Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 10th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Good afternoon, colleagues. We'll bring the meeting to order.

I want to remind members that today's meeting is being held in public. There is an administrative end to the meeting; it is 5:30. But it is administrative, and we're at the will of the committee to continue or to do whatever it is we decide we need to do.

I'll recognize you in a minute, Mr. Preston. I just want to carry on with the introductions.

I want to remind members, too, that today's meeting is to determine whether the committee wishes to proceed with the study before us. So I will try to keep the conversation centred around that until we've made that decision, and then we'll go forward.

On that point, I'll open up. For members who are not used to the proceedings of this committee, we will recognize in the order that hands go up. On a typical debate, there's no limit or time limit on that; however, we do ask that you respect that if I recognize that folks are repeating themselves or if we seem to be going around in circles, I'll direct that we move forward.

That being said, I'm open for anybody to raise his or her hand, and we'll get the debate going.

Mr. Preston.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's great to have everybody back here in the middle of summer and to see that we are all anxious to get back to work.

I recognize that we're here to discuss the matter you have already mentioned, Mr. Chair, but I'd like to suggest that, since we have this august group together, we also look at studying another question that seems to be on the top of everybody's mind today, including that of the Chief Electoral Officer, who made a statement on television today about the study of veiled voters or voting while veiled. Because of the upcoming byelections and the need to help bring this to some sort of conclusion, I suggest it might be a topic of discussion for this committee too, and I'd like to move a motion to that effect--that we talk about it. And because of the timeliness of it, we might even want to discuss it first.

The Chief Electoral Officer today stated that he needs the help of this committee in making up his mind or in coming to a conclusion on the voting by veiled individuals. We thought we had covered this reasonably well, as this committee had discussed and passed Bill C-31. I thought we had brought it to a reasonably good conclusion. The interpretation of the new legislation seems to be not as clear to the Chief Electoral Officer, and I'd like us to discuss that, if we could.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are you putting a motion on the floor, Mr. Preston?

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

Yes, I am, to the effect that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs study the Elections Canada decision to allow veiled individuals to vote. The study needs to be completed as quickly as possible. I suggest that it be completed this week before we get to voting in the byelections next week, so that the study would be completed by Friday, September 14.

I have copies of that motion in both languages. They've just now been given to the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, we have a motion on the floor, and we're going to have to debate this motion somehow.

Are you still willing to talk on this, Madam Redman?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am, actually. And I would contend that this motion is out of order. I don't want to be interpreted as being hostile to the intent of the motion, because I don't presume to speak for all colleagues here, but I think it is an important issue and one that probably could be dealt with with a fair amount of dispatch.

I would contend that this meeting's intent, under Standing Order 106(4), is expressly to discuss the allegations made regarding the Conservative Party of Canada's systematic attempt to defraud Elections Canada, as well as the Canadian taxpayer, in relation to the 2006 federal election. I would contend that this is the sole purpose for this meeting. I would reiterate that after we dispense with that matter--and I understand that we do have a timeframe--if the chair wants to seek consensus from this entire committee to save the last 10 or 15 minutes to deal with the whole issue, since the Chief Electoral Officer is seeking clarification on that, we could dispense with that quite quickly. I think most of our parties, indeed our party leaders, are on record with a view on that issue. So I don't think that would take a lot of time, but I would contend that procedurally we are obligated under the Standing Orders to deal with the issue for which this meeting was called.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

To clarify, originally we were going to discuss whether or not the committee wanted to move forward on this study. I sense the committee does, but we haven't gotten to that point yet.

We'll just continue a bit more with the debate here, because I have names on my list. We'll have Monsieur Guimond, and then Mr. Lauzon, and then Monsieur Poilievre.

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

Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that my colleague Joe Preston has raised a serious, relatively urgent matter, given that three by-elections are scheduled for next Monday, September 17. Therefore, before this meeting concludes, it's vitally important that the committee rule on this motion.

Ms. Redman was saying that we could spend the last 10 or 15 minutes studying this motion. I think it's possible for us to discuss the motion on the table in 10 or 15 minutes. We have been called here today to debate the motion now on the table, but now, another urgent motion that we need to look is before us.

In case some of my colleagues from one party might be tempted to use obstructive tactics or to muddy the issue in the hopes of delaying the adoption of this motion, I would just like to say to them that their party would have to assume responsibility for their actions. I'm not making any accusations. I'm simply speaking in general terms. It is best that you be forewarned. If we act in good faith and adopt the motion on the table, we will be in a position to ask each party to table a list of witnesses in less than 24 hours' time. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could then meet as early as Wednesday to begin its consideration of this motion.

However, it's important that we then proceed to rule on Elections Canada's decision. Again, I appeal to your good faith. If one party wants to duck the issue, then it can resort to using systematic obstructive tactics until 5:30 p.m. Then, we will have to listen to a lot of crap. We will have wasted out time by coming here at taxpayers' expense and we won't have time to consider the issue of veiled voters, a matter that we the members of the Bloc Québécois deem to be of an urgent, priority nature. Even if you present us with copies of the Gomery Report, going all the way back to Methuselah, the fact remain that we have a motion that needs to be debated. We expect to debate it. I'm not pointing a finger at anyone in particular, but if the shoe fits...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Lauzon.

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

Thank you very much, monsieur le président.

I certainly support my colleague's motion, and I'm glad to see that we probably should be able to get unanimous agreement to discuss it, because I think, as my colleagues across the table have said, it is urgent.

The other issue we have on the table is also urgent, and we want to see that discussed probably as urgently as some of the other parties opposite do. We want to get some information on record that I think deserves to be on record, and I think through this committee maybe we'll do that.

I should begin by saying, first of all, I'm a newcomer to this committee, and I'm just here to replace my good friend who couldn't be here, Mr. Hill.

But in speaking to Mr. Preston's motion, I must say, to be honest with you, with all due respect to my colleagues opposite, I have gotten an inordinate number of calls over this issue of the veiled voting. I don't know how many people will be voting behind a veil in those three byelections, but it seems that there are going to be an inordinate number of people who are going to do it, because it's such a big issue.

I would strongly suggest, to build on what Mr. Guimond said and whatever time it takes to do this, that we deal with this issue. I think we agree that we have only a few days to do it. Maybe we could give it priority--do it first--and then go on to the other issue. I think there has to be some kind of solution so that we can do it in a cooperative way and make sure we get both issues dealt with. But I think, as Mr. Guimond suggested, the party that might delay things might not do too well from a public relations point of view. I don't think postponing this issue of veiled voting would serve any of the parliamentarians sitting around here, so I would strongly suggest that we deal with this motion as a priority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me first say that it is possible to discuss both matters. There is no reason why we cannot do so. For that reason, I second the motion put forward by our colleague Mr. Preston. This is an urgent matter, given that by-elections are scheduled for next week. The rules need to be clarified. I for one completely disagree with Elections Canada's interpretation of this question and I strongly endorse the positions taken by the party leaders. However, perhaps some of the parties here do not wish to discuss this key issue. Perhaps some are afraid of a debate because they are not ready to take a stand. Our party's position is clear and we are prepared to have this debate and to clarify the rules.

With regard to some of the points made by other members, not only are we more than willing to go ahead with the discussion on how all parties have carried out electoral financing in previous elections, we are actually quite excited about having this discussion. The more research we do, the more this discussion is starting to become of great interest. So I look forward to--later on, of course--a motion that will bring forward the financial practices of all the parties before this committee. There's no reason why we can't have that discussion in the same week as we're having a discussion on an issue for which there is a short timeframe, and which we will face this coming Monday.

Once again, I strongly disagree with the interpretation of the Chief Electoral Officer with respect to veiled voting. I think this committee has to take a leadership role in setting the record straight so that the misinterpretation is not allowed to go ahead.

So we look forward to having some hearings on both of these issues, and I suspect that they will both be very fruitful. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, I want to say that in my opinion, my colleague Michel is trying to have us believe that only the Bloc members are taking the issue of veiled voters seriously, and that they alone can save the world. Michel, I think all political parties agree on the fact that there is a problem, one that we want to address and try to resolve.

As for the rationale behind the motion put forward, I think it is clear. Each political party has already made it clear that it wants to address both issues. The Conservative government has locked us out for next week, but we still have this week to hold meetings. Jack Layton has clearly stated that the government is locking us out for one month. That's no reason for not working this week, provided the government does not decide to prorogue Parliament when we adjourn today.

The quicker we get down to the items on the agenda, the better off we will be, because one of the things we need to do is decide on the witnesses that we will hear from initially. That is the gist of today's meeting. Then we can move on to the second problem. This week, there is no Question Period or any other committee meetings, which means that we can put in 12-hour days, if need be. Many workers in Canada are now putting in 12- or 16-hour work days. We could manage to do that this week. I don't think we should have any concerns on that score.

I recommend, Mr. Chairman, that we move right away to the first part of the agenda, namely selecting witnesses for the meeting. We'll have some time remaining and we can then speak to the second issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

We'll hear from Mr. Reid on the same debate, and then from Madam Robillard.

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

Actually, Mr. Chair, I asked the clerk to put me on. I didn't want to interrupt things. My point is actually a point of order.

My purpose is to point out to the committee that consideration of the matters as stated in the orders of the day, as they are stated in the orders of the day, would in fact be out of order. I have some supporting material to demonstrate why this is the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Is it on the original matter?

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

It's on the original matter, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Would you be so kind as to hold those comments until I hear the end of the discussion on this motion by Mr. Preston?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'll come back to you as soon as I feel this discussion is over.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Fair enough.

Madam Robillard.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I think all of the political parties have expressed some concerns about the instructions issued by the Chief Electoral Officer. I feel that it will be rather easy to get a consensus on the federal Chief Electoral Officer's interpretation of the Act. We all feel that it is important for us to clarify this issue for the benefit of the Chief Electoral Officer, if he in fact wants the committee to clarify the situation.

However, as someone who signed the letter asking for the committee to meet today, I think the motion as worded, which focused n the Conservative Party and the 2006 election campaign, should be at the top of our agenda.

This should be the first item up for discussion, Mr. Chairman. As I see it, we can dispense with the matter fairly quickly and, as my Bloc colleague noted, we could then move on to the second item and clarify to the Chief Electoral Officer what we would like to see in place for the September 17 by-elections.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are there further discussions on this debate? Are there any new discussions?

I'm going to go back to Mr. Preston then.