Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 22nd, 2021

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I guess a brief lesson for everyone on the hazards of speaking before seeing things in writing...as I considered the Conservative amendment, I thought what I heard was a condition requiring a referendum after a national citizens' assembly on their findings. What I see in the amendment as written is that it would simply include the question of a referendum in the questions that the committee would consider as part of its study.

Again, what I said before is true, in that I'm not enthusiastic about the amendment, but I don't think it hurts for the committee to talk about that in the context of their study. My hope would be that they don't put any constraints on the citizens' assembly at the outset, because one of its important virtues is the open-endedness of that process.

I also think that part of the spirit of this motion and the push for a citizens' assembly is exactly to avoid relitigating some of the intractable disputes of the last Parliament's process.

In the spirit of building wider support for this motion and bringing people on board and setting up this study, I would be prepared to support the amendment as simply introducing that question. I do think it's a question that will be settled either way. We will either have a referendum or we won't. It will be part of the conversation both through the committee's study, I'm sure, and also in the context of a citizens' assembly, whether or not to have one.

I would be prepared to support adding this wording if it means we will be building a wider consensus that this is an issue we have to address and a process that we should be embarking upon.

In the best sense of a parliamentary give and take in the debate, having expressed some skepticism about the amendment before, having seen it in writing now and hearing some of the comments, I would be prepared to support the inclusion of the amendment in the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I accidentally keep turning my camera off today instead of hitting the mute button. I didn't mean to do that. I just realized that you couldn't see me.

Mr. Therrien, have you had an opportunity to take a look at the email?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Yes.

My position has slightly changed following Mr. Blaikie's presentation.

Personally, I wasn't firmly opposed to the idea of having a referendum. However, after hearing how people reacted, I realized that it wouldn't go forward. That's why I thought that Ms. Vecchio's amendment should include the notion of conditionality. [Technical difficulty—Editor] ask for a referendum, so that we can gain public support for it.

That said, Mr. Blaikie told us that he didn't disapprove of having a referendum. He can correct me if I'm wrong. To be honest, I must admit that I would support the mover of the motion, because I think that it is an appealing idea. I believe that it would boil down to further democratizing our democracy. I don't know if that's the right way to put it or if that is possible, but I like the idea.

If Mr. Blaikie has no issues with passing Ms. Vecchio's motion, it would be very ill‑advised for me not to support it.

That's what I had to say about this topic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Being able to see the motion in writing has definitely clarified what the position is. That has definitely helped smooth things out, and that was my wish for today's meeting: that we have a smooth meeting today.

Let's hear from Mr. Lauzon, and hopefully we're getting somewhere.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Here is what the French version says:

, y compris la nécessité d'un référendum national afin que les Canadiens aient la possibilité d'approuver tout changement proposé au système démocratique du Canada;

Everything that comes after “national” is okay. However, “y compris la nécessité d'un référendum national” implies that this is an obligation. It is a commitment. According to what Mr. Blaikie said, the motion does not appear to give the committee the option to decide whether to have a referendum.

All issues that are related to electoral reform and that the committee as such [Technical difficulty—Editor] relevant. If we want to modify a rule with the end goal of changing the electoral system, then it certainly becomes important. This is good, and is included in Mr. Blaikie's motion.

However, there is a grey area: the “y compris la nécessité”. The necessity is an order and a specific target. It isn't neutral.

Personally, I believe that the moment that the committee adopts a change that is deemed relevant, we will automatically be bound to have a national referendum.

I'm no French teacher, but I can tell you that my understanding of this part of the amendment is identical to Mr. Blaikie's initial assessment of it. I believe that we are committing to necessarily having a referendum if that is deemed relevant by the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I see your point, Mr. Lauzon. I think the language could have been selected a little bit more carefully, but at the end of the day, all the committee would be doing if we did pass this motion is doing a study. We wouldn't be setting up a national assembly; we wouldn't be having the referendum; we would just be studying all of these things in one basket. It's just including another thing in that study—for us to report back to the House on whether or not a national referendum is needed. We would be looking at the need for one, and you could be reporting back that one is not needed or that one is needed. It's just being added into the things to consider in that study—to report back to the House. I hope that helps clarify everything.

Conservative members, is that okay? Is that your understanding of what you're proposing? That's how I see it and that is what we would be doing. We wouldn't actually be setting one up ourselves in this committee, but we would be recommending how to do so and the framework for that.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

On behalf of the group, happy birthday, first and foremost. Thank you for sharing your birthday with us, with the PROC family members.

I have a quick question. When I was listening to Mr. Blaikie's opening statements about this amendment, my first inclination [Technical difficulty—Editor] outcome of the study by including the referendum. Then from there, we had further discussions, and you've clarified in indicating that we are really going to be studying the issue related to a national referendum, but I'm still really unclear with respect to the language that's presented, and I fear that we're opening a door here that we don't even know that we're opening. I don't want to put the Conservatives or Karen on the spot, but I'm wondering if we could get a bit of clarification on that. I'm not opposed to moving forward, but I want to make sure that we know exactly what we are agreeing to right now, so perhaps we could ask for a bit of clarification if that's okay, and then from there, we can continue this conversation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, that's always helpful. Thank you.

Mrs. Vecchio, go ahead.

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

Yes, thanks very much.

I think the one thing that's really important is reading the preamble to that, before you get into the (a), (b), (c) and the alphabet, because as it clearly indicates, “the committee's study shall include an examination of”, and then you get into your letters of (a), (b), (c) and (d). This is clearly [Technical difficulty—Editor] “shall include an examination of”. I think you're talking about that word “need”. I understand that is of great concern. Perhaps you have a different word that you think we could put in there that would still come up with the same idea. I think going into the preamble and how that all links together is probably the most important in this. Use your commas. I'm looking back to my grade 11 English teacher, and I think the thing is it's just the way it's written, so go back to the very beginning and then start putting in those points after. I hope that helps you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Really quickly, perhaps we could replace the word “need” with the word “option”. It might be a little bit easier in terms of the language to interpret it as an option. I think “option” is more true to it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

So it would be “including the option for a national referendum”. Okay.

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

I don't accept that as a friendly amendment, just FYI. I hear what he's saying about an option, but I want something that shows more that need and the fact that these are things that have to go forward. I think this is adding a lot of water to the wine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Fair enough. Mrs. Vecchio doesn't see it as a friendly amendment. Is that a subamendment that you've just moved? I'm not clear. Were you looking to see whether she would consider it a friendly amendment? She does not.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, I think I'd like to move it as a subamendment, if I could.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right, so there's a subamendment to the amendment, and that is to change one word.

Members, do any of you need clarification? Do you have Mrs. Vecchio's amendment in front of you?

At least in the English and in the French.... Mr. Turnbull, maybe you can go ahead and read it out.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Sure. I'll read the English version of it. So (f) would read:

Any other matters the committee deems pertinent to voting reform, including the option for a national referendum in order for Canadians to have the opportunity to approve any proposed changes to Canada's democratic system.

Really, the only change is that the word “need” becomes the word “option”.

To Mrs. Vecchio's point, if this isn't imposing some kind of a condition or a mandatory element to the process, then I think it's an option, and that better reflects what the intention of it was based on the conversation. I don't know why anyone would be opposed to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We're going to have Justin let you know where to find that in the French text. He'll read it out in French for us.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

Mr. Turnbull's subamendment would replace “la nécessité” with “l'option” in the French wording of the motion.

The motion would therefore become:

f) toute autre question liée à la réforme électorale que le Comité jugera pertinente, y compris l'option d'un référendum national afin que les Canadiens aient la possibilité d'approuver tout changement proposé au système démocratique du Canada;

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, I'll hear from Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy Birthday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Oh, thank you.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I never have to worry about working on my birthday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I always had exams, and I think we had an all-night vote at one point, so this reminds me of the high-school years again in some ways.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I think I remember working one day in my entire life on my birthday, and that was a while ago.