Information & Ethics Committee on June 10th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

The motion before us, proposed by Madam Freeman, was that the committee invite the law clerk—and this is the important part—“to explain the consequences of the witnesses' failure to appear before the Committee”. We want that from the law clerk, and it deals with what really happens, how serious the criminal issues are. There is civil law involved here; there are parliamentary rules, practices, and procedures.

Mr. Poilievre made an amendment that Mr. Baird appear in lieu of Mr. Walsh, as a substitute. We had some debate. The members voted and it was defeated, such that the committee made a decision that it did not want to hear from Mr. Baird to explain the consequences of a witness's failure to appear before the committee. They made that decision.

Accordingly, an amendment to Madam Freeman's motion, which would indicate that we would have Mr. Walsh and Mr. Baird, is actually contradictory to the decision already made by the committee and therefore the amendment is out of order.

Thank you.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I was under the impression they did not want to give up Mr. Walsh. They did not want to lose the opportunity to have Mr. Walsh come forward, and that is why they voted against having Mr. Baird come individually. In this case it would solve that. It would allow Mr. Walsh to come forward, plus it would allow Mr. Baird to come forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you for the clarification.

Mr. Plamondon, go ahead, please.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will keep it fairly brief.

I want to say something about the request to have the committee hear from Mr. Walsh. He is not just anyone, he is the senior law clerk. He would appear to enlighten the committee and the House. There are really two points of view being heard here. Mr. Walsh would be of great help in terms of the committee's democratic life. It could influence all the House committees. We are at a turning point.

Furthermore, it seems to me that a committee's role is to try to find the best experts. I have been in this Parliament for 25 years. Whenever I have been on a committee, it has always sought enlightenment from the best experts available. And, as it turns out, the best expert to enlighten us on the consequences of a witness failing to appear is Mr. Walsh.

Not wanting to hear from him is tantamount to not wanting to know the truth or the consequences of a particular action, namely that of Mr. Soudas. How can we make an informed decision if we refuse to hear from the witness who would be the most helpful?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I agree with what Mr. Plamondon said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Madam Block.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In the past 20 months that I have been on this committee, I have come to appreciate the work we could do as a committee when we look at access to information, privacy, and ethics. Most recently, we had the interim Information Commissioner come to talk to us about proactive disclosure and possibly open government.

Unfortunately, in the last few weeks I've had to call others to fill in for me on this committee, only to come back to find that this committee has been frustrated in doing that very important work by several motions made by members of the opposition that we begin to look into allegations of blocked access to information.

I think the reason we find ourselves here today is that there has been an unwillingness by a number of members from the opposition to hear from our ministers. We talk about--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madam Block, I have to ask you to please get to the motion before us, which is to call the law clerk to advise the committee on consequences. I appreciate your views, and you've expressed them several times before the committee. But now we need to do our work so we can get to where you want to go.

So if you have any comments, any new information for the committee's consideration with regard to the Freeman motion, please continue.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

It's simply that we had encouraged the committee to consider all options when calling forward witnesses. It's apparent today that there has been an unwillingness to allow other witnesses who we would like to hear from to come forward, so I will not be supporting Madam Freeman's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Madam Davidson, please.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate having the opportunity to speak to Madame Freeman's motion. I appreciate all the extra work that Madame Freeman has gone to. I know she has researched this. I know she has spoken many times with the law clerk and she is anxious to have us hear personally from him the things she has learned from him.

I know also that you have spoken with him, Mr. Chair, and you have a very good grasp of the issue and what legalities could be involved.

I think having the law clerk, Mr. Walsh, come before this committee is something that isn't necessary. We have the information that has been relayed to us by Madame Freeman and by you, Mr. Chair. We have also gone through a process that has been less than congenial around this table. We firmly believe in the ministerial responsibilities, and we know there have been many issues in the past where, in past governments, there have been activities regarding ministerial staff. Those issues have been talked about around this table before, during these hearings.

I think the time has come to move on. To have the law clerk here is not necessary. We've had the offer of the people here who can tell the story, can make the difference, and they are the ministers, who are totally responsible. The ministerial responsibility is to Parliament.

So I will not be supporting the motion from Madame Freeman, although I definitely do appreciate and congratulate her for all the hard work she has done on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre, please.

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

I'm a great admirer of Mr. Walsh—most of us are.

In order to present my arguments on specifics of this motion, I'd kindly ask the chair to reread it. We were not provided with paper copies.

If you would just reread the motion, I will highlight the key words that give problems to this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mrs. Freeman moved:

That the Committee invite the Law Clerk...to explain the consequences of the witnesses' failure to appear before the Committee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You have already spoken on this before, so—

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

No, I'm sorry, I had spoken on my amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, that's on the motion.

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

The problem with the motion is that it presupposes a decision by Parliament. Any decision to impose consequences would be made by the House of Commons in its totality, not by this committee alone. There has been no determination by that chamber to sanction in any way, shape, or form any staff member of this government. Therefore, it would be improper to call a witness before the committee to explain the consequences of a decision that we have not decided, as Parliament, to render.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a moment. If I may just interrupt, I would note that the motion does not mention any persons' names. It says “to explain the consequences of witnesses' failure to appear before the Committee”—any witness, any study, in any committee. It's the whole thing.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

This does not refer to any specific witnesses, and therefore it cannot be read as—

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

Can I just clarify? It's not linked necessarily, then, to the subject of the supposed non-appearance of these three people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It is linked only from the standpoint that it's information that the member suggests the committee should hear so that committee members can consider whether there is—