Information & Ethics Committee on June 8th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

I have Madam Davidson, Mr. Hoback, Madame Freeman, and then Mr. Siksay.

Madam Davidson.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair. In light of your ruling earlier in this meeting, I would like to relinquish my time to the member of Parliament for Mégantic—L'Érable, please. He will take my spot.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That can only happen during questioning of witnesses. We have a general list. This is on debatable motions, so that can't happen.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but that definitely was not your ruling at the beginning of this meeting. I think you need to go back and check what you said.

You indicated very clearly to the minister that one way he would be able to speak was to have a member cede their time, and I have done that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, no, it was to cede their slot. It was the slot. Check the records.

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

Okay, she will cede her slot then.

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

Okay, it's my slot, then. It's my slot in time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, no, it was the prescribed.... When we deal with witnesses—

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

Mr. Chair, you are getting ridiculous. Now let's make this serious. This is my slot of time and I am ceding it to the member of Parliament, who has every right to speak at this table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right. Madam Davidson, let me repeat, because it's something on which I had discussions with House officers, even as early as this morning, to be absolutely sure. There was an incident in another committee where there was some variable activity going on.

In any event, and I think if you look at the transcripts—I stand to be corrected—there were two different lists that would be kept in terms of slots. One list is with respect to witnesses. As you know, we have approved, by the routine motions adopted by the committee, which party speaks, in which order, and how many minutes it gets. In that case, should we be questioning a witness, a member can relinquish their slot for another person who is not a permanent member, so that the equity we have established in the routine motions.... That was the motion adopted by the committee when we were formed in the first instance.

The second item I mentioned was with regard to the debate of motions, as we are doing right now. There is nothing to prescribe which party and for how long; people can speak as many times as they want and for as long as they want, provided there's not repetition and provided they remain relevant.

In that case, Madam Davidson, a member of Parliament who comes, who is not a permanent member, can have their name on the list. They can only speak if no other permanent member wishes to speak or if the committee allows the member to speak and to override that. Those are the two cases.

I'm sorry there's some confusion, but I'm absolutely sure that is the practice and precedent of committees for the last 17 years that I've been here.

You still have the floor, though, Madam Davidson.

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

I disagree with you, Mr. Chair.

I think we all know that for some reason this committee is determined not to have a minister present here. The motion that's before us is in direct support of what I have just said. We have had people being asked to come. It's been made very clear that there's ministerial responsibility with this government. We have had a minister appear of their own volition. They have come to report to this committee to explain the issues, to answer the questions. Every time they have appeared here they have been refused to be heard.

I think that's totally wrong. I don't know what the opposition is afraid of with ministerial responsibility. I just cannot understand it. What they are afraid they're going to hear is beyond me. The ultimate responsibility lies with the minister of that department. We're showing credibility and accountability by having the minister sit at this table. I just do not understand the opposition's position, and I certainly am against this motion.

We have the people sitting at this table who are responsible and the people here who are willing to answer the questions, and the opposition continues to refuse to hear them. So I will be voting against the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

All right.

I still have four people: Mr. Hoback, Ms. Freeman, Mr. Siksay, Mr. Rickford, and then Minister Paradis.

Mr. Hoback, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I just want to confirm, Chair, that you will listen to Mr. Paradis after all the other people have spoken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

If there are no other permanent members who wish to speak, yes.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay, so he will get an opportunity to speak then.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I will follow the rules.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Okay, because this is so bizarre. It's a classic scenario where you have a bully picking on a kid in the playground. When the kid brings his big brother, the bully doesn't want to play anymore. That's exactly what's going on here. The opposition member wants to pick on the staff. All of a sudden the minister shows up and all of a sudden they don't want to play.

It's just hilarious. It's so hypocritical it's unreal. Even Mr. Easter in the agriculture committee always complains about how he never sees the minister, how the minister is never there to present.

We have a minister here willing to present, and talk, and participate, and help get to the bottom of your accusations—because they are accusations. They're not proven anywhere. They've not been proven by the Ethics Commissioner or anybody else of any validity. So when is this witch hunt going to end? That's my question. We're wasting taxpayers' time and money on this witch hunt. When is it going to end?

You can come forward with your motion. I have questions on whether that motion has validity in the House. I don't know if Ontario law takes precedence in the House of Commons or if the Speaker takes precedence in the House of Commons. I'd like to see that understood before we make a ruling on this motion.

I have not seen the motion in English, so I can't even give it proper analysis. I always show that respect to Mr. Bellavance in the agriculture committee. When he asks to see something in French, we make sure it's presented in French, or we table the motion till the next meeting and then he gets a chance to see it in both English and French, or we ask for his unanimous consent before it's tabled. That's never happened here. You've never asked for unanimous consent on the part of the committee to see whether or not we would allow her to table this motion or not. You've just gone on and ruled, and ruled, and ruled, based on Paul Szabo's laws.

Is this a point of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Hoback, this is the chair.

I want to caution you that when you question the decision of a chair, your venue is to challenge the decision of the chair--

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Does the chair want to leave the chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a moment. But to reflect on it and to debate it is improper.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I guess, Chair, I'm--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a moment. I'm not finished.

It is not proper in a committee to continue to debate a chair's decision. The chair only has one opportunity to consider all the facts and to take a decision. The committee has a way to deal with it if they disagree.

Please be cautioned not to be questioning and challenging the chair without actually issuing a challenge, okay?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It's hilarious, because there have been so many improper activities in this committee. Where do you start and where do you finish? This is a joke. It is an absolute witch hunt and a joke. There are so many other things we could be using our time in a constructive manner.... We've just come through a recession. There are other things we could be talking about that would be constructive and productive for the Canadian population. But no. What does the opposition have us doing? They're on a witch hunt. An absolute witch hunt. They want to take staffers, beat up on them, and intimidate them. And when the staffer brings the minister, what do they do? They hide. The minister is right here. Do I need to say that twice. He's right here. He's three people down from me. He's willing to speak. What's the problem? I'm just amazed at the hypocrisy of the opposition here. Absolutely amazed. They should be ashamed of themselves. They really should.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mrs. Freeman, you have the floor.

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

First, given that I tabled my motion in French, I'd like to remind Mr. Hoback, in case he is unaware, that it is normal and customary to be able to present a motion orally and with simultaneous interpretation when the motion relates to the committee's business. This is normal, and it is consistent with the committee's standing orders. If he is not aware of this that is too bad for him.

Furthermore, Mr. Hoback has accused us of filibustering. I'm very surprised because my colleague, Mr. Easter, tabled a motion requesting that an investigation be undertaken and that we consider the issue of political interference on the part of the government in matters of access to information. The motion also requested that several witnesses appear, including Mr. Soudas. The purpose of the committee's business is to consider the issue of political interference. It is the job of parliamentary committees to consider matters and to work on them.

I think there is political interference and filibustering. I'm referring to measures taken by the Government House Leader on May 25 last when he asked that his political staff no longer appear before committees. This is interference, obstruction, and a disregard for parliamentary standing orders. No one is above the law and a leader, as I have already stated in committee, cannot just change rules, committees' standing orders, and current legislation. No one is above the law, and refusing to receive a summons to appear is disregarding the law.

By sending a letter to the effect that his employee, Dimitri Soudas, will not appear, Mr. Harper is sending a signal. Everyone is fully aware—it has been in the newspapers—that we are attempting to reach Mr. Soudas. Not only is this an affront to democracy, but it is an attempt to be above the law. It is absolutely despicable and incomprehensible. We're seeing this more and more on the part of the current Conservative government. When it's not convenient, they shut Parliament down and try to change the rules.

We are beginning the committee's work to consider political interference and access to information and Mr. Soudas must appear. We have to hear Mr. Soudas and other witnesses, and not the ministers who want to appear instead of the witnesses who have been summoned.

I think that my motion has to be presented. Mr. Dimitri Soudas refuses to receive his summons to appear but by law we can rule on this. As stated in my motion, he is deemed to have been summoned because this has been made public.

That's all, Mr. Chairman.