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]

Tuesday, November 3, 1998

• 1109

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, I think everyone has the agenda. The additional item, which will come under other business, is Randy White's motion with respect to televising committee meetings. Does everybody have a copy of that?

If we could begin with the first agenda item, which is the reports of our Sub-committee on Private Members' Business, you'll notice on those that it's normal for the contents of our private members' business reports to be confidential until presented in the House of Commons.

• 1110

I'll ask Lynn Myers to speak to the first motion and the first report.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, pursuant to Standing Orders 92 and 108(3)(a)(iv) in relation to private members' business, we have two reports before you. They've been circulated. You can see the relevant documents. One is by way of a bill to be presented in the House, which will be done and tabled Wednesday. The other is a motion, and while there is not availability for a motion at this time, I'm advised that there will in fact probably be a position open on Thursday.

So the committee in its wisdom decided to proceed with one bill—and that is as outlined—and with one motion, in anticipation of an opening on Thursday. Accordingly, if you're asking for a motion at this point, I would move that the report from the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business be adopted as the committee's forty-first report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House.

The Chairman: So at the moment we're dealing with that first motion, and it's the one that we will be dealing with in the normal way—immediately.

Randy White, then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I want to ask several questions and then put some comments to the committee about this.

I'm given to understand that at the time this committee met there were three vacancies in the bills for votable items. Were there?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Yes, that's correct.

Mr. Randy White: And one has been accepted. I just find it preposterous that this has happened again. We've had this out at this committee before, when the session first began, when our party in particular had a large number of bills and motions and they weren't all accepted by the committee. In fact, they were left at the end of the selection process with some vacancies again in the votables.

I look at this, and if this committee thinks for a minute that I can go back to my caucus with five out of eight—

The Chairman: To the chair, Randy, if you would.

Mr. Randy White: I'm talking to the chair.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Randy White: If this committee thinks for a minute that I can go back to my caucus having five bills sitting in front of that subcommittee and not having one of them selected.... We had staff in there watching the process this time and watching the discussions that took place; and this committee comes out and selects one Senate bill, S-11. If you think this is going to work, it is not. Quite frankly, I want this report tabled and referred back to that subcommittee because this is completely unacceptable.

And I have to tell you that it's not just our party at stake in this issue. We had I don't know how many parties represented there, but we had seven private members' bills from the House of Commons and not one was accepted. But there was one from the Senate and it was. Now just exactly what does that say to private members in the House of Commons?

I think this is just unacceptable and it's damn well going to change!

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): In the same vein, Mr. Chairman, I would first like to ask how many bills could have been deemed votable. I am told three. Yet only one was selected, and to top it all it happens to be a Senate bill.

Mr. Chairman, I share my colleague Randy's concerns. This committee has already discussed the issue twice. The first discussion was on selecting fewer bills and motions than the number of votable slots available. And after a request by Senator Sharon Carstairs, we also discussed whether we should be giving priority to Senate bills, rather than to those introduced by elected members of the House of Commons.

• 1115

Today, both those issues have come up again, as if we had never discussed them. We decided to select only one bill, which to top it all is a Senate bill. Mr. Chairman, I am very uncomfortable with that. I'm very uncomfortable because there is also a diametrically opposed view—the Reform Party's view—that all private members' bills should be deemed votable. That is one view, and a perfectly respectable one at that. I may not share that view, but it is certainly worthy of consideration. So we considered it. Then there is the other extreme, where we screen bills so carefully that private members' bills are prevented from ever being voted on in the House of Commons.

Mr. Chairman, I am very uncomfortable with this. In coming up with their private members' bills, our colleagues have made a great deal of effort and done a great deal of research. They produce bills that they quite rightly consider valid. By what right can their peers deem those bills invalid?

If there are three slots available and we select three bills, the message we send to our colleagues is that three bills rose above the pack, and were selected after careful consideration by a consensus among all parties. But if we have three slots and select only one bill, the message we send to our other colleagues is that their bills were not even worthy of being selected. Look at it this way—when three bills are selected but ours is not among them, we don't get that upset. But if three slots are available and only one bill is selected, we send a very clear message that the other bills were worth squat.

Perhaps the unanimity rule applied by the subcommittee is a problem. As soon as a subcommittee member vetoes a bill, that's it. The bill does not get on the report. I think that is a serious problem. We should never, never select fewer bills than we have slots available. We should never do that, because we are sending a message of contempt to colleagues who have worked very hard to prepare those bills. And that applies even more when the only bill we select is a Senate bill.

[English]

The Chairman: I have two more speakers, then I'm going to stop and return to Lynn Myers, the chair of our Sub-committee on Private Members' Business.

And I assume it's the same topic, with Chuck Strahl, then Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): It is the same topic, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to add my voice to what's already been said here. I'm in agreement.

But, folks, this is a very serious problem. We've dealt with this before and have said, well, we have our criteria and we try to work on consensus. But again, I ask people to think of what message they're sending here.

In my case, I look at these and see all national issues that private members have tried to address in these bills. They deal with the Criminal Code, with the Senate, with obligations under the Indian Act, another national act, and with an act to prohibit profiteering during emergencies. All of those issues are of national concern.

But just to kind of rub salt in the wounds here, of the five guys we have on there, guess what? They're all from British Columbia and guess what? They all get told again that their issues, the issues they've struggled to bring to and highlight in the House of Commons are all not worthy of a blessed private members' hour—not even an hour, let alone three. They're told, “You get nothing. All the issues your constituents have sent you here to raise? You get nothing. But guess what? We have time to bring in a Senate bill.”

Now, if anybody thinks this will give credibility to the private members' hour when it's just an act of God when they get drawn.... But it is not an act of God when they get rejected, and they've been rejected for the wrong reasons.

• 1120

When we have vacancies and we tell these people who have worked hard to raise their issues.... Because this is private members' business, not the government's business; it's not even our party's business. And in this draw, by the luck of the draw, there happen to be five members of Parliament from my province, and they're all told to go packing—but we have time for this other bill.

I can't believe that this would come back to us that way! It just boggles the mind. And does anybody think that will sell out west or in any province? Does anybody think that if they had five or six of these bills coming from anywhere else or dealing with regional issues.... And these don't even deal with regional issues, but they are important bills that we have been sent here to present. We've been told that they just don't cut it, that yes, there are vacancies, but ours just don't cut it. I can't believe that we would bring that in. For the sake of the private members' hour, I caution you not to do it this way.

An hon. member: It's unbelievable.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: This is just feeding that fire that Parliament is irrelevant and that private members' business is even more irrelevant, and we have to reverse that.

The Chairman: Chuck, by the way, it is my understanding that all these bills do get one hour. The discussion is about whether they get three hours and whether they are votable.

An hon. member: That's right.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But will we get three—

The Chairman: Colleagues, if I might, because Lynn Myers is sitting here, I'm going to hear from Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral now, then John Solomon, Gurmant Grewal and André Harvey. We will go back to Lynn Myers after Madeleine, which might help clarify some of the matters.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I have sat on the subcommittee for a year and a half now. I should inform the committee that I have warned my committee colleagues about deciding to select only one bill. Regardless of where the bill comes from—the Senate or the House—I have warned them about this, and have advised them to consult their parliamentary colleagues to see how important they consider private members' bills, and how they would like the procedure to work. We have been looking at the issue for years, but we are still waiting for a report to be tabled in the House and carefully considered.

I have twice expressed my views on this very clearly, and I believe you remember it well, Mr. Chairman. I have warned my colleagues. So I'm not surprised at this morning's discussion. We have a responsibility. In my humble opinion, when we had eight bills before us, at least four were well worthy of a three-hour debate.

Perhaps we should come to some compromise amongst ourselves. However, it seems to me that we have been less flexible, or co-operative, ever since this Parliament began to sit. Perhaps we should take a good look at ourselves and change the rules somewhat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm reminding you, one, that the subcommittee works by consensus, and two, we are not discussing whether these bills get an hour because they do get an hour.

As I understand it, Lynn, the discussion is about whether they get three hours and a vote. We will go to Lynn Myers at this point, please.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, of course you're right in terms of whether or not a bill is deemed to be votable based on what the committee recommends, but I would like to say at the outset that in terms of the kind of research for and validity of each and every bill submitted there is no question that a great deal of work goes into them. We're not calling that into question whatsoever.

In terms of Parliament somehow now being irrelevant in the process and private members' business being irrelevant, that's not the point. The point here is that we as a committee looked at the bills and the motions before us and, through the process of consensus, tried to determine which one would proceed.

Now, as for consensus, there was a report last spring where that was reaffirmed. When I took the chair it was again reaffirmed that we would proceed on that basis. In this case, as it turns out, we tried to seek consensus, and when it all shook down there was really only one bill that came to the top. There was no agreement with respect to the others. On that basis, then, we made the recommendation.

• 1125

It's a very difficult situation because, as I said at the outset, we have a lot of good ideas presented and we take this committee very seriously in terms of what it represents and what it represents to individuals, never mind all Canadians. It's very important that we weigh it out carefully and that we take our time, which we did. And in the wisdom of the committee, then, we deemed it appropriate to proceed in this fashion.

I might also point out that under Standing Order 92, it's clear: it states that we “may select” votable items. There's no requirement to fill the three slots. It's a question of what we, as a committee, based on the criteria—and we have a list of criteria before us—deem worthy, in a consensus fashion, to proceed with in a votable fashion for the three hours, as has been outlined.

And rightly or wrongly—and I happen to believe rightly, based on the consensus model and based on the discussions that took place at that committee—we proceeded to select that bill we thought should come to this committee and ultimately go to the House.

So I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, what more I can add, other than to reaffirm that all members of the committee, representing all parts of Canada, with all kinds of background and expertise, took the time not only to read in advance but at the meeting to discuss fully and to ensure that everyone had a fair shake in terms of what was presented. We had all members come before us for five to ten minutes, depending on the length of time that was available, and everyone had that opportunity to make their case. On the merits of what was said and what we decided, we proceeded by way of consensus to do what we're doing here today.

The Chairman: Were all parties represented?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Yes.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification—

The Chairman: Yes, briefly, Randy.

Mr. Randy White: —does he remember exactly what his definition of consensus is? Is it that every person agrees or that they are outvoted?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Randy White: Somebody is outvoted—

The Chairman: Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, there is no vote. It's simply a ranking. We have a ranking sheet. We see whether or not one bill seems to percolate to the top, if you will, and then I ask people for their first choice, their second choice and their third choice.

And soon, and very quickly, usually—and I have now chaired this three times—you start to see that one or two surface, so we start to see whether or not there is a consensus emerging. We saw that happen that last week and we're here today.

The Chairman: John Solomon, Gurmant Grewal and André Harvey.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Just very briefly, my sense is that there is a lot of unhappiness with the recommendation from the subcommittee, and I suggest that perhaps what we have to do now is to review the criteria. I say that on the basis that I'm a private member in this House of Commons, as many of us around this table are, that we have a subcommittee to deal with private members' business and that we end up getting not private members' business before the House but a bill from the Senate.

The bill may be very good. It may be excellent. I'm not debating the merits of the bill. But I think what we have to look at, perhaps, is another process or a review of the process and the criteria by which we choose bills and motions. And if there are three items to be chosen that you're not happy with, if you can't make a decision with those that have been drawn, maybe you draw some more names so that there are three recommendations coming from the subcommittee.

And/or Mr. Chair, we could look at perhaps having a separate item for Senate business, whether it's the House leaders who get together with the government House leader and look at the agenda of the House of Commons and say that maybe quarterly or whatever we could deal with Senate business. I think this sort of recommendation with respect to the Senate bill—and again, not on the merits of the bill, but on the fact it's a Senate bill—is indeed discourteous, if not insulting, to the members of Parliament.

The Chairman: Gurmant, if you don't mind, I'm going to go directly to Lynn Myers, because he has a particular point.

Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I actually have three points. One of things that Mr. Solomon said actually twigged, and that is, we do have, as you know, a list of criteria with respect to what the committee uses to base its judgment on with respect to these private members' bills, and maybe that should be revisited.

Mr. John Solomon: I suggested reviewing them, not establishing them—

Mr. Lynn Myers: Reviewed.

And just on that point, Mr. Chairman, I want to make all members aware that based on the survey that was submitted in the spring we are in fact—and you will recall that members of Parliament had an opportunity to comment on that survey—reviewing the feedback.

• 1130

In fact, we've established that there will be a meeting on Wednesday, November 18, with respect to taking a look at this whole issue. And certainly, if you're available, that might be an opportunity to bring those points forward. I think that would be an ideal opportunity. We're having a round table, in effect, on precisely this whole issue.

Further, I want to say one final thing, Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence, and that is, I believe we have another draw on November 26, so we'll very quickly be out of this situation because we will have opportunity to review additional bills and we will proceed accordingly.

But again, I say, this is a report that has been forged by consensus.

The Chairman: Gurmant Grewal, then André Harvey and then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, thank you.

I think private members' business should be taken more seriously. It's the business whereby the members have the opportunity to contribute in a more meaningful way toward representing their constituents. It's one of the means.

It needs a lot of input and dedication from individual members to create a private members' bill or motion to present before the committee, but it's quite shameful how the process works. In the House, there is very little importance given to private members' business.

Some time ago, the consensus from all the members from all parties was that more private members' bills should be votable, but in this particular instance, I think, by any criteria, whether it is by importance, by region, by party, or even by simple statistical probability, this thing has completely failed, and it's quite surprising that one out of one, a Senate bill, is elected to be a votable bill.

The perception is that it's a mockery of democracy. The perception is that no significance is given to private members' bills for distribution, for making them votable. I am a member whose bill was there and I'm quite surprised that the input of an individual member leads nowhere after one year of hard work.

So I think the process and the criteria are in question. We should send this particular whole case back to the committee so they can review it and look at it. And in the future, we need to modify the process and the criteria, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I will just would again remind members that these bills all get an hour for discussion, and whether it goes beyond an hour....

André Harvey and then Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that members of the subcommittee, who represent their parties, do their work in a very objective and honest fashion.

We should not go into shock just because we see the word Senate. The Senate is still here, a part of the federal government, even though it has been abolished in Quebec. In Quebec, people don't seem too worried about the fact that it's gone, and no one is demonstrating to bring it back. That is the first thing I would like to say.

This bill, however, was put forward by one of our own colleagues, Ms. St-Jacques, who is working very, very hard on all issues involving violence and poverty in families. That is the subject of this bill, and all subcommittee colleagues felt it was important and urgent enough to our fellow citizens for the bill to be selected. That is why the bill was selected.

I did not push the issue overly hard, because I didn't want to show partisanship. But as a general rule, Mr. Chairman, the subcommittee is extremely objective.

No doubt, some of the criteria will have to be reviewed. For example, we would be unable to consider a motion to the effect that senators should henceforth be elected. Since a motion to that effect would at the outset contravene the Constitution, the subcommittee as a whole would be obliged to reject it. Though we should perhaps review the criteria, we will still have to have criteria. If we did not, some of the motions put forward would no doubt be unacceptable. It is quite a complicated process.

The bill which was selected was sponsored by one of our own colleagues, who has been working very hard on issues involving poverty, discrimination, and social conditions. We should remember that families on welfare are very seriously disadvantaged, be it only financially.

• 1135

After due consideration, all subcommittee members strongly agreed that the bill was worthy of consideration. But selecting this bill does not render the others invalid. Perhaps the committee as a whole could review eligibility criteria, which may be the principal cause of the problem. If a motion is unconstitutional, we cannot recommend it. That does happen. I don't want to go through every single motion or bill submitted to us, but we have to be aware that the subcommittee and its chair does not have an easy task.

[English]

The Chairman: So, André, it's a Senate bill but in fact Madame St-Jacques is the sponsor of it.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Yes. Ms. St-Jacques has been very open and transparent about this. She even invited Senator Cohen to provide support, and helped her with technical information during her presentation before the subcommittee. To my mind, she went about this very properly. I repeat, the Senate is still there. I acknowledge that. If some good ideas occasionally come from the Senate, we should look at them objectively. But this bill is being sponsored by one of our own colleagues, Ms. St-Jacques, who made a presentation before the committee. It was judged on merit, Mr. Chairman, without undue partisanship.

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral, Mr. Blaikie and myself were there, and we acted quite properly. Our choice does not preclude considering the other motions at a later stage.

The Chairman: Thank you, André.

[English]

I'm going to hear from Marlene Catterall and I'd like to cut this off soon. I'm in the committee's hands as usual, but I think we've aired the issue a good deal and we should come to some conclusions.

Marlene Catterall, then Randy White, and then Lynn Myers.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I look forward to the round table on the 18th, Mr. Chair, because while there are complaints about the existing system, I don't think there's anything near a consensus on how to change it and how to improve it.

I just wanted to speak primarily on the issue of the Senate bill. Whether everybody agrees with it or not, we do have a two-House Parliament. No legislation, whether it's a private member's bill or a government bill, gets approved and gets made law without the approval of the Senate. We are partners in legislation. I think we would be highly offended, and rightly so, if a bill that got through our House was rejected and not made votable in the Senate.

And just as a matter of practical politics and a courtesy to our colleagues in the Senate, some of whom are very hard-working people, I think this is quite a proper decision by the committee. It's an important issue, but I don't think we want to be squabbling with the Senate about whether their motions—and very few come through the Senate—should be votable in our House or whether ours should be votable in their House.

The Chairman: We have a question from John Solomon for Marlene Catterall.

Mr. John Solomon: This is just a question, Marlene. What do you think of the suggestion I made that the Senate bills and motions be given a different position on our agenda, not under private members' business? For example, every quarter, Parliament could have a period whereby Senate bills and motions could be debated at that time.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's one possibility for the round table, I think, but my own personal view is that there have been very few of them, and I don't think it's a big enough issue to even worry about, frankly.

The Chairman: Can we go back to the list? Randy White is next, and then we're going to try to finish with Lynn Myers.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, this isn't about the Senate's private members' bills. This is about eight bills from our members in the House going to a subcommittee and virtually none of them coming back votable. That's what this is about.

And when and if this ever gets to the House of Commons, I can assure you that there are going to be some problems. And there should be problems in your caucus over there as much as in ours.

I am beginning to believe that the process is partisan. I was on that committee for two years so I at least know how it should work. It's unacceptable to me that five out of five bills from my particular caucus are not votable and there are still two vacancies left in this process. That's unacceptable. I'm going to put an amendment here, but I can tell you this is just not a go. I can tell you that, folks. This whole process is unacceptable.

The Chairman: Lynn Myers.

Mr. Randy White: I want to put a motion forward—

The Chairman: Sorry.

• 1140

Mr. Randy White: —Mr. Chairman. It is that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “be” and substituting the following: that the report from the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business be not now adopted, but that it be recommended to the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business with instructions to assign all the votables presently available.

The Chairman: Can you give us a copy of that please, Randy?

Can we proceed to Lynn while we're getting the official version of that?

Lynn, briefly.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I do want to say that I reject outright the notion that this has turned into a partisan exercise—because it hasn't.

Mr. Randy White: It's obvious.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I have the floor, Mr. White.

It hasn't.

As a group and as a committee, we have listened very carefully in terms of what was presented, how it was said and where we should go. We took great pains and a great amount of time, with all parties present, to ensure that we had the opportunity for a full and fair discussion. And we had precisely that.

Now, if an individual member doesn't get his bill or if somehow B.C. is left out or you can't sell it to your caucus, I can't speak to those kinds of issues. All I can say to you is that to say we didn't take it seriously, as has been said, to say it's not important, as has been said, to say the system failed, as has been said, and to say we place no significance on private members' business is utterly nonsensical. It's just ridiculous. We took—and I'm repeating myself now—great pains to ensure that this process was in fact fair and equitable and that we did the right thing, and certainly I stand by the report.

The Chairman: Colleagues, we've had this discussion. I'm very pleased to hear that there's a round table on this topic already arranged for November 18 by our subcommittee.

First of all, when Carol has the wording, I'll ask her to read out Randy White's amendment and I'll call a vote.

The Clerk of the Committee: Moved that the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “be” and substituting the following: that the report from the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business be not now adopted, but that it be recommitted to the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business with instructions to assign all of the votables presently available.

The Chairman: Okay. Those in favour of the amendment? Those against?

(Amendment negatived on division)

The Chairman: Now we have Lynn Myers' motion before us: that the Report from the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business be adopted as the committee's forty-first report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House.

(Motion agreed to on division)

The Chairman: Colleagues, if we could proceed to—

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, I have another motion.

The Chairman: Excuse me, colleagues.

Lynn Myers, could we proceed to the second motion of our subcommittee, please?

Mr. Lynn Myers: You will recall I told all members present that on Thursday it looks like we will in fact have an opportunity for a slot for a motion, and in anticipation of that, I move that the report from the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business be adopted as the committee's forty-second report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House immediately following the November recess.

The Chairman: Okay. Those in favour of that motion?

[Translation]

Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are we voting on the second motion?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Before we go on, I would like to know how many slots are available for motions this time around.

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers: There actually was not a slot available, but we anticipated one coming forward, and as it turns out, it will be on this coming Thursday, and in anticipation of that we've recommended as a committee that we have one motion ready to go forward.

[Translation]

The Chairman: All right? Agreed.

[English]

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so I'm clear then, if there might be a vacant spot for a motion, we're going to try to fill that, but if there are two extra vacancies for private members' business we're not going to bother to fill those. I like the logic there.

An hon. member: Ya, really.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's just illogical. There is going to be a nasty little bit of business over all of this. This is just stupid and it's going to be—

• 1145

An hon. member:

[Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It will be. It will be an ugly little thing over this.

The Chairman: Okay. You have the motion. Everyone has heard the motion. You have it before you.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I would like to take this opportunity—as I always do—to ask how far we've got with the study of the proposed amended regulations adopted by the subcommittee and by this committee a year ago. Last time I asked, I was told the proposal was being carefully considered. But how quickly is it being considered?

[English]

The Chairman: Yvon, following your last enquiry, I inquired, and I am informed that action is being taken on it. By the way, as your chair, it's my sincere hope that action is taken soon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Every time we deal with reports, there are procedural hitches. Some say we should do this, and some say we should do that. This report contains a great many recommendations. If some of them were implemented, some questions might be answered, at least in part. I don't think this is moving very quickly.

[English]

The Chairman: And given the discussion today, a response would be timely.

Colleagues, if we could go to other business, the first item is that Randy White has resigned as chair of the Sub-committee on Members' Services.

Randy, we want to thank you for your fine service on that committee.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

An hon. member: Will we get accused of dropping you, though?

An hon. member: Like, “The government got rid of Randy White. He was an outspoken....”

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I would suggest, colleagues, that at a future meeting we consider that matter and consider if anyone could fill Randy's shoes. I doubt it—

An hon. member: No.

The Chairman: —but if anyone can, we will try to find such a person.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: We will now hear from Randy White, in his swan song as chair of the Sub-committee on Members' Services.

Mr. Randy White: It was such a tough job.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Randy White: It was really tough, and it was night and day all the time. I really truly didn't have the time to even convene a meeting. And I think if there is the need for that, somebody who has the time should do it. I don't want it just left alone. It was getting neglected.

The Chairman: My thought is that we would reintroduce it with some discussion of the purpose of that subcommittee, the nature of it and that kind of thing.

By the way, Randy, we're not being accusatory here. There's no question about it, we're pleased that you....

The second item, colleagues, is the business of supply. I think we can deal with this quite briefly.

As you know, for a year or 18 months, our colleague, John Williams, has been very keen for us to address a report on the business of supply that was produced a year or two years ago. Our colleague, Marlene Catterall, has also been very interested in this matter. John, as you know, has been experiencing very difficult circumstances. I talked to him last week. Although he is back, it is my sense that at the moment—and perhaps his colleagues could confirm this—he's still settling down.

So I would suggest to you that on a date to be set, probably before Christmas, but in agreement with John Williams, we schedule a meeting here on the business of supply. There will be a briefing on it. John Williams and Marlene Catterall in particular will speak to it and, at the end of that meeting, we can decide what else the committee should be doing about this long-standing matter of the business of supply.

Marlene, would you care to comment on that?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes. I spoke to John last evening, and I think we would like to do it if not before Christmas certainly fairly soon after.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I think it should be myself, Mr. Williams and Dr. Pagtakhan and René Laurin, if those two are interested, because that was the core of the subcommittee that followed its work through from beginning to end. I would be pleased if you could schedule it.

The Chairman: Colleagues, are we agreed?

Reform colleagues, is that appropriate?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, I think so.

Mr. Chairman, I talked to John as well. He said that he needed at least until after the next break period in the coming week to get his affairs in order, but after that, he felt, whenever it is convenient for you, so I think he would be prepared even in November to make sure we get it in.

The Chairman: We'll arrange it at his convenience, as long as the committee agrees.

• 1150

Now, the third item, which is not on there, is of course the motion we have before us regarding the televising of committee meetings. I want to thank Randy White for providing me with this last evening, because in this committee we don't need notice of motion, but I did appreciate hearing about it.

As chair, I'd like, Randy, if I could—you will start and we'll have a discussion on it—to comment on one feature of the motion as it stands. I would be glad to hear colleagues' views on this.

I have some concern with the motion as it stands. The motion begins with “review and report”, but it continues with what I read as a statement in advance of the outcome of the review, in other words, of the nature of the report. It goes on and says, “with the goal of open access for television cameras”, for example, and with the goal of amending “the existing guidelines”. To me, it prejudges the outcome of the committee's work in reviewing and reporting. I have some suggested amendments in that area if that is of concern to the committee.

Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now that I've settled down on the other issue I can address this one probably more properly. As for whether there are amendments or not, I certainly don't have a problem with that.

But I do want to address the issue of television cameras in the House. This isn't an issue that has just come up. This issue has been around for some time. In fact, I'll just refer to a letter from the Clerk of the House of Commons to yourself, Mr. Chairman, on May 14. I've read it and I believe my colleagues have seen it; it just goes through the entitlement to televise in room 253, which is a standard room for televised committees, and it also covers the fact that any other circumstance for television coverage needs House of Commons authority. Mr. Marleau then goes on to suggest that we could consider at this committee that televised committee meetings be allowed without the authorization of the House.

Now, I would probably guess that some of my colleagues here have been approached by those in the television industry who would like more access to committee meetings than they have now. They are doing it for several reasons, basically. They're doing it because they see that it's fair and equitable to the coverage that is given committees by newspaper and radio, and they also feel that the coverage would probably be wider than we have now, and I'm sure that's true.

In looking at this issue, I can refer you to Standing Orders 119.1.(1), 119.1.(2) and 108(3)(a), which are the three relevant areas that cover this television coverage.

My reason for approaching it at this point is that I think what allowing television cameras in here really does.... And this doesn't mean a lot of television cameras throughout the room; this probably means a stationary camera or two. When the industry approached me, I think they had more or less agreed among themselves that they would share the video that came out of what they were televising with other studios so that they didn't need a whole bunch of cameras in here.

Now, as for the advantages of this, I think it shows the public that Parliament can work in a positive and co-operative way. On the other hand, what we just saw here a little while ago would also be televised. Maybe it would have been calmer as a result of TV, but it would at least reflect a real concern if there is one.

It does allow for public accountability. I believe it highlights the work done by all MPs, not just some MPs, particularly in a majority party like the Liberals have now. There are a lot of MPs, I'm sure, who do great work, but it's relatively unseen work, and whereas the opposition and the cabinet get all the cameras at question period, there is really not much other than finance that gets seen in the House. So I think that would be a gain for everybody.

• 1155

I think the public could get a little more opportunity to see us all at work. I feel that there is more activity and more work done in the House of Commons in committee than there is in the Chamber itself. If you go upstairs right now you'll find there are fewer MPs in the House than there are in this room, so that says a lot more for committee work than it does for the House work at times.

As well, I think the witnesses who come into the committees provide more expertise and a better presentation, in fact, on issues than we maybe give them credit for and the public sees. The witnesses just don't get to the House of Commons so that kind of coverage just doesn't happen.

I also think it's an opportunity for ministers, if they come to meetings, to give detailed explanations of their initiatives. It gives cabinet an opportunity to present its issues.

I think there is a fairness issue. Whereas we scoot the television cameras out, as you did, Mr. Chairman, just before the meeting, the other media are allowed to stay for the meetings. I'm wondering how fair that is to the others.

I think many people perhaps wonder what parliamentarians do when they come to Ottawa, and I think the overall exposure—the proof is in the pudding—will show that more is done in committee than in the House. I know there are those in all parties who sit on the backbench, who aren't really as profiled in this country as they could be—because some of their work in committees is actually very good work.

The Chairman: I agree.

Mr. Randy White: I've been on a lot of committees in this House, and that work is seldom seen.

I put this motion forward in all good faith. In this case, I'm not trying to goad anybody into any trickery. This is an opportunity for all of us to reflect to Canadian society that the work we do is good work.

The Chairman: Joe Fontana, then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I've been here 10 years. I think we've discussed this question on a number of occasions and, in principle, I agree with some of the things Randy has talked about in terms of the accessibility for the public.

But I'm just wondering whether or not.... I think the optimum solution would be to televise every committee meeting, if, in fact, one had the facilities and so on. As you know, that's always been part of the problem. Which rooms? How much equipment is it going to take to televise every committee meeting? And the broadcaster can pick and choose which committee meeting to to tape.

But that's why I had some questions. Are you talking about televising committee meetings from start to finish? Or are we just talking about allowing television cameras—stationary or whatever—to come in here, pick their moments in time, and not really be interested in the whole meeting, just in a particular point in time of a particular committee?

I would would agree that television, to a certain extent, doesn't have the same access as the print and audio—

The Chairman: Randy, do you want to reply to that?

Mr. Randy White: The broadcasters I spoke to talked about—this being at no cost to the House of Commons—being prepared to bring in their equipment on stationary tripods and tape committees in toto, giving the results of that taping to the other broadcasters and sharing it out. So there's no cost, and they are stationary, so we won't have a whole bunch of camera operators running around the place.

The Chairman: Joe Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: So it would be a visual Hansard, just very much like the way we are being recorded now. It would be a visual Hansard and therefore you're not going to allow television cameras or one particular station to come in here and take a shot—

The Chairman: At the moment—

Mr. Joe Fontana: You're talking about start to finish.

The Chairman: If I may say, Joe—

Mr. Randy White: Well, that would be up to us.

The Chairman: —the motion before us is that we review it, and you're reviewing it right now, I think.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes.

The Chairman: So I'm going to go Marlene Catterall and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Record this, Randy: it may never happen again, but I agree with everything Randy said about the importance of committee work—

An hon. member: Tsk-tsk.

An hon. member: Oh, no.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Oh dear me, this is getting embarrassing.

An hon. member: Can we move for adjournment?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

• 1200

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm limiting my comment.

But about the importance of committee work and the good work that members do in committees, the non-partisan nature of a lot of that work, I agree entirely that it's important that more Canadians see that aspect of the work of Parliament.

But I am reluctant, as the chair said, to refer something to committee and tell the committee what it should find, so I would like to move an amendment, Mr. Chair. And frankly, one of the things that I hope the committee will look at is how the renovations of the West Block are being planned and whether they will adequately accommodate this kind of thing. But there are many issues they should be looking at.

I'd like to suggest, Randy, that rather than prejudging the review, we might amend your motion to read this way: that the committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(v), review and report to the House on the radio and television broadcasting of proceedings of the House and its committees, including access for television cameras to committee meetings and the existing guidelines governing the broadcasting of committee meetings.

Does that cover it?

The Chairman: Marlene, would you give that to Randy so he can read it?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

The Chairman: I'll continue with the list. Okay? We have a couple of people on the list.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, then George Baker.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I am a little bit puzzled by the motion currently on the table, as well as by Marlene's amendment. As Mr. Fontana was saying a few moments ago, I don't quite understand what it is getting at.

Do we at some point want all committee rooms to be equipped for television, even though we don't know their physical layout yet? That would have a lot to do with the renovations being carried out on Parliament Hill. So do we want to ensure that all committee rooms have the equipment needed to televise proceedings, or do we mean we will just let the media and their cameras stay and film during the entire meeting? If you mean we should let the media and cameras stay, I thought they had already had the right to do that. Since committee meetings are public, and since the written media are there throughout the meeting, I did not really see how we could prevent TV reporters and their cameras from being in committee rooms, particularly since they often seem to be there. I thought that cameras were allowed in under our current rules. So the purpose of this motion is just to amend the Standing Orders so that cameras can come in, that is one thing. But if the point is to change the renovation plan and amend the Standing Orders so that all committee rooms will have the equipment—the hardware—to televise proceedings, that is something else again.

In its current form, the motion—even with Marlene's amendment—is still ambiguous.

[English]

The Chairman: Randy, and then George Baker, but my sense, Stéphane, is that the motion itself is quite broad but that Randy's specific concerns are about the televising of committees.

Randy.

Mr. Randy White: The standing orders, Stéphane, read as follows: 119.1.(1) says,

Any committee wishing to have its proceedings televised, other than by means of those facilities provided for that purpose

—which is room 253—

by the House of Commons, shall first obtain the consent of the House thereto.

And that's for every single meeting, I think; you have to get consent of the House—

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Randy White: —which is just impossible.

And 119.1.(2) says,

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs shall establish, by report to the House of Commons, experimental guidelines governing the broadcasting of committee meetings. After concurrence by the House in such a report, any committee may permit the presence of the electronic media at its meetings subject to the said guidelines.

So the answer is no.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think that is discriminatory. Why would newspaper reporters automatically be allowed into committee meetings, but not TV crews and their cameras? There is a problem here.

[English]

The Chairman: I think a review would deal with that.

George Baker.

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Yes, the hon. member is correct. In a great many committee meetings, the chair, with the permission of the committee, allows television cameras throughout the entire meeting.

• 1205

I think what Mr. White is talking about, basically, is against the standing order that he read out. But of course the committee is the master of its own destiny. If somebody objected, it would take time to go back and have a hearing before the Speaker in the House of Commons. By that time, you would have already broadcast the committee meeting.

So you're absolutely right. Many committees have had their entire proceedings broadcast as they travel throughout the nation, but it really is in violation of that standing order that Mr. White has brought out.

And I presume, Mr. White, in dealing with your motion and the examination of your motion and the reasons that you've set out proposing the motion, that is, that a broadcasting service had suggested to you that it would at no cost to the House of Commons supply that service, we should also look at how much money it would be making in charging other media access to the tape.

I presume we would also look at that, just as we should look at how much Canadian Press charges for access to the pictures they take right now in the House of Commons; they ask you what you need the picture for, because if it's for a magazine, it's going to cost you this much, and if it's for a book, it's going to cost you a small fortune.

The Chairman: We're into the review again.

Mr. Randy White: The answer to that is none, Mr. Chairman; it's just for the parliamentary press gallery, actually.

The Chairman: Okay.

I want to say to you, George—of course I have no idea which committees you have chaired—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: —and what the behaviour was in those committees—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: —but this is the oldest committee in the House of Commons and we keep to the standing orders here. I want you to know that.

I would ask the clerk—

An hon. member: Mr. Chairman, why was there was a camera here at the beginning of this meeting?

The Chairman: And then it was out. Yes, with the permission of the chair.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But did you ask the committee for its permission?

The Chairman: Oh, didn't I? I'll keep my mouth shut.

I'll ask the clerk to read the amended motion, and if Randy would listen to it very carefully, I'd be grateful.

The Clerk: That this committee, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(v), review and report to the House on the radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees, including access for television cameras to committee meetings and the existing guidelines governing the broadcasting of committee meetings.

The Chairman: Have you all heard the motion? Do you all understand?

And Randy, you accept; we won't go through procedures. It's the amended motion that we're dealing with now, okay?

Those in favour of Randy's amended motion. Those against?

I see none against.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Colleagues, thank you very much. I would suggest that the steering committee consider that at the earliest possible opportunity. We'll design the review and proceed from there.

Can I make one more point before people walk out of here? Every committee except ours now receives the blues of our meetings electronically. What happens then is that the staff in each office print off those blues if they need them. So far, we have also been circulating them in print form. I would like to suggest that the electronic route, which the other committees now use, is now appropriate.

Are we agreed? Is anyone concerned about that?

No one is concerned about that.

The meeting is adjourned.