Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2014

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

These examples are piling up.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Oh, there are a lot of examples piling up. What's interesting on this one, I thought, was that they only had one meeting and they did it in Toronto. They didn't even have to meet here in Ottawa. It's not like you have to do it here—must, must, must. No, in some cases, they went somewhere else and that's where they had their hearing. They heard from the folks they needed to. They thought that was the right geographical place to be in, so they had their meeting. Ottawa, quite frankly, as a place, had nothing to do with it.

The reason I'm making this point, Chair, to underscore my motion is that it's not necessarily the absolute raw number of communities that you visit, it's that you visit communities that are representative of Canadians who are impacted by the law that's put before them. That's all we're asking for.

I didn't read out 20 meetings and 30 meetings because that was the standard I want to bump the government up to. In fact, I've already made it clear from the get-go that in our motion, if the government were willing to sit down and talk and negotiate, there's room for us to move. But that requires the government moving off their position, which is: no way, no one, never. Just in the safety and security of the Ottawa bubble, that's it.

Somewhere in between those two positions was peace and harmony and even a bit of goodwill. It certainly would have been better governance and good governance compared to where we are now, because we would have actually been working on the bill at hand and we'd be talking about the witnesses that we want to hear in those communities. We wouldn't go on having to listen to me pontificate forever and ever and ever. None of that would be relevant. It wouldn't matter. We would be doing the real work.

I have said it before and this I need to say again. We are still prepared to do the work, but more and more of the sand is running out of the hourglass. It's becoming very clear that no matter what we say or do, short of Canadians telling this government you have to change your process, they're going to ram through what they want, and ramming doesn't necessarily mean the speed involved. In a democracy, it also means whether or not the minority is being respected. And you know what? That's a lot about what makes Canada work and that's why a lot of people admire Canada, because of the respect we show each other regardless of our status. Regardless of whether we're one of 30 million or standing alone. They matter, and in a democracy, that vote matters, because if you don't have that vote in a democracy, you might as well not live in one because it's not relevant to you.

So Mr. Chair, that's what brought about our motion, the one with three distinct sections. It talks about witnesses, who we think should be here. That's why I've taken the time to mention some of the groups we've actually listed in our motion so I could offer you and colleagues supporting evidence for this motion. I've talked at great length about other examples of democracy where respect is a cornerstone of their process. I've raised examples of this House of Commons sending delegations from Ottawa to all the far-flung corners of this great, huge country.

I've even showed how we spent tens of thousands of dollars to send Canadian MPs and a Canadian House of Commons standing committee all the way to Ukraine, where they held public hearings with Ukrainians in three different cities to ask them about their democracy.

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

On a point of order, Chair, repetition....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Carry on, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair. I'm not trying to repeat. I'm recapping—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I know.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—and I appreciate your recognizing it for what it is. Thank you. I'll try not to abuse that; I know you won't let me.

I have tried to show that this is not political grandstanding. I've made it clear that my leader, who is sitting beside me now—and I've said this before—is not interested in grandstanding, that this is too important, and that, yes, the motion will include a tentative start date for clause-by-clause.

I haven't talked about the third point yet today. That's what will take me to dawn, talking about the third point. I have mentioned—and I won't stay on it long—that as an opposition party you don't normally put a start date in a motion because you box yourself in. You don't do that.

But given the direction we received from our leader, it was to go in. It was meant to be a motion, we hoped, that we could get adopted. But if not adopted, we would come to some kind of a compromise and get through the process and move on.

My leader was insistent that this not be an embarrassing piece of grandstanding that wouldn't stand the scrutiny that would come when put before people. That's why I have referred back to this over and over. I have said over and over that we are open to discussions. We still are open to discussions and negotiations to find a way through this so we can stop focusing on process and start focusing on the law and on hearing from Canadians who are affected by this law.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yet still, more in sorrow than anger, we get nothing. I can't go into details, honour won't allow it, but I can just say that I initiated one more attempt to see if we could negotiate some way through this. All I can say is that those discussions didn't last long. The government is just so unreasonable. All they wanted was everything, and that's not negotiation.

So here we are, 7:15 at night, continuing to plead as well as demand from the government some respect—some respect for Canadians—to allow us to have a process that's at least fair.

Now I want to move on to that third point that I haven't yet talked about today, about putting in the start date of clause-by-clause. If I can, I want to read it. I didn't read it earlier. I would just like to recap it because I'm about to speak to it.

That third bullet point, Chair, in my motion is:

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

Had the government been reasonable, Chair, we would be well on our way to meeting that deadline. We would be doing it, if not in unanimity, at least in agreement, at least through a process that we could live with, the government could live with, the third party, everybody who's a party to this could feel is fair.

I don't know what's going to happen on May 1. Part of the risk we took, we're now paying the price for. As early as the last meeting, the media, and they're pretty smart, calculated the math on all this, looked at it, and said, “Yes, Dave, but what about? What about?” Sure enough, putting that date in there is a political problem. That's why you don't do it.

But if you are serious, as an official opposition, to extend an olive branch to the government to say, “We can find a way to come to at least an agreement we can both live with, we can do that”, then you do put it in there so that you can put meaning behind your words, so that you're not just saying we want a fair deal, you're not just saying we're not grandstanding, you're not just saying we want to offer a process that we can make work, you're prepared to stand by it.

That's why it was in there and that's why, to some degree, you almost wish it wasn't because it's going to come back to haunt us. But we were that serious, and this is what's so disappointing, Chair.

Given the importance of the bill, and given the fact that we know improvements need to be made, we know from the violations of the election laws as they are right now—and I won't get partisan, but I don't need to because people get it—there needs to be major reform. A process like the motion that I put forward on behalf of myself and my colleagues and my leader was, and still is, even at this late hour, an attempt to try to find a compromise.

That's not a dirty word. Down in the American Congress it seems to be, and they use it that way—you compromise, you're a sellout—and look where that's got them. A real compromise means that everybody gives up just a little bit in order to have peace and harmony. We could have, and still could, if the government brought the same kind of good will. It is just so sad that it's come to this, with all the problems we've had with the election laws and all the concerns there have been with things that have happened in the last election, and the crying need for reform, that cry being led by our Chief Electoral Officer as far back as 2010, when he brought this forward and we spent, what, two years of Canadians' time and money to study this. For what?

There's almost none of it reflected in the bill. There are some things, but not much, and certainly not the key things.

Hope springs eternal. I have said that a few times. There is still time. My sense is that without a dramatic change in approach from the government, we're not going to get there easily. I'd have to say that there's probably a good chance that we're just not going to get there and that this whole process is going to be under a cloud, and that at the end of the day there will be an election law but not really a “Canadians' election law”. It's the “Conservatives' election law”, or more appropriately, the “law to elect Conservatives” or the “Unfair Elections Act”.

But the one thing it is not is a fair election law, and we can't get to that determination, Chair, until we get a fair process. That, to bring it back again, is why my motion was put forward, constructed in the way it was.

The government still has a way. They have a couple of options. One is that we can start talking a little bit about this to try to put something together. They can take us all the way back to a unanimous consent on first reading and send it here as a referral. I took the time to read the rules and I think everyone understands that this is a safe process for the government. They still control everything. It's not as though things get out of hand or out of control. There's time to do it. We have the means. What we don't have is the willpower.

So we will persevere and we will continue to bring in submissions and to make arguments as best we can and as you're best going to allow. I will now move to more evidence to support my motion, in the hope that I can continue to win the hearts and minds of Conservatives—if not everywhere, at least on the other side of the table.

Now, in our motion, Chair, I mentioned a number of groups that we would be seeking to have a representation from. One of them.... It's rather a general description, but it's done that way on purpose to leave latitude for inviting different guests to come before the committee.

They're not guests, if they're citizens, are they? It's their own House.

Part of the motion says, in the first bullet point, “as well as specific groups which have been active in society on elections rules”. Another one of the groups we would be looking forward to bringing in is CARP.

I won't read this whole thing, because I know the trouble that will get me into with you, sir, and I am diligently trying to avoid it. The longer I go without your reminding me, the more successful I am being and the easier it is for both of us. So I'll do my best here also.

CARP is an organization that was founded by Moses Znaimer, an internationally renowned Canadian broadcaster and media pioneer, the founder of 20 popular Canadian television channels and stations, including CTV and MuchMusic.

I won't read any more on that. Most Canadians know of Mr. Znaimer and his role in society and his opinions on democracy and related issues. He was a co-founder of CARP and he has been a sort of spokesperson for the baby boomer generation, with that magazine Zoomer.

Oh, I see. I was wondering where that came from: boomers with zip—that's where Zoomer came from. That's good.

Anyway, the reason that CARP would like to comment is that they have been active in society. They have put out a lot of position papers on many issues, particularly those that relate to aging boomers and the issues that go with getting older. But they also make very serious comments on important pieces of legislation.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong—I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here—but I believe they are very supportive of increasing the CPP.... If they aren't, they should be. But I'll go out on a limb and suggest that they probably are. I know they're in support of ensuring that people are able to retire in dignity. I know they have concerns about the current retirement situation, in which fewer and fewer people have defined benefits and are having to rely on the stock market more.

In relation to my motion, what they would be talking about would be our election law. Probably they would begin to talk about how it affects people of a certain age, if you will, because there are related issues.

Remember, this is Canada, and so, many of those situations will depend on where they live geographically. That is, the challenges and the situation you face as an aging boomer—I give myself as a poster child—are different in a major urban centre from what they would be in a rural setting or on a first nations reserve or in the high Arctic or in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside. In many of the group areas I have mentioned, CARP and Mr. Znaimer would be considered expert witnesses on how this law would affect that particular demographic.

Again, that's why the motion is here, that's why the motion is worded the way it is, and that's why the kinds of people and groups we would invite are very germane to what is in front of us and to pointing out where the bill goes wrong and where it goes right.

It could be, Chair, that there are some issues that we, as the opposition, are pounding the table about and very concerned about, but about which we may find out that everything's fine. I doubt it, but it could happen. But we won't really know until we get to these hearings.

Not only that, there may be some things that we think are just fine as politicians, but if we get a chance to hear from other representatives, experts in the field—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. It is nothing about David's dissertation. I was wondering whether our colleague Mr. Julian was attempting to take photos or a video of these proceedings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We saw that and were on our way to tell him when he recognized that he was at fault. We will consider him admonished and move on.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

He can be admonished longer.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

He's willing to make that sacrifice, Chair. Take a half hour; really let him know how wrong that was.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I'm willing to accept any punishment.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The apology itself could probably take a while, because he will want to do it thoroughly. He's a very considerate, honourable member.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I understand that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My point in raising that, Chair, in relation to my motion, is to again point out that not all of the knowledge of Canada resides here at PROC, notwithstanding the government's belief that they have nothing to hear from anybody outside the safe and secure bubble of Ottawa. We beg to differ, we have begged to differ for many hours, and we continue to differ. We will continue to give examples of groups that we want to bring in, and to explain why their points of view matter, and why it's important for us to not just hear from these representatives here in Ottawa, but in some cases to give them or the folks they represent an opportunity to make their case where they live. That's our motion. There are three components to the motion.

The first one is witnesses—who—and I've been providing why. The second is about travel, and we talked a fair bit about that—not done yet. The last one, I don't talk about as much, but it is relevant and it's there for an important reason: the May 1 start. It's a goal. It wasn't an end date, and it's still achievable. It's still very achievable, especially, Chair, given the fact that this committee is a master of its own destiny, and that this committee can meet whatever hours and days it chooses. We still have plenty of time to do the right thing. We have the means to do the right thing. What we do not have is the political will on the part of the government, the Conservatives, to do the right thing. So we continue to insist, as best we can, that this government needs to let go of its ironclad grip on this process and recognize that others are entitled to have their say, and not just here in the safety and security of Ottawa.

Chair, we mentioned some places in our motion. For instance, we took a generic descriptor like Atlantic Canada, rather than being provincially specific to that. That was on purpose. As you know, oftentimes an opposition party in particular will mention as many places as they can because it's good politics. It rings well and people like seeing their place mentioned there. But we deliberately made it very general in terms of the areas and regions of Canada we wanted to go to.

I just wanted to mention that some of the places that the other committees have been to would be ideal for us to visit—absolutely ideal. Earlier I talked about Iqaluit and about how that would be a good place for us, how easy it is to get there, that there are fine accommodations there, and that there's lots of security, so the government doesn't need to be worried about being attacked by Canadians. I don't know who they're afraid of. There's probably a bigger chance of getting attacked by bears than any of the Canadians up there. But whatever, there's lots of security. Everyone would be nice and safe. They don't need to worry about a thing. Somebody will hold their hand all the way from the hotel to the committee room. We'll make sure nobody gets hurt by those Canadians who might have a sign that says, “Stop Harper”.

Now I mention that lead-in, Chair, because I'd like to give an example of the first place that we mentioned, Atlantic Canada. I've already made reference to the north and I did talk about the difference between northern Ontario and northern Canada, which are very different.

But in this case what I'd like to do is to point to the Atlantic provinces. What I have in front of me, Chair, is certainly a reference to Charlottetown. In 2011 Charlottetown had a population of 34,562. They have 44 square kilometres with 35,000 people. Why would we go there, would be the question one might ask. We would answer that first of all, it's Canada. It's Atlantic Canada, it's a well-known city. I don't have the flight times for that one, as I did for Iqaluit, but I know it's pretty easy to get there. I'm 100% certain that there's lots of security so the government doesn't need to worry about being frightened by their own citizens.

[An hon. member]

Or signs....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, signs are scary, you know, so we need to understand their sensitivities. But Charlottetown would provide a great opportunity, and quite frankly so would Summerside. Summerside has about 14,751 people, according to 2011 numbers. It has a lot less area. It's a beautiful city. Both of them are, if anybody has ever been there. But it's another place, Chair, that I can virtually guarantee that all members would be safe. They would find the accommodations quite comfortable and they would be hearing from Atlantic Canadians about what they think about the bill, just like they did in the countries I mentioned, just like they did in the provinces I mentioned, and just like this House of Commons has done over and over. We could go to those two cities, and we could have very good meetings, or we could go to either one.

I see you nodding, thinking, “That would be nice, because that's a nice place”. P.E.I.'s beautiful. These are wonderful places to go. So there's the added perk of not just going somewhere because you should go there, but you get to go somewhere that's beautiful to boot and hang around with beautiful people. It's a win-win-win.

I'm trying to think of other ways to get them to want to do these things. The other way didn't work.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

There's Anne of Green Gables.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Anne of Green Gables, there you go, world-renowned. It's a chance for our members to experience that, bring their daughters and kids back little souvenirs. Great.

So it's a great opportunity for the government to enjoy themselves on these hearings. Most importantly, they would be giving Canadians the one thing that we have said since we started talking about this motion that is lacking in every part of this: respect. By going there, we'd be showing all Canadians—let me correct that, because we're ready to go—the government, Conservatives, would get a chance to show all Canadians that they're not going to just hide here in the Ottawa bubble, but that they're prepared to go out into the country and ask Canadians about their election law in the places where they live. Plus we would get the benefit of regionally being in the Atlantic, and we can do more there if we want. I'm giving the example of how we could have compromised and found locations that would be representative of Canadians' thoughts on this, or at least to a degree that would allow us to move forward. Certainly they would get a chance to hear from people who live in P.E.I. and how they are affected by these laws.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Salt of the earth....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The salt of the earth, my leader says. Give them a chance to be heard.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Hear, hear.