Information & Ethics Committee on June 3rd, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

But I wanted to read it to the members to give them an idea, should we be doing a report. The format is basically to lay out the facts as they occurred, and not to reach a conclusion. I want them not to reach a conclusion whether or not there has been any breach or contempt, but rather refer it to the House for its consideration.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

And is that the information that's referred to in Mr. Siksay's motion? I need the motion read again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes. The motion was basically that we do report in a form similar to, but not the precise details, because that's up to the committee.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The question now becomes... Okay, I should hear from members. I apologize.

Mr. Siksay.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to comment on your reading the bailiff's report on his attempts to serve the summons. I have to say I'm very concerned about that. It strikes me that security measures that are in place in the House of Commons facilities, or in government facilities, shouldn't be a barrier to the bailiff performing his duties on behalf of a parliamentary committee. I'm extremely concerned that he has not been able to gain access to the Langevin Block, which is a House of Commons facility, to deal with serving that summons, or to the offices where Ms. Andrews works.

I would like to ask you and the clerk to make sure that, if required, he has the appropriate escort that gets him through that security. I don't think House of Commons security is meant to interfere with the work of a standing committee, and in this case it is clearly doing that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Easter, then Mr. Lukiwski.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, I agree entirely with what Mr. Siksay said on bailiffs not being able to deliver a summons. If they have to call in the RCMP to get to these individuals, then they'll have to do it.

As I understand the motion... That's what I want to speak on, Mr. Chair. Can you read that motion to me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I was never given the motion. The motion was that we in fact report to the House along the lines I've indicated, but that's why I wanted to make that other intervention, that the committee may want to consider an amendment, or maybe the member wants to withdraw that for now and we will...

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Let me speak to it, Mr. Chair.

On the motion, it is clear that Mr. Togneri is, I feel, in contempt for not having come before this committee, and we do need to report that to the House at some point in time. But based on what you've said and the difficulties the bailiff is having with the proposed witnesses for next Tuesday and next Thursday, it looks as though we will have Ms. Andrews also potentially in contempt.

With regard to Mr. Soudas, we have the letter, which has been distributed, from the Prime Minister, which is, in my view, one of the most insulting letters I've ever seen from a Prime Minister directed at a committee. I will quote from it:

The purpose of this letter is to inform the Committee of my instruction to Mr. Soudas that he will not appear before the Committee.

That is not the Prime Minister's prerogative, Mr. Chair. Maybe this Prime Minister doesn't realize it, but we live in a democracy, and not a dictatorship, and it is Parliament, and not the Prime Minister, that will decide whether or not Mr. Soudas will come before this committee. I am insulted and I am affronted by the Prime Minister's letter.

[An hon. member]

He was following the rules.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

You wouldn't know what the rules are over there. There are rules for you and different rules for everybody else. That's the trouble with this Conservative government.

In any event, Mr. Chair, because it does look as though three of the witnesses this committee has asked for will be in contempt, I would suggest we table this motion until next Thursday, until we see what happens and whether or not Ms. Andrews and Mr. Soudas appear. Obviously there is a major cover-up of some kind here on the part of the government.

I would move that we table that motion until next Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I will hear the last speakers on this whole matter, and then we can move on.

Mr. Lukiwski, Mr. Poilievre, and Monsieur Desnoyers also wanted to speak on it.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Notwithstanding Mr. Easter's political theatrics here, I do want to speak to a point that Mr. Siksay made, and that is to suggest to the chair and to this committee that somehow the committee be empowered to deal with security matters by allowing the bailiff access to Langevin Block and other buildings in the parliamentary precinct. That is a security matter. I suggest, Mr. Chair, that security matters in the parliamentary precinct are under the purview of the Board of Internal Economy. Therefore I suggest, not doubting the sincerity of Mr. Siksay's suggestion, that it is highly inappropriate and out of order. Any security matters should be directed to the Board of Internal Economy, and not given to this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I agree.

Okay, we are on a motion.

On a point of order, Mr. Siksay.

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

Chair, Mr. Easter made a motion to table until a specific time, and I don't believe that's debatable, so we should be having a vote on that motion to table until June 10.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes. You're absolutely right, except that Mr. Easter went on to debate it. If I'm going to be fair in this committee, if Mr. Easter wants to debate a non-debatable motion, the members are going to have to have an opportunity. I'm sorry, I was distracted with my papers, trying to keep up with this.

I hear the intent, and the committee always has some latitude to hear relevant input. There was a previous motion, and members may have some additional information they're not aware of at this point. I do want to... I think the motion to table certainly is not debatable, normally, but these are extraordinary circumstances.

We want to hear from the minister. I'm going to close off debate. I'm going to simply admit I was in error in not putting the question on the tabling motion. I'm going to ask the clerk to call the question, please.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, no, I'm sorry. I called for a vote.

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

Mr. Chair, sorry. No, no, sorry, Chair, we have people on the speaking list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Sorry. No, no, sorry. The chair has to accept the fact that I made a mistake and that I should have put the question immediately. I have put the question. I would like the clerk to call on the motion by Mr. Easter to table that motion. Carry on.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

All right. The motion to table is not carried.

We're back to Mr. Siksay's motion, so I'll go back to the other list. Mr. Poilievre, did you want to stay on the list for Mr. Siksay's motion?

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

Yes, I am next on the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, then Mr. Desnoyers, and then Mr. Paradis has asked for an opportunity. Welcome, sir.

Please go ahead.

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

I'd like to begin by pointing out how unfortunate it is that the members of the coalition parties have besmirched the good work of the security forces around Parliament Hill and accused them without any evidence of acting inappropriately. I regret that a great deal.

I had a lot of high hopes for the way this committee could have proceeded with the work that is before it and the mandate Parliament has provided it with. I was hoping we could continue some of the productive work that we began on matters such as privacy and access to information, but coalition members have made it clear that they want to reverse parliamentary tradition, undermine ministerial responsibility, and turn this place into a circus.

Canadians sent us here to make Parliament work for them, and that's what we're attempting to achieve here on this side. Not only have government members responded to requests by this committee for accountability, but we've exceeded those requests. Where members of the coalition parties have demanded to have staff members, we have gone further and provided ministers. In fact, today we have with us a minister who's prepared to speak on behalf of his ministry and department and to defend himself.

That follows on two exhaustive sessions to which this committee has subjected a staff member in that minister's office. That staff member answered all the questions put to him. He exceeded the amount of time for which he was requested to appear. Three or four minutes before his testimony was to have expired, the fire alarm went off, and the chair used that as an excuse to extend his testimony for an entirely new meeting. There were only three minutes left in the period of time for which he had been extended to be here.

Mr. Chair, it's clear that this committee doesn't want answers from Mr. Togneri. If the committee wanted answers, it would have sought those answers in two successive meetings. What it wants is to intimidate members of staff in ministers' offices.

When a committee calls someone and they appear, and then they appear a second time, and then the committee says “Well, that's just not good enough, we'll have you a third time, even though we only invited you once”, it's clear that they're actually trying to torment and intimidate that witness. That is exactly why our system of government, hundreds of years ago, set in place a practice whereby ministers, and not their staff, are responsible for explaining the conduct of the government. We have here a minister prepared to do just that.

Mr. Chair, now you have recounted some anecdotes, some third-hand information about summonses that have not been delivered. I remind you, Mr. Chair, that before you even tried to deliver that summons to Mr. Soudas, you ran off to tell the media. That was your first priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please. Order, Mr. Poilievre. Order.