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.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The amendment by Mr. Wallace is out of order.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5)
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
That doesn't stop me from moving amendments, though, Mr. Chair.
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Here's why I'm having some confusion, Mr. Chair. I just want to tell you why I'm having some.... I want to read to you minutes from our November 22 meeting. You were in the chair. Here's why I'm confused about why you're ruling things out of order.
A motion was moved by Mr. Pat Martin. He moved
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics undertake a review of matters related to the Mulroney Airbus libel settlement;
—and I'll get to the point, it's here—
including any and all new evidence, testimony, and information not available at the time of the settlement...
--blah, blah, blah--
...and ethical and code of conduct standards by any public office holders; and to report to the House on its findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Mr. Hubbard moved an amendment that the motion be amended by replacing that with
in order to examine whether there were violations of ethical and code of conduct standards by any office holder...
That is why I'm so confused by your rulings today. You ruled in a previous meeting, where I sat with you as chair, where I was part of it. You put in front of us.... There was a motion, an amendment, talking about public office holders, of people who are no longer here. I want to talk to public office holders, people who were running in the election. They happen to be Liberals. Why can we not call them if that's what we're dealing with?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Because they're Liberals. He doesn't want you to call—
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Why can we not call them? I don't get it. If you can tell me the wording to be able to call Liberal public office holders at the time of the 2006 election, if you can help me with the wording, I'd be happy to move it. But I think I've provided the wording at least four times today.
You cannot, Mr. Chair, have the ruling less than six months ago where you allow public office holders from other areas to come. And I'm going to repeat this after you're paying attention.
It's 5:30, I see that. Bang the gavel. Let's go.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Let's reverse the decisions on all the other matters that were overruled.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
An hon. member
Are you coming back?
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Mr. Poilievre, for the fifth time, I'm going to ask you to please not speak out until you're recognized by the chair.
Mr. Wallace, the matters you have just raised are all continuing to debate a chair's ruling that has been sustained by the committee. I don't have to answer those questions. You don't question the--
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
5:30 p.m.
An hon. member
He's reasoning with you. He's using your own words. Are you defying your own logic?
5:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Mr. Hiebert, for at least the sixth time, you're interrupting the chair. It's persistent. This is disorder; it's misconduct. I'm sorry.
When the chair makes a ruling and a decision is taken by the committee, to continue to debate the matter is improper and is out of order.
Order, Mr. Hiebert.
Mr. Poilievre, you have the floor.
5:30 p.m.
Conservative
