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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 7, 2003

1535

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

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1540

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

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Joe Jordan

1545

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1550

1555

1600

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

1655

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

The Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Governement Leader in the House of Commons)

The Chair

The Hon. Don Boudria

The Chair

The Hon. Don Boudria

1700

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

1705

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons)

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Stephen Zaluski (Senior Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office)

1710

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Stephen Zaluski

The Chair

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Stephen Zaluski

Mr. Gerald Keddy

1715

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

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

1720

1725

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1730

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

1735

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

1740

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

1745

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

Mr. Gerald Keddy

The Chair

Mr. Ted White

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

1750

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 060

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 7, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. We are here pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 23, concerning Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.

We're on clause 1, amendment 1, and Yvon Godin has the floor.

(On clause 1--Effective date of representation order)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to continue with my filibuster. If you don't mind, we will call it that until you become more reasonable. I will keep on presenting my arguments to try to convince the majority of members on the committee of the importance of the motion we now have before us.

To remind those people who were not here earlier of the subject at hand, the amendment calls for excluding New Brunswick from changes to the electoral map contained in Bill C-49, which, it must be recalled, proposes to advance the day from August 25th, 2004 to April 1st, 2004.

You can keep on talking, Mr. Chairman, we will both do so at the same time. In fact, the timing is good because April 1st is April Fool's day and New Brunswick is being made April's fool under Bill C-49. In order to refresh the committee's memory with regard to what happened in New Brunswick, I will begin to read the report produced by the commission for New Brunswick so you all understand the reasons for their decisions. This will help committee members understand why New Brunswick reacted the way it did. So, I will read the commission's last report. Later on, I will read its first report, and then we can try to analyze both reports to understand what happened in New Brunswick.

¹ (1540)

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to raise a point of order.

I don't want to interrupt the member, because he's moving me in a certain direction with his argument, but in your absence, Mr. Chairman, the member and I had an exchange a few meetings ago when he was referring to Judge Richard in New Brunswick and the fact that he was the father-in-law of one of our colleagues, Monsieur LeBlanc. I know the member has to fill time, and he's doing a good job of it, but I don't think he wants to leave on the record—at least I hope he doesn't—the impression that somehow something improper was done, or cast aspersions on a very distinguished member of the bench or on our colleague Mr. LeBlanc.

With the committee's indulgence, I would like to point out a few facts. The member may want to disagree.

Fact number one is that Judge Richard is the second most senior federal judge in Canada. When he was appointed, our colleague Dominic LeBlanc was four years old. To somehow say that he influenced him is a little bit of a stretch.

The report out of New Brunswick was a unanimous report. Judge Richard did not break a tie. I think the continual references to this particular justice are unfounded. Two of the three commissioners were francophones. The member may not like what they decided, but I think he agrees with me that we at least have to show respect for the process. When the report was signed by all three commissioners, it was unanimous. Mr. LeBlanc was not at that point married.

My point is that Judge Richard was appointed as chair by the Chief Justice of New Brunswick. He's a distinguished member of the bar and of the bench.

I know the member is probably going to run out of subject matter, but I would just ask him, as an element of respect, not to continue to make those inferences. I really don't think they are fair. If the member continues to make them but won't make them outside this committee, where he enjoys a certain parliamentary privilege that will protect his statements, he should either have the courage of his convictions and make them outside or refrain from making them in here.

The Chair: On that point of order, Yvon, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For your information, the things I said here, this morning, I also said outside of the House of Commons and outside of committee, and I had the courage to say those things and to be answerable for what I said. Even though Mr. LeBlanc was only four years old, don't forget that Judge Richard, at the time, when he was a lawyer, represented the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Roméo LeBlanc, who was the father of that four-year old boy. It was not my intention to come back to this issue, but Mr. Jordan raised it. I don't intend to dredge up the story again. I explained how he had been appointed to the position, but what is important to point out is that he raised the issue, which enables me to explain what went on. At the same time, if memory serves me well, the godfather of the member in question is the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Jean Chrétien. What a great family! But I could go on, I don't mind. I could also repeat this outside and suffer the consequences. It's not fair. There has been political interference in New Brunswick and it hasn't stopped, and since you refuse to support my amendment, the same thing is happening all over again today. Well, you yourself will suffer the consequences. Canadians are tired of this kind of politics. That's exactly what's going on right now.

I said so earlier, I respect him as a judge, but he had a choice. The day of the wedding, he could have stepped down and said that he could not go on in that position, that he should not be on the commission, that he should not be in a position to make decisions which would affect his future son-in-law.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: I thought I pointed out that the report was tabled in the House after the marriage took place, but the point I'd like to make to the honourable member is this: I take great exception to the inference you're making. If you are making the claim that a very senior member of the bench has engaged in a political process that shouldn't have been political, then you are making a very serious charge, sir, and to just refer to it here through inference is the cowardly way. Go outside this place to where you are not protected by parliamentary privilege and make that statement very clearly. Don't swim around it through innuendo and little toss-away references in your words, because you're leaving the impression, either by design or through neglect, that somehow this was not a fair and open process.

You have a right to hold that opinion, but have the courage to say it clearly and not weave it through your remarks by referencing family relations and then letting that reference hang, as if somehow being related to someone is a crime, or referencing someone's godfather as if there is a whole bunch of an untold story we're supposed to read into it.

I respect the member. I would just say to him: if you're going to filibuster, read something in front of you. Don't ramble on and attack people's characters when they are not here to defend themselves.

That is the only point I'm trying to make. And I wasn't saying the member was doing it deliberately; I was just saying I'm getting increasingly uncomfortable.

¹ (1545)

The Chair: It's not a point of order.

Let me, as chair, Yvon, say that the bench has a special place in Parliament. It is unparliamentary, if we were in the House of Commons, to attack members of the bench. It just is, so I would urge that we drop it.

An argument has been made on this side. You've made your points, but I think, as chair, I can ask that we refrain from those parts of your argument from now on.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair, with all the respect I have for you, and you know I have respect for you, I have said my piece this morning about the process of how they were appointed. Our colleague Joe Jordan is the one who is bringing it up, and if he continues to bring it up, I will continue to add to it. If he doesn't bring it up, I will continue—

Mr. Joe Jordan: I've said all I wanted to say.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, and I will say what I have to say. And for the record, what I have said here I have said outside already. I said it directly to Judge Guy Richard; I said he should have resigned. That is on the record—and outside the House of Commons.

Now I would like to continue.

The Chair: Can I, as chair, rule that we all refrain from engaging in this particular aspect of this argument from now on?

Yvon, you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to come back to the ridings of New Brunswick and to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick.

For instance, the riding of Acadie--Bathurst, with a population of 76,353, under the new map, consisting of that part of the county of Gloucester containing:

(a) the parishes of Caraquet, Inkerman, New Bandon, Paquetville, Saint-Isidore and Shippagan; the city of Bathurst; the towns of Beresford, Lamèque, Shippagan and Tracadie-Sheila; the villages of Bas-Caraquet, Bertrand, Caraquet, Grande-Anse, Le Goulet, Maisonnette, Nigadoo, Paquetville, Petit Rocher, Pointe-Verte, Saint-Isidore, Saint-Léolin and Sainte-Marie-Saint-Raphaël; excepting Pokemouche Indian reserve number 13;

(b) the parish of Beresford except that part of the parish contained in the village of Belledune.

My colleague, Jean-Yves Roy, talked about excluding Belledune; however, I can already tell him that it will be excluded from Acadie--Bathurst in order to become part of Miramichi. Map 1 for Acadie--Bathurst lays out the following:

(c) that part of the parish of Bathurst lying easterly and northerly of a line described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the northerly limit of the parish of Allardville with highway 8; thence northerly along highway 8 to the southerly limit of the city of Bathurst; thence westerly and northerly along the said limit to the Middle River; thence westerly along the Midlle River to Cherry Brook; thence westerly along Cherry Brook to Ste. Anne Road; thence south-westerly along Ste. Anne Road to Rosehill Road; thence north-westerly along Rosehill Road and its projection to the Tetagouche River; thence westerly along the Tetagouche River to the southerly limit of the parish of Beresford;

(d) that part of the parish of Saumarez lying north and east of a line described as follows: commencing at the intersection of the northerly limit of the parish of Saumarez with the Big Tracadie River, thence generally southerly and easterly along the main channel of Big Tracadie River, The Lake and the Big Tracadie River to the mouth of said river (between au Cheval Island and Val Comeau provincial park).

Mr. Chairman, as you can see, in the description of Acadie--Bathurst, we are dealing first and foremost with francophone parishes and regions. Eighty per cent of Acadie--Bathurst is francophone. Caraquet, Inkerman, New Bandon, Saint-Sauveur and Allardville are communities that live together. We are dealing with communities of interest and historical, social and cultural aspects. The students of Saint-Sauveur, for instance, went to school in Allardville. Certain churches share the same priests, since there are fewer priests today than before. Saint-Sauveur and Allardville share the same parish priest. I can guarantee that they did not ask the parish priest of Miramichi to hold mass in Allardville. They share no community of interests, be it socially, culturally or even from a religious point of view.

In referring to the battle of the Acadians and of francophones, the Acadian peninsula lies at the heart of the Acadian region, be it Petit Rocher, Beresford or Grande-Anse. If you come visit us—and I certainly hope you do, Mr. Chairman—and if you go through Bathurst towards Caraquet, you will see that when you arrive in Grande-Anse, you will be entering through the gate of the Acadian region. It is the gateway to the Acadian region. Therefore, the cultural and social aspects are important; people stick together.

¹ (1550)

I was saying a little earlier that if you want to go to a dance on a Saturday night, you don't go to Miramichi. I'm not trying to be mean, and the people of Miramichi will tell you the same thing. We are not against Miramichi, and Miramichi is not against us, but the two communities have nothing in common. Therefore, if they have nothing in common socially, culturally or linguistically, why would you want to put them together within an electoral riding to be represented by a single elected member? That would change everything.

Should the people of Allardville want to ask their member for a cultural event, they will have to ask someone from another community with other cultural, social and linguistic ambitions. I think that this type of argument should be significant or should have been significant to the commission. Mr. Chairman, if we had time—perhaps there will be enough time by the time this is finished—to read every brief presented at the commission's hearings—there were 14 of them—it would become clear that everybody was speaking with one voice. But the commission refused to hear what was being said. So, perhaps we should ask ourselves the following question. What did the commission have to gain with its decision?

I will be careful about what I say at this point in order not to offend my friend Joe Jordan. We were friends before and I don't want to destroy our friendship today. I am sure that if Joe Jordan was on this side, he would do his work and live up to his responsibilities. I respect that and I understand it. In fact, I did not intend to mention this issue, it was the last issue I wanted to raise, honestly. But sometimes you don't have a choice, and sometimes you're stuck with things you don't want, as I said.

I won't name names, but this is not what the communities want. They want a democratic and transparent process. Whom does democracy belong to? It cannot belong to Canadians one day and not the next. The people of Acadie—Bathurst have spoken loudly and clearly, and it is obvious that they do not agree with the commission's decision, which is vague and unintelligible. As I was saying this morning, Mr. Chairman, if you are in Toronto, and if you said, for instance, that a million people live in the city of Toronto, that there were 20 MPs and that you had to divide the population amongst those 20 MPs, you would have to draw the line somewhere along the roads.

But things don't work that way in our area. In New Brunswick, there are 10 members of Parliament for the entire province, and despite that fact, Mr. Chairman, there are still people, there are still members here, in the House, who wonder why there are 4 members for Prince Edward Island.

Why is a small province like New Brunswick represented by 10 members of Parliament? Why is a small province like Nova Scotia represented by 11 members of Parliament? Well, Mr. Chairman, to understand why there are 10 members for New Brunswick and 11 for Nova Scotia, you have to understand, as the Chief Electoral Officer said—and as members, we may not agree—that there are 4 members for Prince Edward Island, 10 for New Brunswick and 11 for Nova Scotia and that it should be said that these provinces are over-represented compared to other provinces which are much more populous. I feel it's a matter of Canadian values.

¹ (1555)

Not everyone agrees on what Canadian values are, but as a Canadian, as a francophone, as an Acadian from New Brunswick, I would say that I belong to a beautiful country. I have never been ashamed of saying this and I will continue to say it. There are all kinds of countries in the world, there are beautiful countries. I think we live in a beautiful country. It says: "In short, this is not a necessarily uniform process [...]". That is because Canada is a very diverse country.

To illustrate this point, last Wednesday, I was speaking about my employment insurance bill in the House of Commons. The country does not seem to understand that in eastern New Brunswick, or in eastern Canada, there are seasonal workers, people who work in the fisheries and who, as I have often repeated in the House of Commons, cannot fish cod on Yonge Street in Toronto or lobster on Ste. Catherine Street in Montreal. But people living in urban areas do not think that we should have a national program to help lobster fishermen, even though lobster is delicious and everyone wants to eat it. The rest of the country does not seem to understand that the fishermen need programs to support them. This is what makes up the diversity of a country, especially ours, which is special.

I am repeating myself, but it says: "Reflecting Canada's diversity, geographic, historical characteristics [...]". That is what "geographic characteristics" are all about. It means there is no cod fishery in Manitoba, no cod fishery in Saskatchewan, no cod fishery in Alberta. At least, I do not think so; I am a bit familiar with Canada's geography. But you can go to Ontario and fish for pike in the province's northern lakes, it is such a gorgeous area. That is the beauty of Canada's diversity.

The chief electoral officer was clear when he instructed the commissions to take Canada's diversity into account, as well as historical, cultural, social and linguistic aspects. So, as I was saying, if the commission for New Brunswick had... Let me come back to my example involving Toronto: take a million people and divide them by 20 members of Parliament, and you get a certain number. The city would be divided along street lines; however, there may be conflicting borders with services being included in one riding and not in another.

But things do not work that way in our province. When you draw a line, you draw a line through our peoples' culture and social and economic lives. In fact, the Greater Bathurst Chamber of Commerce is opposed to the commission's proposed changes.

If I, Yvon Godin, Member for Acadie-Bathurst, were the only one to object to these changes, perhaps I could feel guilty. But I know that 14 other organizations have presented briefs; they include towns, villages, municipalities, individuals, the Association des Acadiens et des Acadiennes, University of Moncton professors, University of Edmundston professors, people who are fighting for the francophonie cause in minority areas, people who have fought on behalf of New Brunswick, Canada's only officially bilingual province, which has... Other people may claim to be as bilingual as we are, but in our case, at least we have official recognition. It is not easy, Mr. Chairman. Ask a town if it wants to become officially bilingual. Ask Ottawa if it wants to become officially bilingual today. Ottawa claims it is bilingual, but it does not want to have an officially bilingual status and bear the burden of bilingualism. So, it is not easy. But back in New Brunswick, we are a bilingual province.

The reason, Mr. Chairman, is because there are people who have fought hard. People have stuck their necks out, as we say back home. Some people have put their careers as politicians on the line. Take Richard Hatfield, for instance. Even though he did not belong to a political party which I believed in, the former Premier of New Brunswick fought for Bill 88. Take Jean-Maurice Simard, a former senator, here in Ottawa, who had even written a book about the francophonie, entitled Bridging the Gap: From Oblivion to the Rule of Law and who fought in support of the francophonie.

º (1600)

You know, I feel I have to repeat what Mr. Jordan said. That's the issue, Mr. Chairman. True, there were two francophones on the commission which produced a report calling for francophone communities to be transferred into an English region. This raises the question as to why things unfolded as they did.

It's similar to the situation when the Member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes tabled a motion in the House of Commons asking the British Crown to recognize the injustices inflicted on the Acadians. Certainly, it was disappointing to see Acadian members vote against the motion. Yes, it was disappointing to see the Minister of Heritage vote against the motion. But that's part of the battle. Within the context of the fight on the part of francophones, the Member for Verchères--Les-Patriotes, Stéphane Bergeron, had tabled a motion in the House of Commons which I was proud to support. Then, what do you know, on this morning's news, it said that after two and three tries, the Minister of Heritage is drafting a statement asking the Queen to recognize injustices inflicted on the Acadians.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, it's been suggested I might suspend the meeting for about five minutes while our colleague Yvon Godin reads something that I understand has come from the minister. Yvon, if it's okay with you, I will suspend for five minutes, and you can give me a signal and we can start again, either exactly where we are or in some new situation. Is that okay with you?

Mr. Yvon Godin: It is okay as long as I don't come back in six minutes and find I'm kicked out.

The Chair: It's better that I say five minutes now, because it may be long enough. This is in good faith, but I don't want to say indefinitely, because we are going to resume in a few minutes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The promise I will make is that somebody is waiting for me outside, and when I am finished with that person I will come back.

The Chair: In good faith, shall we say 10 minutes, Yvon?

The meeting is suspended for 10 minutes.

º (1655)

The Chair: If we can resume, our colleague Yvon Godin has the floor. It's my understanding there have been negotiations during our recess.

Yvon, you're going to make a request of the committee, I understand.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: For everyone's benefit, I have been trying to demonstrate that the riding of Acadie--Bathurst is being treated unfairly under the Canada Elections Act, which stipulates that an electoral commission has final say, but in New Brunswick, francophone municipalities have filed an application on behalf of several communities before the courts. In light of talks I have had with the government leader in the House of Commons, he is willing to make a proposal which I am willing to accept, but I would ask whether members of the committee are willing to hear from Mr. Boudria, who would read the agreement and table it with the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, you heard the question.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Minister, we'd be grateful if you'd come forward. It's my understanding that you're going to read a letter to us.

[Translation]

The Hon. Don Boudria (Minister of State and Governement Leader in the House of Commons):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you have just heard, the member and I had a meeting earlier today with regard to the issue Mr. Godin has debated for several hours in this room. I think that the document I will read to you, and which has received the support from various departments and the member, will clarify certain aspects of the issue. I would simply read the document and hand it over to the member afterwards. That is what I am proposing to do.

[English]

The Chair: Please do.

The Chair: Very slowly, if you would, Minister.

[Translation]

The Hon. Don Boudria: The letter is addressed to the member Yvon Godin and reads as follows:

Dear Sir,

This letter follows a meeting we held earlier today with regard to the court case opposing the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick et al. and Her Majesty the Queen.

One moment, please.

The Hon. Don Boudria: I'll find a copy for the interpreters.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Hon. Don Boudria: There we go.

In answer to the concerns you raised at that meeting, I give you my assurance in my capacity as minister responsible that:

The following instructions shall be given through the Attorney General to the effect that

- the conduct of the defence shall be carried out correctly and in good faith, with the highest degree of professionalism and in accordance with the highest ethical standards;

- at no time shall a dilatory tactic or procedure be used by the defendant;

- the principles underlying this case shall be based first and foremost on the public interest, and the case shall be heard and judged in a timely manner in light of all relevant information and in accordance with all relevant rules;

- consent will be given to adjust procedures as necessary, including the provision of a time extension, if such is necessary in order for the hearing to be held.

I would also propose that the lawyers for each party meet no later than October 21st next to determine how to proceed in the interest of resolving this case as quickly as possible.

I conclude with my salutations:

I hope, Mr. Godin, that these commitments address your concerns. Sincerely,

I have signed this letter, Don Boudria, in my capacity as minister responsible under the act, and the letter is dated October 7. I will now hand the letter over to the member.

» (1700)

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, are you comfortable with that arrangement?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, I am comfortable with it.

The Chair: Does that mean you will withdraw the amendment, or will we proceed with it and vote on it?

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't want to withdraw it. I'd like to proceed with it and have it voted on.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Before concluding, I would also like to add that I lost the opportunity to read all 14 briefs to the committee. That's unfortunate. Perhaps I will have that opportunity another time, at which point you may better understand what the Acadian region and our minority communities in Canada are all about. But I think that this process will give the public the opportunity to be heard through the courts. Only time will tell, but I am confident that it will happen in a timely manner.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Minister.

[Translation]

Thank you very much, Yvon.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I call--Gerald, I'm in your hands--either PC-1 or PC-2. You'll see on the agenda that PC-2 is first. I'm advised that it doesn't really matter, although in some of our other documentation PC-1 is first. Which would you like to call?

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): PC-1.

The Chair: We call amendment PC-1, colleagues.

Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'm certain, Mr. Chair, with the greatest of respect, that when you said you were advised it didn't really matter what order they were in, it was only because I hadn't made my instructive and illuminating arguments on behalf of them yet, and there was no prejudgment of the amendments.

I believe my amendment PC-1 corrects a major flaw in the legislation as it's written. I find it more than a little disturbing that even though it's a one-clause bill, it comes to committee not prepared properly, and it doesn't deal with all the circumstances that are there to deal with. The government is responsible for producing the bills and making sure they're in order. They have certainly all kinds of time to do it. I find it more than a little disturbing; I find it extremely exasperating.

The mistake I see in the documentation we've been given is that it first of all doesn't accommodate Bill C-24. We've had discussion on that at some length here before. It's very simply written legislation, and my motions are very simply written motions that match the legislation. It's not rocket science; it's not legalese.

The first one would amend the clause to read:

proclamation is effective on January 1, 2004 and shall be used on the first dissolution of Parliament that occurs on or after April 1, 2004.

I think this is the simplest amendment. Since we're going to pass this now, it will certainly allow us to use Bill C-49 to organize our riding associations in conjunction with the election financing.

When election financing comes into effect on January 1, most riding associations have a proper set of books, but certainly not all of them. This time, not only must we have a proper set of books, but we'll probably need to hire an accountant to present them to Elections Canada. We're going into uncharted waters, if you will, and I don't think any of us have any experience in that area.

My motion would allow us to organize our riding associations on the new boundaries, prior to the new boundaries coming into place. There may be legal reasons why that's not acceptable, but I don't know what they are. My motion reads that it becomes effective on January 1, but will only be used...so you can actually set it up. You can put a company into place anywhere in Canada and never use it. It's a legal entity, it's effective, it's in name only. But we have a piece of legislation that deems it will only be used on or after April 1.

I think the amendment is in order, it stands, and it answers our problem. We need to coordinate Bill C-24 and Bill C-49. The bill doesn't do that, and it's a really serious flaw in the bill.

» (1705)

I'm not intending to filibuster all day; I just want to explain it.

The Chair: I appreciate it.

Any discussion of this will go to the parliamentary secretary, Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think you'll find the government is going to agree to the amendment Mr. White is going to propose, which is similar to the one he's already proposed that deals with the same points.

The problem with number one of your amendments, Mr. Keddy--through you, Mr. Chairman--is that it wipes out the existing ridings as of January 1, 2004. In other words, you and I would no longer be MPs because we wouldn't have ridings to be MPs for. That would obviously be a problem constitutionally.

I think you'll find that we're going to achieve the same results, through an amendment Mr. White is going to bring forward, that you want to achieve in both of these motions, which the government is going to oppose.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Can the legal experts in the room here explain to me how that wipes out our existing ridings?

The Chair: This is Mr. Zaluski.

Mr. Stephen Zaluski (Senior Counsel, Legislation and House Planning/Counsel, Privy Council Office): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The legal concern is with making the electoral boundaries themselves effective, which is what your amendment would do, rather than making the EDAs themselves effective, which is, as I understand it, what Mr. White's amendment would achieve.

By focusing on the EDAs themselves and giving them a legal ability to operate as of January 1, rather than making the ridings themselves come into effect as of January 1, you would avoid the constitutional problem by going with the approach under Mr. White's amendment. This is as opposed to your amendment, which would effectively make the new map take effect as of January 1.

» (1710)

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I question that. I would think what my amendment does is just allow it to come into effect.

The wording “April 1, 2004” is for implementation, so all we're doing is providing a shell that allows the boundaries to be used even though they're not legal entities. Now, that might be questionable--

The Chair: Stephen Zaluski.

Mr. Stephen Zaluski: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The difficulty is that there can only be one set of boundaries in place at a single time, and because the amendment is focused on the boundaries themselves rather than on the EDAs, the effect of it is to bring the entire new map into effect. Because there can only be one set in effect at a time, as of January 1 the existing boundaries would be wiped out.

The Chair: Ted White.

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like to say that we've probably all recognized around this table that there's a difficulty that needs to be addressed, and certainly that was the subject of my intervention last week. I spoke with the government at length about this, and we sorted out what needed to be done to make it work.

Certainly, I would vote for Mr. Keddy's motion if it wasn't that we had something that addresses it in a way that's more acceptable to the government. Perhaps, Mr. Keddy, if you're willing to accept that we're going to fix this problem and do it to everyone's satisfaction, then we'll get to the finish line with everyone getting what they want.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have two amendments, and I have the first one on. I'm happy to have it voted on and then I will introduce my second one.

The Chair: Let me do that. I'll call PC-1.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We'll go to PC-2. Gerald.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It is the same thing, but I think it's a much simpler amendment, and it deals totally with the problem of the January 1 date. Bill C-49 becomes effective on April 1--and it should say “or the first dissolution of Parliament that occurs on or after April 1”.

Maybe our legal adviser here, Mr. Zaluski, can illuminate it a little brighter for me, but I don't see why that amendment doesn't do exactly what you said the first one didn't.

The Chair: Mr. Zaluski.

Mr. Stephen Zaluski: Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Keddy, your amendment as drafted would again have the same effect as the previous one, except it would occur on April 1 rather than on January 1. The effective date of the new ridings has to be tied to dissolution; otherwise there is going to be a gap between the new ridings coming into force and the election taking place. That's why EBRA itself is drafted in terms of dissolution.

If your amendment referred to dissolution rather than to April 1--a fixed date--the problem wouldn't be there. But as drafted, the problem exists.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Since it gets read into the record--and I will give this little speech in the House as well--it's a great opportunity to wonder out loud why we would take a bill that was due to be put into place on August 25, 2004, anyway, twist ourselves into knots, and introduce legislation in the House to bring it into effect on April 1.

If we're not going to allow this to begin sooner than April 1 in any way, shape, or form, we are singularly tying our hands, and an election cannot occur, for all intents and purposes, prior to mid-June. There will be very few nominations held from the government side, and it will be late June, you're absolutely right.

The opposition members may or may not have nominations, and then we're still going to have to look at new riding boundaries that come into effect in April and will probably force another nomination, for those of us who are already nominated or getting nominated. So even by moving it ahead to April, for the life of me I don't understand the government's rationale here.

I'm not trying to infer some type of malicious intent to take advantage of the electoral system, but if this comes into place on April 1, the boundary changes are going to be in place on April 1. The election system under Bill C-24, where we're going to have public financing of elections, is in place in January. That will have to be rolled into the April 1 date with the new boundaries, and it's going to take a month. We're not going to be able to do that any sooner. So now you're at May 1, and I don't think the government is going to be ready, or anyone else. Physically, it takes a certain amount of time. We can all say we're going to have everything done ahead of time....

Just let me finish. I have my day in court here.

» (1715)

The Chair: You do, so carry on. By the way, you're not talking to Stephen Zaluski now. If anything, you're talking to the parliamentary secretary--

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will try to be brief.

I have asked my fellow parliamentarians to look at this and question why we're changing the system when there's no way I can figure out that we're going to be able to advance the election much earlier than late June. I think that will be a trial.

I really question the wisdom of us, as parliamentarians, passing this legislation. So I ask quite sincerely that we not pass it.

The Chair: Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm just going to speak to the amendment itself and not to the overall issue, which I'm sure we'll be discussing further--or perhaps not.

In any case, I think the point here is that in the constitutional provisions of the Elections Act that deal with ridings, the change occurs in the actual riding existence as of the date of dissolution of Parliament when the election is called. In the amendment we're going to see come forward from Mr. White, we're going to allow the associations of all parties in each riding across the country to exist in advance of that. I think that's what you want to achieve and what we all think makes sense to achieve. That amendment will achieve that.

But this motion before us would cause a grave constitutional problem. It would mean we wouldn't have any seats to represent as of January 1 next year.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: I call Bloc amendment BQ-1, Michel, s'il vous plait.

[Translation]

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

By now you all know that the amendment I have tabled on behalf of my party seeks to exclude Quebec from the new electoral map for various reasons, which I will try to list as quickly as possible.

To begin, the new electoral map was established following the report by the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission, which, in our view, produced a report filled with mistakes. The process was invalid. If you want proof of this, all you had to do was be present at yesterday afternoon's meeting of the subcommittee on the new electoral map presided by Ms. Torsney. Unfortunately, apart from Mr. Godin, I don't see any members around this table who were there yesterday. Last night's subcommittee meeting and last night's round table underscore the fact that the process followed for Quebec led to a report which is full of mistakes.

Second, we feel that the new map is unfair with regard to rural ridings, but also with regard to isolated ridings, such as Manicouagan, Charlevoix, Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik and Témiscamingue. I am not being partisan, which is evidenced by the fact that I have named two ridings currently represented by the Bloc Québécois and two ridings currently represented by the Liberal Party.

We deplore the fact that, as was confirmed by Professor Pierre Prémont, who was a member of the commission for Quebec, the commission deliberately did not take into account a provision contained in the act allowing certain ridings, in exceptional circumstances, to exceed the average quotient of 25%.

I will simply cite the example of the riding of Manicouagan, which will grow to 264,000 square kilometres in size. The riding of Manicouagan extends from the Bersimis River on the Upper North Shore up to the Lower North Shore, on the border with Labrador. Mr. Chairman and dear colleagues, this represents 1,200 kilometres along the Gulf of Saint Lawrence. This is a riding which starts at the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which includes Anticosti Island, and which reaches up to the polar ice cap, almost up to the North Pole, almost to the border of Greenland.

Mr. Chairman and dear colleagues, we are all elected representatives, and I take for granted that we are all people of good faith when it comes to our work. How in the world do you think the member representing a riding covering 264,000 square kilometres will be able to keep in touch with his or her constituents and their needs and concerns? What kind of presence will this member have in each of the riding's communities? To give you an idea of the situation, some of these communities are only accessible by snowmobile in winter. By the way, winter lasts 11 months out of the year in these communities, as I'm sure you know.

» (1720)

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we cannot accept the map as it now stands. The Quebec commission should have taken the data and extraordinary circumstances into account because the Manicouagan riding has created a domino effect in 15 ridings along the North Shore of the St. Lawrence all the way to the Mauricie region. This will mean that one out of every two electors in greater Quebec City, with a population of 500,000, will change ridings for no real purpose, when all of this upheaval could have been avoided by resorting to the extraordinary circumstances provision.

In case some of you don't realize how big a 264,000 square kilometer riding really is, I would point out that this new riding is 58 times the size of Prince Edward Island. You might say that this includes trees, lakes, the boreal forest. That is true, but there are also communities scattered throughout the entire area.

That is what I wanted to say about rural and remote ridings.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, we, from the Bloc Québécois, feel that this new Quebec electoral map is unfair to the outlying areas in Quebec as they compare to the large urban centres. If you take a look at the projected map that we are preparing to speedily implement through Bill C-49, you will see that the Lac-Saint-Jean--Saguenay riding will disappear. The Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean area will now have three rather than four ridings. You will also note that in Mauricie, the riding of Champlain will no longer exist because it will merge with the Saint-Maurice riding.

Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois, as defenders of Quebec interests and the Quebec regions, cannot accept this new map which will deprive the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean and Mauricie regions, among others, from being represented in the House of Commons, here in Ottawa.

And, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, there is another reason as well. We feel that the final report did not take into account the briefs tabled by citizens and other stakeholders who appeared before the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec. The commission did listen to them but ignored their recommendations. Therefore, we cannot accept the fact that this process was totally useless, something that must be made clear.

Moreover, Mr. Chairman, the final report did not take into account recommendations made by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Subcommittee chaired by Ms. Torsney, a committee on which I sat along with Mr. Proulx, Mr. Godin, Mr. Borotsik and Mr. Scott Reid. We did a thorough job, holding 24 meetings, often beginning in the morning and continuing late into the night, where briefs were read and where we heard the opposing views presented by our colleagues and signed by 10 members, not necessarily all from the same party nor from the same province. The process was above board, and a report was submitted. So you can imagine our surprise...

I could tell you that the report submitted for Alberta by our subcommittee... Do you have any idea, Mr. Chairman, how many recommendations the Electoral Boundaries Commission accepted for Alberta? Zero, not one, nothing, zip. The Alberta commission thumbed its nose at the subcommittee that did its work diligently, a subcommittee on which I sat.

Our subcommittee tabled 16 recommendations for Quebec. Only two minor recommendations were accepted. That means, Mr. Chairman, that I wonder... Our committee will comment on the rationale underlying this process, in order to try to improve the system for the future, but I really wonder whether it was worthwhile to devote so much energy to this, since the commission has been totally unreceptive, if not absolutely oblivious to our recommendations, since only 2 out of 16 were accepted.

» (1725)

For all these reasons, Mr. Chairman—and I have nothing more to say; I have spoken for exactly eight minutes and I promised not to filibuster—I would ask you to vote in favour of amendment BQ-1.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any further discussion of BQ-1?

Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to add to what has been said by my colleague from the Bloc. I feel that because of what happened in Quebec, they feel like we do, in New Brunswick, or as do our colleagues in Alberta. As my colleague said, not one of the many recommendations that were made by the parliamentary committee was accepted for Alberta.

We know that these are only recommendations, and therefore they are not binding. Nothing in the act says that they must be accepted. There is a commission to which recommendations can be made.

I would like to say, for the record, that I support the motion presented by my colleague from the Bloc, Mr. Guimond. I believe it is important, just as the commissions must understand that there is a process which is not working, something that Elections Canada as well as Parliament must also understand. Changes will have to be made, otherwise, this will happen all over again, even if there are new players involved, something that we have been saying now for the past 10 years.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

(Amendment negatived)

» (1730)

The Chair: I call amendment BQ-2.

Michel, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I would also like to make some preliminary remarks, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief, because you know, Mr. Chairman, that some of the people here will soon see what I am all about. My word is my bond.

I gave my word when our clerk made a rather innocent mistake in order to speed things up. I felt that it was important to hear the witnesses and I managed to get my colleagues on side. I promised that I would not have an exhaustive list of witnesses. I came here with a list of five people, three of whom agreed to appear. I had told you that I would not introduce more than 22 amendments, and I have 22 on my list. I promised that I would not engage in filibustering to prevent the adoption of the bill; I spoke for exactly nine minutes the first time, and for this second amendment, I will probably speak for a total of less than five minutes. I simply want everyone to know that I am a man of my word, something that is dearer to me than life itself.

That is almost all I have to say. I would like to turn to the substance of my amendment, which is intended to delay the implementation of Bill C-49; we would replace April 1^st by September 1^st. I will explain why I would like to extend the deadline to more than one year. The initial date was August 25, 2004. I agreed to September 1^st, 2004. We should perhaps invite Mr. Kingsley to return, but I would refer you to a letter that he signed, something that he confirmed in answer to a question that I asked when he appeared before us two weeks ago. If memory serves, Mr. Chairman, on July 15, 2003, he had sent you a letter about the implementation of the new electoral boundaries map. He said that if we wanted the map to apply as of April 1, all of the returning officers would have to be appointed by mid-September.

You might remember that I asked him the question when he appeared before us on September 23 or 24. I did not check the calendar, but the members who were in attendance here will remember. What was his answer? I said that in order for the map to apply by April 1^st, all of the returning officers would have to be reappointed because there would also be changes in the riding. He answered that, as of September 22 or 23, about 10 returning officers had been appointed and that he expected to have 100 shortly, followed by 100 more.

Today is October 6. He said mid-September. Perhaps Mr. Regan can answer this question; I would like to know how many returning officers have been appointed to date and are ready for the training course that should begin next week in order to implement the electoral boundaries map as of April 1^st. That is the meaning of my amendment. That is why I feel that he cannot keep the promise that he made, namely, to appoint all of the returning officers by mid-September.

» (1735)

[English]

The Chair: Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to speak in favour of this amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I am happy to hear that Mr. Keddy will speak in favour of this amendment. In any case, I would like to ask the question. Can someone give me an answer? I spoke to Ms. Vézina, off the record. Can someone tell me how many returning officers have been appointed so far?

[English]

The Chair: We're just in the process of circulating a letter from Mr. Kingsley on this very matter.

Geoff, do you want to reply, or do you want to wait for the letter? The letter's coming.

We'll hear from Gerald Keddy while we're waiting.

Michel, we'll come back.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I would like to speak in favour of this motion, perhaps for a different reason than the member from the Bloc. I think Michel has put in an extremely important motion here. To me, it deals with the entire issue of political manipulation of Elections Canada and the job the chief returning officer of this country has to do.

I know that comments have been made by the parliamentary secretary that other governments have manipulated the process as well. I recognize that, and the comment I made here before still stands. That doesn't make manipulation of the process correct.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman.

My honourable colleague said I indicated that other governments had done what?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Other governments have manipulated the process.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I recall saying nothing like that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You said it was introduced in 1991, the election wasn't called until 1993, and the boundaries weren't used--I think.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I don't recall saying that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: It will be in the record. We can check the record one way or another.

But again, this motion moves us closer. Actually, it moves us after the data that was originally decided for August 25, 2004.

Mr. Chairman, I very much believe we should have set election dates in this country. Therefore, I agree with the tenure of this motion, which would allow Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer of the country to do his or her job--you take your census information, you use it to readjust your boundaries every 10 years, and you run an election on those readjusted boundaries.

If the government chooses not to run on those boundaries, they have the option of running before the boundaries are put into place. If not, they wait. It doesn't make any difference if you have a majority or a minority, I don't think. Somehow or another we have to find protection and some separation of governments of any kind.

I'm not particularly trying to point to this government, because I feely admit other governments have done the same thing. Somehow or another, we have to eliminate that, and this amendment would bring it back closer to when the electoral date was set to begin with, any time after August 25, any time after September 1. It gives everybody the opportunity to rearrange their riding associations and to become known to new people, in many instances.

This bill doesn't deal with this, but my suggestion is--and I think it's something this committee could look at--to find some type of protection where we can institute a precedence that would allow the 10-year revisal to come into place and become effective on the date it's supposed to become effective. It would eliminate base manipulation of the date.

I would very much call upon my colleagues to support this motion. It's a good motion.

The Chair: Thank you.

Geoff, we need to go to you.

We've all now received this letter from Mr. Kingsley. I hope you've read it.

Michel, do you want to explain your position, and then perhaps the parliamentary secretary could--

» (1740)

Mr. Geoff Regan: I don't understand the question, Mr. Chairman. It's not answering the letter.

The Chair: That's right, exactly.

Would you speak to the question?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Sure, I'd love to.

The Chair: Okay. The parliamentary secretary is speaking to the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Geoff Regan: You want to know how many returning officers have already been appointed. I don't have the exact figures. We are trying to determine that now, but as I understand it, even with a new riding and new boundaries, many incumbents will keep their positions.

I don't know exactly how many. My impression is that things are running quite smoothly and they have almost finished, but I can't say for sure.

[English]

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, you have received a letter from Mr. Kingsley stating that April 1^st was acceptable. I assume that Mr. Kingsley, with his wealth of experience, did not make this commitment lightly, and was well aware of what was involved in appointing and training the returning officers.

I understand where my colleague is coming from, but at the same time, I feel that Mr. Kingsley should live up to his commitment. I don't think the question to Mr. Regan is at all relevant, and, in my opinion, it should not be considered today.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, can I call Bloc amendment 2?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Colleagues, I want to explain what I'm doing next. I'm going to call the clause, even though the next amendment relates to some of the topics we have been discussing. If you look at the amendment, you will see that the amendment in fact introduces two new clauses, which Ted White will explain to us.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Could we have a recorded vote, please?

The Chair: Okay. The clerk will call the names.

(Clause 1 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Now, if we could go to amendment CA-1, which involves the next two clauses, Ted White will explain it to us.

I'm told it's new amendment CA-2. Can we just make sure? Does everyone have it? I don't know how it begins.

Mr. Ted White: It has two clauses.

The Chair: In bold print it says clause 2, clause 3. That's the new one.

Ted White.

Mr. Ted White: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to go over all of the arguments we've heard already during the discussion on clause 1, because I think there's general agreement that we need to do something to facilitate the coming into effect of the new electoral districts on January 1.

What these two clauses do is keep the old riding boundaries in place but provide the option for registration of the new electoral districts and allow them to operate so they can get on with the business of adjusting to the new boundaries. In addition to that, it allows for the appointment of returning officers as necessary to fill in the gaps. So it deals with earlier issues, plus a little bit more, and I would encourage everyone to support it.

In closing, I'd just say I'd like to thank the minister for responding to my personal approach on this matter. His willingness to listen to and understand the problem has allowed us to reach agreement, and I do appreciate that.

» (1745)

The Chair: Gerald Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chair, I don't know if my timing is right, but the amendment needs an amendment. I don't know what the French version has, but the English version shows returning officers and electoral “distinct” associations. Now that means--

The Chair: Could you tell us exactly where this is, please?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Right underneath clause 2. I'm certain it's meant to be “district” associations.

The Chair: Ted, will you accept those friendly amendments?

Mr. Ted White: Thank you very much.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: “Distinct” associations may work well.

The Chair: Consider it done.

Gerald, thank you very much for that.

Please, Ted, continue.

Mr. Ted White: That's it.

The Chair: Colleagues, is there any discussion of amendment CA-2?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Could we have a recorded vote please, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Okay. The clerk will call the names. You indicate whether the bill shall carry or not.

(Bill C-49 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: I omitted saying, “Shall the title carry?”

An hon. member: On division.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay, on division.

Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Some hon. members: On division.

The Chair: By the way, in this case there have been some changes, even though it's a very short bill.

Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'd greatly appreciate your assistance on this. Can I explain where we are now?

First of all, we've circulated Mr. Kingsley's letter and you now have it.

Second, I advised you earlier that Grant Hill has served formal notice that he wants to appear before the committee. My suggestion is that he appears as our first witness on Thursday morning.

Our second witness will be Eugène Bellemare, who will be appearing to speak to his private member's bill, if that's okay.

Assuming those things are finished in time, I would then propose that on Thursday we have a short in camera meeting on the matter of our business with the Senate. I would be grateful if all parties would so advise their colleagues, because we will be dealing with security on the Hill. I'll explain what it is, but we have not discussed security. The Senate has written us a letter suggesting that there be a joint meeting of our steering committees. We sent them a letter proposing a joint meeting of our committees.

Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I reread the minutes of the entire first meeting that the committee held after the summer break and I might remind you, because I am logical in my approach, that I had suggested that we hear one or two witnesses who would speak to Mr. Bellemare's bill. You will find that in the minutes.

Therefore, after having heard Mr. Bellemare, are we planning to hear any witnesses, perhaps one or two academics who could come and...?

» (1750)

[English]

The Chair: I do recall that. Our colleague will be appearing before us to introduce the matter to us.

Can I repeat what I just said, though? We've done this very carefully, but for many months we've been worrying about this matter of security. There will be a short in camera meeting at the end of our meeting on Thursday. I would be grateful if you would advise the people in your parties who are involved with the security matter.

Yes, Jacques.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Will it be the entire committee? You had mentioned the steering committee.

The Chair: Yes, I believe the entire committee should discuss in camera the proposal the Senate has given about the steering committee.

The last thing is that when we come back after the break, we will deal with the ethics code and the changes to the Standing Orders.

The meeting is adjourned until Thursday.