Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 27th, 2011

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I believe you're attempting to get there. My point is only that the impugning of motives of other committee members is something committee members do all the time. It doesn't necessarily get us down the road of deciding where this study has to go, and I'll ask them to see some restraint in that. I think Mr. Del Mastro has made a fair point.

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

Certainly. The fact is that Mr. Del Mastro and I were on the heritage committee for a number of years. The study we're beginning today seems to be the exact study we just had at the heritage committee, because of the direct comments Mr. Del Mastro made about the possible defunding of CBC and giving it to their competitors.

I mention that because it's interesting that we did have CBC before us, and I'll certainly be more than willing to bring the references from the heritage committee hearings, where we went through all the issues of access to information; we went through all these questions. The Conservatives were certainly more than aggressive. This is why I guess I find this a little tedious. In our last committee we went through all these issues, and now it's like a broken record, but we're at it again.

That is important to put in context in terms of talking about respect for the taxpayers: we just did a study. Mr. Del Mastro was on that side, I was over here--I was actually a little further down the line at that point, but both of us participated in this hearing and we talked with CBC and we heard all these issues. People need to understand this isn't anything new; this is certainly a favourite kicking horse, like the Wheat Board.

I want to continue on about the study we had at the heritage committee, because I'm interested, and perhaps we're both still living on the--

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

On a point of order, please, for the record, there was no such study. I'm not aware of any such study. I remember calling a witness or two. I also remember the CBC appearing before us and us asking them specific questions related to access to information, but it was certainly never a study.

It had nothing to do with why taxpayers were fighting taxpayers in courts, spending millions of dollars, Charlie, and that's the issue before us. There's no relevance to what you're talking about.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

It was a point of clarification, not order, but thank you for the point.

Mr. Angus....

Sorry, Mr. Andrews, you have a point of order?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just kind of wonder how much longer you're going to let this little charade back and forth go on. We have our list there. We're going to see all these witnesses that we have on our list. Can we just let the committee clerk get to scheduling these witnesses in?

You guys can have your little debate back and forth when these committee members come in, okay?

You've already suggested that we're not striking any of these witnesses. Let the clerk schedule them in and let's move on.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Mr. Andrews.

To that point, I will remind committee members of the offer I've made to members. Rather than go through witness by witness, we were suggesting that, outside of those we can't call before us because it would prejudice the case before the court, are there any witnesses on the list that we find concern with, that we think are not appropriate? Otherwise, we will allow the clerk the discretion to book the meetings as appropriate.

Mr. Angus, then Mr. Dusseault.

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

Sorry, I did still have the floor.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

You did. I was just addressing a point of order.

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

I've been trying to finish my point.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Absolutely.

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

I understand the frustration of the honourable member. The reason this is important is that we did have a study. The study was based on the fact that Mr. Del Mastro made comments about defunding CBC.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

A point of order.

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

And then--

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

There's a point of order, please, Mr. Angus.

Yes, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'd like very much for Mr. Angus to cite that specific study. There was no study.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I see. Okay--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

What he is saying is absolutely false. It's absolutely false. We had a witness. I think we had two witnesses, as a matter of fact, on it. There was no study. We called two witnesses. That's the truth.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Angus can either be factual or he can continue to pretend like....

I know what he's trying to suggest, that this is a recurring theme. It's not a recurring theme.

As I recall, it was an opposition motion that brought those witnesses, Mr. Angus; it was not from the government. And it was absolutely not a study.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Perhaps, Mr. Angus, if you're going to make comments, if you keep it factual we won't have any problems.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

That was not a point of order, and this is not the heritage committee. This is a new Parliament. I would ask that we go back to the principle of what we're trying to determine here--namely, the witness list as constructed by the members of the committee from the various parties.

Mr. Angus.

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

I still have the floor.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

If you can stay on point.