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.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
Challenge the chair.
4:10 p.m.
An hon. member
It shouldn't be necessary to challenge the chair. This is what these rules are for, to give us direction. You simply want to co-opt this committee so you can do whatever you want.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Mr. Tilson, that's debate. My ruling is that it's debate, it's not a point of order.
I want to go to Mr. Hubbard, please.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Charles Hubbard Liberal Miramichi, NB
Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity to bring this motion to the committee today. I was hoping that we would have dealt with it on Thursday last, but because of the length of the meeting we couldn't get to it. I'm sure today that when members hear what I have to say they will want to look at this issue.
We know that the Elections Act is important to each of us. In fact, when the last election was held, more than a thousand Canadians took it upon themselves to attempt to become a member of Parliament. As a result, we have over 300 members in the House who were elected and declared elected by Elections Canada and its agents.
During an election campaign, we have certain basic understandings and commitments under which we have to work. One of these commitments deals with the amount of money that we can spend in each constituency. With regard to this spending of money, each of us must have an official agent who works with us in submitting to Elections Canada, within days after the election, a report of the spending for that election constituency.
We know that the intent of the Elections Act is that the money spent in a particular constituency is to be spent directly in that constituency on behalf of the candidate with whom the official agent is working. Following the last election, there were concerns on the part of Elections Canada that some candidates had not submitted proper returns. We're not sure of that, but I know that there are members in the House who are under a cloud because, according to Elections Canada and the Elections Canada Act, they have never officially completed their returns for the election in 2006.
When we submitted our reports, as all members around the table did, each of us had to concur with his or her official agent that the bills as submitted and the report as returned clearly reflected the happenings within the constituency.
Most of us have been officially declared elected. Many of us still wait for a return from Elections Canada, by which some 60% of the spending in that constituency is returned through the official agency to the constituency association. It would appear that in some situations money was sent in and out of constituency offices without being directly spent within that constituency. I know that members have answered questions on this in the House, but the answers have not supported the conclusion to which Elections Canada is adhering. We know that this is before a court, but I'm sure that many members who were affected would not want to continue as members of Parliament without having the matter clarified.
Looking at ethics in terms of access to information and privacy, we want to review the ethical standards of members of the House of Commons. This being a hot afternoon, I would hope that we vote quickly. After that, Mr. Chair, your steering committee can meet with you and determine which witnesses should be brought to the committee so that we can personally and directly look with them upon the standards and the ethics of the returns as submitted.
I hope that members will concur with this brief study. I'm sure it's in the best interests of all members of Parliament. Many of us may soon be going to elections, and money will be flowing back and forth. I would hope that everyone will be treated fairly under the law with respect to our ethical commitments.
Thank you.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for recognizing me on debate.
In a few minutes I will be moving a motion to rescind the vote that was taken on June 3, some days past. The motion to rescind the vote deals with sustaining the ruling of the chair. But before I move that motion, I thought it would be appropriate to make a few comments just to clarify the nature of this particular motion.
It's important to note that this motion is not a superseding motion, as it is not listed under “Superseding Motions” on page 450 of Marleau and Montpetit; nor is it listed on any of the remaining pages of that particular chapter—that's chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
This motion does not require 48 hours' notice, as it is related to a matter at hand. I will remind members of the routine motion that we passed at our very first meeting on November 15, 2007. It states:
That 24 hours’ notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk...
And let me just say that I'm glad to see our clerk, Mr. Rumas back. I understand you dealt with some health issues, so we applaud your return to our committee and are glad that things are looking better for you.
...that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and distributed to members in both official languages.
I would point out at this time that this motion relates directly to the matter at hand, as it relates to the matter we are currently discussing.
A similar motion to rescind a vote was recently before the human resources committee. It was introduced by a member of the Bloc Québécois. It was debated and was found to be in order.
Did you hear me, Mr. Chair: that it was recently debated before the human resources committee and that such a motion was found to be in order? I think there's a precedent there that we can hopefully follow.
I will now move the following motion.
Do you want me to write it down, Mr. Chair?
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Okay.
The motion reads:
That in reference to Standing Orders 18 and 116, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics rescind the vote “that the Chair's ruling be sustained”, taken at 3:55 p.m. during the 38th meeting of the committee on June 3, 2008, so that the vote may be taken again.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
The motion is out of order.
Just a moment. Wait for it.
We are presently debating a motion. The only motion that can be made must have something to do with an amendment to that motion. To change a decision is a whole new matter of business.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mr. Chair, you are wrong. I move to challenge the chair.
4:20 p.m.
An hon. member
Why?
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
We have two very experienced clerks here who very quickly advised the chair, and I concur, that you can't make a motion when we have a motion that's already under debate. You could move a motion that is an amendment. That would be in order. You also could move a motion, a substantive motion, for instance, to move that the question be put or something like that. But you cannot move a whole new order of business that would take us into a whole other matter of debate. You can't make a motion when there's a motion on the floor. So the motion is out of order.
Mr. Poilievre has challenged the chair on that ruling. It is not debatable, so I'm going to have to put the question immediately.
I'm going to ask all members of the committee who sustained--
4:20 p.m.
An hon. member
Roll call.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The Chair --the decision of the chair that the matter is out of order to please raise your hands.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
We have called a roll-call vote. You cannot deny that. It requires only one person, and it's not debatable.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, we'll have it recorded on division.
To sustain the chair would be a yes.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
No, excuse me. There has not been a vote yet. There is a roll-call vote.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
There was no roll-call vote. We asked for a roll-call vote.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
But you said that the chair's decision has been sustained already. It has not yet been sustained.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, I did not. I said that a yes would be to sustain the chair when the roll is called.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Just to clarify, you can't sustain your own ruling. We require a vote.