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.
5 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Yes, it has to be relevant. If not, they should yield the floor to committee members who actually have something to say about the motion. Otherwise, it will be obvious that they are only filibustering.
I would ask them to admit they have said all they can possibly say, they've run out of arguments and all they can do now is repeat themselves. If they admit that, we can proceed to the vote. I am really fed up.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Madame, I agree with you.
The members will be familiar, and if they would like to consult, there are a couple very good paragraphs in Marleau and Montpetit about the subject matter of repetition and relevance, and they both in fact are very much linked.
The simple guide for members should be that if you have said it, if you have made your point, or if somebody else has said it and made their point, it is not helpful to the determination of our deliberations to repeat it. It's considered to be taking up useful time that could be used by members who want to speak to add any other new considerations for the members to have in mind when they vote.
We have covered past elections about the code, and about the Canada Elections Act. They are complicated, and we've done so at least three times.
Mr. Wallace, if you want to check the blues, please do so. I believe, according to my records, at least three times we've covered this ground, and I encourage you to accept it. The point is made, and we should move on.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you.
The subamendment that I'm debating, as you clearly indicated before, is only four words long, and it's only about past elections. I'm supporting adding “past elections”.
The reason I have covered off, which you probably--
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Do I have the floor or not? My next point is on the recommendation part of this from past elections.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you.
Part of the amendment that the subamendment is attached to from past elections says “make recommendations to Elections Canada”. I think it's important for us as committee members, if this motion passes, to look at what recommendations were made. The recommendations were made to Elections Canada after the past elections occurred. That's why past elections should be in there.
I know for a fact that Elections Canada does a review of what happened with election expenses. I'd like to know whether in previous elections there was anything to do with elections expenses or anything to do with public office-holders, and whether any of those--
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. That's the third time that I've asked you to please not repeat the same stuff again.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Dhaliwal.
June 17th, 2008 / 5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me this opportunity.
First of all, I'd like to commend you. I'm very sympathetic to you in terms of the treatment you are getting from the members. You are doing a wonderful job here.
The other issue is that these Conservative friends of mine sitting on the other side are not getting it. They can call the issue that we are dealing with here election fraud, or an in-and-out scheme, or in-and-out financing, or whatever they want. They can call it fraud that they committed, or whatever. But I can tell you one thing: this study is about their exceeding the spending limit under Elections Canada. They have overspent their central spending limit. That is what we are studying here. No other party has done that.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
It is relevant, Mr. Epp. This is exactly what we are studying.
They can filibuster this meeting for a day or two, but if they want an open, transparent government, they should be cooperating here with you as the chair because of all the crap you have to take from these members.
Second, we have been studying this motion for the last so many days, but it's been nothing but their filibustering. In fact, they should come clean on this one and should be supporting this motion if they have nothing to hide.
I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity. I will move it to the next speaker. Thank you.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I know it's in the heat of debate, but I believe the honourable member across used unparliamentary language here in terms of describing something as “crap”. I think he should apologize to the group and withdraw that comment.
