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
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Either we can talk about these parties or we can't. We've already stated a political party is not a public office holder.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. Order.
If you would read my ruling on why this motion before us is admissible, and I take the amendment in good faith, when we refer to parties, it has a dual meaning; it could be another political party or it could be a candidate for another political party. I understand that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
In our mandate, the overriding thing is that we must maintain this on a level such that for us to be in order, for us to be able to deal with it and determine the ethical guidelines, practices and standards, it has to be in relation only to public office holders.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I understand that.
Hold it. Order.
In the last item we had, Mr. Proulx raised the issue about the public office holders. I want to try to be helpful to the committee. I'm taking Mr. Van Kesteren at his word that this is an attempt to try to move this forward. This is an amendment. If the amendment is not going to be operative, and if the members are saying that this amendment basically messes up everything, the amendment will be defeated and we'll be back to the main motion. If you want to make this work, you have to support this so that it works.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
--so you don't have the right to say that, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You know what, Mr. Tilson? You don't have the floor.
Order, please.
I'm speaking to Mr. Van Kesteren on this point. It is important. It is an amendment. We're trying to debate it from the standpoint of convincing members that it's necessary to make our work as meaningful as possible. But it is possible that this amendment could be defeated.
The floor belongs to Mr. Poilievre at this point, subject to the point on relevance. It is not only well taken, but it's absolutely correct that whatever we do on this and whatever people we're dealing with necessarily must refer to “public office holders”, as defined, and there are no members of the Bloc Québécois who are public office holders.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Excuse me. Mr. Hiebert, this is the seventh time now that I've had to admonish you that I can only hear people and the translators can only deal with this if we have one person speaking at a time. To continue to blurt out when you want to is not helpful to the committee. It's not helpful to the process.
Mr. Poilievre, you still have the floor, taking into account the issue of public office holder being relevant to the whole issue before the committee. We are only authorized to do this to the extent that we are dealing with public office holders. Is that okay?
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
All right. It's becoming increasingly difficult to express oneself in this committee. Every time one goes down a road that makes the chair, or his party, or their coalition with other opposition parties, feel uncomfortable, we are told we are interdicted from making such statements.
We have before us the original motion, which proposes an investigation of the Conservative Party of Canada. We have a chair who has admitted that the Conservative Party of Canada is not a public office holder. The Conservative Party of Canada is not a public office holder and therefore, by his own logic and his own ruling, it cannot be investigated in this committee. It can be received in the House affairs committee, perhaps, but in this committee, certainly not. According to Mr. Szabo's ruling, the chair has said that political parties are not public office holders.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Poilievre, I'm sorry.
Order. I have the floor.
I have to tell you, when you make misrepresentations of what I said, it's not very helpful. Okay?
We are very clear here that the motion before this committee, presented by Mr. Hubbard, has to do with determining whether or not the public office holders who are named or involved in this in-and-out scandal that Elections Canada has identified and made findings on have met the ethical standards that are expected of them. And they do relate to public office holders.
I'd encourage members to please go and read the ruling of the chair on the admissibility of this motion and the explanation of why it's in order. The Bloc Québécois members, presently, in this regard, are not there.
I do listen to the debate in the House, and I fully expect that there's going to have to be a resolution of the question that everybody's doing it and.... That will come out in evidence and testimony, and it'll be under oath and it will be on the record. That will be important.
But right now, I want us, as closely and as carefully as we can, to see if we can move this amendment to a point where we've heard what we have to hear so that we can consider having a vote on the amendment. Okay?
Mr. Poilievre, you have the floor, please.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I would note at the outset of my remarks that the Hon. Lucien Bouchard was a public office holder and he did sit in the Bloc. Therefore, by the logic that permits us to investigate the Conservative Party, the Bloc is also susceptible to similar investigations in this committee.
There's nothing in the Standing Orders of this committee whatsoever that restrict our study to the 2006 election. Motions can be amended. Motions can be amended to change them.
