Information & Ethics Committee on June 17th, 2008

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a legitimate point of order.

I want a clarification. A number of times you have made reference that the intent of my subamendment was to see if there were other wrongdoings. That was not the intent, and I laid that out clearly in my pre-empt as well. The intent of the subamendment was to do something useful as a committee.

I recognize there's a lot of badgering going back and forth here, but that was my pure intent and I stand by that intent. I don't think you are in any way trying to change my intent, but I would appreciate that when we talk about my subamendment we recognize that the motion as it stood really was not accomplishing anything. The subamendment changes the intent so that we, as a committee, are actually doing something useful and giving the Canadian public something for their money.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I thank you for the commentary, but it's not a point of order.

Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You make a good point, and I'll move on to the ethical aspects. I looked through the Elections Canada book for the words “ethical standards”, and the actual legislation does not lay out ethical standards for candidates during elections. It doesn't say that. It has a bunch of rules, of course, but not what you would call ethical standards set out in the book. I challenge anybody to find them, because they're not there.

We may want to recommend to Elections Canada--it wouldn't have to be in the legislation--that it lay out a set of ethical standards for candidates who get elected and those who don't.

So ethical standards are important. Why should we look at past elections? Why is that subamendment important on ethical standards? I looked up the ethical standards, and this is from the Library of Parliament so it's not biased.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please. Order, please.

I need to make sure that members are clear here. There are two references to the ethical standards, if you put the motion, the amendment, and the subamendment all together.

The Hubbard motion has ethical standards as they relate to public office-holders, and those would be the ethical standards required of public office-holders in the act guiding the conflict of interest statement, not members of Parliament. This is where, if you look at the transcript of when Mr. Van Kesteren brought his amendment forward, I asked him and wanted him to clarify this thing, because he wanted this word “ethical” in there--ethical practices.

What your commentary is referring to is that maybe we should have some ethical standards in the Canada Elections Act, because you're taking that from Mr. Van Kesteren's amendment, whether these ethical practices.... This is the confusion. The members have to understand that the original motion was referring to the ethical standards expected of public office-holders per the Prime Minister's code of conduct for public office-holders. Okay?

Mr. Van Kesteren's—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Just a moment.

Mr. Van Kesteren's amendment...he's used the word, and that's his choice, but he put in handwriting, as a last edition, “ethical practices”. This refers to the activities of somebody under the Canada Elections Act. It has nothing to do with the code of ethics for public office-holders.

They're two different.... There definitely is a problem. I just want the members to understand that. Mr. Wallace is now talking about making ethical guidelines in the Canada Elections Act.... That's pursuant to Mr. Van Kesteren's, but not the main motion.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

But it's there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. I just want members to know that our job.... I'm not sure Mr. Van Kesteren really intended that we were to somehow come up with a whole new set of ethical guidelines for candidates under the Canada Elections Act. I don't know that.

[An hon. member]

It's possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

He may want to speak to it.

In any event, I thought it was important to understand that if you put all these together, there are some contradictions.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you for that clarification. You have lots of input to these; maybe you should relieve yourself of the chairmanship and get on the committee.

The ethical practices piece is debatable whether—and you've highlighted it in terms of whether there's the code and the actual practices. But in the code, which I have from the Library of Parliament, the Conflict of Interest Code for Parliamentarians, this section deals with conflict of interest and post-employment code for public office-holders, on the order of the Prime Minister, as you just mentioned—

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Ménard, respect the member.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I respect you myself.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand that, but you know what? It's happening a little too often. Bear with us, we've got about 35 minutes left.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm only going to be on for about 34 of those minutes, only 34 of those minutes.

And it applies to cabinet ministers, parliamentary secretaries, and other senior public office-holders. Now, it has been brought to my attention, and I'm not sure it's accurate, but it's my understanding--and I want to apologize to Mr. Hubbard--that public office-holders, if you're a parliamentary secretary.... If you're a cabinet minister, it still stands between elections; if you're a PS, it does not. I don't apologize for his being a PS, I apologize for saying that he was still a public office-holder.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Can I not apologize? Is that not allowed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand.

We've already had this before, but he wanted to make it....

That's fine. Carry on, Mr. Wallace.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Are any opposition members going to speak, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

This is a bit of a repetition.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

From whom? I've never said it before.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, but others have. We've already been through the definition of public office-holder. Mr. Hubbard made a request to members that he wasn't--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I wasn't here at the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order. This is a problem we have--members who have not been with us for this debate. If you're not here, you may find yourself....

I'm indicating that it is repetition. I understand you may not have known that, but....

Order.

Madame Lavallée on a point of order.