Evidence of meeting #3 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I'm sorry, Andre. I think you mean October 27 and 29. You said “November”.
Committee Researcher
I'm sorry about that.
The committee would need to consider the report on November 3 and November 5. That then would need to be translated at some point. There is a break week, a constituency week from November 9 to 13, when the House wouldn't sit and this committee probably would not meet, so the reporting deadline would be hard to meet. As for making it a longer study, the library really doesn't have an opinion on that, but only to say that the original motion would have been very tight, simply because of translation.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Madam Chair, could I then suggest that we come to an agreement on a friendly amendment and go with the original date of December 11 that Ms. Blaney suggested? That would give us ample time, because, again, as we're discussing, we may have more witnesses and more questions for the electoral officer, which would take longer. That would give the clerk and analysts more time to prepare this report and still be on a timely basis.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I guess there's a friendly amendment, and there's another friendly amendment. With that date—hold on, I have in front of me—of December 11, would that be to conclude the full study or would that be just to report back with an interim report?
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I think as we move forward I would say that it would be for the interim report. As we move forward, we might find that we have moved substantially forward with the information we need, so that we may be able to wrap it up sooner rather than later. As in most studies that take place, sometimes you do a study and it's cut and dried, and sometimes you do a study where there are more questions, such as what Mr. Blaikie raised in his intervention.
I think that if we can take care of the concern that our analysts have about the timeline and also look at the electoral officer's concerns, and move to take it at least into December, that would give us all enough time to digest what we're going to hear. The committee can debate the information that is brought forth. We can actually do a fulsome study, as Mr. Turnbull said in his intervention, on the issues potentially affecting Elections Canada in conducting an election during COVID. I think we can do a far better job—that's expected of us—if we push it a bit further.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Perfect. I think we're going to get somewhere.
We have about half an hour left of the scheduled time. Next on the speakers list is Ms. Vecchio, Dr. Duncan and then Mr. Turnbull.
Ms. Vecchio.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you very much.
I'm just looking at the subamendment, basically, that Todd is making to the amendment put forward by Kirsty. I think we really do have to look at those time frames. A lot will be coming our way. We'll need to do a lot of reviews as part of our job here. So I understand this, but what will the interim report's focus be? Will it be just these three things? Will we then be adding additional work to this? I'm just looking at that and thinking about what the interim report will be versus the final report. I'm looking at those December deadlines. I know it's tight regardless, but I also recognize that if we continue to add to this, saying that once we have this interim report....
If we continue to prolong this study, my concern is that we won't get to these other important studies as well. I just want to discuss that a little bit. What are we looking at trying to fulfill?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
It is my understanding that the interim report would mainly be focused on the three recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer. Then the rest of the study, whatever the scope and topics the parties wanted to look at and invite witnesses on, would be the larger study that would continue.
We have Dr. Duncan, Mr. Turnbull and then Mr. Blaikie.
Liberal
Kirsty Duncan Liberal Etobicoke North, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair, and my colleagues.
I'm concerned because, as a member of this group, we have to be ready for whatever comes. This is a novel virus. We do not know what will happen. When I look back to August, the cases across the country were in the low 300s. As I mentioned, they're up at around 2,000 to 2,200 right now. We also have to remember that there is a lag time here. The numbers we're seeing are from 10 to 14 days ago. I think it's important we keep in mind that asymptomatic spread is still a threat. This is a virus that still hospitalizes people. It still kills people. It's still challenging to treat. It's still disrupting the world.
These outbreaks follow a predictable pattern. People increase their number of contacts. Restrictions relax. Weeks later, cases rise. Hospitalizations rise. More deaths occur. We know that some provinces are having a harder time than other provinces.
I come back to the fact that we could see an election just because we have a minority government. We have to be ready. I think the sooner we can get some recommendations, the better. In the spring we had to be ready for whatever the fall would bring. No one knew if there would be a second wave, or if there would be a second wave with the flu, but we had to be ready. I think we have to be ready now.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you.
I appreciate all of the comments. I'm still working towards consensus here. I think perhaps some recommendations or some friendly amendments can still be made. In an attempt to do that, maybe I'll make a suggestion.
Why can't we have two timelines? One would be for an interim report that would really respond to that first report from the Chief Electoral Officer, which we've already received. It has become public. I think we need to respond to those three main recommendations and give some feedback and guidance on them. Perhaps we could do so if we were to add language in the middle of the motion that would maybe commit to a timeline of December 1. That, I suggest, would be the latest we should be aiming for in terms of an immediate response to the CEO.
My understanding, Madam Chair, is that there are more reports coming. The Chief Electoral Officer will in fact be submitting a second report in the future. Is that not true?
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
We can continue this study as long as it takes. I have a note here that the last study was done in the 42nd Parliament. That was after 42nd general election, and it had 34 meetings spanning October 2016 through June 2017. Obviously, no one here wants necessarily wants to have that many meetings to review these reports per se, but for as long as it takes, this committee should be digging into the details of how to conduct the safest and most efficient possible election whenever it occurs.
I know I'm not allowed to move this amendment, but perhaps there's another member of my team who would be willing to move it. I would certainly consider it friendly.
Mrs. Vecchio.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I note that we've heard subamendment after subamendment. Could we clarify what is being swallowed and what's not? That's part of the issue here, because we've got all of this going on, and Ryan, you're doing a great job. I know what you're trying to do, but we're going back and forth. Let's figure out where we're at, at this specific moment, and what is actually a friendly amendment? What are we looking at, and what are we trying to amend at this very specific point?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Obviously, we started with the suggestion from Mr. Blaikie to withdraw this motion, and then we moved to Ms. Blaney's original motion. That was if we get through the procedural aspect of voting on this, and that's where we would land, or if Mr. Turnbull were to withdraw his motion.
On the friendly amendments that were made to Mr. Turnbull's motion, one was made by Ms. Duncan, and that was to have an interim report by November 23, and then leave the end date of the actual study open.
There was a subamendment moved by Mr. Doherty to move the date to December 11, which would be a deadline for the full study.
We are now hearing from Mr. Turnbull as to perhaps another date. I'm not sure. He's about to say something.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I think we have to look at where we're moving forward.
I'm looking at Daniel, knowing that he was requesting unanimous consent for a motion. He had that request, and we were going through the speakers list, which had been exhausted. I want to go back to the actual procedure as to how we should go through this.
A motion has been put on the floor, followed by an amendment, and right now we've got all this fuddle duddle.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
The speakers list was exhausted, and then Mr. Doherty put his hand up to move a subamendment to the amendment, but otherwise I was going to move to a vote on the amendment that was proposed. However, Mr. Doherty raised his hand, so I decided that we shouldn't move to the vote without hearing from Mr. Doherty. He then moved a subamendment, and now there's some debate on that subamendment.
There's a speakers list that has started since that subamendment was introduced. That's where we're at.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I want to look at the family tree of amendments. That's all. Where are we going, and what is the amendment?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
No, we're on a speakers list on the subamendment right now. The speakers are Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Blaikie, and I believe Ms. Petitpas Taylor removed her hand, so it will be Ms. Duncan.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate Mrs. Vecchio's comments. I realize it's a bit confusing, because there are a lot of amendments and subamendments being proposed. I'm making an attempt to get us to collaboratively work together and find a timeline that works for everybody.
Hearing all of those concerns, I suggest that we add a reference to an interim report to the line in the motion that reads, “This study should begin with the top priority on a review of the recommendations made by Canada's Chief Electoral Officer in this special report”. We could add, “with an interim report due no later than December 1.” Then the motion could continue as is, “And, shall proceed to studying additional related challenges.”
We could also take out the timeline at the end of the motion, which originally said November 16. That way there would be no end date specified to the overall study, but there would be a commitment to an interim report that responds to the immediate needs of the Chief Electoral Officer, which is our responsibility as committee members to meet that request.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I know it's very confusing sometimes with all of this formality. We could probably come to a conclusion more easily if we all had a conversation the normal way people have conversations.
I apologize also. The speakers list I mentioned earlier has Mr. Blaikie, then Mr. Doherty, and then Dr. Duncan. That is who we still have on the speakers list. I'm still really optimistic that by the end of the scheduled time maybe we could have the vote and have some decision made.
Mr. Blaikie.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Given the discussion, my impression is that there's nothing in the scope of Ms. Blaney's motion that isn't covered by Mr. Turnbull's motion, and that the committee has agreement on that. If we propose to look at any of the elements that were mentioned in Ms. Blaney's motion as part of this study, nobody is going to be citing the terms of reference of Mr. Turnbull's motion as a reason why we wouldn't be looking at things in Ms. Blaney's motion.
I'm more concerned about getting the study started than I am about belabouring these details. I take the point that we want to get back to the House quickly on the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations. I still think we might be making too big a deal of that, frankly, because the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer and our views of them are going to be superseded by the government's legislation. The government is the one that has to draft the legislation, and our opinions about what legislative changes should be made, or whether the Chief Electoral Officer has made good recommendations don't generate any legislative proposals in themselves.
At the end of the day, it's the government that's going to decide what legislation it wants to put to the House. I can do it in a PMB, and we can talk about this three years from now. It's the government that's going to decide ultimately what we're actually—