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.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
It's “after the words”, not “replacing” the other words.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Oh, it's after the words “by other parties or in past elections”; that's what we're actually debating right now.
But very clearly, from the outset it's completely disingenuous to say that this hasn't been about parties. It's most definitely about parties, because whenever we try to broaden the scope to bring other parties or candidates from other parties, the other parties block it, because the other parties have something to hide or something they don't want to talk about.
It's completely disingenuous to say that this can't be about parties, that it can only be about people. Well, if it's only about people, then I have a whole bunch of people whom I would say we have to be able to investigate, because we're not investigating parties, which means they can't protect their parties.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Mr. Del Mastro, I'm going to repeat again, for the third time, that under our mandate we have no authority to look at parties—no authority.
Conservative
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Yes, absolutely; that includes every Privy Councillor in the House.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, it's whatever the motion is ultimately. But in our mandate, it is public office-holders; it is individuals. We cannot go beyond and opine on the conduct of any organization, such as a political party or a riding association, etc. We're not empowered to find...we don't find right or wrong. We are trying to look at the ethical implications of what went on.
I think I gave an example. I'm not sure whether you were at the meeting when I ruled. If someone was named in the Elections Canada findings, in which there were a number of public office-holders—10 were named—whether or not there is any ethical requirement or there are guidelines requiring them to do anything; for instance, to make declarations or to recuse themselves....
You may recall that. All the ruling was to deal with individuals--public office-holders. If the members believe that this is not the case in these amendments, or in the motion itself, then the members can vote accordingly or amend them accordingly.
So it's not a point of order. Let's not go there again. We can only deal with persons, with individuals. Okay?
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, if that is the case, then all references to parties must be removed, and then this is a—
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
It's within our mandate to look into public office-holders, I agree, but all references to party in the motions must be out of order, if that's the ruling you're now making.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
You're debating. It's not a point of order. I've ruled initially it's not a point of order, and you want to continue.
I've made a ruling, sir, on that already, when we had the main motion. It was clear. If we want to, we can refer back to the discussion at the committee when this matter was dealt with. It clearly had to articulate the mandate under which we could deal with this matter. We made a ruling. The committee has—
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Yes, there's tyranny of the majority, Mr. Chair. I don't argue that there's tyranny with the majority.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you very much.
Order.
Where are we now?
Order.
Mr. Goodyear, I believe you still have the floor, sir.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I'll tell you, I'm very seldom confused, but I'm thoroughly confused right now. I have no idea what the mandate of this committee is, despite your every attempt. It may be that it changes each meeting.
Is it possible, just as a matter of—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Mr. Goodyear, this was dealt with at our first meeting: what our mandate is, the ruling of the chair. It's there. I know that you're not a member of the committee and weren't at that meeting, but I encourage someone to provide you with a copy of the transcript so that you can read what was said there. That's been dealt with and ruled upon. We have to move on, or I'll go to another member.
Conservative
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, I would like to raise a point of order.
Please read Standing Order 108(3)(h)(vi). That is where you will find the answer to what is confusing you at the moment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Order.
Madame, for you in regard to this specific intervention, and generally to all other members, we should not use points of order simply to have an opportunity to speak. Points of order should be respected. If you cry wolf too often, then this chair is going to have a hard time recognizing you on a valid point of order, so I wouldn't abuse that too often.
I'm sorry, Mr. Goodyear. We're back to you, sir.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With your indulgence, I'd like to continue my argument on the amendment to the original motion, now that I understand that it's not parties we're discussing and that we're narrowing this thing right down to public office-holders. I understand that although these individuals were not public office-holders during that debate, the chair--and I've read the minutes, by the way--has in fact conveniently interpreted that situation to mean that since they eventually became public office-holders, they are in a conflict.
I'm wondering if I could just have some indulgence in reading the names of some other individuals--individuals, not parties--who may at some point become public office-holders.
Let's start with the NDP.
Conservative