Information & Ethics Committee on July 16th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

Okay, all of this is debate and opinion. It is not a point of order. I'm going to insist, since there seems to be a pattern here of making speeches, and I want to--

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

My point, Mr. Chair, is the following, and I think I should be able to--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I want to now--

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Mayrand may make the argument that it wouldn't be appropriate for us to ask what exactly was said in court, because the documents are in front of us, and that's a reasonable--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, colleagues. I think a reasonable request is for order and decorum and respect for the chair.

I've made rulings. I've been clear. I've been patient about what members have asked about points of order. They have not been points of order. So I'm going to ask members, if they take the floor on a point of order, as I have in all the other meetings--I hadn't done it in this one, because I was hoping that members would have understood that it was important that we be careful about using this tool--to first state the nature of the point of order before arguing it.

I'm going to ask members who call on a point of order--any members--to state that it's either relevance, repetition, or procedural. There are very few others you can go to other than that you want to state your opinion, which is debate, and debate is not permitted on a point of order.

I want to leave it at that. I think the members are clear on how we should conduct ourselves.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I have a point of privilege.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Now, that's an easy one to rule on, Paul.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, the member has rights, and all members' rights have to be respected. If you disrespect one member's rights, then you disrespect all members' rights.

Mr. Tilson, on a point of privilege.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, is because of your ruling, which says that if questions have been asked in any other proceedings--court proceedings, investigatory proceedings, which is probably not a word, the different proceedings such as civil, criminal, and every other sort of thing--those questions cannot be asked. My point of privilege is that because of that ruling, I don't know what questions--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Sir, surely to goodness you can listen to my point of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

So you're not going to listen to my point of privilege. There's another point of privilege. You're not listening to my point of privilege. It's outrageous, your conduct in here, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

When the chair calls order, it's because the chair has determined that he has heard enough and that he understands.

Mr. Tilson, with respect, sir, you are continuing to debate a matter on which I have already ruled and are making conclusions about what can be asked or not asked. This is all--

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

That's not what I said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me, that's exactly what you said, Mr. Tilson, and Mr. Tilson....

I'm going to suspend.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We're resuming the meeting.

Okay, colleagues—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize for my latter comments to you. They're inappropriate and I withdraw them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Tilson. I accept your apology graciously and sincerely. I know that we do get into the heat of things, and I appreciate the gesture.

Colleagues, the only way I can simply put this is that I, as chair, am hoping that we will be able to discharge our responsibilities by completing our questioning of this witness and getting on with the other business that we had said we would deal with before we rise today. It's still my intent.

With regard to the matters we have been discussing for a short while, as simply as I can put it, I made an arrangement and an understanding with Mr. Mayrand for Elections Canada to be here. What was discussed and what has been represented to you is the arrangement that I made with Mr. Mayrand. Those are the terms and conditions under which he agreed to appear. I gave him my word. I notified all appropriate parties of that fact and I'm sticking by my word. I've taken a decision and I want to proceed with the remaining questions for Mr. Mayrand until members have completed them.

If Mr. Mayrand is invoking the sub judice convention, I think he will indicate so to us, and we have to accept that, because it's the deal that we made.

So I have no idea how long questioning is going to go on, but the sooner we start the sooner we will complete it.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I have a short point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

For the benefit of those who may not know, I'd like to read a couple of sentences from Marleau and Montpetit, which is one of the compendiums of rules of order and decorum that we follow. It has to do with points of order. It's on page 538, and says:

A point of order is a question raised by a Member who believes that the rules or customary procedures of the House have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the proceedings. Members may rise on points of order to bring to the attention of the Chair any breach of the relevance or repetition rules, unparliamentary remarks, or a lack of quorum.

Those are the guidelines that I have been following, and I hope members will refresh themselves on the matters that are eligible for points of order.

Madam Jennings, on a point of order.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

In which case this is not a point of order, but simply a request.

Monsieur Mayrand made reference to the fact that four days of testimony have been made public, because the transcripts have now been filed with the Federal Court. So I was simply going to request of the clerk, through you, Mr. Chair, that copies of those transcripts in both officials languages be made available to all members of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, thank you, Madam Jennings.

You're quite right that it is not a point of order, but it is in order for a member to request that where a witness or other party has made reference to a document in the public domain that is not generally circulated to all of the committee members but is relevant to our work, that should be done.

Therefore, I would request, Mr. Mayrand, that you facilitate the committee, if you could, by providing us with a copy of the transcript to which you refer. There are two documents—and of course they should be in both official languages, which I understand they are.

[Marc Mayrand]

They are not in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

They are transcripts, and we will have to translate them. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Jennings. It's certainly in order for you to make that request.

I want to now move to the questioning of Mr. Mayrand. I believe Mr. Dhaliwal is the lead.

You have five minutes, Mr. Dhaliwal.