Public Accounts Committee on April 29th, 2010

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I have one final comment on one of the reasons I think these documents need to come to us before committee. We've only had a few minutes to even look at this. I think it's imperative, especially in a situation as important as what we're discussing right now, that committee members have more time to vet documents such as this. I think it's extremely important that we have the time to go through it so we're prepared for the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Okay. I will ask for those who are in favour of the minutes of the steering committee as circulated.

(Motion agreed to)

This letter has been before the steering committee on a number of occasions. In the five minutes we have remaining, are there any specific amendments that anyone wants to bring forward?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

May I ask, Mr. Chair, when we are going to be sending this letter out?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It will take a while, Mr. Saxton. The clerk has informed me that it does take a bit of work. It's not an immediate thing, unless she is so instructed. But she does have other work.

It will probably be at least a week, and more likely two weeks, before the letter gets out.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

But then the time would start running again, so it wouldn't...

It will be a week, anyway.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

I think the issue is not so much when the letter is going out; it's when the text of the letter is being finalized. That's really the question here.

Perhaps we could ask the committee whether they first of all agree that we could wait until the two-week time is up before the text of the letter is finalized. Could we put that to the committee right now?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Why would we wait?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

We've given our reasons earlier. You were here, David. You heard them.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, so you don't have any more good reasons. Well, I'm opposed.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

That's one vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

What's your motion, Mr. Saxton? I'm not totally clear on it.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

The motion is that we wait until the two-week time period has lapsed, which the Speaker of the House dictated to the House be used in which to come up with a compromise.

My recommendation or my motion is that we wait until that period has lapsed before we finalize the text of this letter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It is so moved.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I only want to say the reason I'm opposed is because--

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Very briefly, by the way.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes. Thanks.

The reason I'm opposed is that if we agree, then we're giving some currency to the argument that something is going to happen in two weeks that affects, as Mr. Dion says, whether or not the right has been established. The two weeks has nothing to do with that. If we wait, we're playing into that game. The ruling has been made. I'm sorry. The government is doing what it needs to do, but we should not do this. This would be contrary to what the Speaker stood up and said in the House the other day if we wait.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

The Speaker said a lot to us the other day, Mr. Christopherson.

The third paragraph of this letter makes a statement, “a parliamentary committee” has the right “to call for persons, papers and records, but recognizes that this power should not be exercised without considering the public interest.” Further down it makes another statement that,“The House of Commons and its Committees have an unfettered right to send for persons, documents and records.” Those two sentences contradict each other, because it's not unfettered. It has to be exercised in the public interest. The next sentence says, “This position was reaffirmed by Speaker Milliken”. Which position? The position that the right is unfettered or the right has to be exercised with consideration for the public interest?

In my view, the Speaker's decision obviously considered the public interest. He didn't direct the government to produce the papers or create a crisis or anything. He gave the government and the other parties in Parliament time to work out a way to do this without putting troops in the field at risk, etc. So the letter doesn't make sense. What does this position refer to? A reasonable limit on the power, or an unfettered power? That's my problem with the letter.

Second, there's editorial expansion in the fourth paragraph that says, “The Public Accounts Committee is concerned that the denial of documents to parliamentary committees is a recurring problem”. I don't remember when we discussed the recurring problems. We discussed one problem, which was our problem to get those tapes unredacted. I don't remember any long discussion about recurring problems. I don't know why there's any need to make the point about something we didn't discuss.

Those are my concerns with the letter. Why don't we simply wait and see how this matter works out?

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

It is so moved by Mr. Saxton that we wait two weeks.

All in favour of that motion? Contrary-minded?

I will be voting against the motion.

(Motion negatived)

The clerk is instructed immediately to start the necessary work to send it out.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

There's another motion coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We're talking about amendments now. We went the last time and we talked about another issue under the guise of amendments.

Go ahead, Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I'd like to move that in the third paragraph of this letter, the sentence that begins, “This position was reaffirmed by Speaker Milliken” be removed, and in the fourth paragraph, the section that says, “the denial of documents to parliamentary committees is a recurring problem”, also be removed, before you send the letter on.

You don't know if it refers to a position of unfettered right or to a position of a right that's exercised in the public interest. In the next paragraph, it says, “The Public Accounts Committee is concerned that the denial of documents to parliamentary committees is a recurring problem”. I find that to be editorial, an addition that we didn't really get into in this committee. So take that section out and the next two words, “and that”, so the sentence would then read, “The Public Accounts Committee is concerned that legal advisors for government departments are confused over the application of the law with respect”, etc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Shawn Murphy]

We only have two minutes, gentlemen, if you want to make a brief comment.

Is there any support for that amendment?

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It seems to me, as somebody from the outside who's coming in and reading it for the first time, as I am, that that would definitely help clarify exactly what you're looking for without confusing all kinds of other issues in the process.

I'm assuming what all sides are looking for is an opportunity to access additional information in line with the ruling of the Speaker, without compromising the legal responsibilities that not only our government but previous governments have put in place in the form of legislation. We can argue over this, but I'm assuming when we did the Privacy Act under the previous government, it didn't outline specifically that in instances of disagreement between political parties and committees, parliamentarians supersede the law.

As a layperson, not as a lawyer, I'm a bit confused as to why we have drafted laws in the past that don't specifically identify that all the laws we draft, including the Privacy Act, have absolutely no bearing on members of Parliament, that members of Parliament are above all the laws, at all costs, at any expense. So if I read this correctly, there is no Privacy Act because parliamentarians are above the law. As a layperson reading this, that then concerns me that a number of other acts... When we're drafting laws from now on, do we put it into the laws that this law is subject to the fact that members of Parliament are above the law in all circumstances?

That's a bit confusing to me. I appreciate that there are lawyers around the table who understand this a little better than I do, but I have to agree with Mr. Young's recommendations.