Evidence of meeting #13 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 question.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I would submit to you, Mr. Chair, that that question has nothing to do with the order of the....
This is a direct question to you about whether your minister or anyone at PMO or PCO was aware that you were instructing the bureaucrats to unrelease a report that they were prepared to release. That was the question. It has nothing to do with the order of the access to information commissioner or the letter that your lawyer sent us.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
That doesn't tell me anything. Give me the nature of the point of order before you start giving --
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
It is, “Usual Order of Business for Committee Study Leading to a Substantive Report”. Decisions to study.... We have here in this figure a list of steps that are involved in carrying out a study of the kind in which we are now engaged. What I have learned by looking at this figure is that the way in which you are carrying out this meeting is in violation of that order of business.
The steps are as follows. A decision to conduct a study is made. The drafting of a work plan, schedule, and witness list is established. Briefings to committee members are provided. Hearings of witnesses and gathering of advice and opinions are produced. There are proceedings relating to the draft report, which will come later. There are review, revision, and adoption of the draft report, and presentation of the report to the House of Commons. Finally, there is the government response if the standing or special committee has requested one.
Now, the most important step of all in this is the second-last one, which is the presentation of the report to Parliament. That is because this committee is an arm of the House of Commons and it works for the House of Commons.
The House of Commons has established an Information Commissioner through legislation, through statute, through law. That Information Commissioner has issued an order. That order has been provided to the witness in writing.
To counter that, you have produced a rough regurgitation of a conversation that you claim to have had this morning at 9 a.m. You have not produced any documentation to support either the existence of that conversation or its contents.
Right now,you are in the process of demanding that the witness violate an order provided to him by an officer created through statute of the House of Commons, and if that House is supreme, then so too are its laws, and we as a committee cannot instruct the violation of those laws.
So I would ask that in the interests of the rule of law, you advise members to cease all questions that would violate a written order from an officer of Parliament whose powers are laid out in statute adopted not only by the House, but by Parliament itself. That is my point.
11:40 a.m.
An hon. member
Mr. Chair--
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The chair is going to rule on this.
Mr. Poilievre has referred to O'Brien and Bosc, specifically the matter of the “Usual Order of Business for Committee Study Leading to a Substantive Report”, and he specifically talked to the step, “Presentation of the report to the House”, which we haven't done yet--and if we keep going like this, I don't think it ever will happen.
What I object to, Mr. Poilievre, is the use of that point of order, which is obviously not applicable at this time, to go back to challenge the chair's ruling on the ability of this committee to deal with this witness. I could also indicate to you that the committee approved the motion, the witnesses, and the summons I issued to bring Mr. Togneri here, notwithstanding that we had the letter from his lawyer and a copy of the ruling from the Information Commissioner's office.
I made that ruling. I made that decision that we are to proceed because we have the right, the authority, and the duty to discharge these responsibilities the committee has adopted, is proceeding with, and is in the middle of. Mr. Togneri is one of the last witnesses.
So I don't want to hear any more arguments about whether or not this committee has the right to do what it's doing. The committee approved it. The chair is following the instructions of the committee and has called the witnesses. I issued a summons with the authority and approval of the committee. The witness is here.
I would suggest to the witness, as well, that to invoke the letter from the Office of the Information Commissioner is no longer a valid reason, because the opinion of the law clerk of the House of Commons is that our work supersedes the investigation and the matters before the Information Commissioner. That is the opinion from the clerk. That is the opinion and the decision that I have taken.
I am now going to go back to questions from Mr. Easter, who still has a couple of minutes left.
I encourage you, sir, not to invoke the matter of the Office of the Information Commissioner. That has been superseded. We are proceeding under the authority of the Parliament of Canada and the members have the right and the delegated authority to do this.
First of all, I'm going to ask all honourable members not to go back over that other ground. To repeat what I said: the decision has been taken. The chair has affirmed more than once today that the opinion of the law clerk and my decision stand. If the committee members believe that the chair is in error in its decision, your option is not to raise a second point of order on the same matter. It is to challenge the decision of the chair.
So if everybody understands clearly, I'm going to go back to Mr. Easter.
Mr. Easter, you still have a couple of minutes.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I would suggest to all members that we get to questions rather than make speeches, okay?
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Because of the deliberate attempt by government members to prevent us from really getting information here, Mr. Chair, I'll review the first two questions.
Mr. Togneri, you refused to answer whether or not you were aware that you had interfered with the ATI process. You refused to answer whether Minister Paradis or anyone at the PMO or PCO was aware that you were instructing the bureaucrats to unrelease the report.
Here's my third question, and I hope you don't refuse to answer this, because I think you're very close to being in contempt of this committee--in fact, I would suggest that you may well be already--in refusing to answer these questions, based on the ruling of the chair. But in terms of interfering in the ATI process, were you acting on instructions from anyone else when you intervened? From anyone else?
11:45 a.m.
Former Parliamentary Affairs Director, Department of Public Works and Government Services, As an Individual
Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.
Again, I'm put in a very difficult position. I have a confidentiality order pursuant to sections 34, 35, 36, and 64 of the Access to Information Act which states that I am not to give any answers nor repeat the questions during my examination under oath before the counsel to the Information Commissioner.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
Again, I'm going to suggest to you that if you're going to want to invoke that, I've made a decision on that already. You don't need to read it back to us, or the other details; if you'd indicate that.... I'm just going to take note of the questions that you have refused to answer, but I want to proceed.
I'm going now to Madam Freeman for her seven minutes, please.
Point of order, Mr. Bezan.
Stop the clock, please.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to note because we have a witness who definitely has some difficulty answering the questions, the committee has.... As described in chapter 20 at page 1,068 of O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, “The actions of a witness who refuses to answer questions may be reported to the House”. So we always have the power to do that, and I think it wouldn't be a bad thing to do, to report it back.
I also want to reference page 994, where it states: “Committees are bound by their orders of reference or instructions and may not undertake studies or present recommendations to the House that exceed the limits established by the House”.
You and the law clerk are suggesting we have more powers than the House. I think we need to have that clarified since the House has a public office-holder, that being the Information Commissioner, who definitely reports to the House and to the Speaker, so we need to keep that in mind.
I also want to keep in mind, too, for Mr. Togneri's sake, that, as cited on page 1,047 of O'Brien and Bosc:
The idea that committees are “masters of their proceedings” or “masters of their procedures” is frequently evoked in committee debates or the House. The concept refers to the freedom committees normally have to organize their work as they see fit and the option they have of defining, on their own, certain rules of procedure that facilitate their proceedings.
It continues on page 1,048:
These freedoms are not, however, total or absolute. First, it is useful to bear in mind that committees are creatures of the House.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Bezan, order, please.
You've already done this once and gone through it.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
When you say that we have somehow taken a decision that is contrary to the rights of this committee, that, sir, is totally incorrect. We have the opinion; we've made a decision on that, sir.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative