Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I don't think that's appropriate, Mr. Scott, for where we are. Certainly, if we're at studying the bill, we can ask for people to do work on studying the bill. Asking the researchers in the middle of a long dissertation, which might otherwise be called a filibuster, to do research on it is probably not correct. So I will say no.

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

So we should stick with what we know, on our own steam.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I think you should stick to what you know or what your own crack research staff, I'm sure, could do for you.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Pardon?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

On the same point of order. We're just down the hall from the Library of Parliament and they could probably get that answer for any member who wanted to step away and ask that question, on fairly short notice. They might not get an exhaustive list, but they can get some examples for us, and for any individual who has the interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, Mr. Christopherson can run down the hall, apparently.

David, you're back.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I was mentioning the importance of witnesses in my motion as it relates to the bill in front of us, and comparing it to the witnesses to C-15, and to give an example of a relevancy that they saw for these witnesses to come, vis-à-vis Bill C-15.

Now, remember, this is in Yellowknife.

Have you been to Yellowknife, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes. You have mentioned Yellowknife a number of times.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Actually, I got to Yellowknife when I was at Queen's Park, before I came here. It's a very beautiful city and it would be a great place for this committee to go because we now know that if my motion was adopted, this could be one of the places we go to. I want the members of the government to know that it looks like a pretty secure place. I know they were very frightened of going out on the road and having Canadians say impolite things on their placards outside of a meeting. And remember, this is the government that considered the input of Canadians to be a gong show and a circus. I just wanted to mention this, specifically. That's why C-15 provides a great opportunity for me to show direct comparisons between what my motion is requesting this committee do, and exactly what another committee did in the same situation not more than two months ago.

I'm talking about the witnesses. Who did they have, relative to C-15, so that we can be sure the people I've listed in my motion are important and relative to our bill, C-23, in the same way these witnesses were? Right off the bat, as much as it makes no sense for us to be dealing with this without the input of the Chief Electoral Officer, the very first person that the committee.... By the way, the proper name, Chair, is the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and I apologize to that committee for not having it at the tip of my fingers.

The first witness for the government was the Hon. Bob McLeod, who is the premier of the Northwest Territories. He brought legal counsel, James Fulford, and Shaleen Woodward was the assistant deputy minister. There were representatives there: the Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew, former member, chairperson; Frank Andrew, the grand chief; and Daryn Leas was there as his legal counsel. You can see the kinds of people they invited, Chair, are directly related to Bill C-15, and that's why my motion—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So it's not related to your motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It is by comparison, though, Chair. It is about the comparison because my motion is to have us do what Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development did with their bill. I'm not reaching back to 1891, not even to the 1900s. I'm talking about just a couple months ago, so the relevancy is that my motion calls for witnesses and I believe that the witnesses are germane to the bill at hand, just as the witnesses were on Bill C-15. That's why I'm making sure that we understand this point and I'm trying to make it as clearly as I can.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Chair, I have a point of order.

My understanding of the rules is that a member is required to be both relevant and also to be actually making new points, as opposed to restating the same point over and over again. It seems to me when it comes to Bill C-15, a bill that has now been discussed through several different meetings over a period of a number of hours, the same point is being made, the point being that there is a precedent for a committee to travel out of Ottawa on a bill. This is not an unprecedented point. I accept that is a point that is germane to the argument, but it's one point and it's not many points. It's certainly not sufficient material to be repeated over and over again and still be in order. I suggest to you, Mr. Chair, that this means in effect that when a member returns to the subject he is effectively out of order and ought to be superseded so that we can move on with actual debate on actual points.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid. You are correct. As I've stated before, I'm trying to watch for both repetition and relevance so that we don't spend more time than we need to on the speech on Mr. Christopherson's motion. I'm trying to be as tolerant and free as I can with that, but you have brought up two good points again.

We'll go back to Mr. Christopherson and ask for him to stay relevant and quit repeating.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

So they spent the whole day talking about Bill C-15 in Yellowknife, which is exactly the kind of thing I'm asking in my motion. Yes, I feel the noose tightening and I hope people are watching and understanding the kind of abuse—my word—of the majority that we're seeing. It's on the big stuff and it's on the small stuff, up to and including they've now got a play in motion to end my speaking. My job is to continue to push this as far as I can.

I would just point out to you, Chair, that there is a fine line between what someone else considers to be going on and on versus someone else's ability to make a point that they think is important. I appreciate that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

And I will be the judge of that fine line.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, you will. Notwithstanding our little...earlier today, in the crunch I do believe that you will be honour-bound by the rules and will be fair-minded where it's your discretion. I'm trying not to abuse that flexibility, sir. But we are in a bit of a tight spot here and I know you've been giving me some latitude. I'm just saying that what others consider to be things that they don't want to hear.... We all understand what's going on.

I was at a committee, Chair, not that long ago, if I might, about process, where they passed a rule and the chair accepted it that you couldn't say anything that anyone else had said. Talk about getting pretty far away from the rights of democracy. That never should have been accepted, and yet it was.

But here we are, the government's doing everything they can to limit my speaking just as they've done to the rest of Canadians. We get that. I will continue to struggle to stay in between the lines of where I can talk.

Right now I'm talking about something that is an example, a perfect example, that happened less than two months ago, of exactly what we're asking for. I know the government doesn't want to hear the details about that because it shores up our argument. But the rules don't allow—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Several minutes have gone by and the member has spoken at considerable length about how—essentially an editorial—he feels that debate has been hastened along too much, which isn't really a new introduction of facts. Now he's about to return to Bill C-15, which is also not new. Could you encourage him to stick to actual new information as a way of being respectful of both the rules of the committee and also of the sensibilities of the rest of us who are actually hoping to have a substantive debate?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, the member is not incorrect. Please make it relevant.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I agree, Chair, however, I would assume that doesn't extend to the point that every time I say the words “Bill C-15” I'm out of order because it's already been mentioned. I accept that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

There will be a limit to that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I accept that there are limits to that, but I do have the right to bring in other details about Bill C-15 and not have it shut down because they don't want to hear any more about Bill C-15, and the fact that I say the letter and the two numbers, C-15, does not mean that I am making repetitive arguments. It means that I am referring to subject matter.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Are you referring to something on a point of order or are you back on debate?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If I could be given a chance, I'd be glad to go on, but please, use up my time. It helps.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead.