Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 3rd, 2014

[Gladys Christiansen]

Definitely not, definitely not....

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Sorry, let me finish, because I think we have actually...although you may not see that yet. Let me explain what I'm saying here.

What has been indicated today is that, say, for example, we did talk about the fact that a driver's licence obviously is something that qualifies you for all...you know, it has the address, it has the name, it has the identification required. If one doesn't have that, we've indicated, on the reserve for a status Indian, that the status card, which you've indicated you were not sure how many have, but that is certainly one option available to prove identity.

There's a whole host of others and I could list off a few of the more common ones. There are 39, of course. You know, a health card, a birth certificate, a passport or other proof of citizenship, a credit or a debit card, any other kind of provincial ID card, those are just a few that I'll list and there are many others that could be used. If one has that and then has the attestation that can be provided by any authority from the council or the band office, that's what would be required to vote.

I know in earlier questioning, Ms. Christiansen, you indicated that you weren't aware of that. I suspect there are probably others who are not aware of that. That tells me that the provisions that we have in the fair elections act, which require Elections Canada to better inform people and better educate people about the ways that they can vote, would be very helpful and useful for individuals all across Canada. But we think we've identified that, particularly on the first nation reserve today, it would be helpful to you because you had indicated you weren't aware of that.

What I'm curious about is whether you feel that if you were better informed about that, more people would be able to get out and vote. If they were aware that with one piece of ID and an attestation, they could get out and vote with that, would that be something, requiring Elections Canada to better inform people, that would be helpful?

[Teresa Edwards]

I respectfully submit that the fact that people aren't aware of how difficult it is for many aboriginal people to obtain an ID and that it is said so simplistically, not a matter of education, not a matter of poverty.... It's not a matter of options, it's a difficult task—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

What they're not aware of is what the opportunities are. They're not aware of what their options are to be able to vote. To indicate to them what their options are.... Ms. Christiansen was very clear, she was not aware that this was a way she could vote. To be made aware of that would be obviously helpful—

[Teresa Edwards]

In her one instance she was not aware but—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let me try first. Let him allow an answer, you have 10 seconds left.

[Teresa Edwards]

I was just saying, it shows the amount of privilege that's in this room that people have no comprehension of how difficult it could be for aboriginal people to obtain identification.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

The point is that Elections Canada is not informing people of what their options are—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Your time is completed, Mr. Richards.

[Gladys Christiansen]

That's why I don't bother answering because I said it here already and whoever wanted to hear what I said, heard it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Ms. Christiansen.

We'll go to Mr. Christopherson for four minutes, questions and answers, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair, and thank you so much for your last comments and summation of what's happening.

Chair, if I might, I had indicated to you and I've indicated to Mr. Lukiwski my hope and desire to place my notice of motion today. I've indicated I don't have a lot—if anything—to say. My hope is that maybe we can just deal with it today, but if not, if we need the time, we'll find it I hope. But I served you notice of that and I hope we can deal with it today.

Therefore, I'll ask just one question so I don't risk going over. I want to come back to the comments from both of you. There's this sense that we're not understanding what you're up against and the challenges that you face and the frustration of seeing the federal government, where you already have relationship strains to say the least, now creating new barriers.

I want to focus on the VIC card. The government is very touchy about calling it the voter information card, because they don't want it to be the voter ID card.

But here's the thing, I'm the furthest thing from a statistician there is on this planet. However, common sense would say to me that if you're drawing from every database that you can to find the most up-to-date address available for a citizen, then that should be as accurate if not more accurate than the databases that you're reaching into, because it's those databases that generate all the other cards and pieces of ID that they say are acceptable, and you have the benefit of the amalgam of all those databases.

So there's a really good argument that goes in the opposite direction of what the government is doing. We ought to be looking at the idea of a voter identification card that uses the resources of databases to help people so that they can actually go in and as easily as possible vote.

Just again, is there any further testimony you can give to show the damage of denying the VIC card during the election process and conversely how much it would help if that card could be used as the piece of ID with address, even if you needed another piece to show name and photo?

[Teresa Edwards]

Exactly, I mean you've said it all right. If Elections Canada has not demonstrated that there is an actual problem or issue with the information contained on that, then why are we fixing something that's not broken, right?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Exactly.

[Teresa Edwards]

This will only further put up barriers for aboriginal people and it can't help but make someone wonder, is that the intent? Is this really democracy or is the intent to actually limit aboriginal voting in the next election? Ask that question.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes.

Ms. Christiansen, did you want to add anything, ma'am?

[Gladys Christiansen]

No, I don't have anything to add other than if they're so concerned about it, why can they not find a way to fix the treaty card so that it is an acceptable form of identification for the government?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Nothing I can say would add to the power of the impact that you've left. Thank you so very much for being here today.

Chair, I'm good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, so that finishes your round. It would be a normal four-minute round here but I understand the government is saying—

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

Well to facilitate David's motion and the response and get out of here, I think it's probably better that we all forego the last four minutes and just go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right, I thank our witnesses. Thank you for coming and sharing with us today. You did a great job and we were happy to have you here.

We're going to now argue among ourselves. Thank you. It's always the chair's most fun part of the evening. It's not quite evening yet. Why does it feel like evening?

Mr. Christopherson, your motion please....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

My motion is:

That, pursuant to the motion adopted by the House of Commons on Thursday, March 27, 2014 relating to the parliamentary functions being performed in offices of the Official Opposition, the Committee invite the Honourable Leader of the Opposition; and also invite the Right Honourable Prime Minister to appear before the Committee to address the many partisan activities undertaken by his government, specifically by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and by the Conservative Research Group (CRG),and that furthermore, the current study on C-23 be extended by the same number of days as those scheduled for the study on the referred motion.

I so move, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, you are first, and Mr. Lamoureux is second.

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

Yes, thanks. I just have a point of order respecting David's motion. I'll read it into the record, Chair, and hopefully you can deal with it either at your leisure or as quickly as you can.

I believe Mr. Christopherson's motion is out of order, Chair. The second half of the motion calling for this committee to study activities other than those of the official opposition is simply beyond the scope of this committee's mandate. We all know what happened, Mr. Chair, a week ago Thursday. We entered a UC motion or asked for a UC motion to have Mr. Mulcair appear before committee. That was denied. We then invoked Standing Order 56.1 and the NDP didn't have 25 members to stand to oppose it, so it was passed. That was their procedural bungle, but I think by trying to enter this motion, they bungled once again.

I'll illuminate what I mean. First, the motion itself says that it was made pursuant to the order of reference adopted by the House last Thursday. For the benefit of everyone, I'll read that motion into the record:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to consider the matter of accusations of the Official Opposition's improper use of House of Commons resources for partisan purposes; and That the Leader of the Opposition be ordered to appear as a witness at a televised meeting of the committee to be held no later than May 16, 2014.

Mr. Chair, that motion in itself is quite specific. There's nothing in there about the government, the Conservative Party, or even the Liberal Party, just the matter of how the official opposition, the New Democratic Party, is using parliamentary resources.

Mr. Chairman, not only is this motion out of order with respect to the order of reference adopted by the House last Thursday, but the elements related to the activities of the government, and specifically the Prime Minister's Office, are beyond the scope of any order of reference this committee possesses.

Page 993 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, says:

With a few exceptions, all studies conducted by committees are based on an order of reference or instruction from the House of Commons (and the Senate in the case of joint committees). The order of reference is the formal means by which the House mandates a committee to consider a matter or defines the scope of its proceedings. Committees receive orders of reference when they are established and may receive others from time to time.

While most standing committees possess a general and wide-reaching standing mandate under Standing Order 108(2), the procedure and House affairs committee is exempted from that provision. Standing Order 108(3)(a) contains most, but not all, of our own standing mandate.

Page 962 of O'Brien and Bosc captures the extent of our various mandates set out in the standing orders. Again I'll quote:

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deals with, among other matters, the election of Members; the administration of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members; the effectiveness, management and operations of all operations which are under the joint administration and control of the two Houses, except with regard to the Library of Parliament; the review of the Standing Orders, procedure and practice in the House and its committees; the consideration of business related to private bills; the review of the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees; the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons; and the review of the annual report of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with respect to his or her responsibilities under the Parliament of Canada Act. The Committee also acts as a striking committee, recommending the list of members of all standing and legislative committees, and the Members who represent the House on standing joint committees. It also establishes priority of use of committee rooms, and is involved in designating the items of Private Members’ Business as votable or non-votable.

Mr. Chair, what is clear from reading that is that our mandate relates to the House of Commons and its administration, functioning, business and members, including the process by which we were elected to the House of Commons, something we are seized of right now with part of our order of reference on the study of Bill C-23, the fair elections act.

Page 994 of O'Brien and Bosc is quite clear. I quote once more:

Committees are bound by their orders of reference or instructions and may not undertake studies or present recommendations to the House that exceed the limits established by the House.

How does this relate to the motion proposed by Mr. Christopherson? I believe that on page 1054 of O'Brien and Bosc they have an answer for us:Generally, the rules governing the admissibility of motions in the House of Commons apply in the same manner to parliamentary committees....Furthermore, motions moved in committee must not go beyond the committee’s mandate....

Our standing mandate, quite frankly and quite clearly, Mr. Chair, does not allow for us to explore the activities of the government, and the motion adopted in the House on Thursday last is expressly limited to the official opposition's use of House of Commons resources.

Now that we've clearly identified that the motion is at least in my estimation wounded, what is the appropriate course of action?

The answer to that can be found in pages 533 and 534 of O'Brien and Bosc. Although it describes the admissibility of amendments, it is I submit analogous here in informing how a motion beyond the scope of our mandate should be treated. Once more I quote:

An amendment is out of order procedurally, if: it is irrelevant to the main motion (i.e., it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope, or introduces a new proposition...); ...any part of the amendment is out of order;....

Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that I believe you have no choice but to rule Mr. Christopherson's motion entirely out of order. I'm sure they are kicking themselves for getting outfoxed procedurally a week ago, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the second procedural bungle they have made, because quite clearly this motion is outside the mandate and scope of our committee, and therefore out of order.

Thank you, Chair.