Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Jan. 31st, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You have to decide, because right now we're on this separate issue of a point of order. Are you on that? Okay.

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

I have two points of order and a motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm going to recognize Madam Redman first, because she was up first.

Thank you.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess I have to scratch my head a little, because Mr. Lukiwski mentioned some concerns he had with the report, which I contend we need to vote on forthwith. What he's put before us is not new. It's probably as old as the motion we're talking about, which I would remind everyone goes back to last August, when we started trying to deal with this. I would really hope that we would be able to deal with this report as is.

Speaking to this point of order and the issue that's been raised that we don't need 48 hours' notice, this committee indeed works a little differently. I remind Mr. Lukiwski, a seasoned veteran, of what he knows, that steering committees generally operate by consensus. So the whole issue of whether or not the chair votes, I would tell you, is probably bogus—and we should move forward.

Steering committee reports come to the whole committee. As for whether or not we have a vote on this committee report before us, my understanding, from what Mr. Lukiwski has said, is that this is not trying to amend the report, but rather to bring in a separate motion. After we deal with the report, we could go on to deal with his motion.

But this has been around since August and it smells, tastes, and sounds an awful lot like this continuing filibuster. I would be willing to chat if we were to deal with this report. The real issue for Mr. Lukiwski happens to be taking precedence over all other work of the committee. I would not see it as a hostile motion if we were to have an arrangement where we dealt with this issue and we also dealt with legislation, so that one was not continually being held in abeyance.

Again, I underscore that this is an issue that we started discussing in August, and I remind people that it is now January 2008.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Proulx, I did see your hand next.

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

I just wanted to ask if you had done the same thing when Ms. Redman was talking and making a veiled proposition, or was this causing a problem?

Were you listening at that time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Of course.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Folks, I actually don't need to make a ruling on this. The fact is that we do accept motions from the floor at any time. It's not a question of the rules; I'm not making a ruling.

Do you have another point of order?

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

On that point, we do accept that the motion goes to the chair, but it doesn't stop the work of the committee. The work of the committee was that we were brought here to accept the report, yes or no, and then to continue with motions.

I've never before seen you, Mr. Chair, say that because we have our work cut out.... How many motions have we brought here when you, as chair, said, okay we'll note it and deal with it later? We don't take it as a priority. The priority of the committee this morning is the report put to you by the steering committee.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but on that point, I want to go further. Mr. Tom Lukiwski said we had an agreement that we would deal with the bills, but the agreement was not that the government would filibuster everything we do at committee and stop our work from being done. That is why we have to change our attitude. If you want to stop filibustering, then we should deal with the bill and deal with the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

I am still listening.

Mr. Reid, on this point, please.

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

Further to Monsieur Godin's point, I think what Monsieur Godin is referring to is an informal consensus that has existed in the committee. That's different from the rules. We had an agreement, which is sort of unilateral.... It's not a violation of the rules that the opposition parties have decided to unilaterally abrogate it in their deliberations in the steering committee. I don't like it, but it's an abrogation of the rules. By the same token, it is not an abrogation of the rules; on the contrary, it is an adherence to the rules to turn to that motion first presented to you and deal with it immediately.

My recollection--and I'm sure the Hansards of this committee will bear this out, certainly an adherence to the rules would bear it out--is that when motions were presented to you, you actually sought the approval of the mover of the motion to put them further down while other items were dealt with. Upon receiving that consent, we then put them further down the list. But you did not simply dictate that this be further down the list.

If you had done that in the past--and perhaps Monsieur Godin's recollection of these things is better than mine--then I would respectfully submit that in so doing, you yourself would have been in violation of the rules on those occasions. I'm not asserting that you did this; I'm just saying that if you had done that, you would have been in violation of the rules.

On a final note, I just want to point out that when it comes to motions people want very much to get dealt with earlier on the list, I had one myself dealing with personal documents of my own that had been--well, we all know the story--taken from the opposition leader's office and looked at in detail by Liberal researchers. I felt my privileges were violated and I wanted a motion that dealt with that, and I wanted it dealt with immediately. I remember you wanted to move it down the list, but you did have to seek my consent to move that motion down, and it still awaits, largely because we spent all our time dealing with Madam Redman's motion, and it isn't being dealt with.

The point I'm getting at is that the decision to take a motion and push it further down requires the consent of the mover of that motion, and it's not, as Monsieur Godin suggests, something that happens automatically, whether the mover of the motion wants it or not.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, there is no ruling required here. You can check Hansard. Mr. Reid is correct. I have moved his motions and have discussed moving motions into different areas, but it has always been a courtesy and a request by the motioner.

So we will continue with Mr. Lukiwski on his motion.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

The motion is obviously self-explanatory. I think it speaks to the overriding issue of fairness. Madam Redman in her motion has asked for an examination of the advertising practices of only the Conservative Party in the 2006 election, and I would suggest to Madam Redman and all members of the committee that if we're to do what I'm suggesting, it would pass the benchmark or litmus test, if you will, of fairness. The contention we have, and we have filed an affidavit in Federal Court--this is a case that is going to court--is that not only were our advertising practices--

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, are we still discussing the point of order, or have you decided that his motion was acceptable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The rules are very clear that this committee accepts the motions as they come forward, unless I can convince--

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

Therefore, I challenge your decision, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's not a ruling. I haven't made a ruling. I'm just telling you what the rules are.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

You interpreted--

[An hon. member]

You must adopt the report first.

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

If I may, Mr. Chair, you have made a ruling to allow--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I didn't have to make a ruling, Mr. Proulx. The history of this committee is very clear. You can check Hansard. If you want to challenge Hansard, go right ahead.

Mr. Lukiwski has the floor.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Another point of order?