Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2007

[An hon. member]

On the subamendment?

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

On the motion as amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

For the information of the committee members, the member has asked that we now go to a vote. It was not in the form of a motion.

The matter before us now, being the subamendment, is debatable, and the member is basically calling for us to have a motion that debate be stopped and we have a vote. It was not a motion.

I don't believe she does not want to hear the other members. I think she expressed her view.

But this is not a motion. You can't make a motion under a point of order, Madame, so I have to continue debate.

We now have Mr. Dhaliwal, please.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have a friendly amendment and now we also have a friendly subamendment. So we should take a vote on this one as well. I'm ready to vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You'd like to have a vote as well.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay.

I have no further speakers, so I am now going to put the question on the subamendment.

I would ask the clerk to indicate the proper words that Mr. Wallace posed as a subamendment.

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

In the document that was submitted yesterday afternoon from Mr. Hubbard, perhaps members would go down to the seventh line in English. I believe it's the same in French. After the word “present”, Mr. Wallace has proposed “and past”, which would read “and past governments”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We are calling the question on the subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We are now resuming debate on the amendment as amended.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, should it not be the motion as amended? I believe you said the amendment as amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It actually is an amendment that has been amended, because the motion you put in includes the word “that”.

So we are continuing debate.

I see no further speakers. I'm going to put the question on the amendment as amended.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Could I just have one point of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, you may rise on a point of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Other than Mr. Hiebert's motion that was previously circulated, there are a whole bunch of motions related to this item. As the chair, does that exclude the rest of them, and then we move to...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, this is not a point of order, but I believe we will discharge those matters and we will be able to get to Mr. Hiebert's motion as well today, if that's the will of the committee.

We've passed the subamendment. Now we are going to call the question on the amendment as amended.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

There being no further speakers, I am now going to put the question on the full motion as amended. Would the members like to have it read into the record again? No? Okay, we're just going to call the question.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

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

Mr. Chair, may I speak? This is not a point of order. I am asking to speak. May I?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Madame, no. I believe the committee is going to have to.... Madame, order, please.

Particularly in regard to the seriousness of the matters before us, I want to indicate to you and to all members that we are going to meticulously follow the rules of procedure and order in the Standing Orders. It's not just a matter of asking if you can have the floor.

We have other motions that have precedence, and in fact your motion, of which you gave notice to the committee, is, I believe, the next item.

I now ask you, Madame Lavallée, if you are prepared to move your motion as duly submitted to the committee.

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

First, Mr. Chair, I have a question for you. I would like to know how we are going to apply the motion that we just voted on, because it is very important for how the committee proceeds.

For example, are we ready to establish whether we will send you our list of witnesses as early as tomorrow or during the day on Monday? Can we decide, right now, on the timelines for submitting our witness list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Yes, Madame Lavallée, we do have a few motions that are ahead of deciding on our work plan. That is, you're talking about matters of work plan. And you are absolutely correct that the members will be asked to provide a preliminary list of witnesses--and I stress that it is a preliminary list--and you may want to be thinking about that.

Right now, as we follow the matters that were duly submitted, I have to deal with the motions that were given notice and that we dealt with at the last meeting but didn't get to. The next motion is the motion you submitted to the committee, having given proper notice.

The question now is whether you are moving that motion. Or have you decided that you will not move the motion?

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

Mr. Chair, my motion asked us to:

study the circulation of correspondence from the Privy Council Office to the Prime Minister's Office, with particular emphasis on the correspondence sent by Karlheinz Schreiber to the Prime Minister, in order to determine whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper is right to claim that he was never made aware of the letter.

Since the intent of this motion is included in the one we have just passed, I think I should withdraw it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you kindly.

The next item we have in the order of the motions giving notice was actually from Mr. Hiebert. As I had indicated, we will deal with these motions in the date and time order they were submitted to the clerk.

The third item is Mr. Hiebert's motion:

That this committee commence a study that would have as its purpose a comprehensive review of the Privacy Act.

Mr. Hiebert, would you care to move that motion?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

But before I speak to that motion, a moment ago you addressed the subject of witnesses before this committee with respect to Mr. Martin's motion. I would just add to that comment you made that if we're going to investigate this matter, we do so in an orderly and safe evaluation.

We believe that Mr. Johnston should be called before this committee as the first witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

Mr. Hiebert, I will certainly take the representations when we deal with this matter, after we discharge the motions that are in fact ahead of that discussion. I want to follow the rules we agreed upon. How we do it is not my decision. It will be the committee's decision as to how it will proceed with its work plans on all items we've agreed to deal with.

You are moving your motion with regard to the study of the Privacy Act?