Evidence of meeting #19 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 recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Since we're all honourable gentlemen and we've all heard what Mr. Christopherson's said, I'll offer Mr. Lukiwski a chance to respond.
Mr. Lukiwski.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thanks very much.
David, I appreciate it. I appreciate the fact that you and I and Kevin have, I think, come to some agreement on this. That's all I've really been looking for from day one.
I won't be very long, but on a couple of your points, yes, I would welcome and the government would welcome Monsieur Mayrand to appear on Thursday. We'll have to obviously have that confirmed by the clerk and the chair, but we certainly have no objection to that. I, like you, think it would only be appropriate. We've heard from the minister first, and Monsieur Mayrand, as the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada, should appropriately be the second witness we hear from.
The government's position is yes. I think what you're suggesting, an hour and a half of Monsieur Mayrand in front of this committee, would certainly be appropriate.
9:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, and if we decide to invite him back again, that will be a committee decision, but certainly an hour and a half on Thursday, assuming he's available, would be acceptable to the government. I think we need half an hour at the end of the meeting to discuss future committee business to talk about things like witnesses, scheduling of meetings, and the like.
Let me recommit to you and let me reconfirm what I've already said publicly. And I said this at the outset: the government's position has always been that all we want to do is get on with the hearings and hear from witnesses. We have no plans and we certainly have no master design to try to restrict the amount of witnesses coming forward. I've stated from the outset that any reasonable witness would be accepted by the government. In terms of how long that may take, it all depends, obviously, on how many witnesses end up on the final list.
My motion, however—and this is the only deal, and we have discussed this—needs to be passed tonight.
That motion—even though you, David, may not think it is worded appropriately—basically says “witnesses to be determined by [this] Committee at a later date”, which we will start doing on Thursday, I hope, and says that clause-by-clause be completed by May 1. That's contained in my motion, which we will have to vote on tonight, and if we have that passed, then you will see certainly no obstruction and no objection from the government.
With respect to Mr. Lamoureux, David, you've been quite impressive, frankly, in speaking for about seven and a half or eight hours. Having been in the position of filibustering on several occasions in the past, I know the difficulty that this entails. I know the stamina that you need to have to do a filibuster of that length. I also know, quite frankly, that this speaks to your eloquence and your intelligence. You have to be able to be focused, particularly on a motion. This is not a piece of legislation where you have an expansive range of topics that you can discuss.
The chair I think did a fairly good job of keeping you funnelled in, but that's not an easy task, so quite frankly, just from one colleague to another, I congratulate you. I think you did a excellent job on that. You represented your party very well.
Monsieur Lamoureux, however, has not had that opportunity, because you didn't cede the floor. My understanding is that Mr. Lamoureux, on behalf of the Liberal Party, would like to make some comments, either on the motion that Mr. Christopherson brought forward or—I would frankly suggest that we might even give him a little bit more latitude than that—in speaking towards my motion.
We have agreed upon about a 30-minute timeline, Kevin, for you to give some comments. We're agreeable to that, again, all with the proviso—and we'll have to do this procedurally, of course—that my motion is approved.
With that, how I see this unfolding, David, is this. I'll give you again my public commitment, if you cede the floor. I'm the next speaker and I will make the appropriate motion that debate be adjourned on your motion. Then it will come over to my motion. I don't propose to speak to that whatsoever. I think it's fairly self-explanatory. At that time, Mr. Lamoureux, I believe, is the next speaker on the list, and I would cede the floor to him to give him his 30 minutes.
If at the end of that time, Chair, if you can be the watcher of the clock—
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
—we'll go back to my motion, vote on that, and then dispense with the procedural duties we have before us. Hopefully by then we'll be able to begin our committee hearings on Thursday.
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
9:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much for accommodating the dialogue. It's nice to have some level of trust and to see it honoured.
There's just one little bit, if I might, Chair, on the time, because one can deny witnesses either directly or by just running out of time.
If you wouldn't mind just acknowledging that we're not necessarily bound by just Tuesdays and Thursdays in order to meet your timeframe, but also our desire for witnesses, the Liberals' desire and yours.... In order to accommodate and fulfill the pledge that I think you're making tonight—at least that's the way I'm interpreting it—then I'd just like some assurance that the government is not going to stand on Tuesday and Thursday and go make it fit, that there will be a recognition that if this committee wants to exercise its right to hold meetings every day or at night, whatever it takes....
I'm not saying that's what we have to do, but I just want to make sure that I'm not going to hear, “Sorry, we only meet Tuesdays and Thursdays, and for anything other than that, we're into another problem.” So if I could hear some indication, not necessarily that we'll be meeting every day, but that conversely there won't be a lock-in to Tuesday and Thursday for two hours each and that's it....
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
David, let me put it this way. If I could have guarantees that I won't have to listen to you for another eight hours straight, you'll have any commitment from us.
9:45 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Listen, all kidding aside—and I say this publicly to you at the outset—if we need to sit extended hours to accommodate the witness list, we will not be restricting it to merely Tuesdays and Thursdays from eleven to one. We will try to collectively work out, as a committee, times, meeting locations, dates, and everything to accommodate the entire witness list. We're not trying to put any kibosh on that, whatsoever.
I don't think I could be much clearer, David. That's my commitment. I've said it before and I'll say it again, and I certainly have no problem with saying it publicly.
9:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Kevin, you're good? I'm checking to see if you're good with where we are so far. Yes?
March 4th, 2014 / 9:45 p.m.
Liberal
9:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
No, that's fine. It's not like you haven't waited long enough for your turn.
9:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay.
Well, this time it's definitely more in sorrow than in anger that I suggest to the government, Chair, through you and to you, that based on the discussions we've had, if you can move us through the procedures to give effect to what we've talked about, then it's going to be up to us and you as parliamentarians to honour the commitments we're all making here, some of them short-term, some of them longer-term. Then I think we have a chance to at least pull some dignity out of this process, and perhaps at the very least the discussions we'll have with witnesses will be a little closer to having the kind of honour that citizens look for from us.
I remain optimistic, not because there's evidence to be so on this bill but because of the understanding we have that's very clear now. I would hope that it's beyond this government to even contemplate going against this, because, quite frankly, we are entering into a deal of honour. So it's with great reluctance but acceptance of the chessboard that I do relinquish the floor.
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Great.
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.
I'll try to get this right, and I'll get poked if I don't, I think. Mr. Christopherson has given the floor to Mr. Lukiwski on Mr. Christopherson's motion.
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, Chair, and I'll keep this very simple and quick.
I move that the debate on this motion be adjourned.
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
The next order of business was Mr. Lukiwski's motion. It's been distributed and you all have it. Mr. Lukiwski has said he does not want to speak to it, and we'll give the floor to—
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I need to move the motion, Mr. Chair.
If you wish, colleagues, I can read it into the record. If you don't—
9:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
That's fine.
Let me just say again before I cede the floor to Kevin, that all we as a government have ever wanted is to conduct hearings to examine the bill in its totality by hearing witnesses. We have gotten to the point now that satisfies our desire. We want a thorough examination of the bill. The minister has stated, on at least one occasion that I'm aware of, that he'd even consider amendments that he thought could improve the bill. So there's no trying to hijack the situation. We're not trying to rush this bill through Parliament. We want an extensive examination in committee where it should be, and I'm very pleased to have this agreement before us today.
So, with that, Chair, I think I'll cede my time to Mr. Lamoureux and I believe, as we discussed earlier and agreed, that Mr. Lamoureux will have 30 minutes, at which time I expect we will be back to my motion for the final vote.
