HAFF Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 4, 2003
| Á | 1110 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1115 |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) |
| Á | 1120 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
| Á | 1125 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1130 |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Geoff Regan |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
| Á | 1135 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Ken Epp |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
M. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jacques Saada |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1140 |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Tuesday, February 4, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Á 
(1110)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we will begin.
I think everyone has the agenda, the orders of the day. You see the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure—that's our steering committee—on electoral redistribution; the appointment of a chair for the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment, which has had a change of membership; and a change of chair for the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. Under “Other Business”, there is then some information for you about the process of electoral boundaries.
If we could go to item A, which is the report of the steering committee, I think you have a draft copy. Two things are not mentioned in that report. One is security. The steering committee discussed security at some length, and apart from disagreeing with the chair—which is not the reason it's not on there—we've been...yes, Benoît.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I'd like to follow along. Where is the report? Is this it?
The Chair: Yes, that's it.
[English]
To add to the report that you have before you, I might say that the matter of how we proceed on security was discussed. Some comments were made, so I'm doing something with the staff. We're preparing a statement on how we're going to proceed on the matter of security.
We did it that way because, one, we weren't quite in agreement about it; and two, we have two priority items. One of those items is the ethics package, which is essentially making preparation for draft legislation. The other is the second item not mentioned in this report, and that is the election expenses legislation, which has been tabled in the House and which we're expecting to receive in this committee. At the moment, however, it looks as though we won't receive it until next week.
So a lot of our discussion was about how we deal with the election expenses legislation and the ethics, which are the focus here.
Dale Johnston.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): I think you raised one of my points, Mr. Chair. In the report from the standing committee, there is no mention whatsoever of security. My understanding was that we were going to give that a lot higher priority than the code of conduct.
The Chair: That was not my understanding. On the other hand, we were certainly going to give it a high priority. I would look around to other members of the steering committee here. I don't know what their recollection was.
By the way, it certainly wasn't that we were putting it on the back burner. My understanding was that we were well into the ethics issue. It relates to the legislation. And should we get the Canada Elections Act, that would be legislation. The committee normally gives priority to legislation.
John Reynolds.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, there's a possibility that we could be at war. We're in a war on terrorism right now. Canada is part of that, but there could be a much more serious war, so the security of this place should be utmost on our agenda. We want to see Giuliano Zaccardelli here, and I know there was some comment from the Bloc or the NDP that we should have the union heads of security in to talk to us off the record also, so that we can get their feelings on this.
I think that's by far the most serious issue that we have to face. If we are into a war by next week, I would like to know we're looking at a system in this place that has us well protected during that period of time, because there are certainly going to be some divisions on it in the country.
The Chair: Again, I'm looking at members of the steering committee. I apologize if I misread that, but I would only repeat that I certainly didn't see us putting security on the back burner.
I'll give you an example. We've already had a meeting about it. We have a draft work plan here that involves the nature of the overall security organization here on the Hill. One specific matter has to do with visitors to Parliament. The fact is that we have not yet dealt with the people who organize the tours here. We have not dealt with the former MPs and others. And then we have a list of other issues ranging from the briefing of MPs and others, to security in constituency offices—which was raised at the steering committee meeting—and so on.
Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm not a member of the steering committee, but I must say that, from my perspective, there is no question that if a serious, violent event happened tomorrow on the Hill, the issue of security would probably be at a higher place in my mind instantly, obviously.
Having said that, while it's significant, it isn't seizing my attention completely or taking the kind of priority that would put it ahead of the code of ethics. I think it's important to continue that work, but from my point of view, I think it's important to do the code of ethics also.
The Chair: I do understand the arguments, and I very much accept the point about going to war. I apologize. I do think I should have included it in the report in some way.
If I could, I would suggest that at our next meeting—which, according to the work plan we have here, is a different one from this—I will present something around the work plan, if that is okay. The committee can then decide how we'll fit it in with the other work.
So we're considering this report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure in that light. I've agreed that, at the next meeting, we'll come forward with a short work plan indicating how we're going to proceed with our security work.
John Reynolds.
Á (1115)
Mr. John Reynolds: I would still like to see Zaccardelli here as quickly as possible. I'd just like to move that we have him here this Thursday, and if we need more than one meeting on Thursday, we can have one in the afternoon.
The Chair: The only thing I have to say about that, John—and I again look to the committee on this—is that we're really.... This aside, the argument is that security is immediately important.
What we were seized with really was how we proceed effectively with the ethics package—which was our pre-Christmas work—and the development of legislation on that, and how we will fit it in. Maybe it's going to be delayed by the arrival of the election expenses legislation. That includes the fact that we will wind up the hearings on ethics. We have the last witnesses in on that this Thursday. We then proceed next week to paragraph-by-paragraph consideration of our report on the ethics package.
I look to the committee. You've heard John's suggestion that we call a security witness on Thursday.
Can I say one more thing? If the election expenses legislation is delayed, we certainly will have time to do that.
Mr. John Reynolds: It won't get through in a hurry, I can tell you that, not unless they use closure.
The Chair: Dale Johnston.
Mr. Dale Johnston: My understanding is that the prime function of this committee is to deal with the matters pertaining to the House, the security of which is a very high priority. We had an incident on the Hill that sparked this whole debate about security, and, in my mind, we haven't rectified anything in regard to that.
The Chair: I'm not here arguing my own position. I'm arguing my interpretation of what happened at the steering committee meeting. That's really all I'm doing. I'm looking around at the committee to see how we proceed from here.
Geoff Regan.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Who did you have in mind for Thursday?
The Chair: On Thursday, we have the Parliamentary Spouses Association and Democracy Watch here. They're our last two insistent witnesses, groups that badly wanted to appear before us, and I have no idea how long that meeting will take. On the other hand, if we were to bring in the witness suggested here, that would take a whole meeting. I do understand that, and we could have an additional meeting.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, you say we have those two groups in on Thursday on the code of conduct and that those are the last two that badly want to meet with us. Did we have a list of others with whom we were anxious to meet, or at least—
The Chair: It was not a long list. If you look back at when we worked out the plan for dealing with the ethics package, a range of witnesses could have been called.
Our thinking now is that, before Christmas, the committee got to a point at which we could now go to paragraph-by-paragraph consideration of what we decided on. Personally, I believe that's the case. I believe we don't need more witnesses for ethics purposes.
Mr. Geoff Regan: The other thing is that we don't know whether Commissioner Zaccardelli will be available on Thursday. Obviously, if you have a week rather than two days, there's less of a chance of getting him.
The Chair: Organizationally, I can see that. What we're discussing here is whether or not we keep more or less to the plan of the steering committee. The steering committee has to change its mind. That's essentially what has to happen.
Can we not in some way accommodate this request? We could accommodate it quite simply with an additional meeting next week.
Marlene Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Chair, we've started two major and significant processes. One is looking at security and one is looking at the code of conduct. I presume the intention is to have the two final witnesses and to then prepare a draft report.
Á (1120)
The Chair: Yes.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Does that then dispose of that?
The Chair: It does. That's right.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: We could then focus on security. Our examination of security doesn't begin and end with Commissioner Zaccardelli coming before us. We don't have a work plan right now for security, in terms of where we are heading next and how we are proposing to wrap this up.
Frankly, Mr. Chair, one thing that I think should perhaps happen is a meeting between you and the Speaker of the House, to look at what the board's role is here, what the role of the House is, and what this committee's role is.
Mr. Reynolds and I know we're dealing with it in both places. I don't want to just say that we have Commissioner Zaccardelli here. Without knowing where we're going, I prefer the idea of completing this stage of our work on the code of conduct and then really spending the time to put together a work plan on security. I don't mind if we have an extra meeting to accommodate having Commissioner Zaccardelli here, but that doesn't deal with where we go from there.
The Chair: No, and we did make the point at the steering committee meeting that the RCMP have not yet responded in writing to our request for information.
Yvon Godin.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, when we discussed that, I got the impression that from a security standpoint, we can't wait until an incident occurs, because then it will be too late.
I had suggested that we bring in persons who work in this area, such as employee representatives. We need to hear their side of the story. If Canada commits to a war, a war that the NDP is not in favour of, and if some incidents occur and we have failed to make every effort beforehand with respect to matters of security...As I see it, our priority should be security, not the code of ethics.
[English]
The Chair: Can I just comment? We tried to capture the sense of the steering committee meeting in this thing I have before me. For example, we did put down the idea of meeting with representatives of the House of Commons security staff. What I guess was misinterpreted is where that fits into the work of Parliament.
Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I'm trying to understand something, Mr. Chairman. If in fact a security plan is in place in the event of war, not only will we be calling on the RCMP, but on all stakeholders as well. Our normal routine will fall by the wayside. Why focus solely on the RCMP for this? Why not have a true emergency preparedness plan in place?
[English]
The Chair: You weren't in on the steering committee meeting, so maybe I should read most of this out. These were all in the mix and in the discussion I tried to outline to you.
The first one was the Commissioner of the RCMP—and these are potential people to have in—to discuss the nature of global security. Next was the Office of the Auditor General to report on matters of joint interest. We discussed comparative arrangements, such as arrangements in the United Kingdom that have been discussed by witnesses, along with those in Australia and the United States. Next was John O'Reilly, MP, on the parliamentary precinct. After that were informal consultations with senators, because this committee has had problems in the past with the Senate dealing with the same material. Mr. Godin suggested representatives of the House of Commons security staff. We should probably explore differences in training, policies, and so on, for the House, for the Senate, and for members of Parliament and senators and so on. And by the way, I could go into similar detail for visitors to the parliamentary precinct.
Those are the matters that I have here that were raised at the steering committee, but I'll also briefly mention a list of other issues. Bilingualism was mentioned again, employment equity was also raised, as was vehicle access to the Hill, and so on.
I'm repeating this here. I regret that I didn't mention it in passing, because my intention was to introduce this work plan and fit it into the other arrangements. The debate we're having here now is where we fit it in.
John Reynolds.
Mr. John Reynolds: I don't disagree with you, Jacques, but we did have the head of security here and we did have Gus Cloutier here. From discussing things with them, we know the RCMP have some great concerns. If there is a crisis, it seems the RCMP do take over, but it could even be the armed forces if we were to get into a really tough situation.
I think we should be hearing from the head of the RCMP on what his recommendations might be for a single force that could protect the Hill if necessary. My understanding is that it is a recommendation of the RCMP that there should be a single force on the Hill and that they would maybe be in charge of it. I think that's why it's important to hear from the head of the RCMP: to see exactly what their thoughts are on how we would have maximum security on the Hill. We may not necessarily agree with them, but we should at least hear what their point of view is, especially if we're looking at a situation in which we could have the country going to war within the next few days.
Á (1125)
The Chair: I hear that Yvon has changed his mind since the steering committee meeting.
Could I suggest this, then? I would suggest we proceed as we're doing on Thursday, the exception being that I will bring this, fleshed out with your assumed interest in the RCMP that is very high. I will include a suggested meeting rather quickly with the commissioner of the RCMP, if he can come. We can accommodate that next week with an additional, special meeting for that.
The thing I will bring in on Thursday will actually go beyond that though, John, because this committee's interest is very wide in these matters and gets down to a great deal of detail. So based on this document that I have in front of me, which is based on the steering committee discussion, I will have a tentative work plan that begins, as this one does, with a meeting with the commissioner of the RCMP. That will be a special meeting next week, and then we can proceed with our ethics package. We would then fit in the other work of the committee appropriately.
Yvon Godin.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: I simply want to clarify a point. I haven't changed my mind. What I said was that I didn't think the RCMP should be the only force authorized to enter Parliament. I believe I made my point clearly to the steering committee. If war should break out, we will certainly put another plan into action. The steering committee discussed routine security matters. We're talking about two different things.
[English]
The Chair: John can clearly speak for himself, but I think what he's trying to do is anticipate that particular circumstance. I looked around and could see that people are interested in doing that.
Colleagues, you have before you the motion that the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda be concurred in, subject to this discussion of security. That's what the motion would be. The report is the one you have before you. I've mentioned the code of conduct enough, so the plan is to have the witnesses in and to get to paragraph-by-paragraph consideration next week, subject to this additional meeting that we're going to have.
On electoral redistribution, it's proposed that a report be presented to inform the House that no objections were received to the reports of the electoral boundaries commissions for Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan within the thirty-day period prescribed by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The subcommittee is now in receipt of the report from P.E.I. That is proceeding, and in the material that you have under “Other Business”, you'll see the expected dates for receipt of the reports of the other commissions.
Would someone move the motion that you have before you, amended in the way subject to discussion?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I so move.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: We'll now move to item B, and boundaries redistribution.
John Reynolds.
Mr. John Reynolds: In regard to the meeting on Thursday, who is coming from the Parliamentary Spouses Association?
The Chair: We don't know yet.
Mr. John Reynolds: The only reason I ask is that my wife is the vice-president of the association, and she has a different opinion from that of the president. If the association is coming to promote one position—to be against spousal declaration—I'd like to know that, because I'll have my wife come. I think she's in favour of it, because she has been through it before.
The Chair: We'll convey they to whomever it is that's coming. Perhaps you could.
Mr. John Reynolds: No, I'd rather have somebody else do that.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I actually don't think it is our business to tell the associations who they send. On the other hand, I understand your point.
Mr. John Reynolds: If they're coming to present that position, though, I'd like to know that.
The Chair: We can find that out when they arrive.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I think it's not unreasonable to ask someone speaking on behalf of an association how the association came to their position.
The Chair: Yes, but we can do that when the time comes, although I understand the circumstances.
Mr. Geoff Regan: It's fine to ask them that question.
The Chair: Under item B, we have the other report that you have here. It is the report that begins, “Pursuant to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act”, and so on. It refers to the commissions for Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan. Would someone move that report?
Á (1130)
Mr. John Reynolds: I so move.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: This form will be tabled in the House of Commons. If you could, please advise the whips and your people that it will be tabled.
Moving on to the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment, I think the main item is the replacement of Pierre Brien, in this case.
Benoît Sauvageau.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I move that Michel Guimond substitute for Pierre Brien on the subcommittee.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for that.
The Subcommittee on Private Members' Business needs a chair. Marcel Proulx was here and we did thank him the last time. As you know, though, he is now a parliamentary secretary and has in a sense moved on. Do we have a name?
Marlene Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I extend my apologies to the committee, but I haven't had the opportunity to consult with my colleagues on this. With the agreement of the committee, I would like to do that very shortly and provide you with a name that you can table in the House. Would that be satisfactory?
The Chair: The latest I can receive it is Thursday, because the subcommittee meets next week. Thursday would be fine. On the other hand, I'm in the hands of the committee. It might be better if it came through the committee, Marlene.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thursday's fine.
The Chair: So for this item related to the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, colleagues, we're postponing it. We'll bring it up again on Thursday, briefly.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Can I go back for one second? I have a quick question about the boundaries issue in terms of Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan. I just wonder about the degree to which members were aware they were tabled on December 6 and December 10 respectively in regard to those provinces. That was a time of year when it was pretty easy to let it slip by.
The Chair: Do you mean with respect to our members of Parliament?
Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes.
The Chair: Just so you know, colleagues, we've set up a subcommittee to deal with these matters.
As soon as we receive a report from a commission, the MPs in the jurisdiction concerned receive a package of material from us. That package of material explains that the report has been received, that the clock is ticking, and that they have thirty days. There is then a procedure, including the obtaining of signatures of ten other members or something like that. They get the full details. So our members are informed very promptly. And by the way, I'm advised that Jean-Pierre Kingsley also advises those members at the same time.
So we've established that procedure, and our subcommittee is using the procedure that we have set up. Every member of Parliament for the entire province of P.E.I., for example, has received a letter from us in the last week.
Mr. Dale Johnston: It was a mass mail-out.
The Chair: A mass mail-out, yes.
By the way, we also advise the whips of every party at the time we receive it, Geoff. So there is a system in place.
Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you.
The Chair: John Reynolds.
Mr. John Reynolds: What is the procedure if a member wants to appeal?
The Chair: Jamie will tell you that in detail, John, but they certainly can appeal. You should know, though, that they need the signatures of other MPs from any party.
Mr. John Reynolds: How many?
Mr. Dale Johnston: Ten.
The Chair: Ten.
And you should also know that when they appeal, they will appear before our subcommittee. Jamie can describe to you what the subcommittee can do.
Go ahead, Jamie.
Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): The notice we send to each MP has a draft motion attached to it. That is required by the statute. It just requires a slight motion indicating what the nature of the objection is, and you must have the signatures of ten members. They don't necessarily need to be on the same piece of paper. If it were a case of holidays, I think we could take letters from ten members, too.
Basically they just have to describe briefly the nature of the objection being made. The subcommittee will then hear from the member and will report back to this committee on the nature of the objection, along with any recommendations. If it agrees, this committee then sends that recommendation to the Chief Electoral Officer, who forwards it back to the commission for each province.
The Chair: And that commission may or may not act on it. That's the key point.
Mr. John Reynolds: That's my question. They can still say no, so we really have no power at all.
Á (1135)
The Chair: Absolutely. We have no power at all. We're a last kick at the can.
Colleagues, is that useful?
Guy St-Julien, and then Ken Epp.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, does each committee member receive a copy of the reports produced by the Newfoundland and Labrador and Saskatchewan electoral boundaries commissions before these reports are tabled in the House of Commons?
[English]
The Chair: No, Guy, the members who are on the subcommittee that we have set up receive it. I suspect it would be superfluous, frankly, but I'm advised that you can get a copy from Journals.
By the way, as I just did with P.E.I., I do say so in committee when it has been received. If you're here, I will certainly say that it has been received.
Ken Epp, and then Jacques Saada.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Canadian Alliance): Where does the number for the signatures come from, the 10? Ontario has 100 members, so that's 10%. Alberta has 26, so that's—
The Chair: I'm told it's in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, for which we are responsible—not you and I, but we as a committee.
Mr. Ken Epp: It's right in the act?
An hon. member: But the members don't have to be from your province. You just need ten members of the House.
Mr. Ken Epp: It's any ten members of the House?
The Chair: Yes, it's any ten members of Parliament. In P.E.I., they don't have to get ten from P.E.I.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Ken Epp: I was just wondering whether we're now going to have ten members of Parliament from P.E.I.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, when a provincial report is submitted to the subcommittee, does it automatically become a public document accessible via the Internet?
[English]
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Then, we can access the report.
[English]
The Chair: I thought the question was whether or not they are sent directly to our members as members of the committee. That's what I was responding to.
Colleagues, again under “Other Business”, you'll see a little bit of additional information about that. I stress that those dates are tentative dates, just to give you an idea. Ontario and Quebec come in last, and that is where I think most complications are expected.
Yvon Godin.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Regarding item number 2...
[English]
The Chair: Do you mean the first one numbered “2”? Two of them have the same number.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: The Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.
[English]
The last one.
The Chair: The second one.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: One item referred to the chair of the subcommittee, while the other pertained to a subcommittee member.
[English]
The Chair: I think Michel Guimond is still on it.
[Translation]
M. Yvon Godin: I'd like to move that Benoît Sauvageau substitute for Michel Guimond.
The Chair: Substitute for Michel Guimond.
[English]
Jacques Saada.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: I have a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Instead of settling the issue of the chair and the makeup of the committee, why not deal with these two matters as a whole. That would be no problem whatsoever, and it would be simpler to get this done all at the same time.
The Chair: Any objections, Benoît?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: None.
[English]
The Chair: Jacques, I would say to you that, as deputy whip, you might consider it. I haven't received notification, but Tony Tirabassi is also a parliamentary secretary and may well want to stay on the committee.
Mr. Jacques Saada: You can count on me to convey this message to my whip, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Colleagues, is there any other business?
Before the meeting began, I mentioned Bermuda. We've had this request that our equivalent, opposite members in the House of Assembly of Bermuda want to come here and want to meet with us in various ways. I assumed you all want to do that. We don't go on many field trips, but it does sound like a very pleasant one if we get the chance.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Can we go there after the meeting?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]...the green buses.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Yes, that's right. The only field trip we've had has been in one of the green buses.
Colleagues, is there any other business?
I'm going to adjourn the meeting, but this is how it is. The next meeting is on Thursday. There will be two witnesses on the ethics package, with a view to moving to paragraph-by-paragraph consideration of the ethics package next week.
At that same meeting on Thursday, I will have a working plan on how we're going to proceed with security. It will begin with a special meeting next week, to which we will call the Commissioner of the RCMP, assuming he is available.
We will also deal with the matter of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business at that point, because it's very important for the parties and that's the last time we can do it.
Carolyn Parrish.
Á (1140)
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I noticed that, on the outline from the steering committee, you talked about dealing with my item. Will that require any witnesses, or will that allow for any witnesses?
The Chair: Could we leave that until Thursday, if we have the time? If not, can it wait until the beginning of the meeting on Tuesday?
Colleagues, you've read the report. Carolyn Parrish has a particular motion before us. She has agreed and we have agreed that it will be dealt with under item 17 of the ethics package.
Are you comfortable with that, Carolyn?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, and I'm going to give you more details.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. John Reynolds: What is the motion?
The Chair: Carolyn, do you want to repeat your motion, please?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: The motion is to exclude all trips paid for by foreign governments, foreign embassies, private corporations, everybody.
Mr. John Reynolds: Third parties.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, any third party that has nothing to do with the government.
The second part of it is to allow up to two travel points to be used, at the discretion of the member, to do overseas trips. The third is to access the current budget of $16,000 for expenses on such trips. There's no increase in costs, but it does still give us the freedom to move around the world as independents in order to have a look at what's going on.
The Chair: The first part of that is already covered by a paragraph in the ethics package. Carolyn's motion simply pushes the thing further than has been envisaged so far.
Are you okay with that, Carolyn?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.
The Chair: You're okay.
We're adjourned until Thursday.