HAFF Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

1105

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.))

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

1110

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux (President, Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick)

1115

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Lawrence Potvin (Warden, Regional County Municipality of Lac-Saint-Jean-Est)

1120

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Michel Guimond

1125

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

1130

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1135

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

1140

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Jacques Saada

1145

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

1150

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

1155

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux

1200

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Lawrence Potvin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Elly Alboim (Earnscliffe Research and Communication)

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Elly Alboim

1205

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Elly Alboim

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Elly Alboim

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Elly Alboim

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Yvon Godin

1210

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Elly Alboim

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Elly Alboim

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

Mr. Elly Alboim

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

1220

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

1225

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Ted White

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Stephen Zaluski (As Individual)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Stephen Zaluski

1230

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy (Legislative Clerk, Committees Directorate, House of Commons)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

1235

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

1240

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Ted White

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

1245

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Ted White

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Ted White

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 058

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): We'll come to order.

We have one piece of housekeeping business. I would like to have someone move a motion. The list of associate members of the standing committee was renewed when the 45th report was concurred in. Associate members formerly named to the subcommittee must be replaced. The motion is that David Price, Gerald Keddy, and Chuck Strahl be members of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.

An hon. member: I'll move that.

(Motion agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you.

Now, the first order of business is a round table today. Before we get into that, I would like to bring the whole committee up to date. I spoke to the two gentlemen who were requesting witnesses last night as soon as we got answers as to who was coming.

Mr. Kingsley actually called me last night. He's in Latvia, at the expense of the Latvian government, helping them set up democratic election processes. He offered to fly back last night to be here today. Since the article in question was dated July 18, I thanked him for his offer, but suggested it wasn't that urgent. He also couldn't send us a statement because he got the phone call last night after 9:30 their time, and he didn't have any secretarial services available in the hotel he was in.

He wanted me to suggest to the committee, and I agreed, that he would be more than pleased to come back for as long as you want at your earliest convenience. He also wanted me to pass on that he was asked by at least a dozen people what the process would be to make this possible, as is described in the article that Mr. Godin has brought to our attention.

He suggests that he'll come back in here and you can ask him, on a whole list of people, “Did they call you?”, and he'd be more than pleased to confirm or deny. He has no difficulty with the article. It was faxed over to him and he looked at it and said it was accurate.

That's the best information I can give you. He really did offer to get a flight out last night and get here. I didn't think that would be an economical thing for the Latvian government, nor did I think it was that urgent that he do it. So I made that decision on your behalf. I checked with the two gentlemen who wanted him here, and it was fine with them, last night.

Is that okay with everyone?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): When will it be possible for him to be here?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I think he's finished in Latvia toward the end of this week, so we can get him here next week.

The information he's giving us is not relevant to the twelve-month span we're talking about. It's a separate issue.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): What is it we don't know from him that we think he's going to tell us by having him come back?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I guess we can ask him about a whole list of people and find out if these people have contacted him to ask if there is a possibility of shortening the process from twelve months to seven months.

Mr. Geoff Regan: But we know he's concluded that the process--

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Well, he has admitted it. He has admitted that he gave the interview to the National Post, that the material in the National Post is accurate. He wasn't asked that question when he was here last week, so he didn't offer any information.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Isn't the question whether or not it's feasible to go ahead on April 1? Don't we have that answer already?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Yes, we do, but it's a sub-issue.

The steering committee last night was asked if Mr. Kingsley could come back. Mr. Kingsley has offered to come back. It's a completely separate issue; it has nothing to do with the deliberations today. I just had to report to everybody, because I am the servant of the committee. It's a strange position for me.

I would like to welcome the two gentlemen at the end of the table very, very much.

Okay, we'll do this first.

The steering committee met last night to discuss the business of the committee and agreed to make the following recommendations:

Consideration of Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003, and the following witnesses be invited to appear on Tuesday, September 30:

First, Jean-Guy Rioux, président--you must excuse my French--Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick; Lawrence Potvin, warden, Regional County Municipality of Lac-Saint-Jean-Est, Quebec. Both gentlemen graciously appeared here before us today with very short notice, because they were called quite late yesterday afternoon.

Claude Rénault, mayor, L'Ascension, Quebec, had another engagement and couldn't attend.

Democracy Watch was invited and they declined because they haven't done any work on this at all. They didn't think it was an area they needed to do some work in, so they've declined appearing.

Elly Alboim from Earnscliffe Research and Communication was invited, and he's agreed to come to answer questions specifically on a matter not relating to the bill under discussion. The group wanted him, and he agreed to come, so he'll be here after the round table is completed.

I'd like to submit that for your approval. Can someone move receipt of that? Mr. Saada.

(Motion agreed to)

Á (1110)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Okay, again, I'd like to welcome you gentlemen. It's a real pleasure to have you here, because it was very short notice.

I am going to have to stick to a very rigid set of rules, unfortunately. The questions we will allow you to answer are questions specifically on the implementation of the new riding boundaries being shortened from twelve months to seven months. Anything outside of that I'm going to have to stop the questioner and stop the answer. Is that understood clearly? This is not confrontational. I just want you to know that when I start banging my hammer, it's for good reason.

Who would like to present first? Mr. Rioux.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux (President, Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick): Good morning. My name is Jean-Guy Rioux and I am the President of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, which has nearly 20, 000 members.

As you all probably know, New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada and the only one which guarantees equality of both linguistic communities and both official languages under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Based on this fact, we are here today to contest the proposal to reduce the appeal period for new electoral boundaries from 12 to 7 months, and to explain why this would greatly affect us.

We would normally have 12 months to appeal a law. But if we are only given 7 months, our lawyers would be deprived of 5 months of work. If we can challenge the law, I feel that we should be given ample opportunity to do so.

There has been a lot of opposition to the proposed new electoral map for New Brunswick, particularly with regard to the riding of Acadie--Bathurst. We prepared a complete brief on the meaning of communities of interest, which was tabled before the commission. At the time, we were told that if the commission had received the brief earlier, the proposed boundaries might have been different. Whatever the case may be, the document was presented on October 17.

Once the committee tabled the new electoral map in the House of Commons, many people raised objections. For instance, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs stated that the proposed electoral boundaries were unacceptable, and the Official Languages Committee agreed.

Our community has already taken legal action. The Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick has taken its case before the courts. It has hired a lawyer to file an application before the court in order to contest the legislation. This was done. The application has just been made this week. But we all know what the legal process entails: it takes a lot of time before you get a result.

Many people in our area have strongly objected to the legislation, particularly those living in the riding of Acadie--Bathurst, where 2, 700 people signed a petition. About 7, 000 postcards were sent out and 14 briefs were presented to object to the legislation.

We feel that if the appeal period provided for by the legislation is reduced from 12 to 7 months, it will negatively affect our legal action because we won't have time to go ahead with it. I am fairly certain that we will not have enough time to make our case. The application is only one stage in the process, and it may well be that we will have to take further legal action.

If the new electoral map is enforced, we will be faced with a fait accompli, which will cause considerable prejudice to the riding of Acadie--Bathurst. We fully support the actions taken by our member, Mr. Yvon Godin. For our part, we have made an application before the courts. Our lawyers are working on the case and we will contest the legislation. But if the changes go through in April, it will be a huge setback for our riding.

Perhaps you can go ahead with other ridings, but not with ours. I think that our member will press his case.

That being said, I would like to thank you for having taken the time to listen to us. We are counting on your cooperation to make sure that the measure already passed by Parliament, which allows for a 12-month implementation period for the new act, does not change.

Á (1115)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Monsieur Potvin.

[Translation]

Mr. Lawrence Potvin (Warden, Regional County Municipality of Lac-Saint-Jean-Est): Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Clerk, I am the reeve for Lac-Saint-Jean-Est, but I am also the regional spokesperson of the Table des préfets, as well as the president of the local development centre, and the president of the Association régionale des centres locaux de développement de la région du Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean (Regional association of local development centres of the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region).

I'm sure you understand that the proposed new electoral boundaries will have a huge impact on the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area, as will the tabling in the House of Commons of Bill C-49, which will give effect to the new electoral map on April 1, 2004. This would eliminate the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay. However, since 1960, neither the number of citizens nor the number of voters has significantly decreased in the electoral riding of Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay.

If you look at the evolution of Quebec's population, you'll see that there is an average of 91,000 people per riding. The current average is 98,000 people per riding, and if this trend continues, the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area will soon only be represented by two members. However, in our view, democracy is not exercised strictly based on demographics: it is also based on history and culture. If Alma is included with Jonquière to create the new riding of Alma--Jonquière, well, it means you are dislocating an entire region.

The RCM of Lac-Saint-Jean has 15 municipalities. Alma, with its 31,000 citizens, is the hub of the region, and the rural municipalities which border Lac-Saint-Jean make it a riding of 256 kilometres around Saint-Jean Lake, not to mention the municipalities which lie outside of the border, or the crown, of Saint-Jean Lake.

We have no choice but to abide by the proposed new electoral ridings, since the House of Commons has passed legislation to that effect. However, the entire Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region strongly objects to a bill which would hasten the application of the electoral map in time for the next federal election.

Democracy should not be exercised based on the will of the future Prime Minister. Democracy should be exercised as generally as possible and respect the culture, origins and the economy of a region. The disappearance of the Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay riding will deprive our region from being properly represented in the House of Commons. Yet Mr. Jean Chrétien said the exact opposite about a year or a year and a half ago, when he stated that the federal government would look after resource regions. These resource regions are not only located in Quebec; they are located across the country.

What is happening? People are moving to urban areas. In Quebec, people are moving to Montreal. Under the new electoral map, Quebec will still have 75 ridings, but a major rural riding, the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay, will disappear into several regions which are emptying at a significant rate. As a result, the political heft of the Montreal region will increase, whereas the political clout of resource areas will decrease.

I hope you understand how important it is for the entire Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area that Bill C-49 not be passed by the House of Commons. On behalf of everyone living in this region, I would ask you to abide by the deadline contained under the current act with regard to electoral boundaries.

Á (1120)

This would keep alive for another four years a riding which is dear to our hearts and which has been in existence since 1949. Please understand that the economic, cultural and historical centre of the 14 rural municipalities of the RCM of Lac-Saint-Jean-Est is the town of Alma. If we had another four years before the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay disappeared, it would give us time to adjust, because even though we are not enemies and we live in the same region, we do not necessarily share the same interests.

On behalf of the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region, I have come before you to ask that Bill C-49 not be adopted in the interest of democracy. The representation of resource-rich regions in the House of Commons is one of the basic pillars of Canadian democracy.

Thank you very much.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you.

My first questioner is Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Rioux. Mr. Rioux, I wrote down what you said, word for word. You talked about an application before the courts to challenge this act. Perhaps my training as a lawyer is showing, but I would like to know what act you are talking about.

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: Perhaps I did not express myself clearly. We are not challenging the act, but the proposed new boundaries for the riding of Acadie--Bathurst.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Has the application been filed?

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: It has been filed.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Could you perhaps send a copy of the application to the clerk for the benefit of all committee members?

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: Our member, Yvon Godin—

Mr. Michel Guimond: Perhaps Mr. Godin could table it.

So you are also calling upon the other defendant, which is the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of New Brunswick. Is that correct?

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: No, because that commission tabled its report and does not exist anymore. Our appeal is based on the fact that only demographics were taken into account, and not communities of interest. That is the main reason, because the francophone part of the riding, which has always been located in Acadie--Bathurst, is going to another, mostly anglophone, riding, with which there is no shared community of interest.

Mr. Michel Guimond: What corrective action are you asking for in your application? Are you asking for an injunction? Does your application call for the process to be put on hold, including the adoption of Bill C-49, which is now before us and which you are addressing today?

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: The objective of the application is to let the part which was taken from the riding of Acadie--Bathurst stay within the riding. In another words, we are asking that the parish of Allardville and Bathurst remain within the riding. The other reason why I am here today is of course to plead for more time. If the legislation comes into effect in April, we will be faced with a fait accompli and it will be difficult for us to carry on with our fight.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, that I understood.

My second series of questions is for Mr. Potvin. Mr. Potvin, thank you for your presentation. You noted your involvement with the regional association of local development centres and the fact that you are the spokesperson for the Table des préfets. Do these two organizations know that you are appearing before the committee this morning?

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: I obviously did not come here on my own initiative. Every municipality in the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region has denounced the proposed new electoral boundaries, and everyone knows that I am here this morning to try to save what can still be saved.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I asked you the question because you are the mayor of one of the municipalities.

Á (1125)

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: Indeed, I am the mayor of Métabetchouan--Lac-à-la-Croix, in the riding of Roberval.

Mr. Michel Guimond: That is what I wanted to point out: the fact that there really is regional unanimity.

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: Indeed. The city of Alma is the only one that would be put in with the city of Jonquière to create the new riding of Jonquière--Alma. You are skipping over all of the other municipalities around lac Saint-Jean, except for Alma. If you go from Alma to Jonquière, you go through Saint-Bruno, which abuts Alma. It is very obvious on a map.

Mr. Michel Guimond: You made a very serious statement: you said that democracy should not be exercised at the whim of a future Prime Minister. If I understood you correctly, you think that Bill C-49, which is before us and which you are testifying on, is, to a certain extent, political meddling in a process which was kept neutral and transparent by the commissions' involvement.

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: How do you want it to be perceived? We all know that the electoral boundaries review should be a neutral process under the act. The commissions had an investigative and decision-making power and there are rules to be followed. Why are the rules suddenly being changed with Bill C-49? The act is clear, and suddenly, for some reason or other, Bill C-49 comes along and changes the rules. In a democracy, rules are followed. If Bill C-49 had been tabled at any other time, we could have discussed it and made the appropriate recommendations. Everyone knows that there will soon be a federal election, unless the newspapers are misinforming us or unless... We know what will happen at the beginning of February: there will be a new Prime Minister.

Mr. Michel Guimond: So the local elected representatives, the decision-makers and socio-economic players in the greater region of Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean are asking Parliament not to pass Bill C-49.

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: It is important to hear views from people outside of political parties. The Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region is a resource region that is in decline. That is the case for all resource regions in Canada, regardless of the province they are in. We therefore do not have such a strong voice to discuss the problems in resource regions. That is why we think it is important to appear today as a region.

Over the next four years, the situation could change. We know that there are regional projects underway. Alcan, for example, has projects in our region. So, in the short term, the situation could improve for the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region thanks to the Péribonka 4 projects and the aluminum processing projects. It is important to stabilize the region and see what effect all this will have.

Even if we are part of the same region, we each have our political allegiances. We have contacts at the municipal level, but we nonetheless have to rebuild an organizational culture and ties between the different ridings so that we can all defend our interests through the member of Parliament who will represent us in the House of Commons, regardless of his political party.

The speed of these changes worries us. We think we might lose out.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Guimond, thank you. If you want to ask more questions, I'll put you on a second round. Okay?

Next, Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is to Mr. Potvin. Just so I'm clear on your position, what you would like to see happen is the riding realignment not be expedited, the Prime Minister call a spring election under the old boundaries, and that would then give you time. If the Prime Minister, though, waits until after August 25, you're back in the same position.

Have you launched any kind of a legal challenge like the Acadian association, or are you pinning your hopes on a spring election under the old boundaries?

Á (1130)

[Translation]

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: I would first like to say that there is no question of legal challenge as is the case with the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick. Secondly, if elections are held before the 25^th of August, which is possible, that will give our region a reprieve, which could mean that four members of Parliament will be kept. Afterwards, over the next four years, we will have time to see how all this can be managed. That is the purpose of today's initiative. It is a regional initiative.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. Good.

Mr. Rioux, correct me if I'm wrong. Did your association launch a court challenge the last time the ridings were redistributed?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: Yes, but we had to drop it because the person in charge of preparing our file got sick. Just when we were ready to challenge the change, a new commission was appointed to redefine the riding boundaries. So we dropped it.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: How far along did you get in that process? Did you seek an injunction last time?

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: No.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The reason I ask is because you say that you filed your court challenge this week, which is either today or yesterday, I take it. The New Brunswick report was the first report out, at the end of May. In terms of the timing, why has it taken this long to launch the court challenge?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: Right now, the association making the claim is the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick. We had a meeting at the beginning of August and we retained the services of a lawyer. So there has been just one meeting of all the stakeholders, at the beginning of August, because of the holidays. We retained the services of a lawyer and the work has been ongoing since then.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: Fair enough.

Do you intend to seek an injunction? It seems to me that even twelve months isn't long enough if this process takes its normal course. It seems to me what you need to do is put the brakes on this thing as quickly as possible. Whether it's April or August, you have to convince a judge that you're being prejudiced to such an extent. Is that your intention? Where are you with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: The Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick and the SAANB want to conduct an inquiry, appear before a judge and get an injunction if the judge complies with our request.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: Have you had any sidebars with the government lawyers in the sense of agreeing to expedite that injunction process? It seems to me that's where the rubber hits the road. If that takes place between now and April or now and August doesn't matter; if that's turned down the chances of this thing being resolved in twelve months aren't great, but if you can get that injunction hearing at some point between now and April, then you're not necessarily any worse off. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: That is what the lawyer will try to do by going before the judge. We should then have a definitive answer.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): For the information of the committee, we do have a copy of the court case or the filing. In keeping with the tradition of the committee, it's only in one language, only in French, and it hasn't been translated, so we can't hand it out. If anybody wants to come up and pick up a copy in French, you're able to do so, but we can't hand it out from the committee. You understand.

The next questioner is Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to welcome our witnesses.

I think we have far too little time for such an important topic.

Mr. Potvin, you spoke earlier about democracy. In a democracy, decisions are made and there must be enough time to reply and defend one's position. That is why there are courts and that is one of the reasons for the 12-month period that I said was so important in order to give people a chance to have some recourse.

It is not before the committee, but the request for a review is versus Her Majesty the Queen, which means the Government of Canada, because after the commission is dissolved, it is the government's responsibility to provide the defence.

Knowing the current situation between the region of Acadie--Bathurst and Miramichi, knowing that most residents of the Acadie--Bathurst region and a minority of anglophones in Miramichi... There were even briefs tabled in Miramichi—we could look at the minutes—saying it made no sense to put the people from Acadie--Bathurst with those from Miramichi because of their language, which raised the question of the real community of interests in the Acadie--Bathurst region. I do not want to raise the argument that will be presented in court; that is why we should go to court.

It is also known that the Official Languages Commissioner agreed with the people from Acadie--Bathurst and that our subcommittee, which is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, supported the plea made by the Official Languages Commissioner and asked the commission to not make the changes in Acadie--Bathurst because of the francophone community and their interests. Furthermore, the Official Languages Committee agreed, and as Mr. Rioux said earlier, more than 7,000 people demonstrated—something never seen in Canada.

I would like you to comment on the political interference in this case, bearing in mind—and it is in the news, it is everywhere, it has never been challenged—that the Minister responsible for New Brunswick, Claudette Bradshaw, is the person who suggested the names of the two people who sat on the commission and bearing in mind that the chairman of the commission is the father-in-law of one of the members of Parliament, which could mean there is a conflict of interest.

Á (1135)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Godin, I'm being really flexible, because we have two witnesses who have travelled a long way and I'd like them to have an opportunity to say whatever they'd like to say. I'm just going to remind you, because you know better, to try to restrict your questions to the twelve-month as opposed to seven-month time gap. Okay? As I say, I'm being very flexible.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'll come to that very soon.

[Translation]

Mr. Rioux, do you know who the government's lawyer is? You do not know that it is Mr. Robert Basque, who is the husband of the minister's assistant?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I have a point of order, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Madam Chair, to bring up the names of citizens who aren't here to defend themselves is absolutely despicable. It's despicable.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Let's bring them in, then. Let's bring them in.

Mr. Joe Jordan: We had a chat last meeting about what we were going to do with these witnesses. The goldfish has grown to the size of the bowl at this point. I think Mr. Godin's line of questioning to ask a private citizen, who's already declared a position, their view of political inference is absolutely ridiculous--absolutely ridiculous.

I insist that we stick to the line of questioning. What we're here to talk about is the implications of expediting what anyone would argue are fairer representations and boundaries. In spite of the Acadian argument and their taking the route of the courts--which is their right to do--independent of that, we're talking about the timing here.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have no problem for not taking that right away--

Mr. Joe Jordan: Well then do it.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have no problem for not taking the right away, and that's what we're doing by shortening it up to April. The fish is out of the bowl, and it stinks; that's the problem.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Godin, I'm going to uphold Mr. Jordan's point of order and ask you please to rephrase your questions to do with the twelve-month and seven-month implementation. If you can't stick to that rule, I'm going to go to the next questioner.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I come to the important issue that the committee may wish to hear now, given the majority we have at the table at the moment. Will reducing the time available for court challenges from 12 months to 7 months really be harmful to the procedure that people in the Acadian Peninsula or in the Bathurst region have undertaken? In the motion, there is a reference to the City of Bathurst, to the Chamber of Commerce of Greater Bathurst and to all the francophones who are involved in this matter. Do you think that this change will really make it impossible for these people to enjoy their democratic rights, Mr. Rioux? Will they be able to ask the court to make a decision?

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: In my opinion, we must be given the time we require. Our motion is being dealt with by lawyers and the law, and it is not up to us to decide on the timeframe. If Parliament decides to pass the new electoral boundaries, we will be facing a fait accompli and things will be very difficult for us. We would then have to challenge legislation already in force, and it will be much more difficult than if we had until at least August to do so.

Á (1140)

Mr. Yvon Godin: That is all for the time being, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie): Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to thank both of you for appearing before the committee so quickly.

With your permission, Madam Chair, I am going to say something that I would have preferred not to say this morning. Mr. Godin has just said that the will of the majority is that we restrict ourselves to the issue of a one-year or seven-month time period. I would remind him that he too was involved in this decision yesterday. As a result, his new attitude is a denial of the commitment he made yesterday. It has nothing to do with the majority.

Mr. Yvon Godin: On a point of order, Madam Chair.

I fail to see what decision regarding Bill C-49 I would have supported yesterday, given that I voted against the motion.

Mr. Jacques Saada: My questions to our guests will deal with the two issues at stake here.

I think there are two separate problems here. The initial problem is the one involving the commission and its decisions, including the criteria and how they are applied, and so on. The second problem has to do with moving up the date for implementing the commission's report. These are two separate problems. While there may be some links between the two, they are two separate problems.

I understand your argument very well, Mr. Potvin, when you say that moving the date up would mean that if an election were called at that time, you might not have four more years with the current riding boundaries.

Is voting against Bill C-49 not a way of using the back door to express disapproval about the commission's decision, which was made through the proper means?

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: I'll give you a direct answer: the answer is no.

We didn't choose population decline and relocation. We are still struggling with the same problems, and we feel that political representation in the House of Commons is crucial to our region, as it is to all resource regions.

You may say that it's just delaying the inevitable. When you are dying, you cling to life each day. The riding of Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay has been in existence since 1949. It was slightly changed when a few municipalities on the north shore of the Saguenay were added to it. As you can imagine, we are very attached to our culture and territory. Alma is a major decision-making centre. It is the economic capital not only of the regional county municipality of Lac-Saint-Jean-Est, but of the three regional county municipalities. So it's a major decision-making centre, and what we are seeing is our decision-making centre leaving and heading for Jonquière. As you can imagine, that's a significant handicap.

If this change can be delayed by four years, that will give us time to adjust. The demographic situation may change, in light of plans for the region. In four years, the situation may no longer be the same. Given that the House of Commons has the power to amend legislation and that Mr. Jean Chrétien made a commitment to resource regions and the quality of life in resource regions—and we fully agree with that—there may be government policies or decisions by the House of Commons that could lead to greater consideration of resource regions and the demographic and development problems of those regions.

Mr. Jacques Saada: There are two things that concern me. I fully understand, Mr. Rioux, that the language concern was not taken into account and that is a fundamental issue for you. I understand that completely.

I can also understand that areas experiencing population decline may have the most problems to solve and that those areas consequently need better representation. That is quite clear in my mind.

My question goes a bit further than that. All of these decisions we have before us were made by a commission, by multiple commissions, in fact. We are talking about a commission, but there is one per province.

Apart from your position on Bill C-49, do you intend to make representations on amendments to the legislation in relation to the commission and its work?

Á (1145)

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: In New Brunswick, when the last commission—not the latest one, but the one before that, 10 years ago—made its recommendations, one of the members dissented. That member recommended that the members of the commission should better represent the various regions of the province.

Currently, once again, there are only people from the southern part of the province. There is no one on the commission to defend the interests of northern New Brunswick. That is definitely an issue that needs to be dealt with: we feel that the members of the last two commissions have not fairly represented the entire province.

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: The commissions have made a decision, and I'll tell you exactly what I think about it. Of course, the goal has always been to depoliticize the redrawing of the electoral map, which, in my opinion, is a good thing. But ultimately, I think that the House of Commons has certain powers and that it should use these powers in exceptional circumstances, while taking into account changes that have taken place in the population and the social fabric.

As I was saying earlier, democracy is a numbers game. I took a quick look at the figures for Quebec—I did not have time to go through the entire file—and I realized that in the last election, the gap for the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay was 24.86 per cent as compared to the demographics for all ridings in Quebec. Because this particular region is losing people, the average number of people per riding in Quebec is 98, 000. The fact is that resource regions are emptying out. People are moving to places along the St. Lawrence Valley. Since Quebec's overall population is rising, regions such as ours are facing even more problems. Between 1991 and 2003, the population for the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay—according to my estimates—had stabilized at around 69, 000. But people have left the area and we took in a couple of parishes to try to keep the demographics up for our riding.

In my view, it is clear that if the House of Commons, which is a very democratic institution, were to acknowledge the reality of Canada's resource regions, it could be the final arbiter with regard to this issue.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you very much.

Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Potvin, if not for Bill C-49, the new boundaries would only come into effect in early September 2004. Would that meet with your approval?

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: The answer is no, since we're losing a riding. We are trying to figure out what to do with the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region in the coming years. If a general election is called under the old rules, we will only have until the 25^th; however, if the new Prime Minister decides to call an election before the 25^th, we will have four extra years to adjust.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: In what year were Chapais and Chibougamau amalgamated to the Roberval sector? Was it 1988?

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: That's possible. Chapais and Chibougamau have a lot in common with our region. Many people from Lac-Saint-Jean live in Chapais and Chibougamau. For us, even if they are from Abitibi, they belong to the area.

Á (1150)

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Did you present any briefs to the commission in your capacity as reeve for the RCM? Did you speak on behalf of the RCM?

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: Well, listen—

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I have the list of 15 briefs here; I read each one four or five times.

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: We tried. Most municipalities passed resolutions and I think that the RCMs did so, too. These resolutions were sent out all over the place. It may be that a couple of municipalities did not do so. What we did at theTable des préfets meetings was to ensure that...

But people felt that it was a done deal. Some people said that there was no point in appealing since the decision had already been made. Last week, I was told that I was wasting my time because Ottawa had already made up its mind. This is the last stab at the issue, because, all things considered, I would rather see the region go down fighting and die a noble death, rather than disappear with a whimper without putting up a fight.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Potvin, I have taken note of what you said. You spoke about municipalities. However, we know that based on what the commission said, the transfer of the towns of Chibougamau, Chapais and the Indian reserve of Oujé-Bougoumou into the riding of James Bay--Nunavik does not in any way affect the number of ridings in the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area. But my question has nothing to do with that.

You are here today to discuss Bill C-49.

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: Yes.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Potvin, on page 2 of the Canada Gazette dated August 31, 2002, it says:

Traditionally, Quebec electoral districts are reviewed by dividing the whole province into three large regions, namely the north shore of the St. Lawrence, the south shore of the St. Lawrence and Montreal.

I find it passing strange that since the beginning of the process, which began on March 12, 2002, no one mentioned anything. As for me, I wrote a lot of letters on the issue and complained. What happened to the tradition of the Nordiques? It went to the United States.

But they say that there are 31 ridings on the north shore, 26 on the south shore and 18 on Montreal Island. Because it says so in legislation, nobody raised any objections, not even the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: Mr. St-Julien, you have to deal with laws in the daily course of your work. However, at the municipal level, we are confronted with all kinds of problems and situations on a daily basis.

But when we realized that the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area was going to lose a riding, we became concerned. We looked at the issue from the perspective of a mayor or a reeve. You will no doubt tell me that ignorance of the law is no defence.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: That is not what I would say. In fact, Mr. Potvin, I have to say that I agree with you with regard to resource regions. In fact, in his letter dated September 19, 2003, the Minister, Don Boudria, clearly stated that he would also support a review of the electoral boundary process.

I agree that resource regions, such as Nunavik, James Bay, Abitibi and Lac-Saint-Jean, should be politically stronger as compared to major urban areas. I agree with you that in a couple of months we should undertake a new assessment dealing with geographical and demographic aspects, as well as with various other projects. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you.

For the second round, Mr. Guimond, you have one brief question?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In a few moments, I will table an amendment to postpone the introduction of Bill C-49 from April 1 to September 1.

Second, I am giving notice that I will table an amendment whereby the new electoral map should not apply to Quebec ridings. I am asking for the status quo in Quebec. In view of what our colleague just said, I think that Mr. St-Julien, the member for Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, will support my two amendments when they are presented.

I have a brief question for Mr. Potvin. I come from the Saguenay region, as I said before, when we introduced ourselves. You said that if the deadline remained August 25, 2004, it would give you enough time to adjust the system and to review the situation. You stated this earlier and mentioned it in your answers to questions from my colleague Jordan.

However, my amendment calls for postponing the deadline to September 1. If I understood you correctly, you hope that the next election will take place before the deadline, under the old map, which would give you time to make the necessary changes with regard to the economic development in that area. Everyone knows that when the government of Quebec authorized new power to be put on the market, some of which went to the plant in Alma, it did so because it was essential to promote the second and third-stage processing of aluminum in that region. Another company—I do not know whether it is Alcan—announced the opening of an aluminum automobile parts construction plant, which will create 35 or 55 new jobs. You hope that new structural projects and the creation of good jobs will entice young people to stay in the area.

Á (1155)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Guimond, I don' t want to interrupt you, but you've suggested you're going to put in some amendments. We're going to have an opportunity to express our own positions in a debate. I would like you, for the next minute or two, to restrict yourself to questions of new information.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: This is my last question, Mr. Potvin. I would like you to tell me why Bill C-49 prevents the region from having enough time to make the economic adaptations required in the interest of democracy over the next few years.

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: There are two points. Clearly, the loss of population can be offset by the opening of plants in our area. We know that there is some potential in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. We will in fact be requesting the federal government's cooperation in this regard.

It is important that there be four constituencies in our area. First of all, the wishes of the Electoral Boundaries Commission must be respected. Whether we like it or not, the framework for the legislation exists in Canadian law. We are therefore required to take note of these recommendations, even though they may not please us as a region. Consequently, we have taken note of the situation.

Second, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has spoken about resource regions on several occasions. We think that the Canadian Parliament should review these matters. There are two aspects: demography and a willingness on the part of the House of Commons to deal with the withering away of our resource regions, because this translates into political under-representation.

You will appreciate that we are counting on two things. We need four years to see what we can do in economic terms, but also to give the House of Commons an opportunity to review the representativity of resource regions throughout Canada. Those are the two points.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Mr. Potvin. You've answered that question quite well and quite thoroughly.

Very briefly, specific questions.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Madam Chair, my questions are always specific.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I know.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I want to come back to the decision made by the New Brunswick Commission and the upcoming court decision. Mr. Rioux, a motion I put forward to exclude New Brunswick will be examined by the committee. Do you think that would be a solution for the next Parliament?

Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux: We have done a great deal of work so far, including the work we did in connection with the former commission. Our thinking on the matter so far is that if New Brunswick could be excluded and if we could keep the current boundaries, that would give us time to adapt. I find it quite paradoxical that in order to maintain a constituency where anglophones are in the majority in New Brunswick, the commission would take some of the francophones away from another riding, even though it might have been possible to distribute the population of this riding differently. In a British parliamentary system, members of Parliament represent not only individuals, but also the community that elects them. In other words, they do not just represent the trees in the forest, but the forest as a whole. We see the forest not just as a question of numbers, but also of community of interests. It is most important that no changes be made to the electoral boundaries in New Brunswick in the current context. The best thing would be to leave the current boundaries of the Acadie--Bathurst constituency as they are. If we could start over and repeat all the work with a different commission, the results might be more acceptable.

Â (1200)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you, Mr. Rioux. You've answered the question.

I thank both of you for appearing here and for your answers. I know a lot more about your regions than I did before the meeting started. It has been an education for me. I thank you very much for coming.

I thank the committee for trying to keep their questions to the point.

I want to--

[Translation]

Mr. Lawrence Potvin: I would like to thank you, Madam Chair, as well as the members of the committee for listening to us. It was a very pleasant experience. Thank you very much.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): You're most welcome.

I would like to have the attention of the committee, please. One of the decisions made at the steering committee last night was to invite a private citizen--and that's an invitation; he wasn't demanded in any way to come--to shed some light on a very specific question Mr. Godin had of Mr. Kingsley, who couldn't be here today. Mr. Alboim has agreed to answer that question. It's a related issue, but it really is separate from the bill we're looking at. I thank him very much for graciously agreeing to come.

I'm not going to be as gentle as I was in the last round. I will stop immediately any questions that step out of line on this round. We are specifically asking Mr. Alboim about a conversation with Mr. Kingsley. He's going to answer that and that alone.

I thank you very much for coming. You didn't have to be here, and it was very kind of you to do so.

I'm going to begin with Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for agreeing to testify before the committee, Mr. Alboim. I have just one question for you. It is intentionally broad so that we can shed full light on this matter.

Have you read Mr. Kingsley's testimony to the committee last week? Have you seen it yourself?

[English]

Mr. Elly Alboim (Earnscliffe Research and Communication): Yes, I have.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: You will notice that I asked Mr. Kingsley a specific question to which he gave a specific response. I asked him if he had received a letter from the member for Lasalle-Émard, Mr. Paul Martin, and he said that he had not. On July 18 of this year, the Ottawa Citizen reported that you had reportedly telephoned Mr. Kingsley to look at the feasibility of moving up to April 1, 2004 the August 25, 2004 date that had initially been set for the implementing of the new electoral boundaries. My question is broad. I would like you to tell us about the circumstances surrounding this event, in particular the day on which it occurred and the time. What do you have to say about your purported telephone call to Mr. Kingsley?

[English]

Mr. Elly Alboim: I actually don't remember the testimony as clearly as to confirm your reading of it, but I'll tell you from my perspective the answer to your question.

At the time, as you recall, in the spring there was widespread media coverage reporting of western comment about the timing of the coming redistribution, which was legislated for August of 2004. Throughout the spring of 2003 there was a lot of media speculation reporting about a possible date for a federal election, and that led to concerns in western Canada, which will probably get expressed, that a call of the election before redistribution would deprive British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario of additional seats.

Mr. Martin said publicly at the time on a number of occasions, as was widely reported, that he would want to run the next election on the new boundaries, and wondered if the process could be accelerated. It wasn't clear at the time what the options were for advancing redistribution or whether it was even possible.

I knew Mr. Kingsley from my days as a CBC TV bureau chief and senior producer of all federal and provincial election night broadcasts. I had dealings with him in that capacity, as indeed I had dealings with his predecessors before that. I have also known Mr. Kingsley personally for a number of years. Consequently, I contacted him to find out what the rules were and what was feasible. I intended simply to gain information from Mr. Kingsley, so I called the person most expert on the subject to be able to tell me what was possible.

As I believe Mr. Kingsley has already said, the information I sought was not controversial, it was not confidential, it was simply factual. In any event, what he told me was that he had been reading the newspapers. He knew both of the commentary and Mr. Martin's publicly expressed preference. I stressed it was an informal call simply to establish key information. He said that any change would require legislation, as is obvious. This is what you're doing today. He wasn't sure at that time just what the logistical feasibility would be, even if Parliament decided to amend the legislation.

He said he had been thinking about all this as a result of the news coverage and will come to a conclusion at some point in the future. He stressed that he was an officer of Parliament and he would inform Parliament first of his conclusions. I should tell you he neither informed me nor consulted me before issuing his letter to Mr. Adams.

I called him again when the article appeared on July 18, the one you're quoting, in which he told Anne Dawson that I had called him. As you know, he was quoted directly saying that I had called him. I reiterated that I hoped he understood my initial call had only been an informal one to establish basic information. He said he understood that and had simply been answering a journalist's questions to the best of his ability.

That was the sum total of the exchange.

Â (1205)

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: When you made this telephone call, Mr. Alboim, did you do so as part of Mr. Martin's team?

[English]

Mr. Elly Alboim: Well, obviously I was calling because of my interest as an adviser to Mr. Martin and the need to establish information about what Mr. Martin had publicly articulated as a preference.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: What is your role in the campaign and what is your title?

[English]

Mr. Elly Alboim: I have no title. I'm an adviser to Mr. Martin. I've been an official and unofficial adviser to him for more than ten years, starting with the Department of Finance.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I see. My questions are still about your phone call to Mr. Kingsley. You say that you have known Mr. Kingsley personally for several years. Is he a friend or an acquaintance? Would you say that you're friends?

[English]

Mr. Elly Alboim: He's an acquaintance.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: An acquaintance. Okay. Are you on a first name basis with him in private? Do you know each other well enough for that?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): One moment. We're going beyond the pale, Mr. Guimond. We're simply here to answer a specific question, which you've done very well, thank you.

Are there any other questions on this side of the House? No? Any questions from the government side? Okay. Any more questions on this side, specific questions?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: On a point of order, Madam Chair, why must the questions be so specific? Have you got something to protect?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): He's here as a private citizen. He's here graciously, out of his own volition. He was told he's going to be asked a specific question on a specific news article and a specific conversation. He's answered it very well. I would like the questions to remain in that ball park.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Guimond has asked some good questions on subjects I wanted to ask about as well. There is just one other question that might be asked in addition to those asked by Mr. Guimond.

Since last week, have you spoken with Mr. Kingsley or his close officials again, or has anyone in the group you work with spoken to Mr. Kingsley or someone in his office?

Â (1210)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Godin, that's not a relevant question. We're here to ask questions specifically on the article.

Mr. Elly Alboim: I don't mind answering. The answer is no.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Could you take notice of the fact that I agree with Mr. Guimond's questions? We were trying to determine when he spoke to Mr. Kingsley and whether he knew him. My question was whether he had spoken with Mr. Kingsley again since that time. He has answered that question.

I would like to thank you for your testimony, Mr. Alboim.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Thank you.

We have one question from Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Alboim, to the best of your recollection, have we ever met?

Mr. Elly Alboim: No.

Mr. Joe Jordan: So we've never talked. Would it surprise you to know that dozens of people have contacted Mr. Kingsley on this very same topic? I in fact asked about it at least four times at this committee. Would that surprise you?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Though you're on this side of the table, you're still out of line. Don't answer that question. You notice how fair I'm being.

Mr. Keddy, do you have a specific question?

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I'm going to try to be specific. I was at another meeting, so I apologize, Madam Chair, for being late.

In the article from the Ottawa Citizen it stated:

However, Mr. Kingsley conceded that he had also received a June phone call from Elly Alboim, a top Martin leadership campaign strategist and principal at Earnscliffe Research...

That's very straightforward. Since you're working on the Martin team, did that direction come to you from Mr. Martin to contact Mr. Kingsley?

Mr. Elly Alboim: No, it was entirely my own initiative. It seemed like a perfectly normal call.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: What is normal about somebody on a campaign team--

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): We are not debating with the witness, we are asking specific questions, and when you finish your questions, we will--

Mr. Gerald Keddy: How can somebody working on anybody's campaign team in this country make a call to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada in order to move an election ahead and not be interfering with the process?

An hon. member: That's nonsense.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It's not nonsense at all.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): All right, excuse me.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If you don't call that interfering with the process, what part of democracy can't you spell? Come on, it's ridiculous.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish)) Gentlemen.

Mr. Saada has a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: As far as I know, Madam Chair, our agenda made no reference to imputing motives to anyone at all today. SInce this whole process has been based on assumption, not fact, I think it is absolutely out of order.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I will rule that the questions have been answered. I will thank you very much, and we will proceed with the debate on the bill clause by clause. Thank you for coming today.

As agreed at the steering committee, the next order of business is clause-by-clause on Bill C-49.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Will we get a green briefing book? Do we need a briefing book?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): No, we don't. It's not that heavy a bill.

Â (1220)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): We are going to begin clause-by-clause. Mr. Regan is at the end of the table.

First the clerk is going to explain to us how the amendments are to be dealt with. I'd like to introduce Mr. Zaluski. Welcome. We have four amendments before us. One has an extensive effect on the bill, and if we cannot get that decided by the time we get to the end of this, we're going to suspend until Thursday, because Mr. Boudria and the Alliance are in the middle of discussions on this and it hasn't been settled. In the meantime, we're going to explain to you how the first set of amendments works.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Excuse me, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Yes, sir.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If all the rest of the parties must have their amendments here today and we decided we were doing clause-by-clause today, my suggestion for Mr. Boudria and the leader of the Alliance Party is to be here with the motion, and we will finish it up today. If the rest of us are under the hammer, why the difference?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): It is here, by the way.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Then I say we should deal with it.

An hon. member: Bad news for the merger.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hopefully, when Mr. Keddy hears what's going on, he might actually decide he would like to delay things as well. A complication has been identified, and discussions have been started with Mr. Boudria and Elections Canada to try to sort this out. I can explain what the problem is.

The way Bill C-24 works at the moment, we would be registering 301 riding associations on January 1, then we would re-register 308 riding associations on April 1. So the parties and Elections Canada have been in talks to try to smooth this transition in some way. One of the suggestions would be to pre-register the 308 ridings on January 1, which is allowed. For example, the parties could decide not to register any of the 301 ridings at all, but simply to pre-register 308 ridings and allow them to select candidates and so on. They would still be able to raise funds, but they would have to send all the money to their head offices; they would need to have all their bills paid by head office. All of their administrative activity, in other words, would be taken over by the head office or national office until April 1, at which time moneys held in trust and assets would all be turned over. We feel that's an administrative nightmare.

There is another option, and that is for parties to register what we're calling a super-301 riding, which is one riding out of the 301, or maybe even one in each province, to act as the administrative centre to collect the money and pay all the bills for all the 308 pre-registered ridings. Again, we feel that this is an administrative nightmare.

What we would prefer is to find a solution that allows us to pre-register the 308 and allow them to conduct their business, to pay their own bills, and raise their own money as if the new boundaries were in effect as of January 1. Our amendment would do that. It provides some definition to the bill that would allow pre-registration on January 1 of 308 ridings. It would allow them to administer their own affairs, collect money, and operate as if those ridings were already approved.

Â (1225)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): As a point of clarification for the chair, if we go ahead with the bill today clause by clause, we pass the bill, and your amendment is not there, 301 ridings register on January 1, and then there's re-registration on April 1 of 308. So the world doesn't technically end, it just becomes complicated.

Mr. Ted White: It becomes very complicated.

Finally, what's happening here is that discussions are ongoing, because Elections Canada says it can do it administratively but it's kind of messy. Elections Canada has said it is more precise the way we've suggested it. It's a good solution. The discussions are still ongoing, because Mr. Boudria is getting different messages and we're trying to sort out the best way to--

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Is it the will of the committee to continue with the amendments we have before us, continue with the bill and discussion of it clause by clause, or is it the will of the committee to wait till Thursday, until all this is settled?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Chair, with respect, that's exactly what my amendment does. It deals with January 1 versus April 1. So I don't know why we need an amendment put in a second time. If the Alliance intends to support the amendment, that's great. But that's my amendment, the first one. The second one deals with the eventuality that you don't accept the first one.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Okay.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I heard Mr. White's arguments, Madam Chair, and I think they deserve to be examined. I do not think we should deal with them quickly in this matter. I do not think our objective here is to sort out the minor differences that may exist between parties. Our objective is to ensure that the act works as well as possible. I would therefore move that we wait until Tuesday to decide on this.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Regan, you're here as the parliamentary secretary to Mr. Boudria. What is your wish?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Madam Chair, I'm going to invite Mr. Zaluski, who, by the way, is with the Privy Council Office and works for Mr. Boudria in that sense, to give us the position of the Privy Council Office on this matter. But while he's doing that, perhaps the clerk can start considering the question of whether or not Mr. White's amendment is receivable, in view of the fact that the bill before us does not amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act or the Canada Elections Act. This amendment would amend both of those pieces of legislation. So there's a question of whether or not it can be considered.

I'm concerned about the issue. I share Mr. White's interest and Mr. Keddy's as well in this question--

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I actually put it in an amendment and brought it to the committee. That's what we were supposed to do--

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Zaluski, I'd like to hear from you.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: --and actually we were told to do it. We weren't told we were going to have until next Tuesday. We were up late last night getting it translated, guys. So I fail to recognize what's going on here.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): The chair would like to hear from Mr. Zaluski.

Stephen Zaluski (As Individual): Thank you, Madam Chair.

When the issue was raised earlier this week, we initiated discussions with Elections Canada to see what their position was, because they are, of course, the experts in the administration of the act, and this appeared to us to be an issue of act administration, not of policy. When we raised it with Elections Canada, they convened a meeting of the parties, as Mr. White has referred to. As a result of those discussions, I understand that the parties were not satisfied that there was an appropriate administrative solution. Elections Canada then went back to the drawing board and did some further work. They have satisfied themselves that it is in fact going to be administratively possible to handle the concerns that Mr. White and Mr. Keddy have identified and that the committee seems to share.

At this point Elections Canada is proposing to convene another meeting of the parties--as of late yesterday it wasn't determined when that would take place, but sometime early this week--to try to sort this out and then at that point to determine whether or not the parties were satisfied that the solution was appropriate or whether or not an amendment would be necessary.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Zaluski, are you suggesting that we can go forward today and discuss the bill and the amendments and implementation, if we choose, at the end of this session?

Stephen Zaluski: I suppose what I'm suggesting is that it seems to me that until the parties and Elections Canada come to some understanding as to what is going to be administratively possible and whether that will address the parties' concerns, it's probably premature to be making a determination as to whether or not to proceed with the amendment.

Â (1230)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Wait a minute.

Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, Madam Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Are you going to agree with Mr. Zaluski that we shall not proceed at this time and we will adjourn until all the solutions are before us?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Madam Chair, I'd like to move forward with this process, of course. On the issue of Mr. White's amendment, it's either in order or it's not, regardless of whether we want to move ahead, if I'm not mistaken.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): The clerk has suggested that his amendment is in order and admissible.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Even though it amends those two bills that the bill itself doesn't amend. So it's within the scope of the bill, in other words, even though the bill doesn't amend these things. That's the question.

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy (Legislative Clerk, Committees Directorate, House of Commons): Don't forget that we're dealing with a bill that was sent to a committee prior to second reading. So it's possible to move a broader scope of amendments, but they must be relevant, of course, to the bill.

An hon. member: Could I have one second, please?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Yes, and I'm going to take a list of speakers on this.

Ms. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'm finding it difficult to understand how Mr. White's motion is within the scope of the very limited clause 1 of Bill C-49. I can appreciate that it's a very important issue that needs to be dealt with. I think it's more under the scope of Bill C-24. I'd like to see it resolved, I just don't think this is the place to resolve it.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): As was just explained to us, this is second reading.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: When you're dealing with the bill, it doesn't matter what stage it's at. The bill only has a certain parameter, and amendments, at no matter what stage, have to be pertinent to the bill in front of us. You can't increase the scope of the bill.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Would you like to explain that again?

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: As I mentioned, the House of Commons, when it adopts the motion at second reading, adopts the principle of the bill. By sending the bill to the committee prior to second reading, the House of Commons has not adopted the principle of the bill. If you look at Mr. White's amendment, it refers to subsection 25(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act; clause 1 refers in this case to subsection 25(1). So basically--

Mrs. Judi Longfield: But that was my point, that it's only subsection (1) this bill is referring to, not subsection (2).

Mr. Jean-Michel Roy: We normally suggest to the committee that if one subsection is in the bill, all the other subsections are in the bill. That's the advice we give to committees normally.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): My understanding is that this amendment is consequential to moving up the implementation dates, so they're inextricably intertwined. All the people who understand how this works are nodding their heads, so I can pick out the geeks.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Madam Chair, are we debating the amendment?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): No, we're talking about whether we're proceeding at this time.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: We do have amendments that are in order, or at least I think they're in order. We do have the experts here. We're at a meeting that was called to deal with this issue. Many of us felt that we should have longer consultation about it, but it was decided by the Liberal majority at the committee that we weren't going to have longer consultation, that it was going to happen today. So I'm at a total loss to figure out how we suddenly found more time.

We've already identified the problems with the bill, the fact that it will not work for our riding associations, that we have a deadline set at April 1, another one that's January 1, and the electoral boundaries are problematic. So there are a number of amendments here to deal with. This one needs a friendly amendment to adapt it to the April 1 deadline, because it only talks about January 1. If that's in order and that can be written....

I don't mind putting it off, I really don't, because it's important, but I do mind that this was it, we had until this morning to get our amendments in, to have everything in order, and everything was fine. The bill was going through, and we were going to move on.

Â (1235)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Keddy, to put things in perspective, the steering committee does not control the committee, it makes suggestions. The steering committee yesterday afternoon suggested that when we'd finished the round table and we'd finished with the witnesses, we would get to clause-by-clause, but if circumstances overtake the committee, we have to be willing to be a bit more flexible. It was the steering committee's suggestion; it was not written in stone.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: If I can continue and debate it, I'd just like to put forward some background information on why the bill is in the difficulty it's in, if we're debating the bill.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): No, we're not quite doing that yet. We're debating whether to proceed with the clause-by-clause and we're hearing reasons why.... The amendment from the Alliance Party is a consequential amendment, therefore making it almost impossible for us to proceed properly at this time.

Can I hear from Mr. Guimond?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In light of the comments made earlier by Mr. Zaluski, from the Privy Council, regarding the audits going on at the moment with Elections Canada and another possible consultation with the parties, I would like to say that I agree with Mr. Saada's motion, Madam Chair. I think we are in no position today to begin the clause-by-clause study and our discussion of the amendments, because there are far to many things that have to be tied up.

I will conclude with a comment about which our Liberal colleagues should think carefully. From the beginning, Mr. Sauvageau and myself, on behalf of our party, have thought that Bill C-49 amounted to political interference into a process undertaken by independent, neutral commissions. I think that if the government continues to insist on proceeding quickly, in an effort to pass something that is incomplete and perhaps quite inappropriate, this would confirm that its action amounts to political interference.

Consequently, if the committee wants to continue to work against the political interference represented by Bill C-49, it must seriously consider waiting to get all the opinions and comments from Elections Canada.

[English]

Mr. Geoff Regan: Well, so much for your comments of last week.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Before I hear any more comments on this, I would like very much to hear a comment from the end of the table again. I would like you to interject whenever possible, as long as your comments aren't of an inflammatory nature.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Madam Chair, I wouldn't want to make comments of an inflammatory nature. Perhaps some of my colleagues might want to make some occasionally, but I would never want to do that.

Â (1240)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Not you, ever.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Madam Chair, no. It seems to me we should proceed with this bill. It's clear the public interest is served not by having us run the next election on boundaries based on the population of 1991 but by their being based on the most recent census.

I don't think anyone here would seriously argue that we should have the next election, if it's before April--it would be, obviously. But we'd argue that we should not make this happen as soon as possible. Elections should be based on the most recent census possible and practicable. We have information. We know from Mr. Kingsley, who many MPs contacted and asked about this and as we heard last spring, that in fact Elections Canada can proceed and have this in place as of April 1.

There's no question in my mind that it's in the public interest that we have this representation order in effect based upon the 2001 census and not run the next election based upon population numbers that are 13 or 14 years old at that time.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I've always appreciated my colleague Michel Guimond's quick-wittedness, but I would like to point out that I asked the question earlier so that I could understand Mr. White's amendment and not to open up a debate on Bill C-49. I don't need three weeks for this. If we could have the answers by Thursday, I would have no problem with that. My problem is not whether it is by Tuesday or Thursday. I only want to deal with a concern that seems to exist in all our ridings, the need for transition measures that would make life easier for us. It is only for that reason that I intervened. I have no problem with the other arguments, and we are already familiar with each other's positions.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a matter of record in the House that the Canadian Alliance supports this bill. We've done everything possible to facilitate its passage. We are anxious to see it in place, and nobody should misinterpret what's happening here. What we are anxious to do is make sure we smooth the administrative process. And Mr. Keddy surely knows that if we barrel ahead with amendments, then his amendment disappears; it probably won't be approved.

We are in serious discussions with the minister right now to get this fixed. Mr. Zaluski said there'll be another meeting with Elections Canada and the parties, because there is no certainty at this point that the parties are satisfied with what is now being proposed by Elections Canada. Surely we can all be reasonable here. The moment this is solved one way or the other with the minister, we will facilitate passage. We're not deliberately holding this up; we're trying to make this the best possible bill for all of us.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm surprised the Alliance wouldn't want to deliberately hold the bill up, because the implementation date is already there, and bringing it in early has caused some serious problems, the least of which is the cross-pollination of Bills C-24 and C-49. It has really caused a serious problem, and I'm sure Mr. Regan would understand that.

The issue is simple here, Madam Chair. We have a transposition of votes that will not be available until December 31, 2003, this year. We know from Elections Canada that the 308 maps will not be available until April 1. That's why I put in an amendment that would allow us to have the bill become effective on January 1, even though it wouldn't be implemented; you couldn't call an election until after April 1. It's a very simple amendment. And something like that has to be dealt with. Whether it's my amendment or the Alliance's, I don't care. The issue is, it has to be dealt with.

We have a bigger concern here, because we all have riding associations that as of January 1, 2004, must register and actually have a CEO to be able to continue normal activities. All right. Those riding associations must be registered on the existing boundaries, not on the boundaries that are going to come into effect on April 1, 2004. It's as simple as that; it's not complicated.

The 308 ridings do not exist, so we have to find a way to allow them to exist as of January 1 if we're going to make this practical at all. Then we get into dividing the campaign funds and joining the riding associations and all, which we have all discussed here at great length.

The other complication is that we know the next election is going to be held on the 308 ridings. If we proceed with the redistribution prior to that, the 308 ridings won't exist, so we need a housekeeping motion to deal with it--if the Alliance motion does that; I just read it over quickly, so I'm not quite sure it does. The date of the issue of the writs of the first general election occurs at least one year after April 1, 2004; that's how it reads now. We have to deal with this. It's not complicated at all, but it does need to be dealt with.

I'm perfectly willing to wait, Madam Chair, and I understand the importance of that, but whatever motion is going to be brought forth and accepted here has to deal with those two dates. The motion from Mr. White that's before me right now doesn't do that.

The other thing is, if you just wait till April 1, then you have to have time to set up your riding associations, even though they've become.... You have your January 1 date for election financing under Bill C-24. You still have the April 1 date to combine your riding associations, and it's going to govern the dropping of the writ, and the dropping of the writ is not going to be before late June. Now you're July and 25 days in August away from when it would be law anyway.

Â (1245)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Keddy, Ms. Longfield has a point of order.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think we're debating his motion. We're beyond whether we're going to start today or whether we're going to defer until Tuesday, and that's what we should be doing, not debating each person's motion. I'd make a motion that we postpone this until next Tuesday.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I think it's a very timely motion, since we only have 17 minutes left today.

Does anybody want to speak to that motion?

Mr. Ted White: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. She said Tuesday and not Thursday?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Tuesday. We have a silly thing happening in Ontario called an election on Thursday.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Kingsley will probably be back by then.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Jordan is speaking to the motion.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think Tuesday, yes, if we have this resolved, but there's no point in coming back here if we don't have this issue resolved.

Just to pick up on what Mr. Keddy said, if I'm hearing him right, it's not that simple, because if we were to change the date to January 1...we can't put Parliament in a--

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): You're debating; wait a minute, whoa.

We now have a motion on the floor, so we can't debate the amendment; you know better. We have a motion on--

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'll go back to my original point. We meet Tuesday to do clause-by-clause if we have a solution to this issue, because we all agree. We discussed this with the other bill.

Mr. Yvon Godin: On a point of order, I think the rule is that the motion for adjournment is not debatable.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): We haven't moved to adjourn yet. We're moving to--

Mr. Joe Jordan: We'll all do that shortly if you want.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): I'm really glad I came here today.

I would like to call the motion to adjourn until Tuesday. Thursday is the election in Ontario. Mr. Kingsley won't be back until the end of the week, and he may be the most important person to talk to on this.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Madam Chair, I think in voting on this, members should realize of course that we can already pre-register, that riding associations can in fact do it under the present law. Under subsection 403.22(4) of the Canada Elections Act, riding associations can pre-register before April 1, before the--

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Mr. Regan, I'm giving you some leeway here, but you're not speaking to the motion at all.

Mr. Geoff Regan: We've heard already that Elections Canada can handle this in spite of--

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): This is highly irregular, but can I make a point from the chair? I have heard too much confusion here today. I think it would be irresponsible of us to go forward with the clause-by-clause today, because there is mass confusion. I think we need Mr. Kingsley here. I think we need definitive answers to the difficulty we have because of the position of the bill, and it would be very irresponsible of me to push this forward just by exercising some majority vote. I would hope very much that we would all agree to postpone this until Tuesday, when we will have no confusion. We will have all the information that's required.

Can I call the vote, please?

Mr. Ted White: Could we adjourn at the call of the chair, which would bring it all forward?

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): We could. We'll make it at the call of the chair. Does the mover agree to that?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Madam Chair, are we voting on Ms. Longfield's motion?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): We are voting to adjourn at the call of the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Who is the mover?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): It was presented by Madam Longfield.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Okay. I simply want to raise a technical point. I believe that according to the Standing Orders, a motion cannot be tabled during a point of order. I would like the clerks to confirm that. I will be voting in favour...

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): Madam Longfield, if you have finished your point of order, could you now move a motion?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I would move that this meeting be adjourned at the call of the chair.

(Motion agreed to)

The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish): That was the best meeting we've had in years.