Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 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.
Results: 1 - 15 of 1164 | Page: 1 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