Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 28th, 2014

[Brian J. Saunders]

It's one less responsibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll stop today's testimony here. Thank you.

Mr. Saunders, thank you for coming today and sharing with us.

Team, I have a couple of questions for you. We had deferred the motion at the start of the meeting to later. Are we going back to it?

Madame Latendresse, it's your motion, so I'll let you ask a question.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I'd like to know if we can have some clarification on the agenda for tomorrow, and if they would be able to—

[An hon. member]

Just brief us.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have one other question. As we'll be going into clause by clause, I'm trying to get all the evidentiary pieces out—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, but when Mr. Hawn was here last week, he tabled a document with us. It's a very large handwritten document, and it's only in English. I'm told it can't be translated, so in order to give it to the members, I need unanimous consent in order for it to be distributed the way it is. The document consists of a poll clerk's handwritten notes, apparently, and it's very difficult for us to have a translator sit there and go through a handwritten document to translate.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You know, Chair, we run into these things all the time at all committees. It always seems like a one-off, but there are those who are concerned that it causes a whittling and a whittling.

That said, we want to make sure it's available. Is there a saw-off such that maybe we could have it in the office of the clerk if anyone wants to see it but not circulate it? I'm really not comfortable with circulating documents that are not in both languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Are there any further points on that one?

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I don't have any issues with that, although I would like to comment, in the couple of minutes we have left, regarding the motion of Ms. Latendresse and deferring it to tomorrow. I don't have difficulty with deferring it until tomorrow, although since we're supposed to be starting clause-by-clause examination tomorrow and I don't know how many clauses and amendments we have—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The chair is going to get to that in just a second.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

—my only caution would be that I would not want to see lengthy debate on this motion tomorrow cutting into the time for examination of the clauses. If we can put a timeline on it—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, with regard to the document, I can imagine what it is. It's a handwritten document, which at the time it was written was not intended for any purposes such as being submitted to the committee. I appreciate Mr. Christopherson's concern about this being the thin edge of the wedge and about more unilingual documents getting in here and so on, but my question is if it is at the clerk's office, does it form a part of the permanent record of this committee or is it effectively not going to be available to someone looking at the work of this committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Hang on. I need to ask that question.

I thought the same way. If it hasn't been distributed, then no, it is not. It's another brief that wasn't distributed, so it's not part of the evidence of this committee.

I need unanimous consent on whether or not to distribute it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I guess I'll go back to Mr. Hawn. I actually think that's a misinterpretation of that provision. Effectively what happens is that any document that is not translated is unavailable to anybody ever permanently—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's right.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

—and that seems to be a departure from the long-standing practices. Somehow it has just crept in. I would suggest that is an inappropriate interpretation.

I hope you would go back and consult a little higher up and get back to us on that. Effectively making something into a confidential document in perpetuity seems to be a meaningful problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The clerk and I will discuss that and tell you tomorrow.

Those were the two issues we had. There are close to 300 amendments that we will be starting on tomorrow, so I agree with what's already been said here. Let's not use up much of the time when we start tomorrow on anything but that.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Point of order, just to be sure I'm clear on the process. The motion that was passed by the government said that Thursday at 5 p.m., we will be done. We have a roughly 242-page bill and we have roughly 300 pages of amendments. Common sense would dictate that we are not likely to be finished by 5 o'clock. If we're not, is the government open to the idea that we could go beyond that so we aren't limited in our discussion of the clauses and the amendments while realizing that there is an end date to all of this?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we're only on page 48 of 242 at 5 o'clock on Thursday, this process ends and the bill is taken from the committee and reported back to the House, and our work is over whether or not we've actually gone through a detailed line-by-line process, which is what our job is. The government motion deems that whether we have concluded that or not, all debate is over at 5 o'clock on Thursday and the bill is out of our hands.

Do I have that right or wrong, sir?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Debate will end at 5 o'clock on Thursday. There would still be the voting on each as we work—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right. But I'm saying there would be no further discussion, no further debate, no matter what clause we're on or how far we are. It will just stop.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Which tells you why it's important not to be using time on clause by clause for—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Two minutes is going to matter in a 242-page bill with 300 pages of amendments. Three minutes is really going to matter.

This is more of the farce. There are 242 pages—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, it's not your turn for a speech.