Evidence of meeting #9 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 c-18.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
So are we on an amendment to the motion now? It sounds like an amendment to the motion.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Okay. We have an amendment to the motion. Is there debate on the amendment to the motion?
I did see Mr. Epp's hand up, but it was on the original motion. Are you wishing to speak to the amendment?
Conservative
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Yes. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be advisable to do the Bill C-18 business first, for the very simple reason that we don't know when there's going to be an election, and it would really be good if this had passed through all stages, including going on to the Senate, before there was an election called. I think this is a non-partisan issue in the sense that we all want people to be able to vote and to vote legally and within the rules that are set out by this committee.
It's my understanding, Mr. Chair, that the actual dealing with the issue on Bill C-18 is not necessarily going to be very time-consuming, because we've heard the witnesses, and most people here, I think, have an opinion on where that should stand. I think it would be eminently wise of this committee to not hold that legislation up and prevent it from being debated in the House and carried through with that stage.
I would strongly recommend to my colleagues on this committee, of which I've become a sort of semi-permanent part here, that we proceed in that way. So I speak very strongly in favour of the amendment to do Bill C-18 first.
Conservative
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
Thank you.
I would think that the steering committee report itself should not take very long to pass--all we're agreeing to is to have more meetings--at which point we can discuss the substance of the motion. This is not suggesting that we're dispensing with the motion; we're merely organizing additional committees, which the steering committee brought to this committee. That's a subcommittee of all parties being represented. Past experience has shown that procedural things can sometimes take a long time in this committee. Dispensing with the steering committee report to have additional meetings so we could have a fulsome discussion on other topics that may be a bit more contentious than Bill C-18 is in order.
I concur that Bill C-18 is an important bill and should be expeditiously dealt with. However, I don't see the amendment as in any way friendly. I see it as reversing the actual intent of my motion.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
If Madam Redman doesn't see it as friendly, then that's fine.
But in underscoring much of what Mr. Epp has said, hopefully Bill C-18 is one we all agree with. We've heard from Monsieur Mayrand. He suggests that Bill C-18, as presented, will fix whatever problems and unintended consequences came out of the old Bill C-31. It appears we have unanimity around this committee, so I think we could dispense with that fairly quickly.
I will add that we've all agreed that legislation should take priority. This is legislation, so let's deal with this and get this out of the way.
There will obviously be some debate on Madam Redman's motion. We also have two subamendments to that motion, so that could take a bit of time. Let's dispense with the legislation first and get it to the House as quickly as possible. That shouldn't take more than a few moments. Then we can go back to Madam Redman's motion. We have plenty of time. We have 35 minutes. We can do that very quickly.
Bloc
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
I am in favour of adopting this bill as quickly as possible. If elections were called soon and if royal assent had not yet been given, there are people in my riding who could not vote.
Clearly, this is an error. We had not seen, in Bill C-31, the problem created by the changes. I know that everyone is in agreement with this change. The Chief Electoral Officer has brought a solution and will ensure that all of the voters of Quebec and Canada are able to vote.
I do not see why we should waste more time with something else. If we are all in agreement, then let us refer this as quickly as possible to the Senate.
Bloc
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Yes. I am in agreement that Bill C-18 be voted upon as quickly as possible, but we did have our priority. We should begin by tabling the first report of the sub-committee on agenda and procedure.
Conservative
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I want to pick up on something my colleague Mr. Lukiwski spoke about, and that was priorities for the committee. We did agree that legislation would take priority.
We've heard from witnesses, including the Chief Electoral Officer. We're basically ready to move. We're not done with legislation until it moves out of committee and back to the House.
I understand what Ms. Redman is trying to do in terms of putting pressure on accepting the report so we can move on with Bill C-18, but I don't think that does justice to the voters of Canada.
There's a problem regarding Bill C-18, which is well recognized amongst all the parties, that we're trying to fix. We're at the point where we can move it out of the committee in probably three minutes. Instead, a secondary issue is taking a primary spot and bumping key legislation that will have an impact in any upcoming byelections. To me, that's just not acceptable.
Actually, I'm quite surprised that she has tabled the motion in this manner and that we're continuing to debate it. The priority has to be legislation. We owe that to Parliament; we actually owe that to Canadians. I think it's poor judgment to switch the order around like that.
Conservative
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had been wondering how the Liberals were going to try to bring this matter to a head, and I guess we have our answer now.
The Liberals have been trying for several months to cause a particular type of hearing, in which the practices of the Conservative Party of Canada in the 2006 election would be looked into, having been pre-categorized, in the wording of the motion, as illegitimate . As soon as there has been any effort to expand this to include investigation into the practices of other parties, including the Liberal Party—particularly the Liberal Party—or to look into other times that these things have been brought up, they have proceeded to make it impossible to move forward that way.
I should be careful--it's inappropriate to suggest illegitimate intentions. However, it seems to me that the intention here is to take a snapshot, frozen in time, of electoral advertising practices and to ensure that the focus is very tight and that it doesn't include anybody else, for the purpose of arguing that essentially that which we all do is wrong when they do it, and to ensure that no evidence that either others do the same thing or that it's legal and permissible will actually be allowed. Their strategy started with refusing to accept amendments, and then they've gone on. If I remember correctly, when alternate points of view have been presented, they've gotten up, marched out of the room, and caused us to lose quorum.
They have had a subcommittee on agenda and procedure--which has no government members on it--come up with a report that is designed to further this particular goal. I raised concerns about that, and I suggested that the members for the committee be changed, and I was shot down by them. When I tried to present some of the concerns that the subcommittee could take with it to its meetings, I was cut off on a facetious point of order, Mr. Chairman, in order, essentially, to take away my ability to speak. Then the committee went off, obviously without having received the commentary I was going to make and the suggestions as to how this should be dealt with, and it came back with exactly what I'd expect: something that was a very one-sided document. Of course, it met in camera, which meant that no government member was there; nor can it report back to the rest of the government members as to what took place at that meeting. To say that's disappointing is a bit of an understatement, Mr. Chairman.
The next step is to find something on which there is widespread agreement, like this bill, and to attempt to hijack it by effectively saying we all agree with it but we're not going to permit it to go forward until this other matter has been dealt with, and then refuse to accept any amendments to their proposal. In other words, either we get our way or a good piece of legislation on which universal agreement can be reached....
The manner in which the motion was introduced gives away a bit of the game. I can see why they wanted to do this in a room that wasn't televised, Mr. Chairman, because certain things they've done don't bear the scrutiny of daylight or television cameras very well.
December 4th, 2007 / 12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I don't recall any single party asking for this not to be televised, so I think the innuendo that Mr. Reid is making is most unfortunate and quite inaccurate.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
No, Madam Redman is right. I stand corrected on that point and I apologize for the suggestion. I take that back. I've said on a number of occasions, and I stand by this comment, that I have always found her to be a ladylike individual and very professional, so I hope my apology will be accepted, Mr. Chairman.
The fact is that were there cameras here, this action would not stand up very well. It would not look good. It doesn't look good to those of us who are here now seeing that an attempt is being made to ensure that a piece of legislation that is really essential to the conduct of elections and ensuring that rural voters are enfranchised is being hijacked by emotion.
The problem we're faced with now is that we look at the way the motion is being presented...I guess the point I was getting at was to point out that this was done while the Chief Electoral Officer was here as a witness. It was a point of order interrupting testimony to ensure we get it on the order paper before anything else. I don't know, I would have said that was bad form, but that's just my own opinion.
At any rate, we're already at a point now where our discussion of the motion that was presented as being collegial and so on has taken more time than probably the clause-by-clause would have taken, so let me explain what my concern is with regard to going forward with the motion as originally stated. Essentially, if we don't accept it in its unamended form, we have to cause all legislation, any legislation on anything on which there is widespread consensus, to be held up by the Liberal attempt to cause our advertising practices to be examined while theirs are clearly and absolutely kept out of the discussion, and the attempt to manufacture a scandal will take priority over everything else. That's really regrettable.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
This is a point of clarification.
I read my motion, and my intention is to have an extra meeting, that the steering committee have the substantive discussion Mr. Reid is now into. It isn't to say that we're just going to accept my motion. I read this as saying there is an additional meeting, at which point we would have that discussion and allow legislation to go forward at the regular committee meeting. I just want to clarify it for Mr. Reid. I'm not trying to hijack this meeting. I recognize we have legislation before us. The steering committee members are the ones who suggested the extra meeting, and that was the spirit in which I put that motion.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, that wasn't how I read the motion, but in all fairness, I haven't a copy in front of me. Would it be possible for the clerk to read it back to us?