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.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Rather than make this a partisan witch hunt, I'm trying to move the motion in such a way that we can actually do some good, fundamental work that would allow us to come up with a beneficial report.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I think I understand the intent. I'm not sure, but I'm understanding this to mean that if the committee finds similar occurrences or practices by other persons—
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I used the words “ethical practices” because that was the term that was used in the motion.
9:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The “ethical practices” in the main motion is “ethical practices” in the code, but not in the Canada Elections Act. It's “ethical standards”.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
We're dealing with whether or not the practices are in order. It takes us away from a confrontational approach. I'd like to discuss it. I don't want to have this thing pass quickly. I see this as a way out, something that should be considered by all members.
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Colleagues, Mr. Van Kesteren is proposing an amendment that goes after the main motion. It reads:
And should the committee find in their investigation similar ethical practices by other parties...
I assume that's other persons. It could be individuals or a party—it's open.
....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.
Everybody has a different wording, but I understand the intent, and I think the members have made a reasonable offer to try to move us forward on this matter.
I'm going to rule the amendment in order.
Mr. Van Kesteren, you still have the floor, unless you'd like to pass your turn to one of your colleagues or continue to speak to the motion.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I want to speak to it. I know we get a little silly when we do these things, especially when we're camped for the night. But I want to appeal to your good judgment and your sense of appreciation of what we do in this House. I would like you to bear in mind that whatever we do in this place or outside it, we're going to leave a mark.
I don't know if I need to speak to this. Nobody is listening anyway. Let's just open it up for discussion.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
9:45 p.m.
Liberal
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I'd like to move a point of order.
I have a brand-new copy of Marleau and Montpetit. Some of you have read this before, at page 163, where it talks about the Chief Electoral Officer:
Relationship with Members
The Chief Electoral Officer provides advice and assistance to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which is responsible for reviewing and reporting on matters relating to the election of Members. The Chief Electoral Officer and his staff provide the Committee with research material and, at the Committee’s request, assist in the drafting of amendments to the Canada Elections Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The Chief Electoral Officer also appears before the Committee—
—that's the procedure and House affairs committee—
at its invitation to discuss the Main Estimates of Elections Canada and the reports on general elections.
I'm going to refer to the Standing Orders as well, but the procedure and House affairs committee is responsible for everything under the Elections Act and the Chief Electoral Officer. When you start looking at the mandate of the different committees, specifically the procedure and House affairs committee and the access to information, privacy and ethics committee, I would submit that the Standing Orders are pretty clear about this.
Standing Order 108—
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I'm just about to say it, sir.
Standing Order 108(3) says:
The mandate of the Standing Committee on:
(a) Procedure and House Affairs shall include, in addition to the duties set forth in Standing Order 104, and among other matters:
(vi) the review of and report on all matters relating to the election of Members to the House of Commons;
It says “all matters”. I say that is everything. That's what it says, everything.
Then you look at what this committee can do. This committee—and we've read this many times because we've had lots of discussion about this committee—is under Standing Order 108(3)(h), which begins:
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics shall include, among other matters:
Running down all those things, all those points that this committee is supposed to look at, I don't see “elections” anywhere. But it's quite clear under the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I suppose you could say—and we've got into this before, or you've got into this before—“Well, that committee is not sitting.” Because it's not sitting, does that give this committee the authority to act?
That has obviously been tried on the floor. Mr. Lee and I had it out in the House the other day. You were there too, and we had it out on that very point: “Oh, well, they're not sitting; therefore, the House is going to deal with it.” That was one of the arguments. But I say, when you start looking at these Standing Orders, the only authority that's given to all matters under the Elections Act is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That's it.
So I say, with due respect to Mr. Van Kesteren and to Mr. Hubbard, that the motion and the amendment are out of order because they should be disposed of in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I know you are patient with me. I just want to conclude.
9:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:50 p.m.
An hon. member
We have to take a break. The amendment is not in French.
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Then I'll just pick on Mr. Hubbard, because it's the same philosophy.
My point is, sir, unless you can find some authority for this committee to deal with it, the argument that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is not sitting isn't justification for this committee to hear it. That's the argument that was used when we were having it out with Mr. Lee in the House on the Thibault matter, and we may have even had it here before, but that's not justification for this committee to hear it. There's no way it is. You have to find something in the Standing Orders to allow the ethics committee to hear it, and I submit, sir, you can't find it.
9:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Tilson.
The motion was received, and the chair gave reasons for the decision already and ruled it in order. It was challenged and the committee sustained the chair.
I will tell you--
9:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No. Hold it, Hold it, hold it, sir. This is not a debate. I just want to finish the point, sir.
The operative part of the motion is to determine if the actions of some event that flowed from that meet the ethical standards. That's 108(3)(h)(vi) under our mandate.
The issue, as you know.... The committee is not trying to figure out whether anybody is guilty or innocent, or whatever. There are some matters that flow from this, and they relate, as you may recall in my ruling, to potentially pecuniary interests or the need to report to the Ethics Commissioner. Because public office-holders, when they subsequently found out this was an issue and they were named by Elections Canada--how and why Elections Canada did that is a matter that is somewhat beyond the scope of us getting involved in it too much. We know what the report says; they made a finding. Based on that finding, should it be sustained, could there be some consequences?
In any event, that was the ruling.
But your point of order is that the original motion is out of order. In fact, the committee dealt with that. It ruled it in order, so the point of order is incorrect.
9:55 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Sir, I understand what you're saying, but this point was not raised at that time. To be fair to me, I wasn't allowed to raise it because I was cut off.
