Evidence of meeting #42 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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, colleagues.
This is meeting number 42. The order of the day is a continuation of the debate on the motion from Mr. Hubbard, the amendment of Mr. Van Kesteren, and the subamendment of Mr. Tilson.
We're resuming debate, and Mr. Van Kesteren has the floor.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I will pass to Mr. Hiebert temporarily, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to move a superseding motion that we change the order of business for today. This is a motion that we change the order of business so we can deal with the Privacy Act witness list, the letter from Guy Pratte, and a notice of motion from Mr. Pat Martin before we commence our continued debate on the motion from Mr. Charles Hubbard.
I'm not talking about removing anything from the committee's business, simply reversing the order so we can deal with some of these more pressing matters before we resume our debate on Mr. Hubbard's motion. It's a superseding motion, so I don't believe there's any debate. It's just a vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I hear you, and I can tell you, Mr. Hiebert, that when I issue the orders of the day some members can be prepared.... We do have to complete the business that we're involved in.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
The committee is the master of its own destiny, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I certainly understand that. It is the committee's right.
Would you repeat your motion, please.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
I move that we reverse the order of today's agenda. That's the motion.
The consequence of that, if it were to pass, would be--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
It's to reverse the agenda. We understand that.
Okay. Mr. Hiebert moves to reverse the order on the agenda.
(Motion negatived)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
The motion is defeated, and we will move on with debate.
Mr. Wallace is on now.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Could I have the motion read back to me, as well as the amendment and the subamendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I can do even better for you.
Mr. Clerk, could you please provide this to Mr. Wallace. That is everything. The motion, the amendment of Mr. Van Kesteren, and the subamendment are written so that you can see everything as it all fits together. It's what we've been debating for the last number of hours.
If you would like to spend some time studying the motion, I can move to Mr. Van Kesteren and then back to you.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
For the benefit of those who do not have the amendment, the amendment reads:
and should the Committee find in their investigations similar ethical practices by other parties, the Committee will broaden their investigations to include the study of these ethical practices and make recommendations to Elections Canada as to whether these ethical practices ought to be continued.
Now, we've spoken and debated on this amendment for quite some time. Mr. Tilson, last week, added an amendment to the amendment, or a subamendment, such that after “by other parties”, “or in past elections” be put into that amendment as well.
We've had some excellent dialogue and some excellent discussion as to why this amendment should be put in place. There's a pervasive problem in Parliament today, and it can be characterized, possibly, by what I would term as a Pharisaical attitude whereby we get up on our perches--and when I say “we”, I say it seems to be pervasive--and we proclaim “I thank you, God, that I'm not like one of these.” We have this attitude that this is something that is prevalent in this party. This is something that's prevalent in that party, but it's just not here.
I would argue, and continue to argue.... I'm actually quite glad that Mr. Hubbard brought this motion forward, because it gives us an opportunity to expose that. I humbly submit that no one is immune to this attitude. It seems, as I said, to be pervasive. The very fact that this motion by Mr. Hubbard should single out one particular party and should single out an attitude or an action by a particular party should make us very concerned. It should make us very concerned for a number of reasons.
I would suggest that it should make us very concerned, first of all, that if we as a party, and as the Conservative Party, claim that this action is something that is being used and utilized.... This is just a tactic that, as I think Mr. Poilievre pointed out very well in past weeks, was invented by the Bloc and something that enables parties—
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
You'll have your chance to speak, Mr. Ménard.
If this is true, then we ought to be very concerned because, first of all, Elections Canada is prejudicing the Conservative Party. I say that as a warning that all parties enter at risk. If this happens to this party, then it can very likely happen to the Liberal Party or the Bloc or the absent NDP.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Take your time, Mr. Ménard. Take your time.
Mr. Ménard, do you have a point of order?
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I'm sorry, but I can't accept that. Let's set the record straight. The Bloc Québécois is a fabulous national liberation political team, which has never indulged in the practices that are being ascribed to it. I would ask that you be extremely vigilant, Mr. Chairman, in order to avoid lies.