OTTAWA - Parliament's top legal expert says political aides don't have the right to play hookey from Commons committees, nor does anyone -- including the prime minister -- have the authority to instruct them to do so.
Rob Walsh, the House of Commons law clerk and parliamentary counsel, weighed in Tuesday on what has become another blustery tug-of-war between the Conservatives and the opposition on the rights of Parliament.
The ethics committee had issued summonses to two political staffers to testify on the subject of political interference in access-to-information requests.
But the government accused the opposition of bullying the aides, and invoked the principle of ministerial responsibility. Ministers began appearing uninvited instead of their employees.
Walsh told the committee there are only three kinds of people who can ignore such a summons: MPs, senators, and the Governor General. Other than that, the ability of the Commons to call for the persons and papers it wishes is paramount.
"It is not the case that anyone has the right not to attend when summoned," said Walsh, who had been asked to provide his advice.
"If the government of the day can pick and choose... what public servants or what political staff show up here before committees, that has the potential to undermine the ability of a committee or the House to hold the government to account."
But Walsh did agree with the Conservative position on ministerial responsibility at committees-- to a point.
While they must obey a summons, there are limits on the kinds of questions they would be expected to answer at a committee. For example, they could be asked on factual issues that related to their specific knowledge of an event or action.
But anything that delved into the area of government policy or oversight of a department would be for a minister to answer.
The committee has given the two staffers -- including Harper's director of communications -- until Wednesday to appear.
If that doesn't happen, a long process could be set in motion -- one that won't be seen to its conclusion until well into the fall session, if MPs still have the appetite for the fight when they return from the summer recess.
MPs could decide before the House rises for the summer later this week to send a report to the Commons outlining how a summons was ignored and why they believe a breach of parliamentary privilege has occurred.
The Commons must collectively vote to accept that report. Once that has happened, an MP is open to put forward a question of privilege before the Speaker of the House, arguing that the staffers are in contempt.
Should the Speaker agree there has been a breach of privilege, a motion may be put before the House proposing any number of actions. On the extreme end, the Commons could issue a demand that the staffers testify at committee or face a warrant.
Failure to testify could result in the Commons' Sergeant at Arms apprehending the staffers and bringing them to the committee.
Walsh said holding them in custody until they did testify would be theoretically possible.
"That would be interesting if we put leg irons on the prime minister's key spokesman, wouldn't it?" said Liberal MP Wayne Easter.
The person might also be directed to appear before the "bar" inside the Commons to explain their actions. An even milder action would be to declare them in contempt of Parliament, and leave it at that.
Ultimately, Walsh underlined, the biggest lever that the Commons holds over the government is one of confidence. If they are not satisfied with how the government responds to their demands, they can always put forward a motion of non-confidence and trigger an election.
When asked whether he would respond to the summons, Harper's director of communications Dimitri Soudas said the government's position that ministers should appear instead had not changed.
