Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 6th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I know, but I did warn you ahead of time. It's nice that you listen.

We're going to go to a real quick round for a couple of minutes, at two minutes each.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you.

I want to go back to one of the points I was trying to make before.

I certainly hope, Monsieur Mayrand, that you would agree with me when I say that to remove a member from his seat and remove his ability to vote is probably one of the most serious sanctions that could be invoked upon a sitting member of Parliament. In fact, I would suggest to you, and I again hope you would agree, that it should be absolutely the last resort instead of trying to find a settlement, a resolution to a dispute. In this case, it was an accounting dispute.

I go back to the fact that Mr. Bezan had a two-week window in which to file a court application that would have relieved the imposition that you had set yourself on the filing of a corrected return. You didn't wait for that two weeks. You didn't allow him the two weeks to file a court injunction. You sent the letter to Speaker Scheer a week prior to the deadline.

I'm wondering why, knowing as you do that it's such a serious sanction. Rather than putting Mr. Bezan and his constituents through that, why not just wait until he files the court application to see whether that in fact is accepted? Then you wouldn't have the need to send the letter to Speaker Scheer. We wouldn't be here today. Mr. Bezan wouldn't have been portrayed in the press—by some—as a cheater.

[Marc Mayrand]

I understand your concern and agree that it's an extreme measure. I have to rely on the legislation. The provision could have provided...“subject to an application to the court”. That's not what the provision says at this point in time. Historically, it was very clear in previous parliamentary debate that the action we're following is consistent with the intention of the legislator.

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

With all due respect, I have the act in front of me, and I disagree with your interpretation. It says quite clearly that a candidate can make application to the courts. You were informed by Mr. Bezan that he was going to do that. You sent the letter to Speaker Scheer anyway. I just don't know why. I'd like to know why.

[Marc Mayrand]

I'm not disputing that as a remedy to the court. What I'm saying is that the provision does not provide for a delay, even though there's a remedy to the court.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Mr. Christopherson, are you taking this?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I am. Thank you very much, Chair.

Now having the floor, duly and properly, I'd like to exercise my right to introduce a notice of motion.

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, upon receiving an order of reference from the House concerning C-23 amendment to the elections act, initiate a study on this legislation which will include the following:

Hearing witnesses from, but not limited to, Elections Canada, Political Parties as defined under the Canada Elections Act, the Minister of State who introduced the bill, representatives of first nations, anti-poverty groups, groups representing persons with disabilities, groups representing youth advocates and students, as well as specific groups which have been active in society on election rules, including Fair Vote Canada, SAMARA, Democracy Watch and the BC Civil Liberties Union;

And that the committee request to travel to all regions of Canada (Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Northern Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia and the North), as well as downtown urban settings (such as the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver) and rural and remote settings, and that the committee request that this travel take place in March and April 2014;

And that the committee shall only proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill after these hearings have been completed, with a goal to commence clause-by-clause consideration for May 1, 2014.

I will duly deposit that with the clerk.

The only thing I would then have is to afford Monsieur Mayrand an opportunity to say anything that he hasn't yet had a chance to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Perfect, except I have a point of order from Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I guess I would look to you for clarification. I had posed a question to Mr. Mayrand in regard to something that was somewhat remotely close to the legislation that we had, which was directly linked to the report that we have. There was a direct link to it, right?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Even when I did that, you said that it was borderline.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

There was an agreement, from what I understand, on Bill C-23. Because I am exceptionally opinionated, as all members are on that particular piece of legislation. We all have things we would like to see done with that piece of legislation. Even though on the surface it sounds like a good motion. I would look to you for some guidance to the committee as to whether or not it's appropriate for us to be dealing with that, or sticking with the agenda, because I do have some more questions on the agenda items.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We've pretty much used time by doing this, but I'll certainly give you my answer.

We've noted Mr. Christopherson's motion. It's noted. Again, he was at the meeting where I suggested we don't talk too much about this new bill while we're still dealing with the old, but it's nice to see all my friends are listening today.

Mr. Lukiwski, on a point of order.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Just a moment, Chair.

I don't know what you're going on about here, but all I did was submit a notice of motion that I'm entitled to do on any subject without expecting to be editorialized and attacked by the chair for exercising my right. I am honouring our commitment on Bill C-23 totally, and my notice—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sorry to hurt your feelings, Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Lukiwski has the floor.

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's a matter of wronging me, not my feelings.

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

It's just a question on a point of order. Is David's motion in both official languages?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's here to be noted today. It wouldn't be brought up again until our next meeting. By then, hopefully it would be, or the clerk will have taken care of that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure, let's go a round on this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Absolutely.

My colleague beside me says that people don't understand procedures. I understand agreements. I understand that on this particular piece of legislation...and as I say, I have some very strong thoughts. I would have loved to have brought forward motions and be able to debate that bill today. Trust me, I'd love to debate it. I was under the understanding that there was an all-party consensus that we wouldn't be doing something of this nature. Having said that, if we are going to be doing things of this nature, I would have liked to have been forewarned for the simple reason that I too would have liked to have been able to bring forth some motions in regard to Bill C-23.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay.

[An hon. member]

The question's out of order here.

[Brian Masse]

Be prepared when you come to a meeting.