Information & Ethics Committee on March 15th, 2012

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, could we just have the exact speakers list now?

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Yes. My apologies.

Monsieur Dusseault has the floor, and then it's Mr. Calkins, Mr. Butt, Monsieur Morin, and Mr. Andrews.

Monsieur Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Asking to go in camera and imposing it constantly is a strange way to go about things. This is not the first time it happens.

I am pleased that we can discuss this motion today. In my view, Mr. Angus's motion is very appropriate, Madam Chair, because you personally ruled on Mr. Del Mastro's motion that was introduced a few meetings back. You had then ruled that the motion was out of order. Even the Speaker of the House of Commons pretty much took the same position. The matter was closed not only because the leader of the Liberal Party apologized, but also because Mr. Toews himself accepted the apology, which we neglected to mention. That is a rather clear sign that the matter is closed. If Mr. Del Mastro really wants to reopen the matter, that is his choice, but, as far as we are concerned, this matter is closed. We don't want to reopen matters that have been closed by the Speaker and yourself, who had ruled it out of order.

I don't think that it is necessary to continue on this topic and I hope that the Conservatives will realize, like us, that we can move on to something else and do some real work. The committee has better things to do than to call people who formerly worked for the Liberal Party. The committee has more important things to check, and it seems that this committee is being used for witch hunts and for trying to score political points. In any case, the committee is not doing the work that it should be doing.

My colleague mentioned the cost involved. The cost for the committee to meet every time is rather significant; I don't have the exact numbers. But coming to every meeting to talk about a former employee of the Liberal Party who apparently wrote things on Twitter, or to talk about the NDP convention, or to talk about all sorts of other things that are not relevant... Anyway, you said that it was out of order and that it did not fall under the purview of the committee. But, since they have a majority, the Conservatives decided three times that the Speaker's ruling did not suit them and so they voted against it.

Even when the chair of the committee makes a ruling that does not suit them and when the rules don't suit them, they go against them and they change the rules. It is mind-boggling to see that once again.

Fortunately, today's meeting is public. It is important for people to know what goes on in our committees, especially in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, although the Conservatives want to go in camera. This committee was formed to ensure the government is accountable. And let me assure you that there is no accountability behind closed doors. If people cannot see what goes on in the committee, they cannot be informed, and then the committee does not really serve the purpose for which it was created.

I support my colleague's motion for a number of reasons. On another note, Mr. Toews—I have said this a few times because we often forget—tabled a motion in the House that the whole story with the Anonymous computer hackers be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Following the Speaker's ruling, Mr. Toews himself proposed that his motion be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. And now, perhaps because people don't like the serious work done in committees, they are still trying to go in directions whose purpose I fail to see; will this move the business of our Parliament forward, I wonder? I don't think that having Mr. Carroll here will get us very far. According to our information, he cannot be here with us today because he apparently has some problems.

So I am going to support my colleague's motion. I hope that the meeting will remain public. I am afraid of what one of my Conservative colleagues may soon propose. I advise the people listening to us to pay close attention to what will happen after my speech. I cannot be absolutely sure, but I predict that the Conservatives will once again want to go in camera. So I urge the people who are listening to stay alert. In my opinion, they are going to see how keen the Conservatives are on secrecy and that they are using this committee to hide things so that Canadians are kept in the dark. So stay tuned.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault.

Go ahead, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have before me today's agenda. Today's agenda is quite clear on what committee members were prepared to come here and do today. The orders of the day are to study the Lobbying Act, and this was to be an in camera meeting. It started out as an in camera meeting to deal with that matter that was agreed upon by all parties. Unfortunately, the process was hijacked this morning by Mr. Angus moving a motion, which quite frankly, Madam Chair, we had no notice of. As it does not deal with a substantive matter—

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

A point of order.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

A point of order, Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Chair, maybe before Mr. Calkins goes too far, you could review the rules of order and how a member at any time can bring forward a motion to committee. It's pretty misleading to say that when we don't know about the exact rules.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

Just on that point of order, given that what was initially on the agenda for today...and at some point I will explain what happened around that. I considered that Mr. Angus's motion was within the purview of what had been proposed for business today.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Chair, I assumed that was the case, which is why I did not move a point of order challenging whether or not it needed a notice of motion. However, it would have been respectful of this committee had a notice of motion been given to do this. Then again, considering the mover of the motion, the lack of respect for this committee is not something I'm surprised at.

Madam Chair, the reality is that we're dealing with an issue here, and this committee has already taken its decision regarding this. We're going to continue to await a doctor's letter to excuse the absence of Mr. Carroll, and for our intent, he remains compelled to appear and is subject to the summons issued by the clerk of this committee. All committee members reserve the right to all of the remedies available to us if Mr. Carroll doesn't produce a substantive doctor's letter as promised. So as far as I'm concerned, this matter has already been dealt with.

I think that in the matter of the time that was allocated for today's business at hand, this committee should get back to the orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference, and so on, according to our agenda, the consideration of the draft recommendations for the statutory review of the Lobbying Act. Therefore, I move that this committee go in camera to study that.

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

The motion is not debatable. All in favour of the motion?

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

A recorded vote, please.

You're so prescient, Mr. Dusseault.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

The motion has carried. We will move in camera. I'll suspend to allow the set-up.

[Proceedings continue in camera]