Evidence of meeting #6 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 witness.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Without referring specifically to this mailing in detail, are we talking about facts or comments at present?
11:35 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It is up to you to decide after examining the mailing. Is this a statement of fact or a comment? Is it really a—
11:35 a.m.
NDP
11:40 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Yes, that is true. But the measures are different. The issues that come up are different, from a legal standpoint, between a comment and a statement of fact. Here, in committee, on a question of privilege, it is up to you to decide. The same rules do not apply. I am speaking as a lawyer, in a legal context. But here, where the committee is concerned—
11:40 a.m.
NDP
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We're going to go to five-minute rounds. We'll have time for everybody if we keep it to five minutes.
Go ahead, Mr. Volpe.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Mr. Walsh, in terms of your expertise as an officer of Parliament and also as a lawyer who's trying to be objective, please correct me if I cross a line. This is done in the interests of trying to help everybody understand what the terminology associated with “accurate” means.
I think you have this front of you, or you've seen it. When one uses the word “willingly”, we have crossed the line from fact to intent, so one has to establish that there has been intent in order for somebody else to suggest that “willingly” is an accurate term to use.
Second, when one makes it an established fact that a conference is an “overtly anti-Semitic” conference, then surely it must have been advertised as that prior to participation in order for this to be accurate. When one reflects back on a conference and judges it to be anti-Semitic because of what developed once the conference began, that would be a different accuracy, would it not?
11:40 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
In a manner of speaking, yes.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
So I guess objectively, when I was asking Mr. Lukiwski to...because he reflected, three times, on using the word “accurate”, that this statement is not in the objective category of accuracy.
11:40 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could respond in these terms. I don't like to repeat myself and take up the committee's time needlessly, but the question, I suppose, as suggested by the member's question, is this: Is what you're dealing with a statement of fact, or is what you're dealing with a comment about facts--or, God forbid, is it a mix of both?
Even when you go to a question of comment, the person pleading that it was a fair comment has to show that the facts on which it's based are true. If you characterize this as a comment, then you still have the question of whether the facts on which it is are based true. If you characterize it as facts, then--I hate to talk about the terms specifically, because we're getting into semantics--if we take the word “willingly”, which the member chose to identify, and you asked me to determine whether the use of the word “willingly” was true or not, my first reaction would be to ask if somebody was there under compulsion or force. You know they were there. We accept that they were there. I suppose we're able to accept that they were there, or that he was there. Was he there under compulsion or force? If not, then you might assume he was there willingly.
That's the way I would address the factual question. Now, that's not making any political comment; rather, are all of us here in this room willingly? Are we here under some compulsion?
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
But you're here willingly on the issue of the question of privilege. And for someone afterwards to say that you willingly participated in a raucous debate with members of Parliament who had an absolutely no-holds-barred discussion, that's not really a reflection of your willingness to participate in the second part of what turned out to be the...because it wasn't your intention to be a part of that. Nor did anybody intend you to be a part of that kind of a discussion.
So in fairness--
11:40 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
What you're saying is there's a difference between presence and participation.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
That's right. You came here under legitimate, bona fide reasons, and it was to illuminate some of the discussion on a question of privilege for all members of Parliament. If this committee deteriorates into something else, it would not be a fair comment for anybody to make about you willingly participating in a raucous debate with members of Parliament. It would be absolutely inaccurate.
11:45 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
That may be a fair comment.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Well, I like your play on words.
No one has yet established that there was an “overt” indication that something was going to be anti-Semitic. This is a post-factum observation.
So what is the accuracy in law in terms of what someone might have done prior to the comment post-factum?
11:45 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I'm afraid I'm not capable of an intelligent response in 10 seconds.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Eat into their time. They're not going to say anything worthwhile.
11:45 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:45 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I appreciate your point about post-factum. You're saying that the facts are only true after the fact--
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Conservative