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.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It must be relevant. It must be relevant, it's moving votes.
Get ready, Peter. Get ready. You're going to feel the movement.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Mr. Chair, a point of order.
I would like to tell the honourable member the government's position hasn't changed.
3:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Not really a point of order there either, but I was expecting it.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Mr. Lukiwski, do you now feel the tyranny of the majority? Look how quickly they turned on you. They just threw you right under the bus, and they said, “That's not where the government is.”
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Actually, I think we're fine on this one, David.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes? Okay. Well, I'm just worried about your career, you know? You've been stuck in that same position for how long now?
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Oh, I appreciate that. I appreciate your concern.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
You deserve a promotion. That's why I'm raising it. He deserves a promotion.
So I was starting to mention—
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I have a point of order. Mr. Obhrai has just intervened to tell us that the government's position hasn't changed. I think that bespeaks a certain confusion between the different orders of government. Of course here we're sitting as legislators. He's referring, of course, to the executive branch, which might have its own position, but normally it's legislators who are sitting here in parliamentary committee.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
I think that shows the extent to which we have a challenge.
We've just started the information and education process. We're just scratching the surface so far, we're on the first paragraph, but we've already won over Mr. Lukiwski and we'll go to work now on the rest of it.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Mulcair, of course, showing all due respect, it wasn't a point of order, and I think you probably knew it going in.
Mr. Christopherson, your turn.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
It does speak to the education that's required. Oh, oh, who's being muzzled in terms of educating Canadians about our electoral system? Ah, the Chief Electoral Officer. And how is that being done? Bill C-23. And how is that being dealt with? Rammed through the House, rammed through the committee. The tyranny of the majority, that's what's going on here.
We're going to keep repeating that over and over, as much as I can, as many different ways as I can find to allow it to be said, because this is a bad bill and it hurts Canadians. We believe it affects the rights of some Canadians to vote. That's why, as annoying as all this is—and trust me, nobody is more annoyed at hearing me than me—
3:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
—it's necessary.
I won't argue the point. You're probably right. There are probably people at home right now who, a long time ago, flipped the channel.
I was starting to talk about the credentials of Mr. Paterson, and how his background and his experience would be important to this committee, notwithstanding the government keeps wanting to jump in and say that we don't have to travel to go and see Mr. Paterson. Not once in any of my remarks did I say we needed to, because it's a separate bullet point.
This one is just about the witnesses we would hear. They might be by video conference, or they might be here. That's not the issue. That's not the travel part. We can do all of that. In fact, I still suspect that if were to do a public consultation, if the government suddenly were to go democratic on us and were willing to let Canadians have a say about their own election law, most of those hearings would be here. Even though some of them should be out across the country, the majority would likely still be here.
Would Mr. Paterson come here personally? Would we have him by video link? I don't know. That's not the point. We're not saying we have to travel to see him, per se. Now, it might be that wisdom would prevail. If we set up a series of meetings, most of which would be here in Ottawa, but some of which would be out in the rest of the country, it may very well be that we would meet Mr. Paterson in B.C. But it is not the motion, and it is not our argument. We think Mr. Paterson should be invited because of his expertise in the area of rights. He knows and understands many of the communities we're most concerned about in terms of losing their franchise, their precious right to vote in a Canadian election.
It's interesting. He also holds a law degree and a master's. And he worked at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
I can see why Mr. Lukiwski has run up the white flag on the first point. Clearly, we do have good arguments there.
I'll work my way across, hopefully, and pick up the others. Some might say, well, that's not going to happen. But I can tell you that there are many who said, “You'll never even get a piece of Lukiwski. It will never happen.” But we already did. We already got him. He loves the first point, that it invites all the witnesses. And he agrees. But I don't have a majority yet, Mr. Chair. So it's really important for me to continue to make these points and to help educate my colleagues and help them understand—just as Mr. Lukiwski understands the first bullet point—why this is a good motion that makes sense and should be adopted.
Quite frankly, the members opposite talk about the fact that my talking is what's preventing us from getting on with it, but it's actually the recalcitrance of the government. Otherwise, we would have negotiated a deal three weeks ago and would be well under way, studying the bill, with plans to go out into the country and into various communities, having negotiated that number and where they would be. We'd be well on our way if the government would just say, “We agree with your motion, and we'll vote for it.” That is, theoretically, Chair, just as likely an outcome as my eventually collapsing because I just can't keep going any more.
My speaking is not the only way we can start getting down to work. Quite frankly, if the government would be more flexible and offer just a little bit of democracy in the process, we could wrap this up.
I said it before, and it still deserves to be said, because it's timely. I believe that if there was will on both sides, we could negotiate a travel plan in 30 minutes. I really do.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I just want to point out that you pointed out your own repetition there. Carry on.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's nice of you to save me. I can have a little sip of coffee and I'll be okay then.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Yes, I did. You're right. So I'll move on.
What I'll move on to is, again, that I had mentioned making sure that there were anti-poverty groups. We mentioned some of the homelessness issues that exist across our country. Unfortunately I have much too high a concentration in Vancouver east side. We believe that we should hear about how this bill will affect the homeless. They don't tend to vote much, so I'm not sure they go into the government's calculation as much as one would hope.
I'll be honest, too. I'm not sure how many people.... That would bother Canadians and they'd be concerned, but I don't know if that's enough to move them. The point is that any one of these things may not be enough, but taken in their totality we think and hope that they will move a lot of Canadians to at least type out a little email and send it to the government and to their backbenchers to tell them how unhappy they are that the government is doing this.
We want to make sure that every Canadian's vote is a matter of concern for this committee, not just that of the Conservative caucus. That's about the only list I can give, because they're the only ones who had any input. That leaves everybody else out. So we want to have experts who can speak with some authority on how Bill C-23 may directly or even indirectly affect their ability and their right to vote, not so much by an exclusionary clause in the bill. That's not there. You couldn't do that.
But clever people—and no one ever accused the government of being stupid. They're a lot of things, but not stupid. You can't do it through directly and explicitly saying, “You can't vote.” That's unconstitutional. However, you could put in place a whole lot of rules that in and of themselves seem to be okay, even though there may be some questions. But when you add them all up in the whole process, you end up with identifiable groups, demographics within our society, who will lose their right to vote, through frustration, lack of clarity, or lack of information. That's why it matters who wrote this bill, because it wasn't the Chief Electoral Officer.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I have a point of order, Chair.
I haven't often cited a point of order on relevancy. I do now. We're not talking about the bill; we're talking about the motion. I hear nothing but continuous repetition on that, but this is the first time I really have issues on the relevancy, because if he wishes to debate the bill, we'll have ample opportunity once we start bringing witnesses into the committee, which is all we are trying to do. So let's stick to the motion if we may.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I agree with Mr. Lukiwski on that.
On the same point of order, Madam Latendresse.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Alexandrine Latendresse NDP Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would simply like to repeat something.
We all agree that the motion deals directly with how these public hearings to consult the people about the bill would be held. We need to refer to the bill to indicate why these public hearings are necessary and why we think they are very important.
Obviously, I believe that there is an extremely clear link. We can't just say that there is no link between the bill and why we think it is so important to have public hearings.
