Evidence of meeting #4 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was going.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
I merely pointed out that we have a motion before us. That is the motion we're dealing with. If the member opposite wishes to amend that motion, that's entirely his right and he can certainly do that. His descriptive phrases sometimes leave much to be desired.
Again, I would ask that you call the question.
10:05 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
I see that Mr. Angus has a comment.
I sense some willingness in your initial comment, Ms. Davidson, that the committee members be allowed to submit other witnesses. Did I read that correctly?
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
10:05 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
I understand.
What I'm seeking to understand is that if the committee is seeking to have, as we said in the previous discussion around the CBC, a fulsome inquiry into this matter--the motion brought by Mr. Del Mastro--is there a willingness of the committee members to see other witnesses in front of the committee?
Do you have a comment, Mr. Del Mastro, or are you agreeing?
10:05 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
What I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, is that in the case of both Elections Canada and the Ethics Commissioner, they have in fact conducted interviews of all the relevant parties in this matter. Let's first get them in and hear what they have to say on the matter and on where their investigations are in fact taking them.
You know, potentially I might like to hear from Minister John Baird. I mean, Minister Baird was one of the architects of the Accountability Act. Perhaps he might be a witness who could come in and talk about what the spirit of the Accountability Act was, what the intent of the Accountability Act was, and exactly why this is such an egregious violation of the Accountability Act.
So I might want to hear from him and bring him before committee, but at this point, let's just hear from these two witnesses and see where this goes.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I would like to make an amendment, a friendly amendment, that we also bring witnesses to determine the applicability of the Elections Canada rules regarding funding for political conventions. It's simple.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
The motion as amended would read:
That the committee call Elections Canada and the Ethics Commissioner to appear before the committee regarding the union sponsorship of the NDP spring convention, and that the committee bring forward witnesses who can speak to the applicability
--that's what I have, but I'm not sure “applicability” is the correct word--
of Elections Canada rules regarding funding for political conventions.
10:10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Has everyone heard and understood the amendment as moved? Okay.
The amendment has been moved. I'll call the vote on that, if there's no other debate.
10:10 a.m.
A voice
Is it campaign funding or convention funding?
10:10 a.m.
NDP
10:10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
All those in favour of the amendment?
(Amendment negatived)
We're back to the main motion.
Are there any other comments on this?
The suggestion has been made right now that we hear from these first two witnesses with--I don't want to impute something here, Mr. Del Mastro--some openness to hearing from further witnesses based on that testimony...?
10:10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
The question gets called when the debate is exhausted.
Are there any other comments on this?
Seeing none, I will call the question.
(Motion agreed to)
With respect to Thursday's meeting, we have invited two guests, the Ethics Commissioner along with the Privacy Commissioner. We have this motion in front of us. Is it the will of the committee to go ahead with Thursday's meeting or to cancel Thursday's meeting? I need some direction, because we have very short notice for this.
Mr. Andrews.
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Well, we know how this is going to go, so why don't we just bring forward the NDP's motion and deal with that so we can get on with some real business on Thursday?
10:10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
I'm perhaps not following your line of logic. Bring forward what from the NDP?
10:10 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Andrews Liberal Avalon, NL
Charlie has a motion before the committee, if I'm not mistaken. Did I see that come in over the last little while?
10:10 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
I can ask Mr. Angus if there's a motion that he's seeking to move, but the specific question in front of the committee is that we've invited the two commissioners, privacy and ethics, to testify before us for two hours on Thursday. Do we wish to go ahead with that?
I'm inclined to say go ahead with that. I think they'll be relevant to much of what we're trying to get into. The initial intent behind hearing from all the commissioners was to help guide the committee's work over the next number of months, to hear from them on their reports or whatever else they had to tell us. So I'm inclined to continue with Thursday.
Mr. Del Mastro.
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
What I would request, Mr. Chairman, is that, if possible, we hear witnesses on this on Thursday. If it's not possible--
10:10 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Yes, the motion the committee just passed.
If that's not possible, then we go ahead with the witnesses as scheduled for Thursday. There should be a meeting on Thursday regardless.