I certainly appreciate that, but we've seen very unparliamentary actions, Madam Chair. A man who hides behind “in camera” every chance he gets in order to pull the stunts he has shouldn't be worried that he's called a bully. If he wants me to call him something a little more appropriate for Parliament...once we get in camera, he'll be able to do his normal stunts anyway.
I think it is important that we have this discussion in public, because the public expects accountability from parliamentarians. What they expect from the ethics committee is for us to be doing the business of government, not carrying out the personal bully witch hunts of the parliamentary secretary. But unfortunately this is what has happened within our committee.
On the issue of the summons, Madam Chair, we go back to the fact that you had ruled that this was not even within the purview of our committee and that this was a personal vendetta that had nothing to do with the work of our committee. The obedient gang backing Mr. Del Mastro just reminded me of being in grade school. He had his gang, and there were more in his gang than in our gang, so he was able to push his weight around. We were dragged into this very sordid affair on an issue that I personally find very disturbing.
I do not want to get involved in knowing anything about Mr. Toews' personal life. I don't know why the fact that a former staffer released information regarding his divorce.... I don't even know if such a matter is an issue that any parliamentarian in any jurisdiction would want to have to be dragged into. But Mr. Del Mastro seems to think that this would be something that would be—I don't know—fun or interesting to get involved in. Mr. Carroll has been fired. The issue has been adjudicated by the Speaker, who ruled it a non-issue because of the apology from the Liberal leader. I think the issue is why we would be expected to take something back to the Speaker when the Speaker has already ruled on it. It again turns this into a monkey show.
Mr. Del Mastro has been quite adept at turning this into a monkey show on numerous occasions. He attempted to bring a judge before our committee, and that was ruled out. He tried to challenge the Federal Court and almost precipitated a parliamentary crisis, and we had to have Mr. Rob Walsh provide a very clear legal opinion. He has made all kinds of accusations in the House about illegal campaign donations that he seems to be the only one to know about.
He dragged the Ethics Commissioner here. She was quite embarrassed to have to participate in this process, and then she had to tell Mr. Del Mastro that he had made all these outrageous claims but he didn't supply any evidence. But he's the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, so he gets to stand up day after day in the House and throw this muck around, without feeling any obligation to have any dignity towards his office.
My personal concern here is that because he's got a bigger gang than everybody else, we, as parliamentarians, are dragged along in this process of absurdity. Whatever Mr. Del Mastro needs to change the channel on, for example, the issue of widespread electoral fraud, he's going to actually drag out Mr. Toews' divorce and drag out a former Liberal staffer. Whether or not he's under medical treatment, I have really no interest in because I don't think it's the issue of our committee. But here we are once again in the Dean Del Mastro kangaroo court, and I find it personally objectionable.
Madam Chair, the one thing I have learned as a parliamentarian is that you may be elected because of your party brand, but the only thing you have in this House, and the only thing you leave with, is your personal integrity as a parliamentarian. So if you decide that you're going to use your role as a parliamentarian to be a bully and to be a thug...and maybe that's not parliamentary language, but if that's the way you're going to play it—