Evidence of meeting #43 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, hang on; I heard you. But we're on a point of order. You can't have a point of order in the middle of a point of order.
My decision stands. We're not going to debate this. My interpretation and certainly my knowledge of the mandate of the ethics committee in the ruling I made was that this is in order because it relates to the ethical obligations of public office-holders vis-à-vis their involvement in something that happens to involve a political party. But it's under the Canada Elections Act.
I must rule that the discussions have to deal with public office-holders, and the amendment and subamendment, although referring to parties, is meant to broaden this to deal with individuals or public office-holders who belong to other parties. And for that reason I allowed them to stand. But if the members want to look again at the mandate, we can't look at parties. We can look at public office-holders.
Are you on the same point? Carry on.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I agree, Mr. Chair, that this is our mandate within this committee. But don't you agree that the original motion is incorrect when it states “that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election in relations to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse”—
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
By virtue of your own ruling, the motion is out of order.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
And “determine if these actions meet the ethical standards”—the actions of the Conservative candidates. Those are the public office-holders.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
But it says “the Conservative Party”, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, the chair ruled the motion in order. That was challenged. The committee sustained the decision of the chair. The motion is in order and it is before us. I'm sorry, but that's what the committee decided.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
You interpret it any way you want so that it works. That makes it disrespectful.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I'm sorry, you don't have the floor, sir.
There is a point of order from Mr. Poilievre, please.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I think I was furnished with a motion that is worded improperly. I just wanted to confirm that I have the right motion, because with so much going around now—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
That's not a point of order, but if you'd like to, have the clerk provide you with another copy, if you wish. Okay?
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Mine refers to the Conservative Party and says that “the committee investigate...the Conservative Party”, and you've indicated that we can't investigate parties here, so there must be some problem here.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
It's the actions of the Conservative Party in relation to the candidates.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes, but it says “investigate...the Conservative Party”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Well, sir, you are raising a matter on the main motion. You're arguing whether or not we can do it. That's already been decided by the committee.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. Well, it's not a point of order, then. Thank you.
Mr. Goodyear, I believe, still has the floor. Are you finished, sir?
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, we're actually right now debating the subamendment, which reads, “or in past elections”, replacing the statement “by other parties”. Now, that said—