Evidence of meeting #45 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was questions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
You're appointed by the Liberal Party, and you're a Liberal. I think that's way over the custom of impartiality.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Goodyear. I understand you, sir. I understand. I simply wanted to indicate that I apologize if we did go to areas that I expressed some concern about at the beginning of the meeting, about what the rules refer to as badgering the witnesses. I believe you understand how this occurred.
I will now entertain any final comment you may have to the committee before I excuse you.
1:15 p.m.
Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada
I simply wish to thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the committee. Thank you.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Mayrand. You are excused.
All right. I am going to suspend until two o'clock.
2:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay, colleagues, we're now resuming our business.
We have finished with our witnesses. We're now at the second item on our notice of motion. We have completed with Mr. Mayrand and Mr. Bernier. We have a couple of matters of business that we had indicated and that I'd like to proceed with. I'd like to lay out how we will do this.
I put committee business on the notice of meeting, and as we discussed very briefly yesterday, the principal reason is to address future witnesses. We had adopted a process whereby the members from each of the parties would prepare and submit to the clerk their proposed witnesses by the beginning of today's meeting, at 10 a.m. That was done. All the duplicates have been consolidated except two. I noted two, actually, that are still duplicated there, but I'll point them out to you. So we want to deal with that witness list.
We also want to deal with the meeting dates. I have heard some interventions. There is a strong argument from a couple of members, with regard to Quebec, that the last week of July and the first week of August are basically no-go zones. This is a very significant period of time--vacation time and other activity time--for Quebec, and as a consequence, I'm going to suggest....
Also, Mr. Goodyear and a couple of others have mentioned on a couple of occasions that coming for two days, going back home, and then coming back for another two days, the cost of that to fly.... What I'm going to suggest—and you may want to check your calendars now—is that once we deal with our witness list, the committee would next meet on August 11, 12, 13, and maybe 14. It is about a month from now. That will give the committee and the clerks and so on enough time. We have to do a fair bit of work to establish clarification of the relevance of some of these witnesses, to group them, and to find availability and so on. It will take some time. We can't do that before the last week of July. Therefore, the next opportunity really is the week I'm proposing. So depending on the number of witnesses we can actually get, it will be two, three, or four days, but it will be all in that week. That is what I'm proposing to members.
Now, finally, we have one additional item of committee business, and that is the motion of Mr. Reid, which was properly presented to the committee and has been moved. It's debatable. The members are aware of that, and we should discharge that. That will also be dealt with as the last item of business I'm aware of. That's just to give members an idea of where we're going.
We had a very substantial list of proposed witnesses from members. I want to indicate to you that if you all have your copy of this, on the second page.... Do you have a copy of this?
2:15 p.m.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Excuse me, I want to come back to the other subject you talked about. You said August 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, in Ottawa?
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No, no. I said Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. That would be the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
On page 2, Mr. Pierre Coulombe, chief organizer for the Conservative Party of Canada, is listed on line 4, and again about two-thirds of the way down the page. Just drop the last mention, as housekeeping.
As well, the other duplicate is Touché Marketing, which appears near the bottom of the last page and also at the top of page 2. I think we should delete one of these. It's the same matter, the same item, the same sponsor.
Now, there are many ways to approach this, and I think the chair is going to have to show a little bit of leadership on this. I have taken the opportunity to review all of the submissions and, again, our motion of business. I want to read it into the record again, just to refresh members' minds:
That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics investigate 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 certain election campaign expenses in order to determine if these actions meet the ethical standards expected of public office holders.
The references to 2006 and to the Conservative Party are significant and meaningful in this, in terms of establishing relevance. Accordingly, I am going to rule—
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I don't support what you're doing, Mr. Chair. You have no right to just come in here and say this is what's going to be the case. Surely to goodness members of this committee have a say as to who the witnesses are going to be. You just can't jump in here and say this is it and you're going to rule. It's most improper.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you, Mr. Tilson.
The relevance is the issue, and the chair is going to have to point out to members that there are persons on this list who have been proposed but do not meet the relevance test for the matter before the committee.
The chair is making a decision. So I want to list for the members—
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Gary Goodyear Conservative Cambridge, ON
On a point of order, please, Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could possibly offer to the chair a document that you could read. I could read it out for you. It's dated June 19. It is from a committee meeting that you presided over and where you confirmed very astutely, to me, that the chair would not be involved in the selection process of witnesses.
I'd be happy to give this to you, Mr. Chair.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Thank you.
I'm not selecting witnesses, but I am making a determination of their relevance. I'm going to suggest to committee members that I've reviewed this and that at the top of page two there is Touché Marketing, which because of its relation to prior elections with regard to Bloc Québécois candidates, and not Conservative candidates, that....
On the bottom of page 4, there is Lucy Ladouceur, the NDP bookkeeper. Again, it's in regard to NDP candidates. There is Libby Davies, an NDP candidate. Again, this does not involve the media buy, which is the issue. And there is Mr. Christopherson.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
I will deal with you in a second; I'm in the middle of something. Thank you.
I say this because they have to do with the 2000 election. There is also Ms. Lorraine Godin, former official agent for the Bloc Québécois back in the 2000 election; and Mrs. Janine Boileau, official agent for the Bloc Québécois. Again, I mention them because of their party and the date. And there is Mr. Marc Lemay, the 2004 candidate for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. Again, he is outside of the scope of the work of the committee.
It is my decision that these proposed witnesses are beyond our scope and are not admissible for our witness list.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Okay. It's not debatable, and the question must now be put.
Shall the decision of the chair be sustained? Would you please call the roll?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 6; nays 2)
