Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2014

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I noticed you made mention that the steering committee is supposed to make some sort of determination in terms of witnesses coming forth, and I'm looking forward to that, I really and truly am. Having said that, on the list that's been circulated, I have not submitted my list as of yet, and I'm wondering if there is any direction you can provide us, one of the stakeholders around the table being a party, on when you would like to have those? Is there a deadline for those?

For example, I think there's some merit in terms of having Elections Manitoba or Elections Ontario come before the committee. Is there a time that we should be submitting them? I'm just anticipating, in case things wind up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

When indeed we get to the steering committee, and Mr. Christopherson gets to a vote on his motion, we will then move through the process to eventually come up with the steering committee's having a conversation about who's inviting whom, and who's gathering lists at what time. As you can see there are some lists already coming in, but until we get beyond this impasse, we can't get to that positive outlook.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Would you advise me to provide some lists in advance? This is what's happened here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Sure it won't ever hurt you to send in a witness list.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have to say though, I tend to think that my having the floor is something other than an impasse, but I don't want to split hairs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I could have chosen a different word. I'll search for it while you continue.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

All right, I'll make sure you have lots of time to do that, Chair.

It seems maybe it's important at this time to read my motion because we're getting points of order about things I'm raising, which as far as I'm concerned any commonsensical, practical, fair-minded approach would say that while I may be giving an awful lot of detail, as I said earlier, there's nothing in the rules that says you have to give a fascinating speech or that you have to be riveting. It has to be relevant, but if it's relevant to the actual motion then it's in order. Even if it's x number of hours.

Again to remind colleagues, a motion can never be out of order, I wouldn't think. To read my own motion:

That the Committee, upon receiving an Order of Reference from the House concerning C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, initiate a study on this legislation....

I guess we could even have gotten cute and said we'll travel as a study, rather than as a bill. Maybe that would have kept us out of some hot water, I don't know, probably not. “...which will include the following”. And there are three points: three, just three, but three. One: “That the Committee hear witnesses from, but not limited to,” and then we go on to mention them and I shall. But right away anything to do with witnesses should be in order. I'm not talking about how to make a widget and I wouldn't be talking about last summer's vacation. I'd be talking about witnesses. And that's the motion. So again, “That the Committee hear witnesses from, but not limited to, Elections Canada, Political parties as defined under the Canada Elections Act, the Minister of State who introduced the bill...”

And it's interesting, Chair, that the government can be oh so ever cooperative when it suits them, i.e., they wanted to get their minister here and we agreed when they said they were going to give some consideration to holding public hearings. We agreed to allow the minister to come without any problems, no procedural things, and that's exactly what happened. The minister came in—

[A voice]

But we didn't believe him.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—and was given due respect and every opportunity to make his case. And there was not one incident of any disrespect or questions of disrespect. It turns out the good faith was rather short-lived because three hours later negotiations shut down, but we still had the minister come.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

In the period of time you had to do that, you have mentioned that more than once.

That would be repetition. I can only go on my interpretation of repetition. Reading your bill would be—

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm in the middle of speaking, Mr. Julian, so you can do a point of order when there's a bit of a gap.

So when we are talking about your motion for as long as we've talked about it, you will be careful that the repetition doesn't continue.

Mr. Julian had a point of order, Mr. Christopherson. I don't mean to interrupt you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Oh no, please interrupt all you want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Julian, you may speak on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be back here.

You did interrupt Mr. Christopherson in the middle of a very valid point he was making. I would request, Mr. Chair, that you respect his right to continue to speak on this important issue, certainly raising questions that I've heard repeatedly in my hometown of Burnaby—New Westminster, where folks have felt very strongly that this process is not legitimate. So interrupting Mr. Christopherson as you did I think is inappropriate, and I'd request that you refrain from doing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You may very well have heard information in your hometown repeatedly.

But what I can't do as a chair is hear that same repetitiveness during the same dissertation from a member. You have not been here to hear a lot of conversations today on repetition and relevance. And we'll carry on now with Mr. Christopherson's speech on his motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Of course, without repetition or irrelevance.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right.

I would again point out that the rules for repetition and relevance should be the same for a member at the fifth hour of having the floor as in the first five minutes, and that the time is not a factor. What matters is that if I was speaking in the first five minutes, would it be allowed and—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, the relevance issue may have that type of flexibility, but the repetition piece is not a time-related piece. If you keep repeating yourself, I'm going to say you're repeating yourself, and there's a ruling that the chair will make saying you're repeating yourself. That may not happen in the first five minutes because it's the first minutes, right? Five hours later, it may be a bit different.

Carry on.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough. Point taken. I might just suggest, with great respect, that you maybe leave it to the government to be the one to tell me.... That's just a thought, but anyway, I hear you, and I respect what you said.

No, I just.... If you're going to keep interrupting me on relevance, you're doing their job. We are in a political process here—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, I find I'm doing my job, because the procedures tell me that I'm not supposed to let you do that, but carry on.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much.

I think Mr. Christopherson is absolutely right. Normally as chair, your role is that if government members raise concerns.... Hopefully they wouldn't, because they certainly understand that the public is on our side on this issue, but if they do raise concerns, your role as chair is then to step forward and adjudicate somewhat.

I don't believe your role is—and I will repeat this—I don't believe your role is to interrupt a member who is speaking, especially one with as much experience as Mr. Christopherson.