Evidence of meeting #3 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 way.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 29th, 2013 / 12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
You are changing your motion already. It wasn't well thought out, obviously.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
He's a real player, that one.
Hang tight, you'll catch on.
One of the most egregious things that exists right now—and this is outrageous, it truly is—is that if the opposition moves a motion in camera to do anything and that motion fails to get a majority, it can't be reported. Not only is it not reported, it can't be reported outside that room. This is why the government wants to leave it the way it is, make no mistake. As things are right now, as soon as they can get in camera, no matter what initiative that opposition members try by virtue of in-order motions, and if those motions don't carry, it's the tree in the forest that nobody ever knows about. If they do know, somebody can be held accountable for breaking confidentiality. They can be found in contempt of Parliament for merely talking about a motion they moved but which failed at a committee meeting. If you walk out the door and talk about your motion and how disappointed you are that the government wouldn't allow whatever the motion was, you are now subject to a possible contempt of Parliament charge.
I didn't hear Mr. Lukiwski respond to that one. That's got nothing to do with any kind of personal matter or extenuating circumstances or issues that any commonsense individual would be prepared to accommodate. They're still not saying anything about it, and I bet they won't.
We've made it clear, by putting this forward, that should we form a majority government, we will make these changes. Yes, it's going to hurt, because we won't have the tool that the government currently has and all governments before them. But the fact remains that it's undemocratic and it's unacceptable. It's unacceptable to us on this side of the House now, and it will be equally unacceptable when, in 2015, we're on the other side of the House. We will make this change.
I'd love to hear any one of the two, four, six people sitting across from me give one good reason why a motion that fails can't be reported to the public. What is the big national secret that's been violated? What egregious taking away of a member's results comes because of that? I'd like to know, because having been in politics now in all three orders of government for almost 30 years, I can tell you that there is absolutely no justification for denying members the right to talk about initiatives they tried to do in committee but failed because they don't have a majority.
You know you won a majority. You won the right to govern. You didn't win the right to reign over us!
Not a peep from them.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Reid, I would gladly give the floor to you, if you want to defend that argument.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'm not sure I want to have Mr. Christopherson decide on what I'm allowed to talk about. But if he's willing to let me speak to the entire motion, I could probably take up as much time as he could, and it might be refreshing to hear somebody else.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Kevin Lamoureux
I don't think it's a point of order, Scott.
David, if you want to continue on.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I hope he does get time, because I would love to know what that violates. Oftentimes, the opposition's position and its arguments and things it would bring to light require motions to be passed by the committee. The government has the majority; the opposition doesn't usually win votes where we move to our partisan corners. But by denying the right of opposition members to even talk about what they tried to do in camera is simply to stifle the opposition and deny them the right to have their voice. Nobody wants to talk about personnel matters or wages or legal matters, and the public will accept that. The check and balance for the public is that the opposition is in there too; it has a mandate to hold the government to account. But the kind of work that goes on, and any of us who have been in committee and know what happens in camera are appalled at how little the public knows about what's happening in committee where the real politics of dealing with issues happens.
Think about it. You move a motion in committee to hold a hearing, to ask for an answer to a question. On virtually anything, no matter how big or small, you're not allowed to talk about it. It's one thing to accept the fact that every time you move a motion you're always going to lose—
Hey guys, please keep it down. When you're drowning me out you really have to be loud.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Sorry, Mr. Richards, do you want to finally join in and contribute?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
By the way, it's my understanding that these are the Senate rules. Just how egregious can they be? How much are we threatening the ship of state here?
12:15 p.m.
An hon. member
It's a low bar.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
12:15 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
—and the House of Commons can't even climb that ant hill.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I thought you were one of the ones you would have appointed to the Senate if the coalition had gone through. You're really ruining your case.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
