Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2014

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Oh, I listen to the chair. You're still the chair, but he's my leader.

The reason we would bring in someone like that is to not only speak about their experience with these kinds of laws, but most specifically about how they affect people who are in poverty, and because of her background, she'd be able to speak to how that may even affect women in poverty differently than men. I think that's a pretty important point of view to bring.

I'm sorry, it seems we have a new speaker. Somebody has a point of order over here, I think.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

No, I didn't say anything.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You don't want the point of order. Oh, okay, I saw you talking. I wanted to hear it, that's all. I couldn't hear you.

So that would be why we would invite that kind of a witness.

Now we've also mentioned in our motion that we should have representatives from.... Oh, I read that one. I wouldn't want to repeat myself so I'll turn that one over, Chair, because I read that one and I don't want to get into any more trouble here. Let's go with.... Here we go, I have a good one. See, if you remember, Chair, I just mentioned that one of the groups that we need to hear from is youth, someone representing youth advocates and students. I think there has been some discussion in the House during Q and A because it's already been punted out of the House and away from the eyes of the public there and sent down here. One of the things that we called for was those representatives. One of those people, for example, would be Joanne Champagne.

See, it even highlights where it says this is new. They're helping me help you, Chair, so we're all trying to live in Joe's world.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have new information. Carry on.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

An example of a representative of that group would be—I'm sorry, I said Joanne, and I apologize—Jonathan Champagne, who is the national director. Jonathan completed his undergraduate education in business administration at Wilfrid Laurier University. Throughout his academic career he was heavily involved in student government and student representation. There is a good chance that he probably ran for a local election, maybe on the student council, and probably has a good understanding of some of the basics of fairness—which is our issue—including one year as chair and chief governance officer. Clearly, here is somebody who understands youth issues and student issues but also understands administrative matters and governance. He sounds like a perfect kind of person to come to talk to us about how Bill C-23 will either help or hinder students in voting. How could that be a bad thing? That's why we put it in our motion. We said that this is the kind of witness we should hear from. In my view, this just adds more strength to the argument that my motion should be carried. I'm making the case that it's a good idea.

We also make reference to specific groups that have been active in society on election rules and groups representing persons with disabilities.

We mention Samara specifically. The executive director of Samara—this is new news, so I hope Mr. Reid is writing this down—Alison, previously worked at McKinsey & Company and co-founded Canada25, an organization that successfully involved thousands of Canadians under the age of 35 in the development of public policy. For her public service work with Canada25, Alison was chosen as one of “Canada's Top 25 under 30”.

Do you remember those days, Joe?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

They all look alike to me, David.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's by Maclean's magazine.

In 2005 she received the Public Policy Forum young leaders award. She's a graduate of Queen's University and the Harvard Kennedy School of government. She's also an associate fellow and instructor at the School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Toronto.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

As much as I hate to interrupt, you're doing a biography again.

The last time you were doing someone's biography I suggested to you that it would be great for us when we're in the steering committee format to talk about people we're inviting. I know that's what you're doing, but the answer here is that we're supposed to be talking about your motion. So let's talk to the motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[An hon. member]

On a point of order—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have Mr. Julian first, but do you want to supercede?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

No, it's fine. Never.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

I will pass it on to my leader.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I thought you might.

Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we're supposed to be looking at these things as a continuum. The speaker continues to go back to his original motion. He keeps explaining why it would be important to be able to hear from Canadians. This is the fundamental law of our democracy.

If we were to simply say that we should hear from this group and not tell you why, no one would get the argument. If he were to say we should hear from this group because the group does such and such, people might or might not think it valid. If he says to you, "We should hear from this group; they do this” and “Here are some of the people working for that group; they have actually worked on the issue. Did you know that fully 65%, two out of three young people aged 18 to 25 didn't bother to vote in the last election?".... That's what he's talking about here. That's in the biography he's reading to you.

This is a specific concern for anyone who is worried about democracy in our society. That's precisely why he's doing this. He's explaining to you why it would be relevant to go across Canada: because this is the type of person we could hear from.

Samara has been doing great work on this. There are specific people involved in Samara. Instead of saying, "I know this person who can do a great job", he's telling you chapter and verse why it would be a good job.

So I put it to you, and it's quite obvious, that this is directly related to the motion before us. He has said why we should be listening to different groups across Canada on the fundamental changes that would be wrought by this bill. We think this is entirely pertinent and we consider that he should be allowed to continue to present the people that he would like to hear from, not just give their names or the groups that they're with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I will make the decision—and I thank you for the information—on the relevance of the information.

In the long periods of time before you joined us today, we have covered a lot of ground. All I continue to do with Mr. Christopherson is share with him the thoughts on relevance and repetition, and I will do so.

Mr. Christopherson.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

On the point of order, Mr. Chair, just so that we understand each other, there is a provision in the rules governing this committee with regard to relevance. There's no problem with that. But as we've just demonstrated, this is directly relevant to the motion being discussed.

With regard to whether or not you find it too long, that's a personal evaluation, and I understand that you find it difficult to have the continuing failure of your government put before you—their failure to consult, their failure to work with other parties, their failure to listen to Canadians—but unfortunately, that part of it is not in the orders that govern the functioning of this committee.

Whether you like it or not, these are the rules that we're governed by. Relevance is proven. It is directly relevant. He hasn't spoken about this individual before; he explained to you that this was new.

I put it to you that, following the rules that govern our Parliament—and you're asked to apply them on behalf of all of us—he's allowed to continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to continue on the same point.

The reality is that there is nothing in procedure that allows the chair to say that a particular comment about a particular witness is something that is not permitted in the committee; that it needs to go to some other body within the committee structure. That's simply not part of the process.

As you know, Mr. Chair, I have been here 10 years. I've never seen a chair rule in that way either. It's obviously relevant to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll let you know when I'm ruling on it, Mr. Julian. I'm simply bringing up relevance and repetition because it is my role as the chair to keep the debate tight in that way.

Mr. Christopherson, let's go back to your debate on the motion, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.

As I mentioned, Samara and the other groups I've mentioned so far are part of my trying to make the case to my colleagues to pass this motion. It's a good motion.

The first point also makes reference to Democracy Watch. Many here will know Duff Conacher, the director.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

He has visited our committee.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, he has visited our committee. He is considered to be an expert on democracy and has strong opinions, like most activists in this field. In fact, he is an internationally recognized leader in the area of democratic reform and government accountability.

I won't read the whole thing, sir. I won't try your patience. But I'm hoping that I can at least reference it and we can have a meeting of the minds here, sir. I really am not trying to try your patience, nor further stress my own.

Duff Conacher is a former Ralph Nader “Raider”, and worked as a researcher, a community organizer, an educator, a legal intern, and a consultant. Democracy Watch obtains national Canadian media coverage on an average of ten times each month. Their website receives more than 1.4 million hits annually. It's considered by many to be the number one citizen group website in Canada whenever the Internet is searched using words like “democracy”, “government ethics”, “honesty in policy”—they're going to have to put their hands over their ears, they can't hear these words—“corporate responsibility”, and “bank accountability”.

That would be an example, Chair, of wanting to bring in a group of experts who could help inform our work.

I always have to go back to the way we did it before. When we were inviting witnesses then, it was because we were doing work. We would receive witnesses and then we would do the work. Sometimes we'd call them back. A lot of those folks practically needed an office here, because they were coming back and forth.

In this motion we've tried to capture at least the starting point of the individuals and organizations that would help us do a good job. Remember, the job would be a lot better if there had already been some consultation, but in the absence of that, we're going to have to fight, it would seem, fight and kick and scream, for every minute and every opportunity to bring in experts to speak to us. That's why we've listed them.

We also made mention of the BC Civil Liberties Association. I think Josh Paterson is the executive director, although it doesn't say that here; I'll just go on that assumption. Josh Paterson is the representative from that organization, the BC Civil Liberties Association, that I'm speaking about. His legal career has focused on protecting some of the most marginalized people in Canada from human rights violations, civil liberties restrictions, discrimination, and environmental injustice.

The reason we want Josh Paterson and others from the BC Civil Liberties Association is that we remain concerned that this bill will take away rights from Canadians, from whole groups of Canadians. It's a bad bill. We want to bring in the experts we believe will point out not only why this bill is wrong, I suspect you'll hear from an awful lot of them about the process.

I have raised the issue, as you've noted I have—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me, Mr. Christopherson.

Mr. Lukiwski.