Okay. Do you want to—
Evidence of meeting #1 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Electoral Reform in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
June 21st, 2016 / 3 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I can explain why. There are two reasons.
Number one, Mr. Mayrand and Mr. Kingsley should not both be put into a 90-minute spot. I don't think they should be at the same meeting. We have a former chief electoral officer with one set of information to give us and another serving Chief Electoral Officer who has many questions that we need to deal with.
This is of particular importance to my party, of course, which has tried, through the very limited interaction time we've had with Mr. Mayrand, to establish what would be the deadlines and what would be the issues that would prevent us from having a national referendum on this issue. Having anything less than a full meeting with Mr. Mayrand alone would be unacceptable. I note that he never comes before us as a joint witness under other circumstances, and I think that would be reasonable here.
A final note on this subject is this. Under the plan, on Tuesday we design the rules about how long a presentation will be. Mr. Mayrand in particular has always emphasized the need to receive full information on that well in advance. He's very careful in his preparations. Saying to him that he has 24 hours to pull together and restructure everything would clearly not be acceptable to him.
Mr. Kingsley hasn't expressed these concerns in the same way as clearly as Mr. Mayrand has, but I suspect that it would be a discourtesy to him to invite him under those circumstances.
It's a different story with the analysts, who are doing a totally different kind of presentation.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Right. Okay.
You're okay with the steering committee, with a three-hour session with the analysts and the committees directorate, but you're not good with Mr. Mayrand and Mr. Kingsley on the Wednesday together or—
3 p.m.
Conservative
3 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I was going to suggest that if Mr. Reid objects to this arrangement I can maybe understand, but if he just wants to hear from Mr. Mayrand, would that be something that he would be open to?
Having the Chief Electoral Officer come forward is probably as much about posing questions to us as committee members for what we need to consider when we're going through this process as it is about having somebody who runs the elections answer our questions. If there's some separation, I don't know if Mr. Reid or other committee members are open to that.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Would you like to propose a motion that we do the steering committee on Tuesday at 10 a.m?
3 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Right. It would be that the steering committee would meet on Tuesday at 10 a.m. The—
3 p.m.
TheChair
The analysts and the committees directorate—
3 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
The committee meets at.... I think we landed on 10 o'clock on Wednesday?
3 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes.
3 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's for an hour and a half, and then there would be an hour and a half with Mr. Mayrand.
3 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
No, no. We're talking about having the analysts for an hour and a half and then the committees directorate for an hour and a half to talk about the use of technologies. That would be a three-hour block, essentially.
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
I see. Can we get agreement on that? If we can get agreement on that, then if there's a—
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
That's the motion I put forward for that three-hour meeting.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
They're both on the same day. You're proposing that they're both on Wednesday, one after the other.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
For the witnesses that we're talking about right now, they would be one after the other, just separated. I just wanted to clarify that.
3:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Francis Scarpaleggia
Just so we're all clear, 10 a.m. on Tuesday is the steering committee, and 10 a.m. on Wednesday is the researchers and the committees directorate.
What about Mr. Mayrand? Did you have anything to say about Mr. Mayrand?
3:05 p.m.
NDP
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
We can just start with this one piece first and then move on to Mr. Mayrand.
3:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Everything that's in the motion, as I now understand it, is good, with one small exception. We should not presuppose the 90-minute slots, because we haven't actually worked out the exact discussion of the rotations, how long the slots are, whether members of the public go at the end, and all that stuff.
Can we just say they will be separated, that one will happen at 10 a.m. and the next one at...?