Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 6th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, let's bring our meeting to order, please.

Today we have another Standing Order 106(4) request. I will call this meeting to order pursuant to Standing Order 106(4). It is a meeting requested by four members of the committee to allow committee members to express their lack of confidence in the chair.

I'm going to need this in the form of a motion, Mr. Guimond.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce the following motion. Then I'm going to explain its underlying rationale. I'm going to read it slowly so that our Anglophone colleagues can understand it clearly.

That the Chair no longer has the confidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and, as a result, that we proceed immediately to the election of a new Chair.

Mr. Chairman, the underlying rationale for this motion is the following. At the request of four committee members, before the parliamentary session resumed, we held a first meeting on September 10, 2007. I believe that everyone around the table, both on the government side—even you, Mr. Chairman—and the opposition side, can see that this committee is completely dysfunctional, ineffective and inoperative and that, consequently, we must make changes to the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I have noted certain events that have occurred since September 10, and one of the reasons why we question the confidence we placed in you when we democratically elected you is that you, unilaterally and arbitrarily, have failed to enforce the Standing Orders that govern the proceedings of the House.

You have, on a number of occasions, decided on your own to rewrite the Standing Orders of the House, disregarding the democratic operation of this committee. To convince you of that fact, I refer to the meeting of February 28. Our colleague Yvon Godin spoke. I'm going to quote what he said at the time. Please pardon my accent, because, as you know, I come from Chicoutimi, in the Saguenay. I speak English like a guy from Chicoutimi, but I'm convinced I speak English better than some people here speak French.

Mr. Godin said this, and I quote:

Mr. Chair, could we have your intention as to whether or not we will continue until the vote tonight? We can see this is filibustering, and according to the rules we should continue.

Mr. Chairman, you then answered: “Let's see what happens,” and you unilaterally adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

On February 14, you adjourned unilaterally as well. You decided on your own that the meeting was over at 1:00 p.m., whereas, incidentally, nothing in the Standing Orders gives you the power to act in that manner. Check the procedure of the 26 committees: when a time is stated for the start or end of the meeting, it's only as an indication, and nothing in the Standing Orders requires a committee to terminate its proceedings at the stated time. I agree, however, that committees, by consensus, often adjourn their proceedings at the time stated on the notice of meeting. I remind you, however, Mr. Chairman, that that must be by consensus. That means that it must be by joint agreement.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, we can do anything in the House, provided it isn't immoral or contrary to the maintenance of public order, and provided it is done by consensus, that all parties agree. That's why, in the House, we request unanimous consent about 50 times a week. When we request unanimous consent, that means that the Standing Orders do not provide for what we are preparing to do. So we must obtain unanimous consent. Every time you decided on your own to adjourn at 1:00 p.m., it was contrary to the Standing Orders, which incidentally are silent on this point. There was no consensus; it was your own decision.

On February 12, once again, you adjourned unilaterally. I quote what you said:

I know we are shifting some members in and out, and that's all good. Colleagues, Mr. Preston, I think you'll enjoy noting that you spoke about the Election Act three times and witch hunt at least 15 times, so try to stay away from that one. As much as I love the stuff on the Chair, etc., that's three times. However, this meeting was called to discuss a certain report. There was a motion moved. We are now passed one o'clock. The meeting is adjourned until Thursday.

I repeat, that was done illegally.

At the meeting on February 5, following systematic obstruction by Mr. Lukiwski for six and a half hours, you improperly suspended proceedings. I'm going to cite part of the conversation we had at that time, even though I remember it word for word. Mr. Proulx had a point of order and asked how long after the vote you intended to resume. You know that we have amended the Standing Orders. I was on the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, and we agreed that all committees adjourned their proceedings on votes, but not during the question period. You didn't have the power to continue sitting during the votes. The Standing Orders required you to stop sitting during the votes, which you did. We stopped sitting during the votes, but that wasn't because it suited you, it was because the Standing Orders of the House of Commons laid down that standard.

Mr. Proulx legitimately asked how much time after the vote you intended to resume the proceedings. I answered “immediately”. You expressed doubt and said that the Standing Orders provided that it was 15 minutes after the vote in the House. Mr. Chairman, I therefore asked you whether you could read us the Standing Order providing for that 15-minute rule. My legal training has taught me that, in court, you always ask the witness a question to which you know the answer. When I asked you what Standing Order required you to resume after 15 minutes, I knew there wasn't one. We resumed the meeting once we had a quorum.

You read Standing Order 115(5) at the time. I won't reread it, but nowhere does it state anything relating to the 15 minutes to which you referred. Then I asked you what about the 15 minutes, and you answered me that that was entirely up to the Chair. Then I told you that you had decided that it was 15 minutes. Mr. Chairman, you answered me that there was a procedure, that it was a proposal.

I told you: “Ah, a proposal. No, right after the vote we start. We want to listen in.”

We had heard Mr. Lukiwski for six and a half hours, and we wanted to listen to him some more to really understand the real reason behind the filibuster.

I continued, saying: “It's important. Yes, I suggest that just after the vote we resume our work.”

Mr. Chairman, you told us: “You know, colleagues, the Chair is absolutely aware of the gamesmanship going on back and forth, and I don't appreciate any of it.”

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to note that Mr. Lukiwski's filibuster displeased you as much as it did us. You confirmed that you didn't appreciate the gamesmanship going on back and forth. You told us: “The fact that I'm suggesting that members have some time to get back to this room... and the term 'immediately' versus '15 minutes'...”

Another reason why you've lost my confidence is that you forgot the rules of courtesy and decorum toward committee members, who merely referred to the Standing Orders duly and democratically accepted by the entire House. I'm not sensitive; I'm very thick-skinned.

You continued, saying: “I think the member opposite is raising an insignificant and trivial point, if I may say so.”

I hope you understand why I raise the issue of non-confidence in the Chair. I'm convinced I'm not taking you by surprise this morning.

I quote you further:

We have members here who limp. I'm not suggesting that's why I'm calling it. The procedure in the past has always been 15 minutes. How would it be if we did this? I'll be down here first thing, and if there's no quorum within 14 seconds, I'll adjourn the meeting. But rather than do that, since we're playing games, I'm going to suspend the meeting until Thursday.

Pow! The hammer came down at 5:34 p.m.

I have another case, Mr. Chairman. At the February 7 meeting, which was further to that of February 5, and during which I spoke about your conduct, despite a clear request, you decided to adjourn the meeting unilaterally. I raised a point of order, and you said that I was the spokesman of the colleagues from the three opposition parties and that, before starting, we needed a decision from you on the procedure for the end of the meeting. We then discussed the legality of your decision to unilaterally adjourn the meeting of February 5.

For all these reasons and many others, I request an immediate vote on the following motion:

That the Chair no longer has the confidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and, as a result, that we proceed immediately to the election of a new Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Monsieur Guimond.

Monsieur Godin, you're next, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think that an important decision such as this one calling for a vote of confidence in a committee Chair should be taken lightly.

Mr. Chairman, I myself had to request the resignation of the Chairman of the Official Languages Committee when he made the decision to change the committee's agenda without the approval of the members of that committee.

I've been sitting in Parliament for 10 and a half years now. I have great respect for the institution. We can hold our debates, but I have great respect for the institution and democracy. This Parliament enables us, democratically, to hold debates for the Canadian people. That's why I say it isn't easy to make decisions such as this one among colleagues. Democracy must definitely take precedence over everything else.

In my vision of things, and according to the Standing Orders, the elected Chairman must be impartial and ensure the proper operation of the committee. Based on my years of experience in Parliament, I can say that, if someone decides to filibuster, you have to prepare not to have the time to go to the bathroom.

Before coming to this decision, which I support...

Certain things have occurred. I don't want to talk in detail about what my Bloc colleague Michel Guimond has said, because I think it has been well presented. You used the excuse that the analyst needed to go to the bathroom, for example, to give the person who is filibustering a chance to go as well. There isn't only one analyst in the House of Commons; another can come and replace him. If the clerk needs—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Excuse me, I've lost translation.

Are we up and running again?

My apologies, Mr. Godin. Please continue.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Where was it cut?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I don't know; it was about 30 seconds ago.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I don't intend to filibuster. I simply want to raise some points that I consider important. When a person decides to filibuster, it is preferable that that person prepare. The Chairman was reading the minutes to see what had happened. He gave his consent, saying that you can do it, but that you have to say in your place. That's what's called filibustering.

Currently, we're practically seeing a filibuster in disguise for which you're giving your consent. The government party comes here, filibusters for two hours, without any difficulty, and, at the end of those two hours, you signal the end with your hammer. There's no cooperation with those who constitute the majority on the committee.

It must be kept in mind that the government is a minority, not a majority government and respect that. The majority of committee members wanted to continue. You didn't obtain a consensus, and you didn't seek one. I personally asked you at one meeting what was scheduled for one o'clock. You could have answered that, at one o'clock, we would discuss, as a group, what we were going to do and decide together whether to continue or to stop. However, you answered that we would see at one o'clock.

That kind of attitude is unacceptable and intolerable. I can't stand it. If someone has the strength to speak for five, 10 or 20 hours, let him be prepared and do it. We're going to stay in this room until he has finished. To my knowledge, this committee is the only one where I can accuse the Chairman of being partial. I say that because of the way in which you have acted. You gave the party that filibustered the opportunity to do it for the next year. That's unacceptable. That has to stop at some point, that is to say when the party is exhausted. You do nothing to stop that. You don't give a chance to the majority of members of this committee, who, as the Speaker of the House of Commons so often says, are masters of their own destiny.

We can't be masters of our own destiny if the Chairman leans to one side. The Chairman must be independent. Based on my criteria, you were not independent when you acted in that manner. It is with regret—and I want this to go on the record—that I'm going to second the motion that we request your resignation, but I no longer have confidence in you. As Chairman, you have had the opportunity to do your work by being impartial, enforcing the Standing Orders as is fit. However, in 10 and a half years, I have never seen a Chairman in the House of Commons who, in a filibuster, adjourned at one o'clock in order to afford the speaker the opportunity to rest or adjourned the meeting to allow the witness to leave or the speaker to go to the washroom. I've never seen that.

As stated in the Standing Orders, the first and second Vice-Chairs have a responsibility to take over when the Chair must be absent. In the same way, if a member has to be absent, he may be replaced by one of his colleagues.

For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support you as committee Chairman.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Chair, I have just a few comments.

First I would suggest to all my colleagues that the issue in question here is quite frankly surrounded—whether it is filibustering or any other activities, or whether it is actions by you, Chair, it emanated from the very first motion brought forward by, I believe, Madam Redman to discuss the in-and-out advertising scheme.

I would remind my honourable colleagues—and I would hope, Chair, that my honourable colleagues would extend me the same courtesies I did them, as I did not interrupt them when they were speaking--that at the time the motion was introduced, the opinion of the law clerk of this Parliament and his advice to you, Chair, was that the motion was out of order.

Yet what happened? Did the committee take the advice of the law clerk—the law clerk, Mr. Chair, who is here to advise and assist all committees and all chairs in giving them good sage, sound, and impartial legal advice? Did the committee recognize that and heed his advice? No. They used a procedural tactic, which is perfectly within the Standing Orders, and they used their majority to overturn your ruling. They've done that consistently.

I hear consistently the theme from the opposition members opposite that you're not acting in an appropriate manner. I suppose they're trying to bring all of us back to an issue of fairness. I would point out, Chair—and we've had lengthy debates on this—that even though my colleagues opposite will not agree, it's quite obvious that the motion was brought forward for a single purpose: for partisan reasons, to try to embarrass the government and to try to create a scandal where none exists.

They overruled a chair's ruling, a ruling based on the advice of the law clerk of this Parliament. If anyone or any Canadian suggests that is fair and is something that should be accepted carte blanche, I would suggest, frankly, that the court of public opinion would weigh heavily on your side, Chair, and would find you acted in an appropriate manner. Since that time, government members on this committee have reacted strongly and aggressively by using our procedural rights to filibuster.

If one is going to argue that the chair has acted inappropriately, I would suggest that we should take a look at members around this committee. They can certainly blame me or blame any of my colleagues for filibustering; I'll take their criticisms and their objections, but I think they should also take a look at some of the actions of their own members.

I just want to make a couple of observations on that.

Monsieur Guimond was referring back to dates when you made rulings and adjourned meetings. I did not hear in his dissertation, however, any mention of his own conduct during some of those meetings. I recall quite vividly when Monsieur Guimond and one of his colleagues—I think it was Monsieur Bigras and I believe he was the substitute—came in and were acting in a very disrespectful manner. They were hurling personal comments at you, Chair, because they just didn't like the way things were going. They didn't like the fact that I was filibustering, that I was using a completely legal procedural tactic—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have a point of order.

Go ahead, Monsieur Guimond.

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

I simply wanted to inform Mr. Lukiwski that Mr. Bigras has never come and replaced a colleague on this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is there any debate?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you.

I stand corrected. I'm not sure; I can't recall exactly which Bloc member substituted, but they were extremely disrespectful. As was perfectly within your right, Chair, you had to adjourn meetings because of decorum issues, which you did. I heard no mention of that from members opposite.

Even more recently, Chair, I would point out that Monsieur Guimond, walking in here today.... Monsieur Guimond considers that when he does something, it is quite humourous; I would suggest if any other member on this side of the committee table acted in the same manner, he would go into his rather famous rants. He came in today and started singing a song, “Goodbye, Chair, goodbye.” If we had done that to a Bloc member, he would have gone absolutely insane.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Guimond, do you have another point of order?

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I believe we have a right to sing any song before a committee begins sitting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Guimond, these are not points of order; these are debates. I'm happy to put your name back on the list, if you want to speak again, but otherwise I'm going to ask you to respect the rights of other members of Parliament to be heard.

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to tell you that Mr. Lukiwski does not have a right to make just any old insane remarks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Guimond, thank you very much.

Can we have the member's microphone turned off, please?

Mr. Lukiwski, I apologize for the interruption.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Quite frankly, Monsieur Guimond is underscoring my point. When Monsieur Guimond does anything, he feels it's quite appropriate. And it's sometimes humorous, but if anyone else were to act in a similar fashion, he would fly into a rage. Chair, my point here is that there are actions that have been carried out by members opposite that have certainly affected your ability to conduct this meeting in any kind of impartial manner, and they should look within themselves first.

The last thing I will say, Chair.... I agree with Mr. Guimond on one thing: let's get this thing to a vote and get it done quickly, because it's certainly not fair to you, and it's not fair to the committee. It's my advice to all members opposite, Chair, that from time to time that old saying “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it” may come into play.

Mr. Chair, I would suggest to you on the record that I feel you have acted—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is this a point of order?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Well, is that a threat?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Certainly not. I'm just saying that obviously there are consequences of taking a rather severe action such as they're contemplating here. The only threats I've heard in the last few days are coming from members opposite.

Mr. Chair, for the record, I think you have handled yourself, in an extraordinarily difficult time, very well and above reproach. You have been put in an almost untenable position. It would only be fair that after all comments from my colleagues and any members opposite we go to an immediate vote on this, because I don't think you can do your job, frankly, under these circumstances.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I agree with that.

I still have speakers on the list, so we'll continue with the debate.

Madam Jennings, please.

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

Thank you.

I wish to state that I support entirely Mr. Guimond's motion and the explanation he gave, which describes very clearly the chair's conduct over the last number of weeks and months.

I simply wish to add one further example, and that is that when an individual—a chair, a judge, anyone who has the legal obligation to apply a law or a regulation—interprets and applies it, the application is in fact a decision. Therefore, when this chair on several occasions made a decision as to the application of the rules and procedures of the House of Commons and of the committee and, when there was an attempt to challenge that decision, claimed that he had not made any decision in order to thwart the actual exercise of members' rights within the committee, that, to me, was a flagrant abuse of authority.

I would like to see a judge applying the civil code in Quebec make a ruling and then, when there's an attempt to appeal that ruling, push back by saying “I never made a ruling; I didn't make a decision.” The very application of a rule is making a decision, and simply on that basis I lost confidence in the chair.

I was dismayed and saddened, because I happen to like the chair as a person. I've had an opportunity to work with the chair in previous sessions and felt that the chair would be objective and impartial.

I've been dismayed for the last number of weeks, if not months, by what I perceive as being a lack of impartiality, a real bias on the part of the chair and a real abuse of the chair's authority, in order to stymie the exercise by members of their rights within the committee.

Thank you.