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.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Are you giving me an opportunity to talk to the main motion again? Is that what you're saying?
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
If I challenge the chair, do I still keep my speaking spot on this? Because I think my amendment is in order.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
An hon. member
Roll call.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Mr. Clerk, I don't think you're fulfilling your obligations to the member from Burlington. He deserves--
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order. The clerk is in the process of calling a vote. Please, no interruptions.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I oppose the ruling because I think you owe him--
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have another amendment I'd like to move. I'd like to remove the words “ethical standards” in the final sentence. I'm sorry, it's just the word “ethical”; I want to delete the word “ethical”. I want to start with that one.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
If the chair doesn't like it, then it's out of order.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Our practice here is to speak when you're recognized, okay?
A concern has been raised that if the word “ethical” is not there, standards are—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Elections Canada upholds the Elections Act, not the ethical conduct of the Parliament of Canada. I will explain that to you. Clearly, the Elections Act that I have here in front of me--
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
So the intent is whether the Conservative election campaign expenses...of the Elections Act. The intent was whether the standards...it was the ethical standards of the....
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
It's not written here, Mr. Chair. It's not in the motion. It's the ethical standards expected of public office holders.
I'm saying the Elections Act, which is the responsibility of Elections Canada, does not have ethical standards in it. I can explain that to you. If you want to look at the standards expected of public office holders, I'll take “ethical” out of there. Then I'll come back to the point. The Liberals also have public office holders who had standards that had to be upheld during the elections.
We'll do it individually if we have to. We'll call Charlie. Charlie will come and tell us how he held up the standards of the Elections Act. He'd love to tell us that for a few hours.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Why don't I get a chance to speak? I can tell you how Charlie upheld the Elections Act.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I want to look at this mandate under the Standing Orders, the last paragraph.
When I ruled on the admissibility of the motion in the first instance, I had to ensure that it was within the mandate. To make this motion admissible, the only applicable part within the mandate was subparagraph 108.(3)(h)(vi):
the proposing, promoting, monitoring and assessing of initiatives which relate to...ethical standards relating to public office holders
It is the “ethical standards” element that allowed me to rule this in order under our mandate. If it had just said “standards”, without being specific—and in fact it was argued that the standards were the standards under the Canada Elections Act—I would have had to rule the Hubbard motion out of order.
As a consequence, taking out the word “ethical” would make this motion out of order. I therefore rule the amendment out of order.