Oh, oh!
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.
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.
2:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Thank you.
I want to get on the record as pointing out that the original motion, which was put forward by the impartial folks, the clerks, had the effect of giving out question-time totals that caused the Conservatives and the Liberals both to lose some time. The Bloc and the Green Party would both get more time than would be allocated to them based upon the percentage of the vote they got in the last election. The NDP is down a bit. It's not too bad, actually, or it's not off by that much. That's what I should say. I hear Mr. Cullen commenting.
2:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
The system proposed by the Liberals adjusts that so they take a lesser hit and the Conservatives take a more substantial hit to the percentage of time, if we are basing this all on the principle of proportionality, which is the fiction we are expected to believe with regard to how this committee is being run. That is a disappointment.
I can certainly understand why, in their own self-interest, the Liberals would want to move to something that gives them more and the Conservative Party less than in the motion proposed by the impartial people who designed this system for us, but I am at a loss as to determine why that should be regarded as fair by anybody else.
As for the Liberals' suggestion that they circulated something beforehand, they did indeed circulate something beforehand, and my understanding from our staff member is that it was not that proposal that they wound up presenting here. If this is going to be the pattern of behaviour from the Liberal Party on this committee, that is a very significant problem. We need to work closely, honestly, and openly and know that when somebody makes an assertion in public about what they've done in private, it actually reflects the facts.
I'm very disappointed to see that being the case. Having said that, I have no objection to sending this matter off to the subcommittee.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Then you're in agreement withdrawing the motion as amended? Okay.
Do we need to have a formal vote or...? No, I think—
Go ahead, Mr. DeCourcey.
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
I'd like to mention that the initial suggestion for voting that was given to us by the clerk and the Library of Parliament did not recognize the Greens or the Bloc as legitimate members on this committee, and that in fact it was the proposal that we put in front of this House that recognized the need for every member of this committee to have an opportunity to ask questions, recognizing as well that the Bloc and the Greens would have a second chance to ask questions as members of this committee.
I look forward to working with Mr. Reid collaboratively and collectively to help find a made-in-Canada solution to reform our electoral system, but I just thought I would clarify that point so that it's clear on the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
2:30 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I'll sneak in on the record to thank you, Matt, for putting forward that the Bloc and the Greens get questions. I think that was to be automatically assumed and it needed to be amended at this committee, so I appreciate your doing it.
Just to put it on the record, I'm more concerned about making sure that we have time for witnesses first, for evidence and questions, than about the way we go round and round. Your proposal is fine on that, actually.
2:30 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In fairness to the people who prepared the document, I want to say that I realize the motions were models and were not meant to purposely exclude the Bloc Québécois and Green Party members, as my colleague indicated. I want that on the record.
I appreciate the fact we're discussing how much time could be given to the Bloc Québécois and Green Party. I hope we can work quickly and refer the issue to the steering committee.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Just to be clear about the purported generosity towards the Greens and the Bloc Québécois in the Liberal changes to the draft motions that have been put forward for us by the clerk's office, my back-of-the-envelope math tells me that the Bloc and Greens would each have had seven minutes out of a grand total of 58 minutes of witness questioning time. Now they will get a grand total of nine minutes out of a larger questioning period of 67 minutes, which works out to 13%. That 1% is not nothing, but I suspect that it is not as important as the additional 4% that the Liberal Party is getting.
2:30 p.m.
An hon. member
It's four times as much.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Let me just try to understand here.
You are in favour, Mr. Reid, of withdrawing the motion as amended and sending it to the steering committee. Okay. I think there's general agreement, based on what I've heard, for doing that.
(Amendment withdrawn)
(Motion withdrawn)
Now we would need a motion to refer to the steering committee the question of the opening remarks and the questioning of witnesses.
Mr. Boulerice, do you want to put forward the motion?
2:30 p.m.
NDP
2:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We will vote by a show of hands.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have thus dealt with all the routine motions.
Colleagues, we can now discuss, if you wish—and it will be up to us to decide if we want to do so in public or in camera—the working calendar of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform.
Mr. Thériault, go ahead.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
2:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
We are involved in a tough process that will require a great deal of work. For example, the person with me today takes care of all the parliamentary business and questions from the Bloc Québécois whip, in addition to conducting research for various members.
My motion reads as follows:
That the Bloc Québécois and Green Party be allocated additional resources so they can each retain a resource person (for research, writing, and communication) to help the member work on democratic reform until the Committee's report is tabled in the House.
Regarding my Quebec experience, I know that, at the time, ADQ MNAs were allocated additional resources for research and communication. To have resources available on the Hill, Bloc Québécois members must now cut their budget by 20%.
It would be a lot to ask us to make further cuts to the operating budgets in our constituencies. If we want to reform democratic institutions, perhaps we should show openness to the idea starting now. I think what I've submitted today is a reasonable accommodation to help do the work.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
In your motion, you're asking for the Bloc Québécois and Green Party to be allocated more resources so that each party can have a resource person to carry out research, writing, and communication work. The resource person can thus help the committee member work on democratic reform until the report is tabled in the House.
Would anyone like to make a comment?
Go ahead, Ms. Sahota.
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I have a question for the chair, for the clerks, for everybody on this committee. Is this a matter that we can actually deal with here, or is this for the Board of Internal Economy? Can we even vote on this matter?
2:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
That is a good question. The answer would no doubt factor into the way members would vote, I suppose.
Does anyone have any light to shed on this?
Go ahead, Mr. Cullen.
