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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 32 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-19.
The public portion of the meeting will be webcast on the House of Commons website. Today's meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.
Is the meeting taking place in camera?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
The meeting is being webcast. Only the person speaking show on the webcast, not the entirety of the committee.
With that being said, I would like to take the opportunity to remind all the participants of the meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.
I believe everyone is attending virtually other than our clerk and administrative staff. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
For all those attending virtually, I'll just remind you to select your language of interpretation at the bottom of your screen. Raise your hand in the toolbar below if you would like to speak to something. If you have a point of order, just unmute yourself and state that you have a point of order.
Before we begin, I have a minor administrative matter to take care of. A request for the project budget was circulated to everyone. This is for Bill C-19. Did everyone see the budget for C-19? I was hoping we could quickly approve the budget before we proceed.
Is everyone okay with the budget that has been sent around?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Perfect.
Definitely there has been a whole lot of cost savings with doing things virtually. The budgets look a lot slimmer than they once were, so that's good. There's some benefit to COVID.
The other thing is just be a little patient with me today. I'm having my butt kicked a little bit because of my second dose that I took yesterday. I was feeling great throughout the day yesterday, but all of a sudden, since last night, I have not been so well. I have taken some Advil, so hopefully, I can get through this meeting today.
We are meeting until 2 p.m., so we have been cleared for an extra hour today. Thank you to all of the whip staff who made that possible because I do feel we will need the full three hours to get through this. We have approximately 40 amendments. Forty amendments in a two-hour span would have been very difficult.
I should probably mention at the beginning that we have representatives from Elections Canada here today. They can answer any technical questions about the bill. We also have the PCO here, and we have our legislative clerk, Mr. Méla, here as well. He has been a godsend and really great at making sure we're doing everything appropriately from a legal perspective with the amendments in this bill.
We will start going through the package that has been given, amendment by amendment. I think there will be a couple of amendments that might be moved from the floor, which I have been informed about. There might be others that I don't know of, so please stop me along the way if you feel that you want to move something from the floor.
(On clause 1)
We are going to start with NDP-1.
Should we formally move each of these or have they been deemed moved since they have been submitted ahead of time?
Philippe Méla Legislative Clerk
Madam Chair, they need to be moved because they are not deemed moved.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I'm happy to move NDP-1, and I note, Madam Chair, as per the note circulated to the committee last night, that it's a new numbering.
What is now NDP-1 was formerly NDP-2, so this is a motion that would apply Canada-wide in terms of making ballots available in indigenous languages.
While I'm moving it because I'm the member of the committee, it's my colleague, who I'm very pleased to have here with me today, the member of Parliament for Nunavut, who will be motivating that amendment, Madam Chair.
With your permission, I would like to turn the floor over to her.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Maybe we can deal with NDP-1 and NDP-2 together since they are similar and in the same vein. I will—
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I would propose that we deal with them separately, because if NDP-1 passes, it essentially encompasses the subject matter of NDP-2.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
NDP-2 is meant as a more limited proposal that might satisfy the committee in the event that they don't sign on to NDP-1, which of course would be our preference for the reasons that my colleague is about to make clear to the committee.
NDP
Mumilaaq Qaqqaq NDP Nunavut, NU
Matna. Thank you, all, and thank you for the opportunity. I really appreciate it and the time and space here.
We have thought of great things happening, and of course we know that in this amendment we're looking at indigenous languages and ensuring that we see that on the ballot. Bill C‑19 is about protecting democracy. It's about ensuring that indigenous peoples can be included in the voting process.
I look and think of my riding in particular where about 84% or 85% of the constituency is Inuk and where for the majority of those people, about 60%, their mother tongue is Inuktitut. That's not including whether or not they actually speak the language, that is just encompassing their first language. Nunavut in particular can be viewed as an already very indigenous language-based riding, if you will.
What we're talking about is expanding that and making that more entrenched in our actual policies and the things that we do to ensure that we can see indigenous peoples included in this democracy. Keep in mind that while I have spoken a bit about my riding specifically, there are ridings all across the country that are in the same situation. If we're talking about reconciliation and the need for promoting that, the need for promoting indigenous languages, this is an amazing opportunity of course to be able to do that as well, and it should quite frankly already have been something that's in place. I'm really glad that we're here at least starting the conversation and really have an opportunity to do some really cool stuff and create some change.
We know that the Commissioner of Nunavut has stated that indigenous people's voter turnout reduces when their language is not available on the ballot. We know that Minister LeBlanc acknowledged that a broad view is needed as to what's in the scope of Bill C‑19 and said that the government will not object to something beyond the scope of the legislation if it's designed to further our collective best efforts to come up with the right mix of measures.
Again, this is something that should already be available. We should already be encouraging this. If the federal institution is really invested in reconciliation, here's an action item that we can do to show that to the rest of Canada. We also need to ensure that indigenous peoples like the Inuit can be included in the democratic process.
It was basically on day one of my election where people thought it was my fault as a newly elected member of Nunavut that there was no availability for them to vote in their language. There were so many elders and others who came up to me who said, I wasn't sure if I even voted right, or I decided not to vote. We can't have that happen because people can't have those kinds of clear barriers, and we can be lifting those up.
I really look forward to seeing support for this. Indigenous language is something that is so incredibly important and should be a priority to everybody here on the committee. You have all seen me talking about reconciliation and those talking pieces. Here's an action item. Here is something concrete to do to make change. It's so important that we ensure Inuit and indigenous peoples are included as a part of the democracy.
Let's take it a step further and show them that Canadians also want to learn about indigenous people, want to learn about indigenous languages, want to promote those kinds of things and want to see pride in that. This is Canadian history. This is Canadian people where indigenous peoples are the first of this country. These are the original languages of Canada. Why aren't they on the ballot? Today is an opportunity to see some of that change, to see that availability to be able to actually make change and progress and move forward altogether.
Thank you so much again for the opportunity to be able to speak.
I'll just leave you with this. Imagine if your voters could not vote in English or French. That is very much a situation similar to what many indigenous peoples are facing.
I look forward to your support, and of course this amendment is about ensuring everybody is included in this process, and we want to ensure that happens to the best of our ability.
Thank you, everybody, and I look forward to that support.
Matna.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Ms. Qaqqaq.
I think it's very important for you to have explained your amendment.
You made a very powerful and moving speech in the House the other day. I was grateful to have been a witness to that.
On a more procedural issue, this committee has dealt with these issues in the past as well, with the fact that indigenous languages now can be spoken in the House and translation can be provided. I know that perhaps there are still some delays in making the requests and making sure we can have those interpreted on the spot. We can still do better with that, but it's an important step that this committee had taken in the past to make that possible. I do believe that ballots should be available in many indigenous languages.
As for Bill C-19, however, it is a temporary measure in order to make elections safer during the pandemic, and the original bill does not touch upon ballots being changed for this election. Therefore, after having consulted with the legislative clerk, it has been found that this amendment—along with amendment NDP-2—are beyond the scope and principle of this bill and are therefore deemed to be inadmissible as amendments for this bill.
That doesn't mean that.... We do have Elections Canada come and report to us after each election takes place, and I think it would be something that we should be considering as perhaps a change to the bill as is. Maybe Elections Canada officials or the legislative clerk, who is here today, could help explain what they think as to why they think this is beyond the scope of the bill.
Legislative Clerk
Madam Chair, did you want me to go first or the officials?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Sure. Maybe you can go first.
The officials can also let us know what is being done when it comes to the different languages that are being used, not on the ballot per se but in polling locations, to help those who speak other languages to exercise and practise their civic right to vote.
Mr. Méla.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Madam Chair.
On the admissibility of amendments NDP-1 and NDP-2, since they amend the regular voting ballots—not the advance ballots or the special ballots—we felt that since the thrust of the bill is related to the health and safety of electors and electoral staff, adding new languages to the ballot would not enhance the safety of the people working during the elections or the electors themselves, since they still would have to come to the voting station to vote.
That's the reason why we thought the amendment would be beyond the scope of the bill, since the scope of the bill is quite narrow, due to the fact that it's a limited time span, if you like, in terms of its being limited to the pandemic. That's the reason why.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Since this is a very important issue, I was wondering whether Ms. Lawson or anybody else could step in and explain what is being done to facilitate other languages and how Ms. Qaqqaq or any other members who wish to try to make this type of change for the future could do so without it being at this point in Bill C-19, since it is beyond the scope of Bill C-19 at this time.
NDP
Mumilaaq Qaqqaq NDP Nunavut, NU
I think that's, quite honestly, a ridiculous reason to say people will still be showing up at the ballot. Does that mean they shouldn't be able to vote in their language and should only be able to vote in Canada's official languages? I'm just confused.
Since this is a public meeting, we'd like Canadians to know, really, why this isn't being viewed as part of the scope. What we're talking about is ensuring that indigenous people.... If you look at the text, this encompasses everything so that people showing up at the ballot box with indigenous languages can request a special ballot so that there's access. They don't necessarily have to go to the ballot box and shouldn't have to. They should be able to request a special ballot before and get it in their language.
I don't think it's reasonable to say that it's going to take extra work, that it's going to take extra time and that it's not within the scope. That's the job of the federal institutions: to ensure that people can be a part of the voting process and can be a part of the democracy. It's, quite frankly, shameful to give me the excuse that it's outside the scope. It's in no way, shape or form outside the scope. It's like telling me that, because I don't speak a certain language, I can't be a part of certain things.
That's not what should be happening in Canada. That's, quite frankly, a really shameful excuse. Basically, what you're telling all indigenous peoples, all Inuit from Nunavut, is that they're not worth having their own language on their ballot when they show up to go and vote. This is not at all out of any sort of scope. It's well within the scope. It's well within talking about changes that should already be there, changes, again, we can be making right here, right now. It's ensuring that Inuit and indigenous people are able to vote when we're forced into an election. It's ensuring that we see true representation across the country.
How can we see true representation if not everybody is voting, if not everybody is giving their voice? Right away I'm saying that there are 60% of people whose mother tongue in Nunavut is Inuktitut. Right away you're saying that 60% of people are not worth voting in their language by not discussing this, by saying it's outside the scope.
I just would like to say on record—I'm glad it's on the record, first off. I'm glad this is public, and I'm glad we can see very point blank here again a committee saying it's not worth the time, it's not worth the effort and it's not in the scope, which isn't true. It's completely within the scope. It ensures that we include indigenous peoples in this. It ensures that we are promoting reconciliation and that we are promoting the surety that we have the representatives who should be there.
That's the thing. With such low voter turnout for majority-indigenous communities, are those the right people to be representing them? Did everybody in that riding have access to voting? The majority of indigenous communities don't vote, because of things like this. Here is a change, right here, right now, that we're able to make, and it's so important. We just want the same thing as the English and French get. We just want the same equality to voice our opinions and be a part of a democracy. To be saying this is out of scope.... It should already be happening.
Quite frankly, I don't think that's acceptable. I'm just glad the public can see that.
Matna. Thank you for letting me speak again.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Ms. Qaqqaq.
I agree. It should have already been done. I think there are ways to maybe do this in the future as well, but I will read my ruling.
I'm following the procedure laid out in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice for amendments to legislation.
Bill C-19 amends the Canada Elections Act. The amendment seeks to add that all ballots must be printed in the provided indigenous languages. Since the bill itself does not address this issue, it is therefore beyond the scope of the bill. The amendment also amends a section of the parent act not amended by the bill. Therefore, it's beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
That's my ruling at this point.
