Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 29th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. You would be writing an interim draft report on the study that we're currently on.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, if my memory serves me correctly, the Chief Electoral Officer did say that he would come back on the pandemic election study. That could be covered off as well on the same day he's here on the estimates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Rather than having three meetings, even if we have to extend the time for one of the meetings, I still think it might be better, to accommodate all the hours you're requesting, to have one three-hour meeting instead of having three meetings. I think it would be more efficient because it would leaves us a time slot to go back to our other study.

How do you guys feel about doing it that way: having a three-hour meeting, and then having a two-hour meeting?

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

I'm okay with that. I will defer to my colleagues who are in the room as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think it might be better than having three meetings, and we're focused on the main estimates rather than going back and forth.

Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Chair, I'm fine with that, depending on being able to find the time and the room.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, of course.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

That's always the concern. In a perfect world, if we had one three-hour meeting and another two-hour meeting, and we have the facilities to accommodate that, I would have no problem. Let's ask the clerk to determine whether that's possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It might be easier than having an evening meeting as well.

[The Clerk]

Madam Chair, I thank Mr. Lukiwski for raising that, because that is a consideration, to see if there is the available support for our usual block to go from 2 to 3. I would have to look into it. That variable might determine if the committee could meet for a full three hours or not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Perhaps we can try to tack on an hour. This is contingent upon Mr. Doherty and Ms. Petitpas Taylor—those on the coast are dealing with a very different time—being okay with starting at 10. I know right now that all committees are starting at 11, generally speaking, and if we were to go from 10 to 1—

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, I was in my office at 4:30 this morning, so I have no problem.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Nor do I, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Would that work?

[The Clerk]

It's probably easier to get an extra hour at the end of the meeting than before the meeting.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Justin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Chair, if I may, I'm sensing that we have pretty good agreement on what we want to do. There are some extant questions about scheduling.

To codify what I take to be a consensus—but of course we can test the will of the committee on this—I move to amend the motion on the floor so that paragraph (a) would read, “at least one hour with the Speaker of the House of Commons, senior officials of the House of Commons Administration, and senior officials of the Parliamentary Protective Services in respect of the Supplementary Estimates (B), 2020-21, and/or the Main Estimates, 2020-21”, and that we delete paragraph (b) and amend paragraph (c) to include “at least one hour with the Chief Electoral Officer in respect of the Main Estimates, 2020-21”.

I think that reflects the substance of what we want to do and provides the maximum amount of flexibility, so that things can be scheduled appropriately as the clerk receives more information about what is possible.

I would like to move that amendment to Mr. Doherty's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That would only require two meetings of regular two-hour slots, then?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

It would require one hour with the Speaker and senior officials, one hour with the Chief Electoral Officer and two hours with the president of the Queen's Privy Council. It's agnostic as to whether that would happen over two meetings or three meetings, or whatever. All the motion would do is to say how much time we want to spend with whom, and by when, and allow for the maximum amount of flexibility to be able to figure out scheduling as we get more information from the House of Commons administration on what's technically possible.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Chair, I am okay with that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

We have Monsieur Therrien, who's had his hand up for quite some time, then Ms. Vecchio and then Mr. Turnbull.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I gather, from what Mr. Blaikie just said, that it would still be possible to have a three-hour meeting. Is that correct?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Precisely. The amendment would not rule out that possibility. It would simply mean we don't have to determine the number of meetings or their duration ahead of time. We want to leave as much flexibility as possible because we will have to work around certain technical limitations, which are still unknown. Once we know what they are, the clerk and the chair can advise us on scheduling.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I see.

As far as I'm concerned, it would be best to hold a single three-our meeting, from 10 in the morning to one in the afternoon. I see it is possible. I understand what the clerk is saying, but if it's not possible, I will do whatever the committee decides. That would be my preference, if I were asked, but I'm flexible.