Evidence of meeting #49 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 elections.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I want to remind the committee that we still have Mr. Goldstein to interview, so perhaps we could go to the question. We've committed to Mr. Goldstein, and he's supposed to appear before us at the end of our work.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
That is not a point of order, Mr. Pacetti; it's an opinion. And your opinion is always valued, but points of order should be protected as well because sometimes...it's like crying wolf. Eventually when you really need to use one....
I think we have to be very careful about thinking, “I want to talk so I'm going to say point of order.” No, don't do that. It's not a good idea.
Mr. Del Mastro, please.
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've made a number of very strong contentions on this side of the table. We've referred to the tyranny of the majority, and we've referred to this as a kangaroo court.
Mr. Martin, in his statement--which is why I'm back on the speakers list--spoke about how he believes people have disrespected Parliament and therefore, by extension, they've disrespected Canadians. If he believes that, if he truly believes that, I can't see any reason possible, I can't see any reason in the world why he would vote in favour of a motion that he knows in his heart is utterly and completely impotent. It is impotent.
You went to an extraordinary measure, Mr. Chair, by issuing summonses. Now, I would argue that the committee was never authorized to look at this study in the first place. In fact, if you recall, we were moving amendments to the motion that brought us here today. I was one of the members who was doing that when the debate was cut off. We would argue it was done utilizing procedure that was not valid.
But that said, here we are. Here we are. The members on that side of the table, whom you continually refer to as the committee, since they continue to vote as a block against us, have continually suggested that everything they have done has been okay. They are Parliament; that's really what they're saying.
Mr. Martin indicates that they've insulted Parliament. Clearly, by extension, he is therefore indicating that he is Parliament, or that the members on that side are Parliament--because I'm not insulted. I don't think anybody on this side of the table is insulted.
What I would suggest, because there's a number of reasons—for example, we've discussed the special Mayrand deal, the special conditions under which he appeared, and we know that those conditions were not extended to other witnesses, irrespective of what Mr. Walsh's letter says. We also know there may well be other reasons why those witnesses did not appear.
That said, we have gone to an extraordinary extent. We are here in August. We have incurred significant expenses to the taxpayers of Canada in a process that I believe is illegitimate. If it is not illegitimate, if you are that certain, if you're that certain on your—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Is this an absolutely urgent and pressing necessity?
I'm sorry, Mr. Del Mastro, I have to take this point of order by Mr. Martin.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'd ask you to enforce the repetition rule under points of order that you yourself cited, where if one member or even any of the members keep repeating the same point over and over again, it's a matter of filibustering and repetition, not adding to the quality of the debate.
In fact, all Mr. Del Mastro has been doing is reading through the talking points he's been given with the same buzzwords over and over and over again. It is not material to the debate or to the merits of the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Martin.
A claim of either relevance or repetition, certainly with examples, is a valid point of order.
I know it's getting late. I have a feeling that members are going to get a little antsy after a while.
I believe there's a proper debate going on. I'm sure members are going to try to make their best argument. I always keep track of the arguments made, the pluses and minuses, or the for and against arguments. With the little tick marks beside them, it becomes pretty clear once we hit that point where it's not just a little repetition, it is a major point of repetition. I'll deal with that if, as, and when it happens. We're not there yet, sir.
But I have a feeling that the members do want to express themselves, to make sure their points are on the table in terms of how they feel and what they believe. That's why we're here. We will have a vote on the amendment in not too long a time. So I want to let members express themselves.
Mr. Del Mastro, have you finished?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
That's right. I interrupted you to take the point of order. So I'll go back to you, sir.
We all heard the word about repetition. Members are aware of that.
Conservative
Conservative
Dean Del Mastro Conservative Peterborough, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Martin, in his statement, which is what I'm addressing—which is why it's difficult to be repetitive when I'm responding to something that he was talking about—listed a number of names. Indeed, he has been vilifying those individuals for a couple of days. They were vilified by extension of the comments you made Monday morning.
I'm simply saying to this committee, if you are confident in your position, then report it to the Speaker. If this is a valid process, report it to the Speaker. Why bring forward another impotent motion? If people, for whatever reason, didn't respond to the first set of summonses that were issued, why would they do it the second time? It's like standing around the corner, and when somebody walks up, you jump out and say “Boo”, but you don't frighten them, so you try it again to see if it will work.
Look, folks, if you're confident in your position, then you should be voting in favour of this amendment. And I will support it. I will support this being reported back to the Speaker. I will support whatever comes of that. But clearly, the motion that was originally brought is substantively different from the one brought today. And I would suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that is done with a specific design in mind.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Chair, I'm just going to speak very briefly.
My concern is that the opposition—the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the NDP—don't want this reported back to the House because they fear the repercussions of the Speaker. The Speaker has already made comments from the chair on anarchy within the committees. These last four days have been a wonderful, wonderful example of anarchy of the majority, totalitarianism of the majority. I'm looking at six MPs who consistently out-vote five MPs. They make up the rules as they go, Chair. They don't want the Speaker of the House to have a look at this. They don't want that kind of overview. This is what this little debate is all about. That's why Madame Lavallée doesn't want this reported back to the Speaker.
For the last two days, Mr. Martin has been chomping at the bit to get to this part of the business where we can issue sanctions against the people you have summoned, Chair. Now he backs off. Even earlier this morning he was lecturing this committee on points of order and how time was being wasted because we must get at the committee business—“I've got things to say about wanting to sanction those whom you have summoned”. Now he doesn't want to sanction those whom you have summoned. The reason is that he doesn't want overview or oversight of this committee or a ruling from the Speaker.
There have been many problems with this committee, and one of them is that we are operating outside the mandate. This has come up many times during testimony with the witnesses. We have constantly echoed what the chair himself has said on this matter: that we are not authorized as a committee and it is not within our mandate to determine any ethical standards of any party. This has to do only with public office-holders and their duties with regard to ethical standards. These are words from the chair's mouth.
We are not authorized whatsoever to opine on a political party and its activities, yet that's exactly what's happened in these last four days. As I put forward to the committee, chair, through you, the opposition are afraid that the Speaker will rule against them, rule against you, and rule against the committee on the kangaroo court that has basically taken place over the summer.
Mr. Del Mastro made an excellent point. There has been tremendous expense to the taxpayer in our having met over the summer, both in terms of bringing witnesses in front of us and even just the cost of our sitting. In fact, we had to vote on another budget you presented during this session of the committee. It hasn't been free; it's been expensive. There's a cost to this, yet look at the manner in which this committee has been conducted. I think all the grievances are on record as we've raised them throughout these past four days.
I wanted to highlight that point, that there is a fear here, and I see it in the opposition's eyes. That's why they don't want this referred back to the House.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay.
Now I have no further speakers on the list, so I'm going to put the—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I thought it was Lemieux, but it's actually Lavallée. I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, Mrs. Lavallée.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, the two motions I have made, the one yesterday and the one I have not made today but that is still on hold, meant something very specific. I explained it at the outset: they are the carrot and the stick.
The purpose of the one I am making today is to ask the Chair to do everything necessary to secure the appearance of as many witnesses as possible, not necessarily all the witnesses, but all of the ones who may want to appear, to give them a second chance. In life, we ordinarily give people a second chance. As we have seen this week, they have been given bad advice by their party. We saw this on several occasions and I don't want to go back over all the times when people told us that the Conservative Party had told them not to appear.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Madame, I'm going to have to ask you to please address the motion as opposed to reflecting on what we've done over the last four days. Please, let's deal with the motion.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Chair, the motion comes out of our discussions over the last four days. So I will continue my arguments.
The purpose of the carrot is to say to them: think about it some more, think again, consult the people around you, your lawyers or people you trust. But do not consult the Conservatives, because you have done that already and they gave you bad advice. Go somewhere else. That is my motion.
The Conservative Party can easily tell its workers not to appear, but Mr. Tilson and Mr. Del Mastro and Mr. Dykstra are not the ones who will find themselves in handcuffs and who will be appearing on the news every night. It's easy for them to give advice like that and it costs them nothing. The people directly affected have to think about their own situation and their futures.
I find Mr. Del Mastro's subamendment very difficult to understand. In fact, I don't understand it at all. If he wants to know what to do about the Conservative party workers and organizers who have not appeared at the committee, he doesn't need to report to the Speaker of the House, he needs to ask Mr. Hamilton to phone all those people and tell them to appear here. That is the only thing the Conservatives should be doing. But they have done the opposite.
His motion is completely null and void. My second motion, that one I am going to keep because it is what I called the stick, the sword of Damocles. I do want a report made to the House, but let's do things in order, one after the other. Let's give the party workers, the people acting in good faith, and the volunteers, who gave their time and energy to a cause they believe in, the time to think about the consequences.
The only purpose of this subamendment is to stall for time. Mr. Del Mastro is making a motion solely to stall for time. I would suggest that he instead...
Mr. Chair, why is Mr. Tilson waving his handkerchief in my face? I do not understand his attitude, he is being mischievous but completely contemptuous. I would ask that you call him to order.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I have not finished, but I would first like you to call him to order. Do that and I will continue.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Colleagues, we're getting close to the end. It has been a very long day, but we should respect all honourable members to have an opportunity to express themselves fully until they've completed their argument. I know all members would like to hear what other members have to say.
Continue please, Mrs. Lavallée.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
I would like to conclude my arguments regarding Mr. Del Mastro's amendment.
I prefer to appeal to the Conservative party workers' sense of duty as citizens. I am certain they are acting in good faith.
Lastly, Mr. Chair, a few minutes ago, Mr. Lemieux said again that the committee was a circus. The committee is not a circus, but it has five clowns.