Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 22nd, 2016

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That's fine. It's one meeting on the estimates with one hour for the Clerk and one hour for the Chief Electoral Officer.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We'd have all the options in front of us, and we could either extend that meeting or push things to the May 3 meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Before we go any further, I want some clarification.

My understanding is that the Chief Electoral Officer traditionally in June also brings a report on recommendations regarding the election that's just passed.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is that for the May 3 meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I don't think so. He's traditionally done two reports, one right after the election on how the election went, and that's what the briefing is basically about. Then later in the year, in June or when they've finished their analysis and everything, they come to PROC with a number of recommendations. Obviously, now we couldn't do that until probably the fall, if that's going to be the case—

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

That would give him an opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

—which is probably fine as we're a few years out from an election.

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

So not knowing when that will take place, obviously it's important that we proceed with our plans. I'm firmly of the belief that one hour with the Chief Electoral Officer, given the magnitude of what he has to do and given some of the questions surrounding some of the changes that are coming.... There are a lot of questions for the Chief Electoral Officer. An hour is not very long and he has a very big mandate on behalf of all Canadians on our democratic freedoms. I think a two-hour session with him in public, at which there's an opportunity to ask about the estimates and other questions related to them is important.

I'll also add at this point that I am really troubled by the fact that we're starting to get more and more of this idea, and we've heard it again today, that we're going to box in members of Parliament about what they can and can't ask. If the Liberal government intends to try to do that, that's really quite concerning, because we're talking about the privilege of each individual member here to ask questions on behalf of their constituents. I'm really quite troubled by the fact that we're starting to get into this scenario where it's “Well, provide us a little bit of an idea ahead of time as to what you want to ask about and maybe we'll box it in so that we can't ask about other things”. That is really quite concerning to me. We don't want to start going down that road, because members of Parliament should have the freedom, on behalf of their constituents, to ask about whatever they choose to ask about when we have an officer of Parliament here before us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We have two proposals, I think. Mr. Christopherson proposes that we have the Chief Electoral Officer for an hour on estimates, and then anything that we can't cover be deferred to May 3. Mr. Richards, and I'm sure the opposition agrees, proposes that we should have the estimates for two hours and also the briefing for two hours.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It seems to me, Chair, that right now the only difference is whether or not the initial meeting is one hour or two. I hear the arguments that Mr. Richards makes, and I don't disagree with anything that he is saying, but I am looking at the totality of all our responsibilities and all the things. We just finished talking about how tough it's going to be on that file, and I said that new stuff is coming, and here we are, already eating up more and more time. Time management is one of the key things that we do, and a lot of this stuff is non-partisan.

I hear Mr. Richards' points and I'm listening very carefully especially on this particular file. I like his attitude. I'm going to say parenthetically that I kind of wish I had heard that attitude a year or two ago. However, it's refreshing that it has arrived. But it seems to me—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I can explain. There's an explanation as to why that happened.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you want me to go on? I can: tick, tick, tick.

It seems to me though that we're not denying ourselves any options with what I've put forward, because I put forward that instead of two hours, we could do one hour with the understanding that virtually anything that would take more time would legitimately be part of the two-hour meeting. Keep in mind that with this officer, we have three hours planned for the very near future.

Again, if it's something that can't be dealt with within that one hour, we have the option of sending it over to the May 3 meeting when we'll have two hours with him. We've also agreed that if something comes up during that discussion that doesn't fit into the two-hour mandate of our meeting but we still believe is worth pursuing, it's understood that a motion would be placed and we would debate whether or not to continue that meeting.

I guess I'm saying why schedule that second hour, when every hour matters to us, if we don't have to? If it's necessary, we will, but if it's not necessary, we won't.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I suppose for goodwill if one of the government members wanted to give up some time to the Conservatives during that time if they had more questions, that would be a possibility too. I will leave that up to the members.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

It's always a possibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. Sahota, you were on the list a long time ago and I ignored you. I'm sorry.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

I think keeping it within one meeting is a good idea because, as Mr. Christopherson and I mentioned, we have a ton of things on our schedule. I think it's neat to keep the estimates and the Chief Electoral Officer within the one meeting, so one hour each. I agree, and any questions that we can't ask that day for whatever.... If you wanted to ask a particular question, you would probably be able to. I don't see why not.

We wouldn't be under the standing order that we were under for some of the other witnesses, which seems to be why there is some anxiety on that side. So within that time there should be plenty of time for everyone to ask the question that's most important to them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The understanding is we would have one normal meeting for the main estimates, one hour for the Clerk and the protective services. In fact, if we finished a little early with that, we would then go on to the Chief Electoral Officer.

Then on May 3 we'd have his two-hour session and try to get anything in that we didn't in the first, but if there's still stuff, then we'd have a motion to call him back for yet another hour sometime. Is that okay? That's a compromise.

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

We're obviously not thrilled about the idea, but we see the numbers and we get where it's going.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

We spent most of an hour debating on whether or not to spend an hour asking questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, so that's how we'll proceed. We'll see if the clerk can attract these people at those times before May 3.

Is there any other business that people may think I've missed? Clerk, is there anything I missed on our to do list?

It's okay.

Does anyone have anything else? If not, we'll adjourn early.

The meeting stands adjourned.