Evidence of meeting #13 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hour.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Are there any comments on that?
The suggestion is that the Clerk and protective services be one hour for their estimates, but the Chief Electoral Officer be two hours for his estimates.
Mr. Reid.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I'll just ask whether it is the intention of the Liberal members of the committee to block Conservative members, and me in particular, from asking questions other than those relating purely to the Chief Electoral Officer's estimates.
If, for example, I want to ask him about the timelines necessary to execute changes to the electoral system, or the point he made in his annual report that holding a referendum would require six months of preparations, that kind of thing—that's been very much on our minds on this side of the House—are the Liberal members going to say I'm not allowed to ask? Will they say, “Sorry, you can only ask about his estimates”, thereby denying us a chance to find out about another aspect of the transparent system, or are they going to be okay? I'll just ask them that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Could you not ask him that on his two-hour briefing? Are you asking whether they're going to allow it?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
I want it to be in a place that's actually public, so it's on the record and it's a public event, not at some....
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
The Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of Parliament. Presumably, if we want to bring him in on any issue, we can ask him to come.
I'm cognizant, again, that we have a lot of witnesses to hear on the family-friendly Parliament study. When the Chief Electoral Officer comes, the estimates take one hour, so we can have that discussion. If there are other issues that you want to raise and ask the Chief Electoral Officer, I would imagine that we could let him know the subject area broadly and then have him come on that area, so he could be fully prepared if we're going to talk about other topics.
I would propose that we plan for one hour on the estimates and have him come for that. Should there be other topics, we can plan for calling the Chief Electoral Officer for another meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Let me give an update from the clerk.
Normally, the discussions on the main estimates are very broad, which would allow what you're asking for, Mr. Reid. Also, if we want to include his report on plans and priorities, it's often done at the same time as the main estimates.
Conservative
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
—the main estimates. He did mention in his report the requirement for additional time.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
All of that makes me think that, given the broad range of questions that ought to be asked, it would be more than a single hour. If we don't get him this spring on this, enough time will have expired that the door may have closed on certain options. It was the matter that I raised in my last question to the minister before the last break. It prompted some discussion. The Broadbent Institute indicated that it was also worried that the door was going to start closing very soon on certain options, potentially only being open for one type of change to the electoral system, which happens to be the one that the Prime Minister indicated a year ago is the one he likes. You can understand why I would want to have two hours.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thanks, Chair.
Ordinarily, I would agree entirely with bumping it up to two hours. I'm not opposed to it, but we do have a two-hour session tentatively set for May 3. That is to talk about everything to do with elections, virtually any question. I thought your guidance was pretty good, Chair, because you're right. At committee, you're allowed a lot more latitude than you are in the House, as a general rule. On estimates, you're allowed even further latitude because of the tradition and the nature of that business; people aren't boxed in to only being able to talk about one thing. If during the course of that meeting, we come up with issues that are going to be outside the parameters of the May 3 meeting, then by all means there should be a motion to extend it. It will be in public, so all of the pressure will be there. If there's good cause, we can set up a separate meeting to deal with that issue. But I suspect—and this is why I'm comfortable going with the process the way it's outlined—that virtually anything that we on the opposition, or the government, might want to ask would be eligible in that two hours and to raise the issue at least in the estimates process, where it can be signalled that we can talk about it further.
If we get to the point where something really important comes up during the meeting on the estimates, and some of my colleagues have said that they want to utilize that broader net, that's fair enough. I intend to do the same thing. I'm assuming the Chief Electoral Officer will just say that we can talk about that on May 3 with no problem, in which case we don't have a problem. But, if for some reason, and I can't think of what it might be now, but if something came up where it's not going to fit into the two hours, it's a legitimate issue, and we need more time, then by all means it's understood that a motion will be placed at that time and we as a committee would consider continuing.
I really think this is a safe way to go. The failsafe in there is that, if there are questions that can't be asked and/or can't be deferred over to the May 3 meeting, then by all means there's legitimacy to calling for that meeting to be extended for that sole purpose of talking about that one issue, if that's the only way we can get at it. I think this provides us with the opportunity to do that, if need be. Between this meeting and the two hours, I'm expecting that certainly any of the concerns I have, and I'm also anticipating any that other members may have, would be in order, would be allowed, and would be dealt with through one of the three venues offered up: the estimates hour, the two hours on May 3, or if necessary, a special meeting to deal with a special issue.
Thank you.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Based on that, it sounds to me as though you're saying it's probably quite important that meeting happen prior to the May 3 briefing.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
So you mean the two-hour meeting in public with the Chief Electoral Officer here.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I mean so we have somewhere to send things if we want to talk about them further and not eat them up at that meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
So should we do two hours for the estimates and priorities and plans?
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
We should have one hour on the estimates, but that meeting should happen before May 3.
Liberal
Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON
We'd have one hour for the Clerk, and one for the Chief Electoral Officer. That would be two hours.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
But it has to be before May 3, before the next meeting.