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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

All right. Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

What is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, or so says Mr. Godin.

I am amazed that no such study has been done into opposition party finances. It is clear that all parties transferred funds from their national party office to local candidates. However, opposition members are not willing to shed light on the finances of their party and their candidates. Therefore, I am very surprised that this motion makes no mention of...

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It relates to the point of order.

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

On the point of order--this relates to the point of order--we have here a motion that concludes that there are allegations that don't actually exist. The allegations that are referred to in this motion have not been made anywhere. Nobody has made these allegations. It makes reference to allegations that don't actually exist. No one would make such allegations, because they know that they would not stand up in a court. In fact, there are no allegations at all against the Conservative Party.

We are the plaintiff. The Conservatives are taking Elections Canada to court--not the other way around--because we are right. In fact, we are going to be depositing all of the financial records of our campaign. We'll be putting all of that out in the open, and we're going to have a very public examination of how we finance our electoral operations.

What is very fascinating, though, is that the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois will not do the same thing. I'd be interested to hear if the NDP would be willing to open up its books. But so far, I see a bunch of opposition parties not willing to stand up to the same principles as they would like to thrust upon others and the same principles as we ourselves have already agreed to uphold.

We could solve the problem of Mr. Reid's point of order if the opposition would just agree, right now, to change the wording so as to have an examination of all of their books for the last two elections, both 2004 and 2006. So far we haven't seen that. I will be very interested to see if they will change their minds. They don't look very happy with the suggestion right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please. Thank you.

Is there anything further that would assist the chair in making this decision on this point of order? I'm going to take a second here before I make any further comments.

Colleagues, I'm sorry. Thank you very much for your patience. I've had a discussion with our analysts and our clerk.

Just allow me to make some comments. Mr. Reid and other members have raised my level of awareness, and I have to admit that I'm concerned about this matter. It is a serious situation. Mr. Reid has raised a number of references. Mr. Martin raised some potentially helpful precedents in the past.

I'm going to reserve my judgment on Mr. Reid's point of order until 3:30 tomorrow, which, my analysts and clerk advise me, should be enough time to pull all of that, have a look at it, and have a discussion.

As well, I will inform the committee--I'm told I should ask the committee this--that I would like to ask for an independent legal opinion, and I would suggest Mr. Walsh, who is the law clerk for Parliament. If anybody has a significant objection to that.... I'm simply asking the members to understand the volume of the decision that I have to make. I would like to make sure I make the correct decision.

I'm going to reserve my judgment until tomorrow at 3:30. With the committee's permission, I would like to invite Mr. Walsh to review the minutes and give me his opinion, as well as do my own research. That's my decision.

Now, we still have some time left. If the committee would like to move forward on the first issue, we can get our witnesses together.

Mr. Guimond.

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

Mr. Chairman, I disagree completely with your interpretation. In my opinion, putting off this decision until 3:30 p.m. tomorrow is merely one way of accomplishing indirectly what you do not want to approach directly, that is muddy the waters, prevent the truth about this motion from coming to light and prevent a genuine discussion on the motion on the table.

Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling and I want you to know that we the members of the Bloc Québécois can vote on your decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

I don't need to make a comment on that, because I've made no decision. There will be no discussion on my right to reserve my decision, but thank you for bringing that up.

Is there any further discussion on the motion regarding veils? We have time left in this meeting.

Mr. Preston.

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

While we have a moment, why don't we move forward and discuss witnesses and actions of this committee on that very pertinent topic of today? With the Chief Electoral Officer going on TV and trying to explain himself, I'd love for him to come here and try to explain to us what he doesn't understand about photo ID. I'd certainly like that to be something we could do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think what I'm asking the committee for is a list of witnesses they may want to have. Let's talk about when we want to have this.

Madam Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I understand this is somewhat new territory and you've been getting lots of help from your Conservative colleagues; however, my understanding was that you were asking permission from the committee to reserve your decision. You're just announcing that you're going to wait until tomorrow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No. I'm going to reserve my decision until tomorrow. I was announcing to the committee that I might ask Mr. Walsh to assist me in the decision-making.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Then I would move a motion that we move immediately to dealing with the motion and the whole reason we're here under Standing Order 106(4). I'm happy to read it again. We've all got it in both official languages:

That the committee discuss looking into allegations made against 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 put that motion on the floor, Mr. Chair. We respectfully ask that it be dealt with. It has been debated. I respect that you have to make a decision. I understand that it's up to the committee whether we challenge the decision of the chair. I would ask that the motion be dealt with forthwith.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm going to raise a point of order on this issue. I'm going to have to rule that motion out of order, because you obviously aren't hearing the substance of what I have to review: whether witnesses can appear before this committee, whether we can actually get our work done, and whether we will in fact have some influence on the trial that's already ongoing.

Any motion on this order is going to be ruled out of order if you push me on that issue. My decision is to reserve it and research it well. Frankly, to be quite honest with you, I don't understand the push to have the chair make a decision on something so serious without due consideration. I will take the 24 hours. I hope this committee doesn't get out of order. I would certainly not want to adjourn the committee because we're out of order. Let's stay on track.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I challenge your ruling that I'm out of order. I'm asking you to make a decision now. If you're ruling me out of order, I'm challenging that decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We can do that all day. Your motion is out of order.

On a point of order, Mr. Reid.

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

Mr. Chairman, if the previous motion and the orders of the day were out of order, this too would be out of order. So if we move to this new item, I'll have to make my point of order all over again for exactly the same reasons. There's no way out of this bind for Ms. Redman while introducing the motion in its current form. If she wishes to change it so that it is not violating the sub judice convention, I suggest to you that could be done, and that it wouldn't violate the other objections I have--presupposing facts that are in dispute and using highly aggressive language. I think she could come up with something, but this particular one, if she introduces it this way.... She can go through the charade of having us vote to overrule the chair and say that there are no rules of order at all here, and that rather the majority has the right to throw aside the rule book whenever it feels like it--something that is nowhere permitted in our rule book, Mr. Chair. She can have us go through that, but if she does, I'll go through my point of order again, because the motion will be out of order in exactly the same way as the first item was out of order. It's got to be dealt with, and the substantive points I've raised don't change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, we're getting to a point where our committee meeting is just making discussions for the point of making discussions, and I would expect from a senior committee like this one that we wouldn't be doing this. I have the right to reserve my decision so that I can make the right decision that's informed, and that's what I'm going to do.

The next order of business is the motion on the veil issue. If members don't want to discuss that today, then the business of this meeting is done, and I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

Monsieur Guimond.

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

Regarding the question of veiled voters, I would like to move a motion. Since I have not had time to get it drafted in English, I will not actually table it. I will, however, read it. Let me explain the rationale behind my motion. We have not had time to do a lengthy study or to call witnesses. I think there is agreement that individuals should not be allowed to vote in Monday's by-elections if they are veiled.

Mr. Mayrand has come to a decision and he reiterated his position at this morning's press conference. Clearly, the parties disagree with his position. Consequently, I would like to put forward a motion calling on the Chief Electoral Officer to reconsider his decision. We could ask the chair to sign it and it would be the equivalent of a committee report. The motion would read as follows:

That the members of this committee call upon Elections Canada to reconsider its decision to allow veiled individuals to vote.

That is the motion that I wish to put forward, if I have the unanimous consent of the four parties. I attended Mr. Mayrand's press conference this morning and he appeared to be saying that if Parliament were willing... I don't know if the government is willing to recall Parliament this evening for an emergency session. It might be hard to get a quorum. However, if we were to ask the chair to write to Elections Canada and submit this motion, then this might put an end to the debate on veiled voters, in advance of Monday's by-elections.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Guimond, do you have that motion written down?

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

I have it written in French.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think that's acceptable if we can get a copy of it.

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

I'll repeat the motion so that my anglophone colleagues can catch the interpretation:

That the members of this committee call upon Elections Canada to reconsider its decision to allow veiled individuals to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have a motion on the floor. Obviously we'll start debate on that.

Merci, Monsieur Guimond.

I will go by the list; however, we do have a motion on the floor. Monsieur LeBlanc, do you still wish to speak on this motion?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I do not, other than to say, Mr. Chairman, that I would be in favour of this motion, and that I hope colleagues would deal with it expeditiously so this matter could be disposed of quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

I still have names on my list here. Monsieur Lauzon, do you want to say something on this motion or do you want to pass? You're good, Monsieur Lauzon? Merci.

Mr. Poilievre.