Information & Ethics Committee on June 10th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We're going to have a recorded division if all the members who--

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

Point of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Members, say yea if you sustain the decision of the chair. We will have a recorded vote, please.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

The ruling of the chair is sustained.

Mr. Wallace, you have the floor.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the time you took and the debate you had among members on that, because we could have made some arguments on that point. But you ruled and it's been supported by the committee, unfortunately.

I have another amendment I'd like to bring forward, if that's reasonable. Are you ready with your pen? After “the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada” we would add--and let me finish before you jump on me--“and the Liberal Party of Canada”.

The reason for that amendment, before you discuss it and think about it, if we leave the rest “if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders”.... For example, Mr. Hubbard was a parliamentary secretary when the election took place. If there had been an emergency in this country the cabinet would have been called. All Liberal members who had been sworn in to the Privy Council were public office holders and were responsible at the time, regardless of whether an election had been called or not.

So I believe the Liberal Party of Canada is a legal entity that needs to be included in this amendment so we can discuss the issues that Elections Canada has with the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada at the same time, because they were public office holders at the time of the election--not when the election was over, but at the time of the election.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me for a moment, please, Mr. Wallace. The clerks want to verify the amendment.

[An hon. member]

Why don't you wait until he's finished speaking? Let him complete his argument.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

Let's follow the simple rule that you can speak when you're recognized by the chair or calling on a point of order, ostensibly. But wait to be recognized. It's not helpful to anyone here to have too many people talking at the same time.

The amendment is very simple. It just adds “and the Liberal Party”. Is that what I understand?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That is correct, sir, and I started my--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand that.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

You asked him for an explanation, so let him give it to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I know. Hang on for a second. I need to consult with the clerk.

Order, please.

Colleagues, I'm going to rule this amendment out of order for the same reason as the prior one. It's consistent with the ruling made by the chair on the prior motion. You have to be consistent. It's similar in terms of the scope problem.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

They were public office holders--

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

They were public office holders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

But they are not involved in the investigation of Elections Canada.

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

It doesn't matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

They are not named by Elections Canada as being the so-called “in and out”.

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

Elections Canada doesn't decide who comes before our committee. We decide.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand that.

I've ruled that the amendment is out of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Let me phrase it so you can think about this a little longer.

If this committee wants to show that the Conservative Party of Canada was in error in its interpretation of the act, would it not be wise to have the Liberal Party of Canada here telling us why they were not in error, based on the fact that they had public office holders as part of the system?

It doesn't make any sense to me that you can rule it out of order that one party is involved that has public office holders, and the other party that has public office holders, which I believe you agree with--there's one sitting at our table--has nothing to give to this study. I do not believe it.

I want to hear from the clerk, because I'm taking this to the head clerk to find out what they believe.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I can advise members that the clerks do not make rulings. They are here to assist the chair.

[An hon. member]

And the members. You don't own them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'm entitled, as a mover of an amendment, to hear from the clerk, because I don't understand your explanation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I will advise you that the clerk said that to be consistent with the prior amendment you brought forward, it must be ruled out of order. That's how I was advised by the clerk, and I concur.

Order, please.

Mr. Wallace, order, please.

As you know, I'm trying to keep a record of the matters debated and the points made as we move along. I have to keep this up.

Mr. Hiebert, I'm going to repeat again for you that members should speak when they're recognized by the chair. You've done it a dozen times already this meeting, and I'm sorry, but it's making it difficult to keep the meeting going. Please respect the rules of the committee. Thank you.

Mr. Wallace.