Evidence of meeting #18 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Mr. James M. Latimer

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Colleagues, let's begin our meeting today.

Colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), a meeting has been requested by four members of the committee to discuss whether or not they will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (visual identification of voters) at the following meeting of the committee, and what witnesses and budget and meeting allocations will be required to complete such a study.

Colleagues, the purpose of this meeting, then, is to discuss whether or not the committee will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6 at the next meeting and how the committee will study it.

I just want to remind members, as we're getting used to these 106(4)s, that ultimately the committee is not being convened today to discuss Bill C-6, but rather to consider whether or not the committee will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6 at its next meeting, and of course, as indicated in the letter, what witnesses and budget and meeting allocations would be required to complete such a study.

I'm happy to ask one of the signatories to the letter--I don't have the letter in front of me.

Mr. Lukiwski, you're a signatory. Would you kindly move this in the frame of a motion, please?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Certainly. It is so moved, Chair. Did you want me to read the motion in its entirety?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Yes, please, word for word, if you could.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Certainly. Chair, I move that pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), this committee convene to discuss whether or not it will proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, also known as the visual identification of voters act, at the next meeting, and what witnesses, budget, and meeting allocations will be required to complete such a study.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

The motion is in order and it's accepted.

Mr. Reid, on a point of order.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

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

I'm not sure if Mr. Lukiwski wants to say “at the next meeting”, because that implies it's not this meeting. Isn't that right?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Well, that's correct, but the letter is very clear that this meeting has been called.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

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

It's just to discuss this.

I'm sorry, Mr. Lukiwski, I misunderstood. I take that back.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

The motion is exactly what the letter said and it is in order, so we'll begin discussion on that motion.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

On a point of clarification, Mr. Reid has brought a subject into the conversation. I want to be clear on this: what's the idea, to discuss it now or as of the next meeting?

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

No, this meeting has been called to discuss whether or not we will discuss Bill C-6 at the next meeting.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Eventually, meaning the next regular meeting of the committee.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

That's correct, including witnesses, the budget--exactly. This meeting is not to discuss Bill C-6 itself, but to consider that.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

You're very welcome.

Mr. Lukiwski.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Basically, it's nothing outlandish. I would suggest that this motion is perfectly in order with the overall mandate of this committee, Mr. Chair. We had discussed on a number of occasions--and I believe the record will show that we had all-party agreement on a number of occasions--that legislation coming before this committee should take precedence in terms of the discussions this committee would engage in.

Bill C-6, the visual identification of voters bill, is one that's been, frankly, sitting in the background for a number of weeks now, if not months. I know that members of this committee, in particular my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, have stated that they would like to see this bill enacted and become law before the next election. Once again--and I think we've all said this from time to time--in a minority government there is certainly always the possibility of an election being called at any time.

We have certainly seen media speculation running rampant for the last number of months, suggesting, or predicting perhaps, that an election was imminent. At the current time, I suppose the threat of an election has been somewhat defused, because the three main items that were in the news as being potential election events or events that would force an election have now, generally speaking, been defused. Those three, of course, were the Afghanistan motion, Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, and of course the budget, which is an automatic confidence measure.

Although the budget has not passed in its entirety--we have a vote tonight, I think, as everyone knows--there are indications that it will pass. As well, the Afghanistan motion has not been voted upon yet, although as of today it looks as though we're going to be doing that on March 13. Again, there's been no guarantee that the motion as presented by this government will pass. There are indications, certainly, that that will be a motion that will pass, and of course the third potential election-causing matter of business, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, has passed the Senate. So that of course would not be an event that would cause this government to fall.

Since we apparently have a little bit of time, some breathing room, I think it would certainly be appropriate to try to deal with this piece of legislation in an expedient manner so that the decks are cleared, at least with respect to this particular bill, so that come the next election, whenever that might be, the law is in effect, the visual identification requirements as contained in Bill C-6 are actually law, and we can all comply with the law. I know this is something that has been near and dear to my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Chair, I don't think that really there needs to be too much discussion on this, except to say that it appears the reason that we haven't been able to get to legislation such as this is that there have been some attempts, I would suggest, by members opposite to bring forward motions that are of a highly partisan nature and simply intended only to try to embarrass the government.

There seems to be no other rationale that I can determine for motions such as the proposed motion brought forward by Madam Redman to investigate the Conservative in-and-out advertising scheme. I see no other reason for that motion to be even discussed, other than the fact that this is something the opposition feels it can get some political hay out of. But I think what we need to remember is that, politics and partisanship aside, the role of this committee is to discuss legislation when it comes forward.

I would be hard pressed to think that any member of this committee would find fault with that purpose, and in fact I think it would be almost impossible to find a member of this committee who would disagree with the original position they have put forward, that all legislation pertaining to this committee should take precedence. Yet Bill C-6 has been sort of waiting in the wings for a number of weeks, if not months, and I think that's frankly something that's unfortunate, to say the very least, and something we should rectify at our earliest opportunity.

Therefore, Chair, I think the appropriate manner in which we can advance this is just to call the question, and I ask you to call the question now.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

I can't call the question now. We have a number of speakers still on the list.

If you're finished speaking, and I'm assuming you are, it's Madam Jennings' turn.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

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

I'll cede my turn to Mr. Proulx, and you can slot me into his slot.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

I guess we can do that.

Monsieur Proulx.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

We could probably split the time, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This report was tabled to the main committee.

As a result of various ploys—not ploys, really, but rather administrative tricks—the subcommittee's second report was not able to be tabled for in-depth, proper review by the committee. You are aware of the content of this second report which the committee was supposed to examine and, quite possibly, approve. My colleagues may not necessarily recall the text in its entirety, but the second report stated this, and I quote:

Your Subcommittee met on Tuesday, January 29, 2008, to consider the business of the Committee and agreed to make the following recommendation: That, effective immediately [...] the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election, in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for illegitimate election campaign expenses.

The recommendation was made at the first meeting held after January 29, therefore in February. The report also said: “That [...] the debate on the motion of Karen Redman [...] take priority over the other work of the Committee”.

Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee on agenda and procedure which you chair had reviewed some outstanding items of business, one of which was consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (visual identification of voters). It's no secret. This bill was referred to the committee on November 15, 2007.

Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to formally review past actions, but I will do so informally by reminding you that since the month of September, if memory serves me correctly, the “in and out” file has been on the drawing board, so to speak. Through all sorts of manoeuvring, we have managed thus far to keep this item of business in the background to avoid having to do an in-depth, thorough examination.

The Conservative government, which is in the minority on this committee, is proposing to do an end-run around all various procedures in order to ultimately discuss this famous Bill C-6. It is very noble want to get to this bill as soon as possible. However, before we get to it, the majority of committee members—the three opposition parties agreed to this—had agreed that before discussing Bill C-6, the committee should tackle Ms. Redman's motion, which I spoke of earlier, which calls for the committee to investigate the alleged illegitimate spending by Conservative candidates during the 2005-2006 election. This is what the committee wanted. This is not a formal rebuke on my part.

Mr. Chairman, my impression is that it's been decided that you will find some way, along with the Conservative government, to discuss Bill C-6 before we get to anything else. To my mind, it is quite reprehensible for the committee to direct the debate and the work of the subcommittee as it sees fit to do.

Nevertheless, I am prepared to act in good faith, Mr. Chairman. The Liberal Party wants things to proceed smoothly, in keeping with the standing orders. So then, let's see what we can do about the government's motion.

Thank you for your patience and your attention. If you don't mind, I'd like to check your notes after to ensure that everything is accurate.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

We pretty much got them all.

Mr. Dewar, please.

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Thank you, Chair.

I have a couple of comments. The first one is that notwithstanding the Conservatives' preference to cite the consensus that dealing with legislation before a committee is something that should be primary, it should be put in context. The context is that if they were concerned about doing the business of the committee in a responsible way, we wouldn't have been filibustering for I don't know how many months. I feel like this is Groundhog Day. The last time I joined folks here, we were talking about the same thing. The in-and-out seems to be this bill, along with the financial concerns of the Conservative Party, in that the bill comes forward, it goes back, it comes forward, it goes back.

So it's hard to take too seriously the intent of this government about whether or not they really want to get to work on the files in front of this committee, because of the filibustering, which is clear. Because they didn't happen to get their preference in terms of how the issue was dealt with sequentially, they filibustered. It is difficult to understand how on the one hand the government wants to deal with legislation when it comes before a committee, yet at the same time it does everything it can to filibuster the business in front of that committee. It's a matter of having some consistency in their argument, of which there is little to find, and maybe a search warrant is required.

Further to that, the bill they're having us consider is here because of the failure of the previous bill, which was Bill C-31, which most would argue we didn't need anyhow. I see some nods from my friends over there who agree with me. It was because they brought forward a bill that most argue we didn't need--it was problem-riddled. We're having to deal with that now, I guess.

It's passing strange, Chair, that we would have the government come forward and say, “Let's get on with business now because we want to get things done”, when for the last couple of months it refused to deal with the business that was in front of this committee.

The last thing I'll say about this, Chair, is that if this government wants to deal with files on a sequential basis and deal with things on a priority basis, it needs to really show it in its actions and not just in its words.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

Thank you.

Madam Jennings.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

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

Thank you.

I take note of the comments of Mr. Dewar and of my colleague Mr. Proulx. I find it astonishing that had the government allowed the report of the subcommittee, proposing that the committee investigate the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election in relation to which Elections Canada refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for illegitimate, according to Elections Canada, election campaign expenses, that study would have been over, a report would have been concluded, and most probably it would have been filed in the House. It would have been done some time ago, and the committee would probably have already proceeded to Bill C-6 and possibly concluded Bill C-6.

I propose an amendment to Mr. Lukiwski's motion. The motion would read, as it does now:

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(4), that the Committee proceed to the consideration of Bill C-6, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (visual identification of voters)

—and then here is where my amendment comes in—

including what witnesses, budget and meeting allocations will be required to complete such a study, and that the above-mentioned Bill C-6 study commence at the meeting of the committee immediately following the committee's completion of its investigations into the actions of the Conservative Party of Canada during the 2006 election, in relation to which Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for illegitimate election campaign expenses, and the tabling in the House of Commons of the committee's report into the actions of the above-mentioned study.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear

I don't want to get into discussion until I see the actual motion, but if you have a point of order, Mr. Preston, I will recognize you on a point of order in two seconds. Thank you.

Colleagues, I've reviewed the amendment. I'm going to rule the amendment out of order as being beyond the scope of the initial motion.