Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 20th, 2020

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, just before Mr. Blaikie cedes the floor, I have a question for him.

At the very beginning he talked about Elections Canada and the legitimacy of the writ in certain electoral districts.

My understanding of what he was saying is that if they feel they can't conduct an election safely, they can suspend the writ or make the writ null and void in certain electoral districts.

Did I hear that correctly? Before he cedes the floor, I just wanted to ask that question and perhaps give him an opportunity to explain this a bit further.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I guess that's a friendly question. Perhaps Mr. Blaikie would like to shed some more light on it. I'm sure we could also ask the Chief Electoral Officer when he's eventually before the committee, because this question is interesting.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

The answer is yes; you did absolutely hear that right. I haven't checked the website recently, but certainly it was published in June on the Elections Canada website. If you go to their main site, then click on their COVID-19 tab, and read what they have there, you will see that they do draw attention to that power.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of what would happen if the election results were substantially similar to the election results we saw in the last election. In 30 ridings across the country, you had Elections Canada saying that they just couldn't meet the administrative requirements of the election. Then you would have a situation where some party may be asked to form a government based on an incomplete House of Commons. The way those seats would have landed, or will ultimately land by the time whatever wave we're in passes, and Elections Canada is able to hold that election, could substantially change the balance of power in the House of Commons and which party could enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons in order to govern.

This is not an academic question. I think we can all imagine the worst-case scenario of how belligerent certain political actors might be on that point, and might rightly be. It seems to me that this would be a scenario where it's not just a case of blind partisanship, depending on the scenario. There could be real, legitimate concerns about whether you could really ask a party to form a government if there's an extant 30 seats, and we don't know how they are going to land. That could be the difference between having party A form a minority government, or party B having a majority government.

Those are very different scenarios. You would be depending on—and this is not to cast aspersions on Elections Canada at all—a non-partisan organization making decisions on an administrative basis that would suddenly be determining indirectly very substantive political questions. I don't think that would be healthy for the country.

That's why I have felt for months now that there is a real sense of urgency. This is something we have to get right. I think some of those questions go beyond the scope of Elections Canada review.

On the same website, if you go to the same tab, what you will find is the task that Elections Canada set for itself, and rightly so. First, they looked at what they can do within the current legislative framework, what kinds of amendments or alterations they can make to their processes in order to more successfully run an election, given the public health constraints within the current legislation. Then they set themselves the task of asking about some quick and dirty legislative amendments that Parliament might be able to make in a hurry to make it possible for them to have a better chance of running these elections.

That's different from what I think the committee really ought to be doing. That is part of it. It's incumbent upon us to try to facilitate Elections Canada's quick response as quickly as we can so that they feel they can move forward with that. Obviously, there's a role for government in that because they need to present those legislative changes, but beyond that, I think there's then the question of how you ideally run an election inside of a pandemic rather than just how we do a rush job of making it possible.

Elections Canada has to do that because Elections Canada isn't in control of when the next election will happen. We are. It's incumbent upon us to figure out how we can hold an election safely within a pandemic and to figure out the timing of that.

We could go on about this. Frankly, I think the House of Commons should do a much better job at codifying the confidence convention. We're seeing some of that play out on the floor of the House of Commons today. There is no reason that the confidence convention has to be so opaque and open to interpretation.

In Britain, in 2010, they made it very clear in their own Standing Orders that nothing is a confidence vote unless you have a non-confidence motion. There are two forms that a non-confidence motion can take. They are stipulated in the Standing Orders. If a motion isn't one of those two motions, it's not a confidence motion.

That's a great way not to have a surprise election, and, frankly, in the midst of a global pandemic I think Canada's Parliament should be doing a far better job of making sure that we don't have an election by accident. I think it's shameful that we haven't got it together to do that and that the kinds of games that are happening on the floor of the House today are going on.

That's not a separate conversation, but it is a longer conversation than the CEO of Elections Canada is asking us to have. Yes, we want to be able to address his recommendations on an urgent basis, but there's a lot more work for us to do and there are a lot of things to consider when we talk about elections, not only how you have them but how they're triggered in the context of a pandemic.

I think Ms. Blaney's motion establishes a sufficiently wide scope while pointing out some of the important things that we have to do and, importantly, it allows us a little bit more time.

If the chair would agree, I propose that we test the committee now for unanimous consent to dispense with Mr. Turnbull's motion, lay Ms. Blaney's motion on the table, and see if we can come to some form of quicker agreement on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think we might be able to build consensus. I don't know, but it's always good to have consensus whenever we move forward in a united way. I think that's always the ideal way, but there is a list of speakers and I know they've been patiently waiting for some time. I can see perhaps how there could be frustration if they don't get their say, so I would like to hear from Ms. Vecchio, Mr. Doherty and Dr. Duncan, and hopefully they can shed some light through their remarks as to what their thinking is and help us.

Ms. Vecchio.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Excellent. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

To start off with Member Turnbull's—Ryan's— motion that he put forward today, I see exactly what he was trying to do and I respect that. We do need to have some guidelines specifically for the Chief Electoral Officer, because as Daniel said, we don't want things to lead to what they could—so I think it's very important that we do debate and discuss some of these issues that could come up.

As a former chair—and I am very grateful that Ruby brought it forward—I am very concerned about that deadline. I do not see it as something that would work for this committee, especially when it comes to translation and everything that's going on. As a former committee chair, I can tell you it was delayed quite a bit. I recognize that I was not the chair of PROC and I know that there's probably precedence given to this committee on making sure that things are being translated and a variety of things of that sort, but I just do not see how a November 16 timeline could even possibly work.

We also have to recognize that during that period of time, although we are doing with hybrid sittings, we are going to be looking at Veterans' Week, so we are talking about reporting and tabling a report to the House of Commons on November 16 when we actually have only 18 sitting days between now and then, if you're counting Veterans' Week as a potential sitting week, since we have the ability to do hybrid sittings. I just do not think that we would be able to turn around a fulsome report on what we're really looking at.

I would therefore like to move an amendment, and it's specifically to the date. I would like to change the date for report—

Actually, I'm going to wait for that and pass that back because I know that Todd does want to speak on this as well. I will just roll back on that comment, and I will not be moving an amendment at this moment.

I think those are some of the concerns. I have a great concern and therefore I think we need to have that additional three to four weeks to be able to do the work that we need to do.

I do not think we are going to be looking at a report for which we're going to have unanimous consent on every single issue. There's going to have to be not only one draft but also a second draft. There will have to be translation, and if we're really looking at the inner workings of Parliament, it's just not going to do that bit. Those are the concerns that I have there.

When I look at the whole of Ryan's motion, I do see that it is satisfactory in most cases, but I think we also need to get a lot of work done. We know that prorogation should be coming up in the next week as well, so there are many priorities that this committee must study.

I will now turn over the floor, but thank you very much for listening to my comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Vecchio. I appreciate those comments. It gives us a better sense of which direction to head in.

Mr. Doherty.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I apologize to my colleague publicly for calling “inaudible” while we were live.

Both motions are obviously very similar in scope. My concern is the timeline of Mr. Turnbull's motion. While bringing forward a motion that is more streamlined, I will give him that, and focuses more on what the Chief Electoral Officer's report is, in his intervention Mr. Turnbull talks about a fulsome study. I'm not quite sure that, given the timeline of November 16, we would be able to come to a fulsome study as such. Therefore, my concern in regard to Mr. Turnbull's motion would be that, first, the timeline is too short.

Madam Chair, I know you spoke of the urgency the Chief Electoral Officer expressed to you. Again, with the information and the intervention that Mr. Blaikie brought forth, I would be more inclined to support dispensing with Mr. Turnbull's motion and going with Ms. Blaney's. Perhaps we can come to a friendly amendment on a timeline and agree as a committee that we are focusing on the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations sooner rather than later and we can do an interim report on what the Chief Electoral Officer's three recommendations are.

I see an issue in terms of setting a definitive timeline for November 16. We need to make sure we hear what the Chief Electoral Officer brings forth on Thursday and decide at that point whether we are going to see ourselves in a four-to-six meeting study. We also know that we have provincial elections taking place in my province of British Columbia currently, where we moved our voting day, our e-day, to a weekend. Saskatchewan is undertaking theirs next week. As well, we have the history of New Brunswick's election. It would give us a little more time, again not being so rushed; but to really develop that witness list, too, I think individual groups or parties will have an opportunity to expand the witness list.

Again, as we are in unprecedented times, we need to make sure that we're not putting undue pressure on our analysts to quickly turn around a hastily done study just for the sake of expediency here or because we feel that the Chief Electoral Officer is expressing some concern in terms of time. It's our duty to make sure that, as Mr. Turnbull said, we are doing our job. We owe it to Canadians to make sure that we're looking at most or all areas of this and our concerns. We do not want to put Canadians' health and safety at risk.

I appreciate Mr. Turnbull working through the night to put forth this motion. It is well meaning. However, we have a motion before the committee, and on Mr. Blaikie's side, I think if we can come to some friendly amendments on that, we can dispense with Mr. Turnbull's motion and then work to try to right-size Ms. Blaney's motion to something more amenable to the committee and get to work on it as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. Thank you.

That helps a lot. We're hearing mostly issues with a timeline, and having a fulsome discussion on this.

Ms. Duncan, followed by Mr. Turnbull.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank all my colleagues for their very thoughtful comments, and Mr. Turnbull for bringing forward his motion.

I am concerned, as we are in wave two. The numbers are clear. We need to do everything possible to protect Canadians, particularly our most vulnerable. We have to recognize where we are. We are in a minority government, and confidence votes are going to come up now and again. It's absolutely incumbent upon us that we hear what planning is in place for an election, and to protect our democratic institutions. They have to be fully functional as we fight this pandemic.

In the spring, we had to be prepared for whatever the fall brought. In this second wave, we have to be prepared now for whatever comes. It's going to be really important to hear what measures Elections Canada is putting in place, so that Canadians can express their democratic right.

Members of the committee are talking about timelines. Could we think about an interim report due by November 23? The reason I say this is that we are in wave two. If you look at the case numbers, they're hovering between 2,000 and 2,200 in the country. Those are real case numbers from 10 to 14 days ago. We don't know where those numbers are going to go. It is the job of this committee to make sure that we are prepared should we have to go into an election and do so by protecting the health and safety of Canadians.

I would like to suggest that we keep Mr. Turnbull's motion, and we add an amendment to have an interim report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull, go ahead, please.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the discussion and the thoughtful remarks from my colleagues, in particular Ms. Duncan in suggesting that we could build in an interim report deadline. Perhaps amending this motion would enable us to get some unanimous consent on it. It sounds to me like we're all amenable to the general idea of studying this as a first priority, which is great to hear.

Perhaps I was being a little overly ambitious for even our most dedicated House of Commons staff. They work around the clock and serve and do amazing work, so my apologies for that. However, I do think Ms. Duncan makes a really good point, that maybe we could have an interim report due on November 23 and then leave the study end date blank, perhaps. Just take that out.

To Mr. Blaikie's point, there may in fact be numerous topics that require significant debate and that will take us a little bit longer. Perhaps I was being overly ambitious in thinking that we could do all of this by November 16. My intention was really to respond to the CEO's request for a swift response, which I think...given some legislative changes that may be necessary. I get Mr. Blaikie's point that some of that may come to us anyway in second reading. I think having us discuss the recommendations, both non-legislative ones and legislative ones potentially, would be advantageous. To be able to respond and provide some feedback or guidance within a fairly compressed time frame would serve the immediate needs of the Chief Electoral Officer, who is really under the gun. If I were the person responsible for having to make sure we could have an election at any time and ensure that Canadians could exercise their democratic rights safely, I certainly would hope that a parliamentary standing committee would respond to my request for swift guidance. I think it is our duty as members on this committee to respond to that.

I think Mr. Blaikie made a really good point. I actually had a quote from the Toronto Star that I think quotes the Elections Canada website that essentially says, yes, the writ could be withdrawn. This is deeply concerning for me. If public health experts thought Canadians were being put at risk unnecessarily, they could withdraw the writ. This has never happened throughout history, as far as I know. It would be a pretty large failure of our democracy, in a way. I think it's our responsibility to step up and respond to this request.

So I hope this motion can stand with an amendment. I know that I can't amend my own motion, but Ms. Duncan has already suggested, I think, an amendment that might help us reach consensus.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Clerk, perhaps you could help us here. We're at the end of the speakers list. We have a motion on the floor. It was introduced, debated and...amended?

Can he not amend it himself? Would somebody need to move a formal amendment and then we vote? How do we move on?

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, if the committee does want to have an amendment to Mr. Turnbull's motion, Mr. Turnbull as the mover can't move that amendment. It would fall to one of the other members of the committee if they so wished to provide some sort of amendment to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Dr. Duncan, you have your hand up. Could you provide us with an understanding of what the motion would now be?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to add a friendly amendment that I hope Mr. Turnbull would accept. As people talked about timelines, I would hope that we could add an interim report by November 23. I'm hoping that might allow for a consensus around the table.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Just the last sentence would be changed: “that the committee submit an interim report to the House no later than November 23, 2020”.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Exactly. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, if I may....

Is there a speakers list? I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

There isn't. You would be the next person on the list.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Just to be clear, let's do a walk back on the time frame. The interim report would be due on the 23rd. Again, I would like to just walk back with the clerk or the analysts on the time frame. If the 18th was really pushing it, how does adding five more days make that big a difference? At the very least, would it not be best to push it to the first week of December?

Again, we are studying, and we want to give ourselves four, five or six meetings between now and then to study this. Then we have to agree and meet with the committee again on the text of the interim report. Then it goes to translation, and then we bring it back to the House. I'm just saying that by adding an additional five days or spreading it into the first week of December, I think we're probably better off. I think we should go to the clerk or to the analysts to see if more time is needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Andre, I know from the email you sent me that you said the 16th would not be possible. Did you want to give us some input?

[Andre Barnes]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just to elaborate, I sent an email to the chair about the study as set out in Mr. Turnbull's motion. The concern that was raised between my colleague Laurence and me was that if the Chief Electoral Officer comes on November 22, which leaves November 27 and 29 for meetings, at which we would get more testimony. We would then need to consider the report on November 3.