Thank you for that.
Evidence of meeting #67 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was riding.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #67 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was riding.
A video is available from Parliament.
April 27th, 2023 / 1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Perhaps Mr. Coteau is the best to weigh in on this, but I'm happy to hear from anybody.
Just going back to the process that's fresh in your minds on how this process could be improved, for those who participated in the Zoom conference call that Elections Canada or the commission had at the beginning of this process, back in the summer, they basically said that the vast majority of the changes would take place after public consultation on the proposal. Once the final solution was recommended, they gave statistics on what the likelihood of changes would be based on previous exercises. The statistics of those changes happening at this point were very, very low, and of course they will say that this is all because of the public consultation happening between the proposal and the final.
The issue is that it's almost better that the commission make widespread changes in their proposal to a riding during the proposal time as opposed to at this point, because then you have the luxury of all that public consultation that a community can drive into the process. If those sweeping changes take place, as has happened to Mr. Coteau's riding, after and at the final stage, you don't have any of that public consultation take place.
I guess if anything comes to mind, Mr. Coteau or any others, if you were to change the process that allows this to happen, what would you recommend? Would you say something to the effect that only a certain percentage can happen at this stage in the game? What would help to inform this committee to make the proposal better?
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Okay. I try not to do this, but when you hear the beep-beep-beep, then you know I'm going to speak. You didn't even hear the beep-beep-beep.
I think that was a great conversation. I know there was a question, and I'll ask the members to think about and ponder how we can always improve legislation and the act. Please send that back to us. As Mrs. Blaney has also suggested, we should really look at what we would be recommending back to improve it. It has been a continuous theme.
With that, I want to thank you all for your time here at PROC today and for your submissions. If you have anything else that you would like to add, please send it to the clerk. The clerk will share it around. You are the first of four panels for Ontario, so you will have ample time before we're looking at a report, should you want to provide anything for us to consider.
I'm going to let our guests go, unless you need them here. That's excellent.
Have a great day.
Now, we have a point of order from Mr. Nater.
1:10 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
Can we contain the excitement for a couple more minutes?
Go ahead, Mr. Nater.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Very briefly, I have circulated this to most parties. I'm hoping there might be agreement with unanimous consent to make a small change to the Alberta report. Obviously, it's confidential, so I can't speak to it, but we have identified what appears to be an error in it.
I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to make that change to the draft report.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC
Procedurally, you can't move a motion for UC on a point of order.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
When you're seeking unanimous consent, you can do anything on unanimous consent.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Could we revisit this at the next meeting? In full disclosure, I'm not exactly aware of what Mr. Nater is talking about.
Could we revisit it, or perhaps at the next meeting go in camera for five minutes to deal with it?
1:10 p.m.
NDP
1:15 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I'm happy to grant unanimous consent, but it sounds like not all of us are.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Cooper Conservative St. Albert—Edmonton, AB
Without speaking to the specifics, it was simply an error. It's based on an objection. The drafters misinterpreted one thing. We missed it when we went page by page. I missed it. It's just to correct that.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I don't feel that there's unanimous consent, unless....
Go ahead, Mr. Gerretsen.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I've just been given what it is. I'm happy to concede to my colleagues on this, depending on what their position is on it.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
To tell you the truth, I would appreciate the opportunity to have five minutes at the front end of our next meeting, so that we can deal with this right then and there—in camera, please.
1:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger
I'm going to say there's no consent and we will deal with this at the next meeting.
In good news, we are going to do panel two on redistribution at the next meeting, followed by looking at a draft report of another province. In the evening, as I mentioned, we will have three hours for foreign election interference. We will be back in this room. It's room 225.
With that, I look forward to seeing you on Tuesday. See you next Tuesday.