Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 27th, 2011

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, this committee did in fact set a precedent when we brought in Elections Canada regarding the Conservative Party--something, by the way, that was before the courts. I made a very impassioned argument at that time to the then chair Paul Szabo regarding what the opposition parties were seeking to study at that time.

Not only did that chairman, Paul Szabo, disagree with my concerns at that time, my having pointed out the very precise nature of what I thought were the guiding principles of this committee, but all the members of the opposition at that time, in all three parties--there are only two represented in the opposition now--in fact sustained the ruling of the chair, because I did challenge the chair's ruling at that time. So a precedent has in fact been set in this regard.

I do think it's entirely appropriate. As Mr. Angus would know and I'm sure as you would know, Mr. Chairman, back in July I did write a letter to the Ethics Commissioner requesting that she review the matters of sponsorship at the NDP convention, specifically sponsorship from large unions from across the country. The Ethics Commissioner has in fact indicated to me that this investigation is continuing.

I think it's entirely appropriate, especially considering, certainly, if anyone watched Mr. Angus's theatrics yesterday on a matter that frankly has been entirely researched and reported upon by the Auditor General...the NDP appears to be putting up a smokescreen and in fact flaunting the Accountability Act. They know--and I would argue that Mr. Angus well knows, as he's not a rookie in this House--that certainly the spirit of the Accountability Act was shattered with tens of thousands.... We don't know exactly how much. We know from an article written last week that at least $75,000--but it appears to be much, much more than that--was paid directly into the NDP coffers by big labour, which is contrary to the Accountability Act.

So I would argue that this is a very important issue, a very important matter, that it takes precedence over anything else the committee is doing, and that we should call both the Ethics Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer before committee without delay. I'd like to see one of them here Thursday and the other here on Tuesday, because I think this is a matter on which the committee, Canadians, and Parliament deserve an answer.

It seems that other parties...certainly our party is playing by the rules. We had a spring convention here. It was not inexpensive for members to attend because these are not inexpensive events to put on, but we abided by the rules of the Accountability Act and the spirit of the Accountability Act. It appears that the NDP governed itself by very different rules--in fact, by rules that are contrary to the Accountability Act.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Just so I understand your point well, Mr. Del Mastro, are you suggesting that this Thursday is when you want to see these folks?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'd like it--

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Or did you say as soon as possible?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

--without delay. I'd like to see one of them appear--

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I see.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

--on Thursday and the other appear on Tuesday. They're both in Ottawa, so hopefully they're able to attend.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

There's just one thing: we're not sure that they are, that their offices--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

If they're not--

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

My point is that--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

If they're not, that's fine, but I'd like to have them appear--

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

The Ethics Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner are already scheduled to appear before this committee this Thursday, so we would have to cancel one of them and change it. I just want to make committee members aware that we are seeing both of those commissioners, as per our request, in two days' time, on another subject, on their reports--just so you know that they'll be here.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Sure. If we are able to schedule in the other witnesses for Thursday, I would suggest that it would take precedence, but we will allow the clerk to see if those arrangements can be made.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I was going to suggest, as you're ruling, that this needs to go before the procedure and House affairs committee. This is an Elections Canada issue. This is an issue of what's allowable under the Canada Elections Act.

I'm really dismayed by this little game that's going on here at this committee between these two members: it's tit for tat, a motion for a motion.

To be quite honest, guys, this is brutally unproductive.

Yes, you have a majority to do as you wish on this committee, and you will do what you want throughout this entire Parliament, but I truly, truly believe that there needs to be some goodwill here.

We've already established a study to proceed forward with listening to our commissioners, as the chair just pointed out.

I think this is totally unproductive. If this is how this committee is going to operate, we might as well just fold up our tent right now, because we're not going to accomplish anything.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I hear my honourable colleague's frustration. Certainly, Chair, you made the correct ruling that this should go to the procedure and House affairs committee. However, it's been overruled by the Conservative majority.

I am a little disturbed that they want to throw out the business we've agreed to, in order to get at this immediately.

Certainly, we don't have a problem. Number one, let's put it on the table. I don't have a problem bringing them. I'm concerned about the idea of their riding roughshod to get at the red meat issues as quickly as possible. We agreed that we were going to hear the commissioners and to set the terms. So let's do that on Thursday.

I was actually really interested to hear him say the reason he wanted to bring this. He referred to the so-called theatrics yesterday--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes, and—

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

The fact is it's now 91 days since the Treasury Board minister had an excuse, or an explanation, for the fact the Auditor General was misled. Now they're setting the turf and are going to go after the big, bad NDP. Hey, that's fine, because when it comes to Elections Canada, we follow the rules. We meet with Elections Canada, so we certainly aren't afraid to talk with them, unlike my colleagues whose party and all of its key leaders are up on charges. Their election planners are up on charges for having broken the rules, and that's still before the courts. So let's not turn this into a chance for a bully pulpit here and my colleagues to start misrepresenting the facts.

Chair, I think it's unfortunate that you were overruled. You made the correct decision; it should be at another committee. But they're going to do what they're going to do, so let's just get it done. Let's bring witnesses. We'll have witnesses to bring forward. We'll have to sit down and have a planning meeting on witnesses. I suppose we're still doing that, or is the majority going to say, “No more witnesses, we're going to start giving you the list”? But I'd like to think that we'd get some witnesses in. We should certainly hear about what it means to follow the Elections Act, because it's crucial. Breaking the Canada Elections Act is serious business. That's why many people were concerned when all of the leading figures in the Conservative electoral team were brought up on charges—and they're still up on charges.

So let's do it and get it over with and get back to business.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

As to Mr. Angus's point, I'll get there in a minute, but with respect to how the motion reads right now, there are two witnesses who are described in the motion. In order to open it up to any further inquiry members are interested in having, we have to amend the motion to allow for other witnesses. I say this because it's discrete right now; it says these two witnesses only. If we want to hear from other people on this topic or other topics with regard to this matter, we simply have to amend the motion.

The next up is Ms. Davidson.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I think we've all seen the motion, which was circulated before us. We've had it for 48 hours. It's very clear that the motion refers to two witnesses.

I would ask that you call the question.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Absolutely.

Mr. Angus.

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

Again, we can all start putting on our kangaroo outfits, if Ms. Davidson wants.

It seems absurd that you're not going to have the people involved bring testimony.

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

[Inaudible--Editor]

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

Are you afraid to hear from them?

If we're going to be a credible committee, let's do credible work. Let's bring the witnesses. This is starting to descend into a farce.

Even though the chair has made a ruling, we've expressed our willingness to bring this before this committee. So let's bring forward our witnesses. We can bring the people who were involved in the convention and they can explain. If you're not willing to hear that, then you're certainly sending the impression that this is about creating as much political cover as fast as you can, and I think it's going to set a really bad precedent.

I am just asking that we look at a proper witness list and do the work of this committee.