Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I agree with you. If you'd let me answer the point of order first, I'll let you speak, sir, because I do learn from what you say.

You're right, I have moved that we should be in camera if we're discussing the business of the committee. A motion has been put to be in public, and the majority has voted on that.

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

A democracy.

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

Yes, I know, but the Bloc Québécois believes it can revisit certain pieces of democracy forever and ever, when it comes to whether Quebeckers want to separate from Canada. So it's my position, Mr. Chair, that this is a different piece of business.

[An hon. member]

This is exactly what we are trying to fight back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Order.

I'll be as collegial as I can on this.

We've ruled this motion out of order. It's out of the way at the moment. We're back to committee business. It is usual that committee business is done in camera, but the majority has voted that we will not do it in camera.

If you're moving a point of order that we move back into camera, then we could vote again on it. But at this moment I'm just trying to give you the lay of the land as to where we are.

Mr. Guimond, on that same point of order.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I am Mr. Lauzon. We look alike, but not that much.

I thought we had decided to be in public to consider this motion. That's what I thought we voted on.

It was just that. I would like to make a motion that we go back in camera to discuss committee business and who we want to call as witnesses, etc. If you're going to be talking about personalities and that, I don't think it is advisable to be doing so in the public forum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I will tell you that is my interpretation, that we go in public to talk about Mr. Godin's motion.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I'm not sure that's what you want to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It is now over, but again it is the will of the committee. Should we be in public or in camera?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I would like to make--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, on the same topic, please.

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

That is the easiest way to do it. I agree with your assessment that now that we're disposed of this, we should normally be in camera. However, if the committee members want this to be in public, simply forward another motion that this current piece of business we're discussing be in public, and then we'll vote on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay. Do I have a motion...?

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

If I may conclude, the only reason I'm saying this is that there has been a precedent we've long observed in this committee that committee business be in camera. If the majority of the members want to go public for this particular point of discussion, let's just follow a process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

A motion to go public or in camera is not debatable, so I will assume that one has now been put on the floor.

We'll vote again. Those wishing to be in public?

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

We are in public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We are in public, so the motion would be to go in camera.

(Motion negatived)

We've cleared that one up, so we're remaining in public.

I will get right back to you, because we are still on you. I will now get back to Mr. Proulx's point on the discussion that he was having about committee business.

Just as a warning, we're now in public on committee business. Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I was saying, I realize that we cannot subpoena him. We cannot force him, but we should invite the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin to testify in front of this committee to explain what the situation is.

Second, I think we should call in as witnesses the person or persons within the Conservative Party who looked after preparing this, if that is the case. If the member for Saskatoon—Wanuskewin says he didn't prepare it, let's get the persons or the person who did in here. They can tell us why they did this, why they believed that he had voted contrary to what he actually did, or what the intent was in sending this out, so that we can get to the bottom of this and understand exactly what the procedure was all about, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski on the same point of committee business or something like it.

It's a motion? Great.

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

What is the motion again?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The motion is that we invite Mr. Maurice Vellacott, and that we invite some persons unknown to our committee.

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

All right. I'm not sure how we deal with the vote on persons unknown. I guess that's my process question here.

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

I hope we'll find the name of the unknown.

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

The will of the committee will ultimately decide on the conducting of business here. I would point out again just what the Speaker said. He wanted us to deal with the point of privilege, and I point out for the record that Mr. Stoffer here said that he is satisfied. He asked for two things, if I recall correctly. He said that he would like to speak to—he didn't necessarily say bring before the committee—the person or the persons who put this together, because I think he wants to have a one-on-one with them.

Also, he wants assurances that this type of action—in other words, sending out incorrect information in ten percenters—never happens again. I think that's the crux of the issue here. Without question, as I said for the record, and I will say again, at no time should a ten percenter or any other form of communication on the taxpayer's dime be allowed to be sent out to anyone's riding if the information contained in that communiqué is incorrect. It shouldn't happen.

I have stated again for the record that I have received—I won't call them ten percenters, because the incorrect information from the NDP was in a letter form—incorrect information. I have copies of those. I have also received missives from the Liberal Party over the five years that have contained incorrect information. If you want to go down that road, I'll gladly bring those to the committee, but I don't think that's the point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll also rule that going that far is way out of this committee's mandate again.