Evidence of meeting #28 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was question.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:03 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I call the meeting back to order.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 19, 2009, there is a question of privilege relating to the mailings sent into the riding of Sackville--Eastern Shore.
12:03 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Point of order.
Actually, it's more of a point of clarification. I think it's important to get this on the record, because we might run into this situation in future meetings.
On the question of whether or not a member of Parliament is compelled to appear before a committee if they don't want to, you'll recall I raised that at the last meeting. My contention was that a member of Parliament is not compelled to appear if that member does not want to appear. Michel and Marcel both said that they are compelled. In fact, they are not.
I'll read into the record from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009, under the heading “Committee Powers by Committee Type”, under the subset “To Send for Persons”. I won't read the entire rationale, but I'll cut to the chase. It says, “The same logic explains why a Standing Committee cannot order a Member of the House of Commons or a Senator to appear.”
Now, there is a recourse to that, and I'll read that, because it's a process: “If a member of the House refuses an invitation to appear before a Standing Committee, and the Committee decides that such an appearance is necessary, it may so report to the House and then it will be up to the House to decide what measures should be taken.”
So there is some recourse. But my point is, as I stated in the last meeting, you cannot force a member of Parliament to appear based on a committee's wishes. It has to go to a higher body.
12:03 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.
On the same point of order, Mr. Guimond, quickly.
12:03 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Lukiwski is right. What I may not have specified is that we need an order of the House to compel a member to appear before a committee. I completely agree with what my colleague, Tom Lukiwski, said in terms of clarifying the matter.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Good. That is also my interpretation of that point of order.
Mr. Stoffer, you now understand how a witness feels when we do procedural stuff and make them sit there and wait. This will help you at your own committees, I'm sure.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'd like to offer you an opportunity for an opening statement. If you could keep it to under a couple of hours, that would be great.
12:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, honourable colleagues, chère colleagues, I thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you today to see if we can't work collectively and cooperatively on ending something that I believe needs to stop on all sides. I also want to thank the honourable Speaker of the House of Commons for his ruling on my point of privilege.
I especially want to thank Mr. Tom Lukiwski, who advised me that Mr. Vellacott would be offering an apology. I accepted Mr. Vellacott's apology. It was sincere. It was correct. I've always had the greatest respect for Mr. Vellacott, as I do for all members of the House of Commons. As I have said many times, there hasn't been one member of the House of Commons or one senator in my twelve and a half years of being here who I wouldn't want as my neighbour. We may disagree on issues, but that's beside the point.
So, why are we here today? I got a ten percenter in my riding with Maurice Vellacott's name on it, but he didn't do the work on it. It was done by somebody within the central party of the Conservative Party. To be frank with you, sir, whoever designed this, whoever authorized sending it out, that's the person I would like to meet. If I lived in Yukon, we'd make sure that person had a disability pension right after we met with him. But we can't do that these days. We have to be nice. It's that person who I would like to see apologize, not just to me but to all my colleagues in the House of Commons who received this nonsense.
To be completely frank with you, sir, and I say this in the simplest terms that I know, this was a piece of garbage. But I will say something. “The failed long-gun registry. Hard on farmers and hunters. Useless against real criminals.” That is absolutely correct. I've been saying that since 1993, four years before I got into the House of Commons. I have completely opposed the registry since 1997 with every chance I have had, from press conferences to working with Gary Breitkreuz and everybody else. But here is what it says:
Your Member of Parliament, Peter Stoffer, worked to support the registry and end the amnesty. Is that the support you expect from your local MP?
I don't know another way to say this, sir, but it was a bold-faced lie. Somebody within the central party had to have known my voting record, had to have known where I stood on this issue, and still sent it out under the name of a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan. Why did they do it? Is it--sorry about the language--to piss me off? Is it to get me upset? Is it to win my seat? Is it to garner votes among my constituents to get a database and raise funds? I mean, if you wanted to say that I voted against certain items of a budget, that's fair game. If you wanted to send something to my riding talking about the home renovation tax credit, that's fair game. But to send a bold-faced lie into my personal riding....
I work with Tony Rodgers of the Nova Scotia Federation of Anglers and Hunters, who my friend Mr. Kerr knows. They questioned me. They said, “Peter, what's going on? Have you changed your mind? Did the party get hold of you and make you change your opinion?” I had to explain myself to an awful lot of people. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we don't have time to re-explain things that we've already done for twelve and a half years.
At the end of the day, I accepted Mr. Vellacott's apology without reservation. But I still need to hear from the person who designed this and who ultimately authorized this to be sent into my riding. That's the individual or group of individuals who I would like to see and hear from directly.
Second, when it comes to the use of ten percenters--and I know the Board of Internal Economy and others are discussing this at this time--I have a personal opinion, but I don't have a party position. As you know, I'm not a member of the board, and I'm not an officer of the House of Commons, but I believe--and all parties are guilty of this--it's time that not only this committee but Parliament itself should have a serious discussion on the future use of ten percenters, the content of those ten percenters, and maybe, just maybe, we should have a little more decorum, not just in the House, but in the message we send across the country.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate the opportunity to release whatever frustration I had before. I want to thank the members of the committee very much for their time as well.
I'm prepared and willing to answer questions in both official languages.
Merci beaucoup.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you, Mr. Stoffer.
I know you to be a very collegial man, and I understand your point today.
If you'd like to table a copy of that document with the committee, you may also do so.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
The reason I didn't, sir, is that it's only in English.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
On a point of order, he can table it; we just can't distribute it until we get it translated.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We can't distribute it to members. That's fine.
We'll hear from Madam Jennings, first off. Can we stick to five-minute rounds at the beginning here and see how we do?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Sure, that's not a problem.
Thank you very much for agreeing to come before this meeting, Mr. Stoffer, and thank you very much for your heartfelt statement.
I have two questions. One, in Mr. Vellacott's apology, did Mr. Vellacott explain how his name came to be attached to that ten percenter? My understanding is that under the rules of the House for householder ten percenters, the member actually has to sign off on it. That's the first question.
On the second question, you've suggested that it's perhaps time for the House, through its different committees, whether it's before the Board of Internal Economy or the House itself, to take a second look at ten percenters. You may be aware that the leader of the official opposition, Mr. Michael Ignatieff, has taken a very clear position on the issue of ten percenters. That is, the Liberal Party, the Liberal caucus, would like to see them limited to the member's own riding. I'd like to know if you have an opinion as to the position that has been taken by the Liberal Party.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
To the first question regarding Mr. Vellacott and the signing off on it, I know that what we do in our own caucus is the member of Parliament has to approve it to the party before it goes out, if you want your name on a particular ten percenter to go to a particular area. You have to see it—this is for our own party—you have to sign off, and then off it goes out.
I don't know how the Conservative Party works, but in the apology Mr. Vellacott indicated that he would be talking to the people who obviously draft these and send them out to make sure that kind of error doesn't happen again. Whether the Conservative Party has a policy where they actually have to see it before they sign it, I don't know. That's a question for the Conservative Party.
Regarding Mr. Ignatieff's statement on limiting ten percenters strictly to their own riding, I have my own personal view. I don't use ten percenters. I haven't used them for several years. I did in the past, no question, but I don't do them because I found with the cost, it took a lot of time for our staff to do them.
But I believe that debate should happen within the Board of Internal Economy and the officers of it. There are 308 of us. I sit in seat 309, which is a real honour and privilege. I just have one opinion, but I think the board, the leaders, can get together and make that honest assessment and judgment down the road.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
You do agree that a member has to sign a document that authorizes the sending of a ten percenter. Now, if a member wilfully signs the document for the House services for the printing, etc., without having seen the actual content, that does not excuse that member. They have then handed over the authority to someone else to decide the content and they're trusting that the content will not breach another member's privileges. So there is still a certain responsibility on the part of the member.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
To put it bluntly, again, I can't speak for the Conservative Party and how they operate. I can just let you know that within our own party, when we agree to send out ten percenters on a particular issue to a particular riding across the country, we would actually see it, make sure the content is what we approve of, and then we sign off on it. I can't speak for other parties and how they do it.
The other issue, of course, is that at the end of the day members of Parliament are responsible for everything in and out of their business offices here in Ottawa and their constituency office. If one of our staff screws up, we're responsible. At the end of the day, any document, phone call, e-mail, or whatever that comes from our offices, we are ultimately responsible for the content, tone, and for everything else. That's just part of our responsibility as members of Parliament, and even senators, for that matter.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Not to be disrespectful at all, but do you want to be addressed as Mr. Stoffer? I sense that makes you uncomfortable as much as anything else.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Peter, thank you for being here.
First, let me say I totally agree with you that incorrect information should never be allowed to be sent out into any of the ridings, period.