest ways. I don't agree with that flippant comment that voters don't care. Voters care, but they've been very disappointed.
That's why I'd like to agree with the subsequent comment Mr. Poilievre made that these very serious issues be treated with seriousness, and not as political batons. The not-so-subtle threat that Mr. Poilievre made about Public Accounts and going back to reports that were dealt with in detail in Public Accounts--in fact, completed--does a disservice. I certainly hope he subscribes to the very sentiment he initially expressed when he started his interjection. These are serious issues. I believe the Canadian public would like us to treat them with seriousness, and I believe we should rise to the occasion and have the capacity to do so.
Thank you.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Mr. Chair, something that my distinguished colleague opposite, Mr. Poilievre, said earlier might add to what Mr. Wrzesnewskyj said.
I think we being disrespectful toward the people who elected us when we say that the fundamental problem of financing...Elections are at the root of our democracy. People follow an established process. Elections are held and rules must be followed. Observers are dispatched to certain countries that do not follow the rules. Canadians travel abroad as observers to see if election rules are being followed. And now, we have Mr. Poilievre saying that no one is interested in this, because the editor of the Globe and Mail, or some other newspaper, apparently said that this story was of no interest to anyone.
It's truly insulting to the people who elected the MPs and who believe that they were elected to office through honourable means. That's the first thing I wanted to say.
My second remark concerns something else that Mr. Poilievre said. If we want to ask the people who initially refused to testify to come back and if we want to make a political issue out of it, then again, Mr. Poilievre's comments defy comprehension.
If witnesses appear before a parliamentary committee, if they lie and distort the truth, then what does that say about us as a Parliament? When people fail to appear when they are summoned, it's not a political issue, but rather a legal matter. The voters are entitled to hear the truth. At issue here is the institution of Parliament, and all such institutions around the world must establish and abide by rules of procedure.
Mr. Chair, I expect this committee to refrain from insulting with such impunity members of the voting public.
February 9th, 2009 / 5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
In this place we should always feel free to express our views openly. I hope we all respect everybody else's right to express different views. This matter will become clearer. I doubt very much that this committee will ever make a bad decision when it comes to defending the integrity of Parliament if we have the right circumstances.
Particularly with regard to a couple of people involved in the Mulroney-Schreiber case, in the subsequent evidence it was pretty clear that someone said they had no knowledge and involvement, but there was correspondence between them and others on that subject matter during the period of time. You have to wonder, especially if the consequences of misleading the committee affected someone's terms of reference recommended to the Prime Minister. It also affected our report. It's too bad the committee didn't have the full light of day on those things. It meant we couldn't do the job as well as we should have or could have. It was because people decided that their interests were better than other people's interests.
It's an interesting discussion. Let's always keep in mind that we have to respect each other's differences of opinion. I think we should just leave it at that. We'll get some more information. We're going to be dealing with this down the road.
Members should reflect on where we're moving, and when we make a decision on taking up further work at the right time, our best arguments will be put forward. We will have a debate and a vote in this committee on what we'll do. That's how we operate our business. Hopefully we'll do it with due respect to all honourable members, taking into account that sometimes there are aspects of it that are very personal. Parliament is not a personal matter. Parliament is pretty solid in terms of what we are here to do.
I think we have a fairly clear picture for the next three or four meetings. Hopefully we'll be getting through Madam Freeman's motion on Wednesday, as well as the supplementary estimates. Then we'll have a brief in camera session with Mr. Walsh to give us some things to think about and put everything in context. He may want to go away to review certain things, and maybe even come back with more information for us, if that's the way it works out. We'll see.
Subsequent to that, we'll deal with the commissioners. We'll schedule them as we can. Hopefully, in the meantime, you will have received for your review all the documents and information you need, including a draft report on the privacy work we engaged in prior to that. Hopefully, we will be able to schedule the committee's consideration of a draft report and a report to the House.
Subsequent to that, at our agenda and procedure meeting we'll schedule another meeting to follow up on the matters we've discussed to see where we are and give our best assessment and advice for the whole committee as to where we proceed after that work is done.
There being no further business before us, we're adjourned.