Evidence of meeting #16 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
You made a decision earlier on that we should hear from the minister. You allowed some debate on that decision, but your decision does stand. Pursuant to chapter 20, “Committees”, page 1049 of O'Brien and Bosc, I move the following motion, which precedes all others. That motion is that the decision of the chair be sustained.
That's a non-debatable motion, which must precede all others. We'd be prepared to vote on that right now.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Point of order, Chair. I don't think you can move a motion on a point of order.
11:20 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Siksay, you'd be quite right under normal circumstances, but the issue was that the chair made a decision, after having a conversation with the minister, to allow him to sit at the table to address the committee and to take questions. The committee has indicated that there appears to be a consensus that we not move in that direction. I undertook simply to allow a member to move a motion that we move forward on dealing with the issue of Mr. Soudas's failure to appear rather than hearing from the minister.
Mr. Poilievre is now saying we have to do this in two steps. First would be to challenge the chair's decision that the minister have an opportunity to speak and take questions, and then there would be another one. The one would take care of both, but Mr. Poilievre would like to split it in two.
The chair agreed to allow the minister to appear. The question is whether my decision shall be sustained. I put the question.
I see five votes for and five votes against. The chair doesn't vote on whether the chair's decision shall be sustained, so it's a tie vote, so the minister is at the table.
Minister.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Just a moment. There may be some misunderstanding here.
The chair does not vote on whether the decision of the chair shall be sustained.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
That question is now resolved.
We are now in the position of having the minister before the committee.
Do you have another point of order?
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, I do.
With regard to the minister appearing before the committee, Ms. Davidson talked about the respect for parliamentary institutions. I've always believed in ministerial responsibility, but responsibility over those departments the minister is responsible for. With Mr. Baird here, is he here in his capacity as Minister of Transport? Because I have lots of questions to ask him in terms of costing review, service review, de-listing of cars relative to western grain transportation....
Would the chair tell me what responsibility Minister Baird holds here as Minister of Transport before this committee? We could be setting a very dangerous precedent.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
If a committee invites a witness--it doesn't matter who it is--can any minister come and represent them? Is that the precedent we're setting here?
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Easter, order, please.
First of all, that's not a point of order; it's a matter of debate. The words “point of order” should not be considered to be a proxy for the statement “I want to speak”. A point of order has to be specific in reference.
I'm going to ask anybody who is going to raise a point of order to specifically cite the rule or practice that's being violated. I think we have to keep some decorum here.
As I indicated at the outset, I had a conversation with the minister. He's not here as the Minster of Transport; he's here to represent the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not traditionally appear, and I don't think we would have ever expected him to appear before our committee.
To answer Mr. Easter's question, he is not here as the Minster of Transport. I told the minister, and I think he would agree, that his appearance and any of his statements were to be pertinent to the matter before the committee. He gave me that undertaking.
Mr. Siksay, on a point of order.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Chair, it seems to me that in a situation where there is a tie vote--and in this circumstance in terms of upholding your original ruling--that this is a statement for the status quo. It is not a statement to change the agenda of the committee.
The status quo of the committee is to hear from Mr. Soudas. That was what the published and agreed upon agenda of the committee was. Your decision takes us away from that. I don't see how a tie vote can take us from our original agenda.
I think you're going beyond the scope of what a tie vote implies, which is usually a decision for the status quo. The status quo of this meeting is to hear from Dimitri Soudas, and that's what we should be reverting to in that circumstance.
11:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you. I should have been a little more clear, Mr. Siksay. It was a tie vote among the members. Chairs don't vote; their vote is already established by their decision. I'm not changing my decision to say I don't want him here. I made a yes vote by virtue of my decision. So the chair's decision was sustained, and that's why.
Minister, don't let me down. We agreed: pertinent and brief.
May 25th, 2010 / 11:30 a.m.
Ottawa West—Nepean Ontario
Conservative
John Baird ConservativeMinister of Transport
I have a one-page statement, which I will preface by saying that your description of our conversation was accurate.
As Mr. Easter said, Mr. Soudas is responsible to the Prime Minister, and under parliamentary convention it's very rare for the Prime Minster to appear before a parliamentary committee. I'm here at the request of the Prime Minister, to represent him.
I have a short one-page statement, if you would indulge me.
With great respect, the government believes the opposition is playing politics with parliamentary committees and is not respecting due process and fair play. They are conducting random interrogations without due process or any rules of fairness. That might be how things work in the United States Congress, but it's not the Canadian tradition. In Canada the constitutional principle is ministerial responsibility. As a result, the government House leader today made a statement regarding ministerial accountability to Parliament.
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
Minister, I read out the motion at the beginning of the meeting as to the matters currently before us. It has to do with the interference in matters related to access to information.
Your statement, sir, has to do with arguing a matter that's before the House right now. Although it touches on this committee, it is not the order of the day. I would ask whether you have anything to add to the committee's knowledge--
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
--that is relevant to the order of business currently before the committee, and not to move to an issue that arose in the House at 10 o'clock this morning. We're not there, sir.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand that, but I want you to be pertinent to the subject matter before the committee.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
I completely agree, Mr. Chair.
This government strongly supports ministerial responsibility. As Mr. Easter has said, Mr. Soudas is responsible to the Prime Minister and not to Parliament. The Prime Minister has asked me to come here and represent him in his capacity as Prime Minister, and I'm prepared to entertain your questions.
