Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 11th, 2007

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

We have to continue discussing it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Monsieur Guimond.

If I could have the floor for just a moment, it has been the history of this committee to accept such comments without actually having to do a motion.

Here's my concern. Given the breakdown that I've been seeing on this committee lately, if I accept that motion I have to do it. I suggest we're going to go into another debate on another motion, and this could be sidetracked.

With your permission, I'm simply going to suggest to the committee that you—like in the past—have simply authorized the chair to contact Mr. Mayrand and have him come here on Thursday at 10 a.m. to meet with us for an hour or an hour and a half. If there are witnesses that anybody wants to submit, we'll try to schedule them in after lunch.

Is that fair, Monsieur Guimond?

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

Yes, but I would add, considering the urgent nature of the veiled vote issue, that we could discuss today's topic Thursday afternoon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Today's subject, the continuation of this....

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

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

We must agree immediately that Thursday at 1:30, we will resume debate concerning the motion we are about to vote on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Guimond, you are my friend today, because that makes perfectly good sense. Thank you for clarifying that. It's a very clear thing right now—but we will go to a point of order.

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

On a point of order, the suggestion of Mr. Guimond requires unanimous consent.

We have a motion that's already been adopted by this committee, that the committee do a study, however brief it is, to be completed by Friday, September 14. That was agreed to unanimously by this committee. It was never suggested that we shut out witnesses or ignore the points of view of various people who might have something to offer.

I am perfectly in agreement with Monsieur Guimond, Mr. Chair, if he is suggesting that we hear from the Chief Electoral Officer on Thursday morning. However, we will not offer unanimous consent for taking away the possibility of hearing from other witnesses, because there are a lot of valuable groups in this country who've spoken out for all sides and for many faiths. We don't need to hear from them all, but there are some who have been particularly prominent in discussing this, and I think their comments have been very helpful and deserve to be heard, so that when we put forward a recommendation to the Chief Electoral Officer all viewpoints will be taken into account .

The motion that we have right here allows for those witnesses to be heard. I just suggest that you accept the submission of witnesses from the various members of this committee. All of us, I suspect, will be judicious in who we submit and that the witnesses will be relevant and pertinent to the discussion. We should make time to hear from them as well.

That is the condition upon which we would consider supporting Mr. Guimond's suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I believe, for the most part—if I'm not wrong—Mr. Guimond, that was exactly your suggestion, that we meet with Monsieur Mayrand in the morning, and then, if there are witnesses, they would be heard in the afternoon. I'm also hearing from you, sir—which a good suggestion—that we follow that up by meeting right away, at 3:30, to continue this discussion.

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

Thursday morning between 10 o'clock and 11 o'clock a.m. we could hear Mr. Mayrand; between 11 and noon, in the context of an expanded version of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, we could decide what follow-up we want to give to that. We could then determine on the basis of what we will have heard whether it would be pertinent to hear further witnesses on this topic and if that is the case, when. And so I move that Thursday at 1:30 p.m. we resume debate on the motion we were called here to discuss over the past two days. It can't just be allowed to float away with the angels and clouds; we can't just forget about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry, now I'm confused. Is it at 1:30 that you want to go back to talking about this motion if there are no witnesses?

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

If we decide to have witnesses at 11 o'clock, we must find a timetable.But the nature of my proposition is not to have Mayrand from 10 to 11 o'clock and then decide to have witnesses for the rest of the day and then speak on this motion in October. At 11 o'clock we would have a steering committee meeting and decide whether we need to have witnesses. After some questions or problems that we mention, Mayrand might decide at the end of the meeting that it's a good approach; he could change his mind, and we wouldn't need witnesses. Or Mayrand might decide to continue in the same way and arrive with arguments or a clear case from a section of the law, and we would decide we don't have time and don't need more witnesses, that the final solution could be an amendment to the Elections Act.

Who will present? The Bloc Québécois mentioned that we will introduce a bill when the House starts. If the government decides to present an amendment, maybe we'll discuss it, but at 1:30 we want to continue the discussion on this.

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

On the same point, Mr. Chair, on a point of order--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I would like to interject. We massage these things out, and this is actually how this committee works. I think we're getting close to a decision. I would just like to comment before I give you the floor, Mr. Poilievre.

I like the idea, but I have a concern. We can schedule 10 o'clock for a discussion with Mr. Mayrand; that's a done deal. Let's do that. We can decide at the 10 o'clock meeting whether we will meet to further discuss the motion that we have been discussing. My concern is that if there are witnesses, it would get discussed at 1:30 p.m.; if there are no witnesses, then we move the 3:30 meeting up to 1:30 and carry on with this discussion.

I'd like to leave 1:30 open in case there are witnesses, but if there are no witnesses, we can meet at 1:30 to discuss this issue. We can move the 3:30 meeting up. In other words, I would like to schedule a meeting at 10 for a discussion with Mr. Mayrand, a meeting at 11 for the steering committee, a meeting at 1:30 for potential witnesses, and a meeting at 3:30 to continue this. If there are no witnesses, we'll move the 3:30 up to 1:30.

That's got to be the compromise you love.

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

Yes, but I want to be practical. We don't know what witnesses and we don't know the person we will call at noon to be at the meeting at 1:30. It will be like a jack-in-the-box.

Why don't we start the discussion on the main motion at 11:30? At noon they will be prepared to be here at 3:30, maybe 6:30 or 5:30 if you have a lunch. We will be available, but we don't know who will be on the list. I don't have a list of witnesses in mind right now .

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Listen, folks, let me make a comment, because I suggest we're going around in circles.

I assume the potential witness list would have been delivered long before then. The witnesses would have been contacted and put on notice. At the 11 o'clock standing committee meeting, we would decide who is technically necessary or not; or maybe none of them would be. That's efficient preparatory committee work. They would all be put on notice that they might be called.

I know it's a bit of a crunch, but as everyone has said, this is an issue that has to be dealt with by Monday. Clerks have to write a report, the report has to be approved, it has to be tabled on Friday, and I'm finding that by delaying it any further--

[An hon. member]

What's she going to write about? There's no House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Well, the report has to be done. That's the motion that you voted on.

Can we just accept that we're going to meet at 10 o'clock on Thursday to discuss the veil issue? Let's get that out of the way right now, and we will have Mr. Mayrand at that meeting.

Is everybody agreed? You're the best.

There will be an expanded steering committee from 11 to 12. I will discuss with Mr. Guimond what that means. I suspect I know, but we'll meet at 11 o'clock.

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

No, we're not agreed on that, because the problem we have here is that if we're going to have witnesses on this matter, as Mr. Guimond said, we can't call them after a steering committee meeting authorizes their appearance; we have to be getting in contact with them the next day. The idea that we're going to go into a steering committee and then decide whether there will be additional witnesses and then call them up and have them shipped in here is insane.

Let's just agree.... Mr. Chair, there is a motion that has been adopted by this committee calling for a study. You were authorized to go out and get witnesses for that study. That's the reality of the matter.

I have it right here:

That the committee on procedure and House affairs study the Elections Canada decision to allow veiled individuals to vote. This study be completed by Friday, September 14, 2007.

Yesterday we agreed that the witness list would be accumulated by submission from members of this committee--

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

That was agreed to; it was stated. You can find it in the blues if you don't agree or if you'd fallen asleep. The reality is that we had an agreement to do that, and that is the agreement we are operating on, on this side of the House.

Now, if there is something that we want to discuss after that on the same day, there's no reason that can't occur, but to suggest that we're going to have a steering committee meeting and then decide whether there will be witnesses is logistically impossible. You need to have the witness list by tomorrow at noon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Actually, that is exactly what I'm suggesting--that we have a witness by, preferably, later this evening, so that we can call the witnesses and put them on notice.

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

You can't put them on notice that they might, but might not, have to fly to Ottawa.

[An hon. member]

Then we call the witnesses next week, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's after the byelection, and it's outside the motion that's in front of us.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.