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.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
I think we need to take some time.
I'm going to suspend this meeting right now until 9:30.
9:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please.
Thank you for being prompt for the resumption of the meeting.
We're going to resume debate on the Charles Hubbard motion. When we suspended, Mr. Van Kesteren had the floor.
Go ahead.
June 10th, 2008 / 9:25 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, members, for the opportunity to speak to this motion.
I think we made a very wise decision by adjourning and having everybody go home or at least get somewhere to get away and think about things. I was glad that I had the opportunity to do that too.
They say that politics is the art of compromise, and I believe we can come to a reasonable compromise.
After having listened to a number of members offer alternative motions or changes to the motion, I see that we obviously are coming to the same theme, which is that this motion deals only with Conservative members. It does not give corrective measures for all parties.
I want to point out to the members that we have in the past conducted some very good work on this committee. I think it behoves us all, and I think everyone would agree that it is the reason we're here, to do work the public can be proud of and the public can support us in. From private conversations with each one of you, I think we've all come to the same conclusion: the people back home really don't care about our silly arguments and our fighting with each other.
I would liken it, probably, Mr. Hubbard, to a school playground brawl. When kids get together and just start to fight, teachers have a tendency to grab them all and just throw them all in the same camp. The public—reverting back to what the public thinks—really doesn't grasp what's going on here. What they do see is that we have diverted our attention from much more serious work. We were in the process of a serious study on the act. Prior to that we abandoned another very important discussion and study on identity theft. It's these things that really convince the public that we're doing a good job.
I know that each one of you wants to do that. And I really believe, too, that each one of you would like to see a compromise, something you can all live with.
I went home, and before I fell asleep, I thought about what kind of compromise we could make. I want to propose this to you, and I really seriously believe it is something we should all be able to live with.
The motion reads:
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.
Now, the next part is the part I propose we add to this motion. And please listen carefully. It reads thus: “and should the committee find in its investigation similar ethical practices by other parties, the committee will broaden its investigation to include study of these ethical practices and make a recommendation to Elections Canada as to whether these ethical practices ought to be continued”.
In the past, the amendments attempted by this side always failed, because they were not true to the motion. I feel that this is something that certainly doesn't change the nature of the motion. We all recognize that there was a problem, or at least that there was a perceived problem. We recognize that Elections Canada has deemed that and has begun to investigate the Conservative Party. So we haven't changed that at all. On the one hand, we've allowed the study to move forward.
I really think that all of us are in a position to do a good thing here, rather than make this.... I want to repeat that even should this be reported, even should this make the front page news, most people are just going to shrug their shoulders and say, “Why can't these people get together and work together like they're supposed to?”
This should enable us to create a study or a report that will offer the Canadian public something that is worth while, something we can be proud of, something that we as a committee can actually use to make this a better place. I really believe that each one of you wants to do that.
I recognize there are partisan opinions, and that's always going to be the nature of this place, but I've come to know each one of you, and in knowing you and speaking to you, I really believe that every one of you wants to do what is right.
9:30 p.m.
An hon. member
But is this in order, though?
9:30 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, were the clerks able to...?
Can I read it one more time?
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Why don't I read it one more time, and then I'll give it to the clerk. It's in my writing, and I have trouble reading my own writing sometimes, but I welcome you to try.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
The addition is:
and should the committee find in their investigation similar ethical practices by other parties the committee will broaden their investigation to include the study of these ethical practices and make recommendations to Elections Canada as to whether these ethical practices ought to be continued.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, if I may.... I'm trying to be helpful here.
Mr. Van Kesteren, is the intent that other persons from other parties are public office holders? Because, as you know, to be within the mandate, we can only deal with public office holders. I just raise this with you as a point for consideration, but if you're fine with it as is, that's great.
9:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I'm fine with the way it is. I really think we need to discuss this, and get a ruling on this first, of course.
9:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay.
I'd like the three clerks to look at it.
We're back.
I'd like to ask a question of Mr. Van Kesteren.
In the reference to “similar ethical practices”, is that meant to refer to “did similar things under the Canada Elections Act”?
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, I think what the recommendation does is it allows us to broaden the investigation, where it will go. We ought not to be afraid of where it should go.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'm just trying to understand what “similar ethical practices”...meaning “did the same thing as Conservative candidates”, for instance? Would that be a blunt way of putting it?
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
It takes away from the problem we had before, where the nature of the motion was changed. The nature of the motion hasn't changed; it's still the same motion.
9:40 p.m.
An hon. member
That's right. And should we find something, we do more.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
What it does, Mr. Chair, is it takes us out of this--
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
