Evidence of meeting #19 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was date.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
So is it the decision of the committee to set it up the way we have, but just have one video conference in the first hour and the other in the second hour, or will we have them all together again?
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Do these two witnesses want to interact? That might be one of the reasons why they want to be together.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I have been at video conferences in the Promenade Building where this happened, so despite this unfortunate technology I have been party to this kind of format and it has worked quite well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Having heard all the different comments, I'm going to take the risk that we trust our technology and, as we planned, have two video conferences at the same time with a witness in front. If it falls apart, we will have to rearrange the time. Then we'll quit for lunch, as Mrs. Redman said.
Are there any further comments on that? Okay, then we're set for next Tuesday and Thursday.
Jamie, would you like to respond to the last item of business, private member's Bill C-290?
James Robertson Committee Researcher
The clerk has advised that debate on Bill C-290, which is an amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, will begin today. Under the Standing Orders, the committee must table a report regarding a legislative committee, because that's where it will be referred if it receives second reading, but the report of the legislative committee must be tabled within five sitting days. So that needs to be tabled in the House by the committee by next Thursday.
In accordance with the usual practice, the whips can provide the clerk with the names for the legislative committee. If the whips are agreed, the chair will table that report next week.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Did I just misunderstand something? This is the first hour of debate, is it not? So it would then go off for a second hour of debate...not less than ten days. The legislative committee won't deal with that until after the second hour of debate...if it's passed, yes--
Committee Researcher
The Standing Orders provide that the striking committee, i.e. this committee, must table the names for the legislative committee within five sitting days of debate beginning. So whether it was the debate beginning on Bill C-2, five sitting days, or this bill, the time begins from the beginning of debate. It's just the way the Standing Orders are worded.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I misunderstood what it was about.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, on a question of clarification, I spoke with Diane Marleau about that very issue before I came here, questioning why she wanted it to go to a legislative committee as opposed to this committee, which normally deals with those issues. She had a couple of reasons, but she didn't feel that she was hard over on it. If it came to this committee as opposed to a legislative committee, my sense from talking with Diane is that she wouldn't have a big problem either way.
We didn't go beyond that, because I thought, as Scott did, that since this was only the first hour of the debate, we had some time to determine whether it would go to a legislative committee.
Committee Researcher
This committee is the committee responsible for electoral matters, including electoral redistribution. I think that in accordance with the Standing Orders, until her motion for second reading is amended, the chair and this committee are obliged to table that report by next Thursday, assuming debate starts today. If her motion is amended on the floor of the House, which it can be with unanimous consent, there would be no problem, and it would not need to table a report by next week.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
We kind of left it up in the air. My sense, again, is that Diane wouldn't have a problem referring it to this committee, if it gets that far, as opposed to a special legislative committee. But maybe, Karen, you can talk with her. Quite frankly, it's her choice.
Conservative
The Clerk
I haven't looked at the order paper today, but I'm assuming the motion that's on the order paper today is the motion for second reading and a referral to a legislative committee. So that's the motion that's going to be before the House.
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
If you want to talk to Diane.... If she wants to leave it as is, that's the way it will be, obviously.
Liberal
Karen Redman Liberal Kitchener Centre, ON
I will get back to the whip. There's nothing this committee can do about it. Either it gets unanimous consent to be amended in the House, or it goes to a legislative committee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Okay, that was more of a heads-up, but obviously we have some direction to move on that.
Is there any further business for this committee today?
Monsieur Guimond.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
I just want to know if there's a plan to have a bill to amend the electoral law concerning...I think we agreed on three or four items in the Kingsley report. If we want to have some changes made in the law for the next election, we must know the position of the government.
This is the question I'm asking. I want to know if you are planning to make a formal answer to the report we tabled in June--you have till October 20--or whether the answer will be a bill on the changes we agreed on. You remember, Jay, we discussed that. I want to know.
There's consensus from every party on four or five items, I think.