Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 20th, 2011

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

No, I know that. I never suggested you.... But what I am suggesting is that this is a specific incident that's going on right now. I think this committee should want to get some answers on it. Without taking sides, it's about getting answers.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Just to be clear, I think what Mr. Andrews is trying to do is move a friendly amendment to this motion to broaden it.

I'm getting a sense again from you, Mr. Del Mastro, that this is not a favourable thing--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

--so we're back to the main motion.

Are you done, Mr. Andrews?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Are there other comments on this main motion?

Mr. Angus.

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

Yes. I'd like to ask my honourable colleague to retract “dumb down”. I think it's disrespectful of the issues that we're bringing forward in good faith. We are very concerned, as the government should be, about the fact that access to information is being denied continually and it's being denied in numerous government departments.

So when my colleague from the Liberal Party offers a friendly amendment, he's certainly doing that because he's serious about his work. I just think that in terms of decorum I'd ask my colleague to retract “dumb down”.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

The decision for Mr. Del Mastro to retract or not to retract is his own, but we're going to finish this conversation around this specific motion.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'll retract the term “dumb down”, which I meant nothing personal on, but I do think the opposition is seeking to water down the issue and confuse the issue.

I would also suggest, Charlie, that you made a comment a few minutes ago suggesting that you've never heard a Conservative ever say anything positive about the CBC at the heritage committee, which is absolutely false, because I specifically remember things like the CBC coming forward with their new technology platforms and me telling them that they were leading the way on these things. I thought that was kind of positive.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thankfully we're not at the heritage--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I would simply suggest that if we're going to be so sensitive, and everybody's feelings are going to be so easily hurt, then, you know...this is the big leagues.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

To all committee members, just for the sake of the productivity of our conversation, please remember to direct your comments through the chair. That will cut down on anybody feeling impugned or slighted. That's why we have the kooky rules that we do.

Mr. Calkins, did I see your hand? No.

Are there any other comments on this motion before we come to a decision and vote? Everybody is good?

So we've all heard the motion. Do we need to hear it again? We understand what's being suggested and we're okay? All right.

All those in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

So that was a specific motion. We....

Mr. Angus.

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

Is it possible to move a second motion?

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

We are open and we're discussing the committee's agenda. You can move a motion.

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

Certainly.

I would like to move a motion that we hear from the four commissioners for a period of two hours each so that we can be fully briefed on their portfolios, so that all the members of this committee can fully understand the implications of the dossiers they are in charge of and members can have an adequate period of time to ask the appropriate questions. At the beginning of a new session of Parliament and a new committee, a two-hour period with each of the commissioners will give us a good foundation so that we can move forward.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

Just as a point of clarification with regard to the invite we make to these commissioners, the motion that you just directed doesn't mention their annual reports. Would that be something you would imagine those commissioners delivering? The reason we need to be specific about it is that they would have to prepare that as part of their testimony for us, if we ask for it.

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

Well, I think we leave it to them. Some of them might want to give us their annual report and some of them might want to brief us on their files. They have a major responsibility in terms of ensuring the accountability of government, so we need to be fully brought up to speed.

I think we need to have a two-hour period with each of them. Given the number of members of the committee, anything less than two hours and many members of this committee would not be able to ask any questions.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

That's fine.

Just for members' awareness, the reports are all referred to us anyway, and that makes them a topic of conversation. So we don't actually have to be that specific.

Mr. Butt.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'm much like my colleague Mr. Carmichael; I mean, I was a private citizen observer of the House of Commons prior to being elected on May 2, and I did spend a fair bit of time watching proceedings of committees and watching commissioners and other witnesses testify. I felt that an hour of listening in those cases was quite adequate.

I think one of the jobs we have as committee members is that we have to do our homework too. We're getting copies of these annual reports. I'm reading them, because I take my job on this committee very seriously, and I'm doing my homework. I'm writing my questions down. I am being prepared for the committee meetings.

So I think an hour for each of the four commissioners who report through this committee is quite adequate. I would expect members of the committee to come forward at that meeting and be prepared to maximize the input during that one-hour time. I think an hour is quite adequate.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you.

Mr. Mayes.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I am going to echo that. It's incumbent on us to do homework. I have the reports. I've been reading them. I think we should be doing some of the work here. An hour is plenty. I don't think we need to have the full report and go over it as a committee. I totally agree with what Mr. Butt has said.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Great. Thank you, Mr. Mayes.

Mr. Del Mastro, and then Mr. Anders.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I see these as kind of introductory meetings for the committee, where the commissioner could come in and discuss a little bit not just what they do; frankly, it's also for us to get to know them a little bit. I think we can have quite a decent interaction with them in one-hour sessions. We have done this at other committees in the past, obviously, bringing in ministers for an hour and then departments for an hour. I think that works. I think there's a good exchange of information. I think an hour is plenty and sufficient.

So we would move a friendly amendment to my colleague's motion that we do call the four commissioners who report directly to this committee but that we hear from them for one hour each as opposed to two.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I suppose we are now into the process of moving an amendment to the motion?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes.