Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order, please.

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

I'm trying to get a point of order. I think it would just help if we'd get Madam Redman a dictionary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I just may have one. Let me check.

What I'm saying is that it's very hard to get quantitative, because I know our books are in good order. The question is, are the opposition books in good order?

The committee could spend an awfully long time dissecting the opposition books if they're not in good order. But I think what Mr. Lukiwski was saying in the last meeting was that we're willing to proceed quickly—I'll use that word again—with this matter, as long as all parties open their books, because in this particular case we're saying that all parties have done nothing wrong, that all parties have followed the same practices, and that no party has done anything wrong.

In a sense, certainly with the position that we have, there is a lack of partisanship—

[An hon. member]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, where is the relevance?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I think we're moving a little bit away from the relevance.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'll bring it back. Yes, I'll be bringing it back.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'll give you a couple of seconds to bring it back. Thank you.

Order.

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

What I am talking about, Chair, is the work of the committee. The motion I put forward is the work of the committee and how we were getting off base on the work of the committee. That's why I'm bringing it back into moving forward with Bill C-6.

What I'm tying it to is a comment that the opposition is willing to move forward with Bill C-6. I'm saying I don't have a lot of confidence in their intentions and I'm giving an example. This is how it's tying in, because they're saying we should bring this to a vote and we'll get right to it. I'm saying I don't have a lot of confidence because that's not what I have seen.

Instead, what I'm saying is--and this is where it ties in very nicely--we were willing to move without delay on Madam Redman's motion provided the opposition would agree to open their books so we're looking at all parties at the same time when it comes to election financing. As Mr. Lukiwski pointed out, we have all followed the same practices.

Rather than forcing a delay in the business of the committee, if we want to deal with this quickly, let's find some common ground. Let's find some unanimity among the different parties. If this is really a priority issue for the opposition, let's all open our books, let's conduct the study they feel is necessary to conduct for all parties and let's get on with it, do it quickly, get it out of the way, so we can get back to legislation like Bill C-6. This is where I'm tying back in.

That's not what we saw. Instead we saw an intransigence on the part of the opposition MPs in that they simply would not budge from their motion. They will not entertain amendments. They will not entertain friendly amendments. These are friendly amendments. To open all books is a friendly amendment if I ever saw one. Yet I feel, Chair, they turned hostile to that friendly amendment. A hand was offered in friendship, and they bit the hand. It does make one hesitate to offer an olive branch a second time, but I think we would be willing to do so.

I'm making this point again. We need to move ahead with committee business. This is what I am proposing in this motion I have put forward. I think we probably could have accomplished both the study and moving ahead with the legislation if only we could have found some unanimity among the parties instead of this blockheadedness regarding being able to amend their motion so we could look at all parties' books. I think as soon as we open all the books we'll see there is no issue here. The actual time we “would have spent”--it's conditional, “would have spent”--conducting this study would not have been needed.

I did diverge a little to explain the importance of moving ahead with committee business and why I think we could have accomplished both, but let me focus on Bill C-6.

I was talking about different stakeholders, the people who have a valid concern with Elections Canada's interpretation, which has resulted in a solution, Bill C-6, and why we need to move on this, because there are many stakeholders. Many groups have a role to play. They are influenced and affected negatively, I would argue, by the issue, particularly if it remains unaddressed.

Here's something interesting. This was reported in the Montreal Gazette in October 2007. It says: “Most of the Muslim community say so as well. They didn't ask for the ruling that the chief electoral officer made. Nobody had asked for the right to vote with their faces covered. It was a unilateral decision on the part of the chief electoral officer.”

In a sense, I think it shows that there is a widespread understanding, or disagreement, or unhappiness with the ruling of Elections Canada, which in fact turns the eyes of Canadians back to Parliament, turns them back to the MPs.

They quite rightly said, “Listen, you just passed a law. It's not been interpreted well, we don't agree with this interpretation, and yet apparently it's in our favour. What are you going to do about it as parliamentarians?”

Now, as parliamentarians, particularly as the government, we said that we would move forward with Bill C-6. So we worked with opposition parties to do that. We tabled Bill C-6 in the House. It went through first and second reading. So there was debate on this. Different parties commented and had thoughtful comments to make.

They took part in the process in the House to improve the bill. However, we know that an important stage in the life of a bill is its study in committee. Suddenly, all the work stops and Bill C-6 stays there.

It's not front and centre right now. I'm trying to move it front and centre, but it is not front centre right now. This is a matter of concern, because we may have a general election coming up. We definitely will have byelections coming up. So the same concerns that were enunciated last summer during the previous byelections would logically apply to the byelections coming up, because nothing has changed. Bill C-6 has not been passed into law. It hasn't even made it through this committee yet. So fundamentally, there has been no change to the situation that existed last summer. The very concerns that I heard from MPs and from the Liberal opposition party--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You have a point of clarification, Mr. Proulx.

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

Mr. Chair, would you ask the honourable member to confirm whether I heard right in the sense that the Conservative Party intends to blow the ceiling again? Is that what I heard from him, that the Conservative Party intends to spend more money than the ceiling of expenses allows?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I didn't hear that.

[An hon. member]

Is there a faulty interpretation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There may have been. Please clarify, Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

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

On the same point, Chair, I understand how the problem came out. I think the phrase “the sky is the limit” may still have been in the member's head, and that's perhaps what caused this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, members.

Mr. Lemieux, you have the floor.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair, if you allow me, I could go on about the sky being the limit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Is that point of order done?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

There's has been a point of clarification asked. You may clarify that point.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I will say that's not what we're saying. I'd like to elaborate but I'll respect your guidance, Chair.

[An hon. member]

Oh, I'll bet you could get to it anyway.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes.

So I'm saying, Chair, that with the forthcoming byelections in fairly important ridings—and I would argue actually that some of these byelections will take place in communities where there is a significant presence of Muslim women—nothing has really changed since the last byelections. I would imagine that the concerns I commented on earlier in this meeting would pertain today. I would just have to assume that the same concerns exist. I have certainly not heard anything contrary to that.

To me, that means Bill C-6 needs to be treated in a priority fashion and the committee needs to get back on track. The committee needs to ensure that it remains focused on legislation that has such a dramatic impact on our electoral process.

I have a few other things, because they are interesting here. We had Ms. Farzana Hassan. She is the president of the Muslim Canadian Congress and she made some rather pertinent comments as well. She said,

The Muslim Canadian Congress is opposed to the burka or the niqab or the complete veiling of women in public spaces. We are suggesting that the burka be banned, especially in the electoral process in which openness and freedom need to be guaranteed. We need to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. It is imperative that whoever is physically present in the electoral process should be able to identify themselves. It is not a requirement of Islam that Muslim women stay covered completely. They would be more than willing to lift their veils if that is the requirement.

So, Chair, we come back to this point of stakeholders and who this affects the most. What we're hearing here is the Muslim community speaking out. There are important points here where they feel they have been targeted somewhat unfairly, because they never asked for this issue of veiled voting. They never asked for this accommodation, and yet it was somewhat given to them and then it was misunderstood. They feel that the misunderstanding is not in their best interests.

We have some very direct comments here that indicate it is not a requirement. At least this is what the president of the Muslim Canadian Congress says: “It is not a requirement of Islam that Muslim women stay covered completely. They would be more than willing to lift their veils if that is the requirement.”

What I hear there is an appeal to the committee to get on with Bill C-6. Let's get this bill moving. Let's get it through committee.

We'll have to call witnesses, Chair. We'll have to go through the clause-by-clause analysis. It may not take long, because I think we're fairly conversant with Bill C-6.

Again, it surprises me that the opposition has waylaid the committee in that way, because I think when we finally sink our teeth into Bill C-6 and actually move to accomplish our work, we will do so in a very effective and efficient manner. I have no doubt of that.

Actually, to have continually shuffled Bill C-6 off--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lemieux.

On a point of clarification, please, Mr. Proulx.