Information & Ethics Committee on May 25th, 2010

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You said at the outset that this committee wants to do its job. Well, I have to tell you that as a member of this committee today I don't feel I'm being given an opportunity to do the job that Canadians are expecting me to do.

By virtue of the decision that was made by the government today, not allowing political staff to appear before us, the government has in fact removed the opportunity that I have, as a member of this committee, to actually ask questions and hold this government accountable.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

He's right there.

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

We're here to work on behalf of Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

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

When Canadians want questions asked, they rely on us, as members of Parliament, to ask those questions and to get answers. If we're not allowed to do that, Mr. Chair, then clearly we are not allowed to do our jobs as parliamentarians.

What we have happening here today is beyond belief--

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Let's find out more about the House of Lancaster and what it is they do in there.

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

--when we have a minister appear before us--no matter how charming that minister may be--who is not responsible for Mr. Soudas, who, our agenda notes, is the director of communications for the Office of the Prime Minister.

Now, I know a lot has been made about the fact that prime ministers don't appear before committees. Well, that has not always been the case. We have had prime ministers appear before committees. In fact, this Prime Minister, Prime Minister Harper, appeared before the Senate committee when he wanted to talk about limits of terms for senators. So don't tell me that prime ministers don't appear before committees, because they do.

The fact that he's chosen not to be here today to speak to the actions of his director of communications begs the question: why not? Does he not have enough respect for this parliamentary committee to be here? Does he not believe that we have a job to do, as parliamentarians?

I have questions to ask Mr. Soudas. If Mr. Soudas is not allowed to be here because the Prime Minister or the cabinet don't want him here, then I expect the Prime Minister to be here to answer those questions. These are serious questions, and Mr. Soudas is not employed by the Minister of Transport. He is employed by the Prime Minister. And the last time I looked, the Prime Minister was not Minister Baird. So I question what we're doing here today, even entertaining Minister Baird in terms of our agenda when in fact it should be Mr. Soudas. We don't know why he's not here, other than the government telling us that they're not permitting him to be here.

We are a parliamentary committee. We have a responsibility and the right to call witnesses before this committee and to get answers from them. What is happening here today is making a mockery of this committee, and I don't accept that this is the way it should unfold.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madam Freeman, please.

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

I would just like to say one thing.

I find this government's actions somewhat incoherent. I'll continue in the same vein as Mrs. Thi Lac. As part of its probe into the Guergis affair, the Standing Committee on Government Operations invited two ministers, Mr. Paradis and Ms. Raitt, to appear. Both declined the invitation, even though these two ministers whom the committee had wanted to question were responsible for this matter and accountable to their respective departments.

Today, we have ministers, whether Ms. Finley or Mr. Baird, who seem to have decided on a whim to put in an appearance before this committee. While we find their company enjoyable, we did not summon them. They are not responsible for the matter on which we would like to rule. We want to know what is going on in the Prime Minister's Office. Mr. Baird does not work in the PMO. The government is mocking this committee, using stalling tactics to hide the truth once again and keep us in the dark.

Mr. Chair, I would like my motion to be put to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I want to hear briefly from Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'm always brief, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No repetition. Do you have anything new to add?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I think we support the motion because we need to look at it in the context of why we asked that Mr. Dimitri Soudas be here. As I indicated earlier, there was a motion. We had asked that Minister Finley, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, come before the committee separately. She did that.

We've already heard from Sébastien Togneri, former parliamentary affairs director with Public Works Canada. A number of other people were asked. Interestingly enough, about two weeks ago--Tuesday or Thursday--Dimitri Soudas was here, willing to appear. We were listening to Mr. Togneri.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

You were intimidating him.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, we did not intimidate Mr. Togneri. We were going to hear Mr. Dimitri Soudas, and the fire alarm went off. I accused the parliamentary secretary of pulling it, but I admit he didn't do it.

So on that day he certainly left the impression that he was more than willing to come before this committee. He was looking forward to it. He was raptured to come before the committee. Now, all of a sudden that has changed. Dimitri Soudas himself was on the TV networks over the weekend saying no, that the cabinet made a decision.

So let's put it in context. The reason we're holding this hearing in the first place is basically the secrecy of the government.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

He's trying to speak. Let him speak.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

In fact, Mr. Togneri himself said that he un-released documents in terms of access to information. So what we're trying to get at here is what is systematically going on within this government in providing damage control, cover, denial, etc.?

It really started when The Hill Times reported on February 22 that staff of the ministers' offices had been directed by the PMO to involve themselves in the access to information process.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Who's the investigative reporter?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That concerns us greatly. It should concern Canadians greatly. Canadians are most proud of their charter rights and freedoms, and access to information. You, as an ordinary citizen, can use the access to information process--

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Ask the question.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

--to really see what is going on with the government.

The media use it all the time, and sometimes information comes out that leads to a more responsible government. That's what the whole process is about. So when members of Parliament and Canadians who have written to us on this issue see that there's a possibility that direction is coming from the PMO to involve themselves in that access to information process, it's a very serious issue. In fact, it's serious enough that anyone who involves himself in that process could go to jail.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Oh, come on.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

So it's a very serious matter, and for a law-and-order party—

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

We have heard Deputy Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

—you would think it would want to get to the bottom of this issue.