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.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
For the final time, Mr. Hiebert! I do not hear you at this meeting.
Now, I want to inform members--
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
--that the chair does not make decisions unilaterally here. Any of the decisions taken on the motions, etc., in fact have been affirmed by the committee. They've been ruled on by the chair. They may have been challenged by the committee--
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
It's nonsense, Mr. Chair. You know it's nonsense. You were there, and you allowed it to happen.
What's happening here is a kangaroo court. It's just unbelievable. And you're allowing it to continue like this.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
It's an Alice-in-Wonderland place: what's up is down, what's down is up.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
That the chair takes that power upon himself is unbelievable--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Just hold it, Mr. Hiebert.
You know, this is because of the disrespect and the disorder of you, Mr. Hiebert.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
It's because of what we're experiencing from you as chair.
You can pretend that you have the support of the opposition behind every one of your decisions, but until you start facing reality, Mr. Chair, you're going to continue to get these kinds of opposition points from the members of the government.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order, please. Order. Order.
Colleagues, I want to ensure that the committee has the opportunity to debate the matters before us right now. As I think the members will know, it is improper to reopen matters that the committee has already ruled upon and decided upon.
We may not like everything that happens, but I want to remind members again that you can speak when you're recognized by the chair and you have the floor--or when you have a legitimate point of order, and we haven't heard one yet. Most of the meeting has been people talking just for the sake of wanting to hear themselves talk. They just want to rant and continue to disrupt the meeting. It's disorderly conduct. It's disrespect for the chair. It's disrespect for all of our other members.
The chair of a standing committee has no power to censure or to name a member. The chair has the authority not to recognize a member because of disrespect for the committee. The chair can also suspend the committee meeting or seek adjournment of the meeting if order can't be restored.
We'll see how it goes. It's really up to the members; it's not up to the chair. The committee will determine this. Sometimes, if one member is particularly the reason for the problem, the other members will make a collective effort to encourage the member to behave himself or herself. The committee is going to decide what happens here. Since there are votes at 5:45 and bells at 5:30, my intent would be that we adjourn by 5:30.
It is possible that the House will rise on Wednesday at the end of the business day or sometime in the afternoon, but it is my intent that we will have a meeting on Thursday. Should the House adjourn until September 15, we will meet on Thursday at one o'clock or something like that, but if there is business as usual, our regular meeting is at 3:30. We'll have to give you notice, but I'll give you that notice right now.
We have one hour left, and I'm going to encourage members to use it the best way they can to provide constructive input about the matters before us. We will pick it up again on Thursday, either at one o'clock or 3:30, depending on what happens with the House.
I want to leave it at that.
Mr. Wallace still has the floor.
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Would it be in order at this point to go to a brief intermission to recollect our thoughts so we can return--
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, but that is not a point of order.
I've tried to slow the process down here. That's interesting, but it's not a point of order.
Mr. Wallace, please.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you. And thank you for that ruling. I don't agree with it, because let me put it this way: I never even got started.
The subamendment I'm speaking to is the addition of “in the past elections”. Now, Mr. Chair, I have been involved in past elections. I've been involved in past elections as a candidate. In 2004, I was a candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada. I've been involved in past elections as a campaign manager. I've been involved in past elections as a candidate for nomination in 1997, in which I did not receive the nomination. I was with the Progressive Conservative Party, as it existed at that time, and I ran as a nomination candidate.
I think it's important that if this amendment passes and the subamendment passes.... The amendment talks about similar ethical practices of other parties, and that the committee will broaden its investigation to include ethical practices and make recommendations. Those recommendations would obviously affect Elections Canada in how they operate, not just how the legislation is put but how they operate.
And for me, as someone who has experience in previous elections as a candidate and as a campaign manager.... I was a campaign manager in 1993. In 1997, I was a nomination candidate. And when was the next one? It was in 2000. They were so quick.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I'm talking about past elections, and my involvement in past--
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I'm trying to remember what my past election experience was.