Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 28th, 2014

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Let's not play games.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On that point of order, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

On that point of order, we went out of our way to move a motion trying to make sure that those who were also impacted by this.... The government just wants to keep it so tight as to who gets a say, but the fact remains that the independents represented by Ms. May have are as important in this as anyone. We have time enough to do two minutes each, so that four of us can do two rounds and be out of here with two minutes to spare.

Stop playing games, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, you know, I am the chair, and I love the advice that you give me, because I like how you chair also, but we don't have that time. We did defer at the start of the meeting some committee business to now.

The question was asked, and Mr. Lukiwski is correct that in the past in this committee time has been given to others by somebody whose time it was. So it's not out of order to say that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I didn't say it was, Chair. I was just offering another opinion for you to consider.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, I did get that. Thank you.

Do we have consent for Ms. May?

No. I don't have it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You don't have what?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Unanimous consent.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Why is that?

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

If I may interject, as I pointed out, David, if you want to give up your time to Ms. May, then please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

So if I'm understanding this, the government stepped in on the unanimous consent, when we have time left, to deny a member of Parliament, who's representing the independents in our process, a chance to ask a question. Shame on you.

The official opposition will give our time to Ms. May.

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

Excellent. Then we have it settled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

[Inaudible--Editor]...one question, Ms. May. Please go ahead.

I knew we'd get there.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

First, I want to thank the official opposition for doing that, but I want to reaffirm that the rights of every MP in this place are in principle equal and that I do not speak here in committee solely when another party relinquishes its time. I have a right to speak if there is a decision of the chair, and it is the chair's discretion.

My question—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

But I will suggest that since it is the procedure and House affairs committee, I will follow procedures. So that is where we are.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, I understand. You are a wonderful chair, and I love you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Oh, thank you.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Now may I just try to get whatever time is left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Would you read back the record on that last part?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes.

I could also say it in French. I love you.

First of all, I want to welcome Mr. Saunders. Ironically, the last time we saw each other he was questioning me on a previous court matter.

What I want to do is to clarify very specifically your concern that this change in Bill C-23 could place you, as Director of Public Prosecutions, in a situation of perceived conflict of interest, particularly around this issue of certification of appropriate expenses. As things now stand, the Chief Electoral Officer has direct access, within budget, to the consolidated revenue funds without anyone having to certify.

I'd like to ask you if you would agree with me that the status quo presents no difficulties for your office, and the status quo allows the Chief Electoral Officer to have access to previously approved budgetary funds without anyone else in a supervisory position having to certify the appropriateness of those expenses.

[Brian J. Saunders]

I take it that you're more familiar with the act than I am. I'm not certain whether he can obtain funds without having anyone certify. I haven't read the existing act closely enough. I thought it was the Chief Electoral Officer who had to certify.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, the Chief Electoral Officer is the one who gets to—

[Brian J. Saunders]

To certify those expenses.

If your question is simply whether it would be less trouble for me if I didn't have this responsibility, the answer, clearly, is yes.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you.