Information & Ethics Committee on April 24th, 2012

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

That was very interesting, but of course it wasn't a point of order. I'll allow you to rule on that, but I ask that it not be taken from the member's time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I can allow Mr. Carroll and Mrs. Davidson to continue, but they must stay on topic. It is important to mention where the information comes from, but it is important to stay on topic.

You may continue.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Chair, I believe if you go back to look at Mr. Del Mastro's motion for Mr. Carroll appear here today, it explicitly asks about his use of House of Commons resources to undertake this attack. It had nothing to do with other members in the office. He has already stated that.

I think these questions are out of line or the purview of the motion that's before the committee.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you for mentioning that. However, it is important to stick to the information that was published on the website and not to all the information collected by the Liberal Party.

You may continue, Mrs. Davidson. I did stop the clock. You may continue.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually that's what my questions were related to, the information that you, Mr. Carroll, were accessing. I'm not concerned about all the kinds of information the Liberal Party has. I could imagine that they have a tremendous amount of information that they've collected on people. What I'm interested in is how you got the information that you accessed.

You have told us that the information was available through affidavits that were in the office. I'm just trying to determine who was responsible for that information, how it got there, and who may have allowed you to access that information, if it was part of your job to access that information. I'd also like to know who else saw this information. Was this all public information? Did everybody in the Liberal leader's office see it, or the research bureau, or the Liberal caucus?

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

One moment, please.

Mr. Angus, did you want to raise a point of order?

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

Sorry, I have an objection. The point of this study was to bring Mr. Carroll to talk about his use of House of Commons resources, not to talk about the Liberal filing cabinet and who ran the Liberal filing cabinet.

You were on a political intelligence fishing expedition. That's not why we asked Mr. Carroll to appear on his use of House of Commons resources, which would seem to me to be his BlackBerry and his computer. How those documents came about is none of your business.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Del Mastro, you have the floor.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It's just very interesting that Mr. Angus sees fit to bully Ms. Davidson, but he never saw it fit to bully me during my question, Mr. Chairman. I'd ask that you bring him into line.

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you for your comments. For the moment…

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

I have a point of order.

I just want to be really clear: I felt I was being really mean to Mr. Del Mastro over the last few months when he ran some kangaroo courts. So today I have given gave him a bit of time and little bit of slack.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

That has nothing to do with the topic being discussed today. So I give the floor to Mrs. Davidson. I'll remind you that we need to stay on the topic being discussed. I hope that she will continue by staying on the topic of the affidavit that Mr. Carroll had access to and nothing more.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I go back and refer to the comments that were made by Mr. Carroll in his opening remarks. I think he stated that everything he posted came from publicly available sources, or he said something very close to that. I believe that was his intent. I may not have the exact three words but they were there.

He's told us that many of those documents were available online. He's told us that affidavits were in the office. My question just is, who all then would be able to access these records? Could you name those people for me please, or give me an indication.

[Adam Carroll]

The purpose of this meeting is supposedly to examine my use of House of Commons resources.

About a year ago, Madam Davidson, you were acting chair of this committee when a very similar motion came to the floor that Linda Duncan and Shawn Murphy should appear to be examined on their use of House of Commons resources. You ruled that the motion was completely out of order. Not only did you rule that motion was out of order based on the advice you got from the clerk, you specifically said that you agree—

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would ask that the witness please answer the question that's before him. We have specific questions that we have asked, and I have not received any answers to this point.

[Adam Carroll]

You've had your answer.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Are you telling me that you can't tell me who has seen the copy of these records, or who may have viewed them?

[Adam Carroll]

Mr. Chair, I pride myself on being a pretty knowledgeable person, but I don't see how I can be expected to answer a question about who has seen a piece of paper in our office over the period of time that the piece of paper would have been in our office.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Carroll, who would have had access to it then, whether they had—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Angus is raising a point of order.

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

Given that this committee has been turned repeatedly into a circus by the Conservatives, they cannot use this as an attempt to squeeze out information about what is done in the Liberal office. My job is not to defend the Liberal Party in any manner, but to establish the basic rule for this Parliament, which is that we brought him here to talk about his use of resources. He cannot be compelled to answer for or implicate anybody else for any of their work in their offices, so I'd ask Ms. Davidson to stop using our committee as a political fishing expedition for Mr. Harper's war room.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Thank you, Mr. Angus.

This is the same point of order that was raised previously. I will remind committee members to remain on topic and not talk at length about how the Liberal Party may collect information. I will give the floor to Mr. Carroll provided he thinks he can answer your question.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, that is actually absolutely false. The witness must answer the questions. We have gone through this before.

The only person making a circus of this committee is Mr. Angus, so I would encourage you....

This is within the scope of this study. Ms. Davidson has put a question forward that is entirely valid, and the witness must answer that question.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, you cannot compel testimony especially when this testimony is off topic.

I know Mr. Del Mastro wants to squeeze the life out of this poor guy, but you know what, that is not why he brought him here. He brought him here on his use of resources. So if Ms. Davidson wants to use her time to ask questions, she must ask about the fundamental question. The Conservative Party cannot compel him to give testimony that has nothing to do—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Angus, we are discussing that now. I will remind the committee of the rules I read at the start and that are on pages 1067-1068 of the French version of O'Brien-Bosc. It reads as follows:

Witnesses giving testimony may be assisted by counsel, but they must first seek the committee's permission. Counsel, when permitted, is restricted to an advisory role and may neither ask questions nor reply on the witness's behalf. Counsel is not noted in the Minutes of Proceedings as a witness, but rather as a participant...

There is also the important point that follows:

There are no specific rules governing the nature of questions which may be put to the witnesses appearing before committees, beyond the general requirement of relevance to the issue before the committee. Witnesses must answer all questions which the committee puts to them. A witness may object to a question asked by an individual committee member. However, if the committee agrees that the question be put to the witness, he or she is obliged to reply. On the other hand, members have been urged to display the "appropriate courtesy and fairness" when questioning witnesses. The actions of a witness who refuses to answer questions may be reported to the House.

I will come back to what was said at the beginning. I never challenged Ms. Davidson's question, but it is, of course, important that Mr. Carroll stick to the question. So I will let Ms. Davidson continue. We haven't allowed Mr. Carroll to finish giving his response. You may continue, but remain on topic, as I mentioned at the beginning. The same goes for the witness. He needs to answer as best he can.