Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 29th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Team, let's get at it this morning. We've got lots of work the rest of this week.

We start with a point of order from Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I hope this won't take long. It's simply a notice of motion. I won't be asking that we deal with it today, but I do want to give notice of it. I have copies in both English and en français. I'll read the motion:

That, pursuant to its Order of Reference of Thursday, March 27, 2014, regarding the matter of accusations of the Official Opposition’s improper use of House of Commons resources for partisan purposes, the Committee appoint Tuesday, May 13, 2014, for the appearance of the Leader of the Official Opposition;

That, prior to that meeting, the Committee request that the following documents be produced to the Clerk of the Committee no later than Friday, May 9, 2014, in order that they may be translated and provided to all members of the Committee,

(a) from the House of Commons Administration, its employment records for all staff who have worked at the New Democratic Party operation located at 4428 boulevard Saint-Laurent, Montréal (otherwise known as the “Montréal satellite office”), with personal information redacted;

(b) from the House of Commons Administration, all correspondence with the House Officers or Research Bureau of the Official Opposition, or any of their offices, regarding satellite offices, existing or planned, including, but not limited to, (i) the Montréal satellite office, (ii) a Saskatchewan satellite office, (iii) explanations of the rules regarding satellite offices, and (iv) explanations of the rules regarding staff who are neither employed in the Parliamentary Precinct or at constituency offices;

(c) from the House of Commons Administration, all correspondence, during the past 12 months, with Elections Canada or the House Officers or Research Bureau of the Official Opposition, or any of their offices, regarding mass mailouts; and

(d) from the Official Opposition or the New Democratic Party, as the case may be, the lease agreement for the Montréal satellite office; and

That the Committee request briefing materials, to be provided prior to this meeting, from the House of Commons Administration, including the Law Clerk, setting out an explanation of the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy to investigate the use of House resources, whether in the matter of mass mailouts or satellite offices, including potential recourse available in cases of misuse or non-compliance.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's a notice of motion.

[An hon. member]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On that one, yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I would submit to you that at the appropriate time the notice of motion should be deemed out of order by you based on the fact that it is moot. The Board of Internal Economy felt that the only way they could put the NDP under the gun—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me, Mr. Christopherson, I'm not dealing with debate today—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—is to change the rules—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me. Let's not start the day this way. When the chair says, "Excuse me, Mr. Christopherson," you stop, and I get to give a bit of a ruling.

This is a notice of motion. I'm going to accept the notice of motion. That means we don't discuss it until it comes back to the floor. If at that time you would like to debate whether it is in order or not, then that would certainly be your time to have that discussion, but right now, it's a notice of motion.

We will move on to the next topic of the day, which is another motion. We have a speakers list on the other motion, Madam Latendresse's motion, that we deferred yesterday. On the speaking list right at the moment is Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair. I was looking at my colleague opposite and I noticed it was Mr. Simms rather than Mr. Lamoureux. Mr. Lamoureux had the floor at the last—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's the daytime Mr. Lamoureux.

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

It's like looking in a mirror. I can't tell the two apart.

Very briefly, because I know we want to get on to clause-by-clause consideration, I told the official opposition and all members of this committee that I would have two reasons that we are opposing the motion as proposed by Madam Latendresse.

First, very obviously, we have been paying careful attention during all testimony. I do not see the need to have a report repeating what we had already heard. We had made careful notes as to the testimony provided, and therefore I think it's redundant, at the very least, to have a report to tell us the information we have heard over the course of the last couple of weeks.

Second, I would point out that, in my belief at least, this was a tactical and procedural manoeuvre by the New Democratic Party because if a report were presented and then tabled in the House it would allow the NDP to ask for concurrence, which they have done many times before. Concurrence in a report, as we all know, requires three hours of debate in the House which would take away from government orders, government legislation, and would allow the NDP to further their position on the fact that they are not in agreement with the fair elections act. I think this was a procedural tactic and is not necessary.

Based on those two reasons, we will be opposing the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Christopherson next on my speakers list.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I don't know how to proceed. I seek some guidance from you. I wish to place an amendment, but I also wish to speak to the main motion. If I place my amendment and we have the debate and vote, would I still have the floor, Chair, or do I need to move that amendment at the end of my remarks on the main motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll give you some latitude. If you're moving an amendment to this motion, you can speak to that amendment, but I'll leave you on the main speakers list, if you will. I'll probably combine the two and let you speak.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's great. Thank you, Chair.

I move that the date in the motion be amended from today's date of Tuesday, April 29, to next Tuesday, May 6.

I've taken the liberty of consulting with the analysts to see if that's reasonable. My understanding is that they can meet that date should this committee decide to approve the amended motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I don't know if I have to check with the mover of the motion, but I will.

Are you all right with that? Okay.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I don't want to delay on this point. Today would be practically impossible. I understand the dynamics we're up against, but to make the motion relevant, this amendment makes sense. Then we can debate something that's practical. The government actually could vote for this because it's a reasonable amendment to the motion, and then still kill the whole thing if they want, or not. We just think it tidies it up a bit, Chair.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Chair, if you wish, just to respond, we have no problems with the amendment. We understand looking at the original motion that the date was obviously impractical, given that today is the date the report was supposed to be submitted. We'll still be arguing against the motion as amended, but certainly we have no problem with the amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

(Amendment agreed to)

Okay, on the amended motion, Mr. Christopherson, you still have the floor. Let's remember what our purpose is today and try to get there sooner or later.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll simply make the point that notwithstanding the government's conspiracy theory.... They're always accusing us of being conspiratorial in everything, and they've done it again here today. Notwithstanding that, it's a very simple request. This is not unusual on committees. We are asking our analysts to provide the committee with a summary of the testimony. All it is is a tool to inform the public—because this will be looked at not only now, but they will be studying this for some time, I assure you, and it's not going to look good for the government in history—and also to inform colleagues who didn't have the benefit of being here for the hearings and who do not have the time as a rule to do that kind of background research on every single bill that comes before the House. It would inform them for their participation in debate at report stage and third reading.

Notwithstanding the government's concern that there's some big conspiratorial plot, all we want really is a tool. I'm not surprised the government is saying no, because they haven't wanted to be forthright, open, or helpful at all, and everybody knows that, but it's not stopping us from trying to make the government do the right thing. All this is is a regular kind of business where we have a complex issue, many complex presentations, and sometimes differing points of view, and it just provides a summary for the media, the public, and colleagues who aren't on this committee. There's nothing unreasonable about this, Chair.

If the government votes it down, which it looks like they're going to, then it's just one more example of how undemocratic and unhelpful they are in terms of anybody having participation or knowing what's going on. It's just one more example of the government's bloody-minded approach to changing our election laws whether anybody else likes it or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

I have no one else on my speakers list, so we will vote on the amended motion.

(Motion as amended negatived)

We will move on.

There's one other notice of motion. Are we not touching it today? Great.

Let's move on to clause-by-clause study. This is where the excitement begins.

First of all, we have a couple of guests here from the Privy Council Office: Natasha Kim and Marc Chénier.

Thank you very much for joining us today.

Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title is postponed and the chair calls clause 2.

(On clause 2)

The first amendment is IND-1.

Yes?

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Chair, is clause 1 the title?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's the short title.