Immigration Minister Diane Finley was mighty unhappy at the grilling bureaucrats in her department received recently at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. A letter from Finley to the committee members was sent at the end of last week, on May 16. Some opposition MPs say it represents interference by the Minister in the workings of the Committee. House of Commons Committees are, by tradition and parliamentary rules of order, pretty much masters of their own destiny. When Stephen Harper was in opposition he decried attempts by Liberal ministers to interfere in committee business.
Now, in her letter of May 16, Finley says she has advised her bureaucrats that “if the witnesses have any doubt about answering a question put to them by Committee memberes, the should not answer immediately, but provide a response, in writing, at a later date.” She says this is for their protection.
Here are some extracts from her letter:
I am writing to express my deep dismay with respect to the appearance, on May 2,2007, of various CIC officials before the Committee, and the manner in which that appearance unfolded. At times, the atmosphere and questioning were very hostile and I believe attempts were made to intimidate the witnesses. Innuendoes and accusations were made that, in effect, called into question the witnesses' integrity and truthfulness, without any basis whatsoever. What we members of Parliament sometimes see as the normal cut and thrust of Parliamentary debate 1s certainly not the kind of treatment that should be meted out to any witnesses appearing before this Committee, including members of the federal
public service, and with good reason . . .The public servants who will appear before the Committee will present fie best information they can, within the limitations placed upon them in their role as public servants. On May 2nd and gth, the assertion is plainly made that certain Committee members felt that witnesses had lied and this is why they needed to be sworn in. Such an allegation is tembly inappropriate, and frankly could well be actionable if uttered outside the protection of the Committee. Whether or not public servants are placed under oath prior to testifying, they will provide the best information they can. In an abundance of caution, now, I will ask that my Deputy'Minister indicate that, if the witnesses have any doubt about answering a question put to them by Committee members, they should not answer immedately, but provide a response, in writing, at a later date, This may delay the Committee receiving full and complete answers to their legitimate questions, but as it is your intention to swear them in, this guidance is for their protection.