Evidence of meeting #120 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 point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
—get more debate.
I have a question for you. The last time we were in such a situation where there was unlimited time, it went for weeks if not months.
4 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Yes, but I was wasn't part of that. Ninety per cent of that's gone if I shut up.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
I don't think you should underestimate Mr. Nater and Mr. Reid and their expertise in that skill.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Quite frankly, they have that right anyway. Once they take the floor they can filibuster. The difference is that we would agree not to adjourn and to continue with the meeting until such time as we have concluded everybody's remarks, which would allow us to continue to begin the work.
Remember, for anybody paying attention, all of this is about whether or not we start working. Work is when we look at the bill clause by clause. The government has put forward a bill that it, the Chief Electoral Officer and the NDP support, and that the former government members don't—the official opposition. That's fine. I want to make sure they have a right to say what they want. They say that's all they want and they don't want to have their right to speak extinguished. That's fair enough.
I'm offering them that opportunity, and all I'm asking is whether they will give us the assurance that once they're finished their comments that this meeting will still be in order, at which time we can vote. Then we can actually start the work. This isn't the work. This is preparing for the work. The work is the clause-by-clause. Let's get to it. I'm just trying to find a way.
Here's my concern, Mr. Reid. I don't play a lot of games. I'm not smart enough. I put things on the table because that's the only way I can be. I'm passionate about this file. If you have legitimate concerns, I want to hear them, but I also want to get to the point where we vote. What it's looking like to me, with great respect, is that you're dragging your heels and doing your best to slow things down.
I understand that tactic. Sometimes I can master it, but let's call it what it is and not keep pretending that this is about the rights of the official opposition members, because the fly in that ointment is me. If anybody is going to stand up and scream about a majority government ramming through changes to the electoral process.... Let's see. Do we have any history we can call back on as to what I might do if a majority government attempted that kind of thing? I think we can.
We're onside with this, so if you're not filibustering just to delay, then please offer a path or road map that protects the rights you want but let's us do the work we want. All we ask for, nicely to start, is a vote. All we want is a vote on the motion so that this debate ends at some point.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Yes, you are now. It's you now. It was Mr. Christopherson on the list on the subamendment. Now you're—
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
You haven't officially ceded the floor yet.
4:05 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Do you want me to hold the floor so you can do a Simms? Okay, I select the floor.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I want you to hold it just for a point of clarification so I can figure this out. You're asking that we go forward with a round with the minister. By round I mean an hour. Following that, we need to have a vote on his amendment.
4:05 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
That's close. I was just saying we would all acknowledge that they're going to take whatever time they want to finish putting their remarks on the public record in front of the cameras, but the agreement here would be that this meeting doesn't adjourn. Do you remember the stunts the previous government pulled? They've used it before. There are ways you can keep a meeting going, and that is that the majority refuses to adjourn, so the meeting can keep going.
My point is that we would hear the one hour, move back to this motion, and stay in this meeting until such time as the speakers list is exhausted, which would be only Conservatives. I'm just seeking from them, do they agree that's fair? They'll be given all the time they want to speak after the minister, but we all agree that this meeting will not conclude formally until we've voted.
That may mean some of us having to stay around for a while. This is difficult on us and I'm asking a lot, but if there's a way to do this peacefully, that's best. I want to make sure we've exhausted every opportunity because Mr. Reid is one the most honourable members of this House, in my opinion. That doesn't mean he won't play political games, as I will when necessary and called upon, but in fairness and out of respect, if there are important things they want to say, let them say it, but when they're done let us have the vote we want.
I'm not even saying you're on side. I was putting it out there as a possible way that we could do that peacefully, because if we don't do this peacefully and if we can't get to clause-by-clause, I don't see how the government has any other choice except to go back to the House and get an order from the House, which we don't like to do. If necessary, given the importance of this bill in taking out the ugliness that's in there from the unfair elections act, I will stand in that chamber and support a motion that orders the House to start clause-by-clause. I don't want to do that any more than anybody else, so if my idea won't work—and that's fine, I don't say I have great ideas—somebody else put another idea on the floor.
There's one of two ways this gets done. We're all in agreement as to the process and then it unfolds that way, or we go to the House and they issue an order. But letting this not pass is not an option.
September 27th, 2018 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I wanted to let you get to your stopping point, but that's fine.
David, we had a commitment from them that we would have a date set on Tuesday, so why would their word be good today? Even if they agree to what you're suggesting, why should we take their word for it since they broke their word on Tuesday?
4:05 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Because we would then be into an extraordinary situation whereby the House could be sitting at eight or nine o'clock tonight, midnight. For them to suddenly change gears after that, I suppose they could but—
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
You're getting more and more surrounded by Conservatives. I'm not sure they're ready to change gears.
4:05 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
This time, unlike the last Parliament, we get to do a lot of this stuff publicly. There is a judge out there. We have a chance to explain what's going on. You may be right, but, boy, do they really want to go down that road?
4:05 p.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
I'm not so sure because this is all out in the open now. You can pull off that stuff a lot more easily when nobody is looking and nobody cares. It's moved now. This is now a big deal. I hear what you're saying. I think if we structure this the right way politically they shouldn't be able to do that even if structurally, legally, they could.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
