Mr. Speaker, I am intervening in support of the matter of privilege raised by my hon. colleague from Mercier.
I too was in committee this morning, and as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, this affects more than what goes on in committees. The chair is indeed the guardian of the privileges of all members of parliament.
Standing Order 111(2) of the House states:
The committee...shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.
In calling Alfonso Gagliano before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade today an essential element of the responsibility to examine qualifications and competence was to examine the standards in place for heads of missions representing Canada.
The standards are set out in the conflict of interest and post employment code for the public service. Mr. Gagliano signed a document certifying he had read and understood the code. According to the code every employee shall conform to the following principles:
Employees shall perform their official duties and arrange their private affairs in such a manner that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced.
It is clear that in his capacity as the head of mission the ambassador to Denmark is in a position to make decisions with respect to the hiring of locally engaged staff. He is also in a position to let contracts. Clearly the ambassador designate has had experience in precisely those roles. The letting of contracts and the hiring of personnel are within his qualifications and competence and should have been permitted in the context of the examination.
It was denied. As members of the committee we were muzzled, shut down and prevented from doing our job on behalf of the people of Canada. For that reason this is a serious question of privilege.
The chair of the committee is here today. I have great respect for the chair but she made it clear she would not permit any questions that related to the conduct of the minister prior to his appointment as ambassador to Denmark. How on earth can we examine the qualifications and competence of the minister if we are not in a position to ask questions that relate directly to his role as ambassador about the time that he served as minister?
The Speaker knows there was a serious cloud with respect to the conduct of the minister. There are suggestions he hired and recommended the hiring of friends and political cronies. There are suggestions he helped his son in law's firm get a contract. All this is directly relevant to the qualifications and competence of the ambassador designate but we were not permitted to ask questions about any of it.
Mr. Speaker, we are in your hands.
For this reason, it is very clear that I very strongly support the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Mercier.
If the ambassador were in Denmark at this time, he would be having to make very important decisions concerning embassy employees and contracts. If there is already an odour of corruption surrounding this former minister as a result of his actions while minister, it is totally unacceptable and repugnant for the committee members not to have been able to ask questions on his behaviour while a minister.
For this reason, I support the question of privilege of the hon. member for Mercier.