Information & Ethics Committee on June 17th, 2008

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, you know that over the years you and I have worked together in many different venues, on different committees, and in different functions. I would like to say that for the most part, in those years, I have had a good healthy respect for you. Before I go into the topic of the debate today, I'd like to make a little comment.

I've observed that I've been here as long as you and some of the other members around the table. In the House, the Speaker gives wide latitude in giving individual members the freedom to make their speeches without interruption. It's really very wide. Even if someone stands up on relevance on a point of order, the Speaker almost always returns it to the member speaking and just gives him a little chastisement and lets him make his speech--

[An hon. member]

You're getting a chastisement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You may have heard earlier, as I explained, that when you get into these situations, the chair does not have the same authority as the Speaker of the House with regard to chastising or sanctioning a member. The only thing the chair can do is address the person and take a decision. From our proceedings, going right back to the Mulroney thing, we have a pretty good idea of our tolerance for stuff.

I think your thoughts about me as chair and so on are interesting, but they are not relevant to the motion before us. I would encourage you now to move to the points you would like to contribute to the committee.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

I have a couple of things, Mr. Chairman, that I would really like to have on the record. This means that I'm asking you, please, to not shut off my mike while I'm speaking. As an MP who is--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Epp, order.

That's the job of the chair. Again, I've asked you once already to move on to something relevant, to move on to a matter relevant to the motion before us and not to speak about comparing the House to this committee and so on. This has been explained many times in this committee already. I encourage you. This is the second time now, and this is giving latitude, just like the Speaker does.

I want you now to move to your contribution to the debate on these motions and how it will assist members in deciding whether any or all of these motions or amendments should be adopted. I think you should move to that right now, or I'll have to move to another speaker. Okay?

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that we're dealing here with a motion that's being amended and has a subamendment. Members of Parliament, including me, as a properly signed-in member of this committee, have the right to put forward arguments. I'm asking that you allow me to do that without shutting off my mike. I don't like that. I think I should have the privilege, as an MP, of expressing my opinion.

Also, Mr. Chair, I want to point out that when we come to take a vote on this motion, the chair, I believe, should originally be impartial. The fact that, although we had quorum, you didn't start the meeting until seven minutes had gone along does not show impartiality. Also, Mr. Chair, later on--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Epp, for the third time, I have to tell you that you are discussing matters that are not relevant to the motion.

Mr. Ménard, you have the floor, sir.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased to reiterate my friendship and appreciation for the excellent work you do as chairman. You are a man of highest principle and great integrity. You have always served this committee and Parliament well, we extend our wholehearted friendship to you, and we certainly have full confidence in you.

The proposed subamendment is both sad and contemptible for democracy. We are dealing with a government whose offices were searched on live television for all Canadians and Quebeckers to see. I would just remind you that this search did not take place at the headquarters of the Liberal Party, the NDP or the Bloc Québécois, it took place at the Conservative Party headquarters. Mr. Wallace, in a display both unconvincing and beneath his position, implied that the problem was with officials and the Elections Act, when we know full well that the mandate of this committee...

[An Hon. Member]

Point of order.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm a very sensitive man. It doesn't take much to upset me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We have a point of order from Mr. Poilievre, I believe.

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

I think that I was before Mr. Ménard. Could you verify that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's not a point of order.

Mr. Ménard has the floor.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Poilievre, you need to be a little bit more on the ball. Take your head out of the clouds, this is not caucus.

Mr. Chair, I have the floor and I know that I am going to keep it. I just wanted to say not only how many friends you have on this committee because you act with impartiality, and also how disagreeable and unfortunate it is to see government members presenting a subamendment that is, in fact, a diversionary tactic. You are an experienced member, you know that this is not about Elections Canada or the code of ethics or the qualifications of public officials. The subamendment is a dishonest tactic. I am deliberately using that word. The subamendment is a dishonest tactic to expand...

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'll recognize that as long as the member honestly believes it's a point of order.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

I think that it is, Mr. Chair. The honourable member, who is a respected man in the House, has unfortunately used unparliamentary language by accusing a member of this committee of lacking integrity. He used the word “dishonest” to describe another member of this committee. You know that it is not parliamentary to attack the integrity or honesty of a member. I therefore ask that the member apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

I did not hear the member refer to a specific member--just generally.

The members will know that in the House, if you say the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party lied that's not a problem, because it doesn't mention a specific person. That is the rule. If you talk about a specific person, it becomes an issue.

I did not hear the member. If he said that, he should withdraw it and apologize for the remark. But I did not hear him identify the specific member he was referring to.

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

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's my ruling on that.

Do you have another point of order?

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

Yes. It turns out there was an individual member--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No.

Order, please.

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

--and that was Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

It was me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I did not hear that.

Order.

This is debate, Mr. Poilievre.

Mr. Ménard, you have the floor.