Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Tilson was referring to what he referred to as the Official Secrets Act, and as you pointed out, the name has changed. But the point here is that this is something.... We're dealing with the Access to Information Act in the main motion—this is what Madame Lavallée started—and it's relevant to see how it relates to the whole question of secrets, because clearly this is a matter that is in itself anticipated in the access to information law.

The reason it is such a long law is that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm sorry, I'm not hearing relevance. You have one sentence to bring yourself back to the subamendment for new information.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I'm sorry, the subamendment is...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The subamendment is to call witnesses necessary to guide the committee.

Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it's truly regrettable and even unfortunate. The Conservatives are filibustering so much that it's become a farce.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I rule your point not well taken.

That's it. There's no further debate on this issue. I'm calling the question on the subamendment.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

This is different from what I understood it to be.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm not going to recognize you any further. There's nothing new that's coming forward. We have a considered subamendment to the amendment. I'd like to call the question and I'm going to ask that it be a recorded vote.

Are you ready, Mr. Clerk?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Richard Rumas]

Yes, I am.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We're talking about the subamendment to the amendment.

Please call the roll.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Are you serious?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm serious, Mr. Reid, because I'm getting sick and tired of this. If people aren't here, then they're not here. You can have a substitute here.

We have to move forward on this, and either we're going to get to the bottom of this issue today or we're going to get to the procedure that we're going to use to get to the bottom of this.

Yes? There's a point of order.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, surely if a member of the committee wants to make sure they understand what the subamendment is, they're entitled to hear what the subamendment is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

There's a subamendment spoken on the record.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

This member, my colleague, wants to make sure he understands what he's voting on. He's not clear, and you're not allowing it to be read into the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's because I'm getting sick and tired of the way things are going here. I'm going to make the point: no, I will not repeat it.

You have no point of order. It's out of order.

Call the vote.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm now going to call the question on the amendment.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chair, there are people on the speakers list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm not going to hear any further—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, this really is out of order. This is most inappropriate. The fact is that I have not finished speaking to this. I was addressing an issue.

I take your particular point that it was inappropriate for the amendment, because I misunderstood, and so I didn't pursue it. The fact is that I'm now speaking to the main amendment, and it is relevant to discuss this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

All right, I'll rule your point well taken. You can speak to the amendment, provided it is relevant and that you get to the point immediately.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I think we need to vote. I challenge your decision to debate this, Mr. Chairman.

We can vote on this motion right now. Since, normally, we cannot debate such a motion, could we immediately call the question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

There's no point of order.

I'll restate what happened. I ruled that we were going to proceed to the vote. You raised a point of order, that you would like to address the amendment. I ruled your point was well taken and I recognized you.

My ruling has been appealed. If my ruling is sustained, we will recognize you. If my ruling is overturned, we will proceed to a vote.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, you can't make everything into a majority vote simply by saying “we're challenging the chair”. Mrs. Lavallée is out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

This is the procedure that is set out in the rules, and it is not debatable.

The question is, shall the ruling of the chair—to allow further debate by Mr. Reid—be sustained?

All those in favour of the ruling of the chair please signify.

All those opposed to the ruling of the chair please signify.

I don't see any hands. Is anybody voting here?

I'll call it again. All those in favour of the ruling of the chair, put your hands up.