Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 22nd, 2016

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would bring to your attention the fact that my motion is still outstanding regarding in camera.

However, I think that given the government's proposal that witness lists be in camera and the fact that at this stage I'm not likely to oppose that, although we haven't finished the discussions, I just wanted to say that I'm willing to go in camera on this in the absence of having set those ground rules, given that the matter at hand is not as divisive. Certainly, it's not a partisan divide and therefore, I don't think we'll get into the kinds of problems that we could if we haven't clarified what we can do in camera and what can be said outside, etc.

All of this is to say that I will support going in camera as long as it's understood that it's without prejudice, that we're not setting a pattern, and it's based on the belief that this is a non-partisan and non-controversial issue, and therefore, we should be able to do it without having finalized those rules.

I'm still looking forward at the earliest opportunity to get back in and nail that down so that as we go forward we don't have these lingering questions about what our rules of engagement are.

With that understanding, Mr. Chair, I'd be prepared to support going in camera to deal with the witness list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is the government and the opposition in favour of going in camera?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It's agreed. So we'll break for one minute.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Public proceedings resume]

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, I'm going to ask again whether there is anyone opposed to the motion.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, it's in public now. They won't know the motion if you don't read it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

This is your motion.

Do you want to say it, or do you want me to say it again?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I couldn't repeat what you said if my life depended on it, and I'm not sure you can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The motion is that the Speaker be asked to present to the committee a proposed change, or options of changes, to the Standing Orders, to deal with the concern he raised about him having the ability to deal with the hours of Parliament during or following an emergency.

Is anyone opposed to that motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The motion carried. It's our understanding that we'll deal with that as an issue by itself.

Now, what would the committee like to go on to?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm okay with going with mine. The problem is that the point person on this particular file on the government side is not here, and I would certainly be respectful if they wanted that point first. If they want to plow ahead anyway and somebody else takes the lead to negotiate with me, I'm prepared to do that, but I'm also prepared to respect the fact that the member is not here.

He's done the homework to be the point person. If the government would prefer, I'm prepared to defer to the next available opportunity.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I think the member would appreciate the deferral.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

He'd appreciate being here?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes, a deferral would be appreciated, sir.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, we'll wait for that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We don't need a motion. We just need to understand that we won't do that right now out of respect for the honourable member. We'll pick it up as soon as we can, at the first opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Understood. Thanks, everyone, for the co-operation on that.

I do have another item that we should probably briefly chat about.

We have two witnesses who we need for main estimates, should we decide to call witnesses. One witness is the Chief Electoral Officer. We have to do the main estimates for his budget. Then we need to do the main estimates for the House of Commons, so we need the Clerk for that, and there's a deadline. The Clerk would be with the Parliamentary Protective Service, because they are two votes. I think we could do them both in the same hour.

What's the deadline for estimates before they just go ahead without us?

[The Clerk]

May 31.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

May 31.

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Absolutely we should be bringing them forward. I think it's important, and we should do it as soon as we can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The suggestion is that we do this as soon as we can and that we definitely do it. It's our option whether or not to do it.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Could they get here in half an hour? Probably not.

We could see if either of them is available, though the Clerk is not available on Thursday. It's pretty short notice. I'll work with the clerk to try to fit that in before May 31 for one hour.

Do we all agree that before May 31, we will have one hour for the Clerk and the protective services for those two votes, and one hour for the Chief Electoral Officer for the main estimates on Elections Canada?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

We've had the Clerk here, but particularly with the Chief Electoral Officer, we might want to have a whole meeting for that. We've just been through an election. There are probably some significant questions. I think it would be advisable that we have a separate two-hour meeting with the Chief Electoral Officer to review the estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We are already having a two-hour meeting with him on May 3.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes, that's obviously for an informal informational session. We've been through those before.

I think it's important that he be here to answer questions from members. I think it should be a two-hour full meeting for that.