HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 29, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Á

1110

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

The Chair

Á

1115

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Á

1120

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 003

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 29, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Order. Let's begin.

    I'm in your hands, colleagues, given the circumstances of the last meeting, but I put two or three housekeeping items on the agenda again in the hope that we can deal with at least one or two of them before we get to our main item. But this is on the assumption that they're more or less automatic. If they aren't, I'll pull them and we'll deal with them at another meeting.

    The first one you'll see is a motion with respect to the subcommittee on private members' business. They need to have lunch. They're up and running. They have the good idea of trying to get all the players together, those who've been drawn, and they want lunch for that meeting so that they can discuss how to proceed.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I so move.

    The Chair: Mr. Godin thus moves:

That the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be authorized to hold a working dinner on Wednesday, October 30, 2002, for the purpose of selecting votable items, and that reasonable costs of that dinner be borne by the Committee's budget.

    (Motion agreed to)

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order, if you come from out west, “dinner” means the noontime meal.

    The Chair: No, I'm afraid this is an evening meal, but I can assure you that it will not, as Guy St-Julien suggested, simply be donuts. I think we're very careful on these matters. It's just to provide them with some refreshments so that they can get all our colleagues together.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you.

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik on a point of order.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, this is a clarification for the official opposition whip.

    The meeting, I believe, is from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., so it's going to be a working session. If the whip would like to attend, he certainly can. I'm sure we'd love to have him there for the four hours.

    The Chair: Very good.

    By the way, we know that the subcommittee on private members' business does very difficult work and very important work.

    The next item is rather interesting given the circumstances. I discussed this at the steering committee and I discussed it briefly at our last meeting. It is simply that with respect to the televising of committees, this committee has pushed for the televising of committees. There's been a procedure in place for roughly 12 months. It is on an experimental basis. It is supposed to lapse in December. The suggestion is that instead of lapsing in December, it lapse next June. That way the new chairs of committees and the media would have a further chance to try the experimental rules this committee has put in place.

    The motion reads:

That the Chair present a report to the House recommending that the trial period for the guidelines on the broadcasting of committee proceedings be extended until June 20, 2003.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I so move.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: I thank you all for that.

    On item 3, electoral redistribution, I think Jamie will say what the circumstances are here. There is a paper on how the committee might proceed with respect to electoral redistribution. It contains some notes of warning to the committee on what our powers are. It also gives some suggestions as to where we cross a line between interfering in a very important independent political process and properly using our powers.

    Jamie.

    Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): This arises from the meeting last Tuesday of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure of the steering committee. This paper has been prepared as a discussion paper at the request of the steering committee. I think it has been circulated, or it will be, and we'll send it electronically to your offices after this meeting.

    I think the chair's suggestion is that members review it, be prepared to discuss it, and suggest possible witnesses for the committee to consider inviting at the next opportunity for that to happen.

    The Chair: Any comments? You're comfortable with that? We'll proceed in that way.

    On “code of conduct”, it's the same thing. We have come up with some suggestions as to how the committee might deal with that. Again, I think you have it. It says “Draft Workplan - Ethics Package”. I would ask you--I've discussed this with the staff in some detail--to look at this and get suggestions to me. Again, we'll discuss this either at a full meeting of the committee or at a steering committee very soon. This is something we have to move on very quickly. I know there's business before us, but my understanding is that we need to proceed on this to completion before Christmas. Are you comfortable with that? Thank you very much.

    Can we proceed now to the first main item of business? I don't know if it will be the only main item of business today, because there is a second important item, which is the status of our report on private members' business that was submitted in July of last year and lapsed when Parliament was prorogued.

    My suggestion here, colleagues, is this. The last time we met I voted to adjourn the meeting. I did that because, as far as I could see, there was going to be no outcome that day. It is my sincere hope that the five whips who were here have had discussions or that something's gone on and we have some prospect of an outcome. I don't know what that is, but my suggestion is, although technically, I've been told, I could argue otherwise, that the motion of John Reynolds, as amended by Carolyn Parrish, is approved by the committee and it is that we are discussing. Are you comfortable with that? Okay.

Á  (1110)  

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Call the question.

    The Chair: I'm in the hands of the committee, and the committee is saying we should call the question.

    John, you don't have to read this, but do you want to speak to it briefly?

    Mr. John Reynolds: I think we've had a very good debate on this subject. We've had a chance to talk in between, and I would hope we can get to the vote as quickly as possible, and then get on with other business.

    The Chair: Okay. Joe, you agree with that?

    Colleagues, you will notice that not only is the amendment in, but the gender-specific language has been changed throughout, which was suggested. I assume that was agreed to by everybody.

    The question is called.

    (Motion as amended agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall I report this to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: I shall certainly do that. I thank you for that, by the way. The adjournment did work.

    John Reynolds.

    Mr. John Reynolds: Will you seek to announce this in the House today to move it forward?

    The Chair: I will report this to the House in the usual way. I assume I will ask for concurrence. Okay?

    Can we move, then, to the matter of private members' business, which is item 6 on our agenda? I'll read the motion first, if I may. You've got copies of this report, report 66 of the last Parliament. It was the report dealing with changes to the way private members' business is handled in the House of Commons. The report you have before you is exactly the same, except for the introductory paragraph, which simply recognizes that the calendar has moved on and so on. The motion I have here is:

That the Chair present a report to the House of Commons reproducing the contents of the 66th Report of the first session of this Parliament.

    Can I have a mover for that motion? I have John Reynolds, and I have Joe Jordan to speak to it.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Very briefly, Mr. Chair, I'd like to congratulate whoever wrote up the draft, because I think the committee did work very well on this issue; we struggled with it. It was really a technicality that prevented its being brought to fruition, so I think we should move ahead. You can table that in the House, and we'll let the events take their normal course.

    The Chair: John Reynolds.

    Mr. John Reynolds: I would agree with Joe Jordan. Unlike the debate on the previous motion that finally passed, this motion has had lots of debate in the House by most members here. It has approval by a vote of members of, I think, over 75%. They want to see this happen, so I would agree that this motion should go back to the House as quickly as possible.

    The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): In the introduction, one sentence alludes to some of the concerns that have been expressed, and I quote: “While we understand that some Members of the House, and some Senators, may have concerns with respect to a few of the recommendations contained in that report,...”

    The Chair: Just a minute, Jacques. Which page are you on?

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm on line 15 or 16 in the first paragraph of the introduction.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm sure that it will go faster if we're all on the same page. As I was saying, the report notes the following:

While we understand that some Members of the House, and some Senators, may have concerns with respect to a few of the recommendations contained in that report, the Committee feels that it is important that the same recommendations be formally placed before the House...

    I thought we'd agreed not only to acknowledge that some concerns had been expressed, but also to leave the door open to further accommodations in the report. Therefore, I'd like the wording to be a little clearer, so that we acknowledge not only the concerns raised and not sweep them under the rug, but also that we say we plan to take these concerns into account. That's a different matter.

    I'm quoting from page 1, the 15th or 16th line. The sentence begins with: “While we understand...”

[English]

    The Chair: I may be missing the point, Jacques, but once this is before the House, amendments can be moved there.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: That's basically the point I was trying to make, Mr. Chairman. Given the spirit in which the matter was discussed last time—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—we would be leaving the door open to the possibility of these concerns being heard, particularly in the case of the Senate.

[English]

    The Chair: I think, but I'm not exactly sure, to be honest, that I understand the point. Do you want the introduction of a phrase such as...? I'll let Jamie say it again.

    Mr. James Robertson: Referring to the concerns of senators and some members, which we hope can be accommodated prior to the adoption of the changes, or prior to the adoption of the report finally in the House.

    The Chair: We'll work on that in the next couple of minutes, but are you comfortable with the sense of it?

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I've no problem with this if Senators and Members enjoy equal privileges. Senators mustn't be the only ones to benefit. I don't think that would be appreciated very much by... If I understood correctly, you mentioned that this was intended especially for senators.

    Mr. James Robertson: It's just that...

    Mr. Yvon Godin: If we do include a paragraph on this, both houses should have an opportunity to express their views on the subject.

[English]

    The Chair: Are you comfortable with that? We'll work on that and come up with the wording in a moment, and then we can proceed. Do people understand what we're doing? If we can put that on hold, I'll go to other business.

    As to security on the Hill, I went through this a bit last time. We discussed it at the steering committee. There's the request for information on the impact of changes in security on students and other tourists. With information on the costs, many of you have seen copies of the letters we're getting on that. I met briefly with the chair of our equivalent committee on the Senate side, Lorna Milne. She is now officially the chair of that committee, and I'm going to have further discussions with her along the lines we suggested about trying to get Senate and House of Commons concerns about security on the same track. Are you comfortable with that? I'll report back to the committee.

    As for the next item, it's up to you. This is a public meeting, and it's a question whether we discuss it. An independent member of the House has contacted me about his role on committees. You should know that although this committee sets up committees, in reality, the parties determine who their representatives are on the various committees. To be an official party in the House of Commons, you must have 12 sitting members. We have independent members who are not members of those parties. They can go to committees, but because the whips did not submit their names, they cannot, at the moment, be official members of the committees. The member who contacted me, and therefore has contacted the committee, is concerned about this. He has spoken about it to at least one whip. My understanding is that this whip is not comfortable with putting his name forward. He's also spoken to the Speaker. The Speaker has referred him to us, saying he, the Speaker, has no jurisdiction. We have the whip sitting on this committee.

    What I'm saying to you here is that from the point of view of this individual member, this is a very circular process, and I would like us to discuss this. Perhaps the best place to discuss it would be in a steering committee meeting. I would like us to discuss this in the general case of independent members' role on committees and in the particular case.

    I have Yvon Godin, then John Reynolds and Jacques Saada.

Á  (1120)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I think we're making a mistake by moving in this direction. I'm averse to the idea for the simple reason that the NDP had nine sitting members in the House of Commons from 1993 to 1997 and no one was sympathetic to their cause. The point is this: either you're a member of a recognized party, or you're not.

    The second issue I'd like to discuss is what happens when, for example, a Member who serves on a committee temporarily decides to sit as an Independent. Who's to say he won't vote with his old party? That upsets the balance within the committee and I think it would be...

[English]

    The Chair: I am, as always, in the hands of the committee. I understand most, and I'd be glad to hear more arguments on this issue. My concern, as your chair, is that I've received a letter from a member of Parliament. I have exhausted avenues other than discussion at the committee. I don't want to debate the point at the moment. I'm not arguing that this member should be appointed to a committee. I'm simply flagging the fact that I would like, let's say, the steering committee to consider it at least.

    John Reynolds, Jacques Saada, then Marlene Catterall and Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. John Reynolds: I agree with you that it should go to the steering committee. I would suggest also that the steering committee get a copy of whatever report there is from the Senate, because the Senate has changed its rules to allow independent members to sit on certain committees. I don't know how the members are chosen or how the Senate made that decision, but maybe the steering committee could get a copy of that report from the Senate, review it, and come back to this committee with a full report.

    The Chair: I appreciate that advice.

    Jacques Saada, Marlene Catterall, and Rick Borotsik.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to discuss any one case in particular. I'd like to stick to the principle which is this: an Independent Member wishes to sit on a committee. Consider the case of a party with relatively few members, such as the Conservatives or the NDP and where dissension within party ranks results in someone being thrown out of caucus and forced to sit as an Independent. That person would wield as much power in committee as the rest of this party's caucus. In my opinion, that would create an imbalance on the committee.

    Another thing is that if we are considering letting independents serve on a committee, this decision calls into question the balance that each committee is attempting to strike in terms of speaking time. Therefore, for all of these reasons, the question we need to ask is not whether this is a wise decision in a particular case, but whether the principle is even acceptable to us in the first place. And, to that question, my answer would be no.

[English]

    The Chair: I strongly urge that we do not engage in that debate at the moment. I will repeat my point again. I'm only raising this matter because an individual member of Parliament appears to have reached a point where he has come to the committee for help, and I want to be absolutely sure, not that the committee helps him by necessarily putting him on the committee, but that he gets the best possible advice.

    We will have a briefing note when the steering committee considers this, which will include the report John Reynolds has mentioned.

    Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I don't want to pursue it either, Mr. Chair. I would just encourage any independent member to participate, as they're entitled to do in committee meetings, on issues that are of interest to them. But rather than referring this to the steering committee, you might ask if there's anyone around the table who believes this is a question that needs to be further addressed. I think you'd find unanimity that it does not need to be further addressed.

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'm not going to debate this issue, because I don't believe this is the place to do so, but I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that it should be forwarded to the steering committee. All of the information can be put together and debated there, and they can come back to this committee with a recommendation on how independent members should be dealt with.

    There are certain rights that independent members have in committee. In fact, they can go to more committees than I can because they obviously have free range. I think that's where it should be. They have no whip, which is probably one of their advantages.

    Mr. Chairman, if you require a motion, I would move--

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: I don't.

    Colleagues, I truly don't want to make a big issue of this, but I do think one of the roles of this committee is to protect the rights of individual members of Parliament. I'm not arguing for this particular case at all, but as we have just said, if we can come up with something that summarizes this material so independent members, now and in the future, can read that and say, yes, this is where these things stand, that would be a useful step forward. I have no ulterior motive in this whatsoever, other than that.

    Can we go back to the motion? In about the middle of the introduction, there's a sentence that begins “While we understand”. The equivalent sentence, Thomas, in French, begins “Même si certains députés et sénateurs...” Okay?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just on a point of order, have we resolved the other issue of whether we will go to the steering committee?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you.

    The Chair: I'm going to read the English sentence.

While we understand that some Members of the House, and some Senators may have concerns with respect to a few of the recommendations contained in that report, these could be addressed prior to the changes being adopted and implemented. The Committee feels...

    So it begins with a new sentence there.

    That's an amendment. I can take it as friendly. It's John Reynolds' motion.

    Mr. John Reynolds: I move the amendment.

    The Chair: Okay, it's moved.

    Those in favour of the amendment?

    Sorry, is there any discussion?

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, there's a difference between “should” and “could”. Did you in fact say “could”?

[English]

There is a difference in English between “could” and “should”. I'm just wondering whether “could” reflects the spirit in which we've done that. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when we say “should” it means we should address it, but it doesn't mean we should concur with every single recommendation. I think that is better than “could”.

    The Chair: The recommendation is to replace “could” with “should”. Colleagues?

    Werner.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): The question was, what does “address” mean?

    Mr. James Robertson: My intent in using that word is that the concerns should be considered and an attempt made to try to resolve and address, or deal with, those concerns.

    The Chair: Colleagues, I see a friendly amendment to replace “could” by “should”.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    (Motion as amended agreed to)

    The Chair: Colleagues, I thank you very much. Unless there's other business, I'm going to adjourn the meeting now. It's to the call of the chair, but the most probable course of events is going to be a steering committee on Thursday and a full meeting of the committee next Tuesday. Very probably, next Tuesday we'll begin to deal with the ethics package.

    The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.