Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2017

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I would suggest that our first meeting back in the fall be a steering committee meeting to plan the fall, and technically that would be a witness meeting, but yes, the principle is fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

David Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I want to reference the minister's letter. She says in the second paragraph, second sentence, that her work will continue over the summer. Then she adds, “This is because many of the decisions on our response to the CEO's recommendations will have to be made before the House returns in the fall.”

Mr. Richards asked a question of the Elections Canada folks about what the deadline would be for changes in the next election, and the answer was...? I'm looking at Blake and asking.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

This discussion was in camera. Do you want to go in camera, David?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Why was it in camera?

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

The answer was not in camera. The answer was a letter, was it not?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Yes, I'm referring to the letter that's already in front of us, I assume in public.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Oh, I thought you were referring to what Blake had said.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, if you want to jump in, I'm in your hands, Chair. I could ask them here in public and maybe avoid that. Thanks, that's the way to go.

What was the absolute deadline, given that, if we're not going for PR—which we should be—you don't need the time for the redesign? What was the deadline you gave us to have the changes that the government would like to see in your hands? When do you need that by, through you, Chair?

[Anne Lawson, General Counsel and Senior Director, Elections Canada]

I believe the acting Chief Electoral Officer has said that we would need to look at any legislation that is introduced, but my understanding is that legislation that's fully enacted by the spring of 2018 would be something we would certainly hope that we can implement for the next election. Now, legislation being enacted in the spring obviously requires its introduction before that, and requires the various committee processes, and the legislative process needs to unfold.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Fair enough.

Could you help me understand what parts of your recommendations require a response from the government by the fall or over the summer? Are there any exceptions to the deadline you've given us?

[Anne Lawson]

I'm not aware of the content of the minister's letter. I'm not really in a position to speak to that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm not trying to drag you into that, but the minister has just stated that some of these responses to you require her, as the minister, on behalf of the government, to respond over the summer. I don't know what those are. I'm asking if you might know.

[Anne Lawson]

No, I'm not in as position to comment on that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'm listening even more closely to my good friend Mr. Richards, since he was proven to be right in the past. He's now focusing and asking, “Where did this mid-July date come from?” In light of the answer from Elections Canada, I would ask that, too.

I would like somebody, on behalf of the minister, to tell me what responses have to be made before the House returns in the fall, which is the reason the minister is giving for our report not to be timely if it isn't received by her on a unilateral date of some time in mid-July. What are they?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Can we include that in our message to the minister?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I was thinking of something a little closer to now, not months from now when the whole thing is moot.

This is what I mean, Chair. Where's the goodwill? We've offered all kinds of it. All we asked for was an indication that the government would recognize...if we once again met their imposed deadline, which we don't have to do as a standing committee, as masters of our destiny. Now they want us to unilaterally accept something. I would say that at this stage the minister's point may even be suspect in terms of whether or not it's true.

We're in a bit of a crisis here, because this stuff matters. At least the government keeps saying it does, but when it comes time to deliver, we get this kind of nonsense. I am not satisfied, Chair. I have to tell you that this letter means, “Okay, well, folks, see you in September.”

That clock is going to keep ticking, and there is a point at which it will be too late to introduce legislation that could get all the way through the House. We're quite a ways from that now, but the more time is wasted, the more it suits the government agenda of shutting things off by saying, “Oh, we ran out of time.” I remind you that this is the government that was the author of the six-week “lost in space” period that we had.

The more that you look at this, think it through, and try to figure out what's fair and reasonable, the more you realize that the senior partners in this, the government, don't seem to have any interest other than their own agenda. I had taken them at their word that they were willing to consider beyond that, that they were going to be a different kind of government. Remember the election way back when, and all the promises about how things were going to be different. I have to tell you, right now it doesn't feel so different.

Chair, I am not satisfied that this is anywhere it needs to be. At some point, this thing has to get straightened out, or I don't know what.

What's not going to happen is that we just let it whimper away and die quietly because we've crossed deadlines that then make it impossible for us to do our work. I am so frustrated right now, and I question whether we're going to get a resolution. We're going to get out of here, we're going to be back in September, and we're going to be further behind because we've lost all that time. I'm getting close to the end of my rope with this government on this file.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

To add to what Mr. Christopherson just said, the deadline in this letter is not a truthful deadline. It's inaccurate; it's not grounded in the truth.

Elections Canada officials have clearly indicated to us on two occasions now that legislation would be enacted by the spring of 2018. A deadline of July 15 is not required for that to happen. This is, potentially, at least, dishonest on the minister's part. At the very minimum, it is an insult. It's what referred to by people as a “PFO letter”. That's what it is.

It's telling this committee, “Ha, I fooled you.” We were told, “If you guys deal with these things that I think are the priorities, we promise that we'll be able to deal with the other issues that the committee sees as important. We'll take those into consideration too.” Now she's saying, “You just finished what I promised from your part of the bargain, but oh well, fooled you. Tough luck. Not happening now.”

That's what happened. I think the suggestion you made that we communicate.... But it needs to be communicated that we absolutely condemn what has happened. This committee is extremely disappointed in this situation. There needs to be a more appropriate deadline created that would allow this committee to finish its work and would allow that work to be considered. Now, I understand that can't be an indefinite timeline, because there is some point at which Elections Canada can't put these things in place, but it is not July 15. That is not the truth.

We therefore need a date. We need to demand a date be given that gives this committee the opportunity to have its input. What is being told to us is an insult and is not accurate.

That's what a motion from this committee needs to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It's fair to transmit that, for sure.

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I just want to work backwards a little bit.

When we had Minister Gould here a few months ago, we asked her for her priority items. She didn't give them to us; we asked her for them. I don't think there's a lack of willingness to do another bill in the future; I just don't think it's realistic to have it implemented on time for the spring deadline—given the cabinet, Commons, and Senate process to get there.

If we want our input in, the best thing is to do our best to get our input on this. If we choose to come back and study it in the future, I'd be happy to do that. I just don't think realistically it can be in place by the spring of 2018, given everything else on our plates.

It's a purely pragmatic point of view.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Tell us what it is that has to be decided over the summer. We have the minister in writing...and I have Elections Canada saying they can't identify it.

What are these things that have to be decided over the summer that deny us the chance to have input? Elections Canada doesn't know what they are. I don't know what they are. I have a suspicion my esteemed colleagues in the Conservative benches don't know what they are. Please, government, enlighten us. What are the issues that have to be decided over the summer because there are deadlines that deny us the opportunity to put a full report?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

The government has to go through each one of the recommendations from the CEO's report and each recommendation from us, as well as every comment we have and every comment from everywhere else.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The minister said this is because...and I'm going to read this:

You will recall my letter of May 17th, in which I stated to Committee members that my work will continue over the summer. This is because many of the decisions on our response to the CEO's recommendations will have to be made before the House returns in the fall.

What are they?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I don't know. I'm not in the cabinet process. But they have to make the decisions to write the bill.