Evidence of meeting #76 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was proposal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
So that's a good summary of what was said when I wasn't here?
Conservative
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
I'm very quick.
Mr. Chair, I want to weigh in on Mr. Oliver's situation. To be fair, we have told all members as a committee, first of all, that they need to meet a deadline to get their paperwork in, which he did. We've also given all members an option as to whether they want the presentation they give to us to stand as is, or whether they would like to appear. Some of have said “No, I've put it in writing and that will speak for itself” and that there's no need for them to appear here.
It wouldn't be fair not to weigh the importance of written submissions from members, simply because they're not here, for whatever reason they choose not to come here. As with this case with the minister, it's not like he's ignoring us. He feels that he has submitted his case with sufficient evidence to support it. It's clear in this instance that there's no agreement between the two members of Parliament who are affected.
That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Yes. And we've certainly had that in the past, whether they both sit here or one's made a written submission and the other has not.
Great. Are there any further questions from the committee?
Mr. Cullen, by all means.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I have a question for Mr. Sullivan. Referring to Mr. Menegakis' point, I agree, but typically when members have chosen only to write a submission, they've been offering only very small changes—often a name change or justification. My only point is that as in any court, which we are not, but in any committee trying to understand evidence, the to and fro of why and the justifications are important. I wonder if Mr. Sullivan can make a comment as to the process. That's what I was asking Mr. Sullivan about. What process did he use at the hearings?
We heard from Mr. Adler that some people weren't heard, which I find a bit worrisome. Maybe we can ask Elections Canada about that.
Here's my point. If you wanted to move 30,000 constituents out of one riding into another, if Mr. Oliver or whoever had seen the maps and members in his constituency, he would probably come and testify at least at the commission, or get some written testimony in there to say that 30,000 people need to move out and make a really large riding to the west of him. But that choice was not made then. The choice is now made through writing to us. But as a process, it's very difficult for the committee to say we have all the arguments, pro and con, because we don't. We only have one side and it's only one-directional.
Mr. Sullivan.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
I did appear before the commission, because the original proposed boundary was different from my riding. I did appear. Many individuals in my riding also appeared, and other politicians appeared to suggest, first, that the riding was okay the way it was and didn't need to change, but also to defend communities of interest. As I understand it from the commission, Mr. Oliver did not make any submissions pro or con, none whatsoever, regarding the chunk that he is now proposing.
Another concern I have is that the clerk has indicated that he will be preparing additional written submissions, to which I would request from this committee that I be put in a position to respond when they are submitted. I'm not sure how much time you have to do this.
NDP
Mike Sullivan NDP York South—Weston, ON
I'm not sure what your timing is for allowing him to make more written submissions than the one letter that's here, but I certainly would want the opportunity to be able to read it, to digest it, and to respond to it and, if necessary, to provide evidence.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Chair—and I suppose this is through you—I'm not sure how we handle this in a sense, because at the committee we try to get through the reports once we've heard the testimony.
Mr. Sullivan has requested that, if further arguments are made—and I think you indicated earlier in the meeting that we would try to accommodate that—it gets a bit cumbersome. I appreciate that ministers have to travel. We all have to travel a bunch. Normally you have the two MPs who are disagreeing sitting beside each other and you can start to wade through the pro and con arguments and the committee members can figure it out for themselves.
But the letter-writing process for a significant thing—not a name change or a block or whatever it's been in the past—makes it very difficult to understand what Mr. Sullivan's role is going to be if Mr. Oliver says a community of interest is going to be affected and that that's why 30,000 people have to come out. The committee then has to have Mr. Sullivan back to ask if that's a community of interest. What is the evidence for that in support, pro or con? It's going to be somewhat cumbersome, while trying to be respectful of the minister's travel schedule and his other things.
If we can get him on the phone, let's do that. That might simplify things entirely and speed things up for us.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm troubled by what we're talking about. In every case, when two MPs do not agree about a change, we have handled this in a similar fashion. We admit that they don't agree, and we move on and suggest that the commission takes its own thought process on that. I see no difference if one member is writing and one member is sitting here, or both are sitting here to argue with each other. I certainly don't want to give away what we've done in private deliberations, folks, but I think we're making a bit of a—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
—mountain out of this one mole hill. We've got one member suggesting one thing, another member suggesting another, and I think we'll report back to the committee that we heard from two members.
Mr. Dion, do you have comments on this point?
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
I do, on this one.
Mr. Chair, I agree with you that we should do nothing to prevent Mr. Oliver having the same ability as other colleagues, but the point I think Mr. Cullen is making is that it's a huge change. I'm not sure if it's even within the request of the [Inaudible--Editor], although I think what he's proposing may make another riding too big. I'm not sure of that, but it's likely. Also, it's affecting not only Mr. Sullivan's riding, but St. Paul's as well, Dr. Bennett's riding.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
According to what I've read from Minister Oliver's thing, his only suggestion is to take back a piece of Eglinton—Lawrence that he currently represents. That's all he's saying. He doesn't really get into the demographics of it, but he just suggested that piece over to a certain—
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
My understanding is that it will also affect St. Paul's. I may be wrong. But because he's proposing a huge change, I think it would be fair that we also offer to write a letter to the colleagues affected in response to his last-minute letter, to explain to them—
Conservative
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
That's what I'm proposing, that we make sure all of the colleagues affected have an opportunity to respond to his request.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'm now being handed a letter from Minister Oliver to our—
Conservative
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
All right, but does he refer in this to the letters he's talking about submitting? To me that is different from his saying later on that he's going to throw something else in as well.
The Clerk
The letter we just gave everyone is the original submission of his objection. Since then we've invited him to appear. He's travelling now, so he can't be here. He has promised to send more documentation.
