Information & Ethics Committee on June 8th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

This is meeting number 19 of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy, and Ethics. Our order of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi), is our study on allegations of interference in access to information requests.

This morning's scheduled witness, as an individual, is Ms. Jillian Andrews, former policy advisor, Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

This morning I received an updated report from the bailiff, which I'd like to advise the committee about. It's quite short. It is dated June 8--today--and is from Kilrea Bailiff and Process Servers. The agent is Mr. Jay Fox. He reports:

On June 3rd, 2010 I attempted to contact Jillian Andrews to make arrangements to serve the Summons from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. I called Ms. Andrews on three occasions between June 3rd, 2010 and June 7th, 2010. I left three voice mails outlining that I had a summons from the House of Commons to serve on Ms. Andrews. On June 7th the receptionist confirmed that Ms. Andrews was in the office however she was unavailable.

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

Colleagues, as you know, we also received a letter from the Minister of Natural Resources advising the committee that he was to appear or would be appearing here, not only for Mr. Togneri at the last meeting, but also for Ms. Andrews at this meeting. The committee has taken a position on the representation of a witness by another person, and I'm in the committee's hands.

In the absence of any matter, I would suggest that the non-appearance of Ms. Andrews, along with the details of the clerk's initiatives and the report from the bailiff, be added to the draft, facsimile, or suggested possible motion we had circulated for Mr. Togneri. I think you all have a copy of that one. It is the report and motion that was prepared by the standing committees clerks' directorate for us.

We will move on to the second item on our agenda.

Madam Freeman, before we move on to the second item, you indicated that you wanted to say something on this matter--and Mr. Easter.

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

Yes Mr. Chairman. I wanted to speak before we move on to another topic.

As you just mentioned, the bailiffs attempted several times to reach Mr. Dimitri Soudas or Ms. Jillian Andrews. These individuals are fully aware that the bailiffs have attempted to hand them a summons to appear. I am a lawyer and I am a member of the Barreau du Québec. Therefore I am not very familiar with civilian procedures in Ontario. I spoke to the House of Commons law clerks to find out how one proceeds in Ontario.

In fact, there are procedures that are compatible with both Ontario legislation and House of Commons procedures. Given the several unsuccessful attempts to serve a summons to appear to Dimitri Soudas and to Jillian Andrews, and given the public nature of these summons, I would like to table a motion before the committee to the effect that these summons are deemed to have been served and that Dimitri Soudas and Jillian Andrews be required to appear before the committee at the latest on Wednesday June 16, 2010.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. Now you've indicated that you'd like to give a notice of that motion?

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

I am tabling this motion this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a minute. I need some clarification.

The chair has to know whether you are moving this motion this morning or you want to give notice and just have it tabled for consideration at a subsequent meeting.

I understood that you wanted to give notice; that was your first notice, so that the committee is aware of the research you did—

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

We will therefore give you a notice of motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. All right. No, I understand that.

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

What is your question? You would like to know whether I want to give you a 48 hours' notice?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, no. The question is whether or not you want to move the motion today or just—

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

I would like to table the motion today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You would like to move it. It's not to table it but to move it. Okay.

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

Yes, it is about the purpose of our meeting.

Ms. Andrews is not here this morning. We have been trying to serve her a summons to appear for a while now. You just said so. Therefore, I would like to table this motion so that we can deem that summons to have been served, pursuant to the laws of Ontario and to the standing orders of the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Madame, the motion is in order. It's relevant to the current order of business for the committee, so the—

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Does it not need unanimous consent to be heard today, sir?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No. When a motion is made at a committee on the subject matter that the committee has on its order of business for the day, no notice is required, and members can make motions on any relevant matter related to that. So it does not require unanimous consent.

Madame Freeman, the motion is in order. I'm not sure whether or not the members understood all of the reasons why. But you have an opportunity, having moved that motion, to actually speak to the motion to provide an explanation to the committee as to the rationale of the motion.

Would you like to speak to the motion, or is it self-evident?

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

You have just described the situation to us, Mr. Chairman.

I consulted the bailiff's report yesterday. I asked the clerk for the bailiff's report so that I would be aware of all the steps that have been taken by the bailiff. I also asked when the bailiff's report was produced.

It is obvious that the two individuals we want to hear are aware that we are attempting to reach them, because this has become a public matter. By law we can assume that they have received the summons to appear. That is why I am tabling this motion today, under paragraph 16.(1) of Ontario's Rules of Procedure and under Parliament's Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, thank you.

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

Obviously, I have to point out that I have consulted the law clerks of the House of Commons and I am complying with all the House of Commons procedures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Madame, thank you. I do appreciate the fact that you have done the appropriate consultations with the law clerk to get the facts straight, in terms of the civil legislation related to the service of summons and that there are criteria under which a summons would be deemed to have been served, which is part of the law, and that there may be some penalties associated with failure to accept. I think that's the thrust of your motion.

I have four people on the list.

Mr. Minister, I just want to deal with something very quickly so that we understand how the rules of the committee work when there are other members who are not permanent members of the committee or signed in as one of, say, in this case, the five members. They have rights. They're entitled to speak, provided there is no other permanent member of the committee who wishes to speak or unless the committee itself gives its consent for you to speak.

I have you on the list, but you will not be speaking in that order as long as there are other permanent members to speak. Okay?

I have to go to Mr. Poilievre first, on a point of order.

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

Can you please point to the standing order that says that an associate member cannot speak unless no one else in the room wishes to speak?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, it is a....

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

Is that written anywhere?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Parliamentary precedent and practice is established not only by the written word, but also by the established practice of the committee.

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

Can you give a single ruling?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Sure. I will get you the practices.

If you had a situation where a large number of members who were not members of the committee came into the room and decided they wanted to get on the list and talk out something, you could understand how that might frustrate the business of the committee. As a consequence, the practice has been established that a member who is not a permanent member and not signed in may speak, but only if there is no other permanent member who doesn't want to speak. This doesn't relate to, for instance, questioning of a witness. A member who is signed in could give up their slot, their speaking slot, to a member who is not a permanent member. But when it's just general debate, where a person can put their name on as many times as they want, there has to be a limit.

Mr. Poilievre, I understand your point and I will provide you with the practice and the precedent of other committees in which this has happened. I think one was on the same-sex marriage debate that happened in this room. Pat O'Brien was sitting as an independent; he wasn't on any party's list, and the committee had to vote to allow him to speak.

Thank you for raising the point.

Mr. Easter.