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.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Give me one chance to respond to that.
If that was the case, Mr. Chair, why did the motion not determine that it was the ethical standards for expected public office holders--not the ones who have been assigned yet--as in the code of conduct?
I was under the impression that there must be ethical standards in the Canada Elections Act. Potential public office holders, which all of us around the table would like to be.... Some of us made it, some of us might never get it.
Conservative
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
When I get a chance I'm going to read what you said to the House of Commons on Thursday. It was a beautiful thing. I think you should hear your own words that you read to the House of Commons about the right for people to speak to the issues.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Poilievre, for the fourth time, I admonish you not to speak unless you are recognized by the chair.
Mr. Wallace, let me explain. I made a ruling that the amendment is out of order. I have to call you to order on this because you want to debate my ruling. The only thing you can do is challenge the chair on the ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. That makes it easier.
We'll do this again, colleagues. The chair has ruled the amendment out of order.
(Ruling of the chair sustained)
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chair, you have made a number of rulings saying that amendments aren't in order.
Marleau and Montpetit make a statement on page 858:
Decisions in committee are made following the adoption of motions by the majority of the members present.
Since you have taken it upon yourself to rule out amendments without debate, without anyone who is either for or against making comments, I believe you should give us an explanation. I'd like you to give a clear explanation as to what amendments you feel are in order. You are repeatedly ruling members out of order--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Colleagues, order, please.
I needed to take a little break. It was getting a little uncomfortable.
I know that I'm maybe pushing a little too hard to move us forward; I apologize. I want to listen to members. I just want to encourage members, please, if they have points to make, let me know the primary points--I'd like to be able to write them down--so that I can hear the argument or the statements surrounding them and I know where we are, as opposed to “Here are some points for thought, and therefore here's my point.”
It would be very helpful if we could just give everyone a heads-up on the specific point being made and then develop the point afterwards, as opposed to the reverse. And I will try my best to be a little more patient with all honourable members.
I'm going to give the floor back to Mr. Wallace.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to move another amendment, if that's fine with you.
In the very last part of the sentence, after “public office holders”, my amendment would include the following words: “including public office holders at the time of the election who were candidates for the Liberal Party”.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Could you take five or ten minutes and figure out if that's in order or not?
Do you want me to read it again?
I'll read it slowly, and I'll start further up this time:
...if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders, including public office holders at the time of the election who were candidates for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Listen, for the third time on the same issue--we dealt with one motion with the Liberals and the Bloc being included, then we just had the Liberals, and now we're putting this somewhere down at the bottom--the amendment as worded is simply inconsistent with the others, where it is trying to bring in another party.
When the motion itself mentions with regard to this event--if we can describe it that way--the “Conservative Party of Canada” and the refusal to “reimburse Conservative candidates”, you can't say including Liberal members who were public office holders, because they never were Conservative candidates. It doesn't make sense.
Therefore, the amendment is out of order.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
But in my amendment I call them “candidates for the Liberal Party”; I don't say they're Conservative candidates.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Yes, but Mr. Wallace, it's with regard to the Conservative Party in relation to its candidates. That is the scope. You've tried to bring in more.
Therefore, for the same reasons--this is the third amendment with regard to trying to put other parties in here--I'm ruling this out of order. It changes the scope and the intent of the motion, and it simply doesn't make sense, if you read it through.
So I'm ruling the amendment out of order.
You have the floor, sir.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I'm going to challenge you on that, because I think we should be able to have all public office holders here.
