Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 1164
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you so much.
If I may ask, what consultations have been done by the department, not on these exact amendments, but again, as you indicated, in terms of general questions on the amendments put forward in the press release from yesterday?
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:54
The press release announced a set of issues that would be considered as part of the consultations. It announced an intention to release draft legislative proposals in the near term. I believe the language was that they would be “forthcoming”. It put out the ideas under consideration in terms of how best to define a genuine intergenerational business transfer. Shortly, there would be a release of draft legislative proposals, which would provide—of course, as they would be legislative in nature—more specificity as to what those would look like. That release would be followed by another consultation period before, ultimately, final proposals were released. That would provide for a number of rounds of public consultation on the best way to define a genuine intergenerational business transfer.
That's coming out of yesterday's release.
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
That was very general. There isn't a specific deadline. I mean, you certainly have the November deadline of being able to have this legislation passed, but you obviously have to do a lot of that consultation beforehand. How long would that level of consultation typically take, as far as you can estimate?
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:56
As has been noted, there was an announcement to put out draft legislative proposals shortly, and then a commitment that, whatever effective date those proposals could take, it would not be before November 1, 2021. It's difficult to provide a timeline in terms of putting together a set of draft legislative proposals of this complexity.
I can speak to the general timeline for budget proposals, if that would be a helpful comparator. Often, in the federal budget, which is released in the spring, in March-April, the government will announce its proposed measures. For income tax measures it is common after the release of a budget announcement for there to be a summer release of draft legislative proposals. Those draft legislative proposals would go out for comment, often for a period of 60 days, before measures can be introduced into a fall budget bill.
While of course it's impossible to predict with any certainty the timeline for this measure, that's not an uncommon timeline for at least some budget measures, if that would be a useful comparison.
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
How would a potential election disrupt? Would you be able to continue those consultations throughout that time, or would it put a hold on everything?
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:57
That depends on the specific rules for civil servants to interact during the part of the caretaker period after a writ has been dropped. Obviously, we would continue to analyze submissions.
I don't know whether Miodrag or Jenifer know the specific rules for caretaker-stakeholder engagements on consultations.
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2021-07-20 14:58
I don't have much to add to Mr. McGowan's statement. I think that's it. As long as it's internal work, we could focus on analyzing submissions that we may continue to get during that period. The question would be after that. If there was a need to reach out, we would need to be mindful of the caretaker convention.
View Rachel Bendayan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Again, it may seem obvious but I would like to confirm: Our small business community won't be taken by surprise by anything the government may introduce, because they will be intimately involved in this consultation process that you mentioned a few moments ago.
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 15:13
That is certainly the intent behind yesterday's release. I think yesterday's release provides a bit of a framework for the development of issues that will provide a general idea until draft legislative proposals are released in the near term. We've already started hearing comments on the conditions in yesterday's release. That dialogue will continue through to when draft legislation is released. There will be another round of consultation on the draft legislative proposals. The measure itself will not apply before November 1.
Ultimately, as said in the press release, there's an intention to release final draft legislative proposals afterwards. There are a number of steps in the consultative process where stakeholders would be engaged.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (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.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (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.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (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.
View John Nater Profile
CPC (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.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-06-22 11:18
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.
View Stéphane Lauzon Profile
Lib. (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.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (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.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (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.
View Stéphane Lauzon Profile
Lib. (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.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (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.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (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.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-06-22 11:33
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.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
So it would be “including the option for a national referendum”. Okay.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (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.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-06-22 11:34
Yes, I think I'd like to move it as a subamendment, if I could.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-06-22 11:35
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.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
View Blaine Calkins Profile
CPC (AB)
Well, I was first. Anyway, I don't brag about that.
I wanted to speak to the amendment, but now I'm speaking I guess to the subamendment moved by Mr. Turnbull.
I don't think it changes what I want to say. I just want to reassure colleagues that there's nothing really here if we leave the wording as it is. The citizens' assembly is going to do what it's going to do, but based on the terms of reference which are set out in paragraph (a) of this motion of Mr. Blaikie's.
All we're doing, as Conservatives, is asking the question of whether or not we should have witnesses appear before this study to speak to whether or not there is a need for a national referendum on something as significant as changing how we elect people. I am presuming, by the wording in this motion, that it's how we elect people in the House of Commons only.
Maybe Mr. Blaikie can answer my questions on this. I have some concerns about only proposing to change one part of a bicameral Parliament. We've seen the unilateral change to one part of our bicameral Parliament implemented by the government now. If people were being honest with themselves around this table, how is that working out? It's not necessarily working out the way that people predicted it would.
I think we should be asking the question, as members of Parliament, to witnesses who appear before the committee as to whether or not a national referendum is actually needed. Everything we do is an option, so using the word “option” is like using the word “the”. It actually makes the words meaningless. We either need one or we don't. It's yes or it's no.
I just think that we're losing the value of the amendment by changing the word from “need” to an “option”, keeping in mind, like I said, that this isn't predetermining any of the terms of reference, should this committee actually adopt this motion and pursue a report. That's clearly laid out in paragraph (a) in Mr. Blaikie's motion, “the terms of reference for such an assembly”. That will be where we need to have that conversation.
As a member of Parliament, I would like to think that we would, as a procedure and House affairs committee, be studying the impacts, not only of the significant proposed changes that might come about for the House of Commons.... I'm not predetermining any of those outcomes.
Look, the reality is that I'd be a member of the governing party right now if we had proportional representation in the last election, because we had the most votes. The notion isn't lost on me. I just think we should be able to ask very direct questions, have witnesses summoned before the committee to talk about the establishment of this national citizens' assembly and talk about how we get to that determination. I want witnesses to appear before the committee to talk about whether or not we need a referendum on this.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
I did include that in my comments earlier, too, that this is asking whether it's needed or not needed, but there were committee members who felt uncomfortable with that word. We therefore have a subamendment before us.
We'll hear from Mr. Blaikie on that.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just say that any Canadians who may be listening at home are getting a little bit of a window into some of the deliberations that happen in camera around committee reports. They perhaps are experiencing some of the frustration that members routinely feel in those meetings about the kinds of things that can light up as an issue unexpectedly.
For me, coming from a construction background, [Technical difficulty—Editor] a deck. It's appropriate at the outset to examine the need for a permit. The language isn't prejudicial there. That is to say, if you're examining the need for a permit, it doesn't mean you've already decided you need one. If you're building a deck in the city of Winnipeg that's less than 24 inches above grade, you don't need a permit. The conclusion of your investigation for the need for a permit will be that you don't need one. If the deck that you're building is 24 inches or higher above grade, the conclusion of your examination as to whether or not you need a permit will be that you do need a permit.
To me, the language here isn't too important. What's important is all the other items of the motion. As I say, one of the things I'd like to do is bring as many people along as possible. I think if Liberals on the committee could see their way to appreciating my niche semantic argument, perhaps [Technical difficulty—Editor] bring everyone along in supporting this motion. I think that would be a great thing. I'm happy to leave the wording as is, if that means that our Conservative colleagues will come along.
I do think the question of a referendum is one that any body, whether it's a committee or a citizens’ assembly, will have to tackle in some way, shape or form. I take the Conservative amendment as just indicating the need to address that question. It's fair to flag that. I have no doubt that it will be part of the debate. It was a very important point of debate. Although I have, I think, ultimately some different feelings from my Conservative colleagues on the committee about the necessity of a referendum, I do think that question, whether it's necessary or not, needs to be addressed in any credible effort to change the voting system.
I'm happy to leave the amendment as it is and move on. We've heard that [Technical difficulty—Editor] committee had some [Technical difficulty—Editor] as well. I think Mr. Turnbull foreshadowed what that might be at our last meeting. I'm excited to hear his proposal and perhaps improve the motion in that way as well.
Thank you.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.
We'll vote now on Mr. Turnbull's subamendment, changing the word “need” to “option”.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay. We're back on Mr. Blaikie's motion as amended by Ms. Vecchio's addition of the referendum.
We'll move on to Mr. Turnbull.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-06-22 11:46
Thanks, Madam Chair, and happy birthday again.
I too have some thoughts on making a proposed amendment to Mr. Blaikie's motion.
As I mentioned last time, I'm very passionate about the national citizens' assembly being a method of participatory action and research. I think there are many benefits to just opening up this study or this motion to include broader implications for how a national citizens' assembly could be used, because I think the way that Mr. Blaikie has structured his motion is really good in terms of outlining the terms of reference and what the timeline would look like.
I think there are many aspects of how you design and implement a national citizens' assembly that really matter. I think that's the heart of this motion to me: taking into consideration all of those design elements of a process that I think are very substantive and beneficial for building a more inclusive democracy.
Maybe I'll give you the language of my amendment and then speak to you a bit more about why I feel this is important.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-06-22 11:48
No problem.
I would like to move that the motion be amended by adding after “(a)-(f)” at the very end of the motion the following:
and that the committee, in the course of this study, also examine the question of how citizen assemblies can be used more generally as a tool to drive citizen engagement in the policy-making process on a wide variety of issues and report its findings to the House in a separate report.
I would like to just speak to this a little bit. I won't take up too much of the committee's time, but this is an area of considerable passion, and it relates to my expertise from my work as a social innovation expert over many years.
The way I see it is that there's a move from a participatory democracy to a deliberative democracy. It's sort of a higher standard, in a sense, in that citizens can engage in the decision-making of the policy-making process. They get to consider relevant information, discuss the issues, come up with options, evaluate those options and develop their thinking together before coming to a common view. This is really significant in terms of a contribution to the health of our democracy. There's been quite a [Technical difficulty—Editor] given to this methodology of a citizens' assembly. I think there are other methodologies, as well, that we could look at. We could actually look at options for how a national citizens' assembly could include some of the other methodologies that are out there.
One that I'm really familiar with is called collective impact, which has had a considerable paradigm shift within the non-profit and charitable sector. Many of the funders across Canada, in fact, are using this methodology of collective impact for tackling large systemic issues like the decarbonization of our economy, for example, and many others, like children's health and nutrition and sustainable food systems. It integrates what we call systems thinking.
I've done this work for 12 years. This is my background: 350 projects over 12 years on all kinds of issues, from housing and homelessness to children's nutrition to immigrant and refugee...to homelessness in the city of Toronto. The list goes on and on. However, the point that I want to make here—and why this has so much potential that I feel really strongly about—is that I think it starts to get at the root causes of the issue in a unique way. It allows a cross-section of stakeholders. In this case, in a national citizens' assembly, it's structured kind of like a large jury. You're taking a quasi-random selection of citizens or laypersons who get to participate in this deliberative process. In a sense, they're policy-makers or solution designers for a complex issue.
The benefit of this, from my perspective, is that people with very different perspectives in the world, very different reference points in a system, different levels of expertise, get to actually deliberate. They share information. They present their diverse points of view, and they really tackle or try to make sense of various information so that they come up with a shared understanding of the problem they're trying to tackle.
In this case, with Mr. Blaikie's motion, it's electoral reform, which is a highly complex issue. However, there are many other complex issues that I think Canada is confronting and we're trying to tackle today, that our government has been steadfast at working on and trying to get to the root causes of those issues. I will say that it's challenging sometimes. What I've found through my practice in this area is that the real shifts happen in large groups when they process information and come to an insight about reframing a problem that's been around for a long time. Part of the power of these processes is that citizens actually undertake a process where they come to realize the variety of perspectives that are out there.
Through that process, through the respect for the diversity of all the different points of view, they come to a better, deeper understanding of a complex systemic problem that they then can reframe together. At the same time, they're developing a shared understanding. In that process, we get a lot of benefits for Canadians. We get a lot of benefits for the policy-making process, and we get a lot of benefits for our democracy.
In my world, you include things like rapid prototyping in it, which is an innovation methodology. Citizens can participate in rapid prototyping solutions, which are sort of an uninhibited way of generating ideas. There are all kinds of other things that I can say about methodologies that relate to how we might design a really effective process.
I think the most important part of it is that process really matters. The design of the process is, I think, the heart, because it has to be inclusive; it has to be diverse; it has to be facilitated in a way that truly brings the minorities, the voices on the fringe, into the centre of the conversation. That's how you reframe problems, because the reality of it is that many of the problems we have that are really deeply entrenched are ones on which we've been stuck in a certain dynamic for a long time and have tried certain solutions. We've tried to whittle away....
Think about food insecurity rising in this country. We live in one of the most prosperous, I think, high-quality-of-life countries in the world, and we have food insecurity. It's a shame that we actually have such high levels of food insecurity. You think, how can an agriculturally rich country with the vastness and natural resources and the quality of life that we have actually have children who are malnourished, who are not getting enough to eat?
Over time, we've tried to get at the root causes, but we really haven't. We haven't got at the root causes, so we have to reframe and understand the problems more deeply.
This isn't a criticism of any government. This is, I think, part and parcel of being stuck in a very specific set of relationships and power dynamics, and a way of understanding the problem that won't allow us to get to new, really innovative solutions that get at the core.
I think I'm being a bit verbose here, so I apologize, but I will just say that there are some things that I think are really important to consider in designing these processes, in which I think the process really matters. For instance, a clearly outlined purpose [Technical difficulty—Editor ] involves how you recruit those people and account for a self-selection kind of bias. Think about people who say they don't want to participate. They're randomly selected, but then they say “No, I don't want to participate.” We know it takes time and money and resources to participate in a process like this, so how do we get voices in the process that might be excluded if we don't basically include those voices that tend to be excluded?
The other thing is that there is often an overrepresentation of certain voices, even within the random selection of citizens, so I think the facilitation of the process really matters and the time scale of the process really matters. I think one of the criticisms of national citizen assemblies is that they take a long time and they can't turn on a dime. It takes time to develop a shared understanding of a complex problem.
Where does it fit in the policy-making process? That's another big question I have, because I think it could be right up front at the very beginning. I read some academics and people who feel it could be integrated even into the Senate in some way, so I think there are a lot of questions around this. That's why I think it's important that this motion also include a broader reflection on how this could be used for many other issues.
I would like to see us look at how we tackle systemic racism in this country at a national level and use this type of process for that, or how we might have it aid in reconciliation with indigenous people. To me, that is extremely important. I think there are a lot of.... Food security is another one that I feel passionate about, but I'm sure we all have many other issues that we could see this being applied to.
[Technical difficulty—Editor] I just want to make sure that I cover this because this is what I'm passionate about this, as you can tell. I think people want more say in what their governments do in general. I think this gives people a sense of agency in the process that they wouldn't otherwise have. It facilitates learning. It transcends the polarization of our political dialogue, which I think is one of the really key values to this type of process. I think it can account for regional differences in Canada, which I think often lead to polarization in our dialogues and debates.
You get buy-in on solutions that are proposed from many different stakeholders, who then may naturally row in the same direction. It engenders trust in the democratic process and the institutions. It builds agreement and acceptance around policy decisions. It demonstrates the many challenges in understanding and tackling complex issues.
I think that sometimes we're tackling these issues and there are other actors in our systems that are tackling these issues, but for whatever reason, the policy-making process is in a bit of silo, and it's very hard to integrate the many actors that are closer to the issue, closer on the ground and who in a way have more expertise than many of us do as policy-makers, but it's very hard to bridge that gap. I think this may be a tool to do that. I think it promotes mutual respect within the diversity and the alternative points of view represented in a process like this. It can really aid us. I fear that our country is becoming more polarized in its debates and dialogues on key issues. I really think that this would have an effect of promoting more diversity and mutual respect of those alternative points of view.
This has been used in Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Poland, the U.K., the U.S. and Canada, and there is no a priori limit to what it could be applied to. I think this is an opportunity for Canada to play a leadership role in integrating some of these methodologies, and the national citizens' assembly is one that I think has a lot of potential.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to my colleagues for allowing me the space and time to express my point of view on something I'm quite passionate about. I hope you'll support the amendment.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (ON)
Thanks very much.
I have just a couple of things on this one. First of all, I think what it's doing is taking Daniel's motion and talking about even doing a second report. I'm actually wondering if he is trying to bulldoze through Daniel's first action, because Daniel has said that what he wants to do is focus specifically on electoral reform, and that is exactly what this motion is about. This amendment is taking it from doing something very specific to something extremely grand.
When I look at what the mandate of this committee is, I can't find a single thing that goes with what Mr. Turnbull is saying here. This has nothing to do with it when it comes to the procedures and affairs of the House of Commons. I recognize that these are all important issues. I too have many concerns when it comes to security, child care and a variety of very important social issues, but I think those issues need to be addressed in places where they are a part of the mandate, such as the human resources and skills development committee.
I recognize that you're trying to look at a procedural thing when it comes to the assembly, but this is way outside the scope of the House of Commons, as well as outside the scope of this specific committee. I would even question, when we're talking about this, how we would even have a second report and if this is actually even procedurally correct to be doing right now, as we are focused on one, and Mr. Turnbull has put in a request for a second report. Should we not actually just do one report rather than coming up with two?
There are just a few things. I just find that this was.... I feel like I'm back to 101 days of filibustering.
Thanks.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I just want to say that I think the amendment makes a lot of sense in that what we're going to be hearing in the course of this study, should it proceed.... Of course, we would need the motion to pass today, but we also need for there not to be an election in the summer, which is an important point to make as well. My hope would be that if the best thing doesn't happen, which is to not have an election, we might at least see a future procedure and House affairs committee take seriously the intention of this committee to study this issue. However, in the course of the study as it unfolds, we're going to be hearing, for sure, a lot about electoral reform, but I would expect that we are going to hear a lot about citizens' assemblies because the motion is very much about how you would proceed with a citizens' assembly in order to tackle this issue. It would be an alternative to the attempt in the last Parliament that was very much a parliamentary-led Parliament that didn't get the outcome that I know many people who would like to see electoral reform in Canada want.
In the course of that, the committee is going to hear a lot about citizens' assemblies in general, as well as citizens' assemblies for the purpose of electoral reform, having a mandate to file that information in a separate report and share it with Parliament so that it isn't lost. It often happens that, by the end of a study, committee members are something like subject experts, although maybe not to the degree of those who do it for a living. Certainly, one of the great privileges of this job is the opportunity to broaden and deepen our understanding of a range of issues that come before us in our duties as members of Parliament, and members who are part of this study at the end of it will know a lot more than they already do.
Not all of us have done these kinds of citizen engagement processes for a living in the way that Mr. Turnbull has, so at the end of that, we'll probably have some more general reflections on how citizens' assemblies might be able to be used. It's value added for Canadians if we can compile that information and some of those reflections and submit them formally to the House for the government's consideration and the consideration of Canadians at large who are thinking about how government can make better policy in a way that's more citizen-led.
I think this is information that the committee is going to accumulate in the course of its study in any event, and having a way to codify that and make it useful for more people is a better way to proceed. That's why I'm happy to support this amendment.
The other thing I appreciate about this amendment is that it leaves intact all of the important components about the electoral reform piece, and it allows for a detailed report to be submitted on that particular issue, which I know is very important to all of those of us in Canada who really do want to see a different voting system implemented and would appreciate some straightforward recommendations from this committee on that matter specifically.
Thank you.
View Kirsty Duncan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Good morning, dear colleagues.
Madam Chair, happy birthday, and we wish you a lovely day and a good year.
I just want to say that I support what Mr. Blaikie has brought forward, and I also support this amendment. I think all of us would agree that politics is about staying in touch with people and about their having their say in their community.
In our community, we work hard to reach out to the community to hear their views, and to hear their ideas. In Etobicoke North, I have had this huge council from day one, and we want to make sure that our association is representative of our wonderful community. I believe the whole point of politics is for people to get involved and to help build a better country.
If we look at some of the data internationally, such as this data from the Pew Research Center, an average of 64% of people across 34 countries do not believe that elected officials really care about what citizens think. We should be disturbed by that.
One solution is to include more deliberation within our democracy, and I think citizen assemblies are an increasingly popular way of doing so. Depending on where they are in the world, they are groups of about 100 people broadly representative of the population, meeting over several weeks or months to debate topics.
I think it's important to broaden it out, and I know Mr. Blaikie has said he is supportive of Mr. Turnbull's amendment. I think it's important to broaden it out too. In the past 10 years, the OECD has shown a real increase in citizen [Technical difficulty—Editor] undertaking such a study we can look at how effective they are, where they've been implemented, what the guiding principles are, as well as membership and how members are chosen, how they operate, and whether there's a secretariat. I think there are a lot of questions we could be asking.
I think the question will not be whether deliberative democracy becomes a more intrinsic part of our democratic traditions but rather when and how, so I am strongly supportive of the amendment.
Thank you.
View Alain Therrien Profile
BQ (QC)
I will be very brief.
I don't know whether the interpreters will be able to get this right, but here's a challenge for them. My mom always used to say, “don't bite off more than you can chew.”
I was convinced that the purpose of Mr. Blaikie's motion was to further study the electoral process as a whole. Mr. Turnbull's amendment would expand the study to democratic practices within the parliamentary process.
However, I believe that we should limit ourselves to the electoral process. People are asking themselves questions, and we should be too. We've heard people talk about the need to change the electoral system to proportional representation, because some parties are over‑represented, and others under‑represented.
I don't have the same background as Mr. Turnbull and I am not an expert on the matter. I am but a mere economist. However, my constituents often talk to me about the need to adopt proportional representation. Doing so would allow parties that are disadvantaged by the current electoral system to be better represented and better equipped to speak on behalf of people, who deserve it.
I will stop here. I don't believe that Mr. Turnbull's amendment would be beneficial for us because it weakens the premise of the main motion. Therefore, I hope that this amendment will be defeated.
View Ginette Petitpas Taylor Profile
Lib. (NB)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will be brief in my comments because much has already been said.
First and foremost, I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Blaikie for presenting his original motion, and also to thank Mr. Turnbull for his amendments to the motion that he has brought forward today. I think there's a lot of value to both of those.
It's really important that we have this conversation today. It's not at all a filibuster; I just think it's important to share our points of view.
As Mr. Therrien indicated, by no means am I an expert in this matter, like our friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull, but I do certainly believe that having a broader reflection on citizens' assemblies could certainly be beneficial to all of us.
As indicated as well, we certainly know that across the world, citizens' assemblies have been exploding in different countries. There has been a lot of work that's been done in this area.
Just last night during our late-night votes, I was able to do a bit of research as I had a bit of time on my hands. I came across a report from the OECD, which they did in 2020. The report is “Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions—Catching the Deliberative Wave”.
The OECD project brought together an iron-clad team of practitioners, designers, academics, researchers, civil servants, and the list goes on, to examine cases where citizens' assemblies have been used across the world for different topics. For me, when I think of citizens' assemblies, I always think about matters related to electoral reform, but when I looked at that report, there were a number of different studies that were done.
Again, this report looked at why we should use citizens' assemblies and how we should use them. There were three things that really struck me. First and foremost, the experts recommended that they should be focusing on value-driven dilemmas, on policy issues where there's no clear right or wrong. The goal is to find the common ground. To me, it made sense when I read that. Another was they should focus on complex problems that require trade-offs. Often, we need to do that. Finally, they should focus on long-term issues that go beyond electoral cycles. We know those are challenging issues that are dealt with regularly.
When I look at all of that, I'm thinking we should really be looking at expanding this study and reflecting on how we could use citizens' assemblies.
Finally, there are a few examples. I'm not going to get into all of this because time is of the essence here.
In Ireland they looked at some really difficult issues, like the issue of access to abortion and climate change to name [Technical difficulty—Editor]. In France they looked at the whole issue of climate change. We know that's a huge issue that we have to deal with. We have to find some common ground there as well. In Germany they looked at the whole issue of their democratic process. In the U.K. they looked at the issue of meeting their net-zero emission targets by 2050.
Again, I think there's a lot we could learn by doing this study.
I know that my friend and colleague Mr. Turnbull talked about terms of references and what we could look at with respect to this study. We talked about participants: how we are going to recruit them, how we are going to select them. A lot of work needs to be done with respect to that.
Another part that we didn't really discuss was the learning phase. If we have a citizens' advisory committee that's put together, we're all coming at this with very basic knowledge, although perhaps some have a lot of knowledge. I look at the whole issue of electoral reform three years ago. I think we were all [Technical difficulty—Editor] ways that we could vote. I can certainly imagine what PROC committee members had to go through: using common language, asking what it meant, providing definitions, so we're at least using the same lingo.
I think a lot of work could be done with respect to this study. Again, I support MP Blaikie, but I think that with respect to MP Turnbull's amendment, we could have an even greater study.
I'll leave my comments there. Thank you.
View John Nater Profile
CPC (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.
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ryan Turnbull Profile
2021-06-22 12:20
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.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (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.
Justin Vaive
View Justin Vaive Profile
Justin Vaive
2021-06-22 12:25
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.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (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.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
View Karen Vecchio Profile
CPC (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.
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
View Daniel Blaikie Profile
NDP (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.
Justin Vaive
View Justin Vaive Profile
Justin Vaive
2021-06-22 12:42
Madam Chair, the question is on Mr. Turnbull's amendment.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)
The Chair: Now we go to the main motion as amended.
Justin Vaive
View Justin Vaive Profile
Justin Vaive
2021-06-22 12:44
We'll come back to you.
(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
View Ruby Sahota Profile
Lib. (ON)
Let's have a vote on that amendment and then on the main motion.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
The Chair: Okay, we'll have a vote on the main motion.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)
The Chair: That brings today's meeting to an end. I hope you all have a fabulous next couple of months with your constituents doing things in your community.
Hopefully we will see each other back, who knows, maybe sooner rather than later. I don't know exactly when that will be, but hopefully in September, at least.
I wish you all very well.
The meeting is adjourned.
Trudo Lemmens
View Trudo Lemmens Profile
Trudo Lemmens
2021-06-21 18:40
Chairs and members of the committee, I appreciate the invitation to present today as part of this parliamentary review.
In this polarized debate, where some frame all concerns about MAID as religion based, let me first firmly state that my approach is based on human rights and with respect for the equal rights and dignity of persons who are ill, elderly and disabled and with the recognition of the state's duty to protect against premature death, which is recognized in Carter. It's informed by decades of work on professional regulation, health governance, health and human rights, and end-of-life law.
A review of these new practices from a health governance perspective is laudable. Unfortunately, Parliament put the cart before the horse by expanding the law prior to a serious evaluation of our current practice. Imagine that we decide to allow a novel form of gene therapy for serious and untreatable conditions, but prior to undertaking a legislatively mandated, five-year, solid review of the risk-benefit ratio, we introduce it as a standard form of therapy largely available on demand.
I definitely have concerns about this review, particularly about the premise from which it will start. In any area of policy-making, it is hard to scale back a practice once there is an official, professed confidence in it. It is also hard to change behaviour and expectations once a procedure is promoted and normalized, and to design post-factum structures to uncover problems and to identify lacunae, particularly when a practice leaves so much flexibility and relies heavily on the integrity of professionals committed to the practice.
I urge the committee to take a step back and remember how the B.C. Supreme Court in Carter, which lies at the foundation of our current practice, stated—with references to choice, indeed, but also the best interest of the patient—that “if it is ever ethical...for a physician to assist in death, it would be only in limited and exceptional circumstances.... The concern about imposing stringent limits stems from the consensus that unlimited physician-assisted death would pose serious risks.”
The committee should be willing to question whether the current practice respects this and what even further expansion would mean. It should do more than review the statistical, largely self-reported data and the limited analyses that have been undertaken. It should take the time to listen to family members who have had bad experiences with the rushed MAID of loved ones and to people who are already struggling in our health care and social support systems, particularly during the pandemic, and for whom offers of MAID are often received as a threat to their well-being.
The committee should hear from Jonathan Marchand, a man with ALS, who complained before the Senate about his lack of health care choices; from the family members of Chris Gladders, who received MAID in shockingly dehumanizing, squalid circumstances; from Roger Foley, who was offered MAID instead of access to good care; from the family of Alan Nichols; and about other more recent cases that are emerging. It should take seriously the voices of people with disabilities who experience the explicit promotion of MAID as a confirmation that our society prioritizes ending their lives rather than providing adequate supports and care.
I urge you to be imaginative and ask how societal and legal endorsements of a broad MAID practice may already be impacting what we think our elderly and people with disabilities should do when they struggle and when solutions to their sufferings are complex and not immediately forthcoming. How will this impact how they think about what they should be doing when faced with old age, frailty and disability?
I urge you to keep in mind the challenging health issues that indigenous people and racialized Canadians disproportionately face, the revolting situation of many of our elderly in long-term care homes, exposed during the pandemic, and the lack of choices for the elderly and people with disabilities. Think about that when exploring the risks of normalizing MAID as therapy for suffering, when critically analyzing the premise in our MAID law that capacity and informed consent procedures are already providing sufficient protection against abuse.
Many of these concerns about the impact of ableism are particularly long-term, but I already have mentioned concrete examples of current concerns. How common are these? I suggest that we need more robust data.
The first Health Canada MAID report, however, should be a wake-up call. In addition to showing the normalization of MAID through the rapid uptake—particularly in some provinces—faster than, for example, in Belgium and the Netherlands, two countries with significantly more investment in palliative care and social support, the report confirms—
The Joint Chair (Hon. Yonah Martin): You have 30 seconds.
Dr. Trudo Lemmens: —some of the concerns with our already broader than strict end-of-life practices. It documents, for example, various factors associated with unbearable suffering that lie at the basis of the more than 15,000 MAID requests. It includes fear of being a burden to family, friends and caregivers in 34% of the cases and loneliness in 14% of the cases. For 53%, it's the loss of dignity, a concept profoundly influenced by ableist perceptions that our MAID practice may stimulate; and inadequate pain control or a fear of pain are cited in 54% of cases, reflecting a possible lack of access to adequate health care and palliative care—and even in some cases existential suffering.
In the question period—
View Mel Arnold Profile
CPC (BC)
Thank you.
I know that the time is very short. On that piece of it, then, one of the questions I wanted to get to is this. Do you feel there has been adequate consultation and information provided to your organizations as to the transfer of licences and in light of the Clearwater deal? Please provide a brief answer if you can.
Claire Canet
View Claire Canet Profile
Claire Canet
2021-06-16 17:44
From the Quebec point of view, there has been no information and no consultation at all about it. However, this is a deal that concerns first nations in other provinces—in British Columbia and Nova Scotia. Martin may be aware of consultations. I'm not aware of any.
Martin Mallet
View Martin Mallet Profile
Martin Mallet
2021-06-16 17:44
I'm not aware of any consultations with industry representatives. We heard from the department and the minister's office that it was in Minister Jordan's hands and that they were currently exploring the question.
View Mel Arnold Profile
CPC (BC)
It really seems that there's been very little consultation for Canadian processors to be able to provide Canadian products to Canadian consumers.
If you have anything further to add, please provide it to the committee, because I recognize that the chair is going to tell me that my time is up.
View Dan Mazier Profile
CPC (MB)
Wow. Thank you for that.
To Mr. Sproul again. I know that the Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance has written to the minister on multiple occasions to raise concerns relating to the future of Canadian fisheries. Do you feel that the minister is listening to the views of the UFCA and to the fishermen that your organization represents?
Colin Sproul
View Colin Sproul Profile
Colin Sproul
2021-06-16 18:08
I would say absolutely not. That's my view, and it's the view of my members, and as proof, I would point out that the minister appeared before the Senate standing committee last night and said that very thing. She was quite proud of the fact that she'd had zero consultation on the deal with the commercial fishing industry. As I said in my earlier statement, when communities adjacent to resources lack a voice in regulatory regimes around them, they invariably lose, be they indigenous or non-indigenous. I think it's important to point out that what's best for indigenous leaders may not be best for indigenous fishermen. I'm concerned about the outcomes for fishermen on the water.
View Ya'ara Saks Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ya'ara Saks Profile
2021-06-16 17:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think I'm going to pick up where my colleague, Mr. Albas, left off.
Dr. Jones, you've had such a rich life, exploring and advocating. Your historical experience in this is vast. The knowledge we're gaining from you is tremendous with regard to your personal perspective on this.
Taking up where my colleague left off, I'd ask you this: How do we ensure that meaningful engagement occurs with marginalized communities in the development of environmental policy? In your wealth of experience, what are best practices you would recommend that we consider here in this discussion?
Lynn Jones
View Lynn Jones Profile
Lynn Jones
2021-06-16 17:30
Always, for me, it's to consult—because somebody has mentioned this in a different aspect—the communities concerned. They've been dealing with the land and that environment all their lives, and they might not do things the way you normally do things. They have different ways of getting together, different ways of talking and different ways of judging. It's a matter of putting people at a table and having them come up with strategies and ways they want to deal with their communities. Government has this terrible, terrible way—and I worked for government at one point—of thinking that it has all the answers in that it's the government's way or the highway. However, in actual fact, the most success we have had is when we put these communities together and they work through and come up with the best strategies. We could do that with this environmental racism bill.
In fact, as an aside, we're doing it with our Black Lives Matter fund, where the communities themselves are saying what they require and what their needs are. It's the most successful way.
View Ya'ara Saks Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Ya'ara Saks Profile
2021-06-16 17:32
I know.
I'd like to carry that a little further. I have extensive work in shared society building on another side of the world, in Israel and Palestine. One thing I've learned in this process when you consult with communities is that you learn a lot, but you also learn where the gaps are. We were talking earlier about the data, and I'll open this up to other witnesses who are here, as well. What information or knowledge gaps do we have right now when it comes to environmental justice and environmental racism as we move forward with this?
I may want to ask, Dr. Jones, if some of our other witnesses want to weigh in with you, of course.... Perhaps someone else will pick up.
Lynn Jones
View Lynn Jones Profile
Lynn Jones
2021-06-16 17:32
I could say so much. When we started on environmental racism through the ENRICH project, I still remember.... This is the truth. When I was bringing up the flooding issues in our community and was told that flooding was not an environmental racism issue, that's where we started. That was a gap. Even in the definition, there's this big, packed, long definition of environmental racism. My community wouldn't get their heads around those fancy definitions, but they know what happens when the flood waters come through their homes. They lose homes. They have prepared for generations, so they know all about that. There are so many gaps that, as we work through this—and I work on these concerns—the community's getting involved more, and the community is able to address its own concerns.
I'm concerned about some of the things around Quebec and issues that have been brought forward, but I'll just leave it. I won't go there.
View Dan Albas Profile
CPC (BC)
I'll just continue on, and perhaps Dr. Jones has already responded to it, so I'll just put it in a slightly different way. I would just say that, if you were in charge of doing these consultations.... It is a big country. There is a lot of history, and there are a lot of different communities, municipal governments, indigenous communities and the Black community she mentioned in Truro, for example. Where do you start?
Ms. Gue, if you were in charge, where would you start? To me, if I were working for Environment and Climate Change Canada, that would be the hard one.
Lisa Gue
View Lisa Gue Profile
Lisa Gue
2021-06-16 17:35
Just to come back to this point—and I know we've emphasized it a lot—the data collection requirement in this bill is going to be very important to help inform prioritization, to the extent that that needs to happen. I agree with Dr. Jones' earlier comments as well, that the purpose of a strategy is to be broad and broadly applicable. I think this bill very well sets out a broad scope and then also provides the tools with the requirement, again, for data collection and assessment to help to define priorities.
View Eric Melillo Profile
CPC (ON)
View Eric Melillo Profile
2021-06-15 12:47
No problem. Thank you.
I'm just wondering if you're able to touch a bit on what the government could do better to help ensure that we are more preventative, more proactive, in ensuring that people do not find themselves in the vulnerable situations that have led to human trafficking, to sex trafficking. What can we do in terms of programming and supports? Where can we fix those gaps to intervene [Technical difficulty—Editor]
Bryanna R. Brown
View Bryanna R. Brown Profile
Bryanna R. Brown
2021-06-15 12:48
I think it's really important to have indigenous-led direction when creating healing programs for survivors of human trafficking or having anti-human trafficking programs.
I am also on the Indigenous Climate Action National Steering Committee, and I have noticed climate change, the extraction and exploitation of land and natural resources. I have been thinking of how that relates to the exploitation of indigenous peoples, especially indigenous women, and environmental injustice and environmental racism and how that causes displacement of indigenous peoples from their communities, and how that causes further culture shock when having to be removed from their indigenous communities to a more non-indigenous community, and being in that culture shock and not having access to traditional food, their traditional territory.
I think having access to land is extremely important. I notice that it seems to be more effective when we have more culturally relevant resources available to clients that are provided by indigenous peoples and Black people, and people of colour as well.
I have created programs and workshops and presentations to bring awareness to the issue of human trafficking, and provided consultation to hospitals and anti-human trafficking organizations to provide input on the survivor leadership and healing programs. I have noticed that there's a large demand for these presentations and bringing more awareness to these issues.
Thank you.
View Helena Jaczek Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to pick up a little bit on where Mr. Duvall was going. There's no question that, during the hearings that we've had at this committee, the overwhelming majority of witnesses were very firmly in support of this bill. Quite honestly, I'm a recipient of OMERS, a defined benefit plan, a very fortunate recipient of that pension plan, and I have received a number of pieces of correspondence from OMERS in support of this bill.
You, Mr. Schaan, are clearly not in favour. You've detailed your concerns, but to what extent have you consulted? Can you give us some examples of support for your position? I don't want to in any way question your credibility, because you're obviously extremely knowledgeable, but it would be really good to have some specific examples of organizations, banks, lenders, quite honestly anybody who is opposed for the reasons that you have given us.
Mark Schaan
View Mark Schaan Profile
Mark Schaan
2021-06-15 12:23
It should be clear that this is an analytical view and not a personal one. I come to this from the perspective of simply the analysis that we have been able to undertake as the government department responsible for this statute. I'm trying to bring to bear what we have heard, seen, analyzed and understood through the research and other that we've undertaken.
It is worth noting that, leading up to the changes we made to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, alongside significant changes, as well, to the Canada Business Corporations Act, as part of the retirement security project in 2019, we held significant cross-country consultations that actually were wide-ranging in terms of the number of options and considerations that we raised vis-à-vis the possibilities for enhancing retirement income security. Those retirement income security consultations did look at a number of potential options for implementation, including that of a superpriority for unfunded pension liabilities.
We heard from insolvency professionals, from the Canadian Bankers Association and from the Association of Canadian Pension Management. We had submissions from FETCO, various federal employers, pension experts, [Technical difficulty—Editor] pension benefit experts, credit unions and others.
The subsequent piece of legislation that emerged from that was clear in terms of the consultations, so I think it is worth going back to the many entreaties that were made as part of that. Obviously, many of them were similar to what you heard in the witness testimony, suggesting that there is positive support for a superpriority for unfunded pension liability, sometimes with some caveats around the notion that, obviously, recognizing that—
View Scott Duvall Profile
NDP (ON)
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I'm just wondering if we could have some precise questions and answers and not be going on. We have to finish this, but we're just going on and on, and time is running out. I think it's just proper that we do this clause by clause.
Of course, there are important questions, but we don't have to be going on with the long answers.
Thank you.
View Helena Jaczek Profile
Lib. (ON)
Would I be correct, then, in saying that you're going to look carefully at those consultations and at, potentially, other ideas to support workers in this potential situation of losing their pensions, their defined benefit? Where are you in that process?
Mark Schaan
View Mark Schaan Profile
Mark Schaan
2021-06-15 12:27
[Technical difficulty—Editor] changes to the law in 2019 as a function of significant consultation. It did make changes to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act, amongst others. Those projects of law are actually in their infancy. They've only been implemented for a short period of time. They included a duty of good faith in insolvency proceedings. They required for boards of directors and officers to contemplate and have the capacity to consider additional issues of well-being and the financial value vitality of their organizations, including that of their pension plans. It specifically indicated that companies will have an obligation to comply or explain, with a requirement to bring before their shareholders, the measures by which they are contemplating and considering the well-being of their workers and pensioners in their ongoing operations.
There have been a number of shifts in the law, but we do, obviously, continue to look back to those consultations and continue to hear and meet with intervenors and stakeholders to make sure we are canvassing for any and all good ideas that would improve the overall state of retirement income security and the well-being of pensioners and workers.
View Sébastien Lemire Profile
BQ (QC)
The goal of my remarks, Madam Chair, is similar to the purpose of Mr. Duvall's remarks. Out of respect for workers and retirees, and perhaps even for the tens of thousands of people who have sent emails that you received, as I did, in support of this project, we must complete our process. To that end, today's meeting is essential.
I would sincerely urge the witness, whose objectivity was called into question by Ms. Jaczek's preamble, to give shorter answers so that we can get to the end of the agenda.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
View Sukh Dhaliwal Profile
Lib. (BC)
The annual immigration levels are determined by the federal government in consultation with the provinces and territories. In your view, have local municipalities been involved in these discussions in your area? What type of input is especially important for municipalities to contribute to the federal government when we set up those levels?
Paul McLauchlin
View Paul McLauchlin Profile
Paul McLauchlin
2021-06-07 16:10
We are starting to have that conversation at the provincial level, and this would be the first contact we've had at a federal level. Definitely it's looking at this conversation and the fact that we, again, are 18% of the population. In order for us to be successful, we need to grow and look for opportunities.
Where we start looking at immigration and the repopulation, or bringing the opportunities in, I think, is an important conversation for us to be part of. We've just started the conversations at the provincial level. The immigration strategy has not been released. It is coming this summer, but we have been identified as a key stakeholder working with the Alberta provincial government and Minister Copping.
View Maninder Sidhu Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for taking the time to be with us today.
My first question is for Madame Lalande.
Ms. Lalande, to come up with the current immigration levels plan, IRCC engaged with and sought perspectives from provinces, territories and other government departments, municipalities, francophone and official language minority communities, immigrant organizations and not-for-profit organizations, as well as academia, employers and industry and sector councils.
From this large list, are there any other sectors that you believe should be consulted going forward?
Lisa Lalande
View Lisa Lalande Profile
Lisa Lalande
2021-06-07 17:21
That's a great question.
What we've been advocating for at Century is a shift away from a focus just on the targets and more on how we actually grow the population in a smart, sustainable way in looking at issues of affordable housing, city development and placement outside of city centres for encouraging newcomers to other communities. Doing so requires planning for the long term and investing in our education system, urban development infrastructure investment and skills development and training.
In our view, as we're thinking about this, one thing I always want to start out with when I'm talking about it is that immigration is not an either-or. Sometimes when we talk about issues related to housing or GDP per capita, they're often used as an argument against immigration. Our demographic challenges right now make this a must-have. It's simple math. We must proceed with immigration. The question is not how much: It's how do we do it, and how do we do it well.
Along those lines, I think there's an opportunity to have a different type of consultation: to link population growth with urban infrastructure and investment discussions, for one example, and addressing labour market needs. I think that would be really valuable.
View Steven Guilbeault Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning.
I would first like to acknowledge that I am joining you from Montreal, on the traditional territory of the Mohawk and other Haudenosaunee peoples.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. With me, as you said, are Joëlle Montminy, senior assistant deputy minister, cultural affairs, and Pierre-Marc Perreault, acting director, digital citizen initiative.
Like you and many other Canadians, I am concerned by the disturbing rise and spread of hateful, violent and exploitive content online and on social media.
As a legislator and father of four children, I find some of the content of these platforms to be profoundly inhuman.
I am also deeply troubled by the consequences and the echoes of that content in the real world.
The overall benefits of the digital economy and social media are without question. In fact, I published a book, shortly before I took up politics, wherein I talked about the benefits of the digital economy, of artificial intelligence in particular, but also about some unintended negative consequences.
In Canada, more than 9 out of 10 adults use at least one online platform, and since the beginning of the pandemic, online platforms have played an even more important role in our lives.
We use social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube to stay connected to our families, friends and colleagues. We use them to work, to conduct business, to reach new markets and audiences, to make our voices and opinions heard, and to engage in necessary and vital democratic debate. However, we have also seen how social media can have negative and very harmful impacts.
On a daily basis, there are Internet users who share damaging content, either to spread hate speech, the sexual exploitation of children, terrorist propaganda, or words meant to incite violence.
This content has led and contributed to violent outbursts such as the attack on the Islamic Cultural Centre in Quebec City in 2017, and similar attacks in Christchurch, New Zealand, in 2019.
Canadians and people all over the world have watched these events and others unfold on the news with shock and fear. We all understand the connections between these events and hateful, harmful online discourse. We worry about our own safety and security online. We worry about what our children and our loved ones will be exposed to.
According to a recent poll by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, an overwhelming 93% of Canadians believe that online hate and racism are a problem, and at least 60% believe that the government has an obligation to prevent the spread of hateful and racist content online.
In addition, the poll revealed that racialized groups in Canada are more than three times more likely to experience racism online than non-racialized Canadians.
Since the beginning of the COVID‑19 pandemic, we have seen a rise in anti-Asian hate speech on the Internet and a steady increase in anti-Semitic rhetoric, further fuelled by recent events.
A June 2020 study by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue found that Canadians use more than 6,600 online services, pages and accounts hosted on various social media platforms to convey ideologies tinged with white supremacism, misogyny or extremism. This type of content wreaks havoc and destroys lives. It is intimidating and undermines constructive exchange. In doing so, it prevents us from having a true democratic debate and undermines free speech.
The facts speak for themselves. We must act, and we must act now. We believe that every person has the right to express themselves and participate in Internet exchanges to the fullest extent possible, without fear and without intimidation or concern for their safety. We believe that the Internet should be an inclusive place where we can safely express ourselves.
Our government is therefore committed to taking concrete steps to address harmful content online, particularly if the content advocates child sexual exploitation, terrorism, violence, hate speech, and non-consensual sharing of intimate images.
In fact, this is one of the priorities outlined in the mandate letter given to me by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. So we have begun the process to develop legislation that will address the concerns of Canadians.
Over the past few months my office and I have engaged with over 140 stakeholders from both civil society organizations and the digital technology sector regarding this issue. This has included seven round-table discussions. We also spoke with indigenous groups, racialized Canadians, elected provincial officials, municipal officials and our international partners to assess our options and begin to develop a proposed approach.
In addition, given the global nature of the problem, I have hosted a virtual meeting with my counterparts from Australia, Finland, France and Germany—who were part of the multi-stakeholder working group on diversity of content online—to discuss the importance of a healthy digital ecosystem and how to work collectively.
I am also working closely with my colleagues the ministers of Justice, Public Safety, Women and Gender Equality,Diversity and Inclusion and Youthas well asInnovation, Science and Industry to find the best possible solution.
Our collaborative work aims to ensure that Canada's approach is focused on protecting Canadians and continued respect for their rights, including freedom of opinion and expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The goal is to develop a proposal that establishes an appropriate balance between protecting speech and preventing harm.
Let me be clear. Our objective is not to reduce freedom of expression but to increase it for all users, and to ensure that no voices are being suppressed because of harmful content.
We want to build a society where radicalization, hatred, and violence have no place, where everyone is free to express themselves, where exchanges are not divisive, but an opportunity to connect, understand, and help each other. We are continuing our work and hope to act as quickly and effectively as possible. I sincerely hope that I can count on the committee's support and move forward to build a more transparent, accountable and equitable digital world.
I thank you for your attention and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
View Brenda Shanahan Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Chair.
I am thankful that Ms. Lukings agreed to appear in front of us again today. It's very refreshing to hear you, and you will be a professor one day. Of that I have no doubt.
Ms. Lukings, your work is so important to help us have a better understanding—and your comments certainly attest to that—of all the issues that are arising from what was a very disturbing, and I think you and other witnesses said this, unfortunately very sensationalist article, which brought concern to people because, of course, no one wants to see child sexual abuse material on the web or non-consensual intimate images on the web.
However, there are perhaps unintended harmful consequences that can arise, particularly to adult professional sex workers, if we're not thoughtful about how we legislate in this area.
I believe I still have about five minutes remaining. Please use my remaining time to share those concerns with us, and if you want to bring in Professor Lashkari.... By the way, congratulations on the great series of articles the two of you are working on. They're very interesting.
Please, go ahead.
Melissa Lukings
View Melissa Lukings Profile
Melissa Lukings
2021-06-07 12:39
To have meaningful consultations with people is really important. I would encourage the committee to review the submissions made by the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform. They have done a lot of research in the area, and I'm really supportive of their efforts right now to challenge federally the criminal offences related to sex work, third parties and clients, material benefiting, advertising and all of these things.
They are an amazing resource. What makes them unique is that they are an umbrella organization that connects...I think it's over 20 or 30 different sex worker-led organizations all across the country. Everything is done through voting and from hearings with actual people who have lived experience in that area, so when you get data from this organization, it's solid data. I would really recommend consulting them.
Other than that, I would love to pass over the torch to Professor Lashkari.
View Luc Thériault Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Thériault Profile
2021-06-04 15:25
You alluded in your presentation to an ineffective consultation process. You aren't the only one pointing that out. We've heard that grievance from a number of stakeholders. You said that the die had already been cast and that the reform had been determined in advance.
What makes you think that everything was predetermined?
I know there were two delays. I understood that you didn't want a third delay, roundtable or no roundtable, because a six-month delay would only draw out the uncertainty for six months. That would not help matters.
So what do you feel needs to be done with respect to the process?
Pamela Fralick
View Pamela Fralick Profile
Pamela Fralick
2021-06-04 15:26
I want to recall something that I heard from the Secretary of the Treasury Board, Peter Wallace, early in his tenure when he was appointed to address that question. He talked about how important it is for government not just to listen and walk through a consultation process, but also to hear. That is the piece that we all fear has been missing in this process. We cannot state that the number of steps haven't been taken—they have—but we have not been heard.
Early in the process, I did submit a letter, which I can make available to this committee. The letter outlined our numerous concerns with the process and why we felt we were not being heard. Perhaps the most compelling data point is that 80% of 112 submissions to PMPRB's most recent consultation are opposed to or have expressed concerns about the guidelines, yet minimal changes have been made over the course of the four-year process.
Thank you.
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Minister. It's good to see you today.
My first question, Minister, is that no matter the issue, no matter what we study, what fisheries we look into and which coast the witnesses are coming from, we hear again and again that you and your department have completely neglected to consult with them properly before making industry-changing decisions. This creates tremendous instability at a time when we already have great uncertainty with COVID-19. This continued instability in their lives causes questions about their future livelihoods. It's hard to make future decisions about an area they are passionate about and have served and want to continue to make their living in.
Why do you and this department continue to insist on keeping those most affected by your decisions away from the decision-making table? We heard this whether from indigenous stakeholders or the commercial fishery stakeholders and whether it related to the prawn harvesters, east coast lobster fishers or fish farmers in B.C. There's been a tremendous echo from coast to coast regarding the lack of true consultation or being part of the process and the decision-making process and finding out only after the fact.
Minister, do you have any explanation for this?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to say that I would disagree with that assertion. We consult widely with a number of different stakeholders as we make decisions. We also make decisions based on science.
Over the past year I have met countless times with first nations communities, with the industry, with commercial harvesters, with stakeholder groups and with environmental organizations. Actually, probably one of the largest parts of my job is meeting with stakeholders and listening to their concerns and their comments. A lot of the policy we develop comes from those consultations.
I will also say that we do meet regularly with provincial and territorial partners with regard to fisheries management decisions. However, many of the decisions we have to make are based on the science regarding where the stocks are and what is happening within the sector.
For example, during COVID-19 we had some really tough decisions to make with regard to the opening of seasons—
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
—but we made sure we were able to do that, because we listened to the harvesters.
Thank you.
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Minister.
We have a lot of questions we want to cover with you today.
For example, our prawn harvesters in B.C. have been quite negatively impacted by a recent interpretation of what was already an existing regulation. That change of interpretation meant unbelievable instability for those harvesters and a lot of questions. We heard overwhelming testimony related to that. They don't understand the basis for the decision or why it came about. We really couldn't find a whole lot of clarity regarding the rationale behind that decision.
One of the things that was always being said was that the interpretation meant that the product had to be readily available to be inspected. Well, if I were able to produce for you prawns so that you could check their size and number within two minutes or less, would you consider that “readily available”?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
I would say that we have actually engaged with industry, which is why we were able to come up with a solution for this season. That is why we are continuing to engage with them to make sure that we find the right way forward for the prawn tubbing issue. You know, this is something I am committed to making sure that we have solved, and we are actively engaged in making sure that we do that.
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
Minister, who decided that we should reinterpret the regulation? Was it you or the department?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
This is actually a regulation that has been in place for many years. As I said, we recognized that it was a challenge for the harvesters this year. That is why we worked with them to find the solution. We are now continuing on with that engagement to find the long-term solution for the harvesters, because we know how important this industry is and we know how important this issue is, and we are committed to making sure it gets solved.
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Minister, because they've been very clear that they need to make sure that certainty comes from the minister and comes from your department so that they can make long-term plans. The ambiguity is causing further uncertainty, and temporary measures won't suffice.
Hon. Bernadette Jordan: I would say—
Mr. Richard Bragdon: On to the other issue—
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
I would say that we are going to find a long-term solution in collaboration with the industry.
View Richard Bragdon Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you.
As a result of your December 17 decision regarding the future of aquaculture in the Discovery Islands, more than seven million healthy juvenile Atlantic salmon have been euthanized and layoffs have started towards an ultimate loss of about 1,500 jobs. How does this align with the government's blue economy strategy that you have so fervently promoted?
Furthermore, did you consult with your provincial counterparts, which we heard testimony from here, in advance of this decision's being rolled out? Did you consult in advance with the first nations communities that were being directly affected by this decision so that they could have meaningful transition plans in place when this decision was enacted?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
I will say that this was a very difficult decision to make. It was not one I took lightly. I recognized that it was a very challenging decision for many people. I will also say that the decision was made after there was consultation with the seven first nations in that area, recognizing that aquaculture is extremely important to British Columbia—well, to many coastal communities—and recognizing that there is a way forward with it. However, we want to make sure that it is also in keeping with the first nations territories that did not feel that this was a good fit for them.
View Denis Trudel Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
I'd like to know how to the consultations went before the budget was tabled. Several witnesses who appeared before us mentioned that the department didn't consult with them before announcing how much was going to be invested.
Why did the government decide to consult with the community after tabling the budget, and not beforehand?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
We had a number of conversations with a number of different organizations and groups, as well as the provinces, territories and first nations communities, around the importance of wild Pacific salmon, not only as a resource for commercial harvesters but for recreational purposes. These salmon drive an economy on the west coast, and they are also culturally significant to first nations communities. I would say that in pretty much every meeting I had with British Columbians, the state of the wild Pacific salmon stocks was the priority. We heard countless times, over and over again, that we needed to have a full-court press to make sure that we are doing everything we possibly could. That was one of the reasons we worked so hard to make sure that it was in the budget. I'm very proud that there is $647 million to address the concerns we're seeing in those declining stocks.
View Denis Trudel Profile
BQ (QC)
If I may, I will just reiterate, people in the community expressed feelings about not being consulted before the budget was tabled. They wondered why they were consulted after the fact.
Do you have an answer for them?
Results: 1 - 100 of 1164 | Page: 1 of 12

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data