Inside Politics

Pack your bags, Prime Minister! You're coming to the Ethics committee -- right?

by Kady O'Malley Posted: May 23, 2010 12:29 PM Last Updated: May 23, 2010 1:41 PM
At least, I assume that's the current plan, judging from what his director of communications, Dimitri Soudas had to say to the Globe and Mail about the government's new policy of refusing to allow political staffers to testify before parliamentary committees, on the grounds that it is their respective ministers who should be held accountable for their actions: 

 Government fully recognizes the authority of parliamentary committees to call for persons or papers as they carry out their work. However, ministers are accountable and answerable to parliament for government policies, decisions or operations... Ministers ran for office/accepted the role and responsibilities of being a minister, including being accountable to and answering questions in parliament. It's one thing for politicians to be tough on each other. But we draw the line when people who aren't elected, like ministerial staff, are humiliated and intimidated by members of parliament.


Given the example set by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley -- who made a surprise appearance at the very same committee a few weeks back, during which she made an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to field questions on behalf of her director of communications, Ryan Sparrow -- would it not be reasonable and logical to expect the prime minister to do the very same thing on Tuesday morning, when -- by sheer coincidence, I'm sure -- Soudas himself is -- or was -- supposed to go before the Ethics committee to discuss alleged interference in Acess to Information requests?    

It was, after all, Stephen Harper, not his communications director, who, as the latter explains it, "ran for office/accepted the role and responsibilities of being [prime] minister, including being accountable to and answering questions in parliament." He wouldn't want to send the message that he is less willing to take responsibility for the actions of his staff than his own minister, would he? 

There are, of course, some annoying parliamentary traditionalists out there -- including the one behind this keyboard -- who will point out that, although this latest tactic may get full marks for procedural chutzpah, it is, alas, completely unenforceable, since Parliament has the power to send for persons, papers and records. We just went through all that with those soon-to-be-delivered detainee-related documents, so really, there's no excuse for this apparent outburst of cabinet-wide amnesia forgetfulness. 

If the committee wants to hear from Soudas -- or any other staffer -- it can authorize the chair to issue a summons, which has the same weight as a subpoena from a court -- and if the witness still refuses to show up at the appointed hour, the House can pass an order to have the Sargent-at-Arms go forth and fetch them, after which they will be brought before the Commons Bar to face the same questions that they would have been asked at committee, as well as possible contempt charges. 

But let's forget all that for a moment, shall we? At the very least, this latest salvo has pretty much guaranteed a healthy turnout by reporters when the day of Soudas' maybe-maybe-not appearance rolls around. Who says we're overly fixated on Question Period? I've been saying it for years, and finally, it seems like the rest of the world is starting to agree: When it comes to the unexpected and unscripted, committees are where it's at. 
 


Tags: access to information, blackberry jungle, chess or checkers?, committeewatch, ethics committee, how many lives does irony have anyway?, schrodinger's witness list