Information & Ethics Committee on July 15th, 2008

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I believe the notice I received for today's meeting suggested that it would go till four o'clock. Unless my clock is wrong, we still have 20 minutes for questioning.

I appreciate, Mr. Chair, that it's customary that we go to the end of the meeting and at least to what's on the notice of meeting today. I know you're part of the Liberal Party, but we have questions we want answered here. I think you're not providing any impartiality if you jump up and say let's just quit now.

We have 20 more minutes for questioning. Monsieur Mayrand has probably gone to a lot of trouble to prepare for this, and I think we should offer as much opportunity...if in fact what we're after here is the full truth. If we want half the truth, then let's cut the meeting short, but if we want the full truth, let's keep going.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Goodyear.

At the commencement of the meeting I laid out and announced that Mr. Tilson had three motions, I believe, to be dealt with at this meeting. I had indicated that those motions had been given due notice and that Mr. Tilson had the right to have his motions heard at this meeting.

I indicated that we would deal with them before the end of this meeting, you may recall, Mr. Goodyear. As well, I also indicated that as part of committee business—and that's why it's on our agenda for this meeting—

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me, just hold it for a second, and I'll deal with your—

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

It'll be four o'clock the way we're going here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me, but I had indicated at the beginning of the meeting that we also needed to address, on a preliminary basis, the committee's wishes with regard to establishing future witnesses—which I insist we do before we break today. I have no problem going past four o'clock today, and we can, but we do have at least four hours tomorrow, if not more, to continue with these questions.

I would like to be sure that we deal with the issue of future witnesses now to see how long this is going to take, because it may take a long time. Okay? Under the circumstances, my preference would be to excuse Mr. Bernier and Mr. Mayrand for today, and we'll pick it up tomorrow with questions.

Now, did you have a point of order, Mr. Tilson?

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

Yes. I just want to confirm, Mr. Chairman, that the order of the day says that the meeting is to go to four o'clock, notwithstanding what you say. It was also agreed this morning that the motions would take place at four o'clock. That's when I'm prepared to make them. So we still have 20 minutes in which I believe other members would be interested in asking more questions of Mr. Mayrand.

You can't just unilaterally stop the meeting, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, no, you're absolutely right.

I had indicated at the beginning of the meeting that I thought there was a clear understanding that we would deal with...because our normal meetings are two hours long in totality.

But I sense that the members would like to go for one more five-minute round through the list, which will take another half hour.

Is that acceptable to the committee? No problem?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I just want to understand this. The meeting was supposed to finish at four o'clock. If Mr. Tilson wants to bring his motions at four o'clock, some of us have made commitments for other meetings at the end of this committee thinking we'd finish at four. I'd be happy to finish at four with another round of questions and to deal with Mr. Tilson's motions tomorrow.

[An hon. member]

Yes, good idea.

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

If you were here this morning, you would have heard the chairman say that the questions could go until four o'clock and that the motions would be dealt with, as well as the witness list, at four o'clock. If you were listening this morning, that's what was said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

We have tomorrow from 10 a.m. until the committee wants to rise. Contrary to what one honourable member said, that our meetings just go to 4 p.m. because that's what it says here, that is the suggested time. The meeting is only adjourned when the members want the meeting to be adjourned.

So let's be careful here. There is no intent whatsoever to restrict members' questioning. Even if there is only one member here who wants to continue to ask questions, that member will be allowed to continue if no other parties want to ask questions. So we will be having all of the questions of these witnesses that members wish. If we must go over time tomorrow, we will.

The committee is shaking its head no. Could I have a motion that we defer going to the consideration of committee business on witnesses for an additional round? That's moved by Mr. Poilievre.

I think everybody understands. I'd like to put the question.

All those in favour of the Poilievre motion to have another round at this time, hold up your hands, please.

We have six in favour. All those opposed?

[An hon. member]

Mr. Chairman....

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'm in the middle of a vote. If you want to go to the witness discussion....

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I called the question. That's enough. I'm sorry, if members don't pay attention....

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Excuse me, I called the vote. Some people voted and some didn't. It has happened before on this committee. As a matter of fact, when we passed the motion now before us, that was the case and the motion was carried.

So we are having another round, and the next member is Mr. Dhaliwal, please, for five minutes.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you again, Mr. Mayrand.

I'm going to carry on where Mr. Hubbard left off, that you have had missions across this globe and Elections Canada is an excellent agency to oversee elections overseas. But there's only one party—that is the Conservative Party of Canada—that is alleging that Elections Canada is not fair.

When we look at the excellent reputation you have across the world...I personally feel that my constituents and Canadians are concerned that just because of the selfish nature of this Conservative Party, the taxpayers are going through a lot of expense.

Could you tell me how much it has cost you up until now to defend the lawsuit you have from the Conservative Party, and how much additional money do you perceive that it will cost taxpayers?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order, please.

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I'm just wondering about the relevance of such a question. We did establish that we would not be talking about the civil case, and the honourable member opposite is focusing directly on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you. That's debate, not a point of order.

Carry on, Mr. Dhaliwal.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Mayrand, could you tell me how much it has cost the taxpayers so far and how much additional money it will cost Canadian taxpayers?

[Marc Mayrand]

I believe we've had that question from the media, from time to time, ever since the matter has arisen. As we stand today, I believe the amount is close to $800,000, $500,000 of which are costs incurred by the commissioner in carrying out his investigation.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

How much do you foresee it will additionally cost?