Evidence of meeting #6 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was witness.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Volpe, you weren't here last week when this group saw a full witness list, said, yes, looks good, go away, and try to come back with thoughts to it. You are now trying to redo that work as a new member sitting in this committee. I'm not trying to take away your ability to do so; I'm just trying to say that the rest of this committee accepted this total list and sent us away to work on it.
If indeed you'd like to redo the work of the committee—
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
No, no, Mr. Chairman, it's not my intention to redo anybody's work. I'm going on the basis of what I heard today, and what I heard today was, as I said a few moments ago—forgive me for being repetitious—that the greatest remedy is one that says they will no longer be able to send those ten percenters into members' ridings, and it's been--
Conservative
Liberal
Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON
--done already. So the only thing we can do here, in my humble estimation, for the interest of parliamentary debate and for the interest of this committee's time and expense, is address the issues that have already been dealt with and move immediately to getting to a report.
There is no need for us to go as far away—
Conservative
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I think Mr. Volpe has hit a point that is an excellent idea, in the sense that unless some of these witnesses would be absolutely relevant, why do we go to witnesses? We've heard Mr. Walsh this morning. I have no objection to hearing Mr. Bosc and Ms. O'Brien, but let's go to the report now and never mind these other witnesses.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
As your chair, I'm not trying to anticipate what testimony may come from witnesses. That's truly up to those who have asked those witnesses to attend. Obviously the names have been given with some intent of getting some testimony from them that's germane to the discussion we're having here.
As to moving immediately to the end, we haven't gotten to the middle yet. But it's whatever the committee wants to do.
Mr. Lukiwski.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I have three quick points. One, on Mr. Volpe's contention that the remedy is already there because the ten percenters won't be sent out into the other MPs' ridings, my understanding is that the Board of Internal Economy has yet to determine that. Am I not correct in that?
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
So there is no remedy yet.
Two, on the question about the appropriateness of some of these witnesses, most of the witnesses whom I see listed would, I believe, be able to speak to the Durban 1 conference and whether or not its tone and content were anti-Semitic. I think that's relevant. Mr. Volpe is questioning the accuracy of that statement. I think this would be testimony that could help us determine whether those statements were accurate or not.
As to the suggestion that we go immediately to a report, I would ask, based on what? We haven't heard testimony. It may be Joe's opinion, and that he wants to write a report based on his opinion. I think we should get some facts before we write a report.
Thank you, Chair.
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Regarding the notion of prevention, I believe that the Board of Internal Economy's decision yesterday to end the practice of MPs sending ten percenters outside our own ridings resolves the issue and prevents things like this from ever happening again. However, this does not mean we should not look at what happened in a specific case. That is my first comment.
Secondly, when considering a list of witnesses, we must look at whether, in Mr. Cotler's case, his privilege was breached. In his testimony before this committee Parliament was prorogued—and he may need to appear before us again—Mr. Cotler came to talk about the damages he suffered. He was forced to talk about it at his synagogue, on the street, at the supermarket, and it seriously hurt him. We must also consider that. That is why he raised a question of privilege.
We must also confirm whether the act was committed. Was the act committed? The answer is clearly “yes”. A ten percenter was sent, but no one is accepting responsibility. I am confused. Some say it was signed by Mr. Preston. Apparently it was signed by Mr. Toews, unless his entire riding was covered by 10 ten percenters. Perhaps that is the explanation.
I repeat what I said earlier: we must consider the malicious intent. Why was it sent specifically to Irwin Cotler's riding? First of all, because he is Jewish and secondly, because within his riding there is a strong—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We're getting dangerously from committee business here into testimony. We're really trying to establish the witness list, sir.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
You do not want— I do not know what you have against this comment. That is the second time you have prevented me from finishing my thought. That's it; you do not want me to finish.
I think this witness list looks like a fantastic fishing expedition. Fishing lines have been cast out all around the boat and people are just waiting to see which little fish come and nibble. I am not interested in undertaking a word for word examination of the expression “willingly participated in the overtly anti-Semitic Durban I”. He can say he went, but not as an anti-Semitic. Not to mention that he is Jewish. I could personally be accused of being anti-Semitic if I behaved incorrectly, be he himself is Jewish. I have no interest in inviting 150 witnesses or even 15 witnesses who will come and say— We must examine the core of the issue and what was actually done. We need to bring it back to the basics.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to respond briefly about the question of malicious intent. I think we all recognize that these ten percenters are called “targeted” ten percenters, and it would be foolish for me to target a Liberal when there wasn't a Liberal in the riding, or to target an NDP when there wasn't an NDP in that riding, as their sitting member.
But as it relates to the list of witnesses, I think we have to remember that we're dealing with this ten percenter. This ten percenter has factual information on it—
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
--I'm not finished—and it has information about the Conservative stand as well. I think these witnesses can confirm or deny whether those statements are factual.
For instance, “Led the world in refusing participation in Durban II”, “Insisted on banning Hezbollah and led the world in defunding Hamas-led Palestinian Authority”--these are statements that I think we can verify--
Conservative
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Thank you, Chair.
I guess, Chair, I'm just kind of curious here. I'm maybe a little confused--I'm new to the committee and everything--but is it the nature of the committee to predetermine what the witnesses are going to say or not say?