Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2008

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

We challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I saw that coming.

Monsieur Guimond has challenged the decision of the chair, so we will have a vote. I will let the clerk read the technical terminology of whether the chair's decision stays.

Order, please. We're doing pretty well here today. Let's just keep it down and go through this, as we have to.

Mr. Clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. James M. Latimer]

Shall the chair's ruling that the amendment is out of order be sustained?

Does the Chair's ruling that the amendment is out of order stand?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Clerk, I have a point of order at this point.

The clerk has read it out incorrectly. A rationale was attached to that ruling, and that is what is being voted on. It's not receivable because it is beyond the scope of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Correct.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Just to be clear, because I apologize to the clerk, but you didn't read it out quite the way it's actually—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think that's just clarification. It's accepted. We're still at the same vote.

We have some folks asking for a recorded vote, so we'll do exactly that.

[The Clerk]

Shall the chair's ruling that the amendment to the motion is out order be maintained?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's correct.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Obviously the chair's ruling has been overturned.

You have a point of order, Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chair, this motion is out of order for another reason that was not dealt with in the substance of your remarks, and this is why I draw it to the attention of the committee.

You gave a rationale for the reason it's out of order, which of course is appropriate. For a chair to rule something out of order without giving a reason would be inappropriate.

At the beginning of this meeting, when Mr. Lukiwski was busy making his motion, I initially thought I had misheard it. The point I thought I misheard was about the next meeting. “At the next meeting”, the committee is to engage in the study he has proposed.

It is nonsensical to start doing that at the next meeting. If that occurs as Madam Jennings proposes, that we only consider discussing the subject matter after we've held numerous meetings on a different subject, it's simply nonsensical. She could have worded it differently, and of course she has an opportunity to do so at a future moment. She might wish to do so immediately, or one of her colleagues might wish to do so, but this is a nonsensical motion. It is not possible to have multiple meetings, table a report, but “at the next meeting” deal with the subject matter here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

On the same point of order, please.

I think Madam Jennings' hand was up first.

Madam Jennings, and then Monsieur Guimond.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I suggest that possibly because he does not have the actual motion and amendment in front of him, Mr. Reid does not understand that the amended motion would no longer read “at the next meeting”. We're not talking about multiple meetings simultaneously.

[An hon. member]

Well, the fact that Marlene worded it wrongly--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, order. I'll look to you next.

Please continue, Madam Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Thank you.

My motion would have the committee complete its study into the in-and-out scheme, table its report in the House, and at the meeting immediately following the tabling of this committee's report in the House proceed to consideration of Bill C-6. That's not multiple and simultaneous meetings. It means that whenever the committee proceeds to its investigation into Elections Canada's decision to declare illegitimate Conservative candidate expenses from the 2006 election campaign--once the committee begins, concludes, and files a report, then at the meeting immediately following the tabling of its report in the House, it would proceed to consideration of Bill C-6.

If the Conservatives sitting on this committee wish to continue to filibuster, as they have for months on end, paralyzing the work of this committee, including proceeding to consideration of the government's own legislation, Bill C-6, then they can, but they will be the ones putting their own government's legislative agenda and priorities in jeopardy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay, I think we're moving off the point of order into debate.

Monsieur Guimond, please.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chairman, on Mr. Reid's point of order, I remind you that we do have an agenda for this morning's meeting. Ms. Jennings legitimately had the agenda amended. You ruled that Ms. Jennings' amendment was out of order, as per the chair's prerogative. According to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, a ruling by the chair on a matter of this nature can be appealed. We did appeal and the ruling was overturned. We are asking you, Mr. Chairman, to proceed with the debate on this motion, as amended.

There is no need for anyone to argue or to engage any kind of systematic obstruction. We do not want to delay passage of Bill C-6. We support this draft legislation. If there are no objections, I move that we stop hurling accusations at one another and stop delaying the committee's work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, then Mr. Preston. We're on the point of order. We're not debating the amendment.

Mr. Reid is the last speaker on the point of order.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I was listening to Ms. Jennings, and it's possible I've misunderstood. I saw her writing it out, and then she talked about it. She was using a version of the agenda with a wording that is not quite Mr. Lukiwski's.

It had been my impression that what she put down could not, the way she worded it, have had the effect of removing the words “at its next meeting”.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, and if that's the case, then the point of order I've raised would be incorrect. So I'll have to wait for you to tell me what the actual wording was. That would settle the dispute.

I'm not disputing her ability to do a motion like this. I'm just saying that as it's worded it would be a problem. But if I've misunderstood, then it isn't a problem.

If I've understood correctly and it is a problem, she can always reintroduce it. I certainly would not be the one to stop her from doing so in a wording that's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I guess the civil thing to do is to have Madam Jennings read her motion. Everybody can listen carefully and then we'll proceed.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The orders of the day should not be the base of the motion. I'm not sure that's what was done.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

The motion reads:

That the Committee proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6...what witnesses, budget and meeting allocations will be required to complete the study, and that the above mentioned Bill C-6 study commence at the meeting of the Committee immediately following the Committee's completion of its investigation of 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 illegitimate election campaign expenses and the tabling in the House of the Committee's report on this scheme.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Any further comments on the point?

Colleagues, here's sort of a decision from me. The chair doesn't actually have to give the reasons for his ruling. So whether I identify one problem with the amendment or three, my ruling would have still been that it is out of order and would have been overturned.

My decision is that we are on the debate of the amendment at this point.

I'm sorry, Mr. Lukiwski, but you were on the list for the motion. We're now on the amendment.

Mr. Preston, please, on the amendment.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I feel offended now, Marcel.

Sorry, Chair, through you, this is about the will of this committee to actually work on legislation, or to work on some circus the opposition wants to create. Those are the two choices facing us. We came here in very good faith today, and you even heard Mr. Lukiwski call for the question very early in this meeting, so let's get down to work on the legislation this committee has before it. This committee has a history of dealing amicably, through consensus, on legislation. I suggest that if the circus wants to continue elsewhere—they've already taken the ethics committee and done it there—they can do it in other places, but the procedure and House affairs committee has legislation before it, Bill C-6.

Someone across the way, Chair, already mentioned that we talked about this, or Standing Order 106(4), back in September or August, when we came together as a group—even out of schedule—to talk about the need to have meetings on this, and we superceded those meetings with talk on Bill C-6. There were some by-elections about to happen, and we thought this committee's work needed to be done, so we in fact went to the legislation, instead of going off on the witch hunt they wanted us to go—and I'll try not to use “witch hunt” too many times today. We actually went to Bill C-6, because back then we still were functioning as the procedure and House affairs committee should function; we were functioning as a group of legislators sent here by constituents across the country to actually do some work that changes the laws of this country. There we were, and we moved to it; we went to Bill C-6 and we talked about it.

Since then...and I'll agree with the focus across the table, Mr. Chair. Since then, the focus has been, can we start the circus, or can we get the elephants and camels walking down the street in terms of whether we should look into the books of some election?

We talk about this committee doing legislative work, not investigative work. There are other places that certainly could do it. As stated by many of us over the number of times we've had to do this, it is before the courts. There is a body greater than us, a court, that is looking at the decisions that have been brought forward on the so-called in-and-out election financing piece.

We asked today to get back to work. We asked today to stop the games. It's amazing, as I look across at the opposition today, that there are more here today than were in the House last night to vote for their own amendment.