Government Operations Committee on June 2nd, 2010

[Siobhan Coady, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Holder.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm quite disturbed by the tenor of members opposite.

Mr. Guimond, when he spoke, could speak in a normal voice and we would hear him just as well; I didn't realize I didn't need a microphone or an earpiece to hear him clearly.

I say this with respect—

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Chair.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

I think it's my point of order, Madam Chair.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

The member has no business commenting on my tone of voice.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Chair, this is my point of order.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

If I'm speaking too loudly for him, then he should turn the volume down completely, just as most of the anglophones on the other side have done. They are not listening to the simultaneous interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Order.

Monsieur Guimond--

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Chair, may I please continue?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Holder, one second. You made a point that you didn't think you needed to have—

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

The earpiece.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes. And that's what he was responding to in your point of order.

Now I'll let you continue.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, because that's very much the point. When our guests come, whether they be earlier staffers or members of Parliament--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Chair, am I allowed to speak to my point?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

You're allowed to speak, and I'll--

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Then will you please rule them out of order so that I can speak?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Mr. Holder, I have to quote from page 976 of O'Brien and Bosc.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Yes, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Can I read it for you so that you understand where they are coming from?

It says:

There is no specific rule governing voluntary appearances by Members of the House of Commons before parliamentary committees. They may appear before a committee if they wish and have been invited.

That's the specific issue. If you call them “guests”, they are voluntary guests. They are voluntary MPs who have come.

So if you continue on with your point of order, then nobody will interrupt you. Okay? Thanks.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My reference to “guests” versus “witnesses” is only to show a bit of a tenor that is not always equally displayed by some members around this committee table. That has just been the courtesy that I have typically tried to show with people who have come to this table voluntarily or otherwise. I think that's a courtesy and a terminology that I use.

I respect the point, but it does come to the point of the individuals who come to this table when they're treated with a great volume of what ultimately becomes rhetoric, what becomes, frankly, intimidating behaviour.

When my colleague opposite, who I have great regard for, refers to them as the “Jaffer three”, that is so, so disrespectful. I have great regard for that member, but I see that and I think that's thin, I think that's poor form. I would say it's absolutely unparliamentary, and it really gets to the heart of why, frankly, in some respects when our witnesses come here and they feel badgered by some members around this table, I don't blame them for not wanting them to come, just from the standpoint of the tenor of the language, the tone, the volume--all of those things, Madam Chair.

That speaks, firstly, to the point as to why I think ultimately we need to show respect to our witnesses, so that.... Frankly, this, even by its own tone, can be a fairly intimidating process. Perhaps it isn't to some of our hardened, grizzled cabinet members--I'm not sure about that--but I would say that all of them deserve the respect of members opposite.

The other point I would make is this. Rather than members opposite playing politics with this parliamentary committee...and I think this has been shameful. I even reflect back to what happened when we had Mr. Derek Lee here before our committee at our request. We found out at that meeting, and Mr. Martin was the one who brought this forward...ultimately determined by his own right, which is his right, not to come as a witness but to come and sit on the same side as him. Then ultimately it got absolutely filibustered by a couple of members who aren't even the regular members of this committee. I would rather have had them there because they understand the flow of it, but conveniently, two other members of that party were present. I think that was absolutely distasteful.

Madam Chair, coming back to this whole issue of our members here, I'm going to take you back, if I might, to our meeting of Wednesday, May 5, and what was agreed. It was agreed that on Wednesday, June 2, regarding the study on renewable energy projects funded by the government, the committee invite Doug Maley, Sébastien Togneri, Andrew House, Scott Wenger, Kimberley Michelutti, André Morin, and Sandy White to appear.

Here's what's rather interesting. We have here now Minister Paradis on behalf of Mr. Togneri. We have Minister Paradis on behalf of Sandy White, who I would point out is no longer a staffer. Minister Goodyear is here on behalf of Andrew House. We have Minister Baird here on behalf of Kimberley Michelutti.

I'll take you back, if I may, to the statement that was made by the government House leader on May 25, where he said that in Canada the constitutional principle is all about ministerial responsibility. He made a statement regarding that ministerial accountability to Parliament.

I won't read all those details. I'll just make a few quick points, if I might.

He said that ministers are ultimately accountable and answerable to Parliament, and ministers' staff members will not appear when called before parliamentary committees; instead, ministers will appear before committee when required to account for a staff member's action.

Further, what they said was that all departmental activity is carried out in the name of the minister--I think we all know that--and ultimately that accountability must lie with our cabinet ministers; and that the 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, or operations. Ministerial staff are ultimately accountable through the minister they serve. Ministers ran for office and they accepted those roles and those responsibilities of being a minister, including being accountable and answering questions in Parliament.

Again, ministerial staff are ultimately accountable through their ministers and through their ministry. When they accepted their position to support their ministers, their staff did not sign on to be humiliated or intimidated by members of Parliament at this or any other committee. Ministerial staff who have appeared before committee have been denied the accompanying support of their own ministers. That has happened in a different committee from this. They've been denied the opportunity to give opening statements normally granted to committee witnesses, and they've been threatened by opposition MPs with contempt of Parliament through the media.

Even during the largest political scandal in history, Liberals frankly demanded ministerial accountability. And, frankly, from our standpoint, what we are suggesting and making very clear is that what we have here is ministerial accountability. I've been at this table with members opposite when they have said that we need to have the ministers here, that we need to be able to speak to ministers directly.

Well, we have the ministers right here. Frankly, ministerial accountability stops with ministers.

Madam Chair, I respectfully submit that they are here on behalf of those who were requested, and I look forward to their testimony as they give it today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you, Mr. Holder.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We've truly entered the theatre of the absurd. When ministers are called to committees, they don't show up, and when you don't call them, they bang down the door looking to testify.

There are serious allegations in front of this committee that the public has a right to get answers to--serious allegations of corruption, of money changing hands in inappropriate ways.

The concern I have, Madam Chair, is that the precedent the government is attempting to create today is a dangerous path that the government walks down. We've seen it in many examples around the House of Commons and at committees. Whether it's through prorogation, shutting down debate, firing officers of Parliament, or cutting funding to groups that have the audacity to actually criticize the government, this is more than just the concern of the political machinations of the Conservative Party. These are the foundations on which this place is based, the foundations of fair and open transparency--democracy, for heaven's sake, which this party apparently ran on to get elected. What we are seeing here today is undermining the power, role, and in fact responsibility of this committee.

The point is that under the guise--we've heard this protestation from ministers before—of protecting staff, under this guise, under this false premise, ministers are appearing when they are not called. They are refusing to allow their staff to appear.

This is the same government that, when a minister is in trouble, finds no problem throwing various staff under the bus. We saw this with Minister Guergis, we saw this with Minister Raitt, and we saw this with Minister Ambrose. When something got into the press, when something went wrong, the first person to walk the plank was the staff. The ministers weren't demoted. They weren't fired. They weren't called to account. They simply sought out the staff person most likely associated with the problem and got rid of them. Now we see the reverse.

Clearly the argument being made, and I'm sure it will be made by the minsters here today, is that they want to protect staff from some sort of attack by the opposition. What we are looking for is answers--i.e., who knew what, and when? Who signed off on which projects with regard to Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis? That's what the committee is looking for. We're looking for it from the people who actually made those decisions. That may or may not be these ministers.

We'll call you when we're good and ready. The people we called here were the staff who actually made those decisions, who are implicated, who are drawn in; we've heard from testimony that these staff made these decisions. It seems incumbent upon them and incumbent upon this government to allow the truth out.

The best disinfectant is sunlight, and we're allowing the sun to shine on this case. That's what this committee is attempting to do.

Now, my mom always considered it rude to show up to a party you weren't invited to.

[Some hon. members]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Clearly, today this committee has sought out--