Publication Search

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.

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.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Karen, please, never apologize. It's family first. When our kids need us, they need us. Anyway, I just needed to say that.

Madam Chair, I would like to at this point move a motion from the floor, perhaps with a bit of a preamble.

Last week, when we had Ms. Qaqqaq appear before the committee, she made some compelling arguments with respect to indigenous languages being included in the ballots. After much reflection of those conversations that we had, and listening attentively, I've spoken to my Liberal colleagues. We all agree with respect to the motion that we want to bring forward.

If you will allow me, I will take a moment to read the motion:

That, pursuant to its mandate to examine issues related to Elections Canada under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), the committee undertake a study of the measures necessary to ensure that the Chief Electoral Officer is empowered to require that ballots for electoral districts be prepared and printed in the Indigenous language or languages of electors, using the appropriate writing systems for each language, including syllabics if applicable, in addition to both official languages;

That this study include meaningful consultation with Indigenous language speakers and First Nations, Inuit, and Métis leaders across Canada;

That this study include consideration of the status Indigenous languages and the rights of Indigenous language speakers across the country;

That the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House;

That, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request that the Government table a comprehensive response to this report; and

That the Committee resolve to undertake this study as its next order of business.

That is the formal motion, Madam Chair. [Technical difficulty--Editor] today.

That will be forwarded to all members in both official languages.

Again, I want to stress that Madam Qaqqaq's comments that she made last week really made me reflect a lot, and I think made many of our committee members reflect. I think it's truly imperative that we take on this study and that we take it on as soon as possible.

Over the course of the weekend, I had a chance to speak to one of my brothers, who works in Iqaluit, and Cape Dorset for a number of years. We were speaking about this matter that came before the committee. He indicated to me that if we want to increase voter participation in these territories, it's really, really important that we do our part.

I know that last week we ruled it out of the scope of our study, but I think moving forward, it's really important to look at this matter seriously, in hopes that for the next election, or whenever we can, we'll be able to have their languages on the same ballots.

Those are my comments. Thank you.

It is, Madam Chair. I'd like us to get going.

On that point of order, Mr. Cooper barely got his question out. Minister Lametti is a seasoned pro. He knows how to answer questions. He's used to difficult questions. Let's allow Mr. Cooper the ability to ask his questions. He has only five minutes, and then the other members get to ask their questions. They can ask whatever lob ball they would wish of the minister.

I'm hoping that we can get on with the meeting.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to both of you for being here today on what is a very important process.

Minister Lametti, maybe for the benefit of those watching.... How many provinces have a guaranteed number of seats on the Supreme Court?

Thank you, Minister.

I understand that. Why then did you mention that in your search there would be a search conducted only from potential candidates from Ontario?

That makes sense to me 100%.

My question is about why, when Justice Cromwell retired—who was an Atlantic Canadian member of the Supreme Court of Canada—your government put no such search restriction that the replacement for Justice Cromwell be an Atlantic Canadian. That concerns me, as an Atlantic Canadian, because since Confederation, Atlantic Canada has always had a member on the Supreme Court of Canada.

Why is it that when there was a vacancy in Ontario, you searched only for Ontario applicants? I think you have done a wonderful job of finding a very qualified one, but why is it that when there was a vacancy in Atlantic Canada, the search was nationwide rather than just limited to Atlantic Canada?

Thank you, Minister.

I think it's important for us to recognize the diversity of our country and that Atlantic Canada plays an important role. Future vacancies in Atlantic Canada on this most important institution should be filled by Atlantic Canadians.

Madam Chair, how much time do I have?

Minister, we are a committee of parliamentarians. The justice committee, as the Right Honourable Kim Campbell mentioned, is an important committee, and none of us take for granted the privilege it is to be a member of this committee.

There was a recommendation a couple of years ago by the justice committee that the committee that looks at the new nominee for the Supreme Court of Canada be a true committee of Parliament, chaired by a member of Parliament. I think, for example, our chair of this justice committee, when we meet with Justice Jamal later today.... That should be a parliamentary committee that has the same rights that we do and the same ability to question. It should not be chaired by someone from outside of Parliament. That doesn't make sense to many people.

Do you have a comment on why that recommendation hasn't been implemented yet?

Madam Chair, on a point of order, I don't want to disappoint our guests, particularly Minister Lametti, but I thought we were meeting for two hours on this topic, and then going into committee for half an hour for the study that we're dealing with.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cardy, it's very good to see you here tonight.

I have many questions, so I'm going to get started right away.

As you know, I'm a member of Parliament from New Brunswick. I followed the headlines as they were happening in our province, as you and your government were moving to put some distance between the Confucius Institute and the education system.

Can you tell me, first off, what did you make of the lobbying effort, particularly from former premier Shawn Graham? Do you find that unusual? Are you concerned that this employment of former politicians is pervasive across the country and could spread?

Yes.

Unfortunately, recently we had former premier Stephen McNeil in Nova Scotia, lecturing Canadians about turning the other cheek when it comes to standing up for our values.

Could you talk to us a little bit about the conversation you had with the consul general in your office? I think it's important to underscore just how bizarre and unusual.... For China, which is normally very attuned to diplomatic niceties and protocols, to show up at your office unannounced is highly unusual.

Could you talk to us a little bit about that meeting, that conversation, and whether there was any follow-up subsequently to that in any other kind of venue with Chinese embassy officials?

I have one last quick question. I only have a few seconds left and you only have a few seconds.

What access did the Confucius Institute have to the data on students' private information, curriculum and things like that?

Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus.

Mr. Cardy, you referenced “soft power”, but that's a bit of an understatement. When this debate was happening, I was hearing from constituents in New Brunswick Southwest, from lobster sellers in particular, who were quite concerned about losing market access.

Could you talk about the drama that was taking place, the threat that China was making and how this is a soft power with an iron fist behind the glove?

Could you talk too about the fallout? We've seen in Australia that despite the embargo, they have found new markets. Has there been an economic fallout in New Brunswick?