Evidence of meeting #119 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hear.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I just want to observe that there was never a fork shortage in the 41st Parliament. We had a stable Conservative majority government.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
It's belt tightening.
I'd like to thank Mr. Nater for his comments. I enjoyed his criticisms of meetings that he wasn't in attendance for and, again, it's ragging the puck, delaying it further and, again, here we are. We're an hour and a half into this with a promise that time would be set to start the next debate.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
It was two days ago. There was a promise that we would hear from the minister and there was an agreement. A request was made by the opposition to hear from the minister as we start clause-by-clause. We're hearing from the minister this afternoon and we still don't have a date to start that.
They delayed the debate on wanting to hear from the CEO and explaining how great it would be to hear from the CEO for the province of Ontario. We want to hear from CEO from the province of Ontario.
We've been accommodating, but it's time to move on. As the CEO for Elections Canada said, this is a good bill. It's not a perfect bill, but we need to see the amendments. We need to get it forward and we need to get this done. Again, I call upon the Conservatives to stop this filibuster, and let's get going on this. The Canadian people expect us to debate this and to go to clause-by-clause and get this done.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
So that people know who's on the speaking list, it's Ms. Sahota, Mr. Reid, Mr. Nater and Mr. Christopherson.
Ms. Sahota.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Thank you.
As I was saying yesterday, and going off what Chris is saying, our—I guess I shouldn't speak for everybody—my patience is starting to run a little thin. We keep hearing that yes, we're going to get to it, we're going to get to it, but we don't want to make any promises. I just don't understand what the holdup is about anymore.
We've pretty much created a large chunk of this legislation through the recommendations that were given to us by the Chief Electoral Officer. He had made, I believe, 130 recommendations and many of those, which are on ways to improve the functions of our democracy, are in this bill.
As my colleague Chris just pointed out, it may not be perfect, but the Chief Electoral Officer highly supports this bill. It's a non-partisan position. We had Elizabeth May in before committee. She's very supportive and wants to see this bill go forward. At the last committee meeting we had Nathan Cullen. We've heard from Mr. Christopherson before as well that he's kind of anxious and he's starting to wonder what's going on here as well and why we can't move forward with this. It seems awfully odd that we're not just plowing through. That may not be our style, but I feel as though we're being driven to a point where there's no reasonable explanations for delaying anymore.
We've heard from so many witnesses. We have accommodated with the chief electoral officer for Ontario. We're having the minister back on this issue. I find it hard to understand anymore why you require so much leeway, especially when I think Scott Reid likes to have it referred to as the so-called Fair Elections Act.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
When that was passed, there was no such leeway given, and there was a lot of opposition in Parliament to the so-called Fair Elections Act.
However, we've seen a very similar motion brought forward, with a start and end date, which seems to be problematic to the Conservatives for some odd reason. We're doing exactly what you would expect us to do, because this is how you used to function.
At this point, we haven't even been as.... We've given so much. We've given so much time. We've had every witness. I think you guys had a list of 200-some witnesses you wanted to bring forward, and we said go ahead. We said yes to every single witness. There were 50 witnesses who were available. Some had a lot of relevant testimony to share; some were maybe not so relevant.
It almost seems like we're going down this road where you want to hear from any person who has ever run in an election in their lifetime, because they may or may not, as Mr. Nater said, make one relevant point. That's just not how a committee can effectively function.
We can't function this way. We've been going in circles. This is the third time I think that we've been going in circles with this piece of legislation, and I am getting very dizzy. These are just delay tactics.
There may be other negotiations going on, as Mr. Nater keeps pointing out, but it will be interesting to see. All of the things that Mr. Nater keeps saying are of top interest to him may not even be what ends up coming out of the negotiation.
It leads me to further believe that these are all delay tactics and there's not a genuine desire to even hear from the chief electoral officer of Ontario, or a real genuine desire for any of the debate we're having right now. It's just a method of being able to get something else that may be of interest to the Conservatives.
That's fine. I mean, we are willing to play ball, but it seems like with that handshake agreement we made, there's no follow-through happening on the other side. It's about time that we get serious. We've been put here by our constituents to do work, not to filibuster and talk about irrelevancies.
I think we give a lot of leeway on this committee. What you may find relevant is not necessarily what I find relevant, but we've been giving that leeway so that you can hopefully get to that place where we can move forward in doing the good work that we've been elected to do.
There are a lot of amendments that you guys have brought forward. From what I've heard, I'm looking forward to seeing all of them. Some of them are quite good. I commend you for that. I commend everyone in all parties for bringing forward those amendments, but I think those amendments deserve some attention and time. We can only do that if you give us a start date, and so far we're having a problem even getting that, let alone an end date.
What is the holdup? Why do you find it so difficult to start the study, to start the examination of the legislation? Why is that so difficult? I can't understand that.
I know there are many tools that you also have in your tool box, and the delay that's being done up front could also be done later on down the road. That's not a choice that I guess you guys have made. It is just beyond me why we can't actually start.
You guys have a lot of good amendments. A lot of them are yours. Let's start talking about them. Maybe there are some changes that can be made, but you're not even allowing the good work that you've done to see the light of day and to have it discussed.
I know that Mr Christopherson is eager—the NDP is eager—for more people to have the ability to vote in this next election. A lot of people were disenfranchised by the so-called Fair Elections Act, and we want to allow those people to vote in this election. What's very concerning is that we've heard from the Chief Electoral Officer that the longer this takes, the harder that gets.
Maybe that's the Conservatives' motive. Maybe you don't want to see everyone able to vote. Maybe you don't want people in remote communities, which is astonishing because I know that a lot of your MPs come from rural and remote areas where access to polls is difficult.
There are a lot of good things in this bill that will enable many people to participate in the democratic process. A lot of the rhetoric I've been hearing now and even in June has been about the protection of our democracy: “This is why we're filibustering and this is why we're holding things up because we are the protectors of our democracy. We are not going to allow this legislation to be pushed through because that's how democracy will be protected.” Meanwhile, this very piece of legislation is what will allow us to protect our democracy. It's very ironic. It seems as if the Conservatives are speaking out of both sides of their mouths when we talk about protecting democracy.
We thought the Chief Electoral Officer endorsed this piece of legislation. Previously, in the so-called Fair Elections Act, Bill C-23, the Chief Electoral Officer said that he certainly cannot endorse a bill that disenfranchises electors, cannot.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
We've had him here so many times. I believe the Chief Electoral Officer just came before this committee for the fourth time since the bill has been presented. It's unbelievable to me that we're still sitting here talking in circles when you would have never given that leeway when you were in government.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Yes, we are too kind.
Maybe that kindness should come to an end. It's hard for me to say that but even Mr. Christopherson upholds and respects Parliament to the utmost, I believe, that Parliament should be supreme and Parliament should dictate what happens, even on getting invitations from that side.
Enough is enough now, and we need to call an end to this because do you know who suffers if we do not get this legislation passed? It's Canadians. That's who are going to lose out at the end of the day if we don't get going on this. Do you want to be responsible for allowing Canadians to not have access to the polls?
I guess they didn't care previously and so they don't care anymore.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
It's about time that you look deep down and within yourselves and start caring about that. We need to make sure that the disabled, those who have challenges in presenting the type of IDs that are required and many other things that are in this piece of legislation, get an opportunity to elect their representatives just as every other Canadian does.
I know that people have probably heard the phrase, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. I do think that it's really important to make sure that all Canadians feel that way and they feel that no matter their socio-economic background, no matter where they were born or where they came from, if they are Canadian that they would get equal representation, that they would have equal access to the democratic process.
That is what we are taking away from them or we're continuing to allow to be taken away from them if we don't make some changes as soon as possible.
This is my last-ditch effort to appeal to the sensibilities on the other side, to start the study on this piece of legislation so we can get it back to the House.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
They should be ready for a vote. We should vote on the amendments. We should vote on the main motion. Honestly, we're already at this point with the amendments; it seems a little ridiculous considering the chief electoral officer of Ontario will be appearing on Tuesday regardless.
I'd like to vote on the amendment. I'd like to even see John Nater call off the amendment because what's the point? We've all agreed already to see the chief electoral officer. Let's just get on with it. Let's vote.
What natural step would we have right after that anyway? It would be to get on with the legislation and start clause-by-clause.
12:40 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Chair, it's been a while since I've used a point of order. How do I access a Simms protocol? Do I ask Scott if I can talk? Is that how that works?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I'll be happy to cede my place to Mr. Christopherson and go on the list after him. That's not Simms protocol, that's—
