HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 31, 2002

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

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Werner Schmidt

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

CANADA

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 31, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1130)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): It is my assumption that we all agree this should be a very short meeting, because of other circumstances. Originally, I had planned to have a steering committee meeting. I propose we do not have a steering committee meeting. We called this open meeting of the committee to deal with the report of our subcommittee on private members' business, the matter of votable items.

    One of the items the steering committee would have discussed is how we proceed with consideration of the ethics package. In anticipation of that, it was my assumption that the first witness to be called would be the Deputy Prime Minister, who is leading on that file, and we do have a time for him, which is next Tuesday at 3:30. We agreed among ourselves that the meeting would be televised, so we've booked the television room for that.

    My suggestion is that at 11 o'clock on Tuesday we have a steering committee meeting, we discuss future business, but then we already know we will be having a meeting that afternoon to kick off our treatment of the ethics package with John Manley as the witness. Are you comfortable with that? That is what we will do, then. There will be a steering committee on Tuesday morning, and the meeting with Manley, for which we will send out a notice, will be 3:30 on Tuesday in the television room.

    Michel is going to present these reports on behalf of Marcel Proulx, but I use Marcel as an example. The subcommittee and a good number of our colleagues met for almost six hours yesterday producing these reports. Marcel Proulx showed me this morning the tickets for the Senators game he missed with a picture of Mario Lemieux on the front, the ticket he could not use through this meeting. So I want to thank the subcommittee for their remarkable work on this matter.

    We are meeting today to get these reports through so that private members' business can begin. At the end there's a very slight procedural wrinkle, but the assumption here is going to be--and Michel, you should know this--that private members' business will begin on Monday. When we finish with this arrangement, I can explain to you how that will be achieved.

    So Michel, would you like to proceed with the first of these reports.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): We met from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. last night. After deliberation, the committee selected four votable items, two bills and two motions. I don't know whether you would like me to read them out to you.

[English]

    The Chair: Just hold on just a moment. I don't think you should, because this report is confidential until tabled in the House.

    I propose to get consent this afternoon. But colleagues, do you understand? Michel Guimond moves the four reports you have before you, as indicated here, with the four votable items that are indicated.

    Dale.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, why there are only four items here. I understand there is room for 15. Why is it we just have four, two motions, two bills?

    The Chair: I think there is room for 10.

    Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: To answer Mr. Johnston's question, the committee operates by consensus. We start by determining if there are any bills or motions on which all subcommittee members are in agreement. I'd also remind committee members that the subcommittee is composed of an Alliance member, a Bloc Québécois member, an NDP member, a Conservative Member, a Liberal member and the Chair, who is also a Liberal. We start by identifying ten bills that could be selected as votable items. Once we have unanimity, that is when six members are in favour of a bill or motion, that bill or motion is automatically recognized in the order of priority. Then we move on down the list, trying to achieve a consensus on bills or motions that received four or five favourable votes. It's more difficult to achieve a consensus in the case of bills that have the support of only one or two colleagues. I will spare you the details, but that's pretty much how things work.

    I would also remind you that we do not call into question the merit or subject-matter of the bill or motion. We focus on whether or not its satisfies the five criteria established by the Procedure and House Affairs Committee.

    The subcommittee determined that only four bills and motions satisfied the five criteria fully. We came to this conclusion after an initial vote and some discussions. Of course, it would have been nice to select ten items, but unfortunately, members were unable to agree on six of them.

Á  (1135)  

[English]

    The Chair: I would add that with the present rules--as you know, we've proposed changes to those rules--if we filled all 10 items and there were another draw, there might be no room for bills that are being put forward at the present time. So the faster we start private members' business, the sooner there'll be another draw, and there will still be vacancies when that draw comes, and everybody in the pool will be available. Jamie can explain that again to you if you want.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: When will that committee meet again? Do we initiate that meeting?

    Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): It's set out under the Standing Orders. At the beginning of a session there is a draw. Once there are at least 30 items in it, 15 bills and 15 motions are put in order of precedence. That was the reason there were so many items to be considered yesterday. There were 30 items drawn last Tuesday, plus some that had been reinstated. There is a draw to top up the order of precedence whenever it falls to about 15 items. So as items are debated and are taken off the order of precedence, openings are created, and once the list falls down to about 15, there is a new draw. At that point the subcommittee has to meet within 10 sitting days to consider which of those items in the new draw should be made votable.

    The Chair: So the faster we get private members' business going, the sooner there will be another draw.

    Werner.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): How many are in that order of precedence now?

    Mr. James Robertson: There were 30 items drawn by the Deputy Speaker on October 22, and a few bills were reinstated that were on the order of precedence at the prorogation of the first session. So I think at this point the total number is 35.

    The Chair: So the first motion you see there is moved by Monsieur Guimond, that the report from the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be adopted as the committee's report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Unusually--and Michel, you could explain the circumstances, or Jamie could--there is a second report.

    Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind my colleagues that a new draw was held on June 20, 2002. The Subcommittee on Private Members' Business was scheduled to meet after June 20 to decide which items would be selected as votable items. As you may recall, the House rose on June 20 and was set to reconvene on September 16. However, Parliament was prorogued and we had a new Speech from the Throne. Consequently, while a number of items had been drawn, the sponsoring members were never able to appear before the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business to argue their case for retaining their item as a votable item. Therefore, we want to be fair when it comes to those items and any new items of business.

    The subcommittee decided that if, at the conclusion of the first draw held two weeks ago, ten items were selected as votable items, it would recommend that an additional three items be added to the list. In other words, we could potentially have 13 items instead of 10. We say “potentially”, because it wouldn't be an issue if we selected fewer that ten items. In fact, we ended up selecting only four items and we arrived at a consensus on three other items, in this case, three bills.

    Therefore, we advised colleagues of the possibility that in addition to the four items selected, we could be adding to the list either one, two or three of the items originally selected on June 20 if we felt they met the criteria for votable items. Ultimately, we determined that one of these items qualified. That's the focus of the second report in which we request that this item be included in the list of votable items.

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Michel. That was a very clear explanation.

[English]

    So effectively, to give an element of fairness to the very unusual circumstances of prorogation, one more votable item is being added.

    Werner.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: Does it make this an additional item on the order of precedence?

    The Chair: Yes.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: It now becomes 36 instead of 35?

    Mr. James Robertson: No. This is one of the 35, but it will be made votable, which it would not otherwise be.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt: I see. Okay. So that's what this does. It does not change the order of precedence.

    Mr. James Robertson: No.

    The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I also think it's important to note that this was a change we made a couple of years ago when we filed that report in the House on private members' business. Some who may be feeling frustrated today at being jammed back have to realize that the reason this one on prorogation is coming forward is that the government did accept that report and did make that happen. I'm feeling a little disappointed, but every once in a while I get a little bright light here: we did this, this committee did this.

    The Chair: Okay.

    Michel has moved--it's the second motion--that the report from the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, the second report, be adopted as the committee's report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: I would make a procedural point to you. This does not apply to the second report, because it's down the order of precedence and is not going to be dealt with for a few weeks, but it does apply to the first one. I have been asked to ask for unanimous consent today to present this report. I'm glad to do that, but normally, that would result in private members' business beginning tomorrow. This will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement. So when I ask for this unanimous consent, it means private members' business will begin on Monday. Okay?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Colleagues, I'm going to adjourn the meeting. There will be a steering committee at 11 o'clock on Tuesday. We have agreed, though, that at 3:30 on Tuesday we will have the first meeting on the ethics package in the television room, and the first witness will be John Manley.

    Is there any other business? The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.