Evidence of meeting #118 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 information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
I'm good, thanks. That pretty much covers it.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm not sure Mr. Simms has ever said so little in an intervention before.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Yes, that was discussed at the last meeting, I believe, between you and Mr. Christopherson.
I want to say thank you to Ms. Sahota for bringing forward the motion and laying it out. I think it's beneficial when we have our cards on the table and we know what's being discussed so that we can start from the starting point.
I would ask that we have that motion circulated as quickly as possible, so that we have it in written form. I have the gist of it, though, and I do appreciate where that's coming from.
I might begin with a bit of an interesting point, that when Bill C-23 was brought before the committee, the actual date for reporting back to the House was set by Her Majesty's loyal opposition, at the time, so the voting date actually reflected the views of the opposition. Perhaps we could have some agreement on that as well, when the time comes.
I also want to say that, on our side, there are discussions going on, and I appreciate that. I know Mrs. Kusie and Ms. Jordan have had worthwhile conversations, as well as conversations with the minister's office. I think that's a positive development, and I appreciate that. We will be hearing from the minister, I believe, on Thursday at at 3:30, so I look forward to hearing about any undertakings she may have from that standpoint.
I want to go back, though, to a conversation that I brought up at the last couple of meetings about witnesses, in particular the Ontario Chief Electoral Officer. In June, we had the CEO come within days of the Ontario provincial election, in the midst of voter recounts and returning the writs. There is no question that it was a challenge getting him here at that point in time.
As a committee, we cannot compel the testimony of the Chief Electoral Officer. He is an officer of the Ontario legislative assembly, and we cannot compel testimony from an officer of a parliament or a legislature. Obviously, we cannot force Mr. Essensa to come. We can double-check.
My understanding is that we cannot compel, but I don't think he's showing an unwillingness to come. My understanding is that it is a challenge with scheduling. I would still like to hear from him at some point prior to clause-by-clause. I hope he can come at our regularly scheduled time on Thursday. I believe that is when the clerk is hoping that will happen. I'm optimistic and hopeful that this can be achieved. The changes that have been implemented in Ontario do reflect some of the challenges and issues we are debating here, so I think the ability to hear about their successes and challenges on this bill is worthwhile.
I'm not going to express outrage—Ms. Sahota did mention that—but I will point out some concerns that I don't think are insurmountable. I think this committee has worked well in the past. I believe the motion says, “the Chair may”, not “the Chair shall”, so there is that discretion.
I was not a member of the committee at the time, but a year and a half ago, we had our little.... I don't want to call it a filibuster; I think it was just an extensive discussion. I guess that was back in the spring of 2017.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I want to point out that we did establish the Simms protocol, thanks to the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame...or just Newfoundland and Labrador. I do appreciate the nice long titles. Perth—Wellington is nice and short. I can remember it.
I do appreciate that and I hope that there would be a similar type of discretion and debate allowed, arbitrarily limiting it to five minutes for all clauses. Hopefully there will be some discussion there, because there are going to be certain clauses that we can deal with in 30 seconds. Hopefully by that point we will have some commitments among those of us around the table that certain clauses will be passed or rejected fairly quickly. I think there will be certain clauses that, when we come to them, will need a little more fulsome debate. We may not agree on the outcome, but hopefully we can get to the point where we can agree to disagree on certain points and go forward.
I accept where the Chief Electoral Officer was coming from this morning. He and his organization, I believe, have done exceptional work since the last election, to be frank, and prior to that. I appreciate his comments that they're always ready to run an election based on the rules that are in place, based on the last election and using the by-elections as an outcome. I expect that we'll likely have some by-elections this fall. I don't foresee those going past the new year.
It's disappointing, but we can understand where he was coming from in terms of the poll books. It's disappointing in the sense that it would have been nice to have that in. It's certainly understandable that we do not want Elections Canada going ahead with an experiment in the middle of a campaign where things like that are at issue. I do appreciate that, but as we go forward, outside of the context of this particular bill, things like the poll books and making the process that much easier are there and can be undertaken.
We did discuss Bill C-23 a bit. I have what I think was a very interesting quotation about Bill C-23:
When time restrictions are placed on committees so there is a drop-dead time and when five o'clock comes around all questions are put, we do a disservice in the terms of the principle of democracy at the committee level by not allowing for debate and questions and answers.
Does anybody know who said that? It was Kevin Lamoureux. I always appreciate Kevin's sage wisdom and sage advice.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
He is a member of the committee, a non-voting member. In the time I've been here, I haven't seen him, but I know he does have a heavy workload in the House itself—
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Several yeopeople's work.... I don't know what the gender-neutral terms is, but I do appreciate people who take up that burden.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I do appreciate people who take up that burden, because it is heavy.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
On this issue, we may agree or disagree on different clauses, but I do think this committee has worked well. I am proposing an amendment related specifically to the Ontario CEO. Again, I don't have the exact wording of the motion, so hopefully we can work it out with the government in terms of the actual wording.
I move:
That the motion be amended
a) by adding after the words "That the Committee" the following: "do not"; and,
b) by replacing the words after "of Bill C-76" with the words: "before the Committee has heard from the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario".
Again, I hope this shows a willingness to move on with clause-by-clause and work together with the committee, but I would like to have the Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario join us for a discussion. If that can be done Thursday morning, hopefully that will be a mission accomplished. We'd have the minister in the afternoon, and then I believe the date that was proposed was October 2 or October 4.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
It would be October 2, next Tuesday, that we would begin the clause-by-clause, prior to Thanksgiving.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
