Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 5th, 2009

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

On a point of order, can I ask you to have that part of the transcript reread to the committee with respect to the point that Mr. Siksay made, that was then voted on, to move directly to Mr. Martin's motion, which I think we're still debating in some form, although we're at least at the subamendment stage?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's not a point of order. It's more a point of debate.

Don't put the chair in a position where I have to express what happened here. Everybody else was here.

Two members have asked to speak.

Madam Freeman.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

I am starting to get tired of how things are being done these days. Since the beginning, we have wanted to know, for one thing, whether the Minister will be able to come here to testify. We want to speak to the Minister responsible for this committee. The fact that we can't have him here in a satisfactory manner is very annoying, humiliating and embarrassing for all of the people we represent, in my opinion. He should answer our questions properly rather than sending us nasty little notes that respond to nothing and wasting our time. I think this is the last straw.

Not coming to testify or staying only an hour is a dismissive and cavalier approach. Can he refuse to come or postpone these meetings? If he doesn't appear before a particular date, what is the second step for us? Will we have to introduce a motion? We can't force him to appear before the committee, but we can address the House. That is what you explained. Can you explain for me what the procedure to follow will be if, after we invite him, the Minister refuses to appear? He is required to justify his actions, to give us an explanation.

On the question of the new Act, this request has been made several times. It is a question of political will. If the Minister does not want to give the public access to information, we would like him to say so clearly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I will try to tell you my understanding in terms of parliamentary precedent and customs. I don't believe I've ever seen it in my 16 years here, but it is in order for a committee that if there is a matter before the committee, and the committee requires the input of the minister with regard to clarification, intent, or understanding, the committee's first responsibility is to make all reasonable attempts to get what it needs from all sources, outside of the minister; and to make all reasonable attempts to invite the minister and to give the minister time to respond, and to see in what timeframe they could appear.

If the committee concludes, after taking all reasonable steps, that it cannot complete its work because the minister has refused, directly or indirectly, to provide us with that, the committee could consider a motion here, the effect of which would be to ask the Speaker of the House to order a minister to appear before committee. We can invite anybody we want; we cannot compel. We can't subpoena a minister, etc.

We have to demonstrate that we've taken all reasonable attempts and that we can't complete our work because of the minister. If we're being frustrated, or the minister is viewed as in contempt of the committee, we cannot provide sanctions. We don't have that authorization; only the Speaker of the House does. That's why you would have to go to the Speaker of the House and ask for that order that the minister appear.

Do you understand? Is that acceptable?

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to call the question on Madam Simson's subamendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We can't do that. As we indicated earlier, in the House you can do that. It's also a debatable motion itself. But it's not in order—

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Right, thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

—in committee to call for the question to be put.

Madam Freeman, you were on the list again.

You've finished your comments on Madam Simson's subamendment that the minister appear? I think you already commented on that.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is the last person I have on the list.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I like the subamendment, and with it, I think I'm able to support the original amendment to the motion. It addresses the concerns I mentioned earlier, my worry about the minister's dismissive response to our committee in both letters. We had given him a second chance to respond in a different manner, but the subamendment addresses that concern. Hopefully it will compel the minister to come before the committee. We're giving the minister an adequate amount of time, until the end of the month. So he has a month in which to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro, you have a point of order.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I think we're into some very fruitful discussion on this subamendment to the amendment. I, for one, would like to see it continue all day. I think it's fantastic. I would just like to encourage members to extend the committee indefinitely. We could, of course, break for question period. Perhaps the chair could order lunch.

But I think this is a fantastic discussion. I would love to see it continue all day. In fact, I had eight hours sleep last night and I could probably go until nine or ten tomorrow morning.

I think we should continue this. Let's bring in some cameras, have some fun, and maybe have some cake, Mr. Chairman. Let's keep it going. I could get some microwave popcorn brought in by staff later tonight.

[An hon. member]

Pizza too.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

We could really build some community here amongst the committee.

So I would just like to see the chair extend the committee until all motions before the committee are dealt with today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you still have the floor.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Chair, I am astounded by the comments just made, putting this committee's work into the context of being a bit of a show, that we should have some popcorn and bring in some cake. It really diminishes the issue that we have at hand. It's a very serious issue that we have at hand: the transparency of the government and the minister jamming the committee and the work it has tried to do.

I'd just like to come back and say I will be supporting—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you. I've heard enough.

I think we've made the points. We're looping again.

I think in the best interests of the committee, we need to dispose of the subamendment, the amendment, and the Martin motion. If the members are agreed, I don't see any other speakers on the list, so I think we're done, in my opinion.

If it's the will of the committee, I want to put those questions now.

Okay? Would that be acceptable?

All right.

The first thing we will deal with is the Simson subamendment, which reads, “and that the Minister be invited to reappear before the committee before November 30, 2009”.

Are the members all familiar with this? They understand what it is?

Can I put the question?

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You want a recorded vote?

Okay.

Mr. Clerk, please call--

[An hon. member]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We're in the middle of a vote, sorry. We are. I've called the question.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 )

We now move to the amendment as amended.

[An hon. member]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We're in the middle of taking votes, sorry. There are no points of order; I think we're following the rules.

Madam Freeman's amendment would now read:

that the Committee recommend to the government that it introduce in the House no later than March 30, 2010, a new Access to Information Act that would reflect the Committee's proceedings and recommendations and that the Minister be invited to reappear before the Committee before November 30, 2009.

That is the motion; that is the amendment as amended that we are going to vote on.

Are we ready for the question?

I see no disagreement.

Did you want a recorded division?

Yes to a recorded vote.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I assumed that you were going to recognize me, because you did ask the committee if there were any questions, Mr. Chairman.