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.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
As a clarification on intent, I wasn't saying to hold them until we had heard all these other witnesses. I'm saying to keep it aside just so we can clear up the difference between these two lists of witnesses, and then we can tackle it.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Perhaps we could have the analysts check into which definition we should be using, and based on time. I believe this new binder came out in the middle of all this, so should we be using the new interpretation or the old interpretation? I'd like to have some information on what that should be.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
With respect, I don't think my colleague's point is quite right. These are not new rules; this is a new gloss of the rules. The rules were already in existence, to take the form of the precedents established by the Speaker. This is a more contemporary, and hence better, summary of them.
So the rules upon which this is based presumably were already in place, unless some rulings from the Speaker occurred between when--
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
But you have different interpretations between the two binders.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
No, we just got additional material--
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Let's try to settle that one first.
Is there an objection to having Madam O'Brien and Monsieur Bosc here?
I see none.
I think clarifying the interpretation of “breach of privilege” won't hurt this committee in any way, so that's good.
Mr. Volpe is next.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess the issue is really whether we're going to proceed much further than where we already find ourselves, given that, as Mr. Walsh has indicated, the most serious remedy would be the elimination of a member's right to present these ten percenters in someone else's riding and that this remedy has already been addressed by the House.
The only other issue that would be present would be how this committee takes instruction from the Speaker about dealing with what has come down to a relationship amongst members, in their either impeding each other's ability to do their jobs, or their at least trying to be objective.
As I look at this list, I would want to do one thing, and that is address the issue of accuracy. I didn't want to characterize Mr. Reid's views in a way in which he did not intend; however, he did say that the information from Rabbi Melchior wasn't available to his caucus's research group, and therefore it would have had an impact on whatever statements were made.
Taking that as a point of departure, one would look at this list and ask which of these individuals can do the objective part. If we want to be professional, which of these individuals will make a contribution?
If you'll bear with me a moment, I divided this into a group of people who were actually there, or who had a direct impact on Durban I. As I go down further, I look at the list. All of page two, by the way—I've divided them into two pages, and just so that you know them, I'm looking at Anne Bayefsky, Khaled Mouammar, Mohamed, and so on. I ask myself, what could they possibly contribute to the facts—objective—of the matter at Durban I?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Volpe, I'm going to probably stop you here. At this moment, I don't think we're trying to determine whether they are witnesses: they've been submitted.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
No, but this is a strange way for a committee.... The fact that it receives suggestions doesn't mean that they have been accepted by the committee as valid witnesses. What do they have to contribute? Who asked for them?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
No, I'm not going to sanction witnesses. I'm going to ask you what the purpose is of having people who weren't there and who can't contribute to the accuracy of the statements. What will their contribution be to a debate on the question of privilege?
I mean, I didn't suggest any of these.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
No, no, I'm asking the people who made this presentation. Who made the suggestion of these people? Obviously they must have thought that these individuals can contribute to the question of accuracy and the question of privilege.
They didn't come, as I know, from our caucus. Did they come from somebody else's caucus?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Obviously, all the witnesses on the list came from somebody at this table. They came through the chair and the clerk. The clerk and I have looked at the list and tried to put it together in reasonable panels.
At this moment I'm not trying to determine what testimony we'll get from any witness. Obviously when a witness gives testimony, through questions from members of this panel, we'll have the ability to say that we can't go in that direction, that it's not proving our point on privilege.
Mr. Walsh has given us the diagram, if you will, on looking at factualness and looking at objectivity. At some point, if those were found to be right, then we would move into the injurious part of the breach of privilege.
I'm just going to suggest that if a witness is giving us testimony that doesn't head us that way, then the testimony will stop. But at this moment, witnesses have been asked by members of this panel to be here. I think they have as much right as anyone to ask for those people to be here.
If the testimony goes south, well certainly, as I've done today a couple of times with you, I will cut them off and say that's not heading in the direction we need it to go, on the breach of privilege.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
I don't know whether I'm going south. I just want to understand—
March 30th, 2010 / 12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
—what the president of the Canadian Arab Federation, Mr. Khaled Mouammar, would have to contribute to the accuracy of the statement or the question of privilege, or, more importantly, what the individual or party that proposed him, the executive director, and the vice-president from the same organization thought they would contribute to this discussion. It's a discussion on the question of privilege, not a discussion on any larger issues.