Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2014

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Are you going through withdrawal?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I ask you please to carry on, and of course, with my normal warnings on the rest of the stuff.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, sir, I appreciate that.

Thank you for the floor again.

I believe I mentioned, because it's new, the fact that our esteemed colleagues in the other place had committees that travelled 25 times over the last year, and given that the Conservatives have majority control in the Senate, I would have to assume that if they didn't move the motions, they certainly voted for them because the majority had to come from somewhere. So isn't it interesting that the unelected Senate, which by the way gets a say in some parts of the execution of our election laws, the appointed Senate—which is about as far away from democracy as you can get without giving those Senate seats to people because of who their parents are—their committees travelled 25 times. Am I going to hear from the government that the Senate was wasting the time and money of Canadians by sending out their committees 25 times?

I'm not seeing any takers to refute the point, so it would seem they thought that made good sense, that having Senate committees travel on Senate business made sense.

All we're asking for is the same thing. Why does the government believe that using their majority to send Senate committees across Canada for hearings 25 times is democratic, but when the procedure and House affairs committee should dare to ask that we go out at least to a few public communities to hear from Canadians, that's undemocratic, that that is somehow a problem?

It is pretty bad, pretty bad when the Senate.... I can't believe I'm making this statement; I know it's ugly, but the truth is like that. When it comes to listening to Canadians and travelling, the Senate, it would appear, is more democratic than the Conservatives in the House of Commons are.

[An hon. member]

Good call.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I know. I'm sorry, it's the truth. It has to stand. It's the truth.

[An hon. member]

Shocking.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It is shocking and appalling that one of the poster children for lack of democracy, the Canadian Senate, should one-up the government, and it's the same crew that has the majority control. There goes any possibility of saying “Yes, but...”.

Oh, speaking of Butt...anyway, that's another matter.

Imagine that. We live to see the day when the government managed to let our unappointed Senate be more democratic than the House they have majority control over. Imagine that. You can't even meet the standard set by the unelected Senate in terms of democracy, and you run that show too. What a joke.

All right, let's move along because I have lots and lots of stuff, and it would seem I have lots and lots of time, so let's move along.

We're posing the issue in our motion that we should be travelling. The question then is, why should we travel? What would be the point in that?

We are getting some comments from Canadians who are aware of what's going on and have expressed a view. Chair, I sent this back and I asked my staff to go through it to make sure I was only reading things that are relevant to the issue of travel, which speaks directly to my motion, and to ensure that I don't speak at all to the content of the bill. I'm sincere when I hope we will, and you'll be the arbitrator of that, but I'm just letting you know ahead of time that I have great reliance on the crackerjack staff we have, and on the fact that you are a fair-minded person. This should go well, so let's try it.

Why cross-country hearings? Jamie Biggar said, “Because Canadians deserve to have a say in a law that impacts our basic democratic rights.” I realize that Jamie is repeating something I said, but it would seem to me that hearing that message from Canadians is very different from hearing it from me.

I already read Emma Pullman's comments.

Glenn Denholm said:

Because in this day and age the people should have MORE and not REDUCED access to what is going on behind closed doors.

Rodrigo NoEnbridge Samayoa said:

Because voting is the most basic right in a democracy. It is one of the elements that separates Canada from a dictatorship. Many people have died so we can have this right, it is our responsibility to protect this right. That is why all Canadians should have a say in what Harpers suppression bill contains. Please approve the country-wide hearings!

Why cross-country hearings?

James Coccola said, “Because the public should be included in something as important as changes to the election act”. James gets it.

Sheila Strickland, on why we need cross-country hearings, said:

Because no one has asked for citizens' opinions! Again! Harper thinks he can just ram through massive changes to how our country functions...last time I checked, that's not how democracy worked.

Helen Brown said:

This change to our election laws needs to be aired and understood: we remain Canadians, so far, and we should be encouraging all democratic rights, such as the right to peaceful assembly, such as the right to vote: I have had to help handicapped people at polling stations, and the elderly. Information about where to vote should not be in the hands of the incumbent only. Canadians are not aware of the rationale behind this move by the Conservatives, nor are they aware of the implications. This needs cross-country hearings.

Lisa M. Williamson said, in part: “Cross-country hearings will encourage Canadians to get involved in politics and to go to the polls to have their opinions heard.”

Michael Cowtan said:

We do not want to exclude any person from exercising their democratic right to vote in a free society. The point of this law is to exclude the poor and anyone else who does not vote conservative, and I deserve the right to voice this opinion in public at a public hearing

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, I'm going to stop you about there. You have a great example of e-mails that have come in to you and you certainly can share them with the committee and, if you like, you can even send them through the chair as briefs.

But while no one else is having the opportunity to speak to the motion and therefore read their e-mails, I'm going to stop you after a fairly good sample of what you've shared.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

With respect—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I thought we might get that term.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm trying. I am trying, Chair.

Again, the fact that somebody has to wait for their turn to say what they think is important, including reading comments from other Canadians who share their opinion, shouldn't in any way impact on my right. The rules don't say that my rights start to peter out as time goes on.

If I had the right to read them at one point, the fact that it makes other people wait, well we all wait our turn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I understand what your thinking is, but I've told you what I'd like you to do.

We'll go with that relevance piece again that I gave you full distance to read a number of them and as they all start to say very similar things, then I get to relevance and say to carry on with something else on the motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

I'm seeking to understand if not your ruling, your admonition of my colleague.

What's exciting here, and what the committee should be taking note of, is that we seem to have awoken a sleeping giant, people across the country who care about democracy, and we've mobilized—or in fact, they themselves are mobilizing with a voice to cry out.

Now, you'd think—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Martin, do you have a point of order? Give it to me.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The point of order is that I'm questioning and challenging, I suppose, your admonition of my—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Relevance on what Mr. Christopherson was saying?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Exactly, because if anything, we should be pleased and excited that Canadians are taking note of their democratic electoral system as individuals.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you for your input on my vigilance.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, it's input. I'm not satisfied that you're asking him to stop reading those. I think we're interested. I think the public that is tuned in and watching is interested to hear what their fellow citizens are saying about this, and it should be encouraging—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I suggested that we have a number of them read into the record and as they started to get much more similar and similar, I suggested, since we're here discussing a motion, not the piece of legislation you'd like to discuss—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, no, the motion right here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

—but the motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have it right in front of me, and with all due respect, I disagree with the way that you are—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Martin, did you just interrupt me while I'm trying to tell you what I've done here?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Respectfully, yes.