Mr. Sheer (Regina-Qu’appelle, Sask.) would have authorized Commons legal counsel to submit the Federal Court application filed last Friday, said his communications chief Heather Bradley. Ms. Bradley had no other information available after the controversy exploded on Tuesday with The Halifax Chronicle Herald report about the court move.
Once the story broke, suspicion grew among opposition political parties that the government may have been behind the bid to keep the information private, partly because one of the exchanges included Mr. Ferguson’s first appearance at the Public Accounts Committee over his scathing April 3 report on the F-35 stealth fighter jet project.
Andrew MacDougall, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) communications director, tweeted that the government had nothing to do with it. “We don’t believe this is covered by Parliamentary privilege,” Mr. MacDougall tweeted in the first of two tweets in response to The Chronicle Herald story. “While we'll support a motion to waive Parliamentary privilege we don’t believe privilege should have been asserted in the first place.”
The Liberal Party and the NDP subsequently agreed the information should be released. Liberal MP Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Nfld.) said the government’s unwillingness to disclose sensitive information voluntarily is at the centre of wider problems with the access to information system.
“The Liberal Party does not believe that Parliamentary privilege should keep this information from the public,” said Mr. Byrne, explaining that he has already served notice of a motion with the clerk of the House Public Accounts Committee to release the information.
“If the Conservatives would have been transparent and accountable with the public regarding the F-35, we would not have to go to such lengths to inform the public of their intentions,” Mr. Byrne said.
The House’s application to the Federal Court seeks an immediate order to stop Mr. Ferguson from releasing correspondence between his office and Commons committee staff to prepare for testimony that he gave at five committees between Jan. 17 and April 17—including his first appearance to provide details behind a damaging report on the government’s controversial F-35 stealth fighter jet project.
The House of Commons’ court action was in response to an access to information request from the NDP research bureau.
NDP MP Malcolm Allen (Welland, Ont.), his party’s lead MP on a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into the planned $25-billion acquisition, told The Hill Times that the Auditor General’s Office is staffed with “seasoned professionals” who are familiar with Access to Information Act rules under which the information is being sought in a request from an individual whose identity is being kept secret under provisions of the access legislation.
House of Commons legal counsel filed an application with the Federal Court last Friday seeking a judge’s order to stop Mr. Ferguson from releasing the information on grounds the letters between his office and five unidentified committee clerks are documents conducted in private and protected by the centuries-old constitutional convention of Parliamentary privilege.
“His office is staffed with seasoned professionals, they receive lots of access requests, and they know whether the information is privileged or not,” Mr. Allen told The Hill Times.
Mr. Allen said it was his “understanding” that the request for copies of the committee correspondence was part of a wider demand for information from the office of the auditor general, including interdepartmental memos and other papers.
“With this government, we have to shine the light wherever we can,” Mr. Allen said, adding that the opposition must seek information about the government in as many areas as it can, since the government has demonstrated reluctance and outright refusal over the past several years to respond to information requests from the government.
Liberal MP John McKay (Scarborough Guildwood, Ont.), meanwhile, said he was skeptical about the government’s motives. “It seems a bit strange that Andrew Scheer is the only person who believes the letters should be privileged and not released,” he said.
Despite the fact that the final committee date in the request, last April 17, was the day on which Mr. Ferguson made his first appearance at the Public Accounts Committee to take questions on his April 3 report to Parliament—which included a scathing allegation that the Department of National Defence withheld $10-billion worth of F-35 costs when it reported to Parliament on the project shortly before the 2011 election—Mr. Allen said he did not believe the controversial fighter jet project was the main aim of the request for correspondence and other information.
While auditors general report primarily to the House Public Accounts Committee, the AG also testifies at other Parliamentary committees, depending on the topic of their reports.
The auditor general serves as an officer of Parliament, and the appointment by the Prime Minister requires confirmation from both the House and Senate. Mr. Harper nominated Mr. Ferguson to the post last year, after his office had completed the review of the F-35 acquisition under the supervision of former auditor general Sheila Fraser. The Auditor General’s Office, which now has 650 employees, was created in 1878, and the current lawsuit is considered unprecedented.
A spokesperson for Mr. Ferguson said the auditor general authorized release of the letters under terms of the Access to Information Act, which applies to his office as it does to all departments of governments and Crown corporations.
The act, however, does not apply to Parliament, a part of the argument House lawyers Steven Chaplin and Catherine Beaudoin made in the Federal Court application they filed on behalf of the Commons.
The House is seeking an immediate order preventing release of the letters, until the Federal Court can rule on the request following a full hearing and legal arguments. The auditor general has until Sept. 17 to respond to the application and his communications director, Ghislain Desjardins, told The Hill Times that Mr. Ferguson will be represented by in-house counsel at his office.
The House application to the court argues the letters “relate to the preparation for and participation in Parliamentary committee hearings and form part of the proceedings in Parliament. As a result, they are subject to Parliamentary privilege. Any disclosure of those documents without the express consent of the House of Commons would constitute a breach of that privilege.”
Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault’s office said it is considering intervening in the case. “We are currently reviewing the application,” said Josée Villeneuve, director of public affairs in Ms. Legault’s office. “The information commissioner has not decided at this time whether or not she will intervene.”
Original Article
Source: hill times
Author: TIM NAUMETZ
No comments:
Post a Comment