David Christopherson

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the minister was in the House and listened to my remarks and made some comments. I thank him for that.

I want to pick up on his comment about the fact that people can make submissions. He threw it out there. What does the hon. minister mean when he says “submissions”? Does that mean people can only send in written submissions? Is it going to be a paper exercise? I did not hear the member stand in his place and say that he would commit his government to public hearings so that Canadians, the people who own this law, could have their say on this law. That is what was missing in his answer. That is what we want to hear.

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I was expecting the cautionary note. Quite frankly, I was getting as close as I could to the line in terms of language I could use to refute the language of hypocrisy that, unfortunately, is allowed in this place. That is a word that should not be allowed in this place, but the hon. member used it, and I wanted to refute it without crossing the line. I appreciate that you told me I did not cross it, Mr. Speaker, although, of course, I would have apologized immediately if you had called on me to do that. I wanted to clear the air on that.

If the Conservatives continue that argument, we will continue to give the government a civics lesson on how this place actually works. The hon. member should be concerned about his reputation, because there are enough Canadians who know the truth to know that this is just games. This bill, this issue, our election laws, deserve better than just games.

What we are talking about here is a 244-page bill. In the past, the government of the day, when it wanted to make changes to the elections laws, first consulted with the Chief Electoral Officer, which this government did not do. One “Hi, how are you? Nice to meet you” meeting does not constitute consultation on bringing in a 244-page bill that completely revamps the way we hold elections in this country. That is not consultation.

In the past, the government would not only consult with the Chief Electoral Officer—this is pretty shocking in a Conservative House of Commons—but would actually talk to the other parties. Why did they talk to the other parties?

We have the Olympics going on right now. One of the first things they do before hitting the ice or the snow is decide what the rules are going to be. Then they make sure that everyone affected by those rules gets an opportunity to have a say. In the absence of that, one does not have an electoral system that is supported by all the participants in the system. This is not rocket science.

I have to say something, just in passing, about the minister who introduced the bill. I know the minister well. I have worked with him for years and years. He is very smart. He is a good guy. I like the minister. However, let us be honest. He is probably the most partisan attack dog the Conservatives have ever had over there. That is saying a lot, given the role the foreign affairs minister played before. That is quite an accomplishment. They took the most super-hyperpartisan person in their entire caucus and gave him what is supposedly the most statesperson-like role in the House, which is to bring these kinds of rule changes into our elections act. Right off the bat, that was the person who was asked to carry the bill in the name of the government. The government did not even talk to the Chief Electoral Officer. Give me a break. There is no partisanship in this at all? Let us find out.

The government members have been saying that the reason they support shutting down debate in this place, and a number of them have said it, even today, is that they are going to send it to committee, because that is where House of Commons work gets done. That does not justify it totally, in our view. However, if that is the position of the government members, then something certainly needs to happen at committee that would give people some confidence that they really meant it when they were standing here.

The official opposition brought forward a very reasonable motion, with no games, no politics. The cards are all on the table. In fact, our motion on how the committee should deal with this actually states the day we would begin clause-by-clause. It would be May 1 of this year. It is not our intention to delay or obstruct in any way the ability to pass this law and have these new rules in effect for the next election. That is not our objective. What we are asking for is to use the months of March and April to travel the country to give people an opportunity to have their say.

My friend, the member for Western Arctic, stood and said on the vouching issue that it would impact his members. The minister stood and said that this is not true. I live in Hamilton. How do I know? It makes a whole lot of sense that we would go there and give people an opportunity. It is a huge country. It is almost a continent in and of itself. We have such different environments for voting procedures because of where people live, the weather, and distances. We have all the urban issues they have in any G7 country that holds elections.

For all of those reasons, what I would like to hear from the government is that it is prepared to give us countrywide public hearings. Allow people to come and make their cases and to send submissions to the committee.

We would spend two months to give Canadians and experts an opportunity to have their say. We would start here in Ottawa with experts and the minister giving us a briefing on all the details. Then we would go out across the country to find out what the issues were. We would then come back and have another few days in Ottawa to bring back some of those people to put to them what we had heard and found.

We commit that no later than May 1, if this motion passes at committee, we would begin clause-by-clause, knowing that the government majority is going to carry the day. That is fine. It has a majority, and it will win the vote. It will win every vote on every amendment. However, we need this time. If the government is truly honest about wanting to give Canadians their say on this 244-page document that changes the fundamental foundation of our democracy, our election laws, then at the very least, Canadians should be given an opportunity to have a say. This law belongs to them, not to the Conservative government.

[Fair Elections Act, February 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. Might I begin, first, by commenting on the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, whom I work with very closely on PROC. It had a previous review of these actual laws, not a lot of which seems to have found its way into the Conservatives' bill, I might add.

I want to raise the notion of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons saying that the official opposition is being hypocritical. I find it most disturbing that this is an hon. member, in terms of the way he conducts himself at committee, who seems to care about his reputation. He cares about what people think of him, yet he is prepared to stand in the House and actually mislead the House and Canadians when he makes the specious argument that we were trying to cut debate.

It is quite the contrary. My friend from the Liberal caucus was on his feet recently making the same point, and it is true. If we exercise the right, under the rules, to send a bill, on first reading, directly to committee, it is an opportunity for members to work together on the bill at committee before we get to second reading debate and vote. That is for the simple reason that by the time we get to a second reading vote, for the most part the caucuses are determining where they are going on these issues. They have to make a fundamental decision about whether they will vote for or against. It is that stark.

During my time at Queen's Park, we brought in a rule that allowed a reference from first reading for the very reason that it is a good way to go when the whole House wants to work together in a sincere effort to work on a bill. By referring it right after first reading, we send it to the place where we actually sit down, roll up our sleeves, and get some work done.

We were trying to send it with that frame of mind, before we got to where we are now, which is with everybody in their respective corners.

I will comment on that process versus what has happened in the past in this House and in this country. However, I want to be absolutely crystal clear that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is misleading this House and Canadians when he says that we tried to end debate.

[Democratic Reform, February 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, from in and out to robocalls, Canadians do not trust the Conservative government, and for good reason.

For example, on March 12, 2012, every member of the House, including the Conservative government, voted unanimously in favour of the NDP motion to give Elections Canada the power to compel witnesses and the power to demand financial documents. The new bill would not provide these powers.

Why did the government break its promise to Canadians?

[National Defence, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the defence minister today has taken great pains to refer to the report in question and say that it does not show that Canadians have been electronically tracked. My question is: Will the minister, then, therefore, stand up and categorically state that under no conditions have innocent, law-abiding Canadians been electronically tracked by CSEC, yes or no?

[National Defence, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let me quote Ontario's Privacy Commissioner to the minister:

It is really unbelievable that CSEC would engage in that kind of surveillance of Canadians. Of us.

Will the minister acknowledge that tracking the locations of Canadians by CSEC is against the law? Will he at least acknowledge it is wrong?

[National Defence, January 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, section 273 of the National Defence Act states that the activities of the Communications Security Establishment shall “...not be directed at Canadians or any person in Canada”.

Could the minister tell this House how tracking the activities of average, law-abiding Canadians could ever be considered lawful?

[Situation in Ukraine, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I apologize. I will not even try to fake it. I thought it was a new debate, so I did not hear the question.

I will not waste your time and do any kind of dance. I apologize to my friend. I was packing up. I thought I was concluded, because I talk so much.

[Situation in Ukraine, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I will respond this way. I will go back to 2004, which was a tremendous turning point for me personally. We were there through our regular Christmas season, and we left a day or two before the Orthodox Christmas. I know how religious Ukrainian people are and how much their faith means to them.

As my friend was speaking, it occurred to me to wonder just how far those soldiers and police officers will go as they enter this season of Christmas and reflect on humanity, love, hope, and optimism. When those bullets start flying, those who are holding the weapons do not know where the bullets are necessarily going to end up.

I have also done observation missions in a number of other emerging democracies in the Soviet bloc, including Georgia, Moldova, and Serbia. I know that there is a certain critical mass when those who have been ordered to commit the violence suddenly see their family members, their neighbours, and their co-workers in the crowd. That is the moment when we see the flower going in the barrel of a gun, and they just stop and say wait, this is not going to happen.

There is already violence. I can only hope that before it gets to that level of violence, the season and the Mandela spirit will take hold, maybe not among those making the decisions but perhaps among those who are holding the weapons and who hold the key to peace or force. Maybe they themselves will say, “This is wrong. It is wrong for my people and it is wrong for my country”. Let us hope.

[Situation in Ukraine, December 10th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for the question and his comments. I do know that monument very well.

We have a very strong Canada-Ukrainian friendship group and a great tie with Paul Grod, whose name has been mentioned here, who has been in touch and may even be watching as we speak. The Ukrainian Canadian Congress has put out a nine-step program it has asked us to consider. Certainly we in the official opposition are very comfortable with it and think that all nine would be positive steps forward.

In addition to our voices, we are sending over another planeload of observers for some by-elections to continue our ties and to ensure that the leadership of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress knows that it has the support of this Parliament. Mostly I think the best thing we can do is to continue to raise our voices and lend our voices to this.

As much as I spend most of my time going after the government, on this file I think the government has been responsive to the needs. I would hope that it would look carefully at the nine-step program that has been suggested by the congress. I am sure it will. A positive step in the right direction would be to say to our own congress here in Canada that the nine steps it has suggested to the Canadian Parliament are ones we support, endorse, and will be moving on.

They are sweeping. Some are short-term and some are longer-term. My point is that short, medium or long term, we lend our voices. We lend whatever credibility we can from this place. In the longer term, let us roll up our sleeves and start acting on these nine recommendations that, if implemented, will make a difference. That is why we are here tonight: short-term commitment; medium-term goals; long-term vision. I think that reflects where we all are tonight.