Information & Ethics Committee on May 29th, 2008

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

Mr. Murphy talks about the timing the amendment relates to. I question the need for this amendment. Basically the motion as it is written is pretty clear. I think one has to question why any amendment needs to be taken when it's as clear as it is. Obviously Mr. Martin wants to bring Mr. Mulroney back. We've heard a variety of reasons as to why he wants Mr. Mulroney to come back, and I think it should be left as it is.

We've had an opportunity to debate, in part, despite the fact that the chair seems insistent upon cutting off members' rights to freedom of expression in this committee. We've had a partial debate on the nature of the motion in and of itself. I want to more specifically address the timing of the amendment. It states “no later than June 12, 2008”. What is that--maybe two weeks from today? Is it a Thursday or is it a Tuesday? It's a Thursday.

Everybody has busy schedules. We have scheduled witnesses to come before this committee. We've been working very hard to have people complete our study on the privacy matter. We, as a committee, at least on this side of the House, have submitted the names of more than 20 people to come and provide testimony to us. I'm not sure if that would conflict with the witness schedule we currently have. It would appear to me to show a little bit of disrespect to those members who have been called before this committee, who are making preparations to appear before us. Certainly their time is worth something as well, and with respect to their preparations and the reviewing of the ten amendments to the Privacy Act that the commissioner has put forward to us and any possible additional amendments that they might make, I think we should give them a chance to put their hard work to use and pass this information along to us.

Many of us on this side of the committee--and it was said at the time that some members on the opposite side were interested in the Privacy Act--wanted to finish this particular debate. I've been talking about it for months. Those of you on the committee--Ms. Lavallée and Mr. Hubbard, and even Mr. Martin--would probably acknowledge that going back to....

Let me finish my comment, Ms. Lavallée. You can't disagree with me before you've heard what I've said. You're not the chair. It's only the chair who has the tendency to disagree with people before he has a chance to hear what they have to say. But I would say even you, in good humour, would suggest that I have in fact been calling for a study on the Privacy Act for many months, since long before the whole issue of the Mulroney-Schreiber matter came before this committee.

I can remember back to that first meeting. I think it was last September, or October, because the House had prorogued for a period of weeks. It was one of our very first meetings in the Railway Committee Room, and I put forward a motion to review the Privacy Act as our first order of business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, Mr. Hiebert. Can we move it back to the amendment, please?

The point that we have witnesses and we're studying the Privacy Act has been made by you three times now, so let's see if we can move on to something else.

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

Oh, my goodness, Mr. Chair. I can't believe you're acting like such a dictator in this little committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order. I have the floor.

We really have to do this. I want to share with the members the importance of dealing with the issues of repetition and relevance in debate, particularly where we understand that there is some disagreement among members. I refer you to Marleau and Montpetit, page 527.

Madam Lavallée, please.

These are the guidelines--under the heading of “Repetition and Relevance in Debate”--for me to try to keep us moving forward.

Madam Lavallée, Mr. Plamondon, please. We're having a little trouble here.

It says the following:

The rules of relevance and repetition are intertwined and mutually reinforcing. The requirement of relevance is necessary in order that the House might exercise its right to reach a decision and to exclude from debate any discussion which does not contribute to that process.

That is, to reach a decision.

Everything we do should be contributory, additive. That's important to remember. It goes on to say the following:

The rule against repetition ensures that once all that is relevant to the debate has been presented, the question will be determined once and for all, at least during the current session. To have one rule without the other would seriously limit the ability of the House to use its time efficiently.

Or the committee, as the case may be.

Now, the rules respecting relevance and repetition can be invoked by the chair, which I have done, to prevent a member from--and this is a quote--“repeating arguments already made in the debate by other members or the same member”.

This means that if there are points made by a member, that member should not repeat those points, which was the issue with Mr. Wallace.

As we move on to other members, it says that to repeat any of the arguments, other than in passing, that another member has already made to the committee with regard to the question before the committee would constitute repetition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm in the middle of something. I'll deal with it when I'm finished.

The issue of repetition is not just with regard to your own presentation, it is with regard to what has been presented to the committee. The relevance is used to keep a member from straying from the question before the committee.

If you make a point that we are very busy at this committee and have other things to do, to go into how many meetings we've had on that and other things is not the main point. The main point is that the committee has other work. A point has been made. It shouldn't be made several times by a member. That's a matter of repetition. It may be relevant as a point, but it was repetitive, and that's why I raised it, Mr. Hiebert.

Let me just suggest to the committee that before us right now we have a minor amendment by Mr. Murphy, which would like to set a deadline of June 12 to have this matter dealt with. That's what we're debating now. I hope we can deal with that, with regard to whether or not a timeline is appropriate, is applicable, or has some problems with it. We'll see if we can get that, and then we can get back to the main motion.

Mr. Poilievre, on a point of order.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I would refer the committee's attention to page 71 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice. Related to the point that you've just raised, it reads the following, under the heading “Freedom of Speech”:

By far, the most important right accorded to members of the House is the exercise of freedom of speech in parliamentary proceedings. It has been described as:

“…a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents”.

Much has been written about this over the centuries—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'm just going to conclude.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, I'm sorry, you're not.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

How can you rule on my point of order if you have not heard it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Poilievre, order.

Just listen.

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

I am. I'm watching you, and you're acting like a dictator.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

Mr. Poilievre, I have made these rulings with regard to the repetition and the relevance, which are also in that. Free speech is wonderful, but I have made a ruling.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I thank you for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Let me finish. I have made a ruling on these matters on the basis of repetition and relevance. You are now getting into an argument against the ruling of the chair. Therefore, if you want to disagree with my ruling on that, the appropriate action is to challenge the ruling of the chair. To challenge the chair is not debatable, and we'd have to immediately put it to a vote.

The reason I've interfered with you is that you are giving an argument about why you disagree with my ruling. That's why I've interrupted you in this point of order.

I'll give you a couple more minutes to finish it off.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Chair, you have said that freedom of speech is wonderful, and I agree. On page 71 of this rule book, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the last paragraph reads:

In Odgers' Australian Senate Practice,

--which is part of the same parliamentary tradition, and therefore is in the same book we use in this House of Commons--

this privilege is expressed in broader terms as immunity of proceedings from impeachment and question in the courts. It is also stated that this is the only immunity of substance possessed by the Houses of Parliament and their Members and committees. There are two aspects to the immunity. “First, there is the immunity from civil or criminal action and examination in legal--”

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

Sorry, Mr. Poilievre, I have to rule that is not a point of order. You have not stated anything to do with a point of order.

We have to move back to--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wallace, please state the nature of the point of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The nature of my point of order is based on the rules you've just read to us. So I'd like a ruling from you, sir--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's not a point of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Based on the rules--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Sorry, Mr. Wallace. You're asking me for a ruling. You can't do that on a point of order.

Mr. Hiebert had the floor before these points of order started. Mr. Hiebert, back to you, sir. We're on the amendment.

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

I know. I'm on the amendment.

I want to start by saying I appreciate your giving the floor back to me. I know there was some confusion, and I didn't want you to be left with the impression I didn't notice that you were willing to return the mike to me. I promise I will do my best to avoid any extraneous repetition of the points I have already made. If you sense that I am going in that direction of repetition, perhaps a gesture or a hand signal would be better than cutting off my mike. I have some important points to make, sir.

I was referring to the amendment being no later than June 12, 2008, as Mr. Murphy said. I'm not going to repeat the points I already made about the timing, respecting the witnesses, and the preparation they have talked about. I'm not going to repeat the fact that we've been working on privacy, and how long I've desired to get our committee to that place.

But I want to make an additional point that I think many Canadians would want to note. By placing this amendment to this motion--and I'm going to have to unpack this a little, so please don't say I'm repeating myself--it's like a form of blackmail. Mr. Murphy kind of alluded to that when he said this motion will do no harm to anyone, including the government, as long as they proceed with an inquiry before the deadline.

Is that not what you said, Mr. Murphy, in a paraphrase?

Can I get him to acknowledge with a nod?