Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2014

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

This is just as much to give David and his tonsils a break as anything else, but I would point out again for the record, Mr. Chair, that we have not denied the inclusion of any witness. In fact we have encouraged it. We've said that from the outset.

Many of the witnesses he referenced in the last three or four minutes have appeared before committees in Ottawa before. They do not find it inconvenient to come here. In fact they seem to be able to present the same testimony, relevant testimony, to these committees whether they're here or perhaps in the comfort of their home province.

The motion is speaking about travel, not about which witnesses should be allowed to come here. We have not denied the inclusion of any witnesses who have been suggested by any member of this committee.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, on the same point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

On the same point of order, Mr. Martin, go ahead.

It's nice to have you here, Pat.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here, sir.

On the same point of order, though, Tom, you have to admit....

Well, I guess I'm adding to his point, Chair, in hopes that you will find that it's in fact not a point of order. If you'll allow me to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm leaning towards that way right now.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

—expand a little bit on this, the point that Mr. Lukiwski is making is that anybody who's interested or has a contribution to make in the analysis of this bill can make their way to Ottawa. Well, he knows that the agriculture committee—

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

Not at all. It's not a point of order, but that's not my point.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

—if we really want to solicit and encourage the participation of Canadians in this most important, fundamental cornerstone of our democracy, the right to be able to cast your ballot free of interference or coercion or manipulation by people, etc., then we would want to go to those communities and make it as simple as possible. We bring the court to them, as we did with aboriginal affairs, as we've done with the agriculture committee, as we've done on issues of far less importance, so—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson really doesn't need any help on the debate side of this.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No. No, but I—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I will suggest you're not on a point of order and—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

—let David get back to—

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

On the same point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Lukiwski has just raised a point that I think all of us should consider when contemplating this motion. He is under the mistaken belief that this is about whether or not we can get the experts here to Ottawa. As he correctly points out, many of those experts are regularly consulted here. But his argument simply belabours the point. He's arguing his own position precisely because people across Canada want to be heard from on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

With all due respect, I'm going to do the same thing to you as I did to the other two.

Let's go back to where we were on discussing the motion instead of the validity of it.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

We wouldn't want to discuss the validity of it, you're right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson is debating his motion right now and he gets to do that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Do you want to rule on Mr. Lukiwski's point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, I suggested it wasn't one. I suggested yours wasn't one. With all due respect, I suggested that Mr. Mulcair's part of it wasn't either.

Let's get back to the debate. Mr. Christopherson has been doing a great job of doing that debate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that.

But once again, if I may, before we leave the point, it's important we understand the motion, and the government members don't seem to. It's kind of like the starting point.

There are three different points in the motion. One speaks to witnesses—not travel, not the day to start clause-by-clause; those are the other two points. It's about the witnesses. The second point is about travel. The two are not the same. I've made that point. My leader has now made that point. The fact is that it's not the same thing. Right now I am restricting myself to comments in the first bullet point in my motion.

I realize you haven't ruled me out of order. I'm just trying to assist Mr. Lukiwski, who, by the way, said that he pretty much agrees with that bullet point. It would seem, Chair, that the longer I work at this, the more I gain support. Now I have one government member onside with one of my points.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's more than I had when I came in. So, I mean, success, this is working.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!