Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 16 - 30 of 1164
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.
Results: 16 - 30 of 1164 | Page: 2 of 78

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

For more data options, please see Open Data