Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 27th, 2011

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

We have a point of order.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'm curious about the relevance of this to the witness list.

Mr. Chairman, we were discussing the witness list.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Absolutely.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Angus clearly intends to filibuster out the entire committee.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

There's no need to verify whether someone is going to speak or not. In terms of the relevance, if you are listening closely to what Mr. Angus was saying with respect to prejudicing committees and prejudicing something before the court, I think the question of timing....

We're having some trouble with audio. Is that correct? The technicians are on their way. So that committee members are aware, there is also some difficulty with the audio being translated.

I'm wondering if, for the purposes of translation first and broadcast second, we could allow the technicians to take a look at this. Apparently we're getting almost no audio through to our translators, and that's an infringement of members' rights to have something interpreted.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

It's perfect for Charlie.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I'm going to suspend until we get this fixed. We'll get back to it right away.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I will call the committee members back to the table.

The committee members now know how to sabotage a committee. Pouring water on a microphone apparently does the trick. But it's quite dangerous, so I'll ask government members to cease sabotage, because it's not in the order and responsibilities.

Before we lost our audio, we had a point of order from Mr. Del Mastro with respect to the relevance of what Mr. Angus was discussing with the committee. I've been following and also had reference to O'Brien and Bosc, which I think is where Mr. Angus is getting his testimony. I think it is pertinent with respect to the committee's power balanced against actions before a court, so I'll allow it to continue.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'd simply add to my point of order that it's remarkable that the NDP now feels that way. I don't recall them standing as strongly behind this convention in the 40th Parliament.

But people change, right, Charlie?

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

The objection is noted. We'll continue with Mr. Angus's comments.

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

Thank you.

I'm actually very pleased that my honourable colleague did intervene and ask what the relevance was, because I was wondering if he actually was aware of the sub judice convention. This is why I felt we should understand the roles that have been defined over many, many years of parliamentary and court practice for the courts and Parliament.

As for my honourable colleague, I have such great respect for Dean. We've been on committee for years together, and I know his personal crusade against the CBC. He's been the lead, and I'm not surprised that he was chosen as the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, because—

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Angus, I'm just going to intervene for a moment.

If we want to stay on point—

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

I am on point here.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

—and on topic with respect to the....

For committee members, the focus of our conversation is both the timing and the nature of the study with respect to the CBC. An argument has been made that there's a matter before the court that begins in mid-October. There's been a suggestion made that we can have an initial study on the matter without prejudicing what happens in the court. Mr. Angus is informing the committee as to the roles of committees and the balancing of our powers. I think that is a relevant point.

In terms of personal mandates and positions that people have and the timing of those, I want to stick to the committee's business as to whether this is a good idea or not and when to commence with a study of it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I was pointing that out, though, because I think it needs to be seen in terms of the picture. My colleague has been very eager to attack the CBC. He has suggested that we take the billion dollar subsidy and give it to its competitors, which is no doubt why so many Sun Media guys are hoping to come before this committee.

That being said, I've cautioned my colleagues that they have to understand the role they play at this committee. So I have read to them the issue of the sub judice convention. We have the issue and we'll get to it when we get to the witness lists. If they're trying to bring judges before our committee, I think any judge is going to laugh at Mr. Del Mastro on this, because it's obviously a contempt of court. But we'll get to that later.

I want to repeat what I said, because I don't think he heard it, as he was asking if there was any relevance. There are three key elements he needs to be reminded of:

During debate, restrictions are placed on the freedom of Members of Parliament to make reference to matters awaiting judicial decisions in order to avoid possible prejudice to the participants in the courts. This self-restraint recognizes the courts, as opposed to the House, as the proper forum in which to decide individual cases. Matters before the courts are also prohibited as subjects of debate, motions or questions in the House.

That was the first part. Furthermore:

The convention exists to guarantee everyone a fair trial and to prevent any undue influence prejudicing a judicial decision or a report of a tribunal of inquiry.

And we look to the role of the chair in the responsibility of exercising restraint because:

A Member who feels that there could be a risk of causing prejudice in referring to a particular case or inquiry should refrain from raising the matter.

Now, Mr. Chair, I have great respect for you as chair, and I will be continuing with this process. My colleague has certainly established a record of being a virulent critic of the CBC, and I know he's very eager to use this committee to attack the public broadcaster. However, this will be in the courts on October 18, and it's a reasonable thing, as I've asked, for us to follow and respect parliamentary traditions. We can certainly go on this crusade, and we'll all go along for the ride because there are fewer of us than them, but I'm asking that we do it after October 18. Once the judge has heard testimony and arguments before the courts, then this will be referred, and, who knows, we'll get a ruling back probably early next year.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

The hypocrisy of the member, my colleague, is astounding. He seems to think that transparency should abound in government—and I happen to agree with him with respect to that—and everywhere except the CBC.

Now we have a situation, and he wants to impugn my motives and what he believes is actually behind my motivations. My motivations are simply this—and he should also care to see and understand exactly what's happening here, Mr. Chair—that we have a public entity, the CBC, in court against the Information Commissioner of this House, and they are spending millions of dollars fighting each other. Can we at least get some background as to why this is occurring, Mr. Angus?

I don't think that's unreasonable. Having some witnesses come in who are going to give us background will not prejudice an appeals court decision. A justice has already ruled that the Information Commissioner should be able to look at this information and determine whether or not it is subject to section 68.1 or whether it should be released. Those are the facts before us. These are all known to the appeals court. There is no surprise in any of this and it will not prejudice what's going on at the appeals court—it will not.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Angus, you wanted to speak. Allow me to make a suggestion just before that.

I'm getting the sense that the government members are determined to bring this matter before the committee and will not accept the recommendation by Mr. Angus to wait. Am I reading that correctly?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

As I indicated, the two entities that will be attending the appeals court will be the Information Commissioner and the CBC, and we would be entirely content if no one from either of them attended prior to that process on the 18th.

I have absolutely no problem with that.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

So here's the concern, and it's up to committee members how we proceed. If the government members feel intent on having some witnesses prior to this mid-October date when the court case begins, given the majority they hold on the committee, they'll be able to do that. The concern I have--and it was read into the record by Mr. Angus--is a valid concern in terms of balancing our powers as a committee to not cause any harm and to not infringe upon the rights of someone who is before the courts. We've all heard this. This is a good precedent from the House and we must be mindful of this.

So I have a caution about what we're about to agree on. I know as chair that if calling upon witnesses would infringe upon their rights to defend themselves in front of a court, then doing so would be a terrible precedent for any committee to set. That being said, if the government is pursuing this course....

On a point of order, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

That would not in fact be a precedent-setting thing at the committee, even if...and frankly, I disagree that it would be the case, because the witnesses would merely be giving background. They will not be at all influencing what is at the core of the argument at an appeal's court. I would also argue there is no precedent, because, as you'll recall, in the 40th Parliament there were witnesses called who were under investigation by the RCMP, by the Information Commissioner, or by others, but there was no due regard given to them for any kind of independence or otherwise. At that time, it seemed appropriate to my colleague and others in his party, and now it appears that's not the case. As I said, it's a remarkable transformation, but people change.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

The point you make about precedents is correct and fairly understood. We're trying to balance here the ability of the CBC to defend itself in court and the ability to have a fair and open trial. Committee members, particularly those on the government side, are interested in getting in a couple of days before that. With regard to both the nature of the witnesses we call and the testimony they give, it will be the committee's responsibility to ensure that we do have some measure of protection.

Mr. Angus, you wanted to make a comment.

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

Again I'm concerned that my honourable colleague is raring to go. I've raised this issue in terms of us respecting the matter.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

This won't be the first--

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Del Mastro, allow Mr. Angus to finish, please.