Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 1st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Guimond, please correct me if I have misunderstood the intent of your comments. The intent, it seems to me, is for this motion to read, “That no notice be required for any substantive motion”, period.

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

Yes, I think that would be amenable to everyone, especially since we're not always sticklers for procedure. In an emergency, we do not always have time to type up the motion and to have it translated. I have moved unilingual French motions in the past, and my English-speaking colleagues have also tabled unilingual motions. The clerk, through the interpreters, acts as the translator. I'm fine with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci.

All in favour of the motion as moved by Monsieur Guimond, please raise your hand.

We'll record one opposed.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We have another motion.

Monsieur Guimond, I think you put your hand up first.

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

As I was saying earlier, it pertains to the striking of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. I move that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be composed of one member from each recognized party in the House and a Chair from the government party.

The other day, my colleague Mr. Lukiwski moved that our colleague Joe Preston be appointed Chair. Therefore, I would add to that: “That our colleague Joe Preston be appointed Chair of the Subcommittee.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, colleagues.

My understanding is that the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business carries past prorogation, so we actually don't need to do this motion because it survives prorogation. The committee is already set up and Mr. Preston is still the chair. It's all good. Everybody's happy? Parfait.

I would like to make one comment, if we're on private members' business. Monsieur Godin, it's my understanding that Jean Crowder, who was the NDP member on the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, is no longer an associate member of the main committee as such. There is no current NDP member on the subcommittee. I understand that Chris Charlton will now be the NDP member for the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, and you're confirming that this is correct. It's just so we read that into the record and the main committee is aware of that.

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

For your information, she's the deputy whip now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Perfect. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, that finishes the routine motions.

Oh, I'm sorry, of course, Madam Redman was up first, and then Monsieur Proulx.

Madam Redman.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

It's nice to have those routine proceedings under our belt. I would like to read to the committee, and I have copies of it in both official languages, a motion that I'd like the committee to consider:

That 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.

I also have for distribution, Mr. Chair, in both languages, what we would see, from the Liberal perspective, as a preliminary list of possible witnesses. I would assume that other parties would also want to submit preliminary lists of witnesses and that the committee could, at a future date, talk about who we would call.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Did you bring copies for everybody? Did you bring enough gum for everybody?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Did I bring enough gum?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Perfect. We'll ask the clerk to hand out the motion.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

If I could continue, Mr. Chair, while we distribute them, I think this is a very important issue. We were seized with this issue back in August, and there were other issues before us at that point in time. However, I know that the veiled voting issue is being dealt with. There is a motion before the House, and I guess we would wait until that works its way through the House of Commons and is brought to this committee to be dealt with.

I understand there's also a very large issue having to do with rural voters, who, through inadvertence, could potentially be disenfranchised at an election because they have no municipal address. I know again there is a separate process going forward where there are negotiations and there is wording being discussed among all parties.

As that's being dealt with in another venue, I think it's very important that we deal with this very serious matter. I would put it before the committee for discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Madam Redman.

I think I have to make a ruling on the motion. I want to just ask committee members.... We've completed routine motions. There are some pieces of legislation coming forward in the near future that the steering committee, in its informal meeting, had chosen...when they do come--and I think you made that comment--we will interrupt these types of proceedings to deal with legislation. I would like members to know that I'm expecting Bill C-55 to be at this committee on November 13, the first day back. I would therefore make the comment first that we might want to get our witness lists in for that as well, so we're prepared to go in both directions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

It's on expanded voting opportunities. In Bill C-55 the other day is for advance polling. Do you recall that--opening up the possibility of Sundays and other opportunities?

Colleagues, I will read this motion. Just give me a second to read this motion, and then I'll make a comment.

In keeping with my decision of the summertime, just for the record, this motion is being re-entered because we are entering a new phase of Parliament and all motions die on the order paper.

Madam Redman raised the motion, which is substantially similar to a motion that was raised in the summertime, in September. At that point, I ruled that the motion was out of order because it was beyond the scope of this committee. My ruling was that mostly it was beyond the scope of this committee. The committee on justice, etc., does not look into individual break-ins; rather it sets the overall laws of the country and leaves the investigative aspects to other people. That was my ruling. I also warned the committee that this type of investigation could affect the convention of sub judice.

So I'm just reminding the committee of my ruling. I do know where this is going to go, but in keeping with my ruling of the summertime, I'm going to rule this motion out of order, and I'll wait to be overturned on that. But I am ruling it out of order.

Madam Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

The challenge is that the chair's ruling be set aside and that we move forward on it.

Mr. Reid.

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

Could we have a recorded vote on that, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I will ask the clerk, then, to call out the names, please.

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We are now at the stage of entertaining this motion.

Mr. Reid, please.

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

Mr. Chairman, this motion is actually slightly different from the one that came forward in the summer. It has been artfully designed to make it more difficult to amend in order to allow a similar investigation of the Liberal Party and its own activities from either 2006 or 2004.

This, of course, is being done by the Liberals because the Liberals are fully aware that their party engaged in activities of a similar nature, which were perfectly legal, and in addition, in previous election, engaged in blatantly illegal acts, which included envelopes full of cash being given to 21 Quebec ridings in which the Liberal Party engaged in the de facto theft of some $40 million of money from the public purse. They are protected in these actions by the fact that the statute of limitations on these wrongdoings, these virtually criminal wrongdoings, took place for the most part in a period that is beyond the period that the Commissioner of Elections is allowed to investigate under the pre-existing piece of electoral legislation.

Therefore, they want to have one standard apply to others and...not really a lower standard applied to themselves, but indeed, they want to ensure that their own previous completely illegal actions, virtually criminal actions, which amounted to, as I say, theft from the taxpayers of many millions of dollars, be out of any scope of investigation by either the Chief Electoral Office or this House.

So they've designed this motion a little more artfully than they did in the summer to ensure that it's very hard to amend the motion to bring into account previous elections, previous investigations that should have taken place, and so on.

Therefore, the amendment I'm going to propose, Mr. Chairman, seeks instead to remove the unfounded allegations that are woven into the text of this motion and to replace them with less inflammatory language, all without actually changing the substance of the motion, which of course would not be in order.

I propose, Mr. Chairman, to remove the assertion that is made in the motion of an actual finding. It says in the motion that, “Elections Canada has refused to reimburse Conservative candidates for illegitimate election campaign expenses”. Of course, these are election campaign expenses that are alleged to be illegitimate.

Again, the word “illegitimate” is used very artfully. I suspect Mr. Kevin Bosch, who is sitting in the audience today, may have had a hand in this. Kevin can usually be relied upon to be involved in nefarious deeds when the Liberals are at work.

For example, Kevin appears to have been involved in--

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

On a point of order, this is unacceptable.

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

No, it's not, Karen.

Taking those documents that included personal records from private offices--that was unacceptable, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Order.

Colleagues, please address the chair. We'll keep some order here.

Mr. Reid, I'll allow you to continue. Maybe we should make our comments to the chair, please.

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

Sure.

Mr. Chairman, the artful wording is designed to ensure that individuals are hauled before this committee to discuss “illegitimate” expenses. What does illegitimate mean? An illegal activity is one thing, a criminal activity. Illegitimate is a subjective term, and that's why it's being used here.

If the objection is that Elections Canada is alleging that expenses were made that are not in conformity with the Canada Elections Act, that is one thing. But if you go back and examine what the Liberals have stood up and said, day after day, in the House of Commons in question period, they never actually say--