Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 25th, 2018

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I think we should give credit where credit's due. I think people are discussing this at levels that aren't in this room right now, so there will be additional discussion held.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I just have a quick response to that.

We've had the Ontario Chief Electoral Officer.... We've invited him, how many times now? It's been three or four times. He was on the original list as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It was four times.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Four times that person has not been available. I don't see what we would gain, necessarily, from having him that we couldn't get by doing some research on our own time.

Also, it's really not reassuring that it's not the only demand you have, and you're not willing to accept the rest and begin clause-by-clause by a certain date either. It would be a lot more reassuring if that was your request, having stated that you're in agreement with the rest of the motion and that was the one thing. As it seems that's not the case, I don't see why we would accept that amendment at this time.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Sahota. I do appreciate that.

My concern has been.... I brought this up prior to the summer recess, and at the last meeting as well. I think that we have a perfect case study of a provincial election, with Ontario, Canada's largest province in terms of population, having undergone an election campaign with some of the changes, or related to the changes foreseen in this bill.

My major concern is being able to hear from the CEO of Elections Ontario, or potentially some of his senior officials, if he is unable to attend.

Chair, I see it is 1:01. I don't know if you'd like me to continue or if it's the will of the committee that we adjourn until Thursday morning, or what the will of the committee is. I leave it in your hands, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I have a question for you. Your amendment is not time-limited, so if the person is not available for three years, it would never come forward. Are you going to propose a time limit?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'd be open to an amendment for that. I don't know what an appropriate direction would be. I don't get the sense that.... I did look to the clerk and staff first. If he's saying, “I'm not going to come”, then we have to deal with that, but if there is a willingness to come and it's just working around a time that we can get him here by video conference or by some alternative....

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

May I clarify something for you, Mr. Chair?

I don't think there is any willingness on this side to even entertain this amendment unless the rest of the motion is considered. They have to be willing to approve the rest of the motion for us to consider it, even if maybe we are compelling that witness to come, or whatever. We're not going to entertain it otherwise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. I need the committee's permission for what they want to do, because we're past the time.

For your information, the clerk doesn't think there is any reason in the rules why we couldn't compel the person, just so you know that.

I need the committee's will on whether or not to continue.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

No, we will not continue if the rest of the motion is not adopted.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

May I say something?

If someone made a motion to adjourn, we could find out whether the committee wants to adjourn or not. Could I give that a try?

I move that we adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. A motion to adjourn is not debatable.

(Motion agreed to)

We're adjourned.