Evidence of meeting #110 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Prof. Henry Milner
Voting-related.... I think generally that's true. I'm not a political historian so I could be wrong. In general that was accepted.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It's similar to what Mr. Conacher was testifying earlier that the unilateral appointment of any watchdog makes the job of the watchdog more difficult.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Because they have to play the referee, and you never want them to have even the taint or anything that it was only one sided.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's right. We look to the south and we see that all the time: the judges under suspicion, the rules, the gerrymandering that goes on. We've avoided some of that in Canada until recently. A concern you said at the beginning of your testimony is the strange instance in which government lawyers will be arguing in favour of the unfair elections act next week in Toronto.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
They're only obligated to do that because the government didn't move Bill C-33, which they introduced a year and a half ago. If that bill had been moved a year and a half ago would you still be in court and would we be spending taxpayer money arguing against what the government has said?
Prof. Henry Milner
No. I assumed that was happening; I shouldn't have maybe. That's why I was rather surprised when the law firm in Toronto contacted me a few months ago saying they were going to have this case. I asked what case. They said the fair elections—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
You asked hadn't that been taken care of already. Your response was that was already fixed.
Prof. Henry Milner
I thought it was on its way to being fixed. I do other things in my research so I wasn't paying that much attention.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
As you're a political scientist, when changing the rules that affect all the parties and Canadian democracy, is it a good principle to have multi or at least bipartisan support for legislation? Let me establish that first principle.
Prof. Henry Milner
It's a very good principle. Sometimes you may have a profound issue; that's what referendums are for, when you can't find consensus. For example, those of us in favour of electoral reform are divided over the question of whether it requires a referendum or not because that's more fundamental. On these basically improving—
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
On vouching on third party rules on those types of things.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We're under the gun, as you know. Elections Canada has told us already that they can't implement all of C-76 if we were to pass it tomorrow. Does that cause you any concern?
Prof. Henry Milner
I would hope...I don't know how parliamentary procedure operates, but it should be possible. Probably not. As I said here I am in a court case defending a position I've taken against the government that's changed its position toward mine. There should be some way of speeding up those things that Elections Canada says it needs a lot of time to implement, unless somebody is opposed to them.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
There's another principle in this though, which is Elections Canada can only do what the law says—
Prof. Henry Milner
That's what I'm saying, but if you can divide the law in some way, or divide the passage.... I don't know. I'm not a parliamentary procedure person.
Prof. Henry Milner
If that's possible. This is your area, not mine. Ideally there should be a way of moving quickly on those parts that Elections Canada needs more time to pass, where there is no principled opposition, which I'm not hearing yet. I cannot tell you how to do that.