Evidence of meeting #32 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 clause.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
What I would like to add to Ms. Qaqqaq's remarks, just from my own experience here on the committee of having participated in the study of pandemic elections and then in the process up to now on Bill C-19, is that I think it's very clear, if you look at the study that the committee conducted and at some of the remarks that the government has made at this committee in respect of C-19, that the purpose of the bill and the things that we should take into account for consideration when we're talking about conducting an election during the pandemic certainly include public safety, but they also extend beyond that to ensuring that in a time when it's very difficult for people to vote—and we heard testimony from indigenous peoples at this committee during our study that there were additional barriers to voting because of the pandemic—we facilitate voting.
This is one thing that the committee might do and that Parliament might do through this bill, even as new barriers are being presented because of the pandemic, to eliminate some long-standing barriers at least on a trial basis.
I would argue certainly that it is within the scope of the bill, because I think the bill ought to be interpreted in accordance with that dual purpose of both protecting public health and safety, and facilitating voting and ensuring that people aren't disenfranchised at a time when it's arguably going to be more difficult than ever to feel comfortable casting a ballot. We have seen in the example of Newfoundland and Labrador, for instance, the effect that can have on an election.
This is the kind of thing the committee could do in the spirit of facilitating voting and avoiding the kind of aversion to voting that we saw in Newfoundland and Labrador and all the challenges that lower turnouts present to the outcomes of a democratic election.
With that in mind, Madam Chair, I would respectfully challenge your ruling and ask for a recorded vote by the committee on whether or not to sustain your ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
Monsieur Therrien, would you still like to speak before we have that vote? There has been a challenge to the ruling. Can we move on to that?
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Yes, Madam Chair.
I am a little ambivalent about the discussion we are having. At the outset, I agree that during a pandemic, we need to prepare for elections so as to ensure people's health and safety. From my perspective, that is the most important element, and you stated it very well, Madam Chair.
However, as a Quebecker, I must fight for the French fact in Quebec and for respect for my language. In fact, yesterday, we were very happy that the House of Commons agreed that Quebec is a French-speaking nation. The fight we have been waging for hundreds of years in Quebec to preserve the language and to be served in our language—
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
No.
Excuse me, Monsieur Therrien. I didn't want to interrupt, but my understanding is that if there has been a challenge to the chair's ruling, it's non-debatable and a vote must occur immediately.
Is that not correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That is correct. Monsieur Therrien had had his hand up for a while. I guess it is my fault that I didn't move directly to the vote, but you're correct. It is dilatory and there should be a vote and no debate on the challenge.
The Clerk
Madam Chair, I can proceed with a recorded vote.
The question is shall the chair's ruling be sustained? If members want to support the chair's ruling, they vote yes. If members want to overturn the chair's ruling, they vote no.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
All I'll say is that I, too, think this committee can find a way to address this issue, separate from this piece of legislation, in the future.
If I'm still on this committee at a later time, I'll definitely do my best to make that change.
NDP-2 is also inadmissible for the same reason.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Madam Chair, I have a point of clarification. It wasn't clear to me if the ruling that we just voted on included NDP-2 or not. I'm looking for a little bit of guidance on that, because I think they are different amendments. We would like to have both amendments represented on the record.
My understanding is that.... I don't know if you can have ruled on something that wasn't moved or where we are exactly in that process. The outcome that I really want to avoid would be moving on and then not having NDP-2 appear on the record.
Could we get some clarity as to whether we just voted on the admissibility of NDP-1 or if we voted on the admissibility of both, and whether that would have been in order and how we proceed from here to ensure...?
I think my colleague would like the opportunity to speak a little bit about the virtues of NDP-2, because it is a different proposal and to certainly ensure that it appears on the public record.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
It's my understanding that we only voted on NDP-1 since you wanted them separated out.
Is that correct, Mr. Clerk?
Legislative Clerk
Madam Chair, yes, it is, but NDP-2 should be moved before anything happens.
I'll add to Mr. Blaikie's question on the public record. Even if it was ruled inadmissible, it would appear in the minutes regardless.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
Mr. Clerk, going forward, if I have already determined that a particular amendment will be inadmissible, is that something I can inform the mover of before they even move it, or should I only inform them after they move the amendment in case they withdraw it or don't move it?
Legislative Clerk
No, Madam Chair, they have to be moved to be able to rule them one way or another.
Liberal
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
If I may, Madam Chair, I would move it because I have to be the mover, but with your permission, I would like my colleague to be able to motivate it.
NDP
Mumilaaq Qaqqaq NDP Nunavut, NU
Matna. Thank you, once again.
Thank you all for sharing so honestly, through that vote, the fact that you're not interested in providing indigenous languages on the ballot, even though we have the opportunity to do that. Thank for you sharing that we should be doing something and we can be, but we're not. Thank you for showing Canadians, quite bluntly through your vote, that you're not interested in action but just in talking about it, as I have been seeing.
That's what makes this job so difficult. It's heartbreaking to sit here and ask, to be a position of influence and say, “We can make change. We can show indigenous people they matter. We can show indigenous people that we want their languages to be recognized and supported. Instead of just talking about it, we can actually do something about it.” I'm sorry it worked out that way, but thank you so much, each and every one of you, for very blatantly showing that to the rest of Canada.
Then you totally wanted to skip over Nunavut, which has very specific needs, as I mentioned, and can at least be.... You know, even the chair wants to say that if they're still here, they would be interested in working on something like this. Here's an opportunity to at least start with Nunavut, to at least start somewhere, to at least start a conversation and do something.
I'm trying so hard not to be shaky right now because again, right now, indigenous people are being denied another right. Right here, right now, indigenous people are being told that they're not worthy of participating in the democracy. Right here, right now, indigenous people are being told their languages are not worth it and Canada is not proud of them. Right now, indigenous people are being denied an opportunity. They are being told they are not worth it and being given another excuse.
It's shameful to have to sit here and listen to each and every one of you, with the exception of my colleague, of course. Honestly, it's a bit surprising from the Bloc, but I'm incredibly grateful to see some sort of.... I can't even say “discussion” because there's no room for that. There's barely any room for comments. I hope you all feel really uncomfortable right now. Imagine not being able to vote in your language. Imagine not being included in a democracy. Imagine being told point-blank, “We have an opportunity for change right here, right now, and you are not worth it. This is not worth it”, and being given another excuse to not have it within the committee's scope, within our workability. That's not true. It is within the scope and it is within your ability.
Thank you for showing the rest of Canada that this institution is just about talking. It's not about doing. Thank you for voting in a way that very clearly shows Canadians, and indigenous people especially, that reconciliation is just something you talk about. It's not something you actually do in Canada. Thank you for sharing and being so bluntly honest through your actions here today.
I'll leave it there. Matna and thank you for letting me have the space to be able to speak.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Ms. Qaqqaq.
Your words have had an impact on me, and I'm sure they have on others, as well. You're right in many ways. Hopefully, we can figure out a way to make this happen and make action happen.
Once again, like the previous ruling, this is found to be outside the scope of Bill C-19 and the principle of the bill.
Go ahead, Mr. Blaikie.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
For reasons similar to the ones I expressed under NDP-1, particularly in light of the fact that this amendment is more narrow in scope and would apply only to Nunavut, my colleague has illustrated very well the high percentage, in fact, the overwhelming majority of people who speak indigenous languages in that particular riding.
I think this is even more in keeping with the spirit of the bill. We're talking about trying to enfranchise people at a difficult time. This would essentially pilot that—in one riding out of 338 in the country—on a very limited basis. We're not talking about dozens of languages on one ballot here. We're talking about a limited number of languages in the one riding out of 338 in the country where the overwhelming majority of people speak that language.
Madam Chair, I think the argument is even more compelling in respect of this amendment and the scope of this bill. For those reasons, I would once again challenge your ruling and ask for a recorded vote as to whether the committee will sustain or overturn your ruling.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Sure.
I just wanted to add for further clarification that the form of the actual ballot has not been mentioned in C-19 and is not touched by the bill. That's another hopefully clearer explanation as to why it's outside of the scope. The bill does not affect the ballot.
We'll go to the vote.
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)