Evidence of meeting #19 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That member was still here. I afforded the respect to Mr. Mulcair at the time and said go ahead. Fine; done.
8 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
No. I have already ruled that it was exactly correct. I was showing respect and was allowing Mr. Mulcair to speak.
At this committee generally we will show that type of respect. You're testing it, though, Mr. Martin.
I'll go back to Mr. Christopherson on his debate.
8 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible--Editor]
8 p.m.
Conservative
8 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
8 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I was going to volunteer that...unless recognized by the chair, unless properly recognized by the chair.
8 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I will ignore you completely now and go on to Mr. Christopherson, because I feel like I should.
8 p.m.
Conservative
8 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I've been pointing out different aspects of my arguments in support of my motion. Specifically I've broken it down into the three main components of my motion.
It's a little too soon for me to read it again.
8 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
There will come a time because it will be so many hours after, but for now I won't. But I will again continue to point out why these three segments, pieces of the motion, are important.
If I might, I'll just go back a bit. If you can bear with me, Chair, I think you'll be comfortable with why. Mr. Michael LeClair was kind enough to contact us through Mr. Scott's Facebook, and he was generous to invite us, and all the Islanders are friendly like that so I'm not surprised at all. He'd probably invite us over to his house to have a bite to eat and talk about things, and maybe even talk about election laws. You never know.
What is important, and I should have known, and I apologize to my fellow Canadians in Charlottetown, is that apparently this is the 150th anniversary of the Charlottetown Conference. I can't think of a better way to celebrate that than to have this committee arrive during the 150th celebration of the Charlottetown Conference—it laid the foundation for our nation—and to be there to talk about and hopefully improve our election laws.
There are a number of spots across Canada that can claim some ownership to part of our founding, but those of us who have been lucky enough to be in Charlottetown and to experience everything there is to see there historically, it is very moving. It's not very big. It's not small, but the importance to Canadians is monumental. In recognizing that significant accomplishment in Charlottetown and the conference 150 years ago, I would just like to go back to my point and add to it about how Charlottetown would be ideal. There may be some other places, too, across Canada that are celebrating certain aspects of Canadiana that would allow us to not only do good work, not only improve our elections law, not only listen to Canadians, but help support and celebrate the history of our great country.
There are so many things that could come, benefit-wise, from our actually making the decision to get out of the bubble here and listen to people.
I haven't had a chance yet to mention how cool it would be to go to Winnipeg. I love Winnipeg.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Christopherson, we have bells, so we will suspend until we reconvene after the bells at 268 La Promenade.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I will call this meeting to order, since I see that we have everyone here. We are in public.
Mr. Christopherson, you had the floor when we last saw each other, not that long ago. You have done a great job so far today, but let's see what we can do now.
8:05 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
For a slight change of pace, we've been looking at the situation, and it's clear that the government is very determined. They're going to use every trick possible to keep this committee going to the point at which they get their final motion.
My voice will hold up. Whether I can continue with enough relevant information is the question, as colleagues who have done this before will know. There might be a few more hours left, but to what end? Particularly, just being ruled out of order and losing the floor because I no longer had anything that was allowable to say is not very appealing. However, if we aren't able to reach some kind of understanding, that will be where we are, and we'll pick up at that point, Chair.
I appreciate your flexibility now, because we're talking about something very different. Should we get back in there, then we'll be back into staying within the lines and colouring. We'll all be back there.
However, there have been some discussions between the government and ourselves and Mr. Lamoureux with a view to talking about an endgame for the way this will conclude.
It has been mentioned—we haven't focused on it, but it's our understanding—that Mr. Mayrand has offered to be available on Thursday. Inasmuch as we have heard already from the minister, we think it's important that we get Mr. Mayrand's comments and thoughts into the process to provide some balance, because the government, of course, has the means to corral more quotes than the opposition. That's not a slam. That's just the reality.
Further to that, I'm the first one to acknowledge when there is checkmate. In terms of achieving our goal, which was to force the government to change their mind and allow public hearings outside of Ottawa, it is abundantly clear that, as wrong-headed as that is, the government is bloody-minded about it and will use every authority and tyranny that the majority has to ensure that they get the outcome they want. At that point, our ability to influence anything is very slim, if it exists at all.
So there are a couple of things to state. Number one, given the fact that the government is absolutely refusing to hear from Canadians outside of the Ottawa bubble, I'm advising colleagues on all sides that we'll hold our own hearings. We won't be able to do as extensive a set of hearings and won't be able to do as many as this committee could if it were sponsoring them, but clearly it's our view that those are not going to happen, that the government is bloody-minded about it. They have made a determination of timeframes, and come hell or high water, that's what they're going to do. We have used virtually every parliamentary trick we can think of to try to force the government.
That's the key thing. We wanted to get a change. After 30 years, I'm not looking for a headline. I'm looking for results.
So in advising that if certain conditions are met I would be prepared to forego the floor, the first thing is to advise that we will be holding our own hearings. If the government refuses to talk to Canadians, then we will.
Secondly, the opposition parties have had a chance to talk, and we're all of a view that it's imperative to hear Mr. Mayrand.
What we would be looking for is some discussion, Chair, from the government, some assurances regarding how we're going to proceed in terms of selecting the number days that we would meet and the witnesses because the motion is really general and bad to the extent that there's no specificity. Given that we're in the grip of the majority, we would like, at least—and I don't think it's unfair to ask the government for assurances—that you publicly state them so we can hold you to account to your word that the process for the number of days and the number of witnesses, unlike the process so far, will be a lot more balanced, fair, and allow for legitimate input and time from the NDP and the Liberals.
It's my suggestion to the government that if they can give us those assurances—we'll be listening carefully to the words chosen—publicly regarding the number of days and witness selection.... To be fair, Mr. Lukiwski has made some of those commitments before. A lot of what we'd be seeking would be a repeat; hopefully you'll allow it. It would be concise and related to what I'm offering right now.
I want to say, in fairness, that we could find ourselves still doing this, but I want to thank Mr. Lamoureux who, like us, is more concerned about the bill and the contents and getting something done than about headlines. It's my understanding that, collectively, we can make an offer that we're prepared to stand behind. Much will depend, Mr. Lukiwski, on the words that you use and assurances that you can give us, up to and including what you propose Thursday would look like given that we're looking for at least an hour and a half of Mr. Mayrand in front of the committee.
We'd be interested to know how you'd suggest proceeding if we had a deal, which we do not right now but I am attempting to lay out some of the pieces of what a deal could look like.
Unless there's anything I've left out or that you'd like to add...?
9:40 p.m.
NDP
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Before you give up the floor, we still have to do something with your motion.
9:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I know, but I would ask for your consideration, or maybe if you need unanimous consent, to allow Mr. Lukiwski a chance to respond, and assuming he doesn't go too long, I get the floor back.
That would be funny if he took over and started....
I trust you, Chair, and I've done many deals with Mr. Lukiwski and never once have I been stabbed in the back. I have no reason to believe that would happen now.
