Another Privilege Showdown Looming?

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Is it possible that another parliamentary privilege showdown could be on the horizon?

Her Majesty’s Government for Canada appears to have created a new policy dictating that no staff of the Government may appear before a parliamentary committee; the only members of Government to answer questions are to be ministers. This comes just after the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics exercised its rarely-used power to summon a staffer to appear before its members.

What ‘parliamentary privilege’ are we talking about here?

The House of Commons has the power to compel witnesses to appear before the House, should members need information from those witnesses. When someone is summoned to the House, they are required to appear, else they may be held in contempt of the Parliament of Canada (which can result in various penalties). As committees are subsidiary bodies of the House, its powers are also delegated to these smaller bodies. This is a power that has been largely ignored for several years, with most witnesses volunteering to appear.

This all comes after the committee discovered that Mr. Sebastien Tognieri, an employee of Public Works and Government Services Canada, had ordered documents that had been released under the Access to Information Act to be retracted. The committee then summoned Mr. Dmitri Soudas, an aide to The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister of Canada, who it seems may now refuse to appear.

Has the power to summon been used before?

The committees of the House last used this power in the spotlight when the current prime minister (then the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition) gathered enough opposition party votes to summon staffers for the previous Government to appear before a committee to discuss allegations related to the sponsorship program and advertising activities. All persons who had been summoned complied with the committee’s order.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Is it possible that another parliamentary privilege showdown could be on the horizon?

This all comes after the committee discovered that Mr. Sebastien Tognieri, an employee of Public Works and Government Services Canada, had ordered documents that had been released under the Access to Information Act to be retracted.
In your fervor to bring light to this great injustice, you forgot to mention, he already appeared. Albeit not voluntarily, but that is justifiable, since he is the subject of an investigation at the moment, and his rights need to be protected. Unless of course you're one of the unethical morally bankrupt Liberals, cheaply scoring mud points.

You also forgot to mention he is the subject of an investigation and under a confidentiality order. The Committee sought and received a legal opinion on whether he could "appear" before them. Law clerk Clark's opinion is yes. The Tories on the committee challenged whether the committee could compel him to make statements and testify about acts in an ongoing investigation.

Seems like a pretty reasonable question to me.

But even then, the report in question, has never been made public in the past, yet here we are, when a Conservative Gov't sits, the report is now a matter of great importance. Good grief, why is it ok for successive Liberal Gov'ts to hold back these reports, but as soon as the Conservatives do it, it's the end of democracy?

The committee is simply trying to make a big deal out of nothing, again. Since the Chairman is a Liberal, I have no doubt that you see his actions as nothing but outstanding and above par.

Even though the committee could simply wait until the investigation is concluded, and ask Mr. Tognieri to appear again, when he isn't under an investigation and in a catch 22, in regards to his legal rights. But even then, what more can he say?

As Togneiri has already stated all he can without breaching his order...

He admitted ordering 107 of 137 pages of an outgoing ATI response be "unreleased," but said he could not recollect how often he instructed officials to pare down requests. He said he was not ordered to do this by the Issues Management wing of PMO.

"Again I was wrong in the fact that I did not understand the law fully," he said. "This was, you know, a mistake I made."
There you have it, the smoking gun...lol. Seriously Paradox, what else can the man say? He's already slit his own throat. Or are you all hoping he blames the PMO outright?

Wow, we need to hear more then that. Like how about the department had actually released the document, it was Tognieri who made the error. How about the Director General, Sylvia Seguin-Brant's memorandum, detailing the validity of the full release?

Anything you need to know?

The committee then summoned Mr. Dmitri Soudas, an aide to The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister of Canada, who it seems may now refuse to appear.
What utter bullsh!t. He was already slated to appear Tuesday, that was postponed because of a fire alarm going off. When he is called back, he will present the Gov'ts view that Ministers be held accountable and brought before committee's. Because of the present trend of sh!t digging the Liberal led committee's are doing.

They are not acting upon a need to govern better, or find justice, they are simply out muck raking dirt to fling at the Gov't. Period.
Has the power to summon been used before?

The committees of the House last used this power in the spotlight when the current prime minister (then the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition) gathered enough opposition party votes to summon staffers for the previous Government to appear before a committee to discuss allegations related to the sponsorship program and advertising activities. All persons who had been summoned complied with the committee’s order.
Of course it had, now how about you go find some precedent about compelling people to appear, or testify, while there is an ongoing investigation. This is simply ignorant partisanship. A Judge would not compel the subject of an ongoing investigation, to testify on subject matter of said investigation, in a court of law. It flies in the face of fair jurisprudence. I can see why the LPoC is having so much difficulty here, it requires some element of ethical understanding to balance justice with the rules of Parliament.

It baffles the mind how you would want to circumvent due process and jeopardize someones right to justice as you seem to wish to do with Tognieri.

Funny how Szabo has dismissed Tory calls for him to step down as Chair, as silly politics. Since form what I've read and seen in watching the video's of that committee in action show some pretty petty politicking on his part. Refusing to supply Finlay with testimony when she requested it, breaking a long standing tradition of not calling staffers. Ya, silly politics is right.

Now thanks to the help of a partisan Speaker of the House, and a ruling on the primacy of Parliament, we are seeing that touted about as a weapon. The Opposition swinging it like a little kid with a new wiffle bat.
 
Last edited:

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Right, Harper the control freak - the same man who promised more open government when he was in the Reform Party, suddenly wants to completely shut down the ability of the opposition parties to get answers to legitimate questions. Harper has been watching US politics too closely. He thinks he is an American president.