Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 27th, 2018

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I'll keep it shorter than I have in the last couple of meetings.

I do want to say officially what I was trying to interject and say earlier, which I probably shouldn't have done, but what's the logical next step?

I feel your subamendment to the amendment to the motion is a very negative one. It doesn't give the government any assurances that we'll move on to the next logical step after hearing from the minister or after hearing from the Ontario Chief Electoral Officer.

We've heard from—what is it again?—53 witnesses for this study, which we began on May 23. Numerous amendments have been proposed by all the parties. We have exhausted our witness list. You guys don't seem to be proposing any other ideas at this point that are going to improve this legislation, so it is just stall tactic after stall tactic. What is the next step?

We can hear from the minister. We've already scheduled the Ontario Chief Electoral Officer. The federal Chief Electoral Officer has been here four times, not including the report from the 2015 election that we went through with him, where he had 130 recommendations. I don't even know how many meetings we spent on that. We spent a chunk of this year on that.

We've done all that work. What is the next step? I want to hear a proposal from the other side, and I'd like the subamendment to be made positive so that, after hearing from the minister and after hearing from the witness we have on Tuesday, we are going to move into clause-by-clause. If we're not, then what next?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm eager to hear from the minister. The minister was scheduled to be here from 3:30 to 4:30. I would suggest that we table this motion for now. It would put this aside until we hear from the minister. What the minister tells us, I don't know. She doesn't share her speaking notes with me yet, but I'm sure she has a lot of insight that she's going to share with us.

We may be able to move forward on this in short order if we hear from the minister and then deal with this motion following her appearance in the next 34 minutes. If the government members are willing to table this motion until 4:31, we can come back to this motion and deal with it then.

I would move the debate be adjourned now, and I would be more than happy to begin this discussion again at 4:31 after we've heard from the minister.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It's non-debatable, non-amendable, so we have to have a vote on whether to adjourn the debate. Does everyone understand the situation?

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

Mr. Chair, let's have a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 3)

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

I'd like to be put back on the speakers list, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The debate is not adjourned.

We'll go on to the next speaker.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson]

I have a question at this stage.

Mr. Nater, you were willing to move a motion that would have us pick up this discussion after, which is not unlike what we asked for earlier. I'm giving you all the room to talk as long as you want, but would you agree that once we entertain that debate, we don't rise from this meeting until we vote?

That way, if you want to filibuster for the next 10 hours, you can go for it. Nobody's being denied the right to speak and at the end of the day, the majority of the committee, which constitutes two out of the three parties here, get what we want, which is a vote.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We're 30 minutes in. If we can inquire of the minister if she's in a position to stay an extra half-hour with us.... I don't want to force her to stay. If we don't come to any agreement at the end of that half-hour, but we have her here. We've already lost half her time doing this stuff. If things work out, we could have our hour of questions with her. I think that's a germane question.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Yes, I'm always willing to come when the committee wants to hear from me.

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We're at Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson]

Okay. That's fine.

Mr. Reid, you got the answer. I think it was a helpful answer. I certainly appreciate the minister's flexibility to help us do this as peacefully as we can but still get it done, so I come back to you, sir. Are you and your team open to the idea that we will return to this debate after we've heard one full hour from the minister, who has now graciously agreed to massage her schedule to allow all of us to have a full hour.

Do you agree that we will begin this discussion at the end of that hour and that this committee meeting will not end until we have a vote and that you will have all the time, hours, days, weeks, whatever you want, but at the end of you folks saying what you want to say, we get a vote? Do you agree with that?

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

First of all to be clear, the thought that I want days, hours, or God help us, weeks of sitting here debating this subamendment or anything else with this motion, trust me, that is not what I want.

I think you probably believe my sincere point.

[David Christopherson]

I do believe that, but I'm more interested in hearing whether we're going to get a vote or whether you guys are going to drag this out and we're going to have to use the heavy hand of going back to the House and getting an order to hear, which I will be prepared to support if necessary. I'd much rather do this nice and friendly and give you the opportunity to take all the time you need to make all the points you feel you wish to.

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

The brief answer, and it's also sincere, is that's actually not in my power. I don't have the power to say what.... How do you say you're willing to rise regardless, unless you say you're willing to concede everything on this? I'm trying to think of a way of answering you without—

[David Christopherson]

No, you're trying to think of a way out of it because what you're trying to do is delay this and you're running out of runway. This game is over. Let's get this done, sir.

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

I understand why you'd say that, but that's actually not what I'm trying to do. What I'm trying to express is that.... I'm involved in similar negotiations right now with a local township, and it's the same sort of thing as well: “You must come to an agreement by this time, full stop, and if you don't come to an agreement by that time, then we just get our way.” I don't find that a very attractive position to be in, and essentially it's just a unilateral concession of surrender. At that level, the answer—

[David Christopherson]

How so? You have all the time you want to say what you want. How is that surrender? You're going to lose the vote. You know that. The question is, how long are you going to avoid our having the right to vote?

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

I guess we can find out.

[David Christopherson]

There are judges out there. They're called the public. This is a public meeting, and they're going to understand very clearly who's doing what and why.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

David—

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

That is 100% true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

—just give Mr. Reid a chance to—

[David Christopherson]

No, you're right.