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

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

To my friend Madam Redman, who suggested that perhaps my motion was out of order—and I know she doesn't do it in any mean or vicious way—it's clearly been ruled in the past by Speaker Fraser that once a committee has been constituted and is sitting, it can change its topic at the will of the committee. So it certainly wouldn't be out of order for us to want to change our topic and discuss something else or, as my friends from both sides of the table said, both topics.

Although I love her help from time to time, I think on this one I feel a little comfort in that I'm not out of order in moving this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you for that comment, but we can leave those decisions up to the chair. I don't believe Madam Redman was asking for a ruling on it; it was a comment.

I will, though, acknowledge that this committee does accept motions from the floor. There is no time limit or notification time, so the motion obviously is fully in order.

We have now debated it. I don't see any further discussions on this issue. The motion is on the floor, debate is finished, and I feel it's time to call the question on this motion. And then I will go back to Mr. Reid, who has been kind enough to hold his comments on the original matter.

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

I have a point of order, Chair. We ask that this vote be a recorded vote.

Thank you.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On a point of order, I would like to do a twofold thing here. I would challenge the chair's ruling. I think this is out of order. This is a very specific standing order, 106(4). In no way do I mean this to be personal, mean, or vicious to my friend Joe Preston, but I would challenge the chair's ruling. I would also point out that I have not heard one member of any party who is hostile to the intent of dealing with this. I am challenging the chair's ruling merely as regards how we order things. I think some of my colleagues have talked about some of the colourful discourses we've had in the past. Some people might want to characterize them as filibusters. I would hate to think that this would happen regarding such an important issue and such a specific item as the one we've come to discuss today. However, the motion before us does not.... I see a timeline here.

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

On a point of order, Chair, challenging the chair is not debatable. It goes right to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You can challenge the chair if you like.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I see a timeline, but I don't understand what the process is, so I'm not quite clear on what we're voting on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think it's quite in order.

Could I just make a comment? Thank you, Monsieur Poilievre. The comment I would make is that this committee is the master of its own domain, and we've always accepted motions from the floor, so I don't see anything out of order here.

You're challenging the chair, so we'll take a vote. My decision is that we are going to call the question on Mr. Preston's motion. You're challenging that decision, so I will call for a vote on the challenge to see whether we turn over the chair's decision.

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

We ask for a recorded vote again, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We'll have a recorded vote.

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

On shutting down discussion on the issue of veiled voting--that's what we are voting on?

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

Who's chairing here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I am.

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

Are you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes, sir.

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

On a point of clarification, would you explain to me why we would be voting on Mr. Preston's procedure before discussing the reason for today's meeting?

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, there is a challenge before the--

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

Mr. Chair, who is chairing the committee here today?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Points of order are allowed during any discussion, and there's no debate on them. However, I would caution members to just take it easy. Let's get through this meeting.

What I see on the table is a very simple decision to make, a decision on the order of the agenda, which has always been up to the committee to decide. Motions have always been put on the floor without notice in this committee. Mr. Preston was recognized first because he had his hand up first. He chose, as other members have in the past, to put a motion up.

We've now legitimately debated that motion. I have called for a question. I have been challenged on that question. Now we are going to vote on whether that challenge stands.

Is everybody clear? We're going to have a recorded vote. My decision is that we will have a vote on the motion put forward by Mr. Preston. I've been challenged on that decision. I'm calling the vote now, and discussion is over.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The decision is that the chair's decision on holding a vote on Mr. Preston's motion stands. We will now go to a vote on Mr. Preston's motion. I'll read the motion again, and we will have a recorded vote on this motion.

The motion by Mr. Preston is that the committee on procedure and House affairs study the Elections Canada decision to allow veiled individuals to vote, this study to be completed by Friday, September 14, 2007.

Do you have a point of order?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Perhaps it's just a question, Mr. Chair.

If this motion were accepted, would you proceed immediately to a discussion on this motion and not get to the reason for which in fact the committee was called today? Or, suppose this motion were accepted, would you then allow the committee to deal with the item for which the committee was called?

Do you see what I'm getting at, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes, of course.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I want to understand. If this motion is accepted, do you then completely evacuate the agenda for which the committee was called?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's up to the committee. That's my decision. I would hope the committee wouldn't waste a lot of time trying to decide which one would go first.

Order. We're going to have a recorded vote.

Madam Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I do appreciate your trying to bring order to this.

I want to reiterate that I don't think anybody is hostile to the fact that we're going to deal with this, but I am very unclear other than on a timeline. I would ask, through you to Mr. Preston, what he has in mind. It says a study is to be completed. This is somewhat different from providing the clarification that I understood the Chief Elector Officer was seeking. My question would be, are we then going to sit all week and have a series of witnesses who would come before this committee? I have no objection, but I'm looking for clarification.

I think it's been fairly clear in the media that members of Parliament--certainly the ones around this table and parties--don't view the interpretation that's been made as the correct one. I see Mr. Preston agreeing. We sat around and discussed the fact that photo ID was now required.

I'm trying to understand exactly what this vote means. Mr. Chair, when you say the committee will then decide how to prioritize this and the actual intention of Standing Order 106(4) that this meeting was convened under, how would we go about doing that?