Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

This, I believe, is a friendly amendment. I hope Mr. Martin will agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Martin, would you like to comment?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I will welcome that as a friendly amendment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Based on that, it's a new motion then--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I believe the amendment has been circulated in both official languages to all members. Mr. Hubbard has moved this amendment. We are now in debate on the amendment, and I will recognize Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I want you to rule on this first, and then I'll talk to it.

Since the mover of the original motion has accepted it as a change, does that not make it then the motion and not an amendment to the motion?

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

It's just a question, Madame.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me. Order, please. We do have a point of order. I must hear the point of order.

Madame Lavallée, vous avez la parole.

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

I very much appreciate your diligence, Mr. Chair. This is a friendly amendment. There should be no debate on whether it can be moved or not. If he wants to speak to the amendment, fine, but not on the...

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

S'il vous plaît, Madame, that's debate, not a point of order. You'll have an opportunity if you'd like to be on the speakers list.

For the member to understand, the motion as presented by Mr. Hubbard was to delete all the words after the word “that” in the motion originally before the committee and to replace those words with the text that he read into the record. That text is before you. Have all members understood that?

Mr. Tilson does not have a copy of the amendment. Could we please provide copies to all members?

I will now again recognize Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The reason I asked that question, for my colleagues' understanding, is that I have one small amendment to the amendment, but it if were the main motion it would just be an amendment. If you read the motion carefully—and I'm sorry, I can read it in English only—it talks about including “any and all...evidence, testimony and information not available at the time of settlement and including allegations relating to the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney”. The important part is where it says “all...testimony and information not available at the time of settlement”.

In my understanding, that means we, as a committee, would be able to call all the witnesses we want who dealt with the actual settlement, which was a previous government's decision to be made. That means anybody who was involved in the previous government's decision on the settlement, because the motion is about the settlement. That means all the Liberal government members, privy councillors, and staffers who were involved with the Liberal government that made the decision to make the settlement. It should be our right to call them and talk to them about this.

My amendment to the amendment, Mr. Chair, is that after it says “handling of allegations by the present government”, it should also say “and past governments”. I am moving the amendment to the amendment--since it is an amendment, not a main motion, which I don't agree with. So we would add “and past governments”. My reason for that amendment is that it would allow the committee the right to call any and all witnesses to deal with the settlement, as that is what the crux of the motion is about. It is about the settlement with the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney. We had nothing to do with it. We need to find out what they knew about it in advance, so I'm asking that this committee be able to call those witnesses also.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

I do have a point of order from Mr. Thibault.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

It is not meant to debate Mr. Wallace's motion.

The only thing I am concerned about is that we had an amendment. It was accepted as a friendly amendment. We are still referring to it as an amendment, so I would think that all we have on the floor right now is an amendment. He is talking about amending an amendment, but he would be amending a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

I think if you were to look into the Standing Orders, you would find that there is no such language as “a friendly amendment”. There is just “an amendment”.

Mr. Wallace, it would appear, is seeking to make a subamendment, and he's given that. I rule it in order. We are on debate on the subamendment.

Mr. Del Mastro has the floor.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make a couple of points on the entire motion and everything that's been brought before. Again, I want to register my personal opinion that this committee, as established by the rules governing this House, is beyond its scope with this motion. It is beyond its scope, and it requires a standing order.

Be that as it may, I listened to the reasons justifying why this motion has been brought, and quite frankly, I look at them and I say, well, the opposition parties have requested a public inquiry. The government has provided a public inquiry. We have an eminent Canadian, Professor Johnston, establishing the parameters of that inquiry. And I don't believe—this is my person opinion—that Canadians are interested in a partisan witch hunt here at committee. Be that as it may, I do not believe—this is my personal opinion—that this committee can do this job adequately. I do not believe that we will come out of this with a report to the House that will be useful, and I want that on the record.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

We now have Mr. Hiebert, on the subamendment.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Actually, Chair, I wanted to speak to the original amendment, but I'm happy to speak--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'll give you some latitude to talk about the issue. How's that?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I appreciate that.

I just draw to the attention of all committee members that the amendment that was brought by Mr. Hubbard is actually the very same motion that he submitted to the clerk yesterday at five o'clock, and he is simply, by other means, getting around the 24-hour rule that we adopted a week ago in this committee for debate of this particular motion. I recognize that he's allowed to do that. I also recognize that he, as it appears, has cut a deal with the NDP to circumvent the normal rules of this procedure and pursue this partisan witch hunt with a vengeance.

I want to...at least show appreciation for the fact that he has respect for the 24-hour rule, and that it's not simply, as was suggested at the last meeting, a sleep, but it is a full 24 hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

We now have Madame Lavallée, s'il vous plaît.

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

I wanted to raise a point of order about Mr. Hiebert. It was not relevant to the subamendment.

I move for the vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame, you have a point of order; please state the point of order. Then you can describe it. But first, what is the nature of the point of order? On what basis?

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

My point of order was that Mr. Hiebert's comment was not relevant because he was not speaking to the subamendment.

Now that I have the floor, I would like to move for the vote, Mr. Chair.