Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the issue brought forward by my colleague across the way.
What we have here this afternoon is an issue of debate. It is dispute between myself and my colleague on our opinion of his actions and in what way they might be classified. I believe this is an issue of debate.
I believe very strongly, I did on Thursday and I do today, that it was inappropriate for the member for Mississauga South to have a private conversation with a commissioner of this House who is undertaking a review, an investigation. He spoke to her about the exact issue she is currently considering.
My opinion, and I will stand behind my opinion, is that it was wrong for the hon. member to call the interim information commissioner to ask her questions with regard to an investigation that she is currently undertaking.
The only issue we have here today is an issue of freedom of speech in the House. On page 26 of Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, it states:
One of the first and greatest of its privileges is free speech and one of the advantages of legislative bodies is the right of exposing and denouncing abuses by means of free speech.
I believe that is what I was doing. I believe I have, not only a responsibility or an option, but I have a duty to expose what I believe to be the abuse of authority of this chairman in committee.
It is ironic that we are discussing an issue today that I believe is far less offensive than the lines of questioning, the statements and the behaviours that he permits in his own committee. On Thursday, I had an opportunity to sit for a time in his committee, at which time I incurred that abuse myself.
I was shut down on a point of order and was lectured on an issue on which I felt I had a right to bring forward.
Mr. Speaker, if you refer to the transcripts of the committee, which I will be willing to table once I am finished, you will find that in fact that was the case.
I point out that the assistant information commissioner had instructed the person who was before the committee with the following words. It is Andrea Neill. She had given a confidentiality order to the witness. The dispute here essentially is that the deputy commissioner had told the witness to conduct himself in one way. Yet, we had the member opposite instructing the committee to disregard what the witness had been told by the assistant information commissioner, and to simply believe that, based on a private conversation he had with the commissioner, we should all believe that what she had stated to the witness should be disregarded.
She had told the witness that any question asked, answers given, and exhibits used during his examination under oath before counsel of the Information Commissioner on March 23, 2010 in any matter to anyone, until the Information Commissioner's investigation is complete, except to his counsel, should not be done.
Later, the member for Mississauga South stated that he had a conversation with the Information Commissioner that morning and claimed that all was well, everything was open and nothing should be restricted.
My question at committee was, and still is, were his instructions the correct instructions, or should we, as members of Parliament, be held to the requirements that were put forward by the assistant information commissioner?
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether you have the capacity to rule as to who we as members of Parliament should listen to.
Simply put, even this afternoon as I stand here, there seems to be a contradiction. Either he has the correct information or the Information Commissioner gave the correct information. This is probably more an issue of debate than it is a question of privilege, but these are the discussions we are having.
We talk about bullying people and witnesses, and the member went on at great length about what is appropriate to be said and if that somehow impedes the ability for other people to do their work, but in The Hill Times I read the chairman's comments, and the quotation from the chair is very clear. I believe it stands as evidence that there was this type of influence being put forward by the chair on the witness. I believe it is intimidating for the witness if the witness were to read this, and I am sure the witness has read it by now. In The Hill Times the chairman is quoted as saying, and he is referring to the witness:
If he refuses to answer [questions at Tuesday's meeting], then he is subject to possibly being in contempt of committee.
We see now in the press the member opposite giving instruction to a witness who is still before committee in a matter that I believe demonstrates all of the intimidation anybody would have to bring to this place to show that is in fact intimidation. This is the type of situation we are talking about.
Based on this information, my opinion has not changed. I still believe it was inappropriate for the member opposite to talk to the commissioner about an investigation that was ongoing. We are led to believe that he talked specifically about if or not the witness should be allowed to talk about information he had been told not to talk to members about. There is a confidentiality order.
Based on these conclusions, I felt it was my responsibility to come forward and demonstrate what I felt to be abuse in this place. That is where it is important that we have the freedom of speech.
I in no way, shape or form brought forward a personal attack. There is a clear distinction between bringing forward what we believe to be the facts and bringing forward a frivolous personal attack. I believe there is a clear distinction.
If we are not allowed to bring forward facts, if we are not allowed to bring forward debate items that may impact other members because it may offend somebody or it might hurt somebody's feelings, that limits free speech in this chamber.
I know that the hon. member opposite has a high ethical standard. I believe that he will stand in this place and apologize to members of this chamber and members of the committee which he chairs for the actions that he has undertaken both in communicating with the Information Commissioner and then in the way he conducts the committee as well.