Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[The Clerk]

Thursday, December.... Once again, I can get you a room. The question is, will it be a room that can be televised?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let's not make this more complicated than it has been. We have had a request by the subcommittee that we move to extra meetings, that the extra meetings be televised. In order to meet both requirements of the subcommittee's report that's in front of you, the first meeting would have to be December 4.

[An hon. member]

That's Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Well, then this makes it very easy. If we're going to move to change the wording of the report...the wording now says, “That the Committee hold additional meetings beginning Thursday, December 4”, at 3:30 to 5:30, is that the—

[The Clerk]

Tuesday, December 4, 3:30 to 5:30.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It would be Tuesday? Sorry, colleagues.

All right. And then if we change the wording on that report, I would ask that members concur in it.That's basically where we are, Tuesday—

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to move too fast.

[An hon. member]

You are, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No, I'm not, honestly, there's no conspiracy here.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Actually, there's one aspect of this, which is the televised meetings, which is what we're working our way through. But the steering committee is made up of only a few members here on the committee. So, for example, I'm not sure what the scope of that first paragraph means in terms of the recommendation “additional meetings”. I'm wondering if you or another member could—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

One second.

Does everybody have this report? It was distributed earlier.

Okay. Mr. Lemieux, please.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Not having participated in the steering committee meeting, one of my concerns is what the scope of the second paragraph is, where it says “That the committee hold additional meetings beginning on Thursday, November 29”, which may change to Tuesday, December 4, “in relation to the motion”, etc.

Perhaps you could respond to my question about the scope of this, the number of meetings we're looking at, roughly. How long would we expect the committee meetings to be, and when and on what days? I know we were just running through when televised room locations are available.

I think it's important, because we want to be involved—obviously, committee members need to be involved. We want to be involved, but we're going to have to rearrange our schedules accordingly, and in order to do that it would be helpful to know in advance, not just the day before, what the magnitude is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemieux, this is not to cut you off, but I think you've asked the questions, and I'm going to try to respond to three of them.

Members who were at the steering committee meeting, if I stray from what actually happened, please interrupt me. Here's what I remember.

The steering committee decided to hold additional meetings to continue the debate on the motion by Madam Redman, to the tune of one additional meeting per week of two hours in length. I guess that was probably not discussed in much detail, but normally the meetings are two hours in length.

That's one meeting per week to continue the debate on the motion by Madam Redman. How many meetings? I don't think I can answer, nor was it discussed.

Your final question was what day. That's what we're here to decide, and I felt that we had a bit of a consensus that those days would be determined by when a televised room would be available.

Mr. Reid, please, and then Mr. Proulx.

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

With reference to the Tuesday 3:30 to 5:30 proposal, that's a time at which—today, for example, this afternoon—we'll be having a meeting that a number of the people present on this committee will be attending: Mr. Lukiwski and I, from our side, Madam Redman, Monsieur Guimond, and Mr. Godin, who sometimes sits on this committee. So that might be problematic for that reason.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid is pointing out that on Tuesday, December 4, even though we have a room that can televise, meeting all the requirements, some members of this committee may not be available. But substitutions would be allowed.

Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, thank you.

To start with, the second paragraph of the report, which mentioned November 29.... If you recall, this was all conditional on verifications that were to be made by the clerk. So I'm surprised that it's already on paper, but that's okay, we've amended it; we've changed it.

Point number two, the question of one meeting per week was up in the air in the sense, if you recall, that at the steering committee, when we discussed this, we decided to look at the possibilities, whether it be for this week or for the coming weeks until the Christmas break.

So maybe we should ask the clerk, Mr. Chair, what other possibilities would exist during the coming weeks. It might be that we want to have meetings on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

And in answer to Mr. Lemieux's question, a quick answer would be that it will take as long as we need, and that all depends on how much filibustering is done by the government members. If they continue to filibuster the way they've done since September, it might take a year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Proulx

Monsieur Guimond.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the same vein, I would like to apologize for not having been present at the steering committee meeting, particularly since you had postponed it at my request.

Unfortunately, you are not listening to me—I do have something interesting to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

One ear is for you, Monsieur, and one is for my clerk. You have an ear. Go ahead.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe that this committee has always operated by consensus. There are 26 parliamentary committees, and this committee is one of the pillars that needs to operate with as little partisanship as possible.

I would like to ask my colleagues in the Conservative Party what we are to expect with respect to this motion asking for an investigation on the actions of the Conservative Party.

The motion was passed by a majority of members. Our Conservative colleagues very legitimately submitted amendments to try to study election reports since 1993, 1997 or 2000, as well as the reports of all the parties. That proposal was rejected by the majority of members.

I appeal to my colleagues. We can presume that people are acting in good faith. I take it for granted that all colleagues here today are working in good faith. I also presume that all colleagues are democratic.

Are we engaging in a filibuster? Are we going to listen to interminable speeches, or can we finally begin studying the motion submitted by my colleague, Ms. Redman?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Since all questions are to the chair, I can't answer that question.

Keep it very short, please. I think we've reached a consensus.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Maybe I can help out. I usually sit on the finance committee, and we use this room quite a bit because we're in pre-budget consultations.

We're travelling next week. I would suggest you book the room; it will be available next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid, did you have one final comment? Then I'll wrap this up.

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

Mr. Chairman, I actually have a number of things to say.

It's possible I misunderstood, but I just had the impression that Monsieur Guimond has asserted--and if he was doing so, he was doing so counter-factually--that the amendment and subamendment, which would expand Madam Redman's motion to include all parties and the 2004 election, had been voted down. I'm not sure that's what he was asserting, but in fact what happened was that he and a number of colleagues got up and walked out of the room. If that doesn't constitute voting it down.... I just want to be clear that that has been the case.