Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 5th, 2020

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I know. They're hard for us in politics as well. We like to elaborate.

Okay, for committee business, I want to go over the plan that was proposed by the subcommittee. I need to have it approved by the full committee. There was a report that was put out listing about 11 different decisions that were made by the subcommittee. First, I want to let you know that some of those suggestions may not be possible at this time, but most are.

The very first one that we have is.... Actually, let me jump to suggestion number four. We suggested that we have an evening meeting on November 18. That is no longer possible, because of the resources that are being used. We're not going to be able to have a meeting in between the meetings. We were originally thinking it would be between our meetings of November 17 and November 19, which are already scheduled for main estimates. We were going to have an evening meeting on November 18. That was decided by the subcommittee, but the clerk has informed me that this is no longer possible, because the whips have all decided that they are going to allow the other committees to have two meetings each a week. Because of that new allowance, we're not going to be able to take that time slot. The other committees are going to have it.

I think we can still get quite a lot done. We will be able to still do the meeting next week, during our constituency week.

The rest of it remains pretty much the same, other than two more things. A whole bunch of members—Mr. Doherty, mainly—said that they'd prefer the 10:00 to 1:00 time slot. That is also not possible. It can only be 11:00 to 2:00. I think we're just going to have to deal with that and have our meeting from 11:00 to 2:00 whenever we need to have a three-hour meeting. If you need to get a substitute for that last hour, it will be on you to find a substitute for that one hour that you might not be able to make it.

There were a couple of meetings that we had established that we needed the three-hour time period for. One, in particular, is the one where we're going to have the House administration, the Parliamentary Protective Service and the Speaker. That's going to have to be a three-hour meeting. There are some other witness meetings that are going to have to be three hours so that we can get three panels of sixty minutes in. Whenever those occur, they will be from 11:00 to 2:00.

Justin, I want to let you know that I did get an email after this meeting had started. Apparently, the availability of Minister LeBlanc, for the Privy Council, is for November 17. He said that he could make himself available for November 17. I am wondering if the committee would have a problem with flip-flopping the two days: having the meeting of November 17 with the President of the Queen's Privy Council, and then having the meeting of November 19 with the Speaker and House administration. We're just flipping the two days; that's all that would be done there.

Would that be okay with you, Justin, first?

[The Clerk]

Yes, Madam Chair. I can talk to the Speaker's office and Elections Canada about whether they can come in on November 19.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

[The Clerk]

I'll definitely confirm with them and reschedule them for November 19 so that Minister LeBlanc can come in on November 17.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

November 19 would have to be the meeting that would be three hours long, so it would have to go from 11:00 to 2:00.

[The Clerk]

That's correct. If that works for all of our witnesses, the meeting on November 19 would go from 11:00 to 2:00 with the Speaker of the House in the first panel, followed by the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada in the second panel. Then November 17 would be a two-hour meeting from 11:00 to 1:00 with Minister LeBlanc and senior officials from the federal Leaders' Debates Commission.

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

Madam Chair, I have a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Lukiwski, go ahead.

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

I hope I'm not interrupting the flow of your discussion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

No, I'm pretty much done. Everything else is the same.

Now ask whatever questions you have.

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

This falls in line with the fact that we're discussing the subcommittee report anyway.

I'm wondering whether we could agree as a committee, even though perhaps the subcommittee should technically be dealing with this.... The report on prorogation has been tabled in Parliament. We had been talking previously about getting that report and either engaging in a study of it or, at least, allowing the committee to devote a meeting to it—having a discussion, bringing forth witnesses, that type of thing.

Are we able to find any time so we can actually get that discussion and that study on the agenda?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

The subcommittee decided on that as well. I believe you will find it under number 11 of the subcommittee report:

That the committee, upon completion of its study on the conduct of a federal election during the COVID-19 pandemic, initiate a study on the document tabled in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 32(7), and referred to the committee, on the Government's reasons for proroguing parliament in August 2020.

It was decided there that once we complete this study—and from what we have slotted into the calendar, it looks as though we will be able to complete the study some time in early January—we would carry on into the prorogation study right after.

The interim report was originally due by the committee's self-imposed deadline of December 1. It was decided by the subcommittee, as shown in bullet 7 of its report, that the deadline would now be changed to December 11 instead of December 1. We would be able to get in the main estimates and we'd be able to get in the bulk of the witnesses needed. Testimony would get cut off for the interim report, at what was going to be the meeting of the 18th, I believe, but we won't have that meeting anymore.

I know this is very confusing to everyone else, but your colleagues who sit on the subcommittee have hopefully filled you in a little bit about what was decided.

Then the rest of the witness testimony would continue—

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

Madam Chair, perhaps for the sake of clarity, if nothing else, and to put a little precision on the timing of our discussion and study of the prorogation report, rather than just say, as the report you delivered to us states now, that we'll get into it at the completion of this study, if we were able to say “at the completion of the interim report”, that might be a little more precise in timing as to when we can actually get hold of that report in terms of discussing it in this committee.

I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't think it would be in the best interests of this committee, if we really do want to discuss the prorogation report, to leave it as open-ended as it is now by saying “at the completion of the study”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We've already started inviting witnesses, right?

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

If the study is never completed, we'll never have an opportunity to discuss that report.

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

Madam Chair, if you remember, during our meeting we suggested, and I think Mr. Blaikie did as well, that it would be good for scheduling purposes to at least put in a placeholder, a date when we would start this, and get some assurances that the election report is not going to be a never-ending report and that we will be able to get to the prorogation report.

I suggested at one point that we at least look at a date when we can say confidently that we will begin the prorogation report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I have Mr. Blaikie, and then Mrs. Vecchio.

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

Thank you.

I am on a different issue, in the sense that while I agree with what's being said about targeting a date in the calendar for the beginning of that examination, it's not what I intended to speak to.

I don't know, Madam Chair—I'll just defer to you—whether you want to conclude that conversation first before proceeding to another matter, or whether you want me to put what I have to say on the table.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Just put it out on the table, I think, at this point.

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

Okay. Just quickly with respect to item 6, which I quite like, I note that it's the four recognized parties that will be asked to give a written submission. When we are talking about having a panel, the question arises about how many people are going to be at the table and how unwieldy it may become.

In light of the fact that we're asking for written submissions, I don't see why we wouldn't extend the invitation to all parties registered with Elections Canada. There are about 20 or 21 of them. I don't know that they'll all get back to us, but I don't see a reason not to have the benefit of their input, considering that it's not just parties that are recognized in the House that have an interest in the conduct of federal elections.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, there are a lot of parties that are registered. We might get a whole bunch of information from parties that may not be very active in the electoral process.

It's up to the committee, really.

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

One possible option for the committee, if the committee is really concerned that it might be too much, would be to invite parties that are registered with Elections Canada and that have at least one representative in the House of Commons to produce a written submission.

I'm happy extending the invitation to all of them. That would be my preferred position, but if there's concern about the magnitude of that request, this might be a suitable option B in the eyes of the committee.

I put both out there for the consideration of the group.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's great. Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Ms. Normandin is not on the list anymore.

Mrs. Vecchio is next, and then Mr. Turnbull.

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

Thank you very much.

I want to add a couple of things. One thing I'm aware of, which just came in, is that we will be having Minister LeBlanc on the 17th now, and there was talk about others. If we're switching things, with the House of Commons staff on the 19th.... There may be estimates on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy on the 19th. I think we need to look at what their availability is. We may have to switch a couple of other things, just not that. Perhaps we can give Ruby the opportunity to switch as she needs to.

Another question I have is specifically on witnesses. I think we have put in the majority of the witnesses we wanted to see. I see that Dr. Tam is listed here; that is still another person outstanding.

When we're talking about the time frame, what our expectations are and what we want to get out of this study.... We've had some excellent people come here as witnesses, but what is it that we're trying to get from this study, and what is the date by which we want to drop a full report? Or is it the interim report that is going to be the speaking...?

I think we really need to see how many more witnesses we are expecting and, going back to the motion, what our guiding principles are for getting a report out as well.

Thank you.