On Thursday afternoon, the New Democrats issued a letter to the Speaker, asking that he investigate their claim that a veteran was barred from attending a national defence committee meeting. According to the NDP, the committee chair, Conservative James Bezan denied the veteran access to the public meeting. On Monday, the government finally responded to the charge, saying the NDP has its facts wrong.

As it happens, it was a Liberal who rose on the point in question period Monday, not an NDP MP. Sean Casey wondered why the government had allegedly barred Sylvain Chartrand, a critic of the government’s handling of veteran’s health, from the meeting last week. Chartrand was apparently the guest of NDP MP Sylvain Chicoine (and it was the latter who had sent the letter to the Speaker).

Casey put his question to Bezan, asking whether it would now be normal practice for the committee to exclude members of the public from public meetings?

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan stood to reply, charging that “we believe strongly” that all committees ought to be open to the public, “and that certainly applied to the case in question.”

The decision not to allow Chartrand into committee, Van Loan continued, was one made by House of Commons security, not Bezan. [UPDATE: Van Loan later corrected himself after question period in a point of order. “Since that the committee actually met in the East Block, and meeting in the East Block means it is under the Senate protective services,” Van Loan said.]

“In fact, the committee chair said that he would speak with House of Commons security to determine why that decision was made,” Van Loan said. “Our government certainly wants to see that all Canadians have access to the way Parliament works.”

Casey tried again, suggesting that it was Chartrand’s opposition to the government that was the real reason for him being barred.

“The abuse of power that has infested the government is so pervasive that ordinary Canadians who oppose the Conservatives or disagree with them are treated with contempt,” Casey argued. He then asked whether the national defence committee is now “considering whether or not to ask the chair to apologize for his inappropriate conduct?”

Again, Van Loan dismissed the question.

“The basis of that question is entirely false,” he replied. “There was no inappropriate conduct on the part of the chair.”