Information & Ethics Committee on June 3rd, 2010

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

Chair, on your suggested approach for the committee in terms of its next step, I'd like to move that the committee report as you have suggested. I believe that's in order, and we could discuss that now. I don't believe it's necessary to wait until Tuesday. It's very clear, as you laid it out, that Mr. Togneri is not here today. I believe we could have an appropriate and successful discussion of that motion today.

I would therefore move that the committee report to the House the failure of Mr. Togneri to appear, as per your suggested motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, that wasn't my suggestion; it was the committees directorate.

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

Then as per the advice you had from the clerks of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The motion is in order.

Before we have other speakers on it, I would indicate to the members to also consider that we have a situation in the House where there's a ministerial statement and the committees have rules that they're following. They're at loggerheads, as you know.

We have two other witnesses. I want the members to understand and be aware that I received a letter last night from the Prime Minister to indicate that the transport minister would be appearing in lieu of Mr. Soudas. I also failed to mention the letter from the Minister of Natural Resources. He indicated that he would be appearing in lieu of Jillian Andrews, who has also been issued a summons.

Because these three cases are virtually identical, I'm not sure whether the committee wants to issue a separate report on each or consider doing one report on all of them. It will have to be the choice of the committee.

It would be my personal recommendation that we take the time to formulate our arguments to come forward with a good debate on whether or not the committee should report to the House with regard to this matter. It would be my suggestion.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Poilievre, on a point of order.

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

You indicated the requested witness, Mr. Dimitri Soudas. Are you indicating that he has declined the summons?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I didn't say anything about that.

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

Are you suggesting that his case be dealt with in the same context as Mr. Togneri? I only want to clarify it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right, if you want to go there, I will then give the committee further information that would lead me to the conclusion that we should wait and deal with it all together.

Today I was provided with written reports from the bailiff who served the summons.

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

To whom?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'll get there.

The first one was with regard to Ms. Andrews. I signed the summonses for the clerk at one o'clock last Monday, and the bailiff was called. They were given to the person. They were going to be served that afternoon.

The report from Mr. Jay Fox, of William Stuart Kilrea, Commissioners, said that on June 1, which was yesterday,

I attempted to serve the Summons on Jillian Andrews at 580 Booth Street Ottawa, Ontario. This is a secure government building and I was unable to gain access to Ms. Andrews office. I called Ms. Andrews on three occasions between June 1st, 2010, and June 2nd, 2010. I left three voice mails outlining that I had summons from the House of Commons to serve on Ms. Andrews. On the morning of June 2nd, 2010, I was able to reach a receptionist in Ms. Andrews office who confirmed that she was in the office June 1st and June 2nd, 2010, and that she was currently in a meeting.

I have yet to receive a return call from Jillian Andrews and am unable to effect service at this time.

He's continuing to try, though, and her date to appear is next Tuesday.

With regard to Mr. Soudas, similarly, the same date, Mr. Fox reported:

On June 1, 2010, I attempted to serve the Summons on Dimitri Soudas at 80 Wellington Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario.

That is the Langevin Block, the building across the street.

He goes on:

This is a secure government building and I was unable to gain access to Mr. Soudas office. I called Mr. Soudas on three occasions between June 1st, 2010, and June 2nd, 2010. I spoke to Mr. Soudas' executive assistant each time and informed him that I had summons from the House of Commons to serve on Mr. Soudas. The executive assistant confirmed that Mr. Soudas was in the office and would return my call. On the morning of June 2nd when I spoke to Mr. Soudas' executive assistant he stated that Mr. Soudas was aware I was attempting to serve him with documents and would call me back.

I have yet to receive a return call from Dimitri Soudas and am unable to effect service at this time.

In both regards, I contacted the clerk and instructed him to have the bailiff continue to attempt to serve the summons.

Mr. Poilievre, you raise a very good point. In that light, I would think it is possible that the other two witnesses, Ms. Andrews and Mr. Soudas, may not appear. Should that be the case, and it has been established after we have our meeting next Thursday, when Mr. Soudas is to appear, at that point the committee may wish to consider a report on all three witnesses at the same time. That's all I'm suggesting. But it's the committee's decision.

Madam Davidson, did you want to add anything here?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First, I have a question, and depending on the answer, I will have more comments.

Do we have a motion on the floor at the moment that we are about to debate?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Siksay had a motion.

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

Have you accepted that motion?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It's in order. We simply got a little carried away. Mr. Poilievre, on a point of order, basically asked on what basis we would want to wait for the other two witnesses. That's why I gave the information with regard to the difficulty in actually serving the summons. At least Mr. Siksay now understands, and all members understand, why I might think it would be best for us to proceed once members have had an opportunity and once we hear and determine that witnesses have in fact not appeared in accordance with the order of the committee.

Do you have a further point?

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

Yes, I do. Thank you.

Further to that, I would like to have the motion read again, for one thing. I think in the preamble Mr. Siksay spoke to some of the comments that you read out. I'm not sure if they came from the clerk or who they came from, but you referred to some of the information.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The sample motion?

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

It's information that none of the rest of us on this side of the table have. Perhaps they have it on the other side, but we definitely don't. Is that information that you plan on circulating?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Are you referring to the draft motion?

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

It was information that you read out at the beginning of the meeting, I believe, or close to the beginning of the meeting. It's not Mr. Siksay's draft motion; it's information Mr. Siksay referred to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes. This document was provided to me... I requested the clerk to check with the committee clerks directorate to give me a sample of what other committees have done in the past.

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

And will that be circulated to this side of the table as well?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, it is a draft. No one has this but me right now.

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

Oh, okay.