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.
11:55 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
I have a brief comment.
We need to separate the political debate from comments of a moral nature. Many things are said against one another in a political debate and sometimes it is difficult for politicians to draw the line between a debate or political comment, and a slanderous comment.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I do not believe you answered the question.
Ms. Bellefeuille's question asked what was the strictest punishment in parliamentary history. Has there been any? Has the only punishment you have ever seen involved asking the member to rise in the House and apologize?
11:55 a.m.
Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons
It depends on the circumstances. There are not many examples in O’Brien and Bosc to indicate what has been done in the past.
However, I think the issue is determining whether the member's reputation has been damaged. If we reach that conclusion, we could say that the situation has been corrected.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
That ends our discussion with Mr. Walsh.
We thank you for coming, and ask you to please remain available to the committee. If we come up with further questions we will certainly call on your guidance. That way we'll move forward with our witnesses on the factual and objective side of our study. Again, thank you for your comments today.
We will suspend for a moment while we move in camera to discuss committee business....
Mr. Volpe.
Noon
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Just before we suspend for committee business, I think there are two points that I think we would all consider before going in camera.
One was what the witness had just indicated, that is, the distinction between commentary that would be valid in a political forum and the facts.
Secondly...but Mr. Reid is not here. He'll be able to defend himself when he comes back in.
To finish off with Mr. Walsh, that the most serious thing would be that we would eliminate the privilege of going into ten percenters, well, I think the House has already dealt with that. So the only issue left is whether there would be an apology directed towards Mr. Cotler or others.
The second thing is that Mr. Reid, in his questioning, would appear to have admitted that there was an error, because he said that Rabbi Melchior's statement, if it had been available to those researchers and supported by the caucus, would clearly have had a different impact on the statement, thereby acknowledging the inaccuracy of the statement.
So I think perhaps it would save the committee a lot of time to simply move towards filing a report to the House. You've already dealt with the maximum penalty available, because the House has already said no more ten percenters in somebody else's riding--
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We're getting into a really good debate here. That will be great at this committee when we're actually debating facts and objectivity with our witnesses.
So if you don't mind, I'm going to stop you there. There are a couple of other people who want to talk. You have, so--
Noon
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Volpe had a few moments to explain, so I would simply like to say that we need to look beyond the simple facts and consider the malicious intent of the ten percenter.
Why was it sent to Mr. Cotler's riding and not mine? I am not sure if there are even 10 people of the Jewish faith in my riding. So the ten percenter was sent to Mr. Cotler's riding because he is Jewish. He is recognized as a world leader in human rights.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm going to stop you there, the same as I stopped Mr. Volpe.
This is all great discussion and great debate, and we will get there when we have witnesses who will be here to establish that objectivity and those facts.
I'll go to Mr. Hoback, and then let's stop on this one and wait until we are actually into that.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay, after Mr. Hoback.
I'm going to cut you off, too, Randy, so go ahead.
Noon
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I'll be very quick, Chair. I just don't want to let Mr. Volpe interpret Mr. Reid's words as if that's what he said; he was using a lot of hypothetical situations in a lot of his questions and stuff.
I think you were taking some liberties with some of Mr. Reid's questions. To assume that this is what he was saying, or to assume anything else, I don't think is appropriate.
In terms of malicious intent, if we're going to look at that, well, then every ten percenter that went into somebody else's riding would have to be looked at, I would think. You could argue...and I could probably make an argument, when a ten percenter came into my riding from the Liberal Party, that there was malicious intent.
So I think we have to get back to the facts. As Mr. Walsh stated, there are very strict rules on what it is.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
Thank you again, Mr. Walsh, for your guidance. It will help us be there when we get there.
Mr. Proulx, quickly.
Noon
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, you mentioned that you wanted to go in camera.
Noon
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I think we have dealt with potential happenings of this committee at the steering committee and in this committee in camera.
I don't think we need to go back in camera to discuss witnesses, so if you agree, I would suggest that you see--
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Of course it's never up the chair to agree. It's the committee's choice.