Evidence of meeting #5 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I don't think he's prepared to do that. I'm giving you my opinion, but maybe I shouldn't.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Fair enough, but perhaps we could let him answer that question.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Okay, unless Ms. Freeman offers to.... That was my original question.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
It is the only answer that is possible since the decision belongs to the Chair.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Ms. Freeman, you could choose to say that we're going to set this aside until later today or until the next meeting, but even later today, in favour of hearing from the law clerk. That's your discretion.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. For the second time, I think Madam Freeman has indicated that she would like to proceed with her motion, and that's her right. We'll respect the member's right in this matter. That's not debatable.
Mr. Dechert.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Mr. Chair, thank you.
Could I ask Ms. Freeman to state for the record, enlighten us, as to why she does not wish to wait for a legal opinion from the parliamentary legal officer on whether or not this is within the mandate of the committee and on these other questions, such as the contempt of Parliament issue? I'd just like to know why she is not willing to wait half an hour until Mr. Walsh appears before the committee.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. I think we had better establish that members do not have to answer any questions from another member unless they wish to do so. It is unusual, but sometimes in the interests of the committee, it may be accommodated. Would madam like to respond now?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. I think everybody understands. It has not unfolded in the best way that might have facilitated the best interests of all on the committee. Having said that, we are faced with a situation where we have a motion with an amendment.
At this time, I'd like to put the question on the amendment of Mr. Hiebert. The amendment of Mr. Hiebert is to insert the words, after the colon, “in the event of an advance ruling from the Speaker confirming that the study is within the mandate of the committee”.
Does everyone understand the Hiebert amendment?
Mr. Siksay, you have a question.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Could I ask for clarification, Chair? What's going to cause this advance ruling by the Speaker to happen?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I don't have to answer that. This is an amendment that is in order before us, and the members will have to deal with it as is. I think it's kind of self-evident.
Mr. Hiebert, please.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Mr. Siksay, we would simply direct the chair to make the request. That's all. If this is passed, he would have direction to do that.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Are all honourable members now paying attention? I want to put the vote on the Hiebert amendment.
All those in favour of the Hiebert amendment will please raise their hands. All those opposed will please raise their hands.
It is a tie, so the chair votes opposed.
(Amendment negatived)
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
I propose that we delete the words “Conservative Party's election campaign expenses” and replace them with the words “activities of public office-holders”.
I will repeat that. It's to delete the words “Conservative Party's election campaign expenses” and replace them with the words “activities of public office-holders”. It would read: “That the Committee resume the study it began during the Second Session of the Thirty-ninth Parliament regarding the activities of public office-holders during the 2005-2006 election campaign”, etc.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Dechert.
The chair has already indicated that it's very clear which study we're talking about. The study has its own motion and terms of reference. The effect of this motion is simply to resume a prior work of the committee. I don't believe the amendment that you're making changes the intent, the meaning, or the impact of the motion as initially proposed. I'm going to rule it out of order.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Could I ask you a question?
Unfortunately, I don't have the earlier motion in front of me, because I wasn't a member of the 39th Parliament. I'm being asked to vote on this. I think you read it once earlier. Can you clarify for me whether it referred to one political party or to any public office-holder? I don't know. Perhaps the clerk has a copy of it.