Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 22nd, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Good morning. I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 34 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Today's meeting is a committee business meeting on the issue of Mr. Blaikie's motion, which he moved at the last meeting. The meeting will be webcast on the House of Commons website and it's taking place in hybrid format, as all of you know.

Tomorrow will be the last day of hybrid format meetings. I don't know—maybe some of you might have more knowledge than I do as to whether there have been any discussions about extending that or not. As far as I'm aware, the agreement for hybrid meetings goes until June 23. After that, the House will rise, and generally committees do not meet when the House is not sitting.

On top of that, there will be a maintenance blackout period from June 30 to July 15 and then once again from August 23 to September 10, during which time committees will not be able to sit. I guess from time to time for exceptional circumstances committees do sit in the summer, but during the times I mentioned they would not be able to.

I just wanted to let all of you know about that before we continue on to Mr. Blaikie's motion.

I don't think anyone is participating in the room today. Everyone is attending virtually, so please just remember to unmute yourselves and to have your interpretation language selected. Also unmute yourselves if you have a point of order, and if you would like to speak to Mr. Blaikie's motion, then raise your hand in the toolbar below.

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

I would just add to this part of the conversation—and Kirsty could probably speak to this as well—that I think the only thing we might have when it comes to committees would be if there were a Standing Order 106(4) meeting and everything had to be done in person. At this time we have heard of no extension. I know there are discussions about this, but there has been no agreement on meeting during the summer when it comes to the hybrid format.

I just wanted to add that for your knowledge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, thank you. In the last couple of days, I haven't heard anything, but just as for that last meeting we had, sometimes some of you hear about it even before I do. For that extra meeting, you guys heard about that before I was able to hear about that on Friday, but that worked out nicely for us because we were able to complete that report on Bill C-19 that I then tabled that yesterday, for your information, as well. That report was tabled, so we tabled the prorogation study and the Bill C-19 study, and as far as I know, just as Ms. Vecchio has confirmed, at this point in time, we would not be able to sit in the summer unless it was in person and outside of those blackout periods.

We will move back to Mr. Blaikie's motion, and I will give Mr. Blaikie the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I think I managed to put most of my thoughts—for now anyway, not having heard any other discussion—on the record last day and I just want to express some appreciation again for the opportunity to discuss this motion and to the folks over at Fair Vote and all the people who support them who have worked so well over the last while to keep this issue on the radar and to collaborate, in the best sense of that word, in the preparation of this motion.

With that, Madam Chair, I'll cede the floor to my colleagues, and I look forward to hearing their thoughts on the matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. That's efficient. I was expecting some more comments than that, but I accept that you did explain your motion quite well in the last meeting as well, so we will move on to Ms. Vecchio.

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

Thank you very much.

Thanks very much, Daniel. I know that this is a really very important study for you and I know that we have discussed it several times.

I would like to move an amendment to this though. What I would like to do is this. In your motion I would like to add after the word “reform” in paragraph (f) the following:

including the need for a national referendum in order for Canadians to have the opportunity to approve and propose changes to Canada's democratic system.

That is what we're looking at for our amendment. I know we have it in English. I have the English done and we will ensure that we get the French one to Alain as soon as possible as well, but as we're looking at this I think one of the most important things—and we saw this when we were talking about Bill C-19—is that the impact of elections is very, very important. When we talk about democracy, we're talking about the need for 15 million people to have the ability and the right to vote specifically during a pandemic, and I think this is just an opportunity for Canadians to say what our electoral system looks like.

That is the amendment I would like to move, and we will get that out to you as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. Thank you, Ms. Vecchio.

Next we have Mr. Turnbull.

You're keeping Scott Reid's legacy of referendums alive. He was the champion of referendums on the electoral reform committee. I can see that you're still championing that.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, will the amendment be introduced in French as well?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes.

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

Of course.

What we're working on right now, Alain, is to ensure that you have that French version. I can put it for you in the French version if you like, but I don't think it would make any sense.

We will get that right to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Will that be in a few minutes or so?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

In a few minutes. Okay.

We're on Ms. Vecchio's amendment now.

Now we will move to Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I definitely have some thoughts on Mr. Blaikie's motion, but if we're on Ms. Vecchio's amendment, then maybe I will cede the floor to my colleague, Mr. Lauzon, and hope to perhaps get on with a vote on that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right. Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

I know that you were hinting at an amendment last time as well, so you may have an amendment to the main motion. Once we deal with Ms. Vecchio's, then perhaps you'll be able to move that.

Mr. Lauzon.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to talk about Mr. Blaikie's notice of motion and the amendment that we are proposing. We still haven't received the French version. I will hold off before talking about Ms. Vecchio's amendment. So, I'll skip my turn for the moment.

If nobody wishes to speak, I would suggest that we adjourn the meeting while we wait for Ms. Vecchio's amendment. We could resume in a few minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We can suspend if needed.

Mr. Blaikie's hand is up at this point. I just wanted to get through the hands and see if we get that circulated by then. I'm very willing to suspend for a short time after we hear from Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Blaikie, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Perhaps it will be the case that folks on the committee will have what they need in order to participate in the discussion by the time I'm finished my remarks.

What I'd like to say is that I don't think the amendment really contributes to the best spirit of the motion. I think many of my colleagues on the committee will be familiar with the debate around a referendum that was had in a very fulsome way—and I know you are, Madam Chair, having sat on that Special Committee on Electoral Reform.

The referendum was one of the hot topics, if you will. I'm sure colleagues on the committee who bore witness and participated in that process will know that the Special Committee on Electoral Reform did in fact recommend a referendum as part of a way forward. That was a compromise that was forged among many different parties at that time for a parliamentary-led process.

I've always been of the view, and I think New Democrats largely have been of the view, that if a party has an electoral mandate to change the voting system, then a referendum is not necessarily required, and that's part of the [Technical difficulty--Editor] and mandate building that happens in a general election.

In this case what we're talking about is a study of how a citizens' assembly would work. In fact, I think one of the questions the citizens' assembly ought to pronounce itself on is the process for moving ahead with changing the voting system, and that includes the question of the referendum. I think that's a discussion that needs to happen again. I think it should happen in a forum that's less politicized. That's the proposal, anyway, of a citizens' assembly. It's to allow that conversation to happen in a forum that is not led by partisan political actors.

For as much as there was a bit of a compromise forged on the committee last time—and I think we saw a willingness by political players, as it were, to lean on a referendum or to incorporate a referendum in order to get buy-in from many different parties about how to move forward—the citizens' assembly is an alternative way of moving forward. I think if it's going to do its best work, it's important not to prejudice the outcome of that process. I think the nature and virtue...one of the selling features of the citizens' assembly is that it is an open-ended process, where citizens get to engage directly in the policy-making process.

Not only at the outset of launching a citizens' assembly, but if in the very idea of this committee of Parliament studying the notion of a citizens' assembly we're going to already pronounce on a foundational question about what that process looks like, I think we would be making a mistake. There will be lots of time to discuss the value of a referendum. I hope that a citizens' assembly discusses that. There will be need for parliamentary action even after a citizens' assembly, and I'm quite confident there will be an appropriate parliamentary forum for that debate to be had.

I don't think that at this committee at this time, while we're looking at simply studying what a citizens' assembly would look like, it's the appropriate time to already be setting those kinds of constraints on the [Technical difficulty--Editor] to get the most value out of the process. We won't get the most value out of the study on what that process would look like if we've already set tight parameters on key outcomes.

That's why I'm not enthusiastic about this amendment. I wanted to offer those thoughts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

It's just been sent out. You should be seeing it in your inbox within a minute or so.

We will move on to the next speaker.

Mr. Nater, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I see that the translated amendment is now out and into the inboxes of our fellow members. I just want to say a few brief comments about this amendment and why I believe that fundamentally it needs to be included.

First, for some background, we can look at different regions and provinces that have employed a citizens' assembly. I am obviously more familiar with Ontario. It was my home province in the 2007 referendum that was held in conjunction with 2007 provincial election. The recommendations from that citizens' assembly were included as a referendum as part of that election.

Fundamentally, I believe that no changes to the way we elect parliamentarians, to the way we go about electing a government in Canada, should be done without first having the approval of the Canadian public. The obvious way of doing that is through a nationwide referendum, which is why I fundamentally believe that if we're going to go down this path of looking at or studying a citizens' assembly, I think there need to be a few markers in place now, at the beginning, for what we fundamentally believe should be included as part of that process.

From a Conservative perspective, I don't think it comes as a surprise to anyone that our position hasn't changed significantly since we studied this as part of electoral reform—that is, any change needs to be done through a referendum. That's where we stand. That's where we're putting down our markers and that's obviously why we introduced this amendment.

We're not opposed to the motion. We're not opposed to having a comprehensive study of citizens' assemblies. Frankly, I think it's a worthwhile enterprise to have this review, but we are laying the groundwork. We are laying markers at the beginning that as the Conservative Party we believe in Canadians having a say on how they do that. That's where we're coming from.

Again, as I said, I don't want to take too much time on this, because I'm sure that I see a few other hands up, and I know that the amendment is now in the inboxes. I will yield the floor and we will carry on.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Nater.

I definitely can say that your position has been consistent on that.

We'll move on to hear from Mr. Turnbull now.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I want to say just briefly that I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague Mr. Blaikie's assessment. I feel that this amendment foreshadows or predicts an outcome to an open process that's supposed to be deliberative.

In these types of deliberative processes, I think there are probably many ways at the tail end of a national citizens' assembly to verify, validate or gauge the public's overall reception to recommendations or solutions that are put forward as a result of the process. I think this binds that group, through their deliberations, to an outcome that may not be the best possible result or outcome from all of their deliberations. I think it's counter to the national citizens' assembly and the objectives that I think they normally have.

I would note that there are many examples of national citizens' assemblies or citizens' assemblies not at a national level that have not concluded with a referendum of any kind. There are quite a few examples of those. It's not like it's necessary per se. It may very well be necessary, but again, the whole point is that in this citizen-focused deliberative process those citizens are coming to that conclusion themselves through the process, and if they were to recommend a national referendum, I suppose that would carry a lot of weight through the integrity of that process.

That's the way I see it. I just wanted to express my point of view. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. I appreciate that.

Mr. Lauzon.

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

Thank you very much.

We read our colleague's amendment.

A national referendum may certainly be necessary in some cases. However, when it comes to collecting recommendations to improve the electoral reform process, I believe that if we create a professional, rigorous national committee that has all the expertise and resources needed to gather information and take Canadians' pulse on the issue, we wouldn't need a referendum.

I agree with Mr. Blaikie. We aren't properly evaluating the impact of the results of a referendum held today, when compared to referendums in the past. The technology and communications means that we have today—just look at how we created a hybrid Parliament—make it possible to take Canadians' pulse by creating a committee. I believe that this would give us a very clear idea of which recommendations to implement.

That said, we will return to Mr. Blaikie's motion to make comments on it. The important thing now is to settle the debate on Ms. Vecchio's motion. Then, we can perhaps suggest more detailed amendments to Mr. Blaikie's motion for the benefit of Canadians and our democracy.

I'll now give the floor to someone else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaikie.