Why do I feel like I've posted this before?

I swear, before this minority parliament came into being, I went years without ever…

by kadyomalley on Monday, June 16, 2008 5:38pm - 0 Comments

I swear, before this minority parliament came into being, I went years without ever having to look up the process for subpoenaing witnesses for any reason other than to feed my own geeky amusement. Now it seems to come up every few months, and not in a purely theoretical sense, either:

Anyway, here’s the Standing Order that gives committees the power to “send for persons, papers and records”:

108. (1)(a) Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time and to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the Chair, containing such opinions or recommendations, dissenting from the report or supplementary to it, as may be proposed by committee members, and except when the House otherwise orders, to send for persons, papers and records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to sit jointly with other standing committees, to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by them, and to delegate to subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House.

To give an idea of the possible wording of any order/request/pointed invitation/subpoena that could be issued by the committee, here are few examples, taken from the Annotated Standing Orders. (The summons issued by Agriculture and Agri-food on February 25, 2004 seems like the closest match to the Couillard situation):

From the Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages November 19, 2001:

It is proposed, -That “Following repeated refusals by the President of the Air Canada Corporation to appear before the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, the said Committee formally orders Mr. Robert A. Milton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Air Canada Corporation, to appear on Monday, December 3rd, 2001, at 3:30p.m., Room 253-D, in the Centre Block of the Canadian Parliament Building, in Ottawa. “

Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, June 12, 2003, Meeting No. 52;

It was agreed, — That George Radwanski be summoned to attend and give evidence before this Committee on Friday, June 13, 2003 at 10:00 a.m..

Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, February 25, 2004, Meeting No. 5;

It was agreed on division, — That Lakeside Packers Ltd. (a division of Tyson Foods) of Brooks Alberta, Cargill Foods of High River, Alberta, and XL Beef of Calgary, Alberta and Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan having been invited to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on Monday, February 23, 2004 and having failed to appear, this Committee send for these companies, persons, their relevant papers and records by summons and that the summons be for the first available hearing date to be determined by this Committee .

Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, April 11, 2005, Meeting No. 28.

That, in relation to its study of Chapter 5 of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, Terrie O’Leary, Warren Kinsella, David Herle and Peter Daniel be summoned to appear before the Committee on Monday, April 18, 2005 from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in Room 237-C, Centre Block.

Bookmark and Share
  • Scott M.

    Of course the standing orders themselves don’t provide any legal basis for ordering folks before a committee… that authority comes from the Parliament of Canada Act.

    10.(2) The Senate or the House of Commons may order witnesses to be examined on oath before any committee.

    12. Any person examined under this Part who wilfully gives false evidence is liable to such punishment as may be imposed for perjury.

  • Scott M.

    Of course the standing orders themselves don’t provide any legal basis for ordering folks before a committee… that authority comes from the Parliament of Canada Act.

    10.(2) The Senate or the House of Commons may order witnesses to be examined on oath before any committee.

    12. Any person examined under this Part who wilfully gives false evidence is liable to such punishment as may be imposed for perjury.

  • Mike Horn

    The response to the meat packers seems the firmest, should a gentle ” summoned to appear” turn out to be too gentle. Forcing someone from Canadas New Government or even someone from Canadas Outlaw Biker Government to appear, might clarify the law for a certain former PM?

  • Ottawa Guy

    Scott,

    The citation you made doesn’t provide the power to summon witnesses. That power is derived from s.18 of the Constitution Act, 1867:

    18. The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and by the members thereof.

    This provision is echoed in s.4 of the Parliament of Canada Act:

    4. The Senate and the House of Commons, respectively, and the members thereof hold, enjoy and exercise

    (a) such and the like privileges, immunities and powers as, at the time of the passing of the Constitution Act, 1867, were held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof, in so far as is consistent with that Act; and

    (b) such privileges, immunities and powers as are defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada, not exceeding those, at the time of the passing of the Act, held, enjoyed and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom and by the members thereof.

    The power to send for persons, papers and records is one of those powers. The significance of the Standing Order that Kady cited is that it delegates that power to committees.

    The citation you make is what empowers the two houses and their committees to receive evidence under oath, and for witnesses so sworn to be found guilty of perjury and punished accordingly if they provide false testimony. In the absence of the oath, it would be up to the house to deal with false testimony as a contempt.

  • http://www.macleans.ca Kady O’Malley

    Can I just say I have the most swooningly constitution-savvy commenters in the world? I learn so much from y’all. And yes, I suspect that, should the committee decide to go forward with a summons, it will have a remarkably similar tone to that issued to the meatpackers, although perhaps Ms. Couillard’s lawyer could first be apprised of the significance of parliamentary privilege as far as potential criminal charges. I don’t know if committees are empowered to extend immunity from future prosecution – and I very much doubt that they are, but who knows – however, presumably the government could do so, if it was truly interested in getting to the bottom of exactly what happened here. (I wonder also if she has expressed a similar reluctance to speak to Foreign Affairs, which is ostensibly conducting an internal investigation.)

  • http://www.abandonedstuff.com/ saskboy

    “I went years without ever having to look up the process for subpoenaing witnesses for any reason other than to feed my own geeky amusement. Now it seems to come up every few months,”

    It’s all thanks to our more open and honest Conservative government!

From Macleans