Information & Ethics Committee on June 17th, 2008

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First and foremost, I want to say to the members of the Conservative Party that here on this side of the table, we're not fooled by the filibustering they are currently doing. For three or maybe even four meetings now, the Conservative members have been talking endlessly. You have constantly had to call them back to order, and to ask them to show some discipline and respect. As a result, last week, on Thursday and Friday, before question period in the House, there were at least two statements under Standing Order 31 in which members mentioned the Conservative members' lack of discipline at this committee. And each time, at least in my case, it was a tremendous pleasure to say that we supported you as chairman.

We're asking you to be even stricter in order to restore order and courtesy to this committee. One Conservative, whom I could name, is laughing while I talk about restoring order and courtesy to this committee, and I think you've got your work cut out for you, Mr. Chairman. It's a perfect example of the lack of respect that Conservative members have been showing you. It also disrupts our work, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

Go ahead, Mr. Poilievre, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Lavallée criticized you and I now call on her to apologize to you. She's criticizing the way you run the committee. It's not fair.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

That's not a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you. That's not a point of order.

Madame Lavallée, you have the floor.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether Mr. Poilievre is listening to me in French or in English, but he didn't understand a word of what I said. It's exactly the opposite. I was paying tribute to the chairmanship of Mr. Szabo. I find him to be an excellent chairman.

Mr. Poilievre, last week, you were disrespectful to him and refused to apologize. I think the chairman does an excellent job.

I'd like to come back to the motion. Mr. Hubbard's motion is excellent in all respects. It doesn't need amendment or subamendment. The Conservative members here are doing everything they can think of to filibuster and obstruct. They've pulled out their manual on how to be nasty little Conservative committee members, in order to prevent our committee from doing this work and to avoid being tainted yet again by a new scandal, after those of Julie Couillard, Dimitri Soudas and all the rest.

The Conservatives have shut down two committees: the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Now, they're trying to use dilatory tactics. Unfortunately, I have to say they are effective. This is the fourth meeting in a row that has been a waste of time.

For all of these reasons and also because everyone who has taken the floor today has repeated himself...

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me, madame.

Mr. Wallace has called a point of order, and I would like to hear his point of order.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wallace, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The point of order is on relevance. You've ruled me out of order numerous times on relevance. I don't know how her intervention is relevant and mine was not. Can you explain that? Write it out for me in English.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That is not a point of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]...a point of order on relevance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, no.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Yes, you did. I'll get you the blues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me. You asked me to explain to you why one was not.... That is not a point of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

A point or order was called on relevance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay. So now you're saying relevance on her point. Your point was for me to explain.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You were listening. I said relevance--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Your point was for me to explain.

Order, please.

Now, Madame Lavallée has been patient. Actually, she has not interrupted the committee. On this matter she's obviously expressing her concern that we're not making progress. I think that's a relevant point to be made. I think she is explaining the reasons she feels we're not making progress, such as repetition by members, or irrelevance, or simply being procedural, or whatever. It's arguable that the frustration is well founded. It wouldn't be there if everybody would simply follow the rules of the committee.

In Mr. Wallace's case, it was with regard to the repetition.

I'm getting this conversation from Mr. Hiebert. I don't know why, Mr. Hiebert. I really don't think your interruptions are helpful.

It's not just Mr. Wallace. It has happened two other times in our proceedings that I've taken the floor away from a member after three times of going back, even after I've ruled. I think it's the only way. I've given some latitude. I'm trying to take some advice from members, or sense what the members.... But being asked three times just to respect the chair's ruling is enough. If the members feel that's a little too rigorous.... Madame Lavallée says I'm not rigorous enough. I'm trying to sense from the members whether you want me to be more rigorous.

I know that I have a problem with maybe being too rigorous when members challenge the rulings of the chair, but I think I've been consistent. I want to hear from the members. My job is to hear from the members.

[Charles Hubbard, Liberal, Miramichi, NB]

Mr. Chair, it's time to call the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I want to give the floor back to Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

If you don't mind, I'm going to tell you what I really think. I find that the Conservative election promise of transparency is one of the biggest jokes we've heard in a long time. The attitude of Conservative members on this committee just goes to show that they're trying to avoid the transparency they promised during the election campaign by doing everything in their power to avoid discussing and passing a motion that would enable us to examine something illegal that may have been done.

That said, we have spent eight hours listening to their arguments and repetitions. Do you know how much those eight hours cost? It's another unkept election promise, the promise of a good government that uses the money of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers properly. I don't even want to calculate the cost of eight hours of committee work lost to nonsense and repetition.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a formal request. I'd like the Conservative members to recognize that they've made all of their arguments on the amendments, the subamendments and Mr. Hubbard's motion, and to proceed with the vote to determine whether they were sincere when they promised transparency and good government.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Madame Lavallée.

Mr. Epp, you're next on the list.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Then I have Mr. Ménard after that.

Mr. Epp, you have the floor if you wish.