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.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
How is that out of order? The whole thing mentions election expenses.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. I understand that.
One of the rulings I made earlier has to do with the difference between providing evidence and what we do with witnesses, should we pass the motion to do this study, as opposed to debating the motion to do the study.
It's something the committee is going to have to address, the subamendment dealing with past elections. In this regard, it's going to be somewhat problematic, because I've read the Federal Court filings on this, and one of the keys here is that there were changes to the Canada Elections Act for the 2006 election campaign, and that will be very complicated. We're not going to be able to resolve that in a debate of the motion, amendment, and subamendment. That is more for expert witnesses. We may all have opinions on it--
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
You're making an assumption, Mr. Chair, that the subamendment is not going to pass.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, I'm saying that you can't take one book from the latest book. You have to--
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
No, but I can do this in my review. In my review, Mr. Chair, I can preface every single statement that I make.... For me to do a proper job as a member of this committee, not only do I have to look at, let's say, section 319 and the definition of election advertising in the 2006...but if the past elections amendment passes, I need to know what the definitions are--
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. Order, please.
If I may, colleagues, I made that ruling with regard to the differentiation between testimony that will come, should we engage in this study, and debate on the importance of doing this. I do understand that there is a fine argument that people can make, but it is not going to be helpful to start going through the Canada Elections Act. We understand that we are going to have to hear from witnesses who can give us the authoritative, expert advice on this, should we do the study.
So Mr. Wallace, I encourage you--
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
These are your own words:
The crafters of the Constitution of Canada and our laws now in the Constitution have extended extraordinary privileges to members of Parliament. Those privileges, in brief, would include such things as the matter to speak freely in this place, to represent the interests of constituents without having fear....
That was from Paul Szabo, two Thursdays ago, in the House of Commons.
How on earth, Mr. Chair, can you say that in the House of Commons and not allow me to speak freely to the motion that's here in front of us and the amendment? How is that possible?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I'll wipe the smirk off my face when you start living by your own words in the House of Commons.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Please, respect the chair.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Just listen, Mike.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Don't be impolite.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Keep in mind that this was in regard to the decision of the Ethics Commissioner and the debate of the House with regard to a legal proceeding, a lawsuit, of an honourable member of Parliament and his rights. This is not a parallel issue.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
So we have no right to speak in this committee; is that what you're saying to us, Mr. Chair?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I will come to you, yes. I have made note of it, and I'm going to deal with it, but I have to finish with this first. I think it's important.
Now, we are debating a subamendment to an amendment to a motion. Some members have talked about the subamendment in the context of the motion and the amendment as well. Some have made some assumptions. But that is understandable; it's pretty hard to talk to just “or in past elections” and be totally relevant if you only have four words to play with. So we understand that.
But Mr. Wallace, we do need to have expert witnesses with regard to the Canada Elections Act, and that is testimony that is not relevant to the debate. In my view, it is not relevant to the debate of this motion or the proposed amendment or subamendment. I do not want to get into a situation where somebody is going to walk us through the whole Canada Elections Act when in fact the motion, as you know....
If you look, Mr. Wallace, back to.... You're laughing at me again; second time.
