Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 4th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Then let's speak to the chair or not at all. Thank you.

Mr. Reid, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My advice would have been that, given that this initial recommendation was overruled by members of the committee, and of course you may recall the chair ruled that my concerns were legitimate, the chair then ruled, and he did so on the advice of legal counsel. At that point his ruling was challenged and he.... What happens at that point is that debate ceases, there's a vote, and that's that. There's no further debate or discussion, though that's a process that, I must say, bears some resemblance to what seems to be going on here.

We could deal with this in three minutes, as long as you accept what we've put on the table, with no amendments, no consideration of doing things differently from how we want. If you want anything other than our force majeure, you're out of luck.

That's basically what was done then. This, as I've complained on a number of occasions, seems to be a method of operating that has been adopted in recent months, I guess in the past year, by the Liberals in particular--sometimes with the assistance of the other parties--to simply constantly challenge the chair and use this as, effectively, a way of suspending all the rules we have here for the protection of the right of dissent of minority opinion, of amendment, of fair play, essentially. Obviously that is most regrettable, as I say, and most uncharacteristic for this committee, which was until recently, I thought, a model of decorum and reasonable behaviour. It was an island of sanity, if you like, in the midst of other committees that were behaving, I thought, less well.

I was a member of another committee. In fact, I was a member of the ethics committee before the summer. Compared with their behaviour and some of the antics that were got up to in that committee, we seemed to be eminently reasonable, moderate, practical, and well mannered. That has unfortunately slipped away, though not entirely. I think on the whole, the people I deal with are good, reasonable people in and of themselves, but the practices, certainly, that they've engaged in are not, I think, practices that become them as members, or are not up to the standards we have reason to expect from members of this committee, based on past performance. That's what is really unfortunate.

I would have recommended dealing with this subject matter, seeing that we are in a position in which we have to deal with it, given that the opposition is unwilling to withdraw the original motion, given the fact that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Madame Faille, on a point of order.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Would it be possible to speak more clearly? The interpreters are finding it difficult to translate properly. You should speak into the mike, because right now we are just getting dribs and drabs from the interpretation booth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much.

Mr. Reid, perhaps you could lean forward a little bit into your microphone. Thank you.

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

I'm only moving it, Mr. Chairman. Normally I sit in the chair to my left, but the previous occupant left behind some cookie crumbs, so I moved into this chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

All that's left are the crumbs.

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

That's right. I felt like one of the three bears.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Another point of order.

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

Even if he's filibustering, he should put his voice out. I want to hear it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much for that comment. It's exciting.

Mr. Reid, please.

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

I'm very flattered, Mr. Godin. I'll do my best to provide louder commentary. I'm sorry; I guess I get reflective sometimes. As one waxes a little philosophical in expanding on all the relevant and necessary details, one sometimes drops the tone of one's voice, so I'll do my best to keep it up. I'm now positioned closer to the microphone.

What I was saying is that with regard to the subcommittee my concern had been to ensure that the subcommittee could accurately reflect the point of view of all the parties. Obviously it's simplistic to say that there are two points of view—the opposition view and the government's—because I would be the last one to suggest that the New Democrats and the Bloc and the Liberals agree on everything. But certainly there are occasions where the government point of view is genuinely distinct—and this would be one of those cases—from the point of view that's being presented by the opposition parties.

This is particularly the case when one looks at the nature of the amendments that have been put forward. They now make reference to all of the opposition parties and the practices of all of the opposition parties.

I note, Mr. Chairman, that all of the opposition parties have engaged, as we now know from court filings that have been presented in the court case between Elections Canada and the Conservative Party of Canada that's going on parallel to our proceedings.... We know that the other parties engaged in similar practices. Of course, this is something we had contended all along, but there's now confirmation that what we were asserting is correct. We don't have an exhaustive list of all the cases in which this was done, but certainly a very extensive list of cases in which regional ad buys were engaged in by the other parties.

This is the sort of thing that a subcommittee in which only opposition members are present and participating in the debate might overlook—not that people aren't aware of the fact that this is the case, but it not being in their interest to raise it, they would tend not to raise it.

I can understand why that would be. It's the job of each of us to represent our party and our party's point of view and the interests of our party, including the interest in having the practices of some parties looked into but not necessarily the practices of other parties, and more particularly not the practices of our own party, especially after we've begun the process of making the assertion that the practices of the other parties are illegitimate.

And of course the word “illegitimate” is used here. So if it comes out—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm sorry, Mr. Reid; may I interrupt?

I just want to remind members that I'm going to allow you five more minutes, because I have some business to attend to. Afterwards, we can continue this. I just want to warn committee members that I need to adjourn at one o'clock and have business to attend to.

Mr. Reid, please, you can continue for five minutes.

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

Did you say you had to attend to business or that the committee had business?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have to attend to some business of the committee.

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

Committee business?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Yes.

Mr. Reid, please.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I lost my place a little bit. But I'm sure members can--

[An hon. member]

You're out of order.

[Some hon. members]

Start over.

Oh, oh!

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

I was building up a good head of steam there.

It's the job of each of us--and in some ways we're torn by this--to serve as parliamentarians but also to serve as the representatives of the interests of our party. We do campaign as party members and not merely as independent candidates, Monsieur Mayrand being the notable exception to this rule. There is a reasonable expectation--our parties expect it, our whips expect it, and actually so do our voters--that we'll represent the point of view that our party presents, and that includes both public meetings and in camera meetings. Without having been there and without wanting to engage in suggestions that the other parties, or any member of the other parties, had done anything improper, I think it comes around to an explanation of why this came out this way.

What I'm getting at now is that we've had these court filings. The court filings are now public. They are highly relevant to the proceedings that are suggested. I'm at a loss, frankly, to figure out how we can proceed in a manner that is informed and intelligent. While I don't think our committee is well suited to dealing with these kinds of questions, I do think that it would do a better job of dealing with such questions if it had these documents before it.

What I would have proposed to the subcommittee, and what I would have proposed as well as an amendment to the report of the subcommittee, would have been a requirement that the hearings be carried out only when the relevant written documents that relate to the very question Madam Redman raised in her original motion had been placed before the committee. Failing that, it would be very difficult to ask informed questions or to assume that members of the committee were capable of having a full range of knowledge as to the issues at hand. I think you can see how we want to make sure all our hearings into this matter, when they proceed, will be well-informed, thoughtful hearings, and that they will be conducted by members who have all relevant documentation at their disposal.

I'll give you an example of the kinds of things that are shown in the affidavits I've seen, Mr. Chairman. In fact, they are publicly available at a website. What they show, among other things, is that there were regional media buys conducted, for example, in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia by the New Democratic Party. They were very similar to the ad buys that are being complained about, and have been complained about, by the Liberal members of this committee, in that they promoted the party. There were ad buys conducted in a number of places by the Liberal Party; one that comes to mind is in New Brunswick, where again something similar went on.

How one could proceed to have these discussions in the absence of this documentation and could hope to conduct impartial and non-arbitrary hearings is something I confess to having some difficulty in grasping, Mr. Chairman, so I would have made a very strong recommendation that we gather up those affidavits and the support documents.

There's a substantial amount of Elections Canada documentation, including some documentation that shows Elections Canada's interpretation of the relevant sections of the Canada Elections Act--the parts that deal with the content of advertising, and the parts that are therefore in dispute and are the subject of the motion that Madam Redman put forward. The interpretation has been changed and it's been changed in a manner that is deleterious to the interests of one party and is inconsistent with the manner in which it's been interpreted, both in previous elections and for the other parties.

I would have suggested to the subcommittee or to a Conservative member going to sit on the subcommittee that essentially we ensure that such documentation be provided. And once any member has looked at it, I think they would find it hard to disagree with me as to the merit of including the said documentation.

There are three affidavits being presented. One of them deals pretty extensively with the background material from Elections Canada and describes, in considerable detail, the rulings that had been used by Elections Canada in its interpretation of the relevant section up to the 2006 election. This goes back and looks at Elections Canada's practices, not merely in the 2006 and 2004 elections but in all prior elections, since the time of the passing of the relevant section of the act.

Another document demonstrates that this course of action, or this interpretation, was altered, but not altered until after the fact of the 2006 election.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Reid, I apologize for interrupting, but I have to respect members' agendas.

Colleagues, the subcommittee on code of ethics will be meeting on Thursday, 9:30 a.m. to 11 a.m., regarding the disclosure forms. That's just a reminder. That is just before the main committee's meeting at 11 o'clock.

As the committee agreed last week, I will need a list of potential witnesses for Bill C-6 and Bill C-18. If it's at all possible to have any lists in by Thursday at 9 a.m., that would be very helpful for our clerks.

The committee agreed last Thursday to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-16 on Thursday, December 6, which is our next meeting. I'm just being informed that we have all party amendments, so that's fantastic. We will therefore proceed to clause-by-clause of Bill C-16 on Thursday, failing any other motions to go in a different direction.

Ms. Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

We have handed in our amendments. We are having trouble finding the proper wording, and I'm wondering if the committee would either at this point in time...or wait and see the amendment. I think it's a value-added amendment. We are working hard at getting it in. We haven't defined the wording, so it may be by end of day. If the committee would consider allowing that to go in, I know it will be after the fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

End of day meaning five o'clock?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Yes.