Information & Ethics Committee on June 10th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Now you're just wasting time. Please.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chair, with respect,

he is the one who interrupted me. This is a serious discussion.

First of all, I'd like to thank the member for his consideration. He treated me to a Coca-Cola.

[An hon. member]

I saw him shake it before he brought it to you.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I don't know if he's doing that to convince me to relent in my never-ending effort to get to the bottom of this issue. I won't relent. I thank him for the beverage. I will not be bribed. You can take your Coca-Cola back, wherever you got it from, and tell whoever gave it to you I'm not for sale.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you. I'm going to move on to Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just didn't get the sense that other members were prepared to hear me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Colleagues, Mr. Hiebert has the floor, please.

Carry on.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I'm here to speak to Mr. Van Kesteren's amendment, and I want to make some arguments in favour of why it should be supported. I'd like to start with what it proposes to do.

It proposes that should the committee find in its investigation ethical practices by other parties—and I note that the chair when he was making his ruling on this amendment did state, and I'm sure the blues will show it, that other parties could be individuals and they could be political parties—the committee will broaden its investigation to include the study of these ethical practices and make recommendations, and that's the key here, to Elections Canada as to whether these ethical practices ought to be continued.

Why support it? Why should we support this motion? One reason I believe we should support this motion is that it proceeds to a logical outcome. It concludes by saying we're going to do something. The present motion before the committee doesn't do that. It just says we're going to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards. It doesn't lead anywhere. It doesn't proceed to any logical outcome.

What would we do with this information if we had it? Who knows? We could report it to the House, but that's not really a purpose worth putting this kind of effort into, especially if we're going to be distracted from our current study.

What this amendment does is it says we're going to make recommendations to Elections Canada. What recommendations? What are we talking about? We're talking about a suggestion or a proposal as to the best course of action. Of course, we want to be constructive. We want the law to improve. We want refinements to the law that applies to elections, and by making those recommendations we can do that.

What we're doing here is actually constructive. It's not just using this committee as a tool for partisan purposes. I think anybody watching this proceeding would tend to believe that's what's happening here, that the opposition is in fact, as my colleague has noted, seeking to form a coalition to try to embarrass the government and not put themselves under scrutiny, but we would have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

Excuse me, Mr. Hiebert, I apologize.

Excuse me, gentlemen, colleagues, the member has the floor and when two conversations are going on at once, it gets a little difficult.

Mr. Hiebert, please.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thanks.

I was just trying to make that point. Instead of this committee being used for partisan purposes, we're actually seeking—and I think Mr. Van Kesteren is very sincere in his amendment—an outcome that we can all live with. Unlike the previous motion, as it stands, it appears, and many have said, that it's simply an attack on an individual party on a partisan basis. What this would do is transform this partisan motion into something that could actually turn into something better and have some justifiable public benefit at the end of it.

To make a recommendation to Elections Canada, it wouldn't be helpful to look at one individual—the party has been defined as an individual and it's also been defined as a political party; it doesn't help us to look at one party when what we really need to do is look at the scope of the problems that are faced by parties. That's political parties or individuals. And this amendment would allow us to do that, because it says that if we were to find...we could broaden the investigation to include others. That's what the words say.

Any party could hypothetically form a government.

I apologize, Mr. Chair, for my earlier comments, because I felt myself wanting to express these points, but I couldn't because I didn't have the floor at the time. But this is my opportunity to do so.

Any present party, and I say this with all sincerity, any party that doesn't currently exist but might be formed, could hypothetically form government. That includes the Bloc Québécois. It even includes the NDP, or it could be a coalition government, which would be unique to Canada, but it would be possible. The point here is that it's hypothetically possible. It's hypothetically possible that any party could form a government. What does that mean?

The implications of this are that it's hypothetically possible, according to the chair's ruling—and I've read your ruling very closely, Mr. Chair, a number of times, and this is why I'm pleased that I have an opportunity to indirectly address it—that any candidate for any party could hypothetically become a public office holder. So the recommendations we would be making to Elections Canada would apply to them as much as to anybody else.

We don't have to look at the historical examples in Canada and just limit our discussion to the two parties; we can move beyond that. In fact, Mr. Hubbard noted, when he spoke on this motion earlier this evening, that there were 1,000 candidates in the last election. So we must be prepared to make recommendations that could apply to any of those 1,000 candidates.

But what does that mean? That means these--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, Mr. Hiebert. The debate should be relevant to the amendment in the context of the motion before us. The motion deals strictly with the 2006 election, not hypothetically down the road, in the future. It is a specific election. Again, to raise this issue about the Bloc and hypothetically be a coalition and be public officer holders, it's not relevant to the motions before us. I want you to move on from that argument.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Actually, Mr. Chair, I'm speaking to the amendment, which states, “...the committee will broaden their investigation to include the study of these ethical practices”....

I understand “broaden” to mean beyond the original scope of the motion as it's written. That's what the common term of “broaden” means: to broaden.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Broaden it to three parties or four parties as opposed to broaden a timeframe...? Which is it?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

I'm very sincere; I hope you recognize that. The point I'm making, Mr. Chair, is that this is completely relevant. When you make a recommendation to Elections Canada, and when we propose laws, we don't want them specific to a single instance. We want them to have broad, general application. As a lawyer, I can tell you that individual cases always make bad law. You want to look at the breadth of possibilities that could be considered. I think if this committee is going to take this role seriously, we have to do that.

We're not just talking about hypotheticals. The fact is that any one of these individuals could win their local election. Their party could win enough seats to form a government. According to your ruling, Mr. Chair, as an individual they would need to be eligible for cabinet, they would need to pass all security screens, and they would need to have their future prime minister appoint them to cabinet. All of those are hypotheticals, but they're incorporated into the ruling you made, so, yes, it is relevant. At the end of the day, we want recommendations that will allow this committee to make a difference beyond the present.

All members here know that starting last November--and I'm about to move a subamendment, Mr. Chair--I was the one who initiated this interest in review of the Privacy Act. I'm not going to go into the details--we've had the discussion before--but suffice it to say that I and others, including Mr. Hubbard, were convinced that a study of the Privacy Act was long overdue.

We began this study after the Mulroney-Schreiber hearings wrapped up. I believe we're very close to completing our study at this point. I had hoped we could have used our meeting today, Thursday, and the two meetings next--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

On a point of order, Mr. Hiebert, you've already gone over this ground about the committee having other work.

I'm hoping we will be able to go to the Privacy Act on Thursday with regard to reviewing witnesses we can deal with. I know a number of members have raised it. We have to deal with that. It's important, so let's deal with it. I want to deal with it on Thursday, but if this matter isn't over with, then I guess we'll have to carry over the matter to next Thursday's meeting, in which case it won't get there. Of course, the clock is running out on the House itself. We have certain priorities. The members are going to have to make some choices here.

You are repeating yourself with regard to what the committee was doing and what else we could be doing. I want you to move on from that.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Just to be clear, Mr. Chair, I have not made that argument before this motion. I have made this argument in the past at this committee, but never before this motion, so no repetition is involved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Keep in mind that I may not have put the names down, but the repetition rule relates to either repeating yourself or repeating what another member said. I do have it down here about the description about privacy. One way or another, it is a repetition of the point about the committee. I've ruled on that.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Fair enough.

I want to move to the subamendment I want to make. The gist of it is that I'd like us to complete our study of the Privacy Act before we initiate this particular study, as proposed by Mr. Hubbard. I think ample arguments have been made in favour of that. We're very close. This would give the clerks a chance to draft over the summer. To that effect, and this follows immediately after Mr. Van Kesteren's amendment, my subamendment reads, “but not until after the committee has finished hearing witnesses and completed its study on reforms of the Privacy Act.”

This would give us an opportunity to do both, but in an orderly fashion. We would not simply dislodge all the work we've put in place. We'd wrap it up and then we would begin this additional study. It's made in good faith. It is one I hope the opposition can agree to. It doesn't affect the scope of what you're trying to accomplish. It's non-partisan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Hiebert, I'm going to have to rule the subamendment out of order because it's beyond the scope of what the amendment itself is dealing with. The amendment Mr. Van Kesteren moved deals with adding in additional work and maybe doing this, that, and the other thing; your subamendment relates to the whole motion.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

That's the point. It's the whole motion, including the subamendment. It's on the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

But it will only be, in fact, an amendment to the subamendment--sorry, the subamendment would be an amendment to the Van Kesteren one, and it's beyond the scope, so it's out order and I've made that ruling. Okay?

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

The recommendations and everything would be delayed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Because of the way you've structured it and the way it would be worded, it would actually refer to the Van Kesteren stuff not starting until after.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

That's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

But the other can start. Do you understand?

In any event, the clerks both agree that the subamendment you've proposed is out of order, and I so rule.