Evidence of meeting #1 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Danielle Widmer

1:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

1:40 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

There are two issues I'd like to raise. Ms. May will cover one with regard to the allocation of time and how we find a balance between witnesses and the amount of time MPs get to ask questions.

I have a motion that is not just about the timing, Chair. It is an innovation that the committee might consider today.

We've been talking a great deal about how to make what we do here as open and accessible as possible to the public. One of the ideas brought forward by someone online was to allow some access to the public for that same engagement that we have as MPs and to do that with technology. It's possible. I have some language for this, Chair. I'll read it out first, and then perhaps we can distribute it for the committee's consideration:

That the committee allot the equivalent of one MP speaking spot per meeting to hear questions directly from Canadians at each meeting with witnesses; that the committee receive questions from Canadians via the committee's email address and the Twitter hashtag #yourvotecda; and that questions be reviewed and selected by the clerk of the committee and posed to the witnesses by the chair.

Just to explain what I'm proposing, prior to a meeting we have witnesses testify for a certain amount of time. Canadians who are tuning in to this conversation about how we are adapting and evolving our democracy will be able to email directly through the clerk's office. We have the technology, obviously, to be able to see what Canadians are asking. We would take one of the slots normally allocated for a member of Parliament to ask questions. The clerk, we trust, is a non-partisan actor in this place who is able to vet and offer up three or perhaps four questions, which you, Chair, would then read to the witnesses to allow Canadians direct access to those experts and to be able to engage people in a much more forthright way than simply doing that always through their member of Parliament or the members who happen to be sitting at this committee.

I have the exact text of this motion if you'd like me to distribute it, or however you'd like to proceed.

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Is it in both official languages?

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

It is in both official languages.

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Okay, then we'll distribute it.

Next is Ms. May, then Mr. DeCourcey.

1:45 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

I want to speak in favour of this motion. My motion is very similar. I like Nathan's suggestion that it be by Twitter hashtag. My motion suggests a couple of differences from the main one.

Unfortunately, I have only the English text right now.

My language was followed by five minutes of allocated questions from the public, whether participating online or as otherwise decided by the committee.

The challenge for this committee, in our efforts to engage Canadians, is the more we do things a bit differently, the greater the likelihood that the committee's proceedings will be followed not just by people who want to input their suggestions but by people who are curious about the process and want to learn with us as we MPs learn about the various options.

This approach would allow Canadians to watch online. It hasn't come up in official business of the committee, but I've certainly been approached by CPAC. They want to broadcast this committee online live, as they do all parliamentary proceedings. This is the first-ever opportunity since 1867 for members of the public who are actually so engaged that they want to watch this process televised to be able to say, “Gee, I wish they'd asked this question, because I didn't understand that bit.”

If they could send their questions to us right away and the clerks could process them and hand them to Mr. Chair to ask the questions, it would enhance our work enormously and increase the likelihood that the committee would reach not just the people who are in the room with us but tens of thousands more Canadians.

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Ms. May.

Go ahead, Mr. DeCourcey.

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

I want to thank Mr. Cullen and Ms. May for the sentiment of ensuring that this is open and available and accessible to Canadians.

My understanding is the committee will undertake a comprehensive consultation tour of the country, and all 338 members are encouraged to conduct consultations in their ridings.

I would open it up for questioning around the concern that perhaps the same person would be sending in questions time and time again. I would also propose that maybe this suggestion could be dealt with at the subcommittee, which can look at individual meetings and say whether there is an opportunity through technology and different communication tools to undertake such an avenue. Otherwise, I'd like to think that we need to get to work talking to academics, learning about the deep details of this issue, and making sure that we are ready to open it up to Canadians when the time comes to tour the country.

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I appreciate Matt's comment. We've worked out some of the timing with regard to how the committee would do the questioning so that it wouldn't take any time away from the MPs. For anyone concerned about losing a slot—I know that's sometimes a concern on the government bench—as a result of our proposal, in terms of timing, that wouldn't happen. We would have rounds, whether in a two-hour one-panel meeting or in a three-hour meeting with two panels, since sometimes committees take that form. We've done the math and made sure that everybody at the committee would also be heard.

I take Matt's point that there are consultations being undertaken by MPs in various stages. I suppose what's unique about this is the access to the quality of witnesses we're going to have, the privilege we have as members of Parliament to draw not just from across Canada but also from around the world.

One of the things we've struggled with on this particular issue is being able to broaden it and to have a greater number of Canadians understand the importance of what we're doing here, Mr. Chair. With the advent of social media technologies, as uncomfortable as being engaged this way around testimony might make some of our clerks, I don't actually have a concern about, as Matt raised, one person asking again and again. I don't think that would be hard to eliminate, simply because we would vary who gets to pose the questions that day, and the clerk would be in charge of that.

I just imagine us going around, each asking our questions. The witnesses will answer our questions, but Canadians have insights on this question that are completely different from those that we as members of Parliament have. They are asking from a completely different perspective, and the questions we would get from the public in that way would open up new veins of information and testimony that we have not considered before. It's innovative, I understand, and it might be a bit unusual.... It is unusual: we've never done something like this, but we've never had a committee like this. In the 149 years of our Parliament, we've never had a committee that looks like this, discussing the foundation of our Parliament.

I hear the suggestion about taking it to the subcommittee. I'd like us to really embrace this today as an opportunity, and to try it out. Let's put it this way: the first round here is with expert witnesses, Mr. Chair. That's what the committee has considered. Let's try it out. Let's give it a few meetings and see if there's uptake from the public. If the public is engaged and we're seeing a lot of action on Twitter and a lot of emails coming in, then we'll know it's working. I have no doubt in my mind that the quality and the breadth of the questions will be excellent, and I also think they'll be innovative. I think the public will be asking things that we didn't even consider.

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Next are Mr. Kenney, Ms. May, and Monsieur Deltell.

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB

Mr. Chair, my primary concern about this motion is that it proposes a fundamental change in the role and nature of a parliamentary committee, thereby creating a precedent before we've even considered or studied the implications of such a precedent.

I can think of a long list of shortcomings in this proposal. There is no effective way of screening a barrage of repetitive questions from a small number of individuals using different accounts, for example, and, moreover, this is a parliamentary committee. We are elected by our constituents to do our job as legislators, to deliberate with all of the resources at our disposal, both parliamentary researchers and the Library of Parliament, and our own party research resources, and to bring to bear our own professional life experience to these issues. We are not here to be conduits for Twitter or other platforms of social media, which are all very interesting and in which there's a robust and sometimes vulgar public debate.

If Mr. Cullen feels strongly about this proposal, then I would suggest he could very simply put questions that are emailed to him or his office or proposed to him on social media platforms. There's nothing preventing members from doing that. That, in fact, would not be unprecedented. I recall that the former leader of the third party in the 1993 Parliament, Mr. Manning, frequently posed questions in question period that had been submitted to his office by members of the general public via something prehistoric called the fax machine. Members of the public were encouraged to submit questions for question period by fax machine, and Mr. Manning and members of his party periodically chose to read those questions in question period as opposed to asking their own.

There is nothing barring any member of the committee from doing that, but I think to set aside time from members, who are elected to do this job as deliberative legislators, would be a fairly radical change in the character of a parliamentary committee. I'm not opposed to innovation or to considering it, but it seems to me the right place to do so would be at the procedure and House affairs committee or at some other body that has the luxury of considering procedural questions closely, rather than imposing such an innovation on this committee, which should be doing its job deliberatively.

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

I have Ms. May, Mr. Deltell, Ms. Sahota, and Mr. Cullen again.

1:55 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't want to repeat the points I already made.

It's interesting that it's not the first time we've had a committee like this. I shared this with Mr. Reid. I found, or a very clever member of my staff found, the 1937 proceedings of the special committee on electoral reform. It examined proportional representation, whether we should change our voting system, and whether we should include members who were in parties of fewer than 12 MPs.

One thing they didn't have in 1937 was access to immediate questions from people across the country who could be watching the witnesses and sending in their questions. I take Jason's point entirely, but I don't think this is radical. It's still a parliamentary committee. It's still those of us around the table who hear the questions posed and hear the witnesses answer and are able to take that into consideration as we form our report, so I don't think it's in any way a radical deviation from parliamentary procedure.

I want to mention one demographic that would pay a lot of attention, and that's Canada's youth. If we create a way to get young people interested in something that a lot of people over this summer are going to think is pretty dry stuff, a special committee on electoral reform, imagine if they actually start tuning in and sending us questions. I think it's an innovation that will help the legitimacy of this process.

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Mr. Deltell, go ahead.

1:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Chair, Mr. Cullen said earlier that, technically, this is the first time a parliamentary committee will be looking at this issue, and he was right about that. However, this is not the first time a parliamentary committee will be establishing different rules or a different membership system.

Mr. Aldag will remember that we had the privilege of serving on the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying, which was made up of members of both the House of Commons and Senate. The committee had two chairs, and the proceedings were non-partisan. There are thus new ways of doing things.

When a particularly sensitive issue was being discussed in the committee, I had my iPhone in front of me and I received comments directly, a bit like Mr. Kenney mentioned earlier. While I won't spill any secrets, former colleagues from the National Assembly were sharing their observations, even questions, with me. It helped a great deal with accomplishing the work, which led to the main report and dissenting report.

In its current form, the motion refers to allotting one MP speaking spot. Which member are we talking about? A government party member can have up to seven minutes, according to the first motion put forward. Let's take things further. Are we talking about three minutes, based on the time given to the NDP? Or are we instead talking about a period of up to 24 minutes for the government party member? The issue must be clarified.

Mr. Kenney raised very relevant issues about identifying people on Twitter and Facebook. We have all been victims of people who are not exactly friends and who send us nonsense on Twitter. Will we check who we're dealing with and whether they're real people, or whether it's a group trying to steer the debate in some way? Do we want to give them the chance to speak?

Clearly, Mr. Cullen has a worthy goal. He wants to give the floor to the people watching CPAC at home who have the good idea of asking a question. However, in practice, that could present major challenges.

The same is true for the final choice. We have complete confidence in the work of the analysts and clerks, and we have great respect for what they do. While my experience here is limited, I have been very impressed with the quality and professionalism of those people, particularly the ones who provide all the relevant documentation. I can tell you that, in another legislature, I didn't have this, and I greatly appreciate it.

The point I want to make is that the issue raises many questions. It wouldn't hurt for the steering committee to look at it to help weigh the pros and cons. It may be worthwhile, but it's not urgent. It's worth some consideration, which could lead to the establishment of certain precautionary measures to ensure that things run smoothly and that Mr. Cullen's goal is achieved. The goal is obviously completely relevant. It's possible for Canadians to get directly involved in the debate. We pay attention to our emails and to the other communications we receive, but this would warrant consideration, in my view, by the steering committee.

2 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

So, Mr. Deltell, you want to amend the motion and have it studied by the steering committee.

2 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Other people wanted to share their view. We could talk about it later, because I don't want to monopolize the time.

2 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Ms. Sahota, go ahead.

2 p.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Thank you. It's a very interesting proposal, and I've been going through it back and forth in my mind while I'm sitting here. I think this is a special committee, so we are trying to do things differently after a very long time. It would be interesting to hear what Canadians think and have them provide input into our committee.

I don't know how the clerks would go about doing that and weeding people out. Concerns have been raised, and those are going to be some of the challenges. There are some political questions, and decisions would have to be made as well in some regard, but I'm confident that the clerks would perhaps be able to bring a balance of questions each time and also not pick repetitive questions. If that were done, then I think I could see it working out.

In my opinion, it's innovative and interesting, but if it doesn't happen, I'm also confident that each of us here at this table should also be going to these sources, such as Twitter, and listening to the questions that Canadians are asking and, through us, they would be able to ask the witnesses those questions as well. There are many approaches we can take, and we are all going to be required to do town hall meetings on the matter as well.

It's interesting, and I'm definitely considering this option.

2 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you.

Mr. Cullen is next.

2 p.m.

NDP

Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC

I know there were some concerns raised about how this process would function. We wanted to keep it very simple, so imagine a two-hour meeting at which we would have perhaps five witnesses who could testify for seven minutes, and then we could use 11 MP slots of seven minutes each for questioning. The very last slot, a 12th slot, would be for a series of questions from the public.

By the way, for those less familiar with the committee, we rely on the clerks all the time to provide non-partisan information and to weed out, as Jason and others have concerned themselves with, anything repetitive or hyperpartisan in nature. They do it all the time, and do an incredible job, and have for many years.

In terms of it being radical, if one looks at the etymology, to go to the roots of the issue, we as legislators ask Canadians to embrace change all the time. We propose new laws. In elections we consistently ask Canadians to vote one way, vote another way, or think about issues in a different way, so far be it from us not to consider doing things differently as well. I would say that PROC would be welcome to come and study us and see how this example goes to see if it would work at the defence and transport committees.

In terms of the cost and benefit, if we were to try it for five or 10 meetings and the questions were difficult to vet or there weren't any questions coming from Canadians, which I would find hard to believe, or if, for whatever reasons, committee members didn't feel that it was working to our benefit or to the benefit of the study, then we would abandon the exercise. However, in terms of the benefit, it could potentially open up a new avenue for us with questions we weren't contemplating.

The setting of the example at this committee is fine. As Mr. Kenney said—and we are all open to this—I'll commit to posing at least one question that has come in through social media every day to @nathancullen. I think we should be welcoming those, not just in our personal work as committee members but also in how this committee goes about this issue, because this is not ours; this entire conversation belongs to Canadians. Why wouldn't we take an opportunity, a low-risk opportunity, to open the door a little bit further to Canadians who wish to participate?

As Elizabeth said, electoral reform on July 21 might not light up the airwaves of CBC—although maybe it would on CPAC—but we want to be able to engage people through all means possible, particularly if there's very little downside, and on this I see very little downside. Certainly I take my role as a legislator very seriously, and I know my responsibilities in terms of voting on, considering, and passing legislation.

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Thank you, Mr. Cullen.

Mr. DeCourcey is next.

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB

I want to thank everyone for their interventions. Certainly, if I'm listening correctly, there's a willingness to make sure that Canadians are heard right throughout this process, and I want to ensure the same. I wonder how to do this.

We had circulated a potential speaking rotation for consideration. I wonder if we can consider these two pieces together. Could we look at the speaking rotation and the opportunity for public input at the end of the session together?

It would take some stickhandling to ensure that meetings were set up properly so that witnesses had enough time to speak, that the principle of allowing every member of the committee to speak was met, and that we were also listening to Canadians. That might be a question for the subcommittee to put together as a whole, and I would ask the clerk for her input on how that would be put together. I don't know if I have to make an amendment to the motion on the table to try to present these together and to deliver that motion, but I'm willing to do that to ensure that we find a way to allow members the opportunity to ask questions and engage Canadians as well.

2:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia

Just a moment. I'm just trying to sort my way through this.

Mr. Reid, you have a point of order.