Information & Ethics Committee on March 8th, 2012

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Good morning, members.

I have a piece of information. I tabled the committee's report this morning on the CBC. The clerk will send the link to it to all members so that you have the official report that's now in the House.

This is meeting number 28, and we are still on the motion and the amendment. You've all got a copy before you of the motion that was tabled by Mr. Del Mastro and the amendment.

We will continue with the speakers list, and I'll just remind members of the speakers list. Mr. Andrews had the floor, and the speakers I had after Mr. Andrews were Monsieur Dusseault, Monsieur Morin, Mr. Butt, and Mr. Angus.

We're on the amendment. I will just remind members that the amendment from Mr. Andrews was that the motion be amended by adding after the word “Parliament” the following: “the committee examine all government resources used on Twitter accounts”.

I will turn the floor back to Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's nice to be back in Centre Block again, even though we don't have the technology that we do in some of our other committee rooms. It would be nice to look at getting that available, especially the Internet. It helps in doing some research, as you're doing committee work. It's funny that in this building we don't have access to that.

Thank you very much.

Well, let's just recap where we're to on this particular motion. We've got a motion from the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, who is again not here today to discuss his own motion before this very committee. His motion called on Mr. Adam Carroll, former Liberal Research Bureau employee, for one meeting to examine his use of House of Commons resources in order to conceal his anonymous public attacks on a member of Parliament, and that this meeting take place, as amended by Ms. Davidson, by Thursday, March 13, 2012.

The Speaker had ruled on this very question that this case of privilege is now closed, and then the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister came to this committee. I'd like to quote him here: “I don't see any relevance of a ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

Obviously the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister has no confidence in his own Speaker.

The chair then ruled the motion out of order, that it doesn't relate to this committee, and gave a ruling.

Once again the rogue Conservatives at this committee didn't get their own way, so they overturned—

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Excuse me, Mr. Andrews.

Mr. Calkins, a point of order.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, in the last meeting I was hopeful that Mr. Andrews would respect the tradition here at Parliament. Once a Speaker for the House of Commons is chosen by the members of Parliament, it's quite clear in the traditions and in the rules and so on that the Speaker is generally not counted upon in any partisan way.

This is the second time I've heard Mr. Andrews, through his identification, as subtle as it may be, saying that it was Mr. Del Mastro's Speaker. The Speaker of the House of Commons is in fact the Speaker for all members of the House of Commons, including Mr. Andrews, who had the secret ballot privilege of choosing the Speaker he decided to choose or vote for.

It is inappropriate and against the rules we abide by, as members of Parliament, to impugn the reputation of the Speaker in any way, shape, or form by suggesting the Speaker is politically aligned in his decisions or motives for making a ruling. I would caution Mr. Andrews that this is the second time he's chosen to go this route by identifying or aligning the Speaker's ruling or decision with that of a particular member of Parliament or a particular political party.

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

A point of order, Madam Chair.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'm speaking on a point of order, Mr. Angus. You've been here long enough to know that you can't interrupt a point of order with a point of order.

So I would encourage Mr. Andrews to get back into the rules.

And I would ask you, Chair, to rule on the admissibility of some of the comments Mr. Andrews has made. Your role, as chair here, is that of a representative of not only this committee but also in the sense that this committee was constructed by a standing order from that House of Commons, and your place, as chair, is to oversee it to make sure those rules are upheld.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

I didn't pick up the language that inferred Mr. Andrews was suggesting the Speaker was aligned with a political party. I didn't hear that. But I would caution Mr. Andrews, if that were the case that of course Mr. Calkins is absolutely correct. The Speaker is an impartial arbiter in the House, and there should be no inferences that the Speaker is politically motivated by any political party.

A point of order, Mr. Angus.

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

Yes, because I think it's very important to clarify what Mr. Andrews was speaking about: he talked about Mr. Del Mastro not having confidence in the work of the Speaker because the Speaker ruled, and then Mr. Calkins attempted to make that into a political statement. But we have to go back to the issue that the party showed a lack of confidence in the ruling of the chair of this committee.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Sorry, Mr. Angus—

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

This is why we're dealing with this. They've overruled you—

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Angus—

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

—so they're showing no respect to you or to the chair or the Speaker.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Angus, I'm not clear that that's a point of order.

Mr. Andrews, I'll come back to you--if you could make sure that any of your remarks don't reflect that the Speaker has any political motivation in any rulings that he makes.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I never made any political reference. I used the words “own Speaker”, our Speaker. It's funny how the rules down in the other chamber get brought up by members of the opposition: “Oh, you have to play by those rules down in the chamber there; you can't call in the impartiality of the Speaker. We want to play by that rule down there.” But when down there, in that other House, the Speaker makes a ruling.... I just want to quote that part of the ruling: “The interim leader of the Liberal Party then rose to inform the House that he himself had intended to rise on a question of privilege, having been informed on February 26—”

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Andrews, could you read slowly for the interpreters? Thank you.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I get very excited and, as I said last week, my Newfoundland dialect gets a little away from me at times. I'll continue:

...having been informed on February 26, that it was an employee of the Liberal research bureau who had been responsible for the vikileaks30 site. The interim leader offered his unequivocal apology and that of the Liberal Party to the minister. In view of this unconditional apology made personally by the member and on behalf of his party as a whole, and in keeping with has been done in similar circumstances in the past, I am prepared to consider this particular aspect of the question of privilege closed.

So it's finished—that's my word—“closed”, done, over with, and we respect the ruling of the Speaker. But then we come back to this place and this committee room, which is an offshoot of Parliament, and we hear “No, no, no, it's not closed. It's not dealt with. We want to take this back and revisit this particular thing over again.”

So I say to Mr. Calkins, you can't have it both ways. You can't have it both ways: you can't pick and choose which rules you like to apply to yourself—

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Excuse me, Mr. Andrews.

He's directing his remarks through the chair to you.

Thank you, Mr. Andrews. Continue.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Where were we? The chair then ruled the motion out of order because of reasons mentioned before, and it doesn't relate to this committee. Once again, the rogue Conservatives across the way didn't get their way, so they overturned the ruling of the chair. They have the majority in this Parliament. I understand that's probably a bit of payback for years of a minority Parliament. They want to flex their muscles around this place because they have the numbers to do so. I get that, and I understand that will go on for some period of time. But at some point in life I think the government party has to start acting like a government and rise above all this. I would challenge the Conservative government and hope they would do that.

Here we are. We're left to deal with the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister's attack on a former Liberal staffer and the apology. We're back to my amendment and where we left off. That recaps where we got to last week. So, back to Twitter and all the Twitter Ollys out there.

Before we clued up on Tuesday, I was talking about Cory Hann, press secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. We were going to talk about his Tweet and his use of government resources. I pointed out the lovely picture of him at his office desk on Parliament Hill or in the government office somewhere with the parliamentary calendar there and his couple of BlackBerrys going, because he's tuned in like a diligent political staffer would be.

I made a Tweet of what happened in the House and I read that out last week. I don't think I need to read that out again, about Peter Penashue patting Minister Ashfield on the back. Then this unidentified person came back to me and said,

False. Question was not on Makkovik. Better ques is when will Lib's quit using this tragedy for political gain? #nlpoli#cdnpoli

So I said very good, let's see who this is. The thing about Twitter is that you can reply and include the people you use, and every time he replies he deletes the part about Peter Penashue, because he doesn't want to see people he's Tweeting back at his minister.

That was two. And three.... I'm just getting the order here, because it's hard to print it. Then I came back at him, at Cory Hann:

I say you listen to the question again...better question is why is the Member from Labrador so silent on this @PeterPenashue

That was very good.

Then Mr. Hann comes back at me again at Scott Andrews, MP:

Labrador MP has not been silent. He's made personal contact with family. Unlike you, he's not using this for grandstanding

Very good. So this is where I thought I'd call out Mr. Hann. Then I went back to him, at Cory Hann:

interesting some Ottawa staffer has to pick up for the Minister as he can't speak for himself @PeterPenashue

And Peter Penashue is the Minister for Newfoundland.

In the meantime, I said I have to find out who this Cory Hann guy is. Google is a wonderful thing; you can type it in. I found out he is a defeated Conservative candidate from a provincial election in Cape Breton, not even from Newfoundland, and picking up for our minister back home. So this is the crux of where this gets to, and I'll tie it in here.

My Twitter handle is @ScottAndrewsmp, if anyone would like to use it. Here we go: “As a Caper”--and I assume that means a Cape Bretoner, and there are some great Cape Bretoners out there, and I respect that--“and Pres Sec”, press secretary, “it's my job (and instinct) to correct the record, which is what I'm doing with you, Scott”.

Very good. We called them out, and he identified himself on Twitter that he was a press secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, to the minister responsible for Labrador. That was interesting and it carried on for a couple more Tweets. What was interesting is.... We'll go to his picture. I showed you his picture, but underneath--and it's @CoryHann--it follows you, so he's following me and perhaps other members of this committee. And then you put a little bio in of what you do on Twitter and just a little bit about yourself. “Interesting things about me go on here, hence the vast emptiness”. Well, I won't comment on that; that's self-explanatory.

Very good. “And naturally, the usual caveat, all twits”—that's an interesting way to put it—“are of my own view”. All his twits and tweets are of his own view. That was interesting.

Then a couple of other people started to jump on Mr. Hann at this particular time. A Jennifer MacKinnon said “@PeterPenashue You tweet hockey while @coryhann hassles other MPs undisclosed as your staffer in profile”. That's a very good point.

Then a little while later, she came back again: “@coryhann When communication aides and secretaries to MPs tweet, should they not disclose their positions in their profiles?” I thought that was a very, very good question, because they should disclose in their profiles.

So I did a little search of my own yesterday and came up with the numerous press secretaries each minister has at his or her disposal in the Government of Canada. I had a little surf to see what they do. Some of them, to their credit, do declare in their profiles that they're ministers' press secretaries. That's fair. There are a few there who do not. I notice that they're sort of the political types. They are defeated candidates and that kind of thing. They don't declare that they're working for a minister at the time. But it's clearly obvious, when you go back to their feed, that they do pick up for their ministers. A number of them usually put in there “tweets are my own”, “own tweets”, or “these are my own thoughts”. They put in that little caveat, as Mr. Hann pointed out.

The use of government resources on Twitter seems to be widespread, and fair enough, because it is a way to communicate. But you know, I think we have a duty to announce who we're tweeting on and to put our full profiles up there, because part of Mr. Del Mastro's motion says “in order to conceal his anonymous public attacks”, and it's talking about concealing evidence of who the people are out there on Twitter.

We talk about government resources. When they put in this caveat that all tweets are their own, well, if they're their own, shouldn't they be doing them on their own time, in their private time? Fair enough. But they seem to sit down at their desks and tweet away all day long and do it on the payroll. That's fine, because you know, we do it. I understand that. It's a way of communicating. I'm not belittling it, but I think we need to be crystal clear, across all governments, that when we tweet, we should disclose ourselves. We shouldn't conceal.

Mr. Carroll will come forward, and I assume that he will apologize for concealing that, and that's something we'll discuss. Obviously that relates to the motion at hand.

I thought I'd just share that little tidbit with you about a government political operative out there doing his job, as the minister directs him to, rather than doing things for his department and keeping on top of everybody's tweets.

Interestingly enough, last week at committee, on that last day at committee, I got called to task by Mr. Dreeshen. I just want to quote from the evidence from last week. He said, “On a point of order, I'm just curious. I see no one over here who is putting out tweets, and a comment like that is completely unnecessary.” And some honourable member from that side said, “unsubstantiated, just like everything else coming out”. Then the chair brought everything back to order.

But it was a funny thing, a funny thing. Blaine Calkins MP was tweeting at 2:23 p.m. while we were in committee. Really.

Mr. Calkins, meet Mr. Dreeshen. Mr. Dreeshen, meet Mr. Calkins. I'd like you guys to get to know each other.

And the tweet Mr. Calkins read out--

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Point of order, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

For the edification of the members of this committee, could you please enlighten us as to what time this committee sits?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

The committee sits from eleven until one.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Oh, good, because I think he's—

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It's not 2:23—that's his point, Scott. You'll get on to it later. It will make sense to you in a little while.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

What...? Okay. Maybe I made a mistake on that. I apologize.