Information & Ethics Committee on June 10th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

The point of order was on relevance, and colleagues, I have to be consistent. I have to be fair.

At our last meeting, Minister Paradis was here, and he also spoke to a motion that we were dealing with, and he spoke about political staff appearing, and he moved onto the policy statement the government House leader had presented to the House a couple of Tuesdays ago. It is very difficult to separate the policy statement of the government from what we're doing now. They're inextricably linked; it's clear. I don't think the ministerial statement is unknown to anybody, but it is relevant, and I'm going to rule that the point of order is in fact not correct.

Did you have a point of order, or would you like the minister to finish his intervention here?

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

I think we'd all like to hear from the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Minister, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, rather than support Madame Freeman's motion, I think it would be better to focus on the specific task before the committee, which is concern with respect to access to information. The Prime Minister invites accountability; we welcome accountability. He has asked me to represent him at this meeting, and I'm prepared--

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

--to fully respond to any questions that people have on the task before the committee, rather than--

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

I have a point of order--

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

--simply delay it and--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Minister, I apologize. I'm going to have to take a point of order from Madam Foote, please.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Chair, this really is an abuse of the committee, I have to say. We have a motion on the floor dealing with whether or not Mr. Walsh is going to appear before this committee. That is the substance of the motion. It is not what happened in the House. It is not what the government has done. It is not the fact that they're refusing to allow people to appear before this committee as witnesses, people we have every right to talk to and to ask what happened in terms of whether they in fact broke the law, as we know Mr. Togneri did--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please. Order, please.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

The point here for us is to speak--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order. Order, please.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

--to the substance of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Turn the mike off.

Madam Foote, that's debate; it's not a point of order. I would indicate that the minister isn't making an argument. His last statement was that rather than doing this, we should be doing something that he feels is more.... That's relevant to why he's not going to support the motion. That's his argument. That's why we're in debate.

If I don't rule that way, then all of a sudden our practices and traditions are going to be undermined. Members have a lot of latitude on what they say in using their time to make arguments for or against. I don't judge members on the quality of their arguments, but I do encourage all members to work as hard as they can to be relevant to the matters before this committee right now.

Minister, you have the floor again.

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

Thank you.

I'll just confirm, Mr. Chair, that I'll speak for another two minutes and then I'll yield the floor.

Rather than engage in a long discussion with respect to calling additional witnesses, I think the committee's focus is on ensuring the integrity of the access to information process and the government's compliance with it. The Prime Minister has asked me to come. I'm prepared to speak at great length, rather than hear Mr. Walsh, on the practices, policies and procedures, and specific circumstances in the Prime Minister's Office or the Privy Council Office.

There's a clear precedent of ministerial accountability. We welcome that. We don't shirk from it. We're prepared to respond to any and all questions in this regard. I think one of the cornerstones of our parliamentary democracy is ministerial accountability. One of the other cornerstones, Mr. Chair, of our system of parliamentary democracy is that the House of Commons must place its confidence in the government each and every day. On Tuesday, the House of Commons voted confidence in the government after Mr. Hill made his statement.

I'm here to answer any and all questions and to be fully accountable. I look forward to them, Mr. Chair, and I'm always available to work constructively and cooperatively with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Minister.

The member is finished.

Go ahead, Madam Freeman, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, right now Mr. Baird, who is here as a member, as we all are, is using his role today to speak to us as the minister. That is not his role. He is trying to use his role as a member to act as a witness. He is usurping a right and doing indirectly what he cannot do directly. We do not want to hear from him as a witness, but we are because he is using his role as a member. He cannot serve as a witness and make statements before the committee. He is doing indirectly what he cannot do directly. I object to this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Madam Freeman.

Members of Parliament have rights at committees. The minister has appeared, and he's used his time creatively to at least get his message out, but he is not here as a witness. He made a statement. He reflected his views on this motion and his non-support for it; he argues that there are other aspects of what we're doing that would be more useful. That's his opinion.

I am not going to judge the quality or the propriety of making those conclusions. The member has signed in, and members can use their time in any fashion they wish. At this point I'm not prepared to say that it's not relevant. As a matter of fact, Madam, I actually ruled that the point of order on relevance was not accepted and that I believed there was sufficient relevance.

Let us move on. I have four more speakers on Madam Freeman's motion with regard to calling Mr. Walsh as a witness for next Tuesday. They are Madam Foote, Mr. Hoback, Monsieur Plamondon, and Mr. Easter.

Madam Foote, go ahead, please.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair--

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

Chair, I have a point of order. I had placed myself on the list long ago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think when I asked you--

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

No. It was immediately at that time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I can duck and say I don't keep the list, the clerk does, and I can blame him, but I won't. What I want to do is make sure that all members who want to be heard will be heard. We must have misunderstood your positioning of which motion. Your name is first on the list back on the discussion of the draft report.

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

No. I actually put my name forward for this particular subject, so it would have to be moved over from first on that to first on this.