Evidence of meeting #34 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was supply.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I feel like I'm at home.
We are in camera, right?
12:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We are in public, and there is no debate on the challenge of the chair on a ruling, so we call a vote.
Is it a recorded vote?
12:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
It's a recorded vote.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
Mr. Reid, would you please continue? However, I will be watching for relevance now.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, and I think that like Santa Claus, you will have many helpers in that pursuit.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I am being a bit long-winded, but I'm doing it for a reason. It is to make the point that ultimately, when we're trying to decide whether or not to pursue debate or push something through, our default state is allowing more debate. That's what's going on here. Rather than rushing something through without having a chance to figure out whether it makes sense, we want to take the time to sit down and look at it.
That was the reason I asked the question to the other parties. I'd like to find out where they were going. I was trying to figure out if they were going to ram this thing through. Is that the real purpose? Do we get to find out after it's too late to do anything about it, or are they actually willing to look at the amendment? That makes me decide whether or not I'm going to talk out the time.
Is their goal is to go out there and say that we want what we want? We made a deal that we would discuss this internally and work out what might be a compromise arrangement, and now we've decided to go back on our word on something we decided elsewhere to show that what we thought were honourable proceedings are in fact out the window. We will drop something on you with no notice whatsoever and ram it through with no debate and no possibility of amendment--without even the possibility, if I might be so bold, of allowing me to confirm whether or not--
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Mr. Chair, I take exception. I respect my colleague and his right to make whatever remarks he wants, but I did say at the outset, when I put my motion on the floor, that it's certainly open to debate or certainly open to a vote. There was no intention at all of just ramming something through. I made reference to the possibility that if the committee wanted to debate—
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That's really not a point of order. Thank you very much.
Go ahead, Mr. Reid.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I didn't mean to be implying personal disrespect. I should be clear about that. I hope that's understood.
The fact is that there's a process, a process we are working on. We took everybody else's word. We each took each other's word on the sincerity of that process, and that got tossed out. The fact is that the opposition has a majority here. The Liberals don't have a majority, to be clear about that, but the opposition does. If they want to pass something through, they can do it. The real point is that the Conservatives don't have a majority, either here or in the House. They can't actually stop anything, especially something that is quite probably a very reasonable proposal, if the other parties are united on this.
What I'm objecting to is this: we have processes that are designed to ensure fairness to all parties, and that's getting tossed out the window here. That is objectionable. Now I come to the part that relates back to Mr. Proulx's point when he said this reminded him of the in-and-out scandal and the discussion, the filibuster, that went on for weeks and weeks—indeed, I think for months—in this committee on that subject. I was a part of that. I want to be clear about it. I wasn't just talking; I was filibustering. I was talking for the point of talking out the clock to make sure we could not come to a conclusion. That was my purpose.
At one point, as you may recall, the chair of the committee had been thrown out--not just challenged, but actually dismissed, which is something that happens.... I don't know; how often does that happen? Is it once in a decade, once every 20 years? It was extraordinary. It was for doing nothing wrong, other than getting in the way of the will of the majority on the committee.
Then the attempt was made to put you in the chair to force us to continue hearing and to start at that point to toss the rules out the window in order to get the outcome they wanted, the outcome being to treat this so-called scandal as if it were a real scandal and to have a kangaroo court in which members of the Conservative Party would be hauled in with none of the normal procedural protections and raked over the coals in order to give the media perception of guilt. I opposed that very strongly, because it was a grotesque abuse.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Again, what is the relevance to the amendment that's being debated here?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Because I was part of that procedure at this committee, I do find it relevant to what we're trying to accomplish here today.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
You're not challenging the chair because you think the NDP's going to vote against it.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Here's the point, Mr. Chair, of that analogy. I've gone on at some length because not everybody was here, including Ms. Foote. In fact, I think the entire Liberal membership has changed from what it was then. That was an abusive process, and in the end the courts--the real courts--looked into that case, that so-called scandal, and the Chief Electoral Officer went out, as we know, and seized the Conservative Party's records three years ago. He hasn't returned them yet. He ran up $2 million fighting against the Conservative Party in court. He lost two cases and was told to--