Information & Ethics Committee on May 4th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I also want to say that I do support your recommendation. It seems to me that the wording of the confidentiality order from the Information Commissioner pertains specifically to the investigation that she's undertaking and not to our ability to obtain information.

So I don't see any conflict with the committee's attempt to get to the bottom of this situation and I don't see that it necessarily would interfere with the investigation the Information Commissioner has under way. I wish we didn't have to resort to that kind of measure, but I do support your advice and your suggestion about issuing a subpoena.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, colleagues.

I'm going to put the question. All those sustaining the chair's decision to issue a subpoena, please raise your hands. Are any opposed?

It's a tie, and the chair does not vote when...so it is carried.

(Ruling of the chair sustained)

Thank you.

As you know, we have a full list of witnesses who were approved by the committee, but we have a problem with the last witness we have scheduled, Mr. Ryan Sparrow.

Colleagues, you will know that I put my confidence in my clerk to make the necessary communications and contacts and, within the timeframe the committee wishes, to make it work and to keep our committee efficient.

We pulled a little stunt on him and shifted one of the commissioners on the estimates and changed the date he was going to be here. We bumped him up to a date that he was prepared to come to, but that was some time ago. That was before we got into the estimates. He is the last one.

We have Mr. Dimitri Soudas on May 11, and we also asked for Mr. Sparrow to be here on May 11 in the second hour.

I'm going to talk on behalf of the clerk, but the clerk will verify if the members want to know. He got into an exchange of e-mails with the chief of staff of the minister who just appeared before us. The chief of staff advised us, through the clerk, that the minister would be speaking on behalf of Mr. Sparrow, who would not be appearing. That was the starting point.

The clerk came to me. I said the motion we passed was for the minister to appear, that at separate or subsequent meetings we would have these other witnesses--including Mr. Sparrow--and that I have no authority to stray from the motion passed by the committee.

I asked the clerk to go back and say that he's the last witness. We have Mr. Soudas on May 11, and then he is the last witness. I asked the clerk to say that we've got to complete our work, that we have other work to do, that we'd like to move forward, and that we have to do a report on this as well.

He went back, and the chief of staff came back and said that May 11 would be difficult for Mr. Sparrow. The word was “difficult”. I sent the clerk an e-mail saying we'd given every consideration we could and that it wasn't going to be perfect for everyone.

Mr. Sparrow was going to be here today, but not speak. It is interesting that they wanted to throw that in, but it was not relevant. The answer that came back, the third iteration--

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

We could take a picture of him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

--was that it would be difficult for Mr. Sparrow to be in front of this committee on May 11, so we are at somewhat of an impasse. They didn't want him to speak in the first instance, and then there were explanations that we didn't do our job properly in scheduling witnesses, and finally it was that it's just difficult, that it's hard for him to appear.

I told the clerk not to have any further negotiations with the chief of staff.

I'm going to suggest to the committee my assessment here. Mr. Sparrow is a vital witness to our work. There is no question about it. He's someone we have to hear from. We have no other witnesses. Mr. Dimitri Soudas is going to be here for one hour on May 11; then we're going to be getting into breaks and other things, and it's just going to drag on. I am not convinced that Mr. Sparrow, or at least the chief of staff, was totally forthright. I got the impression they did not want him to appear at all or to speak. The minister was going to do that.

I want to recommend, similar to the situation with Mr. Togneri, that if the committee would like to complete its work within the schedule we originally set out to complete the testimony by the 11th and start our work in regard to drafting a report, as required by the motion passed, we should also issue a subpoena for Mr. Sparrow to appear on the 11th. I would ask for the committee's input and consideration of that position.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

At the outset, I appreciate your confession that “stunts” have been pulled on Mr. Sparrow--the word you used.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

As a committee, we changed the estimates and had to withdraw a date.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

It was your terminology.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'm quoting you.

The fact of this discussion is that Mr. Sparrow was prepared to be here today. I haven't heard, except through you, that he was unwilling to speak, nor was he involved in the discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The motion said it had to be at a separate meeting after the minister, not at the same meeting.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

At the end of the day, he is part of the minister's staff, and the minister is responsible. We're falling back into a philosophical debate on a point that has been resolved within parliamentary tradition over hundreds of years. Despite those hundreds of years of history, it's a point that some members of the opposition are trying to undo, which is ministerial responsibility. Ministers are accountable to Parliament. They explain the activities of their departments and their staff.

In the previous Liberal government, there was an idea that ministers were not responsible. When major events—I will label them in the politest language possible—occurred, it could simply be blamed on bureaucrats, contractors, or shady third parties, but ministers were not responsible for anything that happened under their watch.

One of the things we've tried to do with this government is to ensure there is ministerial responsibility. Actions carried out by staff or public servants within a department are at least explained and answered for at the ministerial level.

It's why you saw the minister here today explaining the conduct of her staff and her office. She was prepared to have Mr. Sparrow come here for that explanation. For some reason, this committee has refused to have him here.

At the end of the day, it makes no difference to our political interests on this side. I think the entire exchange today demonstrated the transparency of our government and actually ended very well for our side of the debate. I have no problem with that. If they in fact want to have another discussion to put a further exclamation point in front of the successes that this case underlines, then that's fine.

But let's not pretend this is somehow Mr. Sparrow's fault. He was prepared to be available. The committee pulled what you called a “stunt” on one occasion and then refused his subsequent offer on another. I'm sure he's prepared to answer for all of his conduct. I would like to put it on the record that he has conducted himself with the highest level of integrity in his dealings with this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, I'm not sure that the word “stunt” was well chosen, given there was confusion about dates, but it's been said.

Chair, I'd like to suggest that we put this matter over to our next meeting and that another attempt be made to have Mr. Sparrow agree to come to the committee. I haven't heard you report that he's refused outright to attend the committee meeting. I heard there's been some problem in finding an appropriate time or there have been problems with scheduling. I heard you report that it would be difficult for him to attend on May 11, but I didn't hear a refusal.

I would appreciate one more attempt. If it's unsuccessful, you could bring back your recommendation to the meeting on Thursday and we could discuss it again at that time. But given there's been confusion and there hasn't been an outright refusal, it's worth one more go-around to see if we can resolve it without resorting to a subpoena.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

To Pierre's comments, the fact of the matter is that the motion said what it said. The committee, by motion, wanted Mr. Sparrow separate from the minister. We need to hear from the individual who was involved directly. In fact, we heard from Guy Giorno as well, on another issue, not from the Prime Minister; we heard from the representative from the Prime Minister's Office. So it's appropriate for us to hear from Mr. Sparrow.

I don't have a problem with waiting until Thursday, but we need to settle this one way or the other at Thursday's meeting. Negotiations can take place today and tomorrow, and if we're still unable to get...then we need to make the motion on Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Madame Freeman, did you have some input?

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

I think the suggestion to re-invite Mr. Sparrow in a civilized way is a good one. Let us wait until Thursday. I support my two colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I hear a consensus. The chair is always open to the wish of the committee, because the committee as a whole has to decide.

The first opportunity after May 11, obviously, is Thursday, May 13. That is the last meeting before we have a break week, I believe.

I will endeavour to encourage all members to be prepared to deal with some of our ancillary items, like the Google report, Mr. Poilievre's project, as well as discussion on Madam Freeman's order in council appointees, which we were going to have to fill up the time we won't be able to use on the 11th.

I suspect Mr. Soudas may take a little longer than an hour, if we're going to get through at least two rounds. That's up to the committee.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Could you leave both May 11 and 13 available to him? If he can juggle May 11, then let's go with the 11th. If he can't juggle May 11--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Do you want me to re-offer May 11 and add May 13 as well?

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Yes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Is that the consensus of the committee--sometime next week?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

No, no. The consensus was that you were going to try to find a date.