Information & Ethics Committee on May 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

This is the 16th meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Our orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi), are a study on allegations of interference in access to information requests, and specifically the motion, moved by Mr. Easter, that the committee conduct a study regarding allegations of systemic political interference by ministers' offices to block, delay, or obstruct the release of information to the public regarding the operations of government departments, and that the committee call before it a number of witnesses, which we have been working through.

This morning we were to have, from the Office of the Prime Minister, Mr. Dimitri Soudas, the director of communications for the Prime Minister.

I think everybody is aware that there was an announcement by the government that was confirmed in the chamber this morning at 10 o'clock. All parties had an opportunity to respond to the ministerial statement.

Just prior to this meeting, the clerk received a telephone call from Mr. Soudas to indicate that he would not be appearing and that they would be following the decision of the government with regard to political staffers appearing before committees.

In this particular case, the minister responsible in fact is the Prime Minister. As you know, it is quite unusual that a Prime Minister would appear before a committee on such a matter. As a consequence, the Prime Minister’s Office has asked Minister John Baird, the Minister of Transport, to appear before us to answer our questions, and even to make a brief opening statement if he wishes.

Colleagues, under the circumstances, I think we all understand that this is a very serious matter that was raised with Parliament just this morning at 10 o'clock. It's a long statement, and it has had the input of all the parties at this time. I understand, from my reading of watching the proceedings, that each of the parties wants to be very careful, to look carefully at the statements and at the precedents, and determine what happens--not to take too quick a step on this. I think that's probably good counsel for this committee as well.

We do have our members assembled. We have other business to do as well. But the minister has come here on behalf of the Prime Minister, as he often does in the chamber, and I've agreed to allow him to appear.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Easter, you have a point of order?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes. On a point of order, I disagree with that decision, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Soudas is responsible to the Office of the Prime Minister. His direct superior is the Prime Minister. Mr. Baird, although he answers questions in the House, is certainly not designated as even Deputy Prime Minister.

This committee, on a motion, had asked that Mr. Soudas come. He is on our order paper as such. The government may have made a statement, and Mr. Soudas himself--an unelected and, it seems now, unaccountable individual--made a statement over the weekend. That statement was confirmed by the House leader of the Conservative Party today in the House of Commons.

This, in my view, is a subversion of not my democratic rights, Mr. Chair, but Canadians' democratic rights--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Please, Mr. Easter--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

--in terms of the committee having the authority to invite who it wants.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me, sir. Order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Baird does not represent Mr. Soudas.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a minute.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

So I disagree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The chair, in discussing with the minister what we can do with our time here, thinks it may be helpful.... I don't want to suggest that we should move too quickly on taking other matters. So I, in discussing it with the minister, agreed, provided we keep pertinent to the matter before us, that we would go forward.

I should have quickly indicated, Mr. Easter, that when you disagree with the chair's decision, you in fact are challenging the chair. And that is not debatable. The vote must be put immediately.

So I don't have much option but to ask the clerk to ask whether the decision of the chair shall be sustained.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No. We're in the middle of a vote.

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

Nobody has challenged the ruling of the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, if he disagreed with my decision....

[An hon. member]

He disagrees with everybody.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

He said he disagreed with the decision.

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

Right. We do have the ability to disagree before anybody has stated a challenge to the chair. In fact, I'm disagreeing with you right now and I'm not challenging you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well....

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

That's a good point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. All right, colleagues. The issue is that we ultimately have to decide whether the minister is going to have an opportunity to speak and to take questions. If it is the committee's view that they don't want to move further on this and want to move on to other business, I'm in the hands of the committee.

Mr. Easter has indicated that he doesn't want to hear from the minister. He wants just to follow the other.... Okay. I'm going to hear from other members, to be fair.

Go ahead, Mrs. Freeman.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy, and surprised, to see you here this morning, Mr. Baird.

There are two things that we need to consider. First, the committee had requested to see Mr. Dimitri Soudas and he is a no-show. That fact is irrefutable. His appearance was scheduled on the committee's agenda and, if I may remind you, the committee is the master of its own agenda. I have nothing against Mr. Baird attending this meeting. In fact, he is quite a charming and delightful individual, but he is not the person we were expecting to hear from. Nevertheless, we will listen to what Mr. Baird has to say because you decided that he was a charming and pleasant individual with whom we could exchange views. But the fact of the matter is that we were supposed to meet with Mr. Dimitri Soudas. Some precedents have been set in other committees. When a witness fails to appear—and it's happened here before—we can set in motion steps to compel that witness to appear.

The Government House Leader made a statement in the House. However, in my view, he does not have the authority to amend the rules and laws of Parliament. Parliament is a very important institution, one that must be respected. Often, we see that the rules governing the power of parliamentarians, and in this instance, the power of committees, are skirted. A House leader cannot change the rules that committees have in place governing the summoning of witnesses or decide who shall or shall not appear. Again, it's all well and good to welcome Mr. Baird, as he is a totally charming and pleasant person, but he was not the person we initially invited. Perhaps we could address item A before moving on to item B. For starters, Mr. Soudas isn't here. What do we do then? Before hearing from a surprise witness, we need to decide how we handle the fact that one witness is a no-show. Far be it for me to challenge your authority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'd like to hear from each party.

Mr. Siksay, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the difficulty of the circumstances you've been placed in this morning, Chair. At the same time, I agree with Madam Freeman that Mr. Baird is a very charming guest of the committee. However, I don't think we should cede to the government control of our agenda as a parliamentary committee. I don't believe that government ministers, no matter how well placed, should simply show up and expect to testify before this committee. The committee has an agreed work plan. The committee had agreed on a witness for this morning, and I believe we need to adhere to that work plan.

If down the road somebody wants to suggest that the Minister of Transport would have something to add to this discussion, then we could entertain that conversation. But I don't believe we should upset our agenda this morning to hear from the Minister of Transport--and it's not clear to me that he has anything relevant to offer to this discussion.

I think it would be a different circumstance if it were as happened when Mr. Sparrow was with the committee, and his boss, the Minister of Human Resources, accompanied him to that meeting. I think the chair made an appropriate ruling in that circumstance, when the minister appeared unannounced. When he offered that she could offer advice but was not allowed to answer the questions that were to be put to the witness the committee had called, I think that was a very appropriate decision of the chair. I also think it was a very appropriate decision of the minister to attend that meeting and demonstrate her sense of responsibility for her political staff.

That's not what we face this morning. Mr. Soudas doesn't appear to be here and doesn't appear to be willing to address us this morning. As much as I know that the Minister of Transport has interesting things to say and is an interesting observer and player in this Parliament, in the government, I don't see the relevance of his appearance this morning. And Mr. Soudas isn't with him, in any case.

Therefore, I have to disagree with the chair's decision to accommodate his appearance. I believe we should deal with the matter of Mr. Soudas's failure to appear and then move on to the other issues that are on our published agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Ms. Davidson, please.