Evidence of meeting #18 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 speak.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You're welcome.
There are not any items on there, but normally the actions or the recommendations of the steering committee are usually brought here for the committee's consideration.
Would the members want a vote on the report, to adopt the report, or to just agree?
Is it agreed?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay.
The last item on committee business is the discussion of the process we're going to use on finalizing the report of this committee on its current study with regard to the allegations of interference on access to information responses.
I wanted to get some input from the committee members, given the fact that there are only five meetings left in the actual schedule and that we have the Minister of Justice on one full day, at least a half day with regard to the nomination of the Information Commissioner post, and probably another half day with regard to the consideration of a report to the House on the non-appearance of witnesses who had been requested. That only leaves us two days, in fact, then to file a report, and that is extraordinarily ambitious.
Because I think we have brought maybe to a conclusion all the substantive work, I'm going to ask the members if they would consider a special evening meeting that we would spend in camera, working on the report.
Do I understand that the summary of the testimony of the witnesses is ready?
Alysia Davies Analyst, Library of Parliament
It will be ready for Monday, as we discussed.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
It will be ready for Monday so that the members will have a summary of the witness information. I won't pick a date for the committee, but if the committee is open to having a special meeting for two hours, sometime outside of our normal scheduled meetings, to in fact have a discussion on the recommendations or to have input into the recommendations, observations, or indeed the minority reports, if that's advisable, you will have, by Monday, the summary of the testimony of the witnesses we have had thus far.
I'm open to the committee's input on this.
Conservative
Christian Paradis Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, I just want to remind committee members once again that I am here today, as a minister, ready to answer questions about the actions of my employee, Mr. Togneri, under the principle I mentioned earlier, the principle of ministerial responsibility. I am in a position to clarify the matter for the committee. I am ready to speak, Mr. Chair, and that is why I have been here for almost an hour and a half.
Conservative
Christian Paradis Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Mr. Chair, I think that it could help the committee in its work in preparing its report. I repeat that I am ready to speak.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Minister, je suis désolé. I'm very sorry that you have had to spend this time with the committee without having an opportunity. I thought we had an opportunity, but unfortunately the committee took a decision that they did not want to hear from you on that matter.
If the committee would like to reconsider, a motion could be made that the minister be now heard.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, I would move that the minister now be heard.
That's a motion. The motion is in order. You asked for it to be presented. It's presented. Let's debate.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
All right.
Mr. Lukiwski, did you want to...?
He asked first, Mr. Poilievre.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I understand that you're ruling from a procedural basis, Mr. Chair. So let me tell you that I will be making a motion after a few brief comments.
It again appears absurd to me that this committee's first order of business was to have a discussion on allegations of interference on access to information requests. The minister responsible for the staff member who was requested to appear was here and prepared to speak to and answer questions on this very issue, but that offer by the minister has been rejected by members of the opposition. Based on a procedural ruling, Chair, you have stated—and probably quite correctly, procedurally speaking—that the minister is not allowed now, or given the right, to speak because the committee has voted to move on to item 2. Therefore, Mr. Chair, in order to be procedurally correct and to at least give the appearance of fairness in this committee, rather than it being the kangaroo court it appears to have become, I move that this committee revert to the previous order of business—
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
—that is to say, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi), study of allegations of interference in access to information requests. I therefore move, Mr. Chair, to ask for a vote on that motion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Poilievre, actually, had a motion, so I can't entertain another motion right now.
Could you repeat the motion, Mr. Poilievre?
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
My motion is that the Minister be allowed to speak.
Bloc
Luc Desnoyers Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Chair, a point of order on the debate on the motion.
It seems to me that we have already debated this matter. It was clear. We called the witness, Sébastien Togneri, who is supposed to be here. If he appears in the next five or six minutes, we can hear from him. While we wait, we must continue with the agenda as we decided. I see no reason to rescind motions and start the battle over again, because the committee never invited the minister. He was never invited, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate.
I think this underscores what we have been saying all along. This is not about fairness or about trying to gather information and draft a report; this is all about the ability of the opposition, the coalition, to intimidate and bully and threaten staff members. What other conclusion can one draw, Mr. Chair, when in fact the minister appeared here at the outset of this meeting, prepared to speak to and answer any questions that the committee members might have had concerning his staff member, Mr. Togneri? Yet the committee, the opposition members, the coalition, decided to reject that offer.
Mr. Chair, there is no reason for them to do so, other than the fact they don't want to hear from Minister Paradis. In other words, they don't want to hear answers to their questions. They merely want to get a staff member before this committee to try to continue with intimidation and their abusive and threatening comments from the first two meetings. I find it unconscionable, Chair, and I think this committee should be reprimanded for its actions.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Mr. Lukiwski, and to all honourable members, I have to remind all of you that references to other members or to the committee as a whole or to the chamber in terms of what they did are unparliamentary and should cease. We cannot start to question or judge our colleagues for their decisions. The committee's decisions will speak for themselves. The language is really getting to the point where I believe it could be viewed as disrespectful to committee members, or the committee as a whole. So I just ask all honourable members to please conduct themselves in a parliamentary fashion.
Conservative
