Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 4th, 2023

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I obviously don't know London as well as you do, but I do know my region. I've seen what happens when you put a sizable amount of an urban riding into a rural setting. It's so much easier to spend a lot of time in that urban part because the demographic weight is there, the door knocking is a lot easier and some of the issues speak to it.... It's hard to find that right balance: 37,600 people would be at least 25% of any riding's population.

Can you comment on that?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

The commission has the point of view that this change is acceptable. As they put it, the inclusion of urban Londoners into the proposed Middlesex—London would add significant “demographic weight” to that riding. I don't believe that it would. I think they would be vastly outnumbered.

The mayor feels the same way. His point of view is that Londoners need to be represented by London-based MPs. We have the fastest-growing community in Ontario and the fourth fastest-growing community in all of Canada. To see 37,000 people put into a predominantly, if not overwhelmingly, rural riding raises real challenges from a representation point of view, which the mayor has put on the record and I'm voicing here.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

That's a very good point. It's such a good point that you've distracted me from the next question I wanted to ask. I was going through my head to try to remember the point I wanted to make.

Let's go back to what you just said about them being vastly outweighed. What alternative could there possibly be that wouldn't create that kind of situation?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Simply put, it's the initial proposal. The initial proposal did not break any community of interest, which put the population at a very reasonable number and very much in line with the quota.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I have one last question, then. By making these changes and this coming after the process.... Can you speak to the whole process of redistribution? Is there perhaps a better way?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Yes. We took part in the process from start to finish. There was far too much attention given to the quota requirement versus communities of interest. That needs to be absolutely revisited by any future commission, without question, among other things that we could talk about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have already had all of my questions answered. I conclude that, again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will need to think about criteria and weighting in its work so that the commissioners can manage the changes that did not exist a few decades ago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's excellent. I think we are very content with the information you have provided us today, colleagues, and we thank you for your time and attention. As has been mentioned, if there's anything else you would like the committee to consider, please send it to the clerk, and the clerk will share it with all colleagues.

Once again, everything that is provided to our committee—we don't get to pick and choose—goes back to the commission. It is always valuable for you to provide us information.

With that, have a great day. We have another panel, and we will suspend and ask the next panel to join us.

It's about 10 minutes before the next panel, so we might suspend a bit longer than usual.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

I'm sure everybody can grab a snack. I'm not there to do that.

I have a question. I know we sent out a letter requesting a couple of witnesses to come. It's been about a week, so I just want to check in to see if we've had a response to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I asked the same question. I can confirm that the letter was sent out on Friday, the day following the subcommittee meeting, and we have not yet received a response to it. That was the letter in regard to the motion and having Mr. Solomon and Ms. Michaud appear before committee. They have not provided their availability or acknowledged receipt of the letter yet.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you for that.

I'm just wondering what the normal process is and how long we should wait before we take further steps.

I think this study is very important, and those witnesses are required for us to do the work we need to do. I'm just looking for advice on whether the next step is to send a letter to summon them or to wait another couple of days. I don't think we need to wait a significantly long time. We have sent a couple of invitations now and a specific invitation, and it feels like we're not getting a response. That concerns me.

I'd love to hear from the rest of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

As we always say, it's up to members to decide their path forward and how they would like to move. If members of the committee choose to escalate it, then that's the members' choice. It's similar to what we did in the subcommittee when we had not received a response. A person had declined the invitation, and then we chose to reiterate our point by sending a letter. If members would like to do that, it would be up to members.

Ms. Sahota's hand is up.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I think we have some options before us. It's worth discussing among the committee what our next steps are.

I'm interested in hearing from the witnesses. What do committee members—since the chair just said that it's really up to the committee—think the next steps should be? Should there be a more sternly worded letter? Should it be a summons to this committee? What action should we be taking?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just want to express my support for the concerns that Ms. Blaney has expressed. I think we do need to be considering next steps.

I feel that the testimony of certain witnesses is needed. I have very specific questions for some of the witnesses who have not responded thus far. They are germane to our study. We've all identified foreign election interference as such an important topic today. We're constantly reminded of how important this is. In a real effort to get to the truth and the bottom of the issue and to do a thorough job, we need those witnesses to appear.

I just wanted to express my support for what Ms. Blaney was sharing in terms of concerns.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Seeing no other hands up, I think what I'm hearing is that committee members want to have a discussion on how we want to proceed.

The House is not sitting tomorrow, and I know we have a heavy agenda next week. Some of our requests for extra time have been approved. We will be meeting not only on Tuesday morning, our normal slot, but also on Tuesday evening, as well as on Thursday. We're just slotting in witnesses, including those witnesses who were not able to join us on Tuesday evening. Then we will have a new status on who is outstanding, who is not outstanding and what we received as responses. The committee can get a sense of how much more time is needed for everyone to appear.

Perhaps I will suggest that committee members have some conversations on the side. Then we can see how we want to approach this. If we need to adjust the schedule for next week, then we can do that accordingly and ensure that we satisfy what feels to be the will of the majority, which is to have witnesses testify so that we can actually get the information we're looking for.

Did your hand go up, Ms. Sahota?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It did go up, but I think the rest of what you just stated has satisfied my need to come up with a resolution today. That's fine. We'll take the conversation to the side and come up with a solution for the next meeting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I have Ms. Blaney next, followed by Madame Gaudreau.

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you for that.

I guess I need one bit of clarity. Is there an opportunity for us to perhaps put half an hour into this next week when we're meeting if it can't be resolved off-line? I just think we need to get this done. I don't know whether it should be a strongly worded letter that says, “If you don't, then we're going to do this”, or we should just move forward.

If I have it correctly, we've already sent two letters, one making a request and the second one making a more forceful request. Maybe it is time to just move on to the summoning portion of this discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Ms. Gaudreau, go ahead.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have two concerns.

First, we must take into consideration that we have an exceptional time slot on Tuesday night. I am also taking into consideration what we experienced last week. Not only are we not moving at the pace that we should be moving, but, in addition, there were witnesses who were willing to come testify. This is my concern. My question is, does the Standing Committee on Finance have priority? If so, what should we be doing to ensure that the process continues? From what I hear from my colleagues, they do find it important to continue the process.

My second concern is about having time to look at our planning, as time is running out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think the information I require for us to move forward is this: Is this a conversation we're looking to have in camera or is this a public conversation? It's an in camera conversation. Is that correct?

There's good news. We have been given the extra hour on Tuesday morning from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. What we can do is plan for an in camera conversation for that hour. If we finish early, then the witnesses we have lined up for 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. will remain in public meetings. I think that will perhaps provide all members an opportunity to engage in conversation. It would also provide an opportunity for the clerk and me to look at what processes we need to follow so I can provide you with the insights you are requesting.

This conversation will continue in camera at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 9.

May the 4th be with you.