Information & Ethics Committee on Sept. 27th, 2011

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

Well, my honourable colleague is.... I'm not going to argue with him. I'll bring the heritage study that we did, the questions that were asked.

I'd like to just continue on, because a lot of this is a repeat of the heritage committee. My colleague wants to bring CRTC. He wants to bring...well, obviously, Sun is going to be all over this. They're going to love this. This is their number one competitor. But Bell, Rogers, Shaw....

I think it's interesting--we did, again, deal with this at committee--because there are a lot of questions, as my honourable colleague says, about the local improvement fund. The CRTC is a black hole of information. You can't get any.... The CRTC doesn't even seem to keep reports, as far as I can see from the numerous freedom of information requests to CBC, about basic accountability.

So I think this is good. Let's bring the CRTC. Let's bring Shaw. Let's bring Rogers and Bell, because the issues--and again, I'm surprised it's being brought here, because I still think it's under the purview of the heritage committee, where we did look at this--are basic issues, such as what's your Canadian content? What's your local programming? How many newsrooms are there? Those are elements that Canadians want to know, because they've paid into the system with the private broadcasters. They want to know what the CRTC has done in terms of holding these various broadcasters to account. There are many black holes.

My colleague focuses on CBC, but he'll remember, from when we did these studies, that getting some basic information.... This isn't competitive information. This isn't attempting to find out what their corporate competitive advantage is. Unlike probably some of the requests that are made at CBC, it's ensuring that they're following the basic standards that have been set out.

The Canadian taxpayer pays a lot into the system; as my colleague says, the local improvement fund. We pay a lot of money into that, and we want to know that it's going to local programming, that it's going to local television.

That all seems to me to be under the purview of the heritage committee, but I appreciate my colleague for bringing this here, because I think it will give us a broader picture. I'm certainly more than willing to support bringing in Mr. von Finckenstein and bringing in the other BDU players. If we're doing that, then obviously we're expanding this mandate somewhat, and I'm not opposing that. I think it'll give us a fairer picture.

So after all those interruptions, I was just trying to tell my honourable colleague that I supported his witness list.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Sometimes the most difficult thing to try to say in Parliament is that you're in support of something.

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

He just didn't want to hear it.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

We'll have a little Kumbaya session afterwards.

Again back to the question of the witnesses as they have been proposed. I haven't heard anyone to this point suggest that anybody should be off the list again, other than those we can't call because of the court case.

Mr. Dusseault, un commentaire.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I think that we need to be consistent and that, if the information commissioner or the SRC and CBC representatives are not in attendance, the judge who made the latest ruling should not be either. His being here could unduly influence the next ruling.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault. I share some of these reservations.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I have no problem with that. In fact I would suggest that we get some background information on this only, Mr. Chairman, nothing that would in fact prejudice what is before the court. I would suggest perhaps that we give those who are in fact seeking the access to information and being denied it their opportunity to come before us. It will be an opportunity for this committee to question their motivation.

Certainly, I know Mr. Angus has made several statements about a given media company here in Canada, and if he wants to take a run at Sun or find out what their motivations are...I would like to know their motivations as well, as I said. Is this about transparency or is it about competitive advantage? I think that's important.

I also think transparency with respect to how funds are being spent and where it could ultimately come through as fees for Canadians...I think we need to understand that. That's why the other witnesses are there. Any of these background witnesses have absolutely nothing to do with the court case, but it does have everything to do with access to information and transparency.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Am I correct in saying that you agree with Mr. Dusseault's suggestion regarding Judge Boivin?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Okay.

We will leave that particular witness off.

Any other comments on witnesses we have here?

Hearing none, the last thing I will remind committee members of is that for the aid of the clerk we have some sort of sense of priority and urgency, which witnesses committee members most want to see and want to see first. We don't necessarily have to have that discussion here; you can do that with the clerk.

Mr. Angus, did you want to comment on that?

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

Past practice at other committees has been that we hear from the main ones first and then whoever else, but as my colleague, Mr. Del Mastro, says, we're going to actually hold off on the main ones. I prefer as often as possible to leave it in the hands of the clerk. A camel was a racehorse that was designed by a committee, so the more we make demands of you, the less likely it is we're going to get something done in a timely fashion. Bring back a witness list and we'll look at it.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you. That's a fair comment.

It was actually a suggestion from the clerk to ask for some guidance, but we'll put together testimony that will make some sense for committee members.

Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I want to be absolutely fair on this. Mr. Angus has indicated that there may be some allegations made by some of the witnesses. I want to make sure that the CBC gets the final word on this, because I think they should be able to respond to any accusations that are made about them or about their practices. I think that's only fair. So I would suggest that CBC is in fact called last so that they can respond accurately and fulsomely to anything that's brought before them. I don't want others to come after them and make allegations that may require us to call them a second time, in fairness.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Absolutely.

Any other comments?

Thank you for the discussion. We'll leave it in the capable hands of the clerk to begin to put together something that's going to get to the bottom of what we need to get to.

Now, our next order of committee business is with respect to a motion that we've received from Mr. Del Mastro. Before we get to the motion, I'll ask if Mr. Del Mastro is interested in moving the motion.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I'm not sure if committee members have a copy of this motion in front of them. I believe it's coming. We'll just hold off for one minute so members can see the motion.

Mr. Andrews.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

A point of order on the motion.

We've all read the motion by Dean and—

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Andrews, before we get into debate, I have a ruling on this motion that we probably need to hear first, before we get into points of order regarding the motion.

People have all seen it; it has been distributed. Mr. Del Mastro has moved the motion, I believe. Before we get into any context other than that, I have a ruling on the legitimacy of the motion, and then I'll come to your comments straight away.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I thank the honourable member for having moved his motion. However, I'm of the opinion that as moved the motion is inadmissible for the following reasons--and I'll be as explicit but as expedient as I can.

I believe that the motion goes beyond the mandate of the committee, specifically with regard to Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi), which states:

the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives which relate to access to information and privacy across all sectors of Canadian society and to ethical standards relating to public office holders; and any other matter which the House shall from time to time refer to the Standing Committee.

These are our directives from the House.

It is important to understand the definition of public office holders. There's some distinction between the code of conduct and the act itself. Two different groups fall under two different codes, if you will.

The definition of public office holder.... With regard to the mandate of this committee, because that is what we're meant to look at, the Standing Orders refer to the definition as described in the Conflict of Interest Act 2006, where a public office holder is referred to as a minister of the crown; a minister of state or a parliamentary secretary; a member of ministerial staff; a ministerial advisor; a Governor in Council appointee other than the following persons: the Lieutenant Governor...and there's a proceeding list that I won't read out. The fourth is a ministerial appointee whose appointment is approved by the Governor in Council; and finally, a full-time ministerial appointee designated by the appropriate minister of the crown as a public office holder. Those are the designations of a public office holder under the Conflict of Interest Act.

The Conflict of Interest Code for members of the House of Commons guides all members who are not public office holders—so with the exception, for those of us here, of Mr. Del Mastro—in all matters relating to the election of members to the House of Commons, which includes anything to do with Elections Canada, and would fall under the mandate of another committee, namely the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as described in Standing Order 108(3)(a) in subsections (vi) and (viii).

Just to be clear with members, I'm not ruling on the relevance of the motion as brought. I'm suggesting that clearly in the Standing Orders that we have that have set up this committee, it's the wrong committee to have this particular conversation at, because the motion as presented by Mr. Del Mastro does not affect public officer holders as defined in the act. It affects members of other parties.

That is the ruling. There's no debate on the ruling. We move straight to a vote. If there is any disagreement with the--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I challenge the ruling of the chair.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

There's been a challenge.

I'll turn it over to the clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Chad Mariage]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The question is shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)

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

Way to go.

[The Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Way to go, yes. My first ruling. Thanks a lot, guys.

With the motion in front of us, I now entertain comments.

I'll start with Mr. Del Mastro, if that's okay, Mr. Andrews. I know you had a point of order, but I'm going to start with Mr. Del Mastro and perhaps your comments can follow.