Order. Order, please.
If I may, colleagues, I made that ruling with regard to the differentiation between testimony that will come, should we engage in this study, and debate on the importance of doing this. I do understand that there is a fine argument that people can make, but it is not going to be helpful to start going through the Canada Elections Act. We understand that we are going to have to hear from witnesses who can give us the authoritative, expert advice on this, should we do the study.
So Mr. Wallace, I encourage you--
Mr. Mike Wallace: I'm going to use your own words here, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Order, Mr. Wallace. Order.
Mr. Mike Wallace: These are your own words:
The crafters of the Constitution of Canada and our laws now in the Constitution have extended extraordinary privileges to members of Parliament. Those privileges, in brief, would include such things as the matter to speak freely in this place, to represent the interests of constituents without having fear....
That was from Paul Szabo, two Thursdays ago, in the House of Commons.
How on earth, Mr. Chair, can you say that in the House of Commons and not allow me to speak freely to the motion that's here in front of us and the amendment? How is that possible?
The Chair: Order. Order.
Mr. Réal Ménard: J'invoque le Règlement.
Mr. Mike Wallace: And I've got more quotes for you.
The Chair: Wipe the smirk off your face. Wipe the smirk off your face.
Mr. Mike Wallace: I'll wipe the smirk off my face when you start living by your own words in the House of Commons.
The Chair: Order. Order.
An hon. member: Please, respect the chair.
The Chair: Keep in mind that--
Mr. Mike Wallace: Those were your words. Keep that in mind.
An hon. member: Just listen, Mike.
An hon. member: Don't be impolite.
The Chair: Keep in mind that this was in regard to the decision of the Ethics Commissioner and the debate of the House with regard to a legal proceeding, a lawsuit, of an honourable member of Parliament and his rights. This is not a parallel issue.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: So we have no right to speak in this committee; is that what you're saying to us, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Réal Ménard: J'invoque le Règlement.
The Chair: I will come to you, yes. I have made note of it, and I'm going to deal with it, but I have to finish with this first. I think it's important.
Now, we are debating a subamendment to an amendment to a motion. Some members have talked about the subamendment in the context of the motion and the amendment as well. Some have made some assumptions. But that is understandable; it's pretty hard to talk to just “or in past elections” and be totally relevant if you only have four words to play with. So we understand that.
But Mr. Wallace, we do need to have expert witnesses with regard to the Canada Elections Act, and that is testimony that is not relevant to the debate. In my view, it is not relevant to the debate of this motion or the proposed amendment or subamendment. I do not want to get into a situation where somebody is going to walk us through the whole Canada Elections Act when in fact the motion, as you know....
If you look, Mr. Wallace, back to.... You're laughing at me again; second time.
Mr. Mike Wallace: I'm listening. I'm not laughing, Mr. Szabo; I'm a happy guy.
An hon. member: Mr. Ménard's making him laugh.
The Chair: Hold it.
Again, I want to encourage members to remember that if you--
Mr. Pierre Poilievre: [Inaudible--Editor]
The Chair: Mr. Poilievre, please. Order.
To go back to the ruling on the admissibility of the Hubbard motion, we know that under our mandate it has to be restricted to public office holders in terms of its....
We are not going to get into opining at all on the Conservative Party of Canada in the matter it has between the Chief Electoral Officer and the act. We're talking about the activities of candidates who became public office-holders and, after the election, filed election expenses and returns that have been challenged by Elections Canada. Subsequent to becoming public office-holders, they have now been named by the Chief Electoral Officer as being parties to this matter, which was fully exposed in April. As you may recall, at that time we were talking about whether or not there were any obligations for any of those persons to make any reports or filings or to recuse themselves from any activities. This is what went on at that meeting.
So it's not so much what the Canada Elections Act is and what it does. The court is going to determine that. We are not going to have a play in that.