Evidence of meeting #35 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site.) The winning word was advertising.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Marc Chénier  Senior Officer and Counsel, Privy Council Office
Natasha Kim  Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

We can move on to PV-13.

You did give us a brief summary before we left this afternoon, Ms. May, but we'll have a very quick refresher on that, please.

7:15 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Yes, I'll give a very quick refresher. This is, as far as I know, unique in the pile of amendments. There aren't any similar to it, but it is reflecting advice the committee received in the testimony, which committee members will recall, of Professor Emeritus Paul Thomas, specifically—I'll make it very brief—mandating that the Minister for Democratic Reform must always in future consult with the Chief Electoral Officer of Elections Canada with respect to any proposed amendments to this act, including its regulations.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you.

I believe we had a speakers list in some way. We have Mr. Christopherson, Mr. Simms, and Mr. Lukiwski.

7:15 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Actually, I think it was the other way.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Mr. Simms.

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Thank you very much. You're a very nice gentleman.

To me, this seems like something that is more of a convention, a practice of good governance for any minister to do when you're doing something this substantial. I would take it as something that's granted in the responsibility of a minister of the crown. It's a shame that we have to ensconce this within legislation, but the past six months have proven that we have to do this in order to explicitly state that in the future a minister has to do his or her job with a great deal of due diligence. I think that is what this covers, enshrined in this legislation.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Mr. Christopherson.

7:15 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Chair, I just need to underscore my colleague's point. A big part of why there's so much commotion over this bill has been the lack of consultation with the obvious people.

It just can't be stated enough—because it's so hard to believe—but there was no consultation with the Chief Electoral Officer, no consultation with the elections commissioner, and no consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions, all of whose areas are having major changes. It's just unfathomable. Students reading the history books are going to be saying, “Really? This is a joke, right? This is some kind of test by the teacher to see if we're paying any attention, because what government in its right mind, really, would think about changing the election laws as significantly as this government is, without even talking to the Chief Electoral Officer?”

It's crazy. It's just so crazy. This is a shame. I agree totally with Mr. Simms' approach to this, that it really is a shame that in a modern democracy like Canada's we would actually have to put in a clause that guarantees us Canadians that our minister of the day responsible for the election laws would actually set up a meeting and consult the Chief Electoral Officer before making any changes. It really is a shame.

It is a low mark for the government when the opposition feels that this is so important but it can be overlooked by a majority government. It certainly didn't do this kind of thing when it was in minority, I'll tell you, but in majority, the government would bring in these changes, and yet we have to put that in here.

It's almost as though the minister should get up in the morning, have a coffee, get showered—no Chair, I can speak for as long as I like—and then—I have the floor, sir—he's going to eat, and then we should remind him—I do—

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

When I as chair interrupt you, I have the floor.

7:15 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

What are you going to interrupt me with?

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

It's just to let you know that. Now, could you very shortly finish the rest.

7:15 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

Chair, you've been hanging around with these guys too long. That kind of thinking is not the old Joe. That's not the old Joe I know.

7:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Let's not slow Mr. Christopherson down.

7:15 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

My point is that it's almost that silly. It's almost as silly as having to say to the minister, “Say two sentences and then breathe. Make sure you eat during the day so you don't die.” I mean, really.

I realize I'm sounding silly, but the whole thing is silly, and it's a shame that we actually have to go out of our way—and what would be interesting is to see whether the government votes for it or not. I'm really anxious to see whether they're going to back away—

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

I think we should call a vote.

7:20 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

No, no, no.

You can tell we've been drinking a lot of coffee today.

I would just point out that this will be a fascinating vote. Is the government going to realize that this can never happen again, and that it's made a huge mistake, and therefore will agree to it? Or is it not only going to have to defend the fact that it didn't consult the Chief Electoral Officer but that it refused to put in legislation that future ministers have to, which really should start to scare people in terms of this government getting another majority, because if it gets away with taking one whack at our election laws, it's going to get away with most of it. Big pieces are being looked at here. There are all kinds of clauses we haven't even addressed yet that are equally damaging to our democracy.

It will be interesting to see whether the government decides, even if it's in opposition, that it would be okay for another party in majority to do the same thing, because by refusing to put this in the law, it's basically saying that we consider it okay for any Canadian government to do as it did, to bring in major reforms to the election laws, and not to talk to the people that Canadians have hired to be the referees. It will be very interesting to see how this vote goes.

Thanks, Chair.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

You're very welcome.

Mr. Lukiwski, on the same amendment, PV-13.

April 29th, 2014 / 7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

I think Mr. Christopherson has just demonstrated quite aptly why we shouldn't allow television cameras into meetings like this at the House of Commons.

7:20 p.m.

NDP

David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON

You feel that way about all committees.

7:20 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Look. The one thing I do agree with in what Scott was saying is that this should be a convention and certainly shouldn't be something that is ensconced in this.

Despite the protestations of my learned colleagues opposite, there was an awful lot of research and information sought by the minister before bringing forward the bill. Whether it would be through Monsieur Mayrand's appearances, previous appearances at this committee, recommendations he's made, the numerous reports that they had presented, including the Neufeld report, plus conversations.... Even though Monsieur Mayrand did not consider that to be consultations, he will admit that there were conversations. He did not consider them to be consultations, but he did say that they had conversations.

The minister gleaned from all of those elements the information that he thought was sufficient to present a bill. Now, clearly we have heard testimony and we have offered recommendations for change vis-à-vis amendments, which proves obviously that the government and the minister himself were listening.

To try to ensconce in legislation a requirement that any minister on any bill must be required to do this, this, or this before presenting legislation is simply not on. It should never be that way. Therefore, just based on that principle, we'll be opposing this.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

I'll go to Mr. Reid, then Madam Latendresse, then Mr. Scott.

Let's try to keep some brevity here, folks. We're on our second one. Let's see if we can get there.

Sorry, Mr. Reid, that's not specifically to you; that's to the whole group.

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

No doubt that was referring to previous speakers and not to me. My reputation for laconic statements is by this time the stuff of legend.

I just want to say that I think there is a problem with this particular proposal in that the Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of Parliament. He reports to Parliament. He reports specifically to this committee as his avenue to Parliament. This ought to be the spot to which he makes his recommendations. He is in fact by statute required to make recommendations regarding his views as to what changes ought to be made. He is in no position to make independent recommendations to the ministry, even if asked, other than those that he has made to this committee.

As I said before in this committee when this issue of consultation was raised, I would have been very upset with the minister if he had disclosed anything about what he was considering to the CEO. After all, ministers are supposed to first reveal the legislation to the House. I would have been upset with the CEO had he made recommendations to the minister other than those he'd made to the committee. If asked, he ought to have said, “You can find out what my recommendations are by consulting my report to the House of Commons on proposed legislation; for that matter, if you want to find out what the House thinks about it, you can read their response to my report.”

I actually think that's exactly what did happen. The minister did consult that report.

7:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you.

Madam Latendresse.