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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Perhaps I could just weigh in really quickly. I don't think it's so much a matter of our willingness to do it; I'm more concerned about the fact that we might be taking resources away from other committees.

If we're already meeting twice a week and other committees are forced to only meet once a week, and now we're basically saying, let's add on another meeting to that, are we acting in a way that is fair to the other committees? That would be my concern.

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

Is there a speakers list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, there is a speakers list that has started now. We'll go to Mr. Daniel Blaikie, and then Mr. Turnbull next.

Mr. Blaikie.

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

Thank you very much.

There are a couple of things. One is that I am hoping the committee might consider the option, if it is indeed an option—I'll look to the clerk for some guidance on that—of having our normal meeting times during the upcoming break week, which I think is not next week, but the following week. That would provide an extra four hours for us to be able to undertake what Mr. Doherty is proposing.

I note that if we were to spend one hour instead of two hours on each of paragraphs (c) and (d), it would actually allow us to do those things in the break week and leave some time without holding any evening meetings—which I am not opposed to, incidentally. I think we have a lot of work before us and that it's really important that we table an informative and helpful report in the House by the deadline we set in the motion establishing this study.

I also note that the government has tabled its report on prorogation today, which is certainly of interest to me, and I expect will be of interest to many other members of the committee. That is also going to have take time.

I definitely think, if it's possible, that we should be looking to schedule at least our normal meetings during the break week. I'd be happy to try to use more of that time during that week, as opposed to doing things in the evening, if it's possible. But if it's not, then I'm open to having meetings in the evening. If we could tighten up the timeline for what's covered in this motion, it would help create more time for the study we just worked on today, as well as create some time to consider the report on prorogation prior to our adjournment in December.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Perfect. That was helpful, Mr. Blaikie.

Maybe we'll hear from the clerk just before we continue with the speakers list. We have Mr. Turnbull next, then Ms. Vecchio, Mr. Lukiwski, and then Mr. Gerretsen, but if we could get Justin to maybe weigh in on what the calendar looks like and what might be possible that may assist us.

[The Clerk]

I would just inform members of the committee, for their own input, that extra meetings can be had, as the chair indicated, from 6:30 to 8:30 during sitting weeks. Those slots, however, are available on a first-come, first-served basis and some other committees have already started to avail themselves of those slots. For example, there wouldn't be any such slot available for next week. However, I'm tentatively holding two slots for the week after the break week, should the committee choose to have extra meetings.

On the point of possibly having the committee meet next week, during the break week, I'm just, as we speak, trying to ascertain whether there is tech support available to support committee meetings during a non-sitting week. As soon as I do have that information, I'll mention it or I'll pass it on to the chair.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

It's been a good conversation. I certainly agree with the intent of this motion. I liked Mr. Blaikie's attempt to try to potentially shorten (c) and (d) to one hour each, just in view of perhaps getting things condensed into one or more meetings.

I was going to ask for clarification from Mr. Doherty about paragraph (d), where he asked for two hours for the president of the Queen's Privy Council and officials of the leaders' debates commission and wondered whether that would be for one hour each. That is what I had assumed when I read it, but it wasn't clear just the way it was stated.

Also, personally, my calendar for the break week is completely booked. I couldn't book more things during that week. I really think it's going to be virtually impossible for me to participate in a meeting if we were to try to schedule one for that week. That doesn't mean that I don't feel this is important, because I do. I think it's extremely important, but I would just caution against that.

I think that all committee members are likely in a similar circumstance where they've had.... Now that we're in a more regular schedule—which we did not have for a long time during this pandemic, when we've been doing parliamentary business that we would normally do on the Hill, as well as constituency outreach work at the same time—we're counting on those constituency weeks for us to be available to our constituents. That's all I would say: that it's going to be quite difficult.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Mrs. Vecchio.

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

Thanks very much.

As Ryan had said, thanks very much to Daniel, for coming up with a good idea. I think there are some really good issues that we need to discuss here.

Specifically with regard to paragraph (d) on having the president of the Queen's Privy Council and looking at some of the other things, I think it's really important that we do have that minister, specifically in regard to the Canada Elections Act and any amendments we may need to start talking about.

We've sat here talking about mail-in ballots. We just heard earlier from the health officials from B.C. on different options that they had available. It is really important that we start having these conversations on what will happen, recognizing that amendments will need to be made. I'm also looking at all the other things, like the leaders' debates. If we're talking about a snap election, it's really important that we do reflect on some of these costs and what is being put into that.

I respect trying to make sure that we have enough time, but I do think that paragraph (d) of this is really important. Once we have the minister here, having his ear to we make sure we're serving all Canadians democratically would be best.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Most of my questions have already been dealt with. I wanted to say very quickly that I certainly support what Ryan said in terms of availability of our own time during the break week. My calendar is extremely busy during that Remembrance week, plus I don't think we're going to have the resources. I've been around long enough to know that the technical support is not always available during break weeks. It's not the easiest thing in the world to ask employees to take time out of their break week to facilitate one of our meetings.

The break week is probably not an option, but I do think it is important that we make time to go over the estimates. One of the fundamental tenets of all committee work is to hold the government to account and to question the financial presentation.

To speak to Daniel's suggestion, I think we can perhaps condense those six hours a little bit to gain more time.

I also agree with Mrs. Vecchio. Whenever a minister is appearing, particularly when we're talking about a report that might impact the government's decision on election planning, I think it is important that we can find the two hours both for the minister and the commission to talk about election planning.

If we cut the Speaker down to one hour, for example, and security down from the suggested time frame, it would probably work. We've done it in the past. I can tell you from experience that we haven't spent a lot of time with the Speaker in the past.

If we can condense the time and find the time, let's go for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I just want to echo some of what's been said by Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Lukiwski.

I don't know why we call it a break week because it's not as though we're taking breaks. We're just completely busy with other stuff and more focused on our ridings. I would agree that is not an option, in particular on the break week that includes Remembrance Day. We all have a lot of stuff that usually goes on and now it's only complicated more by being virtual and so on.

The only other thing that I would add is that I do agree with Mr. Blaikie's comment regarding the reduction to see if we can get this into two two-hour slots. I think Mr. Lukiwski just hinted at the same thing. That might be beneficial to us so it can be done within two meetings. I'm definitely supportive of that idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, I think the speakers list is done.

I don't feel I completely understand. One meeting would be for the Speaker of the House of Commons, where he would have House administration and the PPS with him within one meeting. Is that correct?

Okay, that's what it is right now anyway. It's one hour each, so in two hours we would be getting that done. It's stated in a way that it's just one hour each. That was already kind of a given already, I think.

Where the problem lies is whether we squeeze the (c) and (d) into one meeting.

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

Madam Chair, I believe the suggestion by Daniel was for four hours. Because what I'm asking for in the motion is two hours with the Speaker of the House, what I would suggest then is one hour with the Speaker, one hour with the CEO, and then two hours with Mr. LeBlanc, the minister and the commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, perfect.

So, paragraph (c) would also be one hour.

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

Correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. Perhaps we can—

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

That's four hours total.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I see five hours now.

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

No, it would be four hours. There would be one hour with the Speaker of the House and senior officials. For paragraph (b), we are asking for another hour with the Speaker of the House of Commons and senior officials with the protective service if we could get them in as well. Then we would have one with the Chief Electoral Officer and one with the president of Queen's Privy Council. That's four in total.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

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

I'll defer to my colleagues that are in the room just to make sure that I got that correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Mr. Blaikie, I think you had your hand up, and then you took it down.