Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2014

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I remind my honourable colleagues there are statements in the House, there are debates in the House, they can call a news conference....Anytime they want to suggest that Mr. Shedletzky is part of a circus or a gong show, I'd love to be there and I can guarantee you Mr. Shedletzky will be there also to respond to the notion that ordinary Canadians giving their comments on an election law is a circus. So there you go. There's your chance because this is what Canadians are saying.

I don't know, maybe they'll be uncovering some big plot to show that there's some group somewhere in Canada that's planning the overthrow of our democracy. I worry maybe that there's a secret terrorist plot to kidnap you, and hold our committee and the bill hostages until such time....I'm worried that maybe that's there because I'm trying to find a reason why the government won't travel. They seem to be afraid. I'm concerned about that. You might want to check and see if they have security information that they're maybe not sharing with you that they should in terms of your personal safety because the government is just so frightened to go out there. There must be some real reason.

We've already established that it's not the amount of money involved; it's not like we don't do this, and other committees have travelled. I actually have a note that reminds me of that and I'll make that point in a moment.

It's not the time because as we speak right now we haven't even begun the suggested study period that we put forward. We have ample time to work through this process, this idea of whether Canadians get their say or not.

I'm reminded that committees have travelled in the past, this is not breaking new ground, although it's not something we do every day. It's not that unusual and I'd be shocked if it was. Taking a bill out to the people to let them have their say, one would have thought it could have crossed somebody's mind before now.

I'm reminded that there's a current study on Bill C-15 on the Northwest Territories. I don't know this. It's risky to do this and my law professor colleague will probably smack me one, but I'm willing to bet that they might be going to the Northwest Territories—

[Craig Scott]

I think they've been.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

They've been to the Northwest Territories, well, how about that. A shot in the dark, million to one odds that a committee studying the Northwest Territories devolution bill went to the Northwest Territories. What a concept, imagine that.

Now, Bill C-10, minimum penalties for offences involving firearms, well this is subject that will get the heart aflutter. They're out there; they're going to Toronto.

[A voice]

They went to Toronto.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

They went to Toronto for Bill C-10 and for Bill C-15 they did go to the Northwest Territories, look at that. If I'd looked further, I would have known ahead of time, but I figured I could take that risk that they might have gone.

They could have gone, I suppose, to Ukraine, Pond Inlet, North Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, but given that the bill affected people who live in the Northwest Territories, I guess you could see why they had this strange idea that maybe they would give the people affected by the bill....Let's see, how does this go? The people affected by the bill get a chance to say something about it and give their opinion, yes.

Wow, that's pretty radical. I'm surprised that didn't make headlines, that Bill C-15 has a committee studying it, and it's about the Northwest Territories devolution and they're going to the Northwest Territories. Wow.

I guess by extension there's a bit of an argument. I know it's a stretch, but there's a bit of an argument that....Let me see if I can follow this, it's complex.

There's a bill affecting the people in the Northwest Territories. So the committee studying that bill actually went to the Northwest Territories and heard from the people affected by the bill. I think that's how it goes. It's complex, but I tried to stay with the bouncing ball.

This is where it gets really crazy, Mr. Chair. It's so stupid. I can't believe I'm going to say it, but here's the thought. Perhaps by extension, if we went to the Northwest Territories to study a bill that affected people who live in the Northwest Territories, we might take a bill that affects all Canadians and their ability to vote out to Canadians to give them their chance to have a say. How's that for a radical thought?

[An hon. member]

You could teach logic.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

My colleague is telling me I could teach logic. That makes my heart sing. I hope my mom is watching. She'd be thrilled to know that someone like you would think that, because she still hasn't gotten over the fact that I left high school in grade nine. Well, it's my mom, and I don't blame her. It's a good thing my daughter wasn't that stupid.

However, back to the point. I have to stay on the point. I want to play, Scott, but the chair is going to keep me on the point.

I think the point was, if I can remember that complex formula again.... I'm not very good at this stuff. There was a bill about the Northwest Territories. The committee studying the bill went to the Northwest Territories to give the people who live there and who are affected by it a chance to have their say. By extension, we're suggesting that BillC-23, being studied by PROC, should actually go out into the country and give the people who are affected by the bill their say. I think that was it. That was the complex, radical, over-the-top, obstructionist idea that those maniacs over in the official opposition came up with. I think that connection can be made. Then again, I could be wrong. But it seems to me that there is a direct connection.

Where does that leave us, as we get down to less than the last half-hour of this fun meeting? Where does that leave us? Maybe it's time for a recap, Mr. Chair.

A recap would suggest that we have a motion in front of this committee. The witnesses we've asked for—I'd be shocked if that's controversial. I may eat those words, but my assumption is that if we can get a process nailed down, then that's the toughest part. Usually, at this committee, and at most committees I've been on, Mr. Chair, under your leadership, once we've crunched where, when, and how long, who is usually fairly straightforward. Reasonable people come to a reasonable conclusion, and fairness guides it. It works. Imagine that—Canadians, eh?

That really is not the key part. I put it in there because I worry about what they might do if we don't. But that's really not the key focus today. It's not the controversial part. It's the next part.

Just to remind us all, what was that request again? This is in the motion:

That the Committee request to travel to all regions of Canada, (Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Northern Ontario, the Prairies, British Columbia and the North), as well as downtown urban settings (such as the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver) and rural and remote settings, and that the Committee request that this travel take place in March and April 2014.

If we were to do that, Mr. Chair, here's what could happen. I know you've been putting the pressure on me as the spokesperson for the process on this, with my colleague Mr. Scott being the key lead on the bill. You've asked me to get us to the business part as quickly as possible. You're doing everything you can within the rules to cajole and encourage. I know that if you could, you'd reach out and bat me one on the ear, just to try to get me to....

I respect that, Mr. Chair. I understand where...except the bat on the ear. I wouldn't respect it that much. But it was a nice turn of phrase, I thought.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Metaphorically.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you. Metaphorically. Mr. Reid is such a help.

To help you, I want to restate, for probably the umpteenth time—but I'd rather be restating this offer than my version of hammering my shoe in my hand to get the attention of this government—that I, or another representative of this party, am available 24-7 to respond to an overture from the government to sit down and try to negotiate a fair compromise.

Now, when I say the word compromise, as someone who is an old—you know, that used to be just an expression, now it's more descriptive—negotiator from way back, I get the fact that we're not going to get everything we're asking for because that would be a different approach, and we could have taken that one: we're going to stand on this, and it's this or nothing. But, no, my leader was very clear. My marching orders were to do everything possible to get a fair process in place. We were not only to do that, but were to be seen to do that, which is why I have put every card on the table along the way, no games. I haven't spun anything.

When the parliamentary secretary and I began our discussions off-line, as people knew we were doing, they started very positively. I've done other negotiations with the parliamentary secretary and I can't think of a time we didn't find a way through a dilemma, a compromise we could both live with, and the other parties as well. Then it stopped. I don't know why. Obviously I wasn't told, but it certainly felt like the iron curtain of the PMO coming down and saying, “This is over”. So in negotiations, I entered those negotiations and I didn't think I'd come out of here with everything. I had no expectation at all that I'd be going back to my leader and saying, “There you go. Got it all signed, sealed, and delivered. Won everything.” No, I didn't expect that at the beginning of those discussions. Neither should the government, however, believe that a negotiation means that they get their way and we stay here, hidden in plain sight in the capital. No. The purpose of negotiation is that everybody gives a little bit.

Would we get all that we wanted, even though we're fighting for Canadians' rights everywhere? Any time you make a compromise, you run the risk that one of the opposition parties is going to come after you because they accuse you of not staying the course, and not being strong enough, and strident, and principled, yada, yada, yada. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

It's not as important as this bill. We are prepared to take that hit, if you will, by not getting all that we're asking for. But, Chair, that kind of an approach requires two parties, not just one. So the government would have to accept, for at least some of the time, that this committee studying Bill C-23 would be outside the safety and security of Ottawa and would be in the communities where people live.

What is that number? How many? That's what we would negotiate, Chair.

This is my dilemma for you, Chair. Unless and until the government indicates that they're prepared to be reasonable, it's hard for me to give you the reasonableness, as you see it from your perspective, that you would like from me, which is to just shut up, stop talking, and let things go on. But you see, Chair, the problem right there is that the government is insisting that it's their way.... I was going to say, “It's their way or the highway”, but actually they won't go to the highway, so maybe you can think of something more clever than that. But it's their way or no way.

You want me to hurry? Are you serious?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

No, I was hoping you'd get to a joke there, and you didn't.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I think the serious point, Chair, is that I didn't come here to Parliament Hill to spend two hours doing this any more than I pity the poor rest of all of you who had to listen to it. It's not fun. It's not really getting us all that far. I get that, but here we are. With so few tools available to an opposition party in a majority situation, we can only use the tools we have. One of them, sir, is that a motion is not finished with at this committee until everyone who wants to speak to it has spoken.

That's where we are. If we want to break this logjam, the government has my email. Just send me a little note saying, let's talk. I can do whatever circumstances they want. We can do a Get Smart cone of silence for those of you who are old enough to get that. If not, don't worry about it. There are many going, “What? Get Smart?” The rest of us get the cone of silence. What I'm saying is if you need it to be confidential because you want to just try it out, that's what diplomats do. That's why we have the diplomatic corps, the ability to do things that you can't do out front, which is for instance begin a discussion to see if there's enough willingness on both parts to get you somewhere before you make it public. If the government wants that kind of a discussion, they've got it. If they want to do it in the middle of the floor of the House of Commons, they've got that too. If they want to do it during a news conference, they can have that. They can do anything they want. You want to do it by phone....

The point is not how it gets done but that we recognize that Canadians have a right to be heard, not just this Canadian and not just those Canadians but all Canadians. Thirty minutes. Thirty minutes and this could be over and we could start focusing on timing, details, witnesses. Get down to the work. That's what we want. We're not standing petulant, holding our breath, and stamping our feet saying it's got to be our way or no way. We're not doing that either. But we're facing a government that's doing exactly that, that refuses to consider even the notion that Canadians would get a say in the places where they live.

Chair, we don't have a lot of options. What else could we do? The second we let go of this motion, it probably gets voted down. If we came to a straight vote right now, I suspect we'd lose. It's just fundamental math. I will always come back to this.

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

Just give her a shot.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, no. The thing that still blows me away in terms of voting and numbers is that you can get less of 40% of the vote in this country and get 100% of the power. That's the part that still blows me away. There are presidents in the United States who have said publicly they'd love to have the power of a majority government prime minister in Canada. We give all that power with less than 40% of the people who voted. That's not even a percentage of the people who are governed because we go by who has voted, but of the people who voted, they got less than 40%. It was wrong.

I have said that before, Chair. We're hearing from the infamous Mr. Butt now. I wondered when we'd start hearing from him.

More stories today, Mr. Butt? Maybe we can give you the floor. I can give you two spots to speak: one to make a statement, and the other to retract it. How's that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, relevance please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Not across the table.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No. You interrupted me, Mr. Butt. I didn't go looking for a fight, but you know, I'm here.

I still have a great deal of difficulty with the notion that 40% of the vote gets you 100% of the power. That's why we strongly believe in proportional representation, but I won't go on.

That's as far as I can go there, Chair. I see you getting ready and rightly so. I get it. I have to colour within the lines. That's fair enough.

Nonetheless, you would think a little humility from a majority government with less than 40% of the vote would not necessarily be out of order.

Not only that. At its core, it's just so darn un-Canadian. We don't use that term a lot, but there are certain Canadian values that we stand by and that we're proud of and that we think identify us. One of them is our sense of fairness. That's an important word to Canadians, that no matter what the circumstance, if there's a decision to be made, especially if it impacts more than the people who are doing the debating, that there be some fairness to that process. That's all we're trying to bring here, just an element of fairness. If the government would indicate that they're interested in x number of hearings outside the safety and security of the Ottawa bubble, we'd consider that, and we would consider that a starting point for negotiations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Just for David's benefit more than anyone else's, I know, Mr. Chair, you had said that you wanted to get to some committee business or new business before we ended the meeting. I just want to give my assurances to David that if he allows you to go to committee business, we would certainly have no objections to returning the floor to David at the start of the next meeting or the continuation of this one or whatever. I understand the need sometimes to have new business discussed here for the benefit of all, so we're not trying to interrupt David's dissertation, long as it may be, but if he would agree to allow you to deal with new business when you think it's appropriate, we would agree to return the floor to David.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm not opposed, but I need to hear a little more detail before I let go of the floor. I think you're being sincere, but I was consulting with my colleague when you were kind enough to bring your point of order. So, again, the offer or suggestion?

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

The chair said he wanted to deal with some committee business before we adjourn in about six minutes. I'm saying if you would give up some of your time to let him deal with committee business, even if it took us right to one o'clock, we, the government, would agree to allow the floor to go back to you. I'm the next one on the speakers list, and I would allow you to go back. I'm just trying to see what the committee business is—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's fine, however—

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

I'm not trying to—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—once you have the floor, you can move a motion. If this motion is set aside, you can move a motion and use your majority to put something through, so I'll ask the chair, what business are we talking, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Some of the business of the committee I had not shared with the committee. We weren't going to meet Thursday because of the visit of the Aga Khan, but there's also a request from another government committee coming to visit Ottawa that we would normally meet with, and I wanted to get the committee's approval or disapproval whether we do that. That type of committee business, so...