Evidence of meeting #42 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I'd like to have a polled vote, Mr. Chair.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Clerk, would you please call the vote on the motion to adjourn?
It's a tie vote. The chair votes no.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
The first meeting was quite an embarrassment, and I'm sorry for that. I'm trying hard to cooperate and make sure people have ample opportunity to put their arguments on the table. I think we had some good input on the motions before us, keeping them reasonably relevant with not much repetition.
Last time, as soon as we started the meeting, there was a motion to adjourn. I don't understand that. As soon as a member has to take a phone call or something like that, people want to start asking for adjournment. Now there are signals of the true intent.
In my notes I see that all that we've done in the first half hour is go through seven examples of repetition, five points of order that were not points of order, and very little substantive contribution to debate on the motions. It is important that members have an opportunity to put points on without repetition. We have to make sure that everybody has the information required to make informed, relevant decisions.
We're losing both of those arguments right now. If it continues, and if the members are saying we might as well adjourn the meeting or something like that, then effectively that's saying we might as well stop talking about this and we'll put the questions. If that's what the members want--
3:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4 p.m.
An hon. member
There was a tie.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
The point being made, and the point I have tried to make, is to appeal to your moral sense of right and wrong. To prove the point, these are all strong arguments. This amendment really doesn't harm anybody. If you have something to hide, expose it. If you don't have anything to hide, you have nothing to worry about. But the very fact that there is no consensus to move this amendment is very troubling. The way this vote goes proves that we are still not at a point where we can move forward and resolve this.
To close, ethical standards are expected of public office-holders. Before we come to the conclusion that these ethical standards are wrong or that standards have been broken, we must get to the bottom of this. We are not afraid to make an investigation and get to the bottom. My amendment will expand the investigation beyond public office-holders. I think that's clear too.
In conclusion, we have an incredible system in place.
I'll just tell you a quick story. I was in Taiwan and sat beside a senator--
4 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
4 p.m.
An hon. member
Out of order.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
This is important. It's not out of order.
Mr. Chair.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Are you on a point of relevance? Mr. Van Kesteren, you know what we're speaking about. I encourage you to please restrict your comments to matters that are directly related to the motions.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
They are in order.
The point is that in our system we raise our money. We have to give the former leader of the Liberal Party credit for changing the system to disallow money to be brought in through unions and corporations. Now it can only come from public citizens to the tune of $1,000. We don't recognize what a profound effect that has had on politics in this country.
I'm sure you can all make this claim. I don't have anyone in my riding who can come to me and ask for something because I owe him or her a favour. I owe no one in my riding anything, except what is right and what is wrong.
We as parliamentarians have that same charge even in this committee. If we deviate from that and follow a different line, remember what I said. If you do not guard one party's rights and principles, you are letting your guard down. What goes around comes around.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Bloc
4:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. Order, please.
Mr. Wallace has the floor. I want you to respect his right to speak without being interrupted.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I appreciate that. I'm going to a new area that I don't think anybody.... Now, I'm sorry I missed last Thursday's meeting, but I heard it was quite good and I wish I could have been here.
I'm going to speak to “in past elections”, which I think is the amendment that's actually on the floor. Is that not correct?
4:05 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
So we have that subamendment to the amendment, and the amendment talks about recommendations to Elections Canada, and the main motion talks about certain election campaign expenses.
I think it's important for us as members of this committee, if this motion actually ends up passing, because we're just debating.... It's not passed yet; it may not pass. I'm taking the assumption that some day it may pass, and when that happens, then this committee will be looking at certain election campaign expenses and recommendations to Elections Canada and what happened, not just in the last election in 2006 but in past elections. That's if the subamendment passes, the other amendment passes, and the main motion passes. So I'm going to work on that assumption.
But I think it's important for us, as members of this committee, to understand what we're actually talking about. I have a copy of the last Canada Elections Act. I think it's important for us to understand, when we're talking about expenses, certain expenses, what that might entail. The fact of the matter is that Elections Canada's job is really to manage and run the federal elections legislation that's been passed by this House.
For us to do a quality job as members of this committee, I think we should understand this legislation.
