Information & Ethics Committee on Oct. 27th, 2011

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Chairman, I actually thought that Speaker Milliken's ruling in this regard was emphatically clear. Parliament does have the right to documents and can ask that those be tabled.

I would encourage members of the NDP who sought that ruling, along with other members of the opposition at that time, to review that ruling. I think it's very clear.

I see no point in adjourning. I want a vote on the motion that's before committee. If members opposite would like to oppose it, that's fine. I have, in fact, suggested that all the documentation being requested be kept in camera. I trust that colleagues on this side of the table will keep it in the strictest confidence. I would suggest that members opposite do the same.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

I will just remind committee members that we're dealing with a motion to suspend, go in camera, and seek legal advice.

Go ahead, Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Chair, this committee is being seen widely as a kangaroo court, as one that respects zero obligation to the parliamentary system. And it is my colleague across who is the subject of a big Ottawa Citizen front-page headline.

We have important work to do here. Part of that work is to be respectful of the legal obligations. We are asking to suspend, and we expect that to happen so that we can then take the time, get the legal advice, and do our work. If it is within the purview of this committee, then it will continue. We have asked to suspend, end of story. It is not really a matter of debate.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Just to clarify, my understanding is that a motion to suspend is debatable. A motion to adjourn is not. Because the motion was to suspend, the committee has the right to debate it.

I was going to clarify about requests for documents. It's on page 978 in chapter 20 on committees. It says, and this is about committees requesting papers:

[I]t can use its power to order the production of papers by passing a motion to that effect. The motion usually orders the person to whom it is directed to provide the committee with the papers in question by a particular date or deadline.

The Standing Orders do not delimit the power to order the production of papers and records. The result is a broad, absolute power that on the surface appears to be without restriction.

This is on page 979:

No statute or practice diminishes the fullness of that power rooted in House privileges unless there is an explicit legal provision to that effect, or unless the House adopts a specific resolution limiting the power. The House has never set a limit on its power to order the production of papers and records. However, it may not be appropriate to insist on the production of papers and records in all cases.

Mr. Angus, because I interrupted your comments, I'll go back to you before I go to Mr. Del Mastro.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Certainly these rulings of parliamentary procedure are what we rely on in the western parliamentary system to judge, because we are a quasi-judicial body here. The decisions made here have enormous implications.

It would be fair to say that the vast majority of people who sit around this table on any given day are absolute laymen and laywomen brought forward to represent their communities. Some have a background and some don't, and that's no slight on anybody around this table. Everyone comes hoping to do the right thing. But sometimes people step forward and put their feet into legal quagmires because they're earnest. Maybe they want to eat their way up the political food chain. Maybe they want to make a name for themselves. Maybe they're just really excited. But if they haven't done their homework, if things are allowed to stand and the rest of the gang jumps on board and runs down that road, then you're--

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

On a point of order, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Are we not debating whether or not to suspend the meeting? What is the relevance of this? It's nothing but a filibuster.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Del Mastro, Mr. Angus has the floor, and I believe he's making some points related to the motion to suspend.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

I'm trying to help my colleagues understand the larger implications of what we're dealing with here.

Madame Chair, they are hot under the collar to get at this stuff. The boys are off the chain.

I'm saying, in terms of our ask to suspend, that this is about taking the step back that's needed to seek legal advice, so that my honourable colleague Mr. Del Mastro, who's now suddenly seized with the obligation that he's going to be the new Information Commissioner of Canada.... I have not seen that sort of legalist, step-back, think-it-through attitude by Mr. Del Mastro yet.

I'm actually looking out for his best interest, and that of my good friend Mr. Butt there. I wouldn't want them stepping over the line on this.

This issue of suspending is important. We need to suspend so we can step back for a few minutes and talk to people who know about the legal obligations. What are the legal protections? This has been raised. Again, it was section 68.1. This is now before the courts. This issue is before the courts right now to get an interpretation.

What we've seen is an effort by the Conservative Party to undermine the independence of the judiciary. We know that. That's been a long-standing warhorse of theirs.

At this point in this committee it would be absolutely irresponsible for us to continue for one more minute or two more minutes or three more minutes without recognizing the importance of suspending. Once we suspend, we will then get the legal counsel necessary so we can understand the implications of demanding unredacted documents that may be kept under a section 68.1 exclusion, while—

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

If I could interrupt, and I will return the floor to you, we're almost at our normal adjournment time. I understand there may be bells as well.

I need some clarification from the committee. On Tuesday, when we resume, we are to have witnesses from the CBC before us.

Because we now have two motions on the floor, I need to know the will of the committee.

Do we want to continue the discussion on the motions on Tuesday and reschedule our witnesses? Or do we want to go on with our witnesses as scheduled on Tuesday and defer the discussion on these motions until the following Thursday? I need guidance from the committee.

I'm going to go to Mr. Andrews and then Mr. Del Mastro.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I think that's a great suggestion.

Out of courtesy, in this committee you give 48 hours' notice of motions, so you can prepare. The Conservatives don't play by these rules.

I think that's a great submission. We have Mr. Angus's motion to debate, and we can add this one. This one needs a lot more discussion. It will give us time to do some research and come back with some arguments.

I think that's a great suggestion, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Just a reminder to committee, we actually have two motions before us. We have the motion to suspend and Mr. Del Mastro's original motion.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, we'll gladly reconvene the committee prior to Tuesday. We will sit all day Tuesday. We will stay on motions until we have answered this question.

It is quite evident that the opposition has determined they would rather filibuster this than do their job and review this matter so we can actually come to an informed position on this matter.

We will stay on motions until the opposition allows a vote on motions.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Angus.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We're seeing now where this government wants to go. They've derailed this committee.

I'd like to say just three words to my honourable colleague: sub judice convention. I think we need to get a bit of legal advice about the interference of Parliament on a matter before the courts. He might not like that. He might think it's filibustering. But we are part of a legal convention in a legal system here.

I think we are at the time to suspend. If he's not going to allow the CBC to defend themselves on Tuesday because he wants to continue down the road as the hanging judge of the CBC, well then we will continue with that.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Angus, if I could interrupt, I'm going to ask the committee for a vote.

The question is, do we continue with the debate on the motion to suspend on Tuesday? Once the debate is finished on that one, then the second motion, Mr. Del Mastro's motion, will be on the table. Then we will have Mr. Angus's motion.

The question I have for the committee is the order of business on Tuesday when we convene at 8:45 a.m. I'm asking if business will be the debate on the motion to suspend as the first order of business of the committee.

All in favour?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

We would like to do our witness list.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

So the order of business at 8:45 a.m. on Tuesday morning will be on Madame Brosseau's motion to suspend, go in camera, and seek legal advice. That will be the first order of business at 8:45 a.m. on Tuesday, followed by Mr. Del Mastro's motion.

I am going to suggest that we reschedule the witness until after Tuesday's meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.