Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 22nd, 2021

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to offer a few brief comments on this amendment.

Let's just imagine for a second that there were a body where people from across the country were brought together into one place on a regular basis, perhaps 338 of them, and who were somehow representative of the people in those geographic regions, and that somehow they were able to be brought together in some magical place, in some magical building. We could call it the “House of Commons”, or something like that.

My goodness, this amendment makes me want to pull my hair out. My goodness, if we want to start fixing our own house, let's start with the House of Commons itself, rather than creating new bodies external to the representative house to which we were all democratically elected.

First of all, if the Liberals are truly wanting to see greater debate and discussions of the different issues that come before us as parliamentarians, let's allow Kevin Lamoureux to sit down from time to time and have other parliamentarians speak in the House of Commons.

I think I speak for many [Technical difficulty—Editor] you know. It's almost laughable. We only see Kevin Lamoureux jumping up and speaking in the House of Commons, now closely rivalled perhaps by Mark Gerretsen, who is the only Liberal actually in the House of Commons, whether the Liberals are participating or not. Let's start with that.

The House of Commons is a duly-elected representative house of the people. Why don't we look at improving debate in the House of Commons on the issues that matter to Canadians across the country?

This debate on a citizens' assembly for every issue that might come forward is a classic—I'll be blunt—Liberal technique of “Let's talk everything out. Let's have a great opportunity to talk, talk, talk”.

Some of that discussion reminds me of undergraduate seminar courses where people have read one chapter of a poli-sci textbook, and then assumed they were experts on XYZ. That's exactly how this debate sounds like and is unfolding right now: “Let's take this one idea we read about in a poli-sci textbook, and let's run with it for every issue we can think about.”

Citizens' assemblies serve a role. They serve a role when we're discussing complex issues related to electoral reform when it's a time-limited process and designed to come to an end point on very specific issues. It would be a dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians if we start shuffling off every issue elsewhere.

We have parliamentary committees to review issues. We have the House of Commons to review issues. We have the Senate, for goodness' sake, that can review issues such as this. For us to go down this rabbit hole of amending this motion to include a discussion on citizens' assemblies for these vast variety of issues, I see it as nothing more than adding issues to just further the discussion and talk out the clock on this particular issue.

Let me blunt. I'm voting against this amendment. This is just nonsense, and I apologize if I'm offending anyone because I'm telling the truth here. This is just nonsense. Let's get the House of Commons in order before we start delegating our responsibilities elsewhere.

If there's a problem with how we operate as a legislative branch of government, let's fix it, rather than create something else.

I'll be voting against the amendment when it comes to a vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull, you are next.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Let me just say thank you to Mr. Nater for expressing his point of view, which I respectfully and strongly disagree with, but that's okay. That's what it's all about, being allow to disagree.

From my perspective, I want to speak very briefly to Mr. Therrien's points, which I thought were good and well taken.

From my perspective, I don't think this will unnecessarily broaden the scope of the study. I think it's a way to get more value out of the same process. It's an added layer of reflection in the study from a process point of view while we're thinking through how to structure a national citizens' assembly for tackling the one particularly complex, prickly issue of electoral reform, which we know is difficult. Why not also extract the additional value from that work so that we get a reflection on how to design those processes for other types of systemic issues? That's not to say that we're going to go to the same length of study with all of those other issues, so respectfully to Mr. Nater, I don't think it's about just applying it to every issue. We may even reflect under what conditions an issue is the right type of one to apply a citizens assembly to. We may even think about how we design a national citizens' assembly in a different way and ask ourselves slightly different questions depending on what issue we focus on.

I will also note to Mr. Nater, who I think is the representative for Perth—Wellington, if I'm not mistaken.... I've undertaken four of these processes—not citizens' assemblies—in his riding in my previous work on a poverty reduction strategy with the local health unit that took a collective impact approach. We did work on sustainable food systems in his community as well and wrote a report that included hundreds of stakeholders from across Perth and Huron counties on diversity and inclusion in rural communities.

What I would say is that this work is already going on. How do we get the most value out of connecting our parliament to some of these processes? I don't think it's an attempt to filibuster, duplicate, unnecessarily broaden, waste time or talk out the clock. Any of that is, I'm sorry, nonsense. This is an authentic attempt to get a little bit more value out of the reflections that we're going to undertake within, I think, an important piece of work that is sitting before this committee right now. That's the attempt; that's the intent with which I brought this amendment forward, so I just want to stand up for that and let you know that that's my perspective.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Ms. Vecchio, you are the final speaker on the list.

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

Yes, and thanks very much.

Truly, this is where I want to come back to the clerk, because I recognize that we're talking about two very distinct things.

When we're talking about electoral reform and what that looks like using a citizens' assembly, that is, when we want to look at where we end at the end of the day, that is one track.

The other track is what we're talking about by doing, truly, an outreach. It's a variety of other options that we have to do here as well.

I guess for me, I know that we will table reports. A lot of times, we'll table a committee report followed by supplementary and dissenting reports. Maybe the clerk can share with me on this, and then I will take the floor back. I look at these two items as very separate. What historically has been done when a committee does one study but has two reports? To me, it just seems like we're going to be calling witnesses in, and if this is what the government wants, we're going to be really focusing on that report. We'll ensure that all of the witnesses are for that report.

I guess my thing is that I feel right now that we're trying to split hairs here. Why would we not focus and put all of our intentions into something that is important to Mr. Blaikie and then water down the rest? Why would there not be two separate studies, rather than two separate reports on one study? I just want to see, historically, if that has been done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Sure. The clerk and I did discuss this a little while ago, trying to figure out the answers to these exact questions. Maybe, Mr. Vaive, you can elaborate on that.

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

Yes, course, Madam Chair.

To Ms. Vecchio's specific question about the number of reports, it does happen, and does happen frequently enough that a committee will provide more than one report on the same study. Sometimes that takes the form of an interim report followed by a final report, or sometimes it's a report part 1, and that same report part 2. That has happened in the past, especially on, for example, a very big study where perhaps the committee might want to segment out the work that it's doing and focus on one segment in a specific report and then a second segment or other segments in a different report. So that does occur.

Now, to the more general point that you raised just now and also a little earlier in the debate regarding scope and mandate, the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is found in Standing Order 108(3)(a). The specific provision within that mandate for PROC that makes Mr. Blaikie's entire motion in order is in subparagraph 108(3)(a)(vi) of that, which talks about the review of and report on all matters relating to the election of members to the House of Commons.

Now, on the amendment that Mr. Turnbull is bringing forward, my own personal interpretation—and this would be sort of my own personal advice that I would give to the chair or to any member of the committee—is that, in and of itself, as a stand-alone item it wouldn't fall within the mandate. If you were just talking about designing a citizenship engagement platform, that wouldn't fall within the mandate.

My understanding based on the discussion that the members had today is that it's very much a part 2 to the bigger issue of Mr. Blaikie's amendment, which is to say let's look at creating a citizen assembly on electoral reform and then basically Mr. Turnbull's amendment comes in and kind of says let's focus as well on the mechanics of how that citizen assembly can be built in order to fulfill the broader mandate of looking at electoral reform.

He has also added the other aspect of it, which is that it might also have applicability for issues other than electoral reform.

So the procedural advice that I would give—and by no means does this in any way bind the chair or the committee—would be that it would fall within the mandate of the committee because there is still that link to electoral reform, which is all about methods of electing members of Parliament to the House of Commons, which is in the mandate of the committee.

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

That's awesome. Thank you very much. I think those are some of my thoughts as well, exactly what you are talking about. I really appreciate your looking at this as these two issues and recognizing that, yes, it would not fall in the scope because it truly is outside the scope of it but by amending a motion we can throw this in here.

I guess from this I would almost be wondering—I'm not putting forward a subamendment or anything like this—when we were doing even the reports on part 1 and part 2 of any of the studies we have done, it was still on a clear point and direction on when we're doing a study on electoral reform [Technical difficulty—Editor] mandate. So is there a way we could separate these two reports so there would be a part A and a part B? Would that also include all the witnesses in part A and part B?

Our focus is supposed to be on one thing, which would be the electoral reform effort going back to the original motion. We could write something specifically on that electoral reform. Should we not have, perhaps, milestones saying that once this is done then we can take all the information that we have received when it comes to a citizens assembly, and then if we need additional witnesses...? Really, I think the witnesses we call should be electoral experts. When we're getting into what Mr. Turnbull talked about, I believe that, yes, this is a huge study that should.... Like the poverty reduction study that we did in HUMA, this is exactly how this study would end up. If the NDP would like to actually have results and have an election look different and have any of these things, I think this just makes it so [Technical difficulty—Editor] done. [Technical difficulty—Editor] It was so large that it got lost and a year and a half of work was never even noticed, which was really quite astounding.

Those are some of my concerns. How are we going to separate this and ensure that we're getting what we want with the initial motion that Mr. Blaikie has put forward, and how are we going to ensure that this is being done to the best of our abilities as well?

I'll leave the floor there. I cannot support this whatsoever. I just personally feel that it is a great way of watering down something so that they don't have to vote “no” against this and so that they can change the narrative when we go into part 2. That's how I personally see it. I guess the last eight months have made me extremely skeptical regarding these amendments that have been put forward, just because I truly would like to know the intention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mrs. Vecchio.

How the study is formulated and what witnesses are called is all stuff we can.... I understand the concern you would have, but it would all have to go through a process for further study when we do get to it after today.

We could have the subcommittee sit down and look at that. Generally, the subcommittee comes back with a consensus on these things. We have one member from each party on that, so I think those things can be mitigated. Those worries have to go through the committee. It has to be decided by the committee members as to how far one goes on witnesses and even timelines. We could end up having a shorter timeline given to this, if we choose.

The committee does have control past passing this motion. It doesn't mean that the committee loses all control. The committee would still be in control of how they want to see the study conducted. You would obviously have a say in all of that.

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

Madam Chair, with all due respect, the thing is that we tabled a report just last Friday with not a single key witness that we had requested.

I thought more would come out of the procedure and House affairs committee because, with my former boss who was the chair, I saw some great work being done for years. To you, Ruby, it's no slight. I think you're doing a great job as the committee chair on this, but I also see the political games that are being used. I am looking at this just feeling like I'm in round two of the last few months. I think, seriously, whether we going to get something done or whether this all on where people's narratives want to go. That's just my concern.

As of tomorrow, we're actually going to be rising in the House. We actually do not have the ability to have a procedure and House affairs committee this summer because the government will not sit down and talk about what we will do if we want to have something—we have talked about this—and if we need to have a committee.

Let's say that something does happen and there needs to be a committee meeting. We do not have the ability to do that because we have not sat there. After tomorrow we would no longer have the extension of this where we can do hybrid meetings.

I look at all of these things and I think [Technical difficulty—Editor]. We know that we've had goodbyes and farewells from a variety of MPs on all party sides and all of this type of stuff. I just feel like it's just a political charade right now. Although I would love to come back here and start doing our work in September, I do not feel that we're going to. I feel like today has become a big charade to say that this is what we're going to do.

Those are just some of my concerns. If I really felt that the seriousness of Daniel's motion was key.... Maybe this should be more Daniel's concern. The fact that it's all watered down should be his concern rather than mine, but I just think that we're not going to get anything out of this. We're not going to have the Prime Minister come here. We're not going to have anything because when this government decides it's going to put its foot down and not let a study finish, that's what it does.

The defence committee closed yesterday after months of a study. Do you know why? It was because they didn't want the report to come out.

I look at all of these different things that have happened in this last few months and I'll be honest, I am very disenfranchised with the fact that I think we could do good work. I even look at the motion where I think, Daniel, that I want to know a little bit more about this. I'm not saying I'm a hundred per cent for it, but I am saying is that I'm watching this government water down this motion so that it takes a totally different turn. It's just like the prorogation report and everything else we've done on committee.

Those are my concerns. I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Well, I am pleased to see you're very committed to undertake this electoral reform study. It's good to see that commitment. I'm sure we'll see that commitment from all of the members.

We'll hear from Mr. Blaikie and then go to a vote.

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I guess I'd just like to have the opportunity to respond to some of the debate on the main motion.

First of all, I understand the skepticism about Liberal governments very well, having watched the process unfold in the last Parliament, but the question for people who sincerely want to see voting reform is this: How do we keep the conversation alive, how do we keep it going and how do we reach out to people who obviously have very different political interests and different points of view, in order to try to keep pushing this process forward until it succeeds?

As somebody who is personally very committed to seeing Canada adopt a different electoral system than the first-past-the-post system that we have, which I don't think is serving the country well, I respect that there are different points of view on that, but my point of view is that this voting system is not serving the country well and I would like to see it change. That means continuing to have conversations in Parliament, first of all, and in civil society generally and, hopefully, with some new mechanisms in order to bring more people on board to help understand some of the shortcomings of the current system we have and some of the real potential and opportunities that exist in other systems.

We had a process last Parliament. It didn't work. From the point of view of people who want to see genuine voting reform in Canada, it didn't work, so the question is, instead of just trying to do the same thing over again, how do we try to get to somewhere different?

I note that this motion is largely untouched, except for the amendment that we passed for the Conservatives, which just draws attention to the fact that talking about whether or not to have a referendum is an important component of any conversation about electoral reform. It still requires a separate report on the issue of electoral reform.

That report will be mandated to include terms of reference, what the composition of an assembly should look like, a timeline for completion, public reporting requirements for the assembly and speaking to the question of resources for the assembly, including how to support citizen engagement and not just necessarily the people who are in the assembly itself. It gives the committee latitude to ask if there's something left out in the course of their study, and when they hear from experts [Technical difficulty—Editor] to that report. It has to be filed separately. Even if the committee decides that it's not worth going forward with a national citizens' assembly, at least a report is still required so that there's a determinate end to that study and we know definitively what the opinion of the committee is after having looked at that.

All of that stays the same. All of that is intact. That's a process that I would like to see happen. To then say in addition to that, okay, well let's also take some of the learnings that has happened in the course of that study about how citizen assemblies may or may not be used.... I take some of Mr. Nater's point. I'm certainly an advocate for parliamentary reform. Just this morning, I tabled a private member's bill to try to curtail some of the immense prerogative that the Prime Minister has around prorogation. I have a motion on the Order Paper around the dissolution of Parliament as well, and I'm on this committee in part because of my own interest in all things having to do with parliamentary process.

It may be that the committee says there's no value in citizens' assemblies. I would be surprised at that because, as Ms. Petitpas Taylor pointed out earlier, they're being used to great effect in other places, and I don't think that we as elected people.... Simply because we're elected doesn't mean that there aren't other ways of expressing the voice of Canadian citizens in the policy-making process. We are one. We are an important one. Obviously, Parliament is very important, but it doesn't always work very well. I think that anyone who is being honest can see—in fact, there's some evidence of it even in today's meeting—that partisan interests can derail otherwise good policy discussion. We've certainly seen that in this Parliament in all sorts of ways. I'll spare you all the examples.

The question isn't whether we can agree on everything all the time and everybody is going to sing Kumbaya and love each other at the end of the meeting. The question is, can we leave this meeting having taken a concrete step forward towards trying to get back on track in a process that, yes, some may stall and delay? Although I hope not: I hope everybody is acting in good faith. But if I just assume that everybody is acting in bad faith all the time, we won't make any progress at all either.

So, I'm glad to see that we were able to incorporate an amendment from the Conservative Party into this motion. I'm glad for the proposal by Mr. Turnbull, and I'm happy to support it. At the end of it, we will have an NDP motion with a Conservative amendment and a Liberal amendment pass that allows us to restart a process that was broken in the last Parliament when the government rejected all of the findings, to try and get us back on track towards getting to where we can get out of the first-past-the-post system, a system that—as I said last meeting—is, I think, in no small part responsible for all of the speculation around an election. If the Prime Minister does want an election this summer—and there are a lot of signs that suggest that he does, although I think he would be wrong to call one—it will be because the first-past-the-post system promises him a majority in these circumstances with about 40% in the polls instead of 35%. If that is incentivizing a prime minister to call an election during a pandemic, something is clearly broken, and it's clearly not serving the interests of Canadians well.

There is need for further discussion on that, and there are lessons out of this Parliament and out of the pandemic for how we vote, how we select parliaments and, indeed, how we select governments.

I'm pleased with today's conversation. I want to thank everybody. Despite a little bit of needling, which is par for the course here in Parliament, I think that, overall, we've had a very productive conversation. The motion, ultimately, will be better for it, and I hope that Canadians agree. I hope that Canadians who want to see a change in the voting system will agree. I think that if all parties engage in good faith in the process and the study that's laid out in this motion, we can hope to make some progress. We'll only know at the end of that process whether people engaged in good faith, and Canadians will be able to evaluate for themselves who they think best represented their interest in changing the voting system. However, we'll leave that decision to Canadians. The decision before us today is to embark on this study, and I look forward to making that decision.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie. You're always very eloquent and, yes, that's a very positive outlook to have. It is true. All parties have, to some degree, contributed, so maybe we can move to a vote now.

Mr. Clerk, can you help us with the vote on the amendment?

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, the question is on Mr. Turnbull's amendment.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Now we go to the main motion as amended.

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

I'm so sorry. I just have a quick emergency. Give me one second. Can you come back to me? My son just called. I have quick emergency—one second.

[The Clerk]

We'll come back to you.

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Congratulations, the motion passes.

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, you have your hand up.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Karen, please, never apologize. It's family first. When our kids need us, they need us. Anyway, I just needed to say that.

Madam Chair, I would like to at this point move a motion from the floor, perhaps with a bit of a preamble.

Last week, when we had Ms. Qaqqaq appear before the committee, she made some compelling arguments with respect to indigenous languages being included in the ballots. After much reflection of those conversations that we had, and listening attentively, I've spoken to my Liberal colleagues. We all agree with respect to the motion that we want to bring forward.

If you will allow me, I will take a moment to read the motion:

That, pursuant to its mandate to examine issues related to Elections Canada under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), the committee undertake a study of the measures necessary to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer is empowered to require that ballots for electoral districts be prepared and printed in the Indigenous language or languages of electors, using the appropriate writing systems for each language, including syllabics if applicable, in addition to both official languages;

That this study include meaningful consultation with Indigenous language speakers and First Nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders across Canada;

That this study include consideration of the status Indigenous languages and the rights of Indigenous language speakers across the country;

That the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House;

That, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to this report; and

That the Committee resolve to undertake this study as its next order of business.

That is the formal motion, Madam Chair. [Technical difficulty--Editor] today.

That will be forwarded to all members in both official languages.

Again, I want to stress that Madam Qaqqaq's comments that she made last week really made me reflect a lot, and I think made many of our committee members reflect. I think it's truly imperative that we take on this study and that we take it on as soon as possible.

Over the course of the weekend, I had a chance to speak to one of my brothers, who works in Iqaluit, and Cape Dorset for a number of years. We were speaking about this matter that came before the committee. He indicated to me that if we want to increase voter participation in these territories, it's really, really important that we do our part.

I know that last week we ruled it out of the scope of our study, but I think moving forward, it's really important to look at this matter seriously, in hopes that for the next election, or whenever we can, we'll be able to have their languages on the same ballots.

Those are my comments. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Petitpas Taylor, thank you for that.

I myself did not want to rule that out of order, but procedurally, after advice and after looking at what Bill C-19 entailed...it felt like it was one of those technical issues that I wish wasn't really a technical issue.

I'm glad you brought this forward, because I'm committed to this too. Whether we move forward as this committee or in another committee later on, it's figuring out how to support indigenous languages on the ballot in the future, and as quickly as possible.

We'll hear from a few people who wish to speak to this.

Mr. Nater is up first.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think I saw the motion just come through to my email. That was going to be my first question.

Again, my only comment about this is that we're doing another study to look into this. We need to remind the current government that they are the government. They've been the government for nearly six years. They've actually proposed three bills on electoral reform. One in the previous Parliament was just left unmoved and unloved on the Order Paper and never proceeded past second reading.

Here comes the government once again, from the deputy whip, wanting to have a study to look into this, to propose something to happen at some point in the future, knowing full well that today is the final committee meeting of this sitting of Parliament. We cannot meet over the summer, because the government has not come forward with any proposals for hybrid meetings during the summer, so the earliest this could be undertaken is at some point in September, when we are all back in person in Ottawa. There is no other option right now, other than 338 of us returning to Ottawa on September 20, when we know the Prime Minister is seriously thinking about, and all the measures point to the fact he's going to take a trip over to the Supreme Court to ask the administrator to dissolve Parliament at some point this summer to cause an election. None of this is going to be happening or changed prior to an election happening. There is speculation they will appoint a Governor General, so he may not have to go to the administrator, but to the Governor General.

Again, I don't have any qualms with the actual motion. Obviously, it's something we're going to support, but it's just so typical of what we're seeing right now: talk and no action. If the government wanted to go forward with this, they could bring forward legislation. They could bring forward an angle to actually make this happen, rather than asking this committee to undertake a study.

Obviously, I suspect Liberal members of this committee got a bit of a push-back on social media regarding that last meeting. That's the joy of being a parliamentarian, taking that backlash. Now they're going forward with something to try to calm those concerns.

The Liberals are the government. You have the legislative powers at your disposal. You have the entire apparatus of government at your disposal. You have the Privy Council Office. You have the entire mechanisms of government to do something, and here we have a proposal to move forward with another study.

Those are my comments. I will leave it there, Madam Chair.

I'm very snarky today, so I do apologize for that.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think you have woken up on the wrong side of the bed today or something. I'm glad you like the study, though. Perhaps you will vote in favour of it. We'll see.

I understand what you're saying. We are sitting here on our last day of this committee and discussing a whole lot of big issues. Electoral reform is a big issue, and so is this. Absolutely, the government can propose legislation. Perhaps we can show them the right path. Maybe we could have a very short study on this, what languages should be included, what it would look like. It doesn't have to be a lengthy one. We might come back in September. We might even have the possibility of being able to have extra meetings. I don't know that right now.

All we can do is set a path forward in case we do come back in September. We could start that or we could start the electoral reform one right off the bat. Whatever it is, we'll be set and ready.

Perhaps some of the members who are on this committee, if we don't come back and committees are reshuffled or whatnot, will still be here.

Mr. Nater, you've been on this committee from time to time in the past Parliament as well, and others have, too, so you never know, and they'll be able to bring this forward.

I don't think it's a complete waste, but it's up to you guys, really.

I see Dr. Duncan and Mr. Calkins. We have quite a few hands up. We have a hard stop at 1 p.m., so maybe we can all keep it to one minute each.

I apologize. I shouldn't have said anything and taken up time.

Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleague for bringing this forward. I will keep my remarks very short and I hope we will get to a vote.

I think it's incumbent upon us to allow people to vote in their language. I would hope with all the pandemic planning that has gone on for an election, there is the possibility a study could be done quickly, and perhaps people will be able to vote in their language.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Dr. Duncan.

Mr. Calkins, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Look, I don't have a problem, and I'm not impugning the motives of the mover of the motion. I don't have a problem at all with the procedure and House affairs committee studying barriers keeping people from being able to vote. This is something that should be of concern at all times to members of Parliament, particularly to those members who are regular members of this committee.

The wording of the motion already presumes that the issue is as prevalent as has been stated by an individual colleague in the House of Commons, and the solution is also presumed in the text of the motion, which basically says that the problem is real and that the solution is to do it this way. If that's the case, then I don't know what we're going to study it for.

I'm from a riding and represent a riding that's largely unilingual, even though there are many people in the riding who do speak different languages, but most everybody I know who is a Canadian citizen and eligible to vote gets along just fine in one of the two official languages. I know, even here in the province of Alberta, that there are polls, and we used to ask these questions during the census—and I'm pretty sure we still do—about what languages people operate in. We would know about different regions of the country. Elections Canada would have access to information on different regions of the country and what primary languages are being used in a particular polling station. It wouldn't matter if it were one of our traditional aboriginal languages, whether it's a language that's being used in the north by Inuit, whether it's a language being used in Vancouver by those speaking Cantonese or Mandarin or those in a neighbourhood in Toronto who would be speaking a dialect from South Asia.

The notion of being able to print our ballots in more than the two official languages presumes that there's no alternative way to communicate to prospective voters what's on the ballot in a language that they can relate to. That would be something maybe as simple as having an interpretive sign placed inside the voting box in the particular language that cross-references with the ballot, for example, but that's not what's going to be discussed in the terms of this motion, because the motion already presumes what the solution is.

I would be much more satisfied, Madam Chair, if the motion were not as descriptive on what the solution is and more descriptive on what the problem might be. Then the mover of the motion would find that they would get much more support from this member of Parliament.