Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 16th, 2010

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Mulcair, this is your time.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I am not on that board, so you just apprised me of the fact that this is being looked at elsewhere, but one doesn't stop the other, Mr. Chairman. Because for the very reason you said.... It's very nice to hear that you work so collegially, but this is an institutional matter. This goes to the very heart of our ability to work unfettered, as members of Parliament.

As the Speaker ruled, our individual privileges and our collective privileges as members of the finance committee have been affected by what happened here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Right.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

We're trying to get to the bottom of it, and it raises serious questions of credibility and prudent administration.

Madame DeBellefeuille did a very good job on that before. Was the hiring of this person appropriate? And if you look at the jurisprudence from the Commonwealth countries that follow the Westminster models, as we do, you will understand that this is relevant to the privilege issue that's on the table before us.

Now if you want to sandbag that and stop me from asking those questions, I will not be able to talk over you. I'm going to have to listen to you. But I am trying to make you understand that it is clear to me that these issues go to a question of credibility, they go straight to the question of the administration of that office, and it plays right into whether or not Mr. Ullyatt was following instructions on this or any other issue. And I put it to you that it's relevant for the work of this committee.

I also put it to you that under the procedure and House affairs definition, when we talk about

[...] and report to the Speaker as well as the Board of Internal Economy, on the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members—

we're right in that subject as well.

So I don't see how, as chair of this committee, you can say that those questions are off simply because it's being looked at elsewhere. They might be looking at the same fact set elsewhere for a completely different purpose. I want to look at that fact set here on a question of credibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm suggesting that the fact set we're looking at here is a motion of privilege on the leak of a confidential document from the finance committee. Those are the facts that were sent to this committee on the motion of privilege. Those are the facts that we'll need to look at. Those are the facts that so far we've spent three meetings looking at. At the end of the day, we will need to, hopefully if this committee agrees, come up with remedies on ways to prevent that from happening in the future.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Now you see—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So I will suggest that's what we need to look at.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

—that's the Conservative line here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Mulcair, your time is up.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

That's the Conservative line, to say that we're only looking at the future. But actually our job is to look at the question of privilege and find out what happened. That's what I'm trying to do, find out what happened, and you're stopping me from doing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

That completes our second round and we're past the hour.

Mrs. Block, I thank you for coming today; you are excused.

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

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, Ms. Foote.

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

Mr. Chair, before you excuse Mrs. Block—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, I have done that already.

Go ahead.

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

Well, I won't go there.

The point I want to raise, Mr. Chair, is that I really feel that my right as a member of this committee has been infringed upon by having Mrs. Block here for only one hour. She said she was only invited for one hour. I've spoken with our member of the steering committee, who was not aware that Mrs. Block was going to be limited to one hour and that was what the invitation was going to be.

I have questions for Mrs. Block. There are issues I would like to have addressed. I think it would be in her best interest to have them addressed as well. At this point I am not able to do that, and I really would like to know, as a member of this committee, who made the decision to limit the invitation to one hour. If it wasn't made by this committee as a whole, of which I am a member, and if it wasn't made by the steering committee—and we have a member on that steering committee—then I need to know, as a member of this committee, who made that decision. It certainly isn't a decision that is in the best interests of the members of this committee, of the institution as a whole, or of Mrs. Block.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, on the same point of order.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

On the same point of order, as I mentioned earlier, no member of Parliament is a compellable witness. Mrs. Block came here of her own volition. Whether she was invited for two hours or for 10 minutes is irrelevant. I don't know what the invitation said, but she has the right to determine how long she wants to spend here.

I would point out that most ministers, when they appear before a committee to discuss legislation, stay for one hour. I recall that the leader of the official opposition, when he talked about pay equity, stayed for only 40 minutes. So I don't believe anyone's rights have been infringed around this table. It was Mrs. Block's decision, the way I took her opening statement, and she said she'd be willing to stay for one hour. That would be her decision. She didn't have to agree to come here whatsoever.

Also I would point out that when we had a meeting with Mr. Ullyatt, who is the antagonist here, the one who actually leaked the documents, we had one hour. I didn't hear any complaints from members around this committee.

When we had the lobbyists here who received the confidential information, who refused to disclose that proactively, and one of whom actually put the information out to one of his clients instead of destroying it, we had four of them collectively for one hour. I didn't hear any complaints from any member at that point in time. So I completely reject Ms. Foote's argument that her rights have been infringed because Mrs. Block graced us with her presence for one hour.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

With respect to Ms. Foote's point of order, if I understood the simultaneous translation correctly, she asked you a question. She wanted to know who invited the witness to appear before the committee for only an hour. Was it you, Mr. Chair, who told her that her appearance would be limited to an hour? Did she tell you her preference? That is what Ms. Foote wanted to know, and I believe she was speaking to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The answer is that the committee has asked the chair from time to time to do things as an individual, and one of them was to ask Mrs. Block about the e-mails. But as far as the invitation for today's meeting is concerned, I believe that came from the clerk.

Madame DeBellefeuille, had you finished?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I do not understand your answer. Did you ask her to be here for only an hour? Was it at your request?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's the clerk's request always to witnesses.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Would you like me to ask the clerk, Mr. Chair?

Did the clerk ask the witness to appear before the committee for only an hour?