Electoral Reform Committee on June 21st, 2016

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Procedurally speaking, I'm not sure if it's a point of order. You can cut me off if I'm going in the wrong direction.

There's a separate motion dealing with time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses, which I think is what Mr. DeCourcey is talking about folding this into. While I appreciate what he's trying to do, I suggest that it would be outside the scope of this particular motion to expand it to cover that motion.

In a way, it's unfortunate we didn't deal with these in reverse. I would suggest we try to deal with this one and then turn to that motion, simply because it allows us to deal with a number of things that aren't contemplated in this motion, such as the overall length of time for the rounds with witnesses and that sort of thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you agree, Mr. DeCourcey, to treat these two items separately?

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Just for clarification, we would vote on the motion to open the opportunity for Canadians to ask questions, and then move to the specific time allocation for witnesses, questioning, and where, if this motion passes, the questioning would be put for Canadians.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That last point about Canadians' participation is what Mr. Cullen's motion—

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I guess I'm asking whether we can put those together and move them as part of one motion. I don't know if that could be seen by the other side, by the mover, as being a friendly amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm told it's a bit dicey; it's a bit difficult to do that kind of merger of these two somewhat unrelated motions.

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Could we table this motion, move to the speaking order, and then see if we could move to opening it up to Canadians?

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

As I understand it, there are a couple of things we can do, and our clerk will correct me if I'm wrong. We could essentially amend the motion to say that it should be sent to the steering committee for further discussion, or if Mr. Cullen had unanimous consent, he could withdraw it, but I don't think that's his objective.

I think those are the two options. We could, with an amendment and a vote, send it to the steering committee and let them hash it out there, if you will.

Is that correct?

Mr. Thériault will speak first, followed by Mr. Reid, Ms. May, and Mr. Deltell.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll keep this quick.

From 2003 to 2007, when I was an MNA in Quebec, sometimes citizens would speak before a committee, and they could ask the witnesses questions. Occasionally, the angle of their questions would be completely different from the angle of the MNAs' questions.

I would be open to both options. I understand the Conservative Party's concerns. The work of elected officials in a committee such as this one shouldn't be diminished. We have been duly elected. In the public sphere, the impression is sometimes given that people are disaffected with democratic institutions, and that everything unrelated to Parliament is more legitimate.

I'll set that perspective aside. As long as we don't use public participation for partisan purposes, I support the motion. I also don't see any problem with the subcommittee looking into the issue, especially since we're talking about selecting the most relevant questions. Hopefully, the angle of the questions will be different from the angle of the questions asked by members.

That's what I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

So, you want to refer this motion to the steering committee. If that's the case, someone needs to propose an amendment to the motion for it to be referred to the steering committee.

Mr. Reid, I think you want to add something.

Mr. Cullen, do you have a point of order?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I'm not sure if it's a point of order, but let's try.

The sense I'm getting is that there's concern by some of my Conservative colleagues, there's some willingness or strong support from Madam May and perhaps from the Bloc, and there is some openness from the Liberals, if I recall the conversation to this point.

If putting this to the subcommittee would expedite the process of striking this committee and being able to talk about what happens over the next couple of weeks, then we can have a conversation. If I can get a confirmation from my colleagues that there's a willingness to consider this seriously and if the clerk's office can make sure there aren't any logistical issues, then we could simply follow it up later with a conversation and have a vote on it or something. My one concern is that we not simply let it slide off the table.

I'm seeing some commitment to that around the table, Chair. That could expedite our process today. I don't want this particular aspect to take up our whole time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Would you withdraw it, or...?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I would simply table it to the subcommittee, once the committee has its first confirmed meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I'm told we can do that, but someone else would have to move an amendment to the motion to do that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I suspected that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

You're on the list, Mr. DeCourcey, but—

[Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I'd like to move an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No, I think we have to go to Mr. Reid, Ms. May, Mr. Deltell, and then you.

Go ahead, Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I actually already raised the matter as a point of order. I should be struck off the list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Ms. May is next.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have prepared a motion that speaks to all the elements of time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses. It relates to how much time we'd give in the opening and in the rounds of questioning, with time allocation that includes all the members around this table.

I can present my motion now, or, if it's the will of the committee to follow Nathan Cullen's advice that this motion for opening remarks, questioning of witnesses, and the public participation potential around the table all go to the subcommittee, I won't take the time of the committee to read it out. However, I think we need more time for witnesses than an initial 10 minutes, which is the routine around this place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Mr. Deltell, go ahead.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I want to reassure Mr. Cullen and everyone listening to us.

The reason I submitted that the motion be studied by the steering committee is that it's being taken very seriously. If we had found the motion frivolous, we wouldn't have given it much thought. We would have said "thank you and good night". It's a worthy move, but it has to be done correctly.

Remember that we're talking about institutions—the very essence of our committee—and nothing is more fragile in a democracy than its institutions. These discussions certainly shouldn't be rushed. The intention is good. As Mr. Kenney said, we already receive immediate feedback when we carry out our usual work. Can this apply to another matter? Let's take the time to examine the situation properly.

That's why we want the steering committee to look at the matter from a technical, logistical, and chronological point of view. How much time should be allotted? When should it be allotted? Will it be proportional to the time normally given to government party, Bloc Québécois, or Green Party members? Many things must be carefully reviewed, and a formal motion concerning the time granted for certain aspects must be put forward. These aspects must be established.

That's why we think the work must be serious, thorough, and well-thought-out. It must be analyzed correctly to be meaningful. Once it has reached that stage, the steering committee can look at it and make recommendations that will eventually be accepted by everyone. However, rushing through these issues would be a disservice to the activity we've all been asked to carry out in the coming months.

[The Chair, Liberal, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Do you propose an amendment for the motion to be referred to the steering committee?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It could read as follows, and I will say it out loud without having written it beforehand.

That the steering committee study the possibility that the committee allot...

I'd like to let the clerks know that I'm not sure whether the wording is technically correct.