Information & Ethics Committee on June 10th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

I think Madam Davidson understands.

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

I had my name on the speakers' list, not to speak to a motion, which I did not even hear being made. I had it on to speak to this, so I will pass until we come back after the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, sure.

Mr. Poilievre, please.

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

I'm going to be proposing an amendment to the report that you have tabled before the committee. It would apply to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We're on a motion that Mr. Walsh appear.

Could we have all the speakers on that motion? It's pretty straightforward. She wants to call another witness--Mr. Walsh.

Is there anybody else who wants to speak on Mr. Walsh?

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

I understand that witness lists are generally done at the subcommittee, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, witnesses can be proposed by committee members at any point, but obviously subject to the approval of the committee. Madam Freeman believes this may affect her suggestions as to what this report may include.

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

Perhaps we could just have the subcommittee deal with that motion, given that--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, perhaps we could just deal with the motion if I put the question.

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

I don't think it's appropriate to change the rules at this stage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, no; if there's no one else who wishes to speak to that motion....

Who wants to speak to the motion?

Mr. Siksay; I had Mr. Baird; then I had Madam Foote.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I'm not sure I can support this motion. I don't believe we need further advice from the law clerk on the consequences of this. I think our job is to report what's happened. And what's happened is this: these witnesses have failed to appear, have refused to appear, have been instructed not to appear. I think that's all we need to know, frankly, for this next step.

The chair, I believe, has had conversations with Mr. Walsh over the course of this problem. I don't believe having a meeting where he comes to tell us consequences is particularly helpful at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

Mr. Baird, please.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the warm welcome here, and your professionalism; I appreciate it. I mean that very sincerely.

I want to speak to the motion of my esteemed colleague, Madame Freeman, by saying that rather than have the law clerk of Parliament come before the committee, rather than that, what should happen is that the committee could actually accomplish the goals it set out. It wants to hear from the Prime Minister's Office with respect to practices and procedures, with respect to access to information.

I think you're well aware, Mr. Chair, that the government House leader made a statement in the House acknowledging that our government fully recognizes the authority of parliamentary committees to call for persons or papers as they carry out their work. However, ministers are accountable and answerable to Parliament for government policies, decisions, and operations, and ministerial staff are accountable to their ministers. If anything, there is an attempt, I think, to strengthen accountability by having ministers take full responsibility for the actions of the members of their political staff in their office.

As you're well aware, and as you've mentioned, Mr. Chair, the Prime Minister sent a letter to the clerk of the committee on June 1, saying that he's pleased to assist the committee in its work. As you know, prime ministers don't normally appear before parliamentary committees. The Prime Minister has asked me to appear before this committee and to answer any and all questions that members may have with respect to the study they are undertaking.

I am keen and enthusiastic to answer all questions that any member of the committee would have--

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

A point of order.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

--with respect to the access to information and the important priorities that we put. There is a policy and an expectation from the Prime Minister, very directly, to all of his ministers, that we fully and completely follow the Access to Information Act. In fact, that was one of the first instructions he gave, orally and in writing.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

A point of order.

I understand that you--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, sorry, Mr. Easter; Madame Freeman had indicated that she had a point of order, and I'd wanted to hear a little bit more.

Excuse me, Minister, but I'm going to have to take the point of order.

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

No problem at all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame Freeman, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, you know that I am always delighted to have Mr. Baird testify before the committee. But we have already gone over all of this many times. It is out of order. Mr. Baird has appeared before us. We have told him that his presence was greatly appreciated but that he could not discuss what went on in the Prime Minister's Office when he did not work there. We are back at square one. This discussion is unnecessary. He has given us his arguments, and we have refuted them.

So there you go, Mr. Baird.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame, maybe there are others who don't quite understand what's happened here.

The minister and I had a very good conversation yesterday, and he indicated that he certainly wanted to have, one way or another, an opportunity to discharge his responsibilities, to do his job, and to have an opportunity to address the committee.

The committee has already.... As you well laid out, Madam Freeman, we are following the rules of the House as we understand them, as they have been unchanged by the ministerial statement. I also have the understanding that it is going to be up to the House to make a resolution of this. It's not for us to decide.

The minister is here today; he has not insisted that he sit there as a witness. He in fact has been replacing another permanent member on the committee. He actually has signed in as a participating member of the committee now. He is not visiting, like when Minister Paradis came as another person, in addition to all the permanent members, and then when all of those members didn't speak--when no other permanent member spoke--your visitor could have had an opportunity. In this case, rather than having to wait for the full two-hour meeting to be over before he had a chance to speak, the minister thought it would be more efficient for his time to have one of his colleagues allow him to be signed in. He has put his name duly on the list, and it is his time to speak.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a moment.

He is speaking to the motion, the motion which is related to our study, and it's relevant for him to raise his points of view with regard to that. He is not going to be asked questions. He is like yourself, Madam Freeman, a member at the table participating in debate on a motion. So don't worry about him asking questions.

I've dealt with it; it was not a point of order. You were concerned about him getting asked questions.

I'm going to Mr. Easter, please, on a point of order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, I'm not concerned, and we're not going to ask him questions because he's not here representing Mr. Soudas. As I understand it, Mr. Soudas.... We'll deal with that in a motion or in the report.

My point of order was to relevance, related to Madam Freeman's motion. What the Minister of Transport seems to be doing is taking his opportunity to speak to push the propaganda, the Prime Minister's spin machine, and this is not the place for that. If he wants to talk relevance on the motion, that's fine, but I don't think his discussion was relevant to the motion on Mr. Walsh.