Information & Ethics Committee on May 27th, 2013

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Welcome, everyone.

I would like to ask the members of the media to leave the room as soon as possible.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, March 27, 2013, and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, April 22, we are resuming our study of Bill C-461, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information).

During the first hour, we will be hearing witnesses from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Canadian Media Guild, and the Professional Federation of Quebec Journalists. Without further delay, we will begin the meeting.

Mr. Andrews, you have a point of order?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move the following motion before the committee:

That the Committee hold hearings on the conduct of public office holders in relation to the handling of the repayment of Senate expenses by Senator Mike Duffy and the conduct of officials in the Prime Minister's Office in this process, and that the witness list include but not be limited to: Nigel Wright; Benjamin Perrin; Right Honourable Stephen Harper, Prime Minister; Ray Novak;

And that, in the context of this study, the Committee table a report in the House asking that the House send a message to the Senate requesting the appearance before the Committee of the following senators: Senator Mike Duffy; Senator David Tkachuk; Senator Marjory LeBreton.

The reason I move this motion is that it is critically important that this committee be immediately seized with this issue, and the government has actually scheduled time allocation votes during our proceedings, which will block this motion before the end of the meeting. This is no coincidence. I'm also forced to move my motion now because the Conservatives will undoubtedly move the meeting behind closed doors to deal with my motion, as they do with most, time and time again, preventing Canadians from seeing Conservative MPs carry out orders of the Prime Minister to stifle dissent.

The conduct of public office holders in relation to the handling of the repayment of Senate expenses by Senator Mike Duffy and the conduct of officials in the Prime Minister's Office in this process go to the heart and the trust of Canadians' need to have a democratic institution—

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

—and it seems that the Conservatives across the way—

[An hon. member]

Point of order....

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

—are somewhat bothered that this very serious issue, this situation, has the potential to undermine their confidence.

[An hon. member]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

The issues raise very troubling questions, which have yet to be answered and which merit the immediate action of the committee.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Mr. Chair....

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

We are talking about the most senior officials of the Government of Canada—the chief of staff to the Prime Minister providing a substantial cash gift of $90,000 to a sitting parliamentarian. This raises a whole host of other terms as to whether this arrangement was fully compliant within the Conflict of Interest Act, the Parliament of Canada Act, the rules of the Senate, or the Criminal Code. There are many unanswered questions, and it's up to this committee to get answers for Canadians. There are 10 key issues that need to be addressed.

Number one, on Monday, May 20, the PMO told CTV News that they had forwarded a copy of this agreement between Senator Duffy and Nigel Wright to the Ethics Commissioner, Mary Dawson. On Tuesday, the Conservatives said this document couldn't be released because no such agreement exists. An e-mail, which in fact does exist, describes the secret agreement. The e-mail was dated February 20, 2013, and is currently in the possession of the Prime Minister's Office.

Will the government commit to releasing this and any other e-mails or documents, electronic or otherwise, that relate to the secret deal between the PMO—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Andrews, I am going to have to interrupt you—

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

—and Senator Duffy, so that the review for the Canadian public—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Andrews—

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Number two—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Mr. Andrews, I have to interrupt you.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I had given you the floor for a point of order. However, I now see that this is not at all the case. I would prefer that we continue our meeting as planned and hear our witnesses. Your motion was the second point on our agenda. I am not obliged to give you the floor. I thought you were making a point of order. I think that we should instead continue our meeting as per our agenda.

Did you want to add something on this? I don't think I can give you the floor if your only purpose is to delay the presentations we had planned to hear.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I never asked for a point of order. I just asked to have the floor, and you gave me the floor, so I'd like to continue with my motion.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

I thought you wanted to raise a point of order.

I would have let you speak if you had had a point of order to raise, but since that was not the case, I would prefer to give the floor to the people who have come here to testify. We can deal with your motion, as planned, when we get to the second point on our agenda.

Mr. Angus, do you really have a point of order?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have immense respect for your understanding of the rules. I do believe you'll be this generation's Stanley Knowles, and many years from now you'll still be walking circles around the rest of us.

I accept the clarity. Given the importance of this and the fact that it's on the floor, I would ask my colleagues that we vote on it and then move on to business. I think that would be fair.

I would ask my colleagues whether they support this motion and we can move forward and deal with it.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

That is not a point of order either.

I move that we now deal with the first point on our agenda and that we hear the testimony relating to Bill C-461.

In our notice of meeting, as you can see, Mr. Scott Andrews' notice of motion is listed and we are supposed to discuss it under the heading: “2. Committee Business”. So we will have the opportunity to talk about it more at length later.

For the moment, I am going the give the floor to the witnesses who took the trouble to come here to make a presentation on Bill C-461. And so I am going to let the representatives from—

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, NDP, Pierre-Luc Dusseault]

Do you really have a point of order, Mr. Andrews?

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Well, I think we should discuss how we're going to proceed with this meeting today.

We know there are two votes scheduled, and with all due respect to our witnesses, their time here today is going to be shortchanged. I think we should—