Evidence of meeting #20 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, I do have a point of order that does interrupt the proceedings, and I think you'll find that my remarks will soothe the discussion. I promise to keep them very short.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, things get heated around here. A moment ago I referred to this committee as a kangaroo court. I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to kangaroos everywhere for that terrible insult.
Conservative
John Baird Conservative Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your wise helmsmanship of the committee.
Speaking directly to the amendment presented by the member for Nepean—Carleton, if it were to pass, what we could discuss at the next meeting is this: John Baird could discuss access to information procedures and practices in the Prime Minister's Office. He has been asked by the Prime Minister to come forward to speak to these issues.
If Mr. Poilievre's amendment were to pass, Mr. Baird could talk about the first book we were all handed, Accountable Government. Right after we were sworn in, within three hours, the Prime Minister presented each of us with one of these books. It specifically deals with access to information and our responsibilities and roles. It's very clear, on page 40, on access to information. If this motion were to pass, Mr. Baird could speak to this. It also talks about public access to information and privacy, and it speaks about the act and about the responsibilities that ministers have.
In the case of the witness in question--Mr. Soudas--the Prime Minister has asked me to attend, as prime ministers do not normally attend parliamentary committees. If that amendment were to pass, we could talk specifically about the clear direction the Prime Minister has given that the Access to Information Act must be not just followed; it must be followed judiciously. That's the direction he has given, not just to his ministers but indeed to all of his staff, as has been reported in previous committees.
The Prime Minister--the government--welcomes accountability. We welcome transparency. We're here to offer up to members of the committee that we'll answer any and all questions about policies and about specific practices on a specific occasion.
That's why I support Mr. Poilievre's amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I still have two members who want to speak--Mr. Siksay and you, Mr. Easter.
I think I'd like to hear from Mr. Siksay.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I want to speak against the amendment.
I'm speaking against the amendment of Mr. Poilievre that Mr. Baird's name be substituted for Mr. Walsh's name. In doing so, I want to quote from the Prime Minister's letter to the committee, dated June 1, where the Prime Minister notes:
As is stated in Accountable Government: A Guide for Ministers and Ministers of State, at page 37, “Ministers and Ministers of State are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their offices.”
Given that Mr. Baird isn't Stephen Harper, Mr. Baird can't be responsible for what has gone on in the Prime Minister's Office or the actions of Mr. Soudas. Therefore, I am not prepared to hear from Mr. Baird on this issue.
Thank you, Chair.
Liberal
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, I have just a couple of quick points.
What we're seeing here through this motion is, clearly, really a filibustering of the committee.
I do want to come back to the same point that Bill made with regard to the Prime Minister's letter, which quotes the following:
“Ministers need to understand clearly that they are accountable, responsible and answerable for all the actions of their exempt staff.”
We've had Mr. Togneri before this committee, and he clearly admitted that he pulled back access to information. I wonder why his minister....
You know, this government has a habit of blaming staff. Now they've moved to a different strategy. I wonder why Mr. Togneri is still there or why his minister is still there if they're clearly accountable.
Mr. Chair, to try to move on to what the motion really was before we got diverted here, I would call the question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I have no further members on the amendment, so I'll put the question on the amendment by Mr. Poilievre to substitute the name of Mr. John Baird for Mr. Walsh.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now back to Madam Freeman's motion that we call Mr. Walsh to explain to the committee consequences of failure to appear in all their glorious detail.
Colleagues, we've had, in my view, already a lot of debate. I've taken note of the points already made, and I will encourage members not to be repetitive of debate or points already made so that we can move quickly to a vote on the motion of Madam Freeman.
Madam Foote, do you have anything further to add to the debate?
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Chair, this committee has been frustrated every which way by the government. The fact that we cannot have in front of us the witnesses we called on, because the government has refused to allow them to be here.... I think it's important that we have every opportunity we can to make sure we do our work and do it properly. I support Ms. Freeman's motion. I think we should have Mr. Walsh here, because when you have a witness, the point is you get to ask questions of that witness. I think we can all benefit from his expertise.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair. I don't envy you today. What an interesting meeting, I must say.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
You know, Mr. Chair, in the spirit of compromise, I think maybe there's a way we could move forward with this motion. I, too, think it's important.
In the Guide for Ministers, on page 37, it states:
Ministers and Ministers of State are personally responsible for the conduct and operation of their offices.
I think it would be important for Mr. Walsh to confirm this, that it is in fact the truth. I definitely would like to hear that.
But could I propose a friendly amendment, which would be a bridging of the two, that we have both Mr. Walsh and Mr. Baird appear at the same time?
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Yes. I think in the spirit of compromise, that would....
Liberal
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I would think in this situation you would have an expert with Mr. Walsh and you'd also have an expert with Mr. Baird.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
We get propaganda from the minister. We want experts who know Parliament.
Conservative