Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 4th, 2014

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

On a point of order, Chair. I would argue that if Mr. Christopherson were to discover that he had actually misread, and it was actually four cities, or five, or six, it wouldn't really constitute new information of any substantial form. I mean, just the numbers don't matter in the same way that it doesn't matter whether they met in small meeting rooms or big ones, what the colour of the walls were, whether it was Tuesday or Wednesday, and so on. This is not genuine new information.

In terms of guiding members like myself in trying to determine how we would like to vote on his motion, it's just a kind of space filler, a time filler.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Reid. I understand, and I've been as generous as I can be, and will continue to try to be as fair as I can be on both sides of this repetitious issue, repetition and relevance.

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

On a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure, I'll give you a chance as soon as I'm finished.

I keep hearing it. I have heard repetition, and I try to point it out to Mr. Christopherson when it happens. At some point, the chair will have to make a ruling on it, but at this point, I am going to suggest that I'll just keep warning Mr. Christopherson to try to stay, as he puts it, inside the borders and colour inside the lines.

Mr. Scott, can you add to that?

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

Yes, just very quickly. What I heard coming from my colleague, from Scott, was more of a concern about relevance and not so much repetition, because he gave examples of new information that wouldn't necessarily add much.

What I would say is that my colleague is doing a very good job of trying to show the kinds of efforts this other committee went to, why it was important in one context, and therefore why we should be considering something very similar now. I would say that the frame he was putting it in was extremely new.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay.

Mr. Christopherson, we've been inside that frame now.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, with more focus on it than I thought I'd be able to swing, so I appreciate the interventions all around.

For the record, I did not know they travelled to different cities. That's pretty pertinent, given the motion that I have in front of us.

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

I believe that's not challenging the sincerity of your—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, but given that one of our key things is travel, it's a relevant point to raise, I think, when you look at the motion in front of us, that they actually travelled. When they went to Ukraine to study democracy, they travelled. When we're doing Canada's democracy, we don't travel. That's the problem. But I will move on.

I would like to move to another example of how to do this back in Canada. In Quebec, the second largest province in our nation, they looked at—guess what?—a draft bill replacing their elections act. It sounds familiar. But what they did was a little different. It was interesting; they had the assistance of eight citizens randomly chosen after a public call, nine MLAs on the commission, and they began their work with the Chief Electoral Officer.

Imagine that; imagine the starting point being the Chief Electoral Officer. What a concept. But that's exactly what they did. Then they put out a call asking people for their opinions. During the general consultation, 374 briefs were transmitted, and 1,747 people took part in the online consultation.

By the way, in terms of timeframes, Chair, this would be November 1, 2005, so nine years ago. That's a pretty short period of time given the history of the country.

As well, 6,200 paper copies of the information booklet were sent out in French or English to citizens who requested it, and 379 groups and individuals appeared during the public hearings at the National Assembly and—wait for it—across Quebec. There we go again with all these crazy people taking the notion of letting people have a say about their election law to incredible extremes, such as actually taking the committee there.

I think the rest of this piece will get me in trouble, so I won't go there.

Speaking of reviewing and talking about the different component parts of Canada, I made some reference to New Zealand and talked about how they did things. This is kind of shocking as well. The Portfolio Committee on Justice, Legal Affairs, Constitutional and Parliamentary Affairs of Zimbabwe held public hearings beginning on September 12, 2011, in 12 cities. That's Zimbabwe.

By the way, what is it with the Zs today? New Zealand, Zimbabwe: we have Zs everywhere. I don't know whether that's the secret to it. But I mean, Zimbabwe...Canada. Zimbabwe holds public hearings to let their citizens in, and I look at all of the cities that are listed, but I figure I'll be pushing my luck if I read those, so I won't. But I will make reference to the—

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

Maybe if we were called “Zanada”, that would....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

“Zanada”, yes; Xanadu.

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

Did you say Xanadu?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I did.

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

You old movie buff, you.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's what I was doing instead of going to university, I guess.

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

That's right. Same here.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Really, Zimbabwe, come on. Even they get it that you have to let your people have a say in their election laws. But until the government decides otherwise, we will persevere.

Well that's interesting. I see that now. There's another reference here, Chair. On April 26, 2005—that might be the same one and I don't want to do that; that would get me in trouble. I won't do that.

I will return, however, to.... I was mixing it up and trying to keep it interesting here, because I don't want to lose anybody.

Returning now to why it matters that we go to other cities as I mentioned in the second bullet point of my motion. I read an article into the record that announced to the people of the north that they be given an opportunity to have their say on Bill C-15, so I won't say anything I've already said. However, part of why we want to do this and why it's in my motion is we want the public engagement portion. It's important. I want again to make some reference to the local media having an opportunity to talk about the importance of this national issue as it relates to where they live.

What I'd like to do now, consistent with what I've done so far and I have not read this, is actor the meeting. I talked about what happened with the media and what they said to the citizenry, advising them of what's going on, what was expected, saying, “Hey, come on out.” They had the event, but there's still another piece. When you're interacting with the public, often it's like dealing with the cosmos, you can only go as fast as the speed of light and you've got to leave. You go out there and then you just start going and it continues to go and go and go. The reference to I Love Lucy is still out there somewhere floating around. It's much the same thing when we do media and stuff, we go into a community, we do some stuff and then we leave; or even here in Ottawa when we leave and then the media continues, but what happens then is important. It's part of the process. It's part of the communicating and conveying of messaging to the population, so it's important.

So, how did that play out in the example I gave earlier? I can hear you asking that in your mind, Chair, and I'm ready to answer that question.

Northern News Services reported on February 3, 2014, just a couple of weeks ago, and I have a copy of it, saying why it's relevant, and this is why it ties to my motion:

Northerners had their chance to tell the federal government what they think of Bill C-15 on Jan. 27 and the consensus was strong opposition to eliminating regional land and water boards, and an unhappiness about the federal government's perceived failure to properly consult on the bill.

Sounds familiar.

What's interesting, when I read the one earlier, Chair, if you recall, the article mentioned the fact that one of the things they were doing was looking at eliminating the regional land and water boards. Ordinarily, you'd think when there's a good idea like that it would have a lot of support and you would read an article saying that hey, people loved it and it's a great idea. It turns out that's not the case. They didn't like it. Well, if they hadn't held the public hearings, how would you know what the public thinks?

We're in the same boat on Bill C-23. How do you know what the public thinks if you don't ask them? The article goes on to say:

"Nothing is more important than this," said Tlicho Grand Chief Eddie Erasmus, who signed on to devolution in March 2013.

He called the bill - which will alter two of the territory's founding documents: the NWT Act and the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act -- unconstitutional and said that he is prepared to stand up to the proposed legislation in whatever way he can.

Canada has returned to the old colonial ways of thinking they know what is best for us. They are silencing our voice. This is not the constitutional promise that was made in the Tlicho agreement.

Members of the federal Special Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development were in Yellowknife for a marathon meeting—

That we have, but that's it, that's all. They had a marathon meeting and we're having a marathon meeting, but that's it, and maybe the coffee, but that's it.

—where they heard from 33 witnesses over nine hours on Bill C-15.

I won't go into it too far, Chair, because I accept that I would be bumping up against relevancy. I appreciate your letting me read what I did, because I do believe that was relevant. Obviously, you felt the same way, but I won't push my luck with you, Chair. I will set that aside and move along.

I have some quotes here, Chair, but I want to stay consistent with your.... I'm asking you straight up. Do I have any latitude at all in terms of reading comments that are coming in either to committee members here or to my leader that are relevant to what I'm talking about?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have read a number of those. If you read too many, we start to get beyond their relevance, because we've heard a good sampling of what's there. I would suggest you've reached that limit, as I did the last time you read some of them.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

And the fact that my leader isn't going to persuade you at all? No.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

On repetition alone if the e-mails are going to continue to say what we've already heard, that is, Canadians want to be heard and want public hearings, I don't care how many different ways you say it, it's still the same message.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That was the point I made when I allowed a number the last time, and I think I'll stick with that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

This is tough enough as it is. You're making it really tough.

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

On the other hand, Mr. Chair, if you want to read e-mails saying we don't want public hearings, that would be new information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Do you want to play on the minor leagues or do you want to play—