HAFF Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, October 10, 2002
| Á | 1105 |
 |
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Patrice Martin (Procedural Clerk) |
| Á | 1110 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.) |
| Á | 1115 |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Á | 1120 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.) |
| Á | 1125 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
| Á | 1130 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rick Borotsik |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, October 10, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Á 
(1105)
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable Members,messieurs les députés, I see we have a quorum.
[English]
There is now a quorum.
Your first duty is to proceed to the election of a chairman.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): I move that Peter Adams be elected Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): I second the motion.
(Motion agreed to)
The Clerk: Mr. Adams.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Thank you very much. My election campaign really paid off.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I do appreciate this. It's a great honour for me to be the chair of this committee. I hope we have a very successful parliamentary session. From appearances, it will be quite busy. I already have some sense of the issues we'll be dealing with.
Today, though, as you can see from the agenda, we have a bunch of procedural matters, including re-establishing our vice-chairs and the motions under which we operate. So if we could proceed through this agenda as it is here, I'd be grateful.
Colleagues, we'll now look at the election of two vice-chairs. I call for nominations for the opposition vice-chair.
John Reynolds.
Mr. John Reynolds: I nominate Dale Johnston as vice-chair.
The Chair: We don't need a seconder. Are there any other nominations? Then Dale Johnston is the opposition vice-chair.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I nominate Jacques Saada.
The Chair: That's for the government vice-chair.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Are you ready for that?
The Chair: No, I'm not ready for that.
Those in favour of John Reynolds' motion, please show.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Dale, congratulations.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): My campaign paid off, too.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: It was a choice, either Hill or Dale. We have Dale.
Are there any nominations for government vice-chair?
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, I'm so keen on this nominee that I got ahead of myself. I was over-anxious. I want to nominate Jacques Saada.
The Chair: Jacques Saada is nominated by Geoff Regan.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you'd get unanimity on this particular nomination if he'd promise not to wear that tie again.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Colleagues, we're starting off on the wrong foot here. We're not supposed to be happy on this committee, so we don't want any jokes or any of that stuff.
Is it agreed?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Congratulations, Jacques. Félicitations, Jacques.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: We will look at the other routine motions we have here.
By the way, Thomas, did you introduce yourself before? Please introduce yourself. Thomas is our new clerk. Go ahead.
The Clerk: I am Thomas Hall, replacing Patrice Martin.
The Chair: What are you doing here, Patrice?
Mr. Patrice Martin (Procedural Clerk): I taught everything I know about baking cookies to Thomas, so you guys should be fine. I'm moving on to justice.
Á (1110)
The Chair: You're moving on to justice. That's justice for you.
Patrice, on behalf of all my colleagues, I want to thank you for your fine work for the committee.
Thomas, already you've chaired a very successful meeting, so you're going to be good. Welcome to the committee.
The subcommittee on agenda and procedure, which is our steering committee, in our case traditionally consists of five. We need the motion shown on the agenda.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): I so move.
[English]
The Chair: That is so moved.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, did you miss the subcommittee on the agenda?
The Chair: No, that was number one. Robert Bertrand moved that, and we're going to do it.
So that sets up the steering committee.
You'll see later on, Dale, that the suggestion is--well, let's leave it until we get to it.
With regard to the striking committee, I think you should all read this very carefully. The word “unanimous” is in there. This, as I understand it, Thomas, is significant to us at the moment because, as far as I know, we do not have the complete list of members of the new committees. The committee is supposed to report those names by the Monday after the break at the latest. What this motion says is that we delegate to the whips the selection of those names. They have to be unanimous. So if by Monday, the day we come back, they are not unanimous, on that day we have to have a full meeting of the committee to come up with a report and recommendations to the House of Commons as to the establishment of the committees. So that's what this is about. You'll notice that it says “unanimous” recommendations. This means it's not four to one or any of that sort of thing; it's unanimous.
Would someone care to move this motion?
Mr. John Reynolds: I so move.
The Chair: We will have a discussion and then the question. Go ahead.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Could I know when the committees will be submitted? If you need unanimity from the five whips, this is Thursday, and some of us may not be available tomorrow.
The Chair: This is not a matter for the committee. The parties can say now if they wish. It's in the hands of the parties. So do the parties want a say now?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Ours will be ready for Monday.
The Chair: Next Monday. What that means, Rick, is that the report could be tabled the Monday we come back.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Are all whips going to be available on the Monday we come back? That's what I'm saying.
The Chair: Okay. There's the question. The parties can respond, or their delegates, I assume, would be available.
I think the answer is that it sounds to me as though the whips are going to be unanimous by the first Monday that we're back. That means, Thomas, that we can table that Monday afternoon or on the Tuesday morning.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, does this have to be signed off by the whips?
The Chair: Yes. I'm told yes.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: So the whips have to be available for Monday to sign off.
The Chair: I assume that means the whips or their delegates. If the whip says so and so is my representative, he or she could sign off on it. I'm apprised of that.
Are you comfortable with that?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm terribly comfortable with it, because I will be here Monday and we can certainly do it. There will be unanimity, that's not a problem. I just don't want to get it held up, that's all.
The Chair: Okay. It's useful clarification.
Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I would just like to clarify something, Mr. Chairman.
It was my understanding that the parties had agreed to table a motion this very day so that the Finance and Foreign Affairs committees could be struck as early as Monday. This ties in with what we've been discussing.
Á (1115)
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's being tabled in the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: If there is such an agreement, the motion could be tabled by day's end. Are we agreed?
[English]
The Chair: Okay. Colleagues have that. That doesn't affect what we're saying here. Well, it does in the sense that it affects the substance of the report that will go in Monday, but this is clarification because it simplifies how the committee is going to operate.
On the Monday we come back, the parties, through their whips or their delegates, are going to submit the lists of committees. That means the committees can begin that week.
We have the motion.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: For the subcommittee on private members' business, we have a motion.
The Clerk: If we could have the list in advance next week, we can have the report ready for them to sign.
The Chair: Thomas is telling me that the more notice that the clerks can get, the sooner we can put the report together. So even if officially the names are submitted on the Monday, that's fine, but if the staff can have the names earlier it would speed up the tabling of the report.
Okay. Private members' business is the next draw. Thomas, could you give us the timing of private members' business at the moment?
[Translation]
Is that all right with you, Yvon?
[English]
The Clerk: I understand that they'll be ready for a draw the week we come back, I think the Tuesday or the Thursday. It's the 22nd, so it's the Tuesday. This means they will need a subcommittee to be established shortly thereafter.
We normally delegate this to a subcommittee, and I assume you still would prefer doing that. The subcommittee will then have ten days to do the report so the committee can put it in.
The Chair: This is the motion. And the point about the associate members of the committee, because that's what they have to be.... This committee still exists, so we're not subject to this other report. So how do we establish associate members?
The Clerk: We can establish that in the report.
The Chair: So the timing would be okay then.
The Clerk: If we know who our associate members are, we can put them down now, or you could wait and adopt this later.
The Chair: The parties hear this discussion. My discussion is it means the week back we have some time to establish the subcommittee on private members' business, but we do need it before that business can proceed. So if our report goes through on the Monday and it's tabled on the Monday, the associate members would be a part of it, each party, and then thereafter, perhaps the next day, we will set up this subcommittee.
Can someone move this motion, if you understand what it is?
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): We have to move to name a chairman, or we have to wait until we come back?
The Chair: It's the first one, that subject to the adoption by the House of a list of associate members.... We can't do it.
The Clerk: You can't do it unless you know the names now.
The Chair: Do the parties know the names now? We do?
Mr. Jacques Saada: We may, but I'm not aware of it.
The Chair: So we can't do this now.
Mr. Jacques Saada: I can get it for you, but I'm not in a position to answer now.
The Chair: We'll have time to do it the week we.... So we don't need this motion.
Sorry about this, colleagues. I've only been chair a very short time.
The motion on quorum is the normal one. Would someone move it, please?
Mr. John Reynolds: I so move.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The motion about the research officer is the standard one.
Mr. Yvon Godin: J'en fais la proposition.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The motion about witness expenses is a standard format.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I will move that.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: The motion on the distribution of documents is the normal one.
Mr. Dale Johnston: I so move.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: You see the note. We all understand that now, number 11. My suggestion is number 12. My thought, colleagues, is that the steering committee will meet on the first Tuesday back, and our objective will be to have our first full meeting the first Thursday back.
Are there any other topics people want to consider?
We'll hear from Yvon Godin, and then from Jacques Saada and Joe Jordan.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I realize that your schedule is fairly hectic and that you want to wrap up fairly quickly, but I would like to remind committee members, most of whom served on the former committee, that before the last session ended, the committee sent a letter to the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission. I believe we've yet to receive a response and I would like us to follow up on this matter.
Á (1120)
[English]
The Chair: First of all, we've had no response from Elections Canada on this matter. But, Yvon and colleagues, as you know, the commissions have to report to us. The latest information I have is that they will be submitting their finalized proposals to us later rather than sooner. I have heard that in fact it may well be after Christmas. Each commission will do it, starting with Newfoundland, I believe. There's a sort of staggered submission. We give notice that we have received their recommendations, and then our members have 30 days in which to react to those. I know this is not directly on the point of our letter.
At the steering committee I'm going to suggest that we circulate information soon to our colleagues as to what they do once the information has reached us. One activity we might do quite early on, Yvon, would be to call the Chief Electoral Officer here again to discuss that and other matters.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, we can decide that later. I just want to mention that our committee wanted the commission to testify for one very specific reason, namely that it had disclosed parts of its report to certain parties before the report was made public. Committee members unanimously felt that this was unacceptable. That is why we wanted to hear from the commission.
Furthermore, the commission did not even have the courtesy of responding to our request, which it should have taken seriously. Therefore, I move that we specifically follow up on this matter.
[English]
The Chair: We've noted that, and the steering committee will consider it at its meeting.
Next is Jacques Saada, followed by Joe Jordan and Guy St-Julien.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, you can correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm quoting you from memory, it seems to me that when Mr. Kingsley last testified before the committee, we pointed out that we wanted to be able to give our opinion before the commissions undertook this adjustment process, particularly as regards criteria. If I'm mistaken, I withdraw my comments, but if I'm right, I would like to know why we are doing all of this work if the commission hasn't bothered to comply with the request we made at the time, that is that we be consulted before, and not during or after, the fact.
[English]
The Chair: To my instincts, and as Jamie has confirmed, we are dealing here with a statute, so the procedure that is being followed is laid down by law. On the other hand, we have Yvon's complaint; you have that point. There is no reason why the Chief Electoral Officer shouldn't come here to discuss that, but I don't think we can change it.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: No. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, that's not the point I was trying to make. The legislation imposes certain constraints in so far as a timetable and the like are concerned. It does not preclude the parliamentary committee from calling in the Chief Electoral Officer to testify as to criteria. It is our prerogative to call in the Chief Electoral Officer and to consult with him about criteria and this is in no way inconsistent with the legislation. In fact, it complements the act. Let me say again that if I misinterpreted what we decided back then, then I withdraw my remarks. However, if I did not, I would like a formal response to our inquiry as to the reasons why this wasn't done.
[English]
The Chair: Jacques, if I may, we heard what you said, and we will consider it. We will consider what you said and what Yvon said very formally, at the steering committee meeting, and we'll proceed from there.
Joe Jordan, Guy St-Julien, then Michel Guimond.
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Just a couple of quick points for the steering committee.
One, we went through a lot of pain and aggravation on this private members' business stuff, and I don't know where that is now. Hopefully you can put that back on the agenda.
Second, we did have a brief discussion on Hill security. One of the concerns raised by the Alliance, and we share that concern, is the lineups and so on. I understand that the NCC is looking at this staging area idea for pre-clearance, so we might want to bring them in at some point and find out what their plans are in terms of that specific issue.
Á (1125)
The Chair: Both of those items, by the way, were on my list for the steering committee.
John Reynolds.
Mr. John Reynolds: I have a motion, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move whenever you're ready to move on to some new business.
The Chair: Okay.
It will be discussed at the steering committee meeting. The report is dead, but the committee has various options. We can go back to square one or we can have a motion in the House. There is a variety of things we can do with it. But if there's a motion, we'll see how that works out a bit later on.
Guy.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much. I'm new to this committee, but Liberal Member Jacques Saada has made an excellent point. When a reference is made to the federal Electoral Boundaries Commission, the reference is always to the 1985 legislation and to section 51(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867. I merely wanted an example. We're talking about the 1985 act.
The point I was trying to make is that Mr. Saada raises an excellent point when he mentions criteria. Could we call the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, as our first witness at our first meeting, rather than wait until after the holidays to hear from him?
[English]
The Chair: I wasn't suggesting that we wait until after Christmas to call Mr. Kingsley. This committee has called Mr. Kingsley more often than have its predecessors, I think. We can call him, and he, of course, to a certain degree can refuse to come.
About the after-Christmas thing I mentioned, Guy, the way the commissions are operating, it looks to us as though the commissions will not be reporting until after Christmas. But I think the steering committee is going to consider calling Mr. Kingsley, as we often do, when we'll raise these points with him.
Michel Guimond.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since the steering committee is slated to meet on the 22nd, I don't think that we should schedule a meeting of the full before then. That's why I don't wish to discuss the details. I share my colleagues' concerns about electoral boundaries. As you undoubtedly suspect, I also have some concerns about private members' business.
My question has to do with the events that transpired in early September before the former committee folded when Parliament was prorogued. Mr. Chairman, did you ask our research officer or some other person from the Library of Parliament to draft a response to the letter sent by Senator Austin on June 18 pertaining to certain constitutional rights claimed by the Senate vis-à-vis private members' business?
Was anything done, Mr. Chairman, between the time the letter was received and the moment the former committee ceased to exist? Was this matter researched from the standpoint of constitutional law? As you may well expect, this will certainly prove to be a very relevant consideration. That's my question.
I repeat that it is not my intention to cover the same ground as the steering committee which is slated to meet on the 22nd. I don't wish to discuss a potential witness list. That would make for entertaining viewing, but that's the steering committee's job.
Á (1130)
[English]
The Chair: First of all, on the list for the steering committee is relations with the Senate, and it includes, by the way, the matter of security. We delayed our final report on security in order to be in line with the Senate's report. So there are a number of issues.
My recollection, Michel, is that we did send one reply to Senator Austin, but I don't think it was a reply to the letter of the 18th that you mentioned. I do think this committee is going to find itself, under the private members matter and in a number of other areas, thinking about Senate/House of Commons relations. Again, I would sooner leave it, as I think you would. We will discuss that specifically at the steering committee meeting and how we're going to proceed in a number of areas on relations between the House of Commons and the Senate.
There's going to be a steering committee meeting. If there's something you think the steering committee is going to miss, by all means let me or the staff know and we'll see that it's put on the list. Let your whips know also because they will be at the steering committee meeting.
Jacques Saada. We're going to move along here, Jacques.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: This has nothing whatsoever to with the steering committee. My question is this: in the motions that we are adopting today, why--and most likely there's a reason for this--is there not a motion having to do with giving advance notice of motion?
[English]
The Chair: Since I've been the chair, we've never had such notice. I understand this was the case before I was the chair, so it's not just a matter of me. I think it has to do with the fact that the whips and sometimes the House leaders and other House officers are on the committee, and the thing doesn't seem to work on this committee the way it does for others. So in my time there has never been such a motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: That means a motion could be deemed in order on the very same day or at the very moment it is tabled. Is that correct? I just want to be clear about that.
[English]
The Chair: Yes. Again, the only reason for that, I think, is that the committee operates in a much tighter fashion than other committees because the whips know what they're doing.
An hon. member: We hope.
An hon. member: That's being generous.
The Chair: Sorry, I didn't mean that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Again, the answer is we don't have one. Traditionally, this committee does not have such a device.
We've heard some points for the steering committee, and we've made a note of those. If there are any others, let us know.
John, I heard you say you had a motion.
Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, going along with what Joe was saying about the fact that in the last Parliament we had a lot of debate on private members' business, I know that my party hasn't changed its mind and I'm hoping that other parties haven't changed their minds. I would just like to move that this committee reinstate the sixty-sixth report of this committee from the last session and table it in the House of Commons.
The Chair: By the way, you've just heard that there's no reason why I shouldn't accept that motion. I would tend, again, to urge that it be noted but that we discuss it in the steering committee and debate it then and at our first meeting. But I'm comfortable. I'm looking around the table. I'm in your hands.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I agree, Mr. Chairman. I don't necessarily disagree with the motion. I still believe very strongly in the report; however, I think it would be important to bring the report back to the first full session of this meeting to have another discussion and at that time accept the motion that they could forward--
The Chair: Are there any other comments? We are in your hands.
My other point would be, by the way--and it's your business, not mine--that it won't speed anything up, because we're going to proceed to the steering committee and to the first meeting anyway.
Mr. John Reynolds: Well, this would make sense. Did you want to wait for the debate? Is the motion there?
The Chair: The motion is here, and there will be more than 48 hours' notice for this one.
So that is dealt with.
John Reynolds.
Mr. John Reynolds: I have another motion with regard to the secret ballot motion. I would like to table it for the steering committee to put on the agenda for the next meeting because it's quite long. The explanations are quite long, and I think all members should have a chance to read it. The clerk can distribute my thoughts on why we should do it and a copy of the motion so that we can properly debate it at the next full meeting.
The Chair: And I should say this. You all know of what we speak here. The committee--rather than the chair because I wasn't the chair at the time--received a formal letter on this matter and it would have been brought forward at the steering committee.
Do you want to read it out?
Mr. John Reynolds: It's too long. It's a very long motion. It is in both languages and it's been distributed.
The Chair: I think you have it. Oui, c'est ça. C'est exactement ça, Yvon.
Colleagues, we have notice of motion on the secret ballot item as well, and I have made the point that a couple of weeks ago the committee received a formal letter from John Reynolds on this same matter.
Colleagues, is there any other business?
I will repeat. In my mind what happens now is we are going to proceed with the committee lists. My understanding is that they will be available on the Monday, officially. If they can be available to the staff earlier, unofficially, so that they can prepare the report, so much the better. They will be tabled by the whips unanimously. This means the motion will go to the House of Commons on Monday afternoon. The steering committee will meet on Tuesday at our regular time, 11 o'clock, in this room, and our first meeting, on whatever the topic is going to be, will be the first Thursday at 11 o'clock in this room. Do you agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.