Evidence of meeting #18 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 video is available from Parliament.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Please don't be afraid. We'll follow the procedures. This is the procedure and House affairs committee.
Mr. Christopherson.
1:20 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You might speak on another motion, but you won't speak on this one. They'll move a motion that denies that, don't worry.
Again, consistent with the process that we've followed so far, once again we see the tyranny of the majority. There is a reason that this expression exists. This is an example of it: when the majority, who gets to decide things, completely disregards the minority and just runs roughshod over them, standing behind the fig leaf of “well, we have a majority”. In a democracy, that's not the same as being given the position of king or ruler. There is an obligation in a democracy for the majority to be respectful of the minority. That's what this country is predicated on. This country is predicated on that. The government...most of the backbenchers really don't know what's going on anyway, and those who do are just tickled that they get to be part of steamrolling over people they don't like. That would be us and, in this case, the Canadian people.
Because we had an agenda today. I'm not raising the point; I'm in debate. But I'm talking about the fact that the notice we had read “11:00 to 1:00”. I have said all along that the government will get their way because they have a majority and they're prepared to use it as a tyranny and just ram whatever they want, no matter what anybody says. That's the tyranny of the majority, and that's where we are right now.
We all get notices. There's the notice of the agenda. It's very straightforward, and it says that right on there: “11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.” We've respected that at every meeting, but it's now being used as a game, and that's my point. It's being used as a game to counter the motion.
Remember the evil motion that I have before us, Chair. It's to do that horrible, unbelievable thing, that irresponsible thing, of asking Canadians if they'd like to have a say on their election law where they live. That's the outrageousness of the motion that the government is prepared to use every technical advantage they can on, every hairsplitting ruling they can. Then, when necessary, when they can't win on that, they just swoop in with their majority and shut everything down. That's what's going to happen. The government will give no more consideration for the concerns of the minority—in this case, the opposition members—than they will for Canadians, who they're also giving the back of their hand to.
All of it could be avoided. That's the thing of it, Chair. It could have been avoided. It could still be avoided. The government could still push the reset button if they said to us, “Look, we're into a heck of a mess here, and we'd like to start over if we can and see if we can't approach this differently.” There's still time to do that. If the government came to us and said, for instance—I don't know—that we'll go into the House, we'll seek unanimous consent, and with the unanimous consent of the House we will revert to first reading, and at first reading we will do what we should have done in the first place, which was to have referred it directly to the committee without a second reading. We can just null and void it all. We can do anything with unanimous consent. Not only could the government have done the right thing from the beginning, but they still could. They have no intention of that, none.
Before the government rolled in with their latest abuse of majority power, I made the case in saying that they were going to utilize that majority to ram, ram, ram, and that the criticism they get is worth it, because it's the price that they will pay to get an election law that favours them and favours those who have money. It takes powers away from the Chief Electoral Officer, who has been going after this government for things they have been doing in violation of the current election law. That's what's going on.
So is it any wonder that we're getting a little angry over here? Oh, yes. Oh yes, no one should be surprised that this is happening. Then, just to add insult to injury, because they just don't care.
That's the point: they don't care. And the ones who do care over there are just keeping their heads down low. Why? Because they're also thinking, “This advantages me because I'm part of the majority. I'm with the Conservatives. I may not really understand everything that's going on, but I do understand that my chances of getting re-elected just went up.”
This they understand. When the whip cracks that whip—
1:25 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible--Editor]
1:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, and they don't have to crack too hard, because they just love doing this. They love this kind of stuff: crack down; tough; show you're grr, grr, grr.
They love that stuff. That's who they are.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Oh, I am, because I'm pointing out why my motion bothers them so much.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Can you say it again? I kind of got into that woof, woof, woof.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
—because there are so many reasons why the government is opposed to this motion. I'm just scratching the surface.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I probably won't even get through all the good arguments I could give as much as I'd like, because I'll eventually just run out of time and be exhausted or whatever.
Nonetheless, my point remains. My point is still valid. It still points directly to this motion. The government is prepared to do anything they can to get the Conservative election law passed. That's it. And the only thing that could change it hasn't happened so far.
Is it going to happen? We're trying to buy as much time in the hopes that it might, and the government is doing everything they can to shut that down.
I say again to my fellow Canadians that the only power in this country that can stop this law from being rammed through is the collective voices of Canadians, who don't even have to pass judgment on the subject matter, on the details of the law; they can voice an expression and an opinion on the process and the lack of fairness.
If enough Canadians did that, they would think about changing. They would think about changing if enough Canadians told especially those backbenchers, the ones who are keeping their heads down low.... They don't always know what's going on. They listen to the whips when they tell them. They understand that this is an advantage to them. But if they start finding out that some of their constituents have found out what's going on and are upset about the process and the unfairness and the lack of the application of Canadian values, which is fairness.... If they find out that enough of their constituents will hold them to account, that's when you'll get another special caucus meeting—only something different happens this time. What happens is just as what happened with the income-splitting—
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
1:25 p.m.
NDP
1:25 p.m.
A voice
I know. I was just getting really into it too.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'll ask the committee to resume immediately after the vote, so within five or ten minutes tops. If there's a....
We'll keep with the speaking list we have.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I call the meeting back to order. Again we're here with the study of the fair elections act, Mr. Christopherson's motion. Mr. Christopherson still has the floor. We will move forward. We can only hope.
2:25 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I consider that everything said is moving us forward, but I also accept that not everyone would see it that way, and that's fine.
I don't know exactly where I left off. I'm not sure that it matters all that much that I have clear, succinct continuity, given the context of making the remarks. However, I know that, at some point prior to our suspending to go up and vote in the House on a motion, I was talking about Bill C-15.
There are a number of reasons why I've raised Bill C-15 in the context of my motion and why, Chair, I believe that talking about Bill C-15 is germane to my motion. That is because, first of all, the government has made arguments that there's something extraordinary about our request, that committees only travel to do studies and, for the most part, don't travel when we're considering actual pieces of legislation. For the most part is correct, but it is for the most part, not that this is the only way, or it must be this way. That's just the way that the tradition of this place has been.
I suspect, Chair, that the reason for that is the size of the country and having people constantly moving around on every bill would create problems.
Although I have to say, Chair, again in talking about my motion and its relationship to what they did on Bill C-15 up in Yellowknife, that was the opportunity for the government to make its case is clear. They've said that there is no reason for us to go there as another reason. Why would we? Yet Bill C-15 to me is a perfect example of why we would. First of all, it's about the Northwest Territories. So did they stay in Ottawa and talk about it in the safe and secure bubble here under the guise of not travelling, only doing studies, and rarely sending committees? No, they didn't.
I imagine it's because of the backlash they likely would have gotten, especially after we saw how many witnesses they had and how much interest, how much media interest there was. I would imagine those folks would have been pretty upset if they had been told that the only way they could comment on this was to make the trek to Ottawa. Given the fact that devolution of power from Ottawa to the Northwest Territories is what it's about, having them goose-stepped across the country all the way from Yellowknife to come to Ottawa sort of belies the point of what the bill was, which is devolution, less control Ottawa, more control Northwest Territories, and so consistent with that thinking—surprise, surprise—the committee made the decision to go to Yellowknife.
That's why in my motion I'm saying that we should go to various places. I outlined some of the geographical areas. I realize we can't go everywhere. I also acknowledge that we weren't even married to everything that's in our motion when we were offering compromise. We were offering cooperation to try to get us past this process issue and into the substance of the bill. We offered, and that was rejected, so we were left with no choice but to include it in the motion and leave it there. It still stands. If the government says.... It's clear they're not, but I make the statement anyway for the public to hear the truth of what the process is. We are still interested in talking with the government about reaching a number of communities that we would travel to that we can agree on.
Would we get everything we asked for? No. Would the government get what they want, which is only in Ottawa? No. Somewhere in between we'd find a compromise. But that was rejected too.
Every single attempt to plead, to scream, to stamp our feet, to ask nicely, to ask respectfully, everything humanly possible we have done in an attempt to get the government to realize that they may have the legal right to do this but they don't have the moral right. They don't have the moral authority to ram through a Conservative election law that has no input from the opposition and no input from Elections Canada. They don't have that right, that moral right. They saw that—
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I have a point of order. I know you've mentioned this several times and want to stay on relevancy. I admit, though, he's certainly speaking to the motion. However, it seems that I've heard the very points he's making several times before in the last number of days. I'm wondering whether repetition is enough, or whether we need to hear new information because I certainly haven't heard anything new in the last number of hours.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That's an excellent point of order, Mr. Lukiwski. I'm giving some leeway but I have reminded Mr. Christopherson himself to watch for repetition and ensure he's being relevant. Mr. Lukiwski has pointed it out. I was being pretty lenient but let's try to keep it tighter.
2:30 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Fair enough, Chair.
I'll pull the crane back in so I'm clearly inside that line and Mr. Lukiwski doesn't have to get all upset.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
2:35 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It's hard to come up with new material. However, I have some. I know you were worried for a moment, but through the chair, I want you to know that I have ample material that's clearly within the lines. But as an insurance policy, anything more I can use to fill the time that I have in front of me, obviously, I would do that.
But your point's well taken, and the point of order was in order. I accept your comments, Chair, and I will obviously continue to respect them. So I'll try to keep it tighter, sir.
In doing that, I am talking about Bill C-15, which I didn't talk about much before, other than to make some reference to it. Now I'm talking about it specifically, because I believe the details of what happened on Bill C-15 bear direct relationship to the motion that I have in front of us, and that is: should the committee travel to other places outside Ottawa to hear Canadians on the bill in front of us?
That, sir, is exactly the same question that was in front of the.... I'm trying to find the committee that sponsored that. It was the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs...probably the same committee. Anyway, the committee was faced with the same thing that we are faced with. They could have made the same decision. They could have said that no, they don't normally do that, so why would they. I wasn't there, but I can only presume, based on what happened, that there was a common-sense discussion about “Gee, it concerns the Northwest Territories. Do you think we maybe should drop by and see if anybody there has something to say about an act that's only about them?”
It's the same thing with this bill. It's about the election laws, and those election laws apply exactly the same to the richest Canadian as they do to the poorest Canadian. Those rights apply to the most important Canadians as they do to every other Canadian, because we're talking about our vote, and the procedures of whether or not our vote matters.
And as we see in Ukraine, when they fight for democracy, built into that word for them is the right to vote and the right to a—wait for it—fair election process. That's why countries like Canada spend tens of thousands of dollars to send MPs, in certain cases, to other countries to be election observers. We spend tens of thousands of dollars. And fellow Canadian citizens, through CANADEM, they coordinate citizens going. Remember, the Government of Canada leased an entire plane because there were over 500 Canadians—MPs and citizens—who went to Ukraine in 2004 during the orange revolution to monitor the election to ensure that the process was fair and transparent.
Yet we live with the hypocrisy of this government saying how great democracy is everywhere else and how hard they're willing to fight for it everywhere else. They're willing to spend bags of taxpayers' money to fight for it everywhere else and make all kinds of speeches about it, even create a whole ministry of democratic reform. But when the crunch comes, they don't really believe in democracy. No, they really don't.
They accept that they have to live by certain rules, and when that becomes a problem, what do they do? They change the rules. They believe in the rule of law, as long as it's their law. It's easy to follow the rule of law when it's your law. My motion is an attempt to make sure that it's not just the government's law, that we give Canadians themselves—whose election this belongs to—a say in this.
We actually saw, Chair, the intent of my motion played out less than two months ago in Yellowknife. My motion speaks to the kinds of witnesses. It's not limited.
It's not an exhaustive list, but it gives an example of the kinds of people we'd like to be hearing from. The motion, I think, contains examples of some of those witnesses who are very appropriate to the bill before us, just like, Chair, they did with C-15. My motion says these are some of the witnesses we should bring in—on C-15, they had witnesses.
2:40 p.m.
NDP
Craig Scott NDP Toronto—Danforth, ON
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Now my colleague has come back to one of the examples—we mentioned two examples in the past, C-15 and C-10—that, I think, is the most important feature of our argument, in terms of the history of this place, that committees in fact do go on tour sometimes for bills. What I'm wondering is—this is a point of order—assuming my colleague is going to be speaking for a while, whether or not there's any provision in the rules, or just common practice, for a request from the committee for any quick research from the Library on whether there have been other bills that have gone on tour, to help inform our debate, and whether there's any precedent for doing that in the middle of discussion.