[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 28, 1995
.1102 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum. Your first item of business is to elect a chair. I'm prepared to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): I nominate Jim Jordan.
The Clerk: Mr. Richardson nominates Jim Jordan to take the chair. Are there any further nominations?
Is it agreed that Mr. Jordan take the chair?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: Mr. Jordan, would you take the chair?
The Chairman: Thank you very much, John, for nominating me and to those of you who agreed. I didn't hear anybody disagree.
You have as much in front of you as I have and I just received mine a few minutes ago. It seems we've gone through the first item of business, so now we have the future business of the subcommittee.
From the bit of information I have on this, it seems there's a procedure we are obliged to follow and we're working on a fairly tight time line. I assumed you wouldn't want to be here during the week we have away from here. I don't want to be here. So that means we pack it into a very short span of time.
If we counted correctly, there are 39 people who are raising objections or want to be heard. I assume they're objecting, or they wouldn't be appearing. I asked the clerk yesterday if she would do the math on that and figure out how many people we could hear over what span of time. I think she has done that.
It seems as if you allowed 15 minutes per person who is making a presentation or bringing an objection forward. So you would need 9 hours and a little bit.
The Clerk: It would be 9 hours and 15 minutes.
The Chairman: That's if everything works for you.
I suggest that we move on with it. Slot those people in, because if you make 39 phone calls and ask them when they want to appear, you will get nowhere. Slot them in and start the process and if they don't like where they're slotted in, then they have some dancing to do. They can work through the clerk and see who else didn't like where they were slotted in. Maybe you can make a trade-off, but we have to get on with it.
I know the schedules are busy. Everybody's schedule is busy, but we have to proceed with this because of the very fixed time line. They want this to go forward and have it advanced to the full committee by Monday, October 16.
.1105
So I hope you'll agree with our proceeding on that basis, that we have to get on with it and we have to slot people in. We don't want them to feel that...I hope they will not feel slighted if they don't get their choice, but we're just going to do it that way.
Is there a consensus on that? Do you agree with that process -
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: - that we have to do it that way? Perhaps we can meet our deadline. I think it allows for fifteen minutes per person. But that includes your asking the questions. So if you wanted to split in two, you'd say seven or eight minutes for the presentation, seven or eight minutes for the questions.
My own view would be if they want to go on for more than seven or eight minutes, that will just mean fewer questions from you people. If you want it done rigidly, we could hammer them down at seven or eight minutes. I personally don't like that. I think their presentation, their objection, is more important than any question I could put to them. That's my own feeling. So if they want to fill their time with fifteen minutes, well, then that's it; there will be no time for questions.
Do you agree with that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Miss Grey (Beaver River): Yes, I think that's fair.
The Chairman: The clerk is saying three per hour. That makes sense. By the time the first one gets -
Miss Grey: You need time for them to sit down and get out of their chair.
The Chairman: And get out, yes.
Let's go on with the assumption, then, if you agree, that the clerk will slot in names, starting next Monday at 3:30 p.m. We'll work until 5:45 p.m., and then we'll come back at 7 p.m. and work until 9:15 p.m.
Miss Grey: Since this is the Ontario thing - I've just been handed the stuff, as all of us - are any of you people on the list to present?
The Chairman: No.
Miss Grey: That's a reason, then. So yes, that's very good. That makes a lot of sense.
The Chairman: If you check the sheet.... I assume everyone has that in front of them. It's a kind of timetable. If we did that at the pace we're suggesting we do it, we should have it finished by 1 p.m. on Thursday. If something was dragging, somebody who was very sincere and really wanted to make the presentation and just couldn't be accommodated, we could, I suppose, come back Thursday afternoon and hear the one or two who were very committed to their objection and wanted to come back.
That's the direction I see it moving in. If we do that, we will have our report ready for submission to the full committee on October 16.
The clerk is suggesting we have a little wrap-up at the end of each day to pull together the common thinking of what you wanted to go forward to the full committee and what you object to or don't agree should go. That would be, I suppose, by consensus of the majority of those here, right? I think that would be natural, to have a little summary at the end of the day; after everybody is gone, sit down and say, okay, what do you want to proceed with here and what do you want to go forward? That would allow the clerks to have an ongoing summary and not wait until it is all finished to start their sorting out. Do you agree with that?
Miss Grey: You'll be basically writing the report one chapter at a time.
The Chairman: As we go.
Miss Grey: Under this time line, that sounds a lot easier than.... Of course you'd have that week's recess to get a lot of that technical work done.
The Chairman: You do have the week's recess. I guess they think they need that. Do they work that week?
The Clerk: Yes.
The Chairman: They don't go south with Jane Stewart or Deb Grey that weekend, do they?
Mrs. Stewart (Brant): I object, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Or John Richardson. I'll be fair.
Are those ground rules acceptable? Do you anticipate any problems with them? We'll know as soon as we start whether they're working or not.
Mr. Richardson: Mr. Chairman, after this meeting you'll probably have a draft timetable blocked out, will you? Could Carol get it to us? With some of these I just want to be sure we're not bumping into....
The Chairman: Do you understand, Carol?
The Clerk: Yes.
.1110
Miss Grey: As for the people who are making the presentations - this is Thursday already - to be told that they have to be here on Monday with their own schedules could be just a nightmare.
The Chairman: I'm sure we'll run into some difficulties.
Carol, how soon can we have the names associated with the times locked into the time slots?
Is that what you mean, John?
Mr. Richardson: Not really. I was just thinking of blocking my own time so I could get everything laid out for myself.
The Chairman: This will help you some.
Mr. Richardson: She's already given me one of those this morning.
Miss Grey: I don't suspect this is subject to change. You can't manoeuvre a lot of those hours very much.
The Chairman: Not very much.
The Clerk: It's a case of getting meeting room space as well.
The Chairman: But I think what might be wise now is to let the individuals who are making presentations know where they fit in, because they have to work around schedules.
When do you think we could have that?
The Clerk: Friday afternoon. It would take me until tomorrow afternoon to get a full slot at least done for the Monday and get started on the Tuesday. There are 39 of them. It's not so much a question of my getting in touch directly, but of them getting back with a confirmation on the time.
Mr. Richardson: I'm glad to see you're the clerk, Carol, because you're the clerk of the other committee that's in conflict, so I know I'm going to be free.
The Clerk: There's no conflict with the other committee.
The Chairman: You can then be starting to tell them tomorrow for Monday.
The Clerk: I can start telling them this afternoon and start slotting for Monday.
Mrs. Stewart: We'll be here Monday for 3:30 p.m.
The Clerk: Perhaps the easiest way is just start at the top of the list - they're in alphabetical order - and just go in alphabetical order by member.
The Chairman: That's what I'd do. That seems as good a way as any.
Mrs. Stewart: May I ask just a point of purpose here? I haven't read this document yet, but I should have. Is the object here to make recommendations back on individual submissions?
The Chairman: Yes. There will be a lot of duplication, I'm sure.
Mrs. Stewart: Yes. I'm just thinking. Depending on how you fly things, as we sum up in the day, if we're not talking about all the ridings and the boundaries that abut back and forth, we're not going to be able to have a complete summary at the end of each day. We can keep track of what our comments are for that particular riding, but they'll have to then be referenced too.
The Chairman: For future hearings. Yes, I agree. It's going to be difficult.
Miss Grey: Further to that, is the purpose of this committee to suggest that this riding should change this way and that riding should move up into it? Or is it that there should just be changes and maybe recommend that back to the people who draw the maps?
The Clerk: Basically, the standing committee will make that decision. It will go back to each of the electoral commissions. It's part of the process for Parliament to examine the objections that have been filed on the proposed constituency boundaries.
This committee will make recommendations such that, yes, the objections that have been raised by the particular member for this riding have merit and the electoral commission should go back to the maps to try to take this into account and make the changes.
Miss Grey: So that you should move the western boundary over to -
The Clerk: No, we're not drawing the maps. We're just agreeing that, yes, this objection is valid and the electoral commission should look at it again. Or, no, we don't feel that the objection is valid enough to necessitate re-examining the whole question.
Miss Grey: Then, if Bill C-69 goes through, you just scrub all this anyway, right?
The Chairman: Well, isn't that the way it would work?
Ms Mollie Dunsmuir (Committee Researcher): Probably, although there are some instances, such as if an election is called by a certain point, for example, so that the Bill C-69 process might not be complete. It's a tricky timing issue.
Mrs. Stewart: It's all timing all the way through.
Miss Grey: I have a hard time with it just in terms of logistics, because Bill C-69 had a deadline on it of June 22 for royal assent. It didn't get it, so I thought it was gone and dead and over.
Now, over the summer I heard Peter Milliken announce publicly that, oh no, the deadline really was immaterial and Bill C-69 still is in the works there somewhere.
Ms Dunsmuir: The deadline didn't affect Bill C-69 per se. The deadline was suspending this process under the old Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which had been Bill C-18, I believe. That suspension of this process ended on June 22, I believe. So as of June 23 this process started again.
Miss Grey: Yes, I'm aware of all that.
Ms Dunsmuir: But Bill C-69 is still going on.
Mrs. Stewart: It has its own timeframe limitations within that bill.
The Chairman: November?
Mrs. Stewart: Or even closer to Christmas.
.1115
Miss Grey: If I were a [Inaudible - Editor] or somebody who had taken part in Bill C-18, my heart would have long since gone out of it, because there's always this Bill C-69 that's just going to cut you under. So if I were giving a presentation, for instance, I'd be really mindful of that and say, I wonder what the point and the purpose of this is anyway.
The Chairman: Yes. Where's it going to end up, anyway?
Miss Grey: Yes, for sure. So if I'm arguing desperately for my riding boundary to be moved three miles west, knowing that somewhere out there Bill C-69 is looming and may do who knows what to it.... It's a strange process, for sure.
The Chairman: I think so too, but I guess we have to go through it.
Miss Grey: Oh, for sure.
The Chairman: We have to ask for someone's services. How do we do that?
Mrs. Stewart: You do it with a motion requesting the services of the Library of Parliament, particularly Mollie Dunsmuir.
Miss Grey: And also, of course, if we have need of legislative counsel, we are certainly within our rights and boundaries to ask.
The Chairman: Can you work that into the same motion or do you need a separate motion?
The Clerk: I could probably work it into the same motion that services be provided by the Library of Parliament and by legislative counsel on an as-needed basis.
The Chairman: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: So we're waiting to see who is going to show up before us at 3:30 p.m. on Monday and on successive days.
The Clerk: Are you in agreement that I just go alphabetically down the list, as you have them in front of you, or do you want me to try scheduling regionally?
Miss Grey: That would be just a nightmare with the time you have.
The Chairman: I would just pick off the first six or eight and say, come on. If someone says he or she can't be here, I guess you could go down one more to fill that blank.
Mr. Richardson: I always feel it's discrimination against those of us at the bottom end of the scale, but go ahead. There's nothing important in that.
The Chairman: Do you mean Wappel is down at the bottom and so is Whelan?
Is there anything else that anyone has concern about? Are we on track here now?
Miss Grey: Am I missing something here? There are 39 reports, as somebody said, and on this list, at the beginning, it says there are 37.
The Chairman: This one has 39.
Miss Grey: What's this thing in the book, then?
The Clerk: I'm not sure. The list I have taken it from says 39.
Mr. Collenette has filed one for his own riding and one for the region of Metro Toronto, so that would make it 38. I'm not quite sure whey there's a 39.
The Chairman: Maybe it's someone else's.
Miss Grey: If there are 39, that's fine, but this paper should be taken out of this binder, then, because it says 37.
The Chairman: Is that list you're looking at in alphabetical order, Deborah?
Miss Grey: In terms of ridings, yes. It starts with Beaches - Woodbine and ends up with York - Simcoe.
There's only one page and it goes up to number 37. Just so you're coordinated and synchronized, it should probably be removed from that book.
Mr. Richardson: Can we just go alphabetically by riding, because all of our books are set up in that manner?
The Clerk: Would you like me to go by riding for the calling of the members?
Mr. Richardson: It doesn't make any difference.
Miss Grey: Oh, I see. On this list you have the members alphabetically, and on this list you have the ridings.
Mrs. Stewart: We have one of each in the binder, ridings and members.
The Chairman: I don't think one is that much better than the other. Which do you...?
Miss Grey: Just do it.
The Chairman: There are only 39, or maybe 37, of 99, so a lot of ridings aren't going to be here. I don't see any advantage to going by riding or by name.
Is there anything else?
Are we rushing you?
The Clerk: No, I'm fine.
The Chairman: We have to get into the habit of rushing you.
We won't stay here, if you're happy with the direction in which we've started to move on this. We'll see you here next Monday, and before that time our clerk will make sure you know who's going to appear on Monday.
Thank you very much. We're adjourned.