Evidence of meeting #44 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 ridings.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I thought, as we talked about this morning, we would get our motion out of the way as quickly as possible.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I should think so. Again, I had hoped this morning that it would be quick, and I was wrong.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I get these things wrong. My intention is for it to be quick.
Just to remind committee members—and I haven't changed anything—the motion from last night is as follows:
That the Committee invite the Minister of Democratic Institutions to table a summary of her public consultations with the Committee.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
As I asked this morning, just to be clear, it's not that she would appear as a witness but just that she would table the results, correct?
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Yes, just that. If the minister would like to come, I'm sure we certainly wouldn't have an objection to it. The invitation would be open. However, if she would rather submit a written brief then that's fine as well.
5:35 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I was going to suggest a friendly amendment, but I won't move it if you don't think it's a good idea.
The Prime Minister has indicated that what we are working on here may or may not be a very substantial part of where the government is going. This is critically important if we're trying to design something that is actionable by 2019.
The Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that he intended to start his machinery moving based on our December 1 deadline to submit a report, which means that he assumed that our report would actually be definitive for the government, at least in its broadest strokes.
The practical implications of being unclear until they table legislation, which can't be earlier than February, effectively means we would lose some time. That's critically important.
I think having her explain how they're still going to achieve something other than simply transferring to a preferential ballot in the existing ridings is, I think, a matter of grave concern to everybody, certainly to us.
5:35 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I understand Mr. Reid's concern because it's a timing thing. If the government isn't committed to agreeing to what we put forward as a committee then we lose those two months, which Elections Canada has told us.... I understand that sequence of events.
I'm just sort of making this up on the fly.
This motion as it is is what I'm going to present.
To Mr. Reid or to others who are curious about that, something specific could be asked of the minister. If she comes to the committee, it would certainly make sense that we ask timing questions and whatnot.
However, outside of that, if the committee seeks some direction or some input from the minister on that specific timing question—it's one that has come to my mind in the last couple of weeks as well—we would certainly support something like that in terms of correspondence from the committee, but that's not for right now, Chair.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
No, I wanted to clarify whether I should, and the signal I got was that I should not, so I won't.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The only thing I would add, Chair—and I put this through to the government members on the committee—is that we haven't put any timeframe on this. We haven't said that its due within two weeks, or that type of thing.
I would simply express through the committee members, and will express it as well through the parliamentary secretary, that timeliness matters. Getting it to us on December 1 won't help in terms of hearing what the minister had to say.
I present it in good faith that the government understands that if the minister is to present the summary it can't be weeks and weeks from now, because it won't serve the purpose of this motion, which is simply to hear from the minister as to what she has heard. I don't know how many there were, but the parliamentary secretary has suggested that the minister has done 40 town halls or events. We had 23.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
A point of clarification would be that we're asking for a tabling of the summary of the public consultations undertaken in her role as minister, and not the seven town halls that she undertook as a member of Parliament, which were received by the committee in a summary report. We're talking about the additional pieces that weren't originally in the mandate.
There's no aversion here. I just wanted to make that clarification.
5:40 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you for that. It sort of speaks to the many paths of input that this committee is dealing with right now; the one we're doing as we are tonight; the one we've all done as members of Parliament, which has come through us as committee members; and this third stream, if you want to call it that, which is the minister's 20, 30, or 40 consultation events.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Does anyone else wish to speak to this or are we going to vote on it?
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Before we go on, Mr. Chair, if I could, I have a notice of motion that I'll submit to the clerk. I don't want to discuss it now. I just want to make sure it gets circulated and that it's available for people to look at.
Thank you.