Evidence of meeting #3 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 video is available from Parliament.
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
If that is what the committee recommends, if that is what you hear from Canadians, if you arrive at a consensus that this is the best way to engage Canadians in 2016, then it is incumbent upon me and the government to take that seriously.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Does that mean you would then have a referendum if there were that recommendation?
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I'm going to do something that I know you very much—
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I'm going to do something that I know many folks appreciate. This process as a whole is an exciting prospect for all of us. This process has at least three stages. There's the first stage of hearing from Canadians. We can't do this process without hearing from them. We can't arrive at a conclusion without hearing from them. So we need to hear from them, and that is why your work is going to be so valuable.
The second stage is you deliberating and hopefully coming up with a report that reflects the consensus you have arrived at on the various aspects of your mandate. Yes, tell us which system you heard from Canadians that clearly they prefer. Do we consider online voting? Do we consider mandatory voting?
Then the third step, Mr. Reid, is determining whether this system that we are about to propose has the broad support of Canadians.
I know you are eager to jump to the third step, but we are only at the first step, and I'm looking forward to your recommendations on December 1.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Minister, you won't say no to a referendum here. You will not say no. I've asked you directly. So now let me posit to you this thought. A variety of steps need to take place in advance of holding a referendum. Certain commentators—including Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who will be testifying before us tomorrow—have observed that the Referendum Act is in need of updating. Amendments have to be made to the act or new legislation has to be done, or else the option of referendum ceases to exist. It simply falls off the range of possibilities regardless of what this committee decides, regardless of what Canadians want.
My question to you, therefore, is this. Are you taking any measures in your department to update the Referendum Act or to engage in other legislation in order to ensure that a referendum could take place, if it proved that it was desirable, so that we do not face the situation of having a new system imposed in 2019 without the approval of Canadians after there has been an agreement that we ought to be having a referendum? Would you answer that, please?
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
I'll answer all your questions.
First of all, I'm thankful that your witnesses tomorrow are the current and former chief electoral officers. They bring a wealth of knowledge. I hope their counsel and their guidance are concepts and contributions that you will continue to rely upon, as I have.
It is true that there is legislation that needs to be amended. The Referendum Act does need to be aligned with the Elections Act. But I believe it is premature to make those changes. It's putting the cart before the horse to arrive at a conclusion before you folks have even begun to travel the country.
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Chair, in the remaining moments I have left—
2:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
—I just want to make the point that the cart is put before the horse if you decide not to update the Referendum Act, because it becomes impossible under any circumstances, no matter how strong the consensus, to have a referendum if you don't take the initiative to start updating the act.
So I ask again, what are you doing to update the Referendum Act so that the cart is not put before the horse and so that we do not set out a new system without a referendum if that is what ultimately we decide we should be having?
2:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Mr. Reid, your time is up. Maybe another member will continue on that point.
We have Mr. Christopherson now.
2:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the opportunity.
I'll just say, I wish the Conservatives had been a fraction more interested in public input when they were ramming through the unfair elections act in the last Parliament, but I don't want to be small minded.
I'll begin by wishing all of my Muslim sisters and brothers in Hamilton and across the country Eid Mubarak. I was pleased to be at my local downtown Hamilton mosque on Monday night to break the fast with my friends.
If I may be allowed one little bit of an indulgence, Chair, I would point out that the Broadbent Institute is obviously very much engaged in this issue. If you would allow me, I will recognize the fact that the former leader of the federal NDP and the man who was the leader of the party when I first ran in 1984, Ed Broadbent, is with us here today. We all know his commitment to Canadian democracy. It's always good to see Ed.
2:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Hear, hear!
July 6th, 2016 / 2:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Minister, I need some help with clarification. It's pretty clear where the Conservatives are. They just want to stay with status quo. They want first past the post. That's clear. Everything they are talking about supports that whole thing so we at least know where they are.
We favour proportional representation. We have a preferred model, but we're flexible, and ultimately we believe PR needs to be brought here to Canada to take that next step in modernizing and improving our democracy.
Now when it comes to the government, it's a little less clear. At one point, in fact, even trying to get this all set up, you will recall we finally got something going the night that you, Mr. Cullen, and I, and Mr. Holland, and your chief of staff met and hammered out the deal that got us to this point. But up until then, we had been all over the map with this government, up to and including the government House leader holding his breath, and stamping his feet, and saying there wasn't even going to be a committee because he couldn't get his way. That's an issue that doesn't speak to clarity of thought and focus of purpose.
The Prime Minister has said that his preference is the alternate ranked voting system. That's what he likes, and he's already on the record having said that. You have come out on behalf of your government, and through you, Chair, and said you don't believe that first past the post serves us any further. You say you're neutral, and yet it wasn't that long ago that the Privy Council Office hired Mr. Derek Alton who's the co-founder of the group 123Guelph, which advocates the use of the alternate ranked ballot.
So it's really unclear. We know where the Cons are, we know where the New Democrats are. I'm hearing the Liberals saying that they're open, but quite frankly, they've been all over the map. Can you help me and provide some clarity on what you really are open to, because there is always this issue that it looks like what you want out of this is the alternative ranked ballot system. If that's so, say so, but commit to it. But, no, the government's saying “we're wide open”.
I've laid out the case where you have been everywhere. Can you help us understand where you are, and what your government's intent is.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the honourable member for his work and his ongoing dedication to making this country and this place better.
I know over the last 10 years a perception may have developed that there's only one way and one view within any given caucus, especially that of a governing party. That's not the way we do things. We respect and recognize that there is a diverse range of opinions on this particular matter, and that diverse range of opinions will vary across this nation.
We haven't arrived at a final conclusion. We haven't made up our mind about any given system. I've come to this with an open mind and would like to recognize what a unique opportunity this is.
What the Prime Minister has tasked me with is the establishment of this committee so together we may go and hear from Canadians. This isn't about us. This isn't about our parties. This is Canadians' system. This is their electoral system. We know the harder way is to have an open mind on this particular matter, but the right thing to do is to hear from Canadians and make sure their values align with whatever reform we enact as a House. That's what I have been tasked to do along with the support of all of you, and I hope we all take full advantage of this opportunity.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
2:50 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Very good. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Minister. I appreciate what you said, and thank you for your personal remarks. I have to say that it's still not clear to me. Again, the Prime Minister is not just anybody. Let's remember that past presidents of the United States have said that they would give anything to have the power of a Canadian Prime Minister with a majority government. So what the Prime Minister says matters a lot.
You just hired somebody in the PCO who clearly, publicly, favours the alternate vote system, so it's kind of hard to accept that you really are open to something different when we can point out evidence that you're doing everything you can to try to stack the outcome. Could you take another crack at it for me, please, and see if you can convince me?
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Maryam Monsef Liberal Peterborough—Kawartha, ON
Thank you for providing another opportunity for me to address that other part of your question.
I believe Derek is in the room somewhere. I can assure you that as a member of the Privy Council Office, a member of Canada's public service, providing independent, non-partisan advice to the government.... Neither the Prime Minister nor I have been involved in the hiring of individuals who work with the Privy Council Office. That independent, non-partisan advice is something that we can all be really proud of having at our disposal.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Thank you.
We will continue with Mr. Thériault, who has six and a half minutes.
2:50 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the minister for this enlightening meeting.
As the members of the committee know, I have been worried since we started our work. Over a four-year period in Quebec, I lived through an attempt at electoral reform that involved changing the voting the system. I am concerned by our operating methods.
I was looking at the votes today. The Privy Council will have $10.7 million over four years, with $8 million for this year. However, the committee has just $300,000 to consult all Canadians. It seems to me that there is an imbalance and that a parallel process is being set up.
You have submitted a guide today. What will this money be used for? Don't you feel a certain lack of legitimacy in the fact that the committee, regardless of the members' party, is in charge of consulting Canadians, but that you are getting so much money to do parallel work, even though we don't even know what this is about? Transparency is lacking here. At the same time, why aren't we getting as much money to do work that is a lot more extensive and important in the short timeframe you are giving us?