[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 28, 1995
.1108 
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Subcommittee: Now that we have a quorum, I am ready to hear motions for the election of the chairman.
Mr. Assad.
Mr. Assad (Gatineau - La Lièvre): I move that Mr. Robert Bertrand be elected chair of the subcommittee.
The Clerk: Mr. Assad moves that Mr. Robert Bertrand be elected chair of the subcommittee. Is the subcommittee prepared to vote on the motion?
Agreed
The Clerk: I invite Mr. Bertrand to take the chair.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond - Wolfe): Congratulations, Mr. Bertrand.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We will proceed immediately to discuss the future business of the subcommittee. The purpose of today's meeting is to determine how we will proceed to hear from members who object to the proposed new electoral boundaries. We have drawn up a tentative sitting schedule and I would like to get your comments. Is there any way for us to improve this schedule?
Mr. Leroux: First of all, I wish to advise you that Bloc Québécois members will not be able to attend sittings on Mondays and Fridays. We are, however, prepared to sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
.1110
Mr. Assad: I have no problem with that.
The Chair: Would you be willing to sit in the evening?
Mr. Leroux: If I understand correctly, if every speaker is allotted 15 minutes, we would be sitting for five and a half hours.
The Chair: Fifteen minutes will be allotted to debate each of the two proposals.
Mr. Assad: Is that enough time...
Mr. Leroux: Fifteen minutes?
Mr. Assad: Yes.
Mr. Leroux: That's sufficient.
Mr. Assad: That gives us plenty of time. We will have to be very firm. Those who will want to discuss their history for an hour can do so outside this committee. We will have to set a time limit of fifteen minutes and no more.
The Chair: We have to agree. As far as the 15 minutes are concerned, seven or eight will be spent on the presentation and subsequently, if there are any questions, we will put them during the remaining seven or eight minutes.
Mr. Assad: This raises another question for those who, like myself, wish to propose some changes. I had to collect the signatures of 10 of my colleagues. That's all well and good, but my 10 colleagues no nothing of the problems in my riding. I want to know who devised these rules?
The Chair: We will take...
Mr. Assad: Had I been required to obtain the signatures of the mayors of the municipalities concerned, that would have made sense, but having to ask my colleagues from Northern Ontario and the West to sign... I fail to grasp the logic behind this rule. It's a waste of time.
Mr. Leroux: It's the law.
Mr. Assad: I understand, but that doesn't necessarily mean it makes sense. What is the rationale of this decision?
The Chair: I do take note of your concerns.
Mr. Assad: If the signature of 10 members is required to confirm that the member is not lying, then I have no problem with that.
Mr. Leroux: The point is whether this whole process is logical. This matter should have been discussed elsewhere.
Mr. Assad: Very well then, proceed as you like.
Mr. Leroux: The point is to proceed efficiently. We must make an honest effort to hear from the members for the 15 minutes allotted to them. They will be told clearly that they have 15 minutes to make their presentation...
Mr. Assad: They will already have been informed.
Mr. Leroux: ...a discussion will follow and we will hold to this. I do, however, fully agree with you that we must be firm about the time allotted.
Mr. Assad: Your party would prefer then to see the committee sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. That doesn't present a problem. Would someone from the Reform Party care to comment?
The Chair: No, there is no one here from the Reform Party.
Mr. Assad: I'm sure they will be satisfied with this arrangement.
The Chair: The fact is that they have no members from Quebec. All of those who will come before this committee are either Liberals or...
Mr. Assad: That solves the problem.
What procedure will we follow to hear from members?
The Chair: As for the time allotted, I know that Mr. Crête has received two objections andMr. Gagliano, six. Therefore, theoretically, Mr. Gagliano would be entitled to one hour and 30 minutes.
Mr. Assad: That's out of the question.
The Chair: How much time would you allot to Mr. Gagliano?
Mr. Leroux: You are talking about Mr. Crête...
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Leroux: ...and Mr. Ménard?
The Chair: I am taking into consideration the two objections filed by Mr. Crête, which would entitle him to 30 minutes, and the six objections filed by Mr. Gagliano, which would entitle him to one and a half hours.
If you like, we could allot Mr. Crête 20 minutes. As for Mr. Gagliano, we could cut his time in half, which would leave him with 45 minutes.
Mr. Assad: No, 30 minutes.
Mr. Leroux: I have no problem with that suggestion.
.1115
The Chair: No. Logic must prevail. We have cut 10 minutes off of Mr. Crête's allotted30 minutes. Since Mr. Gagliano has six objections, I thought that we could cut his time in half.
Mr. Assad: Allow him 45 minutes, if you want, but ask him if he would agree to 30 minutes.
The Chair: No more than 45 minutes.
Mr. Assad: Tell him that he can take up to 45 minutes, but that it would be preferable if he limited himself to 30 minutes.
The Chair: Therefore, 30 to 45 minutes for Mr. Gagliano?
Mr. Leroux: Agreed.
The Chair: Getting back to the sitting schedule, we will require a little under five and a half hours of sitting time.
Mr. Leroux: We have made some progress.
The Chair: How about five hours?
Mr. Assad: Agreed.
Mr. Leroux: Do we want to conclude this business in one week?
The Chair: We have no choice.
Mr. Leroux: We have to decide then. I imagine that it would depend on the availability of the rooms. We need a place to work.
The Chair: When does your caucus meet?
Mr. Leroux: Wednesday mornings, like all of the parties.
The Chair: We had planned to sit from 3:30 p.m. to 6 p.m. on Tuesdays. Do we have a budget? I thought that we could continue past 6 p.m. and have dinner here. We don't have much to do on Tuesday evenings.
Mr. Assad: We need five hours to wrap everything up.
Mr. Leroux: You've understood.
Mr. Assad: Over the course of these three days, we can easily find five hours.
Mr. Leroux: The question is whether the room is available after 6 p.m.
The Chair: No.
Mr. Leroux: Therefore, I agree with your proposal.
Mr. Assad: I don't see how we could go beyond... We already have two and a half hours...
The Chair: The times you see here are approximate times.
Mr. Assad: I think we have plenty of time.
Mr. Leroux: We need to find five hours during this period. How much time do we have? Two hours, plus half an hour...
The Chair: Do you sit on any other committees?
Mr. Leroux: Yes. How many hours have been scheduled in these three days? Two and a half hours the first day, and then...
The Chair: We have almost five hours. From 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.... We could wrap everything up on Tuesday.
Mr. Assad: Exactly.
Mr. Leroux: I suggest we go with Tuesday, with the option of sitting again on Wednesday in the event some members are unavailable on Tuesday. We could then count on either Wednesday or Thursday. Could we check that?
Mr. Assad: Could we notify all those concerned?
The Clerk: All members received a note from Mr. Milliken explaining that October 16 is the deadline and, as the House is not sitting during the week of October 9, I imagine they all know that these meetings would be concentrated...
Mr. Assad: I imagine we will be notified in due time. If we decide to do everything on Tuesday and to hear from a new member every 15 minutes, would we be able to notify them quickly enough to let them know...
The Clerk: We will notify them today.
The Chair: Agreed.
Mr. Leroux: If it's Tuesday, all the better. It will be settled. If not, members who are busy that day will have an opportunity to come on Wednesday.
The Clerk: Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee must report back to the committee on October 16. Therefore, if we hear from members on the Tuesday evening and perhaps on Wednesday afternoon, the subcommittee will have to meet again to discuss a draft report to the committee. You can either accept all of the objections that have been filed or make other recommendations. No doubt, some members will come armed with amendments. Therefore, another meeting will have to be scheduled to discuss these amendments and...
.1120
The Chair: Can we do this?
Mr. Leroux: If we wrap up our work on Wednesday, is it realistic, given the work that will have to be done, to think about meeting again the next day? Do you work during the night?
The Chair: If necessary.
Mr. Leroux: Is it realistic or should we wait until the following Tuesday?
The Chair: No. The following Tuesday falls during the recess week.
Mr. Leroux: That's right.
The Clerk: The subcommittee could meet on Thursday.
Mr. Leroux: That's why I suggested Thursday, late in the day.
The Chair: Thursday, late in the day.
Mr. Leroux: That would give you a good 24 hours.
The Chair: It all depends on the kind of meeting you want...
Mr. Leroux: That's right.
Mr. Assad: Does the decision to accept or reject the amendments or changes proposed by the members who will testify before this committee rest with us?
Mr. Leroux: We have no decision-making power. We simply report back. We are only a sounding board.
Mr. Assad: Who decides if the proposed changes are acceptable?
The Chair: The committee.
Mr. Leroux: That's right, and ultimately, the commission.
Mr. Assad: They will base their decision on the evidence that will be presented to us. They will read that evidence.
Mr. Leroux: They will read the report that we submit to them.
Mr. Assad: I agree, but as for myself, at some point, I want my 15 minutes. If I make a proposal, you will report back to the committee which then will decide. Have I understood correctly?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Assad: How is it that the committee is not hearing directly from the members instead of reading a report from a subcommittee?
Mr. Leroux: We're not talking about the committee, but about the commission. Perhaps the chair could clarify this a little.
The Chair: I believe the clerk can do that.
The Clerk: The process is set out in section 22 of the legislation. It all began with the tabling of the commission reports on June 22 in the House. Members had 30 days to file their objections. The committee then has 30 sitting days to consider these objections, that is to hear evidence and so forth and report back.
The 30-day period brings us to November 3. The committee must then return a copy of these objections and of the evidence given to the Speaker of the House who, in turn, refers them back to the Chief Electoral Officer. The Chief Electoral Officer in turn refers them back to the commissions for their consideration. The commissions will receive a copy of the binder that you see here containing all of the objections raised by the different provinces, as well as the evidence presented to the subcommittee.
Mr. Assad: Perfect.
The Chair: It is important that you bring along your binder on Tuesday.
The Clerk: I have also included the report at the end.
The Chair: Which report is that?
The Clerk: The commission's report.
The Chair: I see.
The Clerk: Along with the maps.
Mr. Assad: Would it be premature at this time to ask you how we are going to proceed on Tuesday to allot the 15 minutes? Some will prefer the morning time slot and others, the afternoon one.
The Chair: We will proceed on a first come, first served basis. On Tuesday, we will sit from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3:30 p.m. until... If all those who have filed objections are present, including Mr. Gagliano, we will conclude our work.
Mr. Assad is wondering about the order in which we will hear from members. Will we proceed on a first come, first served basis?
The Clerk: Perhaps in alphabetical order?
The Chair: Everyone will want to show up at the same time. We have to agree on an approach.
Mr. Assad: May I make a suggestion? Perhaps we could proceed by seniority. TakeMr. Gagliano, for example. He has been a member since 1984. If there are others from the 1984 class who wish to appear before our subcommittee, then we could proceed in alphabetical order.
Mr. Leroux: Would you like us to start with Mr. Gagliano and Mr. Crête?
The Chair: We will have 30 or 45 minutes in the morning, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Mr. Assad: We could try to hear from them on Tuesday, proceeding by seniority, and then move to hear from those elected in 1993. We could then operate on a first come, first served basis.
.1125
An hon. member: No, in alphabetical order.
Mr. Assad: In alphabetical order?
Mr. Leroux: If that could prove helpful... On Tuesday, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., in theory, we would begin with Mr. Gagliano, followed by Mr. Crête.
The Clerk: And those unable to give evidence on Tuesday could be heard on Wednesday afternoon.
Mr. Leroux: Are we agreed?
Mr. Assad: Agreed.
Mr. Leroux: Therefore, we are agreed on 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday. As for the report, we could agree to allow ourselves some time to work and then to meet again on Thursday, at 3:30 p.m., for the report.
The Chair: This meeting is adjourned.