HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

Á

1110

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

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Á

1115

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

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Á

1120

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

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

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)

Mr. Tony Tirabassi

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Á

1150

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Ken Epp

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Á

1155

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Audrey O'Brien (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons)

The Chair

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie (Principal Clerk, House Proceedings, House of Commons)

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Â

1210

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

Ms. Audrey O'Brien

The Chair

Ms. Audrey O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

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

The Chair

Â

1220

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 013

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, December 10, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): All right, let's begin the meeting.

    You all have the agenda for today, but I'd like to summarize where I think the committee is at. We have some additional items, and I know Tony Tirabassi's here.

    In terms of the things we've been dealing with, we have the ethics package, we have private members' business, and we have security, all in flow.

    With regard to the security one, the Canadian Alliance has a motion saying we should return to the matter of security. And even before we received that, the committee had initiated requests for information on changes in Hill security from the Sergeant-at-Arms, from the person in charge of visits to the Hill, the RCMP, I believe, and so on. You should know that we have been steadily receiving replies from those people and you've already received notice of a meeting on Thursday that will deal with security.

    Today, my thought was we would deal principally with the ethics package, and when we get to that item I'll discuss it again. And then we have Audrey O'Brien and Marie-Andrée Lajoie coming to further the consideration of the private members' business item. So it's going to be ethics, private members' business, and then security on Thursday.

    Perhaps I can ask you now to turn to other business. You'll see with respect to the committee's mandate, pursuant to Standing Order 92.(1) and Standing Order 108.(3)(a)(iv) in relation to private members' business, the draft report, which you all have, on votable items. Would someone move that report?

    Tony Tirabassi.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you. Yes, I would move it.

    The Chair: Do want to speak to it briefly, please?

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: Sure. I would like to present to the committee the report on private members' business. The subcommittee met last Wednesday, December 4, to consider a single bill. And the committee recommended, notwithstanding any other provisions in the Standing Orders, that the following item, in the order of precedence, be designated votable: Bill C-314, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act, sponsored by Mr. Casson from Lethbridge.

    There's an interesting situation around this on why the committee has met to deal with this single bill. It has to do with the reinstatement of private members' business and the provision that allows for that after prorogation. Rather than going into the explanation, you have it in front of you in the form of a report, and if there are any questions with regard to that procedure, I'm sure the officer would be glad to answer that.

    Nonetheless, the committee is recommending that Bill C-314 be deemed votable.

    The Chair: Colleagues, as you recall, we did actually do this for one other bill. Are there any questions or comments for Tony?

    We have the motion. You see it before you on the paper under “Other Business”. It says:

That the Report (as amended) from the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be adopted as the Committee's Report to the House and that the Chair do present the Report to the House.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Tony, I thank you and the subcommittee for all that work.

    Still on the other items section, with respect to our other subcommittee, the subcommittee on electoral boundaries readjustment, you've heard in the House today, for example, that we've received a report from the commission from Saskatchewan. We've also received one from Newfoundland and Labrador, on Friday. So two have already come.

    We've now received all the names of the members of our subcommittee, which will be dealing with those reports. We have the notification ready to go out now to members of Parliament explaining to them the procedure in the different regions. We simply have to name a chair.

    Is a chair to be named? Does anyone have any suggestions?

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'll volunteer.

    The Chair: Okay. There's no secret ballot. This is a naming of the chair.

    Would someone move it?

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I move for Carolyn Parrish.

    The Chair: Carolyn Parrish is named.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Who are the members being named?

    The Chair: The subcommittee members now are Scott Reid, Pierre Brien, Yvon Godin, Rick Borotsik, Carolyn Parrish, and Tony Tirabassi. Carolyn Parrish has been named chair of the subcommittee.

    Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): We don't even get to vote on this. This is worse than secret ballots.

    The Chair: You get not to vote on this.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Who named her?

    The Chair: I heard the name come from the government side.

    Mr. Ken Epp: But you as the chair have the right to say--

    The Chair: Yes, we do. By the way, no, you get the chance not to vote in secret.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Chair: If we could, let's move to the order of the day, item A, pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), consideration of matters related to the inclusion of a code of conduct in the Standing Orders of the House, consideration of a draft interim report to the House. By the way, we're not in camera because this is an interim report.

    If I can repeat why we're doing this, there was some discussion the last time we discussed ethics, and it became clear to me that the committee was not going to finish its work before Christmas. The question then arose on how best to maintain the momentum in what we have already done so people who, for example, might start drafting or making any other preparations would have some idea of the areas in which we already agree and the areas on which we need more discussion. That's how the interim report is phrased. The first half is areas where there's broad agreement, and then later on it has other items for discussion.

    You have it before you, and I'm quite open to any approach to this you like. You've had it for a couple of days. It seems to me items 1 and 2 are very straightforward, and Item 3 is also very straightforward; it simply describes what we have done. Then item 4 is where we get to this carefully worded stuff. It doesn't say that this is what the committee has voted on and is going to do, it says that this is where the committee appears to be in some sort of agreement. You'll see the item there, “It is generally agreed that a code of conduct for Parliamentarians is desirable and should be implemented” and so on.

    The next bullet point is “Members of the Committee generally agree that any regime for Members of the House of Commons should include spousal disclosure”. Again, my sense was that we did all agree on that. We don't necessarily all agree on exactly the form it should take, but this was not, you may recall, in the original material we were presented with.

    Yes.

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Are you talking about consensus or unanimity here?

    The Chair: No, no, no, I'm talking about trying to express to people who may be working on this where the committee is at.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I do not agree with it.

    The Chair: Excuse me, Jacques, but it's been pointed out to me that it says there's “general agreement”, okay?

    Next, “The Committee believes that Members of Parliament should play a role in the appointment of an Ethics Commissioner” and so on. I think we do, with various views on how that should take place.

    “Provisions should be put in place to discourage frivolous and vexatious complaints.” Okay? Is there general agreement?

    Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, if I remember correctly, I thought the Speaker had a very good suggestion over lunch, one that had a committee that would take those complaints. Is that part of Milliken-Oliver? No, he picked that up from a trip to Poland or somewhere, didn't he? But if the committee concurs, that might be something we could have them take a look at over January and February.

    The Chair: Can you hold that in your mind, everybody--if you want to.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I have a point of order or a point of clarification. That could also be the method by which you could choose the committee membership as well.

    The Chair: The next bullet deals with the committee, so it might be more appropriate to mention that there. It says that the proposed “committee to assist and oversee the Ethics Commissioner has a number of attractions, and will play an important role.” The next sentence is “We will be examining how this committee can be designed to ensure that partisanship is minimized and that Members have the utmost confidence in it.”

    Now, Joe or Rick, that's where we might want to put another line in if you wish. Bear in mind that as long as this is a draft, it's simply giving direction. It's simply to give an indication to people who've put a lot of time into this matter that the committee is moving in a certain direction. If either of you would like to think of a sentence to go in there while we're going on, why don't you do it?

    “While the members of the Committee would like to see...”. It's already been pointed out to me that perhaps we shouldn't mention the Senate in one of our reports, for reasons we have discussed. I have been directed, as you know, to deal informally with the Senate, and I've done my very best to do that, including what happened at the lunch when we were there; you've seen that. The argument against mentioning the Senate is that simply by putting it in, we look as though we're intruding. It's up to you.

    “While the members of the Committee would like to see the House of Commons and the Senate adopt the same code, at roughly the same time, we realize that this may not be possible.” It goes on to say that indeed the Senate has not yet moved on it.

    Carolyn Parrish.

Á  (1120)  

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Instead of saying that this may not be possible, which is negative and will get their backs up, why don't we just say that our jurisdiction is the House of Commons?

    The Chair: Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I think maybe we could also say--and it may be stroking a bit, but it's also a fact--that we recognize that the Senate has its own traditions and that it's not the same house. The appointment for life would dictate different sanctions, so we should just recognize that they're going to do their own thing, because clearly they are. But our jurisdiction is the House of Commons, and I think if we can not poke a finger at them--

    The Chair: Ken Epp, please.

    Mr. Ken Epp: I was just going to say that if this becomes a bill and is debated in the House, it has to be approved by the Senate before it can become law anyway. Therefore, I think we should say that we want to have a code of conduct that applies to all parliamentarians. I think that's a desirable goal. I don't think that the senators should be held to any lesser ethical standard than members of Parliament. They can approve it or disapprove it.

    The Chair: Derek Lee

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I have two points. The first is a picky one on page 4 of the draft, when we're discussing spousal disclosure. The last sentence says “in order for the public to have confidence in the system.” I don't think it's necessary to invite the public to have confidence. I don't think we should even mention that as an issue. I think we should just drop the words “in order” and stop after the word “necessary”.

    Second, I respect the chair's attempt here to crystallize where we've come so far, but I don't think it's necessary to burden the House with a half-baked cake. The half-baked cake might in some way actually pen us in by reflecting intentions we won't have when we've finished this.

    Because we ultimately will have to report to the House and because that won't conclude the matter, there's going to have to be something drafted after that and submitted to the House again, maybe a bill, maybe new rules. I view an interim report as unnecessary and premature, but I think the chair would like to have some sense of where we're at and to reflect to our staff where we're at so they can perhaps begin some drafting.

    I'm not going to move this, but I would be prepared to move that this be adopted as the current reflection of the consensus in the committee for use of staff and members but that it not be reported to the House.

    The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: The first bullet on page 3 of the French report, at the bottom of the page, says: “de façon à réduire le plus possible ou à prévenir les conflits d'intérêts.” If we want to reduce conflicts, then there must be conflicts. However, there are none. There is a problem of logic here.

[English]

    We're on page 3, where we are talking about minimizing conflict of interest.

Á  (1125)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Yes, I understand.

[English]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I would simply keep prévenir and drop the first part.

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Which means you'd drop “minimize” also.

    The Chair: It's “in order to prevent”, is it?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: This gets back to Derek's point that they're non-preventable. We just have to manage them.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Absolutely non-preventable.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I would say limiter les risques in French.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Limit the risk of conflict of interest, or limit the negative.

    The Chair: You have to understand--Derek made the point--that in presenting this to you, I'm trying to interpret the wishes of the committee. My sense is the committee wants its work to go forward. This was a device, Derek, and I understand your point that there could be other devices for doing it. We'll change that.

    Geoff Regan.

[Translation]

    Jacques, you have not finished.

[English]

    Mr. Geoff Regan: On that point, what if we said,

[Translation]

«de façon à réduire les possibilités de conflits d'intérêts»?

[English]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, but in French you would say,

[Translation]

«limiter les risques de conflits d'intérêts».

[English]

    Mr. Geoff Regan: In English it would be “arranging their affairs so as to minimize the risks of conflicts of interest”. Is that the right way to say it?

    The Chair: We'll work on that while we're going ahead, as long as I don't see any objections.

    Joe.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: We might reflect Derek's position if we were to say “to minimize the negative aspects of conflicts of interest”. We're not saying they don't exist.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: We're saying that's part of the problem.

    The Chair: Remember the famous story about a camel being invented by a committee?

    Staff members are looking at it, and they'll come up with some words that we'll come back to later on.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: We would take the French text, namely “limiter les risques de conflits d'intérêts”, and we would insert the English equivalent in the English version.

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): «De façon à limiter les risques de conflits d'intérêts».

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Exactly. We would reduce or limit the risks.

    The Chair: Jacques, on page 5.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: On page 5, the first paragraph towards the top of the page says:

Moreover, the Committee believes that appropriate sanctions should be available should such complaints be brought.

    We are talking here of “frivolous and vexatious complaints”. However, certain complaints could be neither frivolous nor vexatious; they could be made in good faith, but at a time when the accused would be unable to defend him or herself, for example before an election.

    It is therefore more than simply frivolous and vexatious. It is the political aspect of these complaints. Whether or not there is a conflict of interest, there must be a defence. If the attack arises before an election, when one would have no opportunity to defend him or herself, that is in my view absolutely unacceptable.

[English]

    The Chair: Again, this is an attempt to capture the sense or mood of the committee. I recall that. You're quite right, it wasn't unanimous. There was general agreement, but I really thought we had got to that point.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: M. Chairman, if there is not a more specific provision on the political utilization of this code, whereas our peers will have the opportunity to throw shots during tricky periods politically speaking, I would have trouble taking the whole process seriously.

    In my opinion, it is fundamental. The point of a code of ethics is to encourage us, to guide us and to help us; it should not be used to damage us politically. This seems obvious, but none of the witnesses that I questioned as to how we could arrive at this objective was able to give me an answer.

[English]

    The Chair: Again, a suggestion has been put that we refer in that paragraph to the timing of such complaints.

    I recall people saying that three weeks before the election somebody does such and such. The counter to that is they can do that already, but this would be a formal process, where a formal complaint had been launched.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Without the possibility of defence, and that's unfair.

    The Chair: That's part of what we're trying to capture here. We don't want to engrave it in stone, but to give a sense of where the committee is. It might begin in the English version of that and say that provisions should be put in place to discourage frivolous and vexatious complaints or adverse timing of complaints. Such complaints could be halted by the ethics commissioner.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm not worried about the timing; I'm worried about the publication of the complaint when there is no possibility of defence. It's a different thing. Timing you cannot control. If today I learn about something and we're in an election period, that's too bad. I'm going to file my complaint with the commissioner. That's not the issue.

    The issue is I have to remain confidential on this request, and the commissioner has to remain confidential on this request, as long as guilt hasn't been established, and after a proper defence mechanism for whoever is accused. So it's not a matter of timing.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Yes, I understand perfectly--at least I think I do. Again, I'm only interested in the committee, so is it basically motivated complaints?

    Joe Jordan on the same point.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, I was going to say if you can figure out the wording. I mean, one of the things that appeased me a little bit was the notion that someone has to sign an affidavit. You can't simply pick up the phone and say.... You know, there is a process where the person making the complaint has to be in possession of some information to back up the allegation and sign or swear an affidavit. I felt a little better after I heard that. But I agree with Jacques, and that's the point I was trying to make with some of the witnesses: we have to be very careful about setting up a process that could be abused for political reasons. I don't know what the solution is.

    The Chair: I'm trying to act here to capture the committee's work. Do you understand what I'm saying? I can debate these things with you as well as you can debate them yourselves. I'm trying to say how can we capture, Jacques, where we're at in any useful way? Now, I want to tell you, we certainly all capture it. I tell you the same thing, Rick.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: This is definitely the same point, and I appreciate Jacques' concern. I'd use the term paranoia, but it's not, because we all have the same partisanship, I suppose, as everyone else. This is not a new process. If what you're afraid of is true, then the other jurisdictions that already administer this kind of code of conduct would have found themselves in that position. When we talked to them, they didn't say this was a major issue to them, that there was that partisanship at a time when the individuals didn't have the opportunity to defend themselves. They didn't say that, Jacques.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: No one among the witnesses--and please correct if I'm wrong, Mr. Chair--was able to come up with a definitive answer. If someone attempted to do it once, what defence mechanism would there be to prevent that from being utilized? And no one has given us an answer on this.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: And nobody, in fairness, Jacques, indicated that it was a serious problem in their administration. I want to debate it. I don't disagree with--

    The Chair: We can debate the issue again. We can all do it. But we don't have to debate it again. The only debating here is how we express this item, this paragraph.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: It comes back a little bit, Mr. Chair, to the point you made about the scale, and I think Mr. Walsh made it too, that at the federal level an MP from Newfoundland can complain about somebody in B.C. and absolutely have no implications or fallout to them in their riding because of geographic distance. But I think the point that Jacques makes is that timing isn't the issue, it's the confidentiality that's the issue. So when someone complains, if they use this.... I mean, they can go to the paper at any time and say Joe Jordan has this, that, and the other thing. But if they're going to use this process, then I think they should be bound by confidentiality rules until the process has worked its way through to the point at which the person has had a chance to defend himself and innocence and guilt has been established.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    Mr. Joe Jordan: So I think if we build that into the process, then the timing doesn't become an issue because of--

    The Chair: MPs, particularly when the House is sitting, say whatever the hell they like.

    Can we just hold this? We'll keep thinking about it.

    We'll go to Geoff Regan, then we'll go to Michel Guimond.

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

    First of all, I'm sure there's not a member of Parliament currently sitting in the House at the moment who would ever abuse the process for political ends, but we have to consider the possibility that there might be somebody in the future. I do share Jacques' disquiet about that possibility. Hopefully, Rick's right, because we haven't heard word of it happening elsewhere, and hopefully it wouldn't happen here either.

    I want to talk about this provision in relation to the Senate, found on page 5 and at the top of page 6. Werner Schmidt raised it with me yesterday and he was quite concerned. He didn't say I shouldn't talk about it publicly, so I don't know if that was a confidence thing. I hope he'll forgive me for raising it.

    The question was should we or are we going to offend the Senate by doing this, and how much do we add by actually having this provision with this clause in? It seems to me the public wants to know if members of Parliament are going to do something and act according to the code of ethics applied to themselves and the MPs--you know, members of Parliament in the narrow sense rather than the broad sense. Once we do it, it may become an issue elsewhere and in the other place as well. That might put pressure on the other place to do so and affect the provisions they might consider.

    I think the first thing for us to do is to say we're moving in the direction of ethics upon ourselves. We may not need to be concerned about this provision, about this paragraph, but maybe the safe thing is to leave it out, because I don't see it gains us that much by having it in there.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Colleagues, we have two suggestions here. One is that we greatly reduce this mention of the Senate and ourselves in some way--we make it more bland. The other is that we just take it out.

    An hon. member: Take it out.

    The Chair: Ken.

    Mr. Ken Epp: My view is that we should leave it in. I would reword it, though. Instead of saying it may not be possible, I would just say “The members of the committee would like to see the House of Commons and the Senate adopt the same code at roughly the same time”, and leave it at that. That is what I would like. I don't know if the others feel the same.

    I remember way back when a senator was getting a stipend of $5,000 a month over a period of four years. You have to ask the question, for what reason? I believe that senator should be subject to the same rules of conflict of interest as members of Parliament are. That's how I feel about it. I think it should apply to senators.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Unfortunately, I disagree with you, Ken, most respectfully, because if they came up with a code of ethics at the Senate and tried to impose it on us, you'd hear screaming here, probably just as loud.

    I think we have to maintain jurisdiction here, and even being so bold as to wish for it in writing will just tick them right off. I think really, by example, we do our code of ethics and we stress that's our jurisdiction. That's all we can do.

    The Chair: Okay, colleagues, I saw nods of the head of some that we strike it. We don't strike it?

    I'm trying to avoid having you raise your hands, because you may think you're voting, but you're not. If you would raise your hand, it would be easier, because people's heads are moving.

    Rick Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: What is it that you're striking now?

    The Chair: We're going to strike the whole bullet that mentions the Senate.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Totally? So we're going to leave it in their bailiwick, their jurisdiction, and let them do what they want.

    The Chair: We're not going to mention it.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: There's a reality that this is going to happen anyway, so let's not be stupid.

    The Chair: And what the transcript says....

    Ken Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Is it not true that when we adopt a law, it's going to have to be passed by the Senate?

    Mr. Joe Jordan: If it's a law, but is it going to be a law?

    Mr. Ken Epp: Is it not going to be a bill?

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't think we've decided that yet. There's some argument that if it's a statute, then we'd bring in other.... We're working on it.

    The Chair: But all the same, Ken, whatever it is, it may not even mention the Senate, you see. It would just go through and it would be the House of Commons, and then why shouldn't they pass it? It's just that if we strike it as our private members' business, when we mention them they tend not to do anything or tend to get upset. That's what we're discussing here.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Well, I'd like to see them stand in front of the electors once in a while. That's where the accountability is.

    An hon. member: That's another story.

    Mr. Ken Epp: A whole other story.

    The Chair: Can we have one last thing on this?

    Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I would like to make a suggestion.

[Translation]

We received, in the context of the work we have done to date, a list of the things that are covered in the Criminal Code, in the Standing Orders of the House, etc., and that already apply in the area of ethics. I am very happy to have received this document. I believe that all of us here in this room have received it, but our other House colleagues do not necessarily have it in their possession. It seems to me that this document is an important tool in evaluating all of this.

    Would it be possible to arrange to have this distributed to our colleagues along with the report? We are not starting from scratch.

[English]

    The Chair: This is the extracts, the piece we already have on the extracts. Are you okay with that?

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Indeed.

[English]

    The Chair: I'm not sure what the distribution would be with this report, but yes, we could do that.

    Joe.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Just to pick up on Derek's point, in terms of whether we actually need to report formally to Parliament or just direct officials, if we go back to this process, I'm a big fan of what we're doing here, because what we have is draft legislation, prior to any approval in the House.

    The Chair: That's right.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: It's at a point where we can actually effect change in that document.

    Jacques is right. I think we need to then engage the larger community of parliamentarians on this.

    This is all prior to the bill being drafted. This is very novel stuff that we're doing, and I think it really empowers us. So, Mr. Chair, what is the motivation for tabling a report to Parliament, or what are the trade-offs if we just direct officials, or does it really matter one way or another?

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: Or is there some other way?

    Rick Borotsik, please go ahead.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: On this point--and I don't disagree with Joe--the point is, when you say to open it up to the larger constituency of parliamentarians, we attempted to do that with our round table, and we had one person appear before us.

    I think it's necessary that we give that larger constituency something to chew on, and that's this document, now, whereby they can then come forward and have that round table. It's going to be successful the next time, because we're going to be able to plan it a little bit better. But they need this in order to come, and we can circulate this.

    The Chair: That's the sort of opinion that I thought, as chair--and I'll stress here, not as Peter Adams, but as chair.

    Going back to this item, Ken is the one who says we should leave half a sentence in.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: What's the half a sentence?

    The Chair: The half sentence is “While the members of the committee would like to see the House of Commons...”.

    Mr. Ken Epp: Drop the word “while”. The sentence is “The members of the committee would like to see the House of Commons and the Senate adopt the same code at the same time”, or “at roughly the same time”. That's it.

    The Chair: This is Ken's suggestion. Most other people seem to want to strike it.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes.

    The Chair: It's not a vote. Can you just raise your hands if you'd prefer to strike it?

    If its okay with you, Ken, I would suggest we strike it.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Okay. But could there be a simple clause, Mr. Chairman, dealing with the Senate, saying simply that the jurisdiction of the Senate's code of conduct lies with the Senate, and that this is fine? Period. It's plain. Then we know we've dealt with it and it's the reality. We've dealt with it at this table. So we just simply say that's where it lies—in the jurisdiction of the Senate.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: If I may, as a mandate, we have our terms of reference. They have nothing to do with the Senate.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's your call, but—

    The Chair: I think we just agreed to strike it, okay.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: But you can't stick your head in the sand, and say there's not an issue here. Just simply say—

    Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): But it's not our issue.

    Mr. Tony Tirabassi: But they're not doing anything.

    An hon. member: But we don't care.

    The Chair: Colleagues, I would suggest we move on to number 5, which are the items that have already been raised. The next items are the ones we agreed on.

    Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, M. Chairman.

    In the first bullet of paragraph 4, on page 3, there is the following sentence, beginning at the very bottom of the page:

Parliamentarians are honourable people who seek to carry out their public duties and responsibilities with honesty and in accordance with the highest ethical standards, and we believe that a code of conduct will reinforce this.

    I find it pretentious and superfluous on the part of a committee of parliamentarians, because it is parliamentarians themselves who will be adopting this, that we state that these are honourable people. I would suggest that we remove the word “honourable”. The sentence would retain all of its meaning if we said: “Parliamentarians are people who seek to carry out their public duties and responsibilities with honesty...”. There is a bit of overkill with the addition of the word “honourable”. That is my first comment.

    My second one is that I have a problem with the English text and more particularly with the words “who seek to carry out their public duties”.

In French, the text says: “des gens... qui s'efforcent de s'acquitter de leurs charges et responsabilités publiques”. Mistakes can happen, but I am taking for granted that there is a presumption of honesty. I find that the text infers that some people make more of an effort than others in this regard. I would therefore suggest the following:

Parliamentarians are people who carry out their public duties and responsibilities with honesty and in accordance with the highest ethical standards, and we believe that a code of conduct will reinforce this.

    Therefore, the code of conduct will help us. If we make mistakes or have lapses, then the code of ethics will help us and tell us that we have gone astray. I find the term “honourable” superfluous.

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair: Any discussion of this?

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: M. Guimond has hit the nail on the head. We are drafting a code of ethics for ourselves. I am in agreement with this and see no problem in it. It looks good to say that we have a code of ethics. But why are we doing this? Is it to correct a problem? No, there is no problem. Is it to avoid problems? Is it to prevent us from having any? Yes. In that case, we do not have to seek to... M. Guimond is perfectly right.

    I must also tell you that what bothers me in this is the very tone of this statement. And I am saying this with all due respect to voters; that is not the issue. The impression we are giving is that we are trying to correct something. We have nothing to correct. No backbencher has been accused or found guilty of a conflict of interest since 1993. We are therefore sending the wrong signal, and I agree with M. Guimond. This is fundamental.

[English]

    The Chair: We're trying to capture what was said. I recall a discussion of this.

    I recalled when one of the academic witnesses made the point that they weren't perhaps the highest possible standards. My sense then was that people were quite concerned that the current bar not be lowered.

    If it is overturned, as Michel said, do we go with “Parliamentarians are people who carry out their public duties”, and responsibilities are the same, “in accordance with the highest ethical standards”?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: You don't have to strike the sentence.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: M. Chairman, could there not be an introduction that would include a sentence such as this one. I have not had the time to do a detailed drafting, but would you allow me to... I would say: “Members of parliament wish to equip themselves with a code of ethics that reflects their values and guides their actions.”

[English]

    The Chair: Hang on a minute. If we took the last part, following the “and” at the end of that bullet point, it would say “and we believe that a code with the highest ethical standards”, period. Then something could be done along the lines that Jacques said. Right?

    Geoff.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Perhaps it should read like this:

    “It is generally agreed that a code of conduct for parliamentarians is desirable and should be implemented. Such a code would assist and provide guidance to members in arranging their affairs so as to minimize the potential for conflicts of interest.”

    What's wrong with that?

    Mr. Derek Lee: Why do we not use the word “conduct”?

    Mr. Ken Epp: A code of conduct?

    Mr. Derek Lee: Call it “a conflict of interest code” or something like that. What do we have? Are we trying to read about a misconduct or something?

    The Chair: This business of writing collectively is pathetic. The simpler point we've come to, because of Michel's intervention, although Michel agreed, by the way, to a modest change, is to strike the last sentence completely, the bullet 1 under paragraph 4.

    We're going to do that, okay?

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: There is one last little detail, M. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: It should be small, Jacques. Go ahead.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Jacques Saada: It is small.

    In English I was told it was “we are in general agreement on a number of issues”. This notion doesn't appear in the French version.

[Translation]

     «De façon générale, le Comité convient...».

[English]

    The Chair: It's “on a number of issues”, under the last part of paragraph 4.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm referring to the very first paragaph in paragraph 4. Towards the end you have “we are in general agreement on a number of issues”.

    That made room for my concern at the beginning on the spousal disclosure. We don't have this nuance in French, where it shows that we are all in agreement with this. I have a problem with this.

[Translation]

    If we say “s'entendent généralement”, there is a nuance.

[English]

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I'd like to pick up again on what Derek said. I'll throw this out. Should we be referring to this as a conflict of interest code? A code of conduct doesn't govern how I treat my dog. This is a specific issue. If we say “conflict of interest code”, and refer to it as that, I think that explains what it is.

    The Chair: That is what it's called in the package.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: It's a draft.

    The Chair: That's right. It's the sort of thing that can be changed. What happens is, we all may understand this, but it's going to go out to other colleagues and they're going to say what's this--this is something new. Are they not?

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Well, I think it better explains what it is. It's a conflict of interest code, isn't it?

    The Chair: I'm looking around the table.

    Margaret, do you want to comment?

    Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): The original Milliken-Oliver draft called it a code of official conduct. PCO shortened it.

    The Chair: I see the lawyers just twitching here, just absolutely twitching.

    Derek, go ahead.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I'm trying not to be a Rube Goldberg, but as I looked at this myself over the last year or two, the only term I could come up with that I liked was “guidelines for the exercise of public responsibilities”.

    The Chair: You probably got a contract for about $63,000.

    Mr. Derek Lee: No one with a computer or typewriter seems to have picked up on that. I don't like “code of conduct”.

    “Conflict of interest code” and “conflict of interest guidelines”--a little bit narrower than the whole package. We have to keep working on it. In my view, this is not ready for prime time. It's barely ready even for an interim report to the House, but we'll keep working on it.

    I just thought the record should have my thoughts.

    The Chair: I have a suggestion here, if people are agreeable. I'm trying to look around. You're the most expressionless bunch of people I've ever seen in my life.

    Under five, we might have a bullet point. Members are uncomfortable with the term “code of conduct”, and believe a title such as “conflict of interest code” might be more appropriate.

    Mr. Derek Lee: Mine was “guidelines for the exercise of public responsibilities”.

    The Chair: Ken Epp.

    Mr. Ken Epp: It seems to me that every jurisdiction we've heard from uses the term “code of conduct”, don't they?

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't think so. I think it was more “conflict of interest”.

    The Chair: Margaret.

    Ms. Margaret Young: When Oliver and Milliken were doing this, the U.K. was developing its system, which it called a code of conduct. The provinces haven't tended to use “code of conduct”; they've used “conflict of interest” in terms of their commissioner, and their commissioner is called an integrity commissioner.

    You have a dichotomy. The principles in the application talk more generally. By the time you come to the rules, you're really talking about conflict of interest.

    The Chair: The suggestion is bullet five should say that members aren't comfortable with the term “code of conduct”, and believe that a title such as “code or guidelines regarding conflict of interest” might be more appropriate.

    So you'd like that.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Do you want to put Derek's addendum there at the end?

    The Chair: The question is, do we add an extra page to the report?

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Derek Lee: You didn't say what was next.

    The Chair: Okay, Derek.

    Bear in mind there's always the transcript of these things that officials can work with, as well.

    This report, with the sorts of changes we've described, will be presented to the House. We're going to circulate it. It will go to all members, not at the same time perhaps. But we'll also circulate this item to all members, drawing their attention to the parts of the current Standing Orders, the Parliament of Canada Act, and the Criminal Code, which deal with this matter.

    Meanwhile, officials will see this thing. They're going to have some idea of where we're going. Our colleagues will see it. They will see which way we're going, and our colleagues will receive this additional material Jacques has suggested.

    Will somebody move this report?

    Mr. Jacques Saada: If they have issues, they can see their House leaders.

    The Chair: Am I some sort of puppet here?

    It's moved by Geoff Regan that the draft report as amended be adopted as the committee's report to the House, and the chair will present the report to the House.

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Are we going to mention that members will be consulted with regard to this draft and that the purpose of this draft is precisely consultation?

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, add “The committee will consult with members of Parliament further in the future”--words to that effect, in the appropriate place. That's a good idea, I think.

    Derek Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I'm going to vote in favour--at least I won't vote against reporting this to the House. But if something were going through the cabinet now, it would be fully costed before we got there. I don't know whether there's been any attempt so far to figure out what this is going to cost all of us, including our electors.

    Could we at some point in the future just make a note that we ought to make sure it is costed out, before we put it to our colleagues in the House, so we know what it is going to cost here and/or in the Senate?

    The Chair: That is true. It's a good point, and it's duly noted. But I want to emphasize again we're just reporting where we are; we're not reporting something we've agreed to.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues.

    If we could ask the witnesses to come in, I'd be grateful.

    We'll suspend.

Á  (1157)  

---

  (1207)  

    The Chair: Colleagues, perhaps we should resume.

    This is item B on the agenda: pursuant to the committee's mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), consideration of changes to the rules governing private members' business.

    You will see back with us again, as extra witnesses, Audrey O'Brien, Deputy Clerk, and Marie-Andrée Lajoie, Principal Clerk, House Proceedings. They are not here to make a presentation, but to respond to our questions. They have been doing some work with respect to our last discussion.

    There are two documents that I can see we're dealing with. One of them is “Draft Report: Private Members' Business, Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, November 28, 2002”. It has the dark paragraphs in it. And the other document, which is the draft of chapter 11 of the Standing Orders dealing with private members' business, looks like this. It's to that, I think, that one or two modest changes have been made.

    Am I right, Audrey?

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons): Yes.

    The Chair: Do you want to say what those tiny changes are, Marie-Andrée?

    Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie (Principal Clerk, House Proceedings, House of Commons): At the last meeting it was requested that a change be made to replace, in various standing orders, the phrase “shall be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence” by the phrase “shall be added to the existing order of precedence”.

    This is not in the documents you have in front of you, but we've made the changes wherever it was applicable. That's the only--

    The Chair: Okay. You understand that, colleagues, and why it is.

    I'm in your hands. How would you like us to proceed at this point? You have the draft report, you have the chapter with the modification indicated: the phrase “to be added to the bottom of the list” simply changed to “added to the list”. Okay, we've got that.

    Carolyn Parrish.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I have mentioned previously that I have some very serious concerns about this. With all due respect to those who have drafted it, they've simply followed our instructions, and I think in this case have gone too far, too fast. I am not impressed that we're actually doing something without the criteria for rejection of a bill being included in it that I think should be enshrined in here.

    Secondly--I mentioned this last time--the concept of unanimity to reject a bill, to me, is not workable. I have a great deal of difficulty with it.

    Thirdly, I've had the pleasure and privilege of conducting two committee meetings that reviewed the procedures of selecting private members' bills and deeming them votable. We've made some remarkable changes. However, I am still not satisfied that my colleagues, whom I've talked to about this quite extensively over the last couple of weeks, know what they're getting.

    Mr. Chair, we've done surveys of our colleagues and we have found, where we do those surveys, that you get a very humble response. And it's always the same people, people who are terribly active in private members' business. So that's why I purposely talked to them over the past week, to find out what they feel about this.

    Those opposite have to know that I vote with my conscience--I think I've demonstrated that--and I believe this is too important for us to change without first having it go to the modernization committee. Secondly, I think it should actually be put to a vote in the House. I think we should all stand in our places in the House, once and for all--never mind surveys, never mind the same sad group always responding--and decide if we want all bills to be votable.

    The only way I can see of doing this is to make a motion. I would like to move that--

  (1210)  

    The Chair: Just a minute, Carolyn.

    We've got a lack of criteria and unanimity in the selection... Okay.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: And I really don't believe we've got 50% plus one of the House in agreement with this.

    I would like to move that notwithstanding the House's concurrence in the committee's fourth report, we put the following to the House, all our colleagues--and we have to have some trust and faith in them: that we continue with the current system governing private members' business, specifically votability, and the existing Standing Orders until such time as the modernization committee completes its business and reports to the House.

    If everybody likes what we've done so far, then they'll all vote for it. If they don't, they will refer it to the committee, because there's a lot more wrong with private members' business than the votability aspect.

    The Chair: Carolyn, could I have a moment, please?

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: And you can amend this to make it sound terrific.

    The Chair: I simply want to know what it is.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: This is a longstanding concern--

    The Chair: This doesn't specifically deal with the two items you mentioned. It deals with the whole thing.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It deals with the concept of our drafting this and getting this to this point. It's too fast. We have not consulted with all our colleagues. If we're truly democratic, 301 people have to consider this in the House.

    The Chair: Okay, I have Rick Borotsik, Dale Johnston, and then John Reynolds.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, with the utmost of respect, I know Ms. Parrish has been around the mulberry bush on this particular issue many more times than I, but to say that we're dealing with it too fast I think is probably not correct.

    In my short life in this Parliament, we have gone through this issue ad nauseam. In fact, you even came forward with another proposal and we put it into place, where you got 100 signatures. In my humble opinion, there is probably no process that is going to be 100% when it comes to private members' business.

    I'm comfortable that this is a good step forward, because now each member does have the ability to get a votable item. That is guaranteed. It is for a short period of time, and we may have to tweak it. We may have to change it. Or we may have to throw it out totally, like we did with the 100 signatures. When you proposed it, it sounded good. When it was put into place practically, it didn't work.

    This was proposed, and it sounds good. I like it. I really like it. The criteria part, I don't object to. Yes, we have to have some criteria as to why we're not going to accept the bill as put forward, but I don't think that is enough to kill the whole process.

    We've been working on this way too long. I sat on the committee, Mr. Chairman, and I have to tell you, I'm getting tired of going through and over, and listening all the what-ifs and why-nots. I'd just as soon go forward now with what we have as a pretty good basic principle. Let's deal with it for the trial period that we put forward, and if there have to be some changes to it at that point in time, I'm prepared to listen.

    The criteria I can perhaps live with. That's not a deal-breaker for me. I think we can develop that when the committee gets struck, and we can deal with the criteria.

    By the way, on the unanimity, I like that. To have a unanimous decision of the committee to stop a bill going forward is very good. One person out of five can simply say yes, it goes forward because I think it's still a good bill, regardless of what the content is. I don't see that as being a real danger.

    So, Mr. Chairman, let's go forward.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: I now have Dale Johnston, John Reynolds, and Garry Breitkreuz, but before I do that, for the benefit of our colleagues, I think I should read the motion slowly. It is that notwithstanding the House's concurrence in the committee's fourth report, that we report the following to the House of Commons: that we continue with the current system governing private members' business, specifically votability, and the existing Standing Orders until such time as the modernization committee completes its business and reports to the House.

    Dale Johnston, John Reynolds, and then Garry Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to start by asking Audrey and Marie-Andrée if they could help me to find the area in chapter XI, on private members' business, that refers to the sunset clause and the automatic review. These are two safety valves that I think were built into the fourth report of the standing committee, and if they are codified--and Audrey is going to point that out to me right away--then I think that answers all the concerns that Carolyn has. If we undertake this and find that there are difficulties or deficiencies.... I think that is the way to go.

    As Rick has already said, we've spent too much time on this to just throw the baby out with the bathwater and put it into another committee, to see it maybe die a natural death. I think what we need to do is just adopt this, as we had originally planned. It already has the safety valves built in.

    Audrey, if you wouldn't mind pointing out....

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Johnston, what you're looking for won't be found in chapter XI. It will be found in the draft report, which is basically the terms under which chapter XI would come into force. So in the second paragraph of the draft report you will find: “That, beginning January 27..., for the remainder of the 37th Parliament”, which would be the sunset clause you're talking about--

    The Chair: That's the very first sentence of this clause.

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien: That's the very first sentence, right.

    And then I'd refer you down to number 5, where it says:

    “The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs review the new procedures after one year of their coming into force and report any changes recommended to them to the House;”

    These standing orders to be contained in chapter XI as they are proposed before you would be enforced provisionally until the end of this Parliament, effective January 27, 2003. In January 2004 this committee could then take up all those provisional standing orders to basically review how they've been working, what changes you might want to make, what you might want to throw out or return to, or whatever. But the review would be for 2004.

    The Chair: Dale.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Just finally, my position would be not to support Madam Parrish's motion but to proceed in the fashion we had agreed to in this committee.

    The Chair: John Reynolds.

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I feel we would never get to where we'd have 100% of the people. We tried sending it back to the modernization committee. The last time the modernization committee looked at this--I sat on the original one, and I'm on the new one again--they sent it back to this committee to make a decision because they felt it should be in this committee, not in the modernization committee. We are meeting again, but we're going to report by April 30.

    I would hope that we could just accept the fact that the clerks have done a lot of good work in putting together a consensus of this committee. Well, it's not a consensus of most members of Parliament, but we accept that, and we look at it at the end of the year to see the faults, the good sides of that, and if there are any changes that need to be made. We've done a lot of work, and to start from scratch again by going through everybody and talking to everybody again I think is a process I don't want to have to sit through again.

    The Chair: Carolyn, do you want to respond directly to that before I go to Garry?

  (1220)  

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: First of all, I don't agree that we have a good basic principle; I'm sorry. I've had that position from the beginning, that I don't believe all bills should be votable because they all become whipped and they all become insignificant. So I don't agree.

    Second, on the sunset clause, we had that on the 100-member rule, but that was a minor adjustment to get you on the list of precedence. This is a major change, and there are a lot of people with bills that won't be drawn in the next year because it's going to be done a different way.

    Third, I'm not saying to go back. Hold this in abeyance and have every member in the House stand at their place and tell you what they want. That's not going back to the drawing board.

    The Chair: Let's let the others carry on. That's good; it was a response, and I'll come back to you.

    John, you still have a go.

    Mr. John Reynolds: As House leader of the official opposition, I brought this to my caucus. They support it 100% and are looking forward to passing it. I know the House leader of the government told me that he supported it, so I would just hope that we can move forward with it.

    The Chair: Garry Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Chair, this has been back and forth many times; I'm losing track of how many times we've sent this back and forth. Now, in reply to what Carolyn has just said, we must remember that every member in the House had an opportunity to vote on this, and there were no objections at all. It was passed by the House unanimously, I'm not sure when, but it was more than a year ago. That resolution was that private members' business should be votable, and this committee was instructed to come up with the standing orders to bring that into being.

    We can adopt this now, run with it for a year, and see whether the concerns that have been raised are realistic or not. I don't think they are. It works in similar democracies to ours, and I don't see why the Canadian Parliament would be any different from many of these other democracies where they have it. I believe we should go ahead with it now and give it an honest trial. I also remind you, Mr. Chair, that all House leaders and whips, all of them, agreed to that, and this committee should come up with the standing orders as requested.

    The Chair: The motion is “Notwithstanding the House's concurrence in the committee's fourth report, that we report the following to the House of Commons: that we continue with the current system governing private members' business, specifically votability, and the existing Standing Orders until such time as the modernization committee completes its business and reports to the House.”

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Colleagues, our next meeting is on Thursday, and it deals with security on Parliament Hill.

    The meeting is adjourned.