ITQ Committee Lookahead: Search warrants and Speaker’s warrants

Hey, maybe it was Del Mastro’s grandmother – his point I don’t really understand.

I have to say that Del Mastro is not the healthiest looking man….the black circles, buggy eyes and weight problem – he doesn’t look right to me. Oh, yes, he works so, so hard and that would explain those really dark circles.

What a Liberal circle-jerk Kady’s blog posts have become. That’s too bad.

jwl:

The following comes from a site from the House of Commons. It’s from something called Marleau and Montpetit. It’s a long answer to your question, but it also includes relevant information about witnesses generally and their testimony:

Summoning Witnesses
In the vast majority of cases, committees are able to obtain the evidence they seek by inviting witnesses to appear before them. However, some witnesses may not agree to appear willingly. When a witness has declined an invitation to appear, a committee may issue a summons to that witness by adopting a motion to that effect. [426] * If a proposed witness fails to appear when summoned, the committee may report the fact to the House. The House then takes any action it deems appropriate. [427] *

Committees are not empowered to summon Members of the House of Commons or Senators. Should a Member refuse to testify when requested to do so by a committee, the committee can report this to the House which will then decide what action, if any, is necessary. While Senators may appear before House committees voluntarily, their attendance cannot be compelled. If a committee wishes a formal request to be made for a Senator to appear, it must seek the agreement of the House. The House, if it agrees with the committee, sends a message to the Senate requesting that the Senator appear before the committee. [428] *

Swearing-in of Witnesses
Any witness appearing before a committee may be required to take an oath or make a solemn affirmation; [429] * however, under normal circumstances, witnesses are not sworn in. The decision as to the swearing-in of witnesses is entirely at the discretion of the committee. [430] * A witness who refuses to be sworn in might face a charge of contempt. [431] * Likewise, the refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not. [432] In addition, witnesses who lie under oath may be charged with perjury. [433] *

Testimony
Witnesses appearing before committees are usually asked to make a brief opening statement, summarizing their views or the views of the organization they represent, on the subject of the committee’s inquiry. Following this opening statement, there is a period for questioning. [434] Questions may be asked by any member of the committee; the Chair may, on occasion, also participate in the questioning of witnesses. [435] * Other Members of the House in attendance at committee meetings may also be permitted to pose questions. [436] * This depends, in part, on the amount of time the committee has accorded to dealing with each witness and the number of committee members who wish to ask questions. Committee members are usually given priority in the questioning of witnesses.

Witnesses appearing before committees enjoy the same freedom of speech and protection from arrest and molestation as do Members of Parliament. [437] * At the committee’s discretion, witnesses may be allowed to testify in camera when dealing with confidential matters of state or sensitive commercial information. [438] * Under special circumstances, witnesses have been permitted to appear anonymously. [439] * Tampering with a witness or in any way attempting to deter a witness from giving evidence at a committee meeting may constitute a breach of privilege. Similarly, any interference with or threats against witnesses who have already testified may be treated as a breach of privilege by the House. [440] *

Witnesses giving testimony may be assisted by counsel, although permission is seldom sought. [441] * Counsel, when permitted, is restricted to an advisory role and may not ask questions or reply on the witness’ behalf.

In light of the protection afforded witnesses by Parliament, they are expected to exercise judgement and restraint in presenting their views to committees. Where witnesses persist in making comments which are deemed to be inappropriate by the committee, their testimony may be expunged from the record. [442] *

There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to witnesses appearing before committees, beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue before the committee. [443] * Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them. [444] * A witness may object to a question asked by an individual committee member. However, if the committee agrees that the question be put to the witness, he or she is obliged to reply. [445] * Members have been urged to display the “appropriate courtesy and fairness” when questioning witnesses. Nevertheless, a witness who refuses to answer questions may be reported to the House. [446] *

Particular attention has been paid to the questioning of public servants. [447] * The obligation of a witness to answer all questions put by the committee must be balanced against the role that public servants play in providing confidential advice to their Ministers. The role of the public servant has traditionally been viewed in relation to the implementation and administration of government policy, rather than the determination of what that policy should be. Consequently, public servants have been excused from commenting on the policy decisions made by the government. In addition, committees will ordinarily accept the reasons that a public servant gives for declining to answer a specific question or series of questions which involve the giving of a legal opinion, or which may be perceived as a conflict with the witness’ responsibility to the Minister, or which is outside of their own area of responsibility or which might affect business transactions. [448] *

As with the House, committees respect the sub judice convention. [449] The convention is applied not only in the discussions held amongst members of the committee but also in the questioning of witnesses. [450] *

jwl

If you dig deep into the parliament website, in “About Parliament” the “parliamentary process” entry seems to have some good information on how the place works under “House of Commons” “current”. Who knows why it is hidden so deeply, but once you find it, there’s a lot there.

I think the committees are given power to send for people, but they are not given the power to punish people who refuse – that’s left to the Hosue of COmmons.

LKO -

I think the process to get a decision in the hands of the House will be every bit as ugly as what we have been watching on TV. omehow, a report detailing the complaints has to be drafted and agreed to; it then has to be reported; then a motion of concurrence moved, debated and decided. From what we have seen, each of those semicolons represents a host of points of order,rulings, appeals of rulings, amendments, yada, yada, yada.

Getting the report drafted and agreed to in the Committee will certainly not be any fun, but the motion of concurrence is a little easier to deal with. As the report would be addressing a contempt of the House, it would be brought forward through a Question of Privilege. Assuming the Speaker rules that the failure of a witness to attend after having received a summons is indeed a prima facie question of privilege (and I would be shocked if he didn’t make that ruling from the Chair without even bothering to reserve), the motion of concurrence would be immediately put. More shenanigans can then ensue, but it would get around a few obstacles on its way there.