PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 27, 1999

• 1113

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Before we begin, I would like to introduce some guests we have here today. These are members of the National Assembly of Kenya who are here in connection with the Kenya-Canada legislative cooperation program. Their leader is the Honourable Joab Omino, who is the deputy speaker and who I have met.

Welcome, deputy speaker. We're delighted to have you here. I'm not sure that we should all introduce ourselves, because there are quite a few of you, but this is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and you all have some sense of the devious things that we do. This committee, like our other committees, has representation from all five parties—and in a moment I'll ask our members to very quickly introduce themselves to you—but it's unusual in that we usually have, in the official membership, all five whips. All five are actually on this committee.

• 1115

So that you get some sense of who we are, could I ask colleagues to introduce themselves very briefly and mention their party?

I'll start with Roy Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): I'm Roy Bailey. I'm with the official opposition, the Reform Party. I'm glad to have you all here.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Bonjour. My name is Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral. I am the deputy whip for the Bloc Québécois and I come from Quebec—for sure.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): My name is Bill Blaikie. I am the House leader for the New Democratic Party.

[Translation]

The Chairman: André.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): My name is André Harvey and I'm the MP for Chicoutimi, in northern Quebec. I'm also the PC Party Whip. Thank you.

The Chairman: Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): My name is Yvon Charbonneau and I'm the Liberal Member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, in Montreal.

The Chairman: Lynn.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): My name is Lynn Myers. I'm a member of Parliament from Ontario, and I, Mr. Chair, had the pleasure yesterday of also seeing these folks in the public accounts committee.

It's good to see you again.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I'm Marlene Catterall, member of Parliament for an Ottawa-area riding and deputy whip for the government party in the House of Commons.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): I'm Joe Fontana, Liberal member of Parliament for London North Centre—London, Ontario, that is—and chair of the national caucus of the Liberal Party.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): My name is John Richardson. I'm a member of Parliament for the London area, and one of my famous constituents happens to be Joe Fontana.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I'm Peter Adams. I'm the MP for Peterborough, chair of this committee, and parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

I'd like to ask our staff to introduce themselves.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): I'm James Robertson. I'm a researcher with the Library of Parliament and I work for this committee.

The Clerk of the Committee: I'm Carole Chafe and I'm the clerk of this committee.

Ms. Diane Diotte (Procedural Clerk): I'm Diane Diotte, clerk of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business for the procedure and House affairs committee.

The Chair: In a moment we'll be receiving a report from our subcommittee.

Colleagues, the order of the day is the committee's mandate pursuant to Standing Orders 92 and 108(3)(a)(iv) in relation to private members' business, consideration of a draft report, and also consideration of the fifth report of our Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure—for our guests, that is our steering committee.

If we could proceed with the first item there, the private members' business, I'd ask Lynn Myers to speak to that. Colleagues, I believe you all have a copy of the report.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you say, I believe all members have a copy of the list of five items that were deemed votable by the committee.

The Chair: Lynn, for our guests, could you explain in three sentences what that means and what you do in your committee?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.

After there has been a lottery system whereby private members' bills or motions have been drawn out of, in effect, a ballot box, we then, as a committee, review them. I have members from that committee present today: Monsieur Harvey, Madam Dalphond-Guiral, and Mr. Blaikie.

As an all-party group, we then determine votability of private members' bills or motions. We meet from time to time, as you know, Mr. Chairman, and try, as a result of a list of criteria, to see whether or not the bills or motions are to be deemed votable to come to the House of Commons for a vote. We try, I think, in fairness, Mr. Chairman, to do the best we can, given the criteria at hand, in terms of determining whether or not the item should be made votable in the House.

It's always difficult, because a lot of private members have some very good ideas and certainly good motions and good bills. In this case, we had 15 items for consideration, I think. Individual members come before the committee and argue their case as to why they think we as a committee should deem their item votable. But at the end of the day, we only had spots for five. It's always difficult to narrow down the items that come forth to this committee and ultimately—I believe it will be reported tomorrow—to the House of Commons.

The Chair: That depends on the committee.

• 1120

Mr. Lynn Myers: Of course. Depending on the committee's vote today, then, it will be reported tomorrow in the House. It's always difficult to narrow it down, but it's nevertheless something that we as a committee have to do. It's always my intent as chair to do the right thing, and it is certainly the intent of the committee members to do the right thing, in keeping with the importance of private members' business, specifically, motions and bills. That really is the background.

The Chair: Thank you, Lynn.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would outline, then, the report as noted.

In accordance with its mandate under Standing Order 92(1), the committee has selected among the items for which an order of precedence was established on or after Tuesday, May 4, 1999, the following as votable items: Bill C-405, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act vis-à-vis ballot papers; Bill C-409, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act, with respect to “letter that cannot be transmitted by post”; Bill C-502, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, with respect to deduction of expenses incurred by a mechanic for tools required in employment; motion M-97, that the political parties should in their advertising or promotion refrain from using the name or the likeness of an individual without having first obtained the written consent of that individual; and finally, motion M-292, that the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions, to address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

Certainly I would entertain any questions at this point.

The Chair: Roy Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Chair. On motion M-292, there are really three items within that particular motion. To address environmental concerns and high energy costs could well be part of the motion—and certainly as federal responsibilities and connotations to that—but to provide the delivery of natural gas, as I understand it, is strictly a provincial undertaking. Therefore, you have within this motion some federal responsibilities, albeit they could be provincial as well.... But very definitely, the delivery of natural gas is provincial and lies within the provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Bailey, he makes a very good point. The committee recognized that there would be jurisdictional crossover in this motion. Nevertheless, we determined that it was worthy of proceeding.

At some point, if it passed, perhaps negotiations would clearly—you're right—have to take place with respect to the federal government and the provincial partners. We at the committee noted that and certainly we understand that there is that kind of crossover, but the motion is before us nevertheless.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Lynn, I'm not quarrelling with the motion. I just wanted to—

Mr. Lynn Myers: It's a very good point.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I expected that to be the answer, so I got the answer.

Could I have one more question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: By all means.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Bill C-502 has come before through motion, this concept of a very legitimate.... I've even spoken to this myself. May I ask the selection committee if this is a repeat or has there been a similar motion or a bill of this nature before the House?

Mr. Lynn Myers: I'm not sure that we have had a similar one. I think it has been talked about before, but I think maybe within the last...I would have to think.

The Chair: Bill Blaikie, you're the institutional memory.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, I hope it's not faulty.

I think we certainly have had private members' motions and bills to this effect before, but whether they've ever been voted or not is what I would ask.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Lynn Myers: That was the point I was about to make.

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

It has been talked about. I guess that was what I was trying to lead up to before you interrupted me, Mr. Chair—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Sorry.

Mr. Lynn Myers: —but I defer to my learned colleague, who does indeed have an institutional memory, and rightly so.

This is the first time, I understand, that it has been votable.

The Chair: Talking about institutional memories, George Baker is next.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Yes, indeed.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I can recall this—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: An “institutionalized” memory.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: He's a person of strong conviction.

Go ahead, George.

Mr. George Baker: This motion has been dealt with many times over the years. For the honourable member's benefit, it was in fact judged not to be in order by the Speaker, I can recall, but that was prior to us being allowed in this chamber to have motions debated that actually do mean an expenditure of money but an expenditure of money that is a tax expenditure, which the chair has ruled is not an expenditure of money, which is rather strange, but those are the rules we now have in Canada—private members can spend money as long as it's a tax expenditure.

• 1125

The Chair: George, that's a useful comment.

Are there any other comments?

Colleagues, with respect to Lynn's report, we have a motion before us.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I would move that the report from the Sub-Committee 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: We could move, then, to the item under other business, which is the Fifth Report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure or, as I always say, our steering committee.

I understand everybody received a copy of this summary. In the steering committee, we had a discussion that focused on a possible review of the Standing Orders. In my mind, the way I heard that, it wasn't a total review of the Standing Orders but a serious attempt to look at recent suggestions for changes in the Standing Orders.

As a result of that, Jamie produced a paper, which you see before you. He has summarized and has grouped, in the order in which our Standing Orders appear, the enquiries, suggestions, and so on that have appeared. The idea, as I understand it, as I interpret that meeting, is that we look at this now, not with the idea of starting with number one and just working our way through it, but that we look at it and perhaps come up with a strategy or with some items that might be particularly important and that the committee would proceed to consider.

Now, I do realize.... I received this early yesterday, I think. I don't know when everybody received it, but members may not have had time to look at it. It may be better that we would take this away, that the parties would look at it, and that at our next meeting we would come back with some plans. I'm in your hands.

Roy Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chair, I totally agree. I haven't had this long enough to really do it, and I don't know if anyone else has. I think we need to take this back to our caucuses, and even to all of the committee, Mr. Chair.... If it's in order, I suggest that we delay this and bring it up at the next appointed date.

The Chair: Bill Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chair, I would certainly agree with that. I'm not sure exactly what the steering committee had in mind, whether you say, let's look at it again next week, but it seems to me, even though I think you're right in saying that we're not embarking on a comprehensive review of the Standing Orders here, nonetheless, we'll find as we get into it that one thing is connected to another and that you end up, if not in a comprehensive review of the Standing Orders, in a “semi-comprehensive” review. I will just say, probably by way of experience, because I've been part of a number of comprehensive and semi-comprehensive reviews, that this is not the greatest time of the year to begin such a process.

The Chair: That was part of the sense of the meeting, you realize.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: This is a very difficult time to do this. I think it certainly needs to be done, but it's better to start this when the House comes back in the fall, to do it as you have the time to do it, and to do it well. If you get pushed into trying to get this done before the House adjourns and you're not sure when the House adjourns, etc., you'll do a poor job of it, no matter who's doing it. It's just the nature of the beast. I would just recommend against trying to do anything in a hurry.

The Chair: I appreciate the advice.

Lynn Myers, then Marlene Catterall, and then Joe Fontana.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Bailey make a very good point. I think that's the way we should proceed, because I think we want to review and study and make sure we fully understand. Mr. Robertson, as always, has written a very good and comprehensive report and I think it determines and requires that we take the time necessary to understand it.

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I agree. At a certain point, I think, we might in fact want to make other members of Parliament aware that we are doing this and make them aware of the timeframe for our review. People tend to focus their minds only when they know there's an opportunity to do something.

• 1130

I think it might be worth at least one meeting before, though, to go through this and see if there's other work we want to get our researcher to do over the summer in preparation for our work in the fall.

The Chair: I just point out that Jamie has included in this review the letters and submissions we've received from members, as you've noticed.

Joe Fontana, then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Excuse me. I should have had Stéphane Bergeron first, but I didn't.

Sorry, Stéphane.

Go ahead, Joe.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you.

I agree that we need to take some time to look at this particular document and perhaps if some members haven't had an opportunity to at least know that we are considering it...except that changing our Standing Orders is something that this place is in need of, I think, and the sooner the better.

I'm just wondering whether or not the work schedule.... Perhaps we can discuss this at our next meeting, that after having taken the opportunity to look at this, we do spend the three or four months in the summer and actually work towards.... It might even mean some meetings, but I would hope that we could constructively use the time in the summer to deal with this, so that come fall we're in a position to move. I think if we essentially just table this thing and start to think that this is going to be too much and too big, that we don't even want to get into this exercise, that we'll start to study it in the fall...well, we'll never get it done.

I think it's sufficiently important that as an institution we move towards modernization of our Standing Orders and that we take the four months or the three months in the summer to really do some good work. Obviously we want to talk to our respective caucuses about it and perhaps hear from the individuals who have put forward some suggestions. I just want, hopefully, to be able to use the time a lot more constructively rather than just tabling this thing for three or four months, not doing anything until the fall, and then starting the whole exercise in the fall.

The Chair: Thanks, Joe.

Next are Stéphane Bergeron, Bill Blaikie, André Harvey, and Lynn Myers.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): May I simply say, Mr. Chairman, that your word isn't worth much.

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry about that. It's true.

[Translation]

But you were late.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Better late than never, Mr. Chairman.

In my opinion, we can't seriously consider this document today. I think we should postpone our study until later and perhaps flesh out the table we have here, to get an exact idea of what these proposals means. For instance, on page 2 ,under chapter II which has to do with members, mention is made of conflicts of interest and ethics, but there is no indication of what members want by way of a solution when they raised this concern. Do they want a code of ethics to brought in? What exactly do they want?

Therefore, I think we need to flesh out the report so that we can work in a more productive manner. I don't believe that's really possible today. We should defer our study, so that we can give the report more in-depth consideration.

Regarding the report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, one item I mentioned doesn't appear here in the report and this concerns me. I'm talking about the standing orders governing joint committees. I think the committee needs to consider this matter before leaving it in the hands of parliamentary leaders.

[English]

The Chair: We're looking for it, but it is in the report. The business of the joint committees—

[Translation]

It's on page 6 of the English version.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That doesn't help me.

Mr. George Baker: I'm referring to motion M-492.

• 1135

The Chairman: It's on page 7 of the French version.

[English]

and it's in the middle of that group, under 108(1) to 111(4), Stéphane.

Mr. George Baker: In the English version, it's “procedural rules for joint committees of House and Senate”.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but it doesn't tell us exactly what proposals the Senate made. We need to...

[English]

The Chair: Okay. So as with the previous one, Stéphane, what you would like is for the ethics point that you made on page 2—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I was giving an example.

[English]

The Chair: Some background information.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It was an example. There are several proposals in this paper which, again, is very well done. A tremendous effort was made to gather various comments and opinions and draw up a synopsis. In many cases, it's impossible...

Let me give you another example. On page 3 of the French version, under chapter V, there's a reference to written questions. The item notes that Randy White, Peter MacKay and Jay Hill have raised concerns about questions on the Order Paper. What kind of concerns? Do they want these questions to be more specific? We're told that concerns have been raised, but it's not clear exactly what solution the members are seeking.

[English]

The Chair: I understand.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think we need more information in order to find out exactly what members want so that we can decide if this is the direction we want to take.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Do you have a point of information, George, or do you want to go next?

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Chairman, some of the suggestions here are rather extreme in their nature and—

The Chair: Okay, George, you had better get on the list, then.

Mr. George Baker: The reason I'm raising that is that in regard to things like, for example, “sanctions to compel open, direct, public-interest answers from ministers” and so on, if it is our purpose to consider major changes to things like Question Period and so on, which would require a major change, perhaps the committee should think about examining what other jurisdictions do before we even do this—in other words, travel.

The Chair: Bill Blaikie, then André Harvey.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm trying to address myself to Mr. Fontana's concern that whatever we do today or next week will not be a form of putting off the entire task.

One of the things that occurred to me, which might be possible after we get the more comprehensive document that Stéphane has been talking about, because I think it would be useful to know a bit more about the background and the rationale and perhaps even the counter-rationale for some of the things that have been suggested here.... But I wonder—again, in some ways I might be contradicting my earlier comments—whether it might be worth a try if there are things that people regard as urgent in terms of Standing Orders. I wonder whether there couldn't be negotiations amongst the parties as to which one, two, three, four, or five things could be changed, which we could do without prejudicing a larger review of the Standing Orders before we adjourn.

I have in mind a few things that there might be agreement on, but there may not be. I don't know. It's something that's hard to do in committee, but it might be useful if there could be some kind of discussion as to the priorities. Or are there identifiable priorities for all of us that we could agree on and say, all right, without prejudice to all this other work that we have to do, by the time we adjourn we could change these things? We might not be able to agree, but it might be worth a try.

The Chair: It's my hope. I understand Stéphane's point, but it was my hope that when we take this away, we will come back next time somewhat more informed and we can do that. Some of the things, like the gender-neutral changes, for example, are relatively mechanical, so that we could set that in motion. It's not a change in the Standing Orders; it's simply a modernization of their presentation. I would hope that at our next meeting we'd come up with some points like that.

André Harvey, Lynn Myers, and then George Baker, if he wishes.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I agree that one of the last meetings of the session is not the time to undertake this task.

This paper was prepared to help us identify some important priorities and to allow our researcher to explore four, five or six themes, as Bill just mentioned.

• 1140

However, on glancing at this paper quickly, it becomes clear that virtually everything is a priority. Members have spoken out on a vast majority of the issues noted. It's a fairly comprehensive document and we need the summer to review it. Perhaps we could get more information about the different areas over the course of the summer. As it now stands, it's really a committee report and we haven't even had the opportunity to consult with our caucuses.

As Stéphane pointed out, the details provided are insufficient. We need to take our time with this, Mr. Chairman, and given that the committee has only one more meeting scheduled, that won't be possible. This is a working document and perhaps over the course of the summer, we can get more information in order to have a clear understanding of the link between current procedure and the changes proposed by our colleagues.

It's not going to be easy to identify a few priorities to guide our researcher, because everything in this paper seems important to me. It would be difficult to choose one theme over another. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, André.

Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Harvey said many of the points that I was going to say, so thanks very much.

The Chair: First of all, colleagues, I think it is virtually impossible for Jamie to produce a substantial additional document in time for our meeting next week. I think it might be possible to address the couple—I realize they were only examples, Stéphane—of items that Stéphane mentioned. It might be possible to deal with that. But even given the nature of the shorthand of this, we have heard of many of these items before this year. Could I seriously suggest that next week we could have a useful discussion of this, once the—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Of what?

The Chair: Of this document, once the parties have looked at it. Then we could proceed a step further, and perhaps if there are some very simple items we could proceed with them and do something worthwhile. If there are some very important items that we all agree on, we can give some direction as to what could be done during the summer.

Are you comfortable with that, colleagues?

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm not trying to be difficult, but here's another example, "special or emergency debates". What is it exactly that the member wants? Does he want fewer restrictions on special or emergency debates? Until such time as we know what members had in mind when they made these proposals, it's difficult to consider all of these proposals together and to agree or disagree with them. I have no objection to examining the issue of special or emergency debates, but as for what Mr. MacKay had in mind when he made his suggestion, that I don't know. Does Mr. MacKay want the rules governing special debates to be more flexible, or more stringent? I don't know exactly, therefore I can't say whether I agree with him or not.

[English]

The Chair: Again, Stéphane, I understand the point. These are all things that have been raised. Sometimes they've been raised simply as areas of concern. In other cases, we have very specific recommendations.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It would be important to know that.

[English]

The Chair: I understand your point. I think it would be possible.... Again, colleagues, could we meet when we've looked at this? We'll get some background wherever we can, and when we come to a point like this, Jamie will be sufficiently knowledgeable to say straightaway, yes, you need a pile of material, or no, of the recommendations that have been made, this was just an area of concern expressed by a member, or something like that.

I think that would help, Stéphane.

André Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: May I make a small suggestion, Mr. Chairman? Our researcher could select five or six themes that haven't yet been developed and that he's comfortable with. Then, at our next meeting, we could begin discussing them and decide if that's the direction we want to take when the House resumes sitting in the fall.

Certainly our researcher has enough material on five or six of these proposals to point us in the right direction. This is a very good starting point, but we need more. We have to know what's behind these proposals.

[English]

The Chair: André—and that perhaps gives a further point to a meeting next week—you have to realize that some of the parties themselves have worked at these issues. Now, I know that the shorthand might be so short that even the parties don't recognize it at the moment, but some of these are matters that different parties...and we have put in the names of individuals who've raised them and so on.

• 1145

André, I think the committee has to identify the priorities in some way. It may be impossible, but can I simply suggest to all of you that if you take this away and look at it—with its limitations—we would meet again and go through it item by item at a meeting next week? We would say, okay, the item is a priority, is not a priority, is something that might be done in the mechanical way, or is something that is very complex. Is that okay? Can we do that?

I think the discussion has been useful.

André, very briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: He wants us to review each theme separately next week. If there are any questions, Jamie can answer them and we can decide if we want to discuss the matter now, or put it off until later.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking that anything official be done or any decisions made. I only want our researcher to outline three or four themes for us, to get the discussion up and running. Then, at our next meeting, we could decide which items should be given priority consideration, based on the little information available to us. That's what I'm asking him to do. Perhaps he could write half a page on each theme and then we could decide if that' what we want for the fall session. It's not that complicated.

[English]

The Chair: I would just point out to all of you that at the bottom of the first page there are the references to the summary of the mandatory debate we had on the Standing Orders. That exists, and there is also another reference there.

Colleagues, we will appear next week with whatever background information we can get, and we'll proceed with this. If we can't in fact go any further we'll cut it off, we'll see that some work is being during the summer, and we'll start again in the fall. Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, I would ask that somebody move the fifth report of the steering committee.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Moved—

The Chair: —that the Fifth Report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure be adopted.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, with the amendment to the rules....

[English]

The Chair: On joint committees.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: But it's in.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's not.

[Translation]

It merely says that the rules of joint committee should be addressed.

[English]

The Chair: Let's have a look.

Mr. Joe Fontana: That's okay. Put it in.

The Chair: So we have an amendment, Jamie, a specific mention of the rules for joint committees. Okay?

The motion has been moved, so those in favour of the report as amended...?

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: The report is carried.

I want to thank our guests. I'm sorry, but this was not the most exciting of our committee meetings. We do appreciate you being here and we wish you well in the remainder of your visit to Canada.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Thank you very much.