Dean Del Mastro: Always ready with a motion to go in camera ...

... except, it seems, when he craves the presence of the cameras 

Within minutes -- literally -- of the gavel dropping at the second meeting of the C-11 legislative committee, which had convened in public to begin discussions on which witnesses should be invited to share their thoughts on the government's contentious copyright bill, MPs voted to clear the room and shutter the doors for the remainder of the session. 

Interestingly, the move to eject the public from the proceedings was the result of a motion put forward by Dean Del Mastro, parliamentary secretary to the prime minister -- and, it's beginning to appear, the government's primary procedural catspaw at the committee table.  

Earlier this week, he tabled a motion to do exactly the same thing earlier at the ethics committee, claiming -- as he did today -- that it was simply "standard practice" to deal with committee business in camera.

At Ethics, the "committee business" in question was a matched set of NDP motions that would call representatives from the RCMP and the Office of Public Prosecutions to testify on the lack of enforcement of the Lobbying Act.)  As such, it would not be considered the type of witness selection discussion that normally takes place in camera. In fact, this wasn't even the first such attempt by the NDP to call in the Mounties; a similar motion was debated - and soundly defeated by the government majority - in public last year.

In any case, at the time, Del Mastro's assertion seemed somewhat at odds without my own fairly clear recollections vis a vis Ethics meetings past. (When liveblogging, one does pay attention to these things.)

A quick check of the minutes confirmed that my memory was not, in fact, playing tricks on me: Back when Del Mastro was spearheading government-backed initiatives to investigate alleged union sponsorhip at the last NDP convention, as well as the then-ongoing legal dispute between the information commissioner and the CBC, he made no objection to having reporters -- and, by extension, the Canadian public -- present, even during witness selection for the CBC/ATI study, which usually does take place behind closed doors.

Committee staff were even called upon to arrange a last-minute accommodations upgrade to allow such a meeting to be televised. Del Mastro seemed entirely undaunted -- emboldened, even -- by the presence of the press - including this liveblogger - despite the fact that his own proposal to call a sitting judge to committee to explain his ruling in a court case still under appeal was roundly criticized as an unwarranted overstep of the sub judice principle, not to mention a potentially unconstitutional breach of the separation of powers. Eventually, it was quietly withdrawn.

Why Del Mastro has seemingly forgotten his own efforts in promoting increased transparency in such matters is, alas, unknown, but for the record, I would heartily endorse any move to open up the witness selection process, as it can be remarkably enlightening to know which party proposed inviting a particular group or individual to testify, and which members supported or opposed it. 

Given the intense scrutiny that the proceedings of the C-11 committee, in particular, will likely receive from the public, it would seem that ensuring the highest degree of transparency would go a long way to assuaging the fears of those who believe that, when it comes to copyright reform, the fix is pretty much in.