Information & Ethics Committee on Aug. 11th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

This morning we've had a number of points of order, and in my view they have been, by their nature, obstructive and wasting time.

Order, please, Mr. Goodyear. I'm in the middle of a statement.

It was raised earlier. A member said the chair has to take a point of order immediately. Members like to suggest that the sections of Marleau and Montpetit quite clearly provide that it has to be at a time that is appropriate. The middle of a witness's statement to the committee is not an appropriate time. In the middle of a member's questioning, where it is simply questions on a matter of fact, that is clearly using a point of order to disrupt the attention of the witnesses and the members from what's being said.

A number of members on the Conservative side have called for points of order. The chair wants to respect the members' rights, but when those rights are being abused, I am going to have to deal with it eventually.

Who was first on the point of order? Do you want to decide?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'll go first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Lemieux, on the point of order, could you please state the basis?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, of course. It's on procedure, Chair.

I believe you were very clear at the beginning that there would be no statements given. In fact, you fought us on this issue, that there would be no statements given. Then you allow a statement.

And then I noticed my colleague across the way asked six minutes of questions--I'm not done--and in her final minute she asked for a statement from the witness, and the statement went longer than the one minute left to the party.

So this is very procedural indeed. You allowed no opening statements. Now I'd like you to explain it to the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

There were no opening statements by the witnesses. As I had indicated, there were none.

When a member asks for an opinion or for a witness to make some statement, that is the member's right. But it came off her question-and-answer time. And although the witness did go beyond the one minute, we don't cut witnesses off when the time is up. We certainly will give them the prompt to complete. You cannot simply stop a witness in the middle of an important answer, but certainly a member of the committee cannot keep asking a question right past the time limit for that. That's the explanation you asked for.

Now, the second point of order—

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have a point of clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

There is no such thing as a point of clarification.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I would like a clarification of your answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

There is no point of clarification.

Who is next on the point of order?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I am next, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Go ahead, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, the timeliness of the point of order was important at the time I said it, because it pertained to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Is it procedural, relevant, or repetition?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

How about all three? Mr. Chair, if you would allow me to establish the point--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Del Mastro, sir, as you know--

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Chair, please, I have been exceedingly patient, because my—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I understand. Hold it.

Mr. Del Mastro and all committee members, I'd like to repeat what I said at the beginning of the meeting with regard to points of order. We have had a number of points of order that turned out not to be points of order. I simply requested, please, that members indicate whether it's repetition, relevance, or procedural before they get into their arguments. That's all I asked for.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

This pertains to relevance and procedure.

Mr. Proulx's questions...in fact, the questions of both members to this point have been beyond the scope of this committee.

I will quote to you something that you said at 3:45 p.m. on June 19, 2008: “We are not authorized--it is not within our mandate--to determine any ethical standards of any party”.

When I said “point of order”, Mr. Proulx had specifically asked the witness a question pertaining to the ethical standards of a party. The question should have been ruled out of order by the chair, by your own words, Mr. Chair. The next time I say “point of order”, it is to hold you to what you have said.

[An hon. member]

It is to hold you accountable.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

It is nothing more than that, and if more questions go beyond the boundaries of the committee, I will say “point of order” again. I can provide that quote.

It's not intimidating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

I would like to remind the committee of the order of reference and the orders of the day. We have the motion that was passed by the committee. 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 relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for certain election campaign expenses in order to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

May I approach the bench so you can see this, Your Honour? These are your words.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

I would refer the members to the ruling of the chair in determining the admissibility of this motion for debate, which was passed by the committee. The chair is not going to consider every question a member asks, and to determine that it's.... I cannot anticipate what questions members will ask, but if any members feel that a question being asked is out of order, for a good reason, they probably will raise a point of order on the basis of relevance to the motion before us. Okay?

Do we have a further point of order over here? Is that it? No. Okay. I want to move on to Mr. Martin.

[An hon. member]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

We'll have Mr. Martin on questions.

Mr. Martin, please, you have seven minutes.