Evidence of meeting #53 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We'll bring the meeting to order. We are in public session.
Mr. McKay, you had your hand up.
11 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I did indeed. Thank you, Chair, for the recognition.
I'm going to move a motion that is actually quite lengthy, as a framework, if you will, for our discussions with respect to what should constitute the report or what should be included in the report, so that the people writing the report will actually have a clear understanding of the wishes of the committee.
11 a.m.
Conservative
11 a.m.
Liberal
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
All right. So we can't hand it out because it's not in both languages.
11 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
No, we can't. I'm just going to be reading from it in my own notes here, but hopefully by the end of the meeting we'll have it in the other official language.
I think the first point to be made--
11 a.m.
Conservative
11 a.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, it would be good if the interpreter could have a copy of the note.
11 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Yes. It is there now, so let's do it, but let's....
Mr. McKay, go ahead.
11 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Thank you.
I think the first item that should be dealt with by those who will be drafting the report is what constitutes contempt. I would suggest that as good a definition as any is found in Halsbury's Laws of England, on page 608:
Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency to produce such a result as may be treated as contempt even though there is not a precedent for the offence.
I think that was backed up by Mr. Walsh, who said that contempt is what the committee says it is, effectively.
I think that's the framework with which we need to deal.
The second thing is what needs to be established to prove contempt. I think there are two points there. The first is that the statement must have in fact been “misleading”. The second point is that “it must be established that the Member making the statement knew”--or, I would suggest, ought to have known--“that the statement was incorrect”, and in making it, “the Member intended to mislead the House”.
I think that's the procedural framework, if you will, under which we should cast our deliberations. I would argue essentially almost 17 points, which.... I'm sure my colleagues will be thrilled to listen to me pontificate for 17 points; nevertheless, I'll try to be as brief as I can.
The first point has to do with--
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
I'm trying to follow Mr. McKay and the source, etc. Do we have anything...? Is there anything in writing?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
No, not yet, not that we can distribute to the committee. As soon as we can, we will.
You're going to have to listen to his motion.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Well, he just gave us a quote.
What was it that you quoted out of?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
--in that quote to change the key definition.
Would you please repeat that?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
So in your view, “ought to have known” should have been part of that definition, but it is not part of that definition.
Thank you.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
It's a quote from Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand.
