Evidence of meeting #7 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 ireland.
A video is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Okay. Mr. Reid would like to refer this matter to the subcommittee. I don't know if there are any comments or questions or if people want to just go to a vote on this.
Mr. Cullen.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Just to clarify a couple of things, I think perhaps the subcommittee suggestion is helpful so it won't take all of our time up. I'm only struck by the fact that at another committee, I believe it was environment, my Conservative colleagues very much resisted the idea of having any of our MPs testify. It was on a proposed review of some environmental legislation there.
My only concern with the motion is that there's an inference that Mr. Dion is being denied access, or his access is being impeded. Whether an MP comes and testifies or not, we can't compel.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I just resist the suggestion that somehow someone as independently minded as Mr. Dion is being impeded by some force from testifying here. I've known Stéphane for years on this issue and he has a great deal of interest. I'm sure if he wanted to come he would have made that known to us as a committee, but I think there are more politics than substance in this conversation.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are there any other comments, questions? Do we just call the vote?
Yes, Mr. Kenney.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
I do think it is interesting because the position of the government, which ultimately will be making the final decision on what electoral system we have, is the decision will be made by one person named Justin Trudeau, and a senior member of his cabinet has repeatedly and publicly expressed himself as supporting referenda as being necessary for the legitimacy of any electoral reform. Insofar as all members believe in hearing a diversity of voices, I think it would be interesting to hear from a senior minister whose view is different from that of the government on the question of referenda. I think that's why it's in the public interest for Minister Dion to appear.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Matt DeCourcey Liberal Fredericton, NB
Instead of descending into the politics of all of this, I'll just call for the question.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're not talking about some random individual. We are talking about one of the most respected scholars in the area of constitutionality and constitutional debate in Quebec, if not in Canada. He is formally educated. He holds a doctorate in France. That's far from being nothing. Just a few years ago, in 2012, that man wrote, in a text published by L'Idée fédérale, that “precedent makes holding a referendum necessary in Canada”. He did not say that during a discussion, a meal or something like that; he said it in a well thought-out text.
However, that contradicts his current government's position. We feel that he should explain himself duly. He has had dozens of opportunities to do so during question period, but he refused. For the sake of democracy, public debate and understanding in general, that renowned academic should be able to take the time he needs to explain his position on the matter clearly.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Yes, but you say that he expressed it clearly, in black and white.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
He expressed it in two sentences. But I think that line of thought deserves more than two sentences.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I just want to say that Monsieur Dion has also put a tremendous amount of effort into a system of electoral reform that he believes in, so I think the referendum question is a waste of our time, but I think Mr. Dion's testimony would be very useful on the substance of what he cares about, which is an electoral reform system that is proportional.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
In all sincerity, and in all neutrality, I've heard the minister say that they didn't want to pre-judge as a cabinet, because it is a cabinet decision. There will no doubt be a discussion in cabinet; I think that's the way it works in our system. And I remember hearing the minister say that they didn't want to pre-judge anything on any issue. So there is a notion of cabinet decision-making after it receives our report. I'm just throwing that out as a thought, but it's obviously up to the committee to decide what it wants to do.
Noon
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
If I may, Chair, I'm not sure what we're doing. I thought perhaps we were headed to a subcommittee; now I'm hearing from the government that—
Noon
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
But what are we voting on? Are we voting to send this to the subcommittee, or are we—?
Noon
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay, that's fine.
The only suggestion I would put to the committee—and it comes back to our terms of reference—is more of a foundational thing for what we're doing here. It came up a little bit yesterday that perhaps the concerns that are being expressed by Mr. Kenney and Mr. Reid about the decision-making process and what we're engaged in here, that the committee stray itself more towards an explicit recommendation on voting systems that this committee comes up with, rather than another set of values. It assuages the fears that it is—as Mr. Kenney has suggested, which was, I think, corrected by you, Chair—only up to one person or the cabinet to make a decision on what comes out of all of this.
Our witness yesterday asked what it is that we're doing here and why we are not making explicit recommendations. That, I think, is something that the committee members should consider. I just want to be clear before we head to the vote what it is that we're voting on.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Are we ready for a vote, or does anyone have anything else to say about this?
Go ahead, Ms. Sahota.
Noon
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I just basically want to say that this discussion is more appropriate at the subcommittee since it is about witnesses, and it should be discussed there. I don't know where the notion of impeding someone's ability to come...we've been a very open committee and have stated that several times. I think this discussion should be had at the subcommittee and we should go for a recorded vote on that matter.
Noon
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
To be clear, just to respond to Ms. Sahota's point, first of all, the goal is to get this to the subcommittee. That's what the motion actually states.
