Evidence of meeting #40 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I call the meeting to order.
Welcome, colleagues, to meeting number 40.
Our orders of the day for committee business are to resume debate on the motion from the Honourable Charles Hubbard. I would ask the clerk to read the motion to the committee at this time.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Richard Rumas
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Hubbard has moved
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election, in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for certain election campaign expenses in order to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just a moment, please.
We had two points of order over here. Who wants to go first?
There is a point of order from Mr. Poilievre. Please state the nature of the point of order.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Chair, there's been a lot of debate and discussion about the portion of the Standing Orders that deal with the ethics code. I think the ethics code is the first appendix of the Standing Orders. Just as a point of clarification, on the record, I know that this committee has come--
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
The point is that I want to get confirmation that members who are accused by the opposition or by anyone else of matters related to the motion are still permitted to participate in debate and discussion on the issue and also to vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay.
This matter first came up with regard to the Thibault item at the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings. There was a point of order raised, I believe by Mr. Tilson, on whether the committee should recuse Mr. Thibault from participating in the debate.
The advice I got from our legal counsel and from the clerk was that the chair does not have the authority or the responsibility to recuse any member from participating in the activities of the committee and that, indeed, it is the responsibility of the individual members. Should anything arise, should they be aware of any reason whatsoever that would require them to recuse, it is up to them.
As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Poilievre, I am not aware of any reason. Certainly I believe that the case still remains, such that the committee cannot recuse.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Are you taking into consideration a ruling by the Ethics Commissioner on the Thibault affair? Because she made it very clear--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, Mr. Hiebert. I'm sorry. I'm dealing with the point of order by Mr. Poilievre, and I'm ruling on it.
It remains that the committee does not have the authority to recuse any member. That's it.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Please clarify what the Ethics Commissioner had to say about it.
Liberal
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a point of order. You've asked that we refer to the authority for making the point of order. I'm going to refer to Marleau and Montpetit. There are two sections I'd like to quote as to why I'm going to be making the point of order.
A point of order calling attention to a departure from the Standing Orders or from the customary manner in which a committee has conducted its proceedings may be raised at any time, by any member of the committee.
On another page it says,
Generally, the length of time to be devoted to a particular topic is a matter for the committee to decide. This may be done formally, by adopting a work plan, or by simply allowing committee members to discuss an issue until they are ready to make a decision.
The reason I raise those two quotations, sir, is that this committee has been spending a great deal of time reviewing the privacy legislation, even to the point where you asked members of the committee to submit names. I have submitted a number of names. I have submitted names from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I have submitted names of officials from the Department of Public Safety on the border-crossing issue. I have submitted names from Transport Canada for the no-fly list, and Corrections Canada. I submitted the names from the Canadian Newspaper Association--Anne Kothawala and David Gollob. I submitted the name of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Ann Cavoukian.
All of a sudden, in the middle of the Privacy Commissioner, you, without consultation with the members of this committee or anyone else as far as I can see, decided to allow Mr. Hubbard's motion. Mr. Hubbard has proceeded. You do not have the authority to do that. It is for the members of the committee to make that decision. You are not the master of this place. The committee is the master, and you should do as the committee bids you.
I'm simply saying there's been no work plan. Any other committee that I'm on has a work plan to determine what witnesses we're going to call, what we're going to debate, and how long the proceedings might be, so that we can prepare for a report and know when that report might be made to the House.
Out of the blue, you allow a motion involving Mr. Mulroney. You allow a motion involving Mr. Hubbard. Out of the blue you proceed on the Hubbard motion. You've ruled it in order. We, of course, challenged you on that; however, you made that decision.
I'm saying to you, sir, when you get on a major study, which this committee is supposed to be looking at on privacy legislation, and out of the blue you change it to a completely different matter.... Even the Mulroney-Schreiber matter had nothing to do with that. Members can make notices of motion. It's perfectly appropriate. There may be an opportunity for that when we're studying a work plan. You may interrupt proceedings if the committee agrees, but it's not up to you, sir. The committee has never agreed to these things.
I, in good faith, gave you a list of names. I've never heard from anybody. I've never heard from you or the clerk as to what became of those names. Quite frankly, members of this committee should be looking at the names. There may be other names. I'd be interested in hearing what the other names are.
How in the world, sir, can you just unilaterally make a decision that we're going to proceed on Mr. Hubbard's motion now and completely ignore the study of the privacy legislation? How can you possibly do that? We have had fairly extensive hearings with witnesses, and we've studied that. You disregarded all of that and simply proceeded on something that has nothing to do with it.
I just don't understand, sir, why you're doing that, and I would suggest that you revert to the study that we had undertaken, which is on the privacy legislation. If we had a moment, or if the committee agreed through a work plan.... We can set up a work plan. We can show the number of days left, and it may get into the fall. You haven't done that. You just decided that you're the boss and you're going to do this.
So I am submitting to you, sir, that before we proceed with Mr. Hubbard, this committee adjourn into committee of the whole or into private session, and we conduct business as to when we're going to study these matters.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
First of all, Mr. Tilson, thank you for the intervention. You're quite right; the chair doesn't decide what we do, the committee does. And the committee in fact sustained the ruling of the chair that we deal with this matter. We gave notice of the meeting because today's meeting had no business that we could transact with regard to the privacy.
Now, with regard to the witnesses, I believe, if you check the meeting, both the clerks here gave response to queries by Mr. Hiebert and by I think one other member about the witness situation. Responses were given fully by them with regard to that.
At our meeting, the meeting that Mr. Hiebert was unable to attend, we went through the lists that I had circulated to members. The members requested that we hear from the corrections people. That was the area. That was the last time, to my recollection, the committee had that before them. This is in accordance with our standard practice, which is that members are entitled to suggest possible witnesses, with rationalization or justification, for the committee to consider.
So it is the committee itself as a whole, not the chair, that will agree upon the work plan or additional witnesses. You're absolutely right there. We haven't done that because we have not had that discussion.
Today at this meeting there were no witnesses. They were supposed to be here; we had tried. Then the commissioner was to be here, but the commissioner is not available. We have motions from members. We dealt with Mr. Martin's motion on the recall of Mr. Mulroney. There was a second item on the agenda of that meeting, but because that particular meeting took the entire time, we didn't have an opportunity to complete the work of that day.
So as the chair, without any privacy work scheduled for today, I put out notice of this meeting that we would resume the committee business that was outstanding from a prior meeting, which was in fact properly given notice. It was ruled on. It is in order.
I'm now going to go to debate.
Mr. Hubbard, please....
Order.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, surely I have the right to respond to what you say, given the number of inaccuracies. I have a right to clarify what those inaccuracies are. If you think I've said something inaccurate, I trust you will say that, but you haven't done that. On the things you've just said, which I submit to you are not true, I have a number of comments.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, Mr. Tilson.
To the best of my knowledge, and in consultation, I have made a ruling that we are proceeding. This is in accordance with our normal practices. I have made a ruling.
Carry on, Mr. Hubbard.
An hon. member
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You have no right to proceed in this fashion.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I regret that the members opposite are somewhat--
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
You don't have the floor any more. I asked for the floor. I have a right to comment on what you said.