[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 28, 1995
.1534 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Welcome to the Subcommittee on the Consideration of the Objections Filed on the Proposed Electoral Boundaries for the Western Provinces.
Hon. members, I see a quorum, and your first order of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive nominations.
Mr. Duhamel (St. Boniface): I'd like to propose Marlene Cowling as chair of this particular committee.
The Clerk: Is there a seconder?
Mr. White (North Vancouver): We have a difficult situation on a political level. I'm afraid I can't second it.
Mr. Duhamel: You cannot...?
Mr. White: I'm not able to second that, if you're asking me to second it.
Mr. Duhamel: I see.
The Clerk: I think the Standing Orders regard the seconding of such a motion as more of a courtesy than a procedural requirement.
.1535
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: Mrs. Cowling, I would invite you to take the chair as chairman of this committee.
The Chair: I think we want to move on as quickly as we can and look at the future business of our committee.
It appears that we have a total number of thirteen objections from western Canada: one from Alberta; four from British Columbia; four from Manitoba; and four from Saskatchewan.
It's my understanding that we must report to the standing committee by Monday, October 16, 1995. With the House being adjourned for the week of October 9, that means we will have to do this within the next week. So our timeframe is going to be quite limited and quite short.
It would appear that we could do this probably in 3 hours and 15 minutes.
Mr. Duhamel: Excuse me, please. I have a point of clarification, Madam Chair. That's assuming that it's no more than a seven-minute presentation and that members limit their questions to seven or eight minutes. Is that correct? Is that the basis of that figure?
The Clerk: This is the recommendation of Mr. Milliken.
Mr. Duhamel: Yes, that's fine. I just wanted to understand how three and a half had been arrived at.
Mr. White: It would be very wise to allow sufficient time for things in between. I think it's probably better to allow an extra hour and a half altogether for procedural things, so there may be four and half hours of total meeting time.
The Chair: Four and a half?
Mr. White: I would think that would be safe.
Mr. Duhamel: I think we're on the same wavelength. Mr. White is simply asking us to be prudent. I get the impression that if we can do it in three hours rather than three and a half or four and a half we will, but he just feels that there may be a need to stretch it occasionally.
Mr. White: Are we discussing having it all done in one session at one time?
The Chair: If there's a possibility of doing that, I think we should aim for that possibility.
Mr. White: The only problem I see with that is that these objections obviously involve people from western Canada, some of whom have a long distance to travel and may have riding arrangements. If we give them very short notice, it may be difficult for them to get back in time if we only give them the option of one day. May I suggest that perhaps we split it into two sessions, maybe Tuesday and Thursday?
The Chair: Do you agree?
Mr. Duhamel: Yes, I think it's an excellent idea. I think if we don't do that we're going to get into difficulties. Perhaps one way of doing that is simply to send out a schedule saying first come, first served. We'll try to accommodate, and if we find out that everybody wants to be on the same day we'll work out the details.
The Chair: So we'll meet Tuesday and Thursday.
The Clerk: If the report has to be finished by Thursday or Friday, perhaps we could meet earlier in the week, maybe Wednesday.
As usual, getting a room is the problem, and with four new subcommittees formed the rooms are at a premium. I have tentatively booked a room for Monday from 3:30 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.
Mr. White: That's this coming Monday, so basically we would be giving members one day's notice.
The Clerk: Yes, for those who could come. Mr. Hart has told me that he will be out of the country on Wednesday, so we would see him on Tuesday. Mr. Keith Martin prefers to come on Tuesday. We could work around those requests.
Mr. White: So are we saying Monday and Tuesday now?
The Clerk: I could call the members and ask if anyone could come on Monday if it wasn't too inconvenient, and then we could start right away. But perhaps it's not convenient for yourself.
Mr. White: Actually, Dick Harris will probably be sitting here in my place next week, but we will have a substitute here for sure.
The Clerk: We could simply start on Tuesday at 9 a.m. and see how far we get then. Would you be free to sit on Tuesday afternoon?
.1540
Mr. Duhamel: I have a unique position: I don't expect to be able to continue on this committee. But I guess what we're all anxious to do is to hear our colleagues and to make sure we listen sensitively and attentively to the concerns that are voiced.
It appears to me to be perhaps better for you or someone such as you to call each one to see if they can be here Monday, if they can be here Tuesday and Wednesday, because clearly, if we don't have this finished by Wednesday we have a bit of a problem for others who need to prepare reports; and I think we're willing to try to do that.
Mr. White: Yes, from the Reform Party we can guarantee we'll get somebody here. So if you'd like to call the members -
Mr. Duhamel: And we will do likewise.
Mr. White: - go ahead with Ron's suggestion. We'll make sure we can do it.
The Clerk: I will call the Manitoba members first for Monday, since they're going to be closer.
Mr. Duhamel: In fact, I'll volunteer. I have an appeal. I'll volunteer to come in on Monday.
If I'm the only one and you want to put me back to Tuesday, do so.
The Chair: As chair, I would like to make a presentation as well, so I'll go Monday too.
Mr. Duhamel: Okay, we have two.
What time of the day is the Monday?
The Clerk: It's 3:30 p.m.
Mr. Duhamel: Do we have a room?
The Clerk: Room 307.
Mr. Duhamel: I have a question on technicalities, Madam Chair. I am assuming I'm not on this committee as of after the meeting today. But let's assume I were and I had an appeal. What are the legal, procedural, protocol ramifications? You have one as well? What do we do when our appeal is delivered? That's not a problem?
The Clerk: I think the whips would have to send in a substitute member for you as you were actually appearing as a witness, just to keep the numbers up. I don't think you can occupy two chairs at the same time.
Mr. Duhamel: Well, we could try, but I'm not sure it would be the best idea.
The Clerk: I'll confirm that.
Mr. Duhamel: Could that be communicated to Cathy in my office, please?
The Chair: Is there anything else we should discuss at this point? Are there any questions about the process? We have the researcher here.
Mr. Duhamel: Yes. I just wanted to make sure I understand it correctly. If I do, chances are that everybody else does.
Someone comes in and says, I've filed an objection, or an appeal, and here are the reasons why. That should not take any more than seven minutes. We're honour bound to try to respect that.
Then the members of the committee, if we were here now assembled, might have some questions to raise of the presenter. We're trying to limit that to no more than eight minutes.
Then that's where I'm not sure any more. That's fairly clear. Then that goes to my colleague's intervention tout à l'heure, when he said maybe we need a bit more time. Do we then need five minutes to say whether we feel comfortable with this appeal?. I know we don't have decision-making powers, because someone has already clarified that for me, but I think we're trying to make sure the commissioners have as much information as possible. So does our job stop after we've asked our questions, or is there another step I've not clearly seen yet, and that step would be: we've heard Mrs. Cowling's appeal, we feel comfortable with what we've said, we wonder whether or not she's proven her case?
What's the next step? I don't understand that. I'm sorry.
Ms Laura Snowball (Committee Researcher): My understanding is that in the eight minutes of questioning you'll be able to draw out some of the information you require. After you've heard all these objectors, their submissions, I will be preparing a summary report of what has been said in the various interventions. I believe the subcommittee will meet again to review the report, and if it wishes to make recommendations, it will make those at that time.
So we're looking at another meeting after.
Mr. Duhamel: Just to review, then, no more than seven minutes for the presentation, no more than eight minutes for questions and answers, amen, fini, we go on to the next one. A report is prepared. We review the report together as a committee. At that point we may, either collectively or individually, want to make some comments on each appeal heard. Is that correct?
.1545
Ms Snowball: Yes, that's correct.
Just as a basic principle, if you're going along and hit the very end of that eighth minute and there's a sense, either on the part of the person making the submission or any of the people sitting on the subcommittee, that the matter has not been heard fully and all of the details haven't been teased out, then simply based on the basic principle of fairness, you're going to have the discretion to extend it slightly in order to make sure the case is made.
The Chair: Just for clarification, do the eight minutes include questions, for instance, from Mr. White and then a response?
Ms Snowball: Yes.
The Chair: And then questions from....
Ms Snowball: Yes. There's discretion on the part of all of the members to make sure they're satisfied with what they've heard and learned.
Mr. Duhamel: Madam chair, I just have one more question. For example, my question potentially has an impact on my colleague Mr. Alcock's riding. and I'm not sure if he's particularly troubled by it. In fact, I'm quite certain that's not the case. Let's assume for a moment thatMr. Alcock did have some points to raise. What opportunity would he get? I'm the one who has launched the appeal, but I have an impact potentially on his riding. What happens there?
The Clerk: As far as I know, we are only here to hear the objections.
Mr. Duhamel: So it would be up to him to be aware of these meetings.
The Clerk: And perhaps ask the whips to put him on the committee as a substitute.
Mr. Duhamel: Perhaps we need some clarification on that. I hate to complicate matters, but I'd hate for us to go through the process and then have someone legitimately say they wish they'd known because they had a couple of points they wanted to raise. Since we're squeezed for time, it's probably useful to get it clarified.
If I had to give an interpretation, I suspect yours would be the one. The only discomfort I have is that normally we give people opportunities to agree or disagree with us when there's a potential impact on their field of operation. In this case it's their riding.
Mr. White: It has already struck me that an appropriate question to ask everyone might be how these changes you're requesting will affect the MPs around you. That's certainly a question I would ask each and every person.
I received information on everyone who had filed an objection two or three months ago, so I was aware of everyone around me who had filed. So perhaps we're over-complicating it if we're going to get out into -
Mr. Duhamel: I think you've proposed a potential solution; that is, as long as we raise that question, I think we're probably covered.
The Chair: Are there any other questions? Is there anything else that we should know or...?
Ms Snowball: I think you've pretty much covered everything.
The Chair: So we'll wait to hear from you.
The Clerk: Yes, I'll send a notice out for the meeting on Monday. You and Mr. Duhamel will be at least two of the presenters. I will also send a notice for Tuesday. I should have it all ready by tomorrow morning I hope.
The Chair: I declare the meeting adjourned.