Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me start out by saying I certainly support Ms. Freeman's motion. I think it's a responsible motion, and I think it will enable us as a committee to do the work we've been tasked with doing.
I fail to understand why our colleagues across the way cannot grasp the idea or implication of not allowing—or the Prime Minister and the cabinet not allowing—exempt staff from appearing before this committee. This is a parliamentary committee, with the rights and privileges of calling witnesses and expecting those witnesses to appear. The fact that the minister is here in place of a witness is cause for concern, in that it would lead one to believe that the minister knows exactly what in this case Ms. Andrews in fact did, in the idea of allegations of systematic political interference, which is of course what this committee is looking at.
My experience has been that when someone takes a particular action, they speak for their own actions. Otherwise, it would lead one to believe that something is being hidden here. That's my question about all of this. We're here as members of a committee today looking to find answers. The individual from whom we're looking to get those answers has not appeared before our committee. That is cause for concern, I would think, for any committee member, any parliamentarian, who sees his or her right to question a witness being questioned.
I have a great deal of difficulty with that. I think it's not right. Obviously what the Prime Minister has done here, what cabinet has done here, what this government has done here, is to really interfere in a process, a process that we have every right to carry out.
Today, we don't know where Ms. Andrews is. We don't know why she isn't here, other than that a directive has been given that the minister will speak in her place. With all due respect to the minister, maybe he does know exactly what went down. Maybe he did instruct her to take some action, but we don't know that. The minister is here, but the minister wasn't asked to appear here as a witness. The minister may appear at some other time, but we have a responsibility as a committee to call whatever witnesses we deem appropriate to get to the bottom of this so-called systematic political interference. Ms. Andrews is the witness we wanted here today. She isn't here. We don't know why, other than an instruction has been given for her not to be here.
When Mr. Togneri was here, he made it very clear that Ms. Andrews was involved with respect to the 139-page document that had been deemed appropriate to be released to the media at the media's request. When Mr. Togneri un-released that document, and subsequently what was released to the media was a 30-page document, who made that call? Was it Ms. Andrews? We need Ms. Andrews here. We don't need the minister here to speak for Ms. Andrews. We need Ms. Andrews here to answer to her own actions, which is exactly why this committee is calling witnesses.
I think for Ms. Andrews not to show probably speaks more to the fact that the Prime Minister clearly has indicated that for some reason he doesn't want her to appear any more than he wants, or the cabinet wants, other exempt staff to appear before this committee. But we have every right to question exempt staff. The fact is, it is foolhardy to accept any argument that a minister can speak for his or her staff. It would lead one to believe, and we may have no choice but to believe, that in fact it was a directive of the minister, which is great cause for concern. It is political interference any way you look at it.
We're here today waiting to hear from Ms. Andrews. She is not here. We want to hear from Ms. Andrews. We want to hear from Mr. Soudas. We need and we have a right as a parliamentary committee to hear from those individuals.
It's not about beating up on anyone. It's about asking appropriate questions to get the answers to which we're entitled as parliamentarians when we're doing our job as a parliamentary committee.
I support this motion 100%. I think it will help us do our work, and I would like to think that all committee members would see it in that light.