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.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
10:20 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
Thank you, Mayes.
To be specific and clear with the committee members, the motion has been passed as it was. What we're discussing is the order in which we proceed with this. There was some question about the commissioners. I think we have near agreement on how this is going to proceed. There's a question now about the timing.
Mr. Del Mastro has made a suggestion that we extend the committee by an extra hour to allow for other motions that may be coming before the committee. That is in fact what we're discussing.
Whether somebody is talking one way or another is not actually a point of order, so I'm going to return to Mr. Angus.
Thank you.
10:25 a.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I sense that now my colleagues again are shutting down witnesses. Whenever I seem to have the floor to try to lay the groundwork, I see the points of order and the attempt to shut this down. They are certainly uncomfortable with hearing anything that doesn't agree with them.
As for Mr. Mayes, I'm sure he was paying attention, but the issue was whether or not we were suddenly going to expand this committee for an extra hour to satisfy a particular interest of the Conservatives. I was saying that it seemed to me to be a bizarre precedent they're setting: whenever they want to go on more, they'll expand, but for us to even try to bring in witnesses, basic witnesses, so the committee can hear them...now we see that we're going to go to another attempt to shut me down.
This is about how we're going to establish ourselves as a committee. This is not about their little hot button issue and the fact that they certainly seemed to be looking to find some way of finding some cover for Mr. Clement, who has been, for 91 days and counting, absent from his post in terms of accountability.
They think they have an issue. I don't have a problem with them bringing this issue before us. I don't have a problem bringing in witnesses. However, I'm concerned. I'm concerned that the basic respect due to all members of Parliament is absolutely lacking. We've made reasonable offers throughout today and they are not interested in reasonable offers. They're not interested in the larger work of our committee, which is, number one, to hear from the four key commissioners, to understand those roles, and to understand them thoroughly.
They weren't interested in that last week. We had an hour. Again, people would have wondered why with the Information Commissioner there was barely an hour, and now suddenly with the commissioner they want to hear from, they want to have two hours. Also, they want to interrupt committee business by saying that if you want to have committee business, which is, again, the right of our members of Parliament.... All members of this committee have the right to bring witnesses before us.
It seems to me that if we're going to get off on this wrong foot.... We have four long years of working at this committee. I would like to think that we'll establish some basic ground rules of respect, of listening to each other, and that the work we do bring here is not just based on poking whatever hot button comes up in the media of the day. We have our hot buttons and they have theirs, and we'll certainly do a lot of that, but for my colleague now to say that if the opposition wants to talk about their motions, they're going to have to come early, they're going to have to come at another time to discuss their motions...?
Well, we sat here and gave full respect to their motions today. We didn't hold them up. They got their motions right through today. They got their witness list through today. They shut down any attempt that we had at witnesses, but they're telling us that if we're going to come to this committee, we have to come at breakfast time or before breakfast and get that all out of the way so they can get down to their business. Frankly, I don't think that's an acceptable way of doing business.
I've appealed to my good friend, Mr. Del Mastro. We've worked together very well for many years on the heritage committee. You know, they're going to have their big sticks to come and pound on us, and we're going to push back, and that's the nature of the rough-and-tumble business, but if we lose that fundamental notion of respect, of respect for the committee, of the building of a sense of how we are going to work together, if we lose that in the first three days, then this is going to turn into a very dysfunctional committee--and it doesn't need to.
I've said again and again that we are more than willing to entertain whatever issue they want; I didn't even raise a single question about any of their witnesses. They can bring in any witness they want. Yet when we ask about bringing in witnesses, we're told, “Sorry, don't bother”. I think that sets the wrong precedent.
I think that for them to turn around now and say they want us to come early so we can do the business of committee because it's interfering with their crusade is simply an unacceptable interference with my rights and my privileges as a member of Parliament. I don't know what my honourable colleagues think, but I am not going to allow that precedent to happen.
Whenever we want to bring information and Mr. Andrews wants to bring information.... Remember how they wanted to shut him down from a second round of questioning when we first began? They didn't even want to hear the Liberals in a second round, which again is completely breaking with the parliamentary traditions we've had in this Parliament, where we allow the members to be heard and to speak.
So we will come here Thursday morning. We have committee business to do. We will come at the normal time. We will sit down here and we will deal with our business, just as we've dealt with their business today.
We dealt with their business with the utmost respect today. I'm hoping they will take on a little bit of respect for our motions. If the commissioner has to be done in two 45-minute sessions, well, that seems perfectly reasonable. We do that all the time. Certainly this commissioner is getting double the shot the Information Commissioner had.
I see that it's 10:30, Mr. Chair, so thank you.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was merely being courteous to the member opposite.
I should say, by the way, if the member wishes to have more love around the committee and some bonding opportunities, I'd propose to the member that perhaps he might come to the country property that I just bought. It's on the water. We could have a campfire, as a committee. We could roast marshmallows. Charlie could bring his guitar. I could pull out the karaoke machine.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
There would be a lot of love.
But at the committee we do actually have some business to do. This isn't about making anyone's life hell, but I did want to simply point out, Mr. Chairman, that my good friend across the way does from time to time need a little bit more time than others do to express himself and to explain and give rationale for his motivations. I was merely being courteous in offering him a full hour to bring his motion and to discuss it. It's clear the member doesn't want that. That's fine.
I'd simply move and request that the chairman consider Mr. Angus's motion at the beginning of the next meeting and that we simply take any time it takes to do that off the first hour of the Ethics Commissioner's appearance. It doesn't matter. I don't expect questions from the honourable member or, frankly, his colleagues to be on the issue at hand anyway. So I suppose that ultimately it doesn't matter which time slot it comes out of. It just seems to me that if we put it at the end.... Well, you know what? We'll go with your suggestion. We'll put it at the end and deal with it. Ultimately we can ask our questions about whatever course we want.
This was not an attempt, by any means, to impact on the rights or privileges of a member. In fact, it was to provide Mr. Angus with even more time than what he currently has to discuss his motion. We'll deal with that at the end of the next meeting, and go with the chair's suggestion and move forward.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
The suggestion has come back. Mr. Del Mastro makes a good point. When the commissioner is here in front of us, the range of topics is available to the committee members to pursue what they want. So in terms of the division of time as to which topic the commissioner is on, given that time is somewhat arbitrary, the chair will seek to have some guidance within each of the rounds. As well as we can as a committee, we should get to the testimony from the commissioner and allow him some time, because it is very limited. Sixty minutes is not much time in which to give the round picture, and we're going to be reducing that down by some factor.
I'll take just one second before we go to Monsieur Dusseault and Mr. Mayes.
There is going to be something procedural, in which case he'll likely want to give a separate statement of up to 10 minutes to the committee on each topic. We're going to divide that so committee members at least have that in front of them.
Mr. Dusseault, do you have any comments? No, okay.
Mr. Mayes, did you want to add anything?
10:30 a.m.
NDP
The Chair NDP Nathan Cullen
You'll pass?
That is the suggestion before the committee. Is the committee in agreement with that? We'll send that direction to the commissioner. We'll get back. We'll talk about bringing in Elections Canada the following week, due to availability, and we'll continue on with the study that's before the committee.
I thank committee members for their time today. The meeting is adjourned.
