Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2014

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

The member talks about bringing other details relevant to Bill C-15. I'll just point out that only one detail relative to Bill C-15 is actually relevant to this committee and that is the fact that the committee studying Bill C-15 travelled to different cities. Everything else about it actually is irrelevant and ought to be viewed as inadmissible in this committee because it is not on question of travel of this committee, which was the motion in debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Scott, on the same point of order.

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

Yes, I think what my colleague, Mr. Reid, has said is probably going a bit too far. What we're trying to do, what my colleague has been trying to do, is a combination of persuading folks about why this committee should go on cross-country hearings and speak to Canadians about that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That, Mr. Scott, has been said a number of times.

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

Yes, but the facts on how the Bill C-15 committee went about its job—the benefits from that, the kinds of folks who showed up and why it was beneficial, why they decided to do it in the first place—that is completely germane to why we should be doing it. The simple fact, if Mr. Reid's argument were taken at face value, is all of our arguments would be of four or five words. We have this sentence. That's all you need; that sentence. That's all you need.

I think you understand that the leeway we are asking for is actually completely fair. We need to understand—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We are into the fifth hour of leeway so—

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

—but I have to insist that the idea that the only relevant point is that that committee went cannot be accepted—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I suggested after Mr. Reid made that point I was giving some leeway. Then I got a lecture on giving more leeway—

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

—as long as we're on the same page. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's get to the motion, because that's where we are, and we are in a number of hours of it, and I am hearing a significant amount of repetition and what I might consider non-relevance. I'm keeping a bit of a scorecard. Obviously, when I decide I've heard—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It hurts when you say that, you know, and I mean to the teeth—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I know, but when I have heard enough, I will be able to prove my point.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

—said the little guy from Hamilton, and here you are now hurting all he's doing—and I'm trying the best I can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It is true, I have been doing the reading, and I see that my able clerk has brought out the section on relevance and repetition, and I did some reading on it myself, knowing we were getting there.

I'll let you know, but please try to keep it tight, or I'll certainly let you know.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I understand, Chair, but I would ask you to keep in mind that just because of the length of time that I have taken—and we all know what's going on and what the dynamics are.... I'm not trying to kid anybody here, but that doesn't deny me, at any time, my rights. Just because the government is tired of hearing about Bill C-15 or about the meeting that happened, in and of itself it should not deny me the right. It's just as if I had just got the floor. There is nothing in the rules that says my rights to speak are less when I'm five hours in than two minutes in. They don't.

I know that you know that, sir, and we'll probably continue to have this little dance all the way along, and that's fine. Somewhere between my doing what I need to do and the government doing what it needs to do, and your trying to be fair-minded, we'll get there, but I am asking for you to, even though it seems like a long time—it has been a long time—but the length of time, sir, in my view, should not change the perception of you giving that latitude just because personally you've been hearing it over and over or other members have—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's specifically it. If I've been hearing it over and over, that is specifically the argument, but carry on with your motion, not about what the chair is thinking.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, thank you.

One of the other reasons I mentioned Bill C-15 is because of the reaction of the....

Well, you check your little marks there, Chair, and that's fine.

But the fact remains that I said at the outset when I mentioned Bill C-15 that I had a number of different aspects of why it was relevant and I think I have done that and I am going to continue to try to do that.

Why do we want the meeting outside of Ottawa? Well, we also want to make sure that the local media have a chance to be present here and talk about how it relates to the particular community that the newspaper or radio station or TV station would cover. I have examples of that.

The Northern Journal wrote this about the meeting, and I think it's germane because this is the sort of thing we're looking for when we travel on Bill C-23. There is nothing in the rules that says I have to give a fascinating speech. It just says that I have to be relevant and I believe I am being relevant when I talk about the media coverage of that meeting and its importance to the work of the committee on Bill C-15 and its relevance to us because we would like to see that same kind of coverage and that same kind of local analysis of how this bill affects every Canadian, even those who live outside of Ottawa.

For instance—and I am quoting from the Northern Journal—about that meeting they wrote, “The GNWT and Aboriginal governments will have their final say on the Devolution Bill during next week's hearings”. It's nice that they're getting their say. Continuing the quote:

A packed agenda of divergent Northern interests promises a long day of hearings for the federal standing committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on the NWT Devolution Act, or Bill C-15, next week in Yellowknife.... Kicking off the meeting will be the Aboriginal parties to the devolution deal, including Tlicho and Sahtu and Gwich'in governments, some of which have expressed their unhappiness with the federal government's move to lump changes to the NWT's regulatory system with devolution. Apart from devolving powers over lands, water and resources to the territory, Bill C-15 also proposes amendments to the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, MVRMA, which include amalgamating the existing regional land and water boards established through land claims into one overarching superboard.

That's the kind of coverage they got beforehand. What's interesting is that the follow-up media was just as intensive. I'm going to have to come back to that because I don't have it right at my fingertips. I will come back to that point, Chair, because I know you want to hear the end of that story. I'll ask my staff for some assistance in getting the news articles from Yellowknife for me, please.

I will move along to continue talking about witnesses. We have outlined a number of witnesses in our motion because there are certain people we do need to hear from. As we saw with Bill C-15, these things are best handled in a democratic way when everybody who should be there, is. One of the witnesses we would like to call is National Chief Shawn Atleo, because we believe the bill could have a negative impact on aboriginal people. That speaks to my comments that I have made earlier about how voting is different in different parts of the country.

Certainly, the first nations—

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

I have a point of order. I just wonder if Mr. Christopherson could share with us the information he has indicating why Mr. Atleo would be unavailable by video conference, or by coming to Ottawa, which is, I believe, where his organization is headquartered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's not really a point of order; it's debate. We'll let Mr. Christopherson carry on.

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I appreciate the intervention because it gave my crack staff.... Actually it's Craig Scott's crack staff, a former staffer of mine. She went on to bigger and better things. What she was able to remind me is that the Assembly of First Nations have said publicly that they “agree that the committee should travel—that democracy exists and is exercised where people live, not in secure rooms on parliament hill.”So we're hearing from Canadians, leaders of Canadians, who are saying, “Come to our communities”.

Why should we listen to this voice? Chief Atleo was re-elected in July 2012 to a second consecutive three-year mandate as national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. I think if I'm going to read a quote and ask for it to have impact then it makes sense that I would give the credentials of the person, who also happens to be somebody we've asked to appear. And I would answer Mr. Reid, if I can. I didn't say that Chief Atleo would be heard only somewhere outside of Ottawa. Those are two different points, and they are two different points in my motion. One speaks to travel, and the other one speaks to witnesses. I don't know how I could possibly be more germane to the point than in talking about who those witnesses might be.

Remember, Chair, notwithstanding that this has gone on for quite a while, and will go on for quite a while yet, these are still relevant points if a member wants to make them, and I do.

Previously Chief Atleo served two terms as the regional chief of the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. In 2008 Chief Atleo's commitment to education was recognized in his appointment as chancellor of Vancouver Island University, becoming British Columbia's first indigenous chancellor.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, before I get it from anyone else, you're edging out of relevance again. I understand that your motion mentions that there will be witnesses, but giving biographical information on those witnesses may be beyond here. When we get to actually inviting those witnesses, or have a steering committee of this group deciding why we would have that witness, we might want to look at the biographical information. But I think for your motion it's a bit beyond.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Chair, on a point of order—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

There wasn't a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, on a new point of order—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So you'd like to have one. Okay.