Government Operations Committee on March 12th, 2015

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, we have the utmost confidence in Mr. Friday and we look forward to hearing him. I am certain that every member of this committee will be satisfied with his appointment when he does come.

I think it's important that we move on to the matter at hand. We already have a reduced timeframe to deal with the witnesses we have. We know that they have come.... Some of them have schedules that will not allow them to stay through the entire meeting. I think it would be entirely disrespectful if we didn't move on to the meeting at hand.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Warkentin.

I have one more name on the.... Mr. Ravignat, do you have any closing thoughts before we move on?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

The commissioner can read a letter, can't he? Confusion? He actually confirmed that he was going to come. He confirmed that he was going to come; then something happened—probably in the PMO—that said they were not going to allow the commissioner to be in committee.

Why is it that he was on the roster and now he's not? Why is it that he confirmed that he was going to be here and now he's not?

This is fundamental. I respect Mr. Byrne's opinion, but I don't think that at this point the benefit of the doubt is going to do it, so I would like to move that we summon the integrity commissioner and that he show up and do his job in front of a parliamentary committee.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

We have a motion on the floor.

All those in favour of Mr. Ravignat's motion that the integrity commissioner be summoned to appear before the committee—I'm sorry, debate on the motion, absolutely. Is there any debate on the motion?

Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Chair, I know a lot of us have been through a lot of committees and a lot of processes before, and certainly know how to detect the bit of posturing that's going on. That's part of what politics is about, but I understand that if you are prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, because obviously a lot of comments are being made without knowing some of the background....

I think what Mr. Byrne was suggesting is to let him know that we'd really like him to appear and that we expect him to appear, and leave the door open for him to respond back that the committee would like to hear what he has to say. I think we all would like to hear what he would say, but to put motive in that sort of way, I think, is just absolutely irresponsible. I'd rather give this individual the chance to explain to us in detail what he sees his position is and what's expected. To condemn him blind, I think, is just absolutely irresponsible.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Your option then, Mr. Kerr, would be to vote against Mr. Ravignat's motion.

I have a legitimate motion. I have a motion on the floor, which is in order, and we'll debate it until there's no further debate, and then we'll put it to a vote.

Are there any further speakers on Mr. Ravignat's motion?

Mr. Ravignat, you may make your closing remarks.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Condemning him is not the issue here. The issue is that something went awry.

Why did he—and I haven't heard an explanation for this—confirm that he was going to come, knowing very well the content of the letter and that this was about him being appointed for an interim period? All I'm asking with the motion is that he come to committee to explain himself, and talk about his capacity as the commissioner during the six-month interim period. We have a responsibility to review nominations.

The motion is to ensure that the commissioner is at the next meeting and that we have the chance as parliamentarians to do our job and ask him the difficult questions that he needs to answer.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

For everyone's interest just before we vote on this, the next available meeting would be March 24. Should this motion succeed, we would then set the wheels in motion to get him here for the 24th of March.

Gerry Byrne...and then we'll close it off unless there's any further debate.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to offer an amendment to the motion, which of course will be voted upon, and it may or may not pass.

The amendment would be to replace before the word “summon”... The original motion I believe would have read “that the committee summon the private sector integrity czar.” That would be replaced with, “Inform the interim public sector integrity commissioner that his presence is expected on March 24 at the next meeting of the committee.”

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Who answers to whom? Do we answer to the commissioner? The commissioner answers to this committee. The message that needs to be sent to this commissioner and to all commissioners is that they are responsible and accountable to parliamentarians. This is just a fundamental issue about how our Westminster Parliament functions.

I understand the spirit of Mr. Byrne's amendment, but I think that we need to be clear about the nature of the relationship between commissioners and Parliament in the motion.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I think Mr. Byrne may have been pointing out as well that it's not quite as simple as saying this committee shall summon the witness. The process is such that I would have to report to the House that a witness was unwilling to attend, and the House—the Speaker in fact—would have to direct a vote in Parliament to compel that witness to attend. It's a multi-step process for the standing committee to exercise their extraordinary powers to compel the attendance of a witness who is otherwise unwilling to attend.

I believe Mr. Byrne's amendment may have been in that vein. It may be a more achievable outcome if we in fact rephrase it to inform him that his attendance is expected.

Mr. Ravignat, and then we really must move on, I believe.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Well, it may be more achievable, but what the official opposition is concerned about is that this is becoming a pattern. This isn't the first committee that this has happened in. In fact, the Conservative government has instructed the Privacy Commissioner not to attend the discussion going on in committee on Bill C-51.

If this is going to become a pattern, then there needs to be some commitment on behalf of the committee, and maybe this is the place to do it, that all the commissioners be reminded that they have a responsibility to be in committee and to defend themselves and their position.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

I think Mr. Warkentin would like to add to that.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Yes.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous, to impugn motive without having heard from the interim commissioner. It's absolutely unfortunate and certainly below the office to which the member opposite has been called.

We expect and look forward to hearing from the commissioner, but this has turned into a bit of an unfortunate circumstance. We'll be voting against it, but we look forward to hearing from the commissioner in due course.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Okay.

Are we ready for the vote? The vote is on the amendment as put forward by Mr. Byrne. All those in favour of the amendment, please signify in the usual—

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I would like to ask the clerk to read the amendment.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Mr. Clerk, can you read the amendment, or the motion as amended.

[The Clerk]

To make it clear, I'll read the motion from Mr. Ravignat and then the amendment.

If I have it correctly, Mr. Ravignat's motion was “that the committee summon Mr. Joe Friday, interim commissioner, to appear on March 24, 2015.”

Mr. Byrne's amendment is that after “that the committee”, Mr. Byrne would like to see “inform” instead of “summon”, so it reads “inform Mr. Joe Friday, Interim Commissioner, that his presence is required on March 24, 2015 in front of the committee.”

That would be the amendment to the main motion.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

You have heard the question. The vote is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment, please signify in the usual manner.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The vote then is on the main motion. All those in favour of the motion, please signify.

(Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will carry on with the orders of the day.

You have a point of order, Mr. Warkentin.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

I think what we do have is a unanimous consent to invite the interim commissioner. If you would undertake as chair to inquire if the commissioner would be available to....

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Are we satisfied that we will instruct the clerk to go back to the office of the interim integrity commissioner and reinvite him for the meeting of March 24? We would need to reschedule the work we had scheduled for that date, which was the tour of West Block.

Mr. Byrne, go ahead.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Chair, this is where we move into murky waters because those who would suggest that we should be careful about our relationships with officers of Parliament, and that we should understand that they are the masters of the House, not us, does no service to the work we do in this committee or as parliamentarians.

An alternative, a reasoned amendment, was offered to collapse the situation and provide some diplomatic resolution to this, which was refused by the government, clearly for a good reason, because while they may protest that this is inflammatory and unnecessary and that their motives should not be impugned here, it is clear to everyone listening to this and watching us and hearing our words that there's more to this than meets the eye.

Mr. Chair, the government was offered a reasoned solution to a diplomatic problem that has now morphed into something clearly much larger because now the government wants us to invite. We are going to the lowest common denominator now because a meeting was offered and rejected, and now this committee is left to simply invite an officer of Parliament to appear before us, as opposed to expressing the expectation that they must appear before us.

This has become escalated at this point in time, and unnecessarily so. I'm not very comfortable about the notion of inviting an officer of Parliament to come before us so that we can examine the nomination and offer a report to the House of Commons as to whether or not we agree or disagree with the nomination. It is our fundamental responsibility as a committee to examine this nomination and to report to the House, not to invite, to expect an appearance by someone who would assume such an office.

I'm not very pleased right now. I thought we had a reasoned opportunity to de-escalate the situation, but now I think we are getting very clear instructions from the government as to who is in charge. Is it the executive or Parliament? The government is telling us it's the executive.

I will not support this.

[The Chair, NDP, Pat Martin]

Thank you, Mr. Byrne.

Mr. Ravignat.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I fully agree with my colleague, Mr. Byrne. This has become about clarity, and it's about clarity to the Canadian public with regard to who has the right to call an officer of Parliament. Is it the officer of Parliament who decides, just on a whim, whether or not he's going to show up and be accountable to the Canadian people whom we represent? Or does the committee have the power to make sure that this person is accountable? This is just a fundamental issue of our democratic institutions.

I'm sorry that my Conservative colleagues don't see this. They were elected to represent their constituents. That's the fundamental role we play. That means that you have responsibility like I do to ensure that officers of Parliament are accountable. The relationship between the executive, the officers of Parliament, and committee, is a fine balance. That relationship is essential to the health of our democracy, and that's not an exaggeration. That's just political science 101. You have to make sure that there is a check and balance between the power of committee, the power of the executive, and the officers of Parliament.

The reality is that they are accountable to us. Whatever the executive would like to do to interfere in the nomination process—and that's a whole other issue, the transparency and accountability for the nomination process—but at a minimum you would think that when a letter is sent to a commissioner, that letter is positively received.

It stinks. Something happened. I think Mr. Byrne is right. These are murky waters and we have no clarity as to why, unless the clerk has more information as to why the commissioner decided to come, and then suddenly.... What was it, the day of the meeting, Mr. Chair? No, the day before, it was yesterday, right?