Tories accused of using majority muscle to keep G8 spending, other touchy issues, behind closed-doors House committees

The government plans to use its majority muscle behind the closed doors of  in-camera Commons standing committees to keep controversies like the lavish G8 spending in Treasury Board President Tony Clement’s riding out of the Parliamentary spotlight and kill other inquiries that were underway in the last Parliament, opposition MPs say.

PARLIAMENT HILL—The government plans to use its majority muscle behind the closed doors of in-camera Commons committees to keep controversies like the lavish G8 spending in Treasury Board President Tony Clement’s riding out of the Parliamentary spotlight and kill other inquiries that were underway in the last Parliament, opposition MPs say.

The MPs cite the sudden end during an in camera meeting of the Government Operations and Estimates Committee last week of a motion from Liberal MP John McCallum (Markham-Unionville, Ont.) that proposed an inquiry into nearly $50-million the government spent to spruce up cities and towns in Mr. Clement’s (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Ont.) upscale cottage-country constituency for the 2010 summit of G8 leaders.

The motion disappeared after going into the secret meeting, and Mr. McCallum, along with all MPs on the committee, cannot disclose what was said or what happened to the motion while the committee doors were closed.

MPs say they expect the government, which has moved several committee meetings to in-camera sessions to review opposition motions, to also use its majority clout to ensure committee reviews of government policy or actions conclude with reports that put the government in a good light.

The debate and votes during in camera meetings are confidential, with only surviving motions subsequently appearing in the meeting’s minutes. The same holds true for secret debate on committee motions and reports, with only either unanimous reports or majority and minority reports later made public.

“My sense is that they are really using their majority power,” Mr. McCallum told The Hill Times on Monday. “A majority government can do pretty well what it wants.”

Mr. McCallum said the government is showing a tendency in this session of Parliament to be “always going in-camera, and the tradition is that on motions, you would have that public, but they went in camera [for his motion] and all the reporters were kicked out. They’re keeping all this information from Canadians, and there’s no reason to do that. I’m not very hopeful; I don’t think they are being in the slightest bit collegial.”

The strategy means it is likely the question of G8 spending on a dozen towns and municipalities in Mr. Clement’s riding is unlikely to be reviewed by the Commons Access to Information, Privacy and Ethic Committee, despite a burst of documents the NDP released this week that showed political interference in the spending may have reached up to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) office.

The committee, chaired by NDP MP Nathan Cullen (Skeena-Bulkley Valley, B.C.) has a planning meeting scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 27, to consider a motion from Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro (Peterborough, Ont.).

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) said he also predict the Conservatives intend to use House committees in the new majority Parliament to steer clear of controversies—which were a fact of committee life in the 40th Parliament when the opposition parties had the majority—and ensure favourable reports for the government.

“There seems to be a real pattern developing, they intend to control the committees with a very heavy hand,” Mr. Martin told The Hill Times.

“I was aware that government-side Members came to at least two or three of the committees that I know of, with fairly aggressive agendas and none of the suggestions made by opposition parties succeed,” he said. “The motions put forward by the government-side members do succeed.”

Under past Liberal majority governments, though there were battles, committees tended to operate more independently, Mr. Martin said.

“Even in the Liberal majority governments, I was here then and I didn’t see the same session with controlling and manipulating committees as we’re starting to sense is the case here. In fact, committees were a lot less partisan and more inclined to do a lot more meaningful work, and it would be a shame if we lost that atmosphere of cooperation, such as it was,” Mr. Martin said.

Liberal MP Roger Cuzner (Cape Breton-Canso, N.S.) told The Hill Times the opposition expects the government majority on the House Fisheries and Oceans Committee to adopt the approach during the committee’s current consideration of a report on the crab fishery in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence.

Mr. McCallum said the government majorities on the committees are also allotting his party less time on the committees than Liberal majorities did for smaller parties in the House in the past.

But Conservative MP Royal Galipeau (Orleans, Ont.) argued the three recognized parties in the Commons are receiving a share of question and comment time that is proportional to their share of House seats.

“Mr. McCallum hasn’t yet come to terms with the decision of the people of Canada of May 2,” Mr. Galipeau told The Hill Times. “Mr. McCallum belongs to the third party and his party gets the time allotted to third parties. Committees decide that, but the time has been determined proportionately.”

Mr. Harper’s press office referred questions about the committee operations to Government House Leader Peter Van Loan’s ((York-Simcoe, Ont.) media office, which referred them to the office of Government Whip Gordon O’Connor (Carleton-Mississippi Mills, Ont.).

“As a rule, the Whip’s Office does not comment on current or future government positions on matters before Parliamentary committees,” said Andrea Walas, who is responsible for Parliamentary communications in Mr. O’Connor’s office, in an email to The Hill Times.

Origin
Source: Hill Times