Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 10th, 2013

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

Unlike Mr. Lamoureux, I was going to talk just to the motion, but if you'll forgive me, he did just assert that I asked Mr. Mayrand to break the law. That of course is not what I said.

I said that my view was that his interpretation of the law is incorrect on two points, number one, asserting that he can go back to previous elections and say that a failure to provide a document vis-à-vis a previous election means you are unable to sit in a Parliament for which you were elected in full compliance with the law. I think it's a crazy interpretation, actually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm trying to give equal time here, so....

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

No, but my point is that I'm not suggesting he break the law. I'm suggesting that if you were to take that interpretation in the future, you probably would be breaking the law, actually.

The second thing I was pointing out was that by acting aggressively, acting before the court's been brought in, he is taking an unwarrantedly aggressive interpretation of the act. I pointed out that a reasonable person could do it differently, and I think that would have been the appropriate course of action.

With regard to the motion itself, I think Mr. Christopherson's motion to invite the law clerk is a good one. I think he threw in an add-on, which I hope is not part of the motion, to have Mr. Mayrand back at the same time. I think we should hear from these witnesses individually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Your chair was going to suggest, as we went into committee business, that we start to gather witness lists. The law clerk is a fantastic suggestion.

I have to deal with Mr. Christopherson's motion—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

May I ask a question, Chair, in the interest of efficiency?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It was a last-minute throw-in because I thought at some point we may want the two.

Could I ask, Chair, through you, what Mr. Reid's concerns are about having the two there right from the get-go? What would be the downside to that, Scott?

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

I think each of them has their own point of view and should be asked individually. I chaired the human rights subcommittee, and I found that it was usually not helpful to have people from different organizations representing different points of view; the lines of questioning are frankly more confused than if you simply have them individually.

If your proposal is that we have Mr. Mayrand back, I'd have to think about it. It might have some merit. But I wouldn't recommend having them at the same time. It's different when you get multiple people from the same organization, such as Monsieur Mayrand and Monsieur Perrault. It's their job to have the same point of view. Hopefully they discuss it among themselves beforehand.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead, David.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I just wanted to thank Mr. Reid for that. While I'm not sure I agree, just in the interest of us not getting bogged down in procedure—that's the kiss of death in terms of ever getting to something we can agree on—if that's what makes the government benches happy to give us a unanimous vote to get the parliamentary law clerk in, I'm willing to leave my motion at just the parliamentary law clerk, in the interest of getting that unanimous support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

As I said, it's not usually a motion as to how we pick witnesses for our committee. It's usually done in a good discussion, with each party handing in a list, but since we're at this point, I have Mr. Lukiwski on the speaking list.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Very quickly, I concur, obviously, with my colleague Mr. Reid. We have no problem with the law clerk.

I would suggest, however, that we have some...or at least I have a few thoughts on potential witnesses. I believe it would be appropriate at that time, at least, to go in camera, because it's future committee business, which we always deal with in camera.

I have no problem with the motion itself, even though it's unusual. I have no problem with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm looking for your guidance. We could have a vote on it, but I'm going to suggest that we have good concurrence that we all want it to happen. I would like to have all parties submit some lists of witnesses. At that point, once that was done, we would then talk about the length and timing of the rest of this study.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I hear you, Chair. If you don't mind, though, we're this far into the motion. We are in agreement. If we could just nail that down, it's just one less piece of work to do later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Those in favour of having the parliamentary law clerk as one of our witnesses? Any opposed?

(Motion agreed to)

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If you're all right, we'll suspend for a minute.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

No, on the motion—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Kevin has his finger up, and then I'll get back to you, Madame Turmel.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, I do think there would be some value because a number of the questions were focused on the member for Selkirk—Interlake and some cost-related.... The Chief Electoral Officer indicated there was a very good chance there could be a settlement coming up.

I think as part of a report back we might be making some sorts of recommendations. There might be some value in terms of having the member for Selkirk—Interlake come before the committee so that he can give us his own personal perspective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Folks—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We can do a quick witness list right here today and just keep throwing them out. We can do it that way, or we can do it the way we usually do it. I'm okay with what you're trying to do here. It's great that you want to just yell them out, or you can send them in Christmas cards. But the answer usually is that this has been a very good way.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

On a point of order, I just move we go in camera and continue the discussion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

There you go.

Sorry, but I have Madame Turmel very quickly first, and then that's going to be the case.

Go ahead, Madame Turmel.