HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 10, 2000

• 1122

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. I see a quorum. Thank you, colleagues, for wedging this meeting in between bells for votes.

Our only purpose here today is to adopt the steering committee's report on agenda and procedure. That is our agenda for the next while.

The draft report is in front of you. You will see the items numbered down the list. I think there was a consensus and no objection to the agenda items. If you'll just take a moment to look through it and raise any questions you have, then I would accept a motion from someone to move adoption of the report.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, with regard to the report we have before us, I would simply like to make a comment and call on the good judgment of the committee.

In point 6, we agree to hold meetings in response to a request made by the Chairman, and I think it is imperative that we respond to that request. However, we continue by saying that these hearings should begin on Tuesday, February 15, 2000, insofar as possible.

I wish to point out to the members of the committee that when the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure met Tuesday morning, we did not yet have a specific idea of the order in which the government plans to introduce its work. We learned afterwards that the government intended to study bill C-2 at report stage on Monday and possibly continue with report stage on Tuesday or move to third reading, according to how much work has been done by the end of the day on Monday.

• 1125

In light of the interest all the members of this committee have in bill C-2, we know... One thing is certain, that is that bill C-2 will be examined in the House on Tuesday. Will it be report stage or third reading? We don't know, but bill C-2 will be debated in the House on Tuesday.

In light of the importance we attribute to bill C-2 on electoral reform, I submit that it might be well-advised for this committee not to hold a meeting on Tuesday, but rather to begin its study on Thursday. I foresee no negative consequence if the committee were to delay by one hearing the beginning of its study in order to allow all the members of this committee to take part in the debate that will take place in the House on Tuesday on bill C- 2, as they should, as interested and informed parties.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, thank you.

Monsieur Bergeron has outlined a consideration in relation to item 6. Item 6 reads, “hearings to begin on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 if possible”. He's addressing the “if possible” consideration there. Colleagues have heard his suggestion on that.

Is there any other item in the list members would want to take up at this time? I'm not walking away from that; we'll come back to it. But are there any others?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): When we meet with the Irish, I think we should have hard refreshments, not light refreshments.

The Chairman: Irish refreshments. Something commensurate with the heritage. All right. The clerk has taken note.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I wish to direct the attention of the members of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure to the fact that the use of the English expression "light refreshments" is a euphemism. Indeed, we know full well that at each of the meetings we held with foreign delegations, we were served a quasi-gargantuan meal, accompanied by quite remarkable refreshments. I'd hate to see the term "hard refreshments" used, because I hardly dare to imagine the type of meal we would be served in such a case.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, I think what we want to do is enhance clarity and reduce oxymoron. Okay, that's fine.

If someone would move adoption of the report, we could do that.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Now we should deal with the issue raised by Monsieur Bergeron. We probably will be debating Bill C-2 on the Canada Elections Act on Tuesday. Monsieur Bergeron has been leading his party's initiative on that bill. It might be very inconvenient for him to be here at the committee if we are debating that bill. I have some sympathy for that. There may be other colleagues from other parties with the same difficulty, including your chair. I have that same challenge.

I'm going to suggest we wait and see how the parliamentary calendar evolves. It seems to be changing every three or four hours. If in fact we are debating the report stage of Bill C-2 on Tuesday, would there be consensus then to dispense with our meeting of that date and roll everything backwards? Is that okay?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: All right. We'll make the judgment late on Monday. The clerk will get us organized on that.

Is there any other business? Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Actually I have a question of you, Mr. Chair, on Bill C-2. You'll recall that when we were going through the working stage of that bill I asked you to send a letter to the Privacy Commissioner with regard to section 110, which says electoral lists can be used to solicit memberships for parties and funds. Subsequent to that, much subsequent to that, we got a letter back from him; he was clutching his throat and saying this was really not reasonable. Are we going to do anything about that?

The Chairman: We're at liberty to do what we think is best. That letter should be made available to colleagues on the committee, if it hasn't been already.

The Clerk of the Committee: I believe it was sent just before Christmas.

• 1130

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Robertson suggests that we include this particular issue in the draft report, that we will be considering dealing with Elections Act issues that were not in the bill. It's our follow-up report, if you recall. That draft has not yet been circulated. There is a draft in existence, and it will be circulated. Let's agree now that reference to that issue will be included.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to ask a further question. If the bill passes on final reading and it goes into law, is it too late to change that?

The Chairman: Barring unanimous consent in the House at this time, it would not be possible to change the bill in the House, that's correct. I wouldn't say we could never get unanimous consent on something like this, but perhaps we should roll that issue to the top of the list.

I should tell members that there are about half a dozen to ten separate, very minor amendments that I've been advised the government would like to see made in the bill before it proceeds beyond report stage. Those amendments would all require unanimous consent in the House. I haven't yet shown the list to colleagues opposite—I haven't even shown the list to colleagues on the government side.

They're all very minor, and colleagues who were with us on the bill will recognize each very quickly, as to what they involve. They're very technical. But I think it's fair to say that if there were consensus among members who served on the committee and generally in the House to try to do an amendment at report stage that would accommodate the concerns of the Privacy Commissioner, then in theory it could proceed when we debate the bill at report stage.

Maybe, Ms. Parrish, you'd like to carry that one.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I wouldn't mind at all. I disagreed with it when we did it, and I knew he would come out with that kind of response. I think it's outrageous. So if you give me direction, I will take it.

The Chairman: We have to be careful about doing legislative amendments without our colleagues throughout the House knowing about it. Just because we think there's a mistake doesn't mean everybody else in the House thinks it's a mistake. So with that in mind then, perhaps you and I could collaborate on how that might be circulated as an issue.

It's a little bit more than just a technical issue, and I will be discussing this with colleagues opposite. It's not a short list. There are about ten technical items. If there is resistance in the House to unanimity to correct them, we'll have to live with that.

In theory, as well, although some of us don't like to pay too much attention to it, there's always the other place, just in case we have made a mistake and there's a need for sober second thought. I know some us like to think we always get it right the first time.

Are there any other issues?

Mr. Hill, and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I guess it's unclear at this point in time whether we'll be meeting on Tuesday, but in any event, if the first order of business is going to be to deal with the referral by the Speaker in regard to the 100-signature issue, we still haven't discussed who we're going to be calling as witnesses. I wonder how we're going to proceed with that. Are we going to discuss it now and come up with a game plan, or are we going to wait until the first meeting and do it then? I have some opinions on that, as I tried to express at the subcommittee.

The Chairman: Quite customarily we would call the clerk to provide us with the clerk's view of the procedure, the history, and suggestions for any modifications, and that would have been our first witness. So there's one meeting.

If you have a short statement you'd like to make or want to address issues now, if colleagues don't mind listening for a couple of minutes, then go ahead. It won't hurt if we do it now.

Could we just knock off the subcommittee report? We did adopt it, sorry. That's done. All right, go ahead.

• 1135

Mr. Jay Hill: The point I was making in the subcommittee was that I really don't see any benefit in calling the two individuals who were involved in the point of privilege on this issue. My fear there is that especially in light of the subject that we'll be discussing—private members' business—which all of us certainly hope is as non-partisan as possible, were they to be called, it could basically devolve into a more partisan discussion than is necessary.

I refer directly to... I'll quote from the Speaker's ruling, just a couple of quick points. He said:

There are no previous rulings to which the Speaker can turn for guidance in such a case, nor were comments made in the House prior to the adoption of these new Standing Orders which might be of assistance.

And then later on he said: “...the exact meaning of placing a signature on the list is not clear”. And further:

If our new procedures to increase the opportunity of Members to present their own initiatives are to be a success, we must ensure that we proceed on the basis of a common understanding and agreement as to how the rules governing them are to function.

I think that basically encapsulates what these meetings are about, to try to decide on a clear rule on the process. The issue between Mr. Chatters and Mr. Bryden is just an example. I don't think that either one of those gentlemen would be able to enlighten us as to the problems more than they've already done in the debate that took place in the House.

Therefore, I certainly agree that the obvious choice would be the clerk as our first witness. And further, perhaps we should consider the chairman of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, who was present at the time this new order came in—I wasn't aware that it was my colleague across the way, but perhaps she would have some views that would help to enlighten the committee—as well as some of the other committee members who agreed to that process, in terms of what they intended. I think that's what we're really dealing with: what was the intent of the fast-tracking that could take place by gathering 100 signatures?

The Chairman: That's fine.

Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I also suggest that we make sure we distribute that report, because there was tons of background information on exactly why that regulation came in and how we came to it. So I think that's very helpful, and that report's on file. If you don't have it, I've got it in my office.

The Chairman: I was just going to say the chair doesn't disagree with any of the principles enunciated by Mr. Hill at all, but given that our report back to the House may deal lightly or radically with Mr. Bryden's bill, I think we have to allow him an opportunity to speak to us. And if we allow Mr. Bryden to speak to us, then Mr. Chatters may also wish to.

I wouldn't want to actually do something that deals directly with a member's bill that would help or hurt it without allowing the member to speak to us. That's only one consideration. But I agree with trying to keep it procedural and non-partisan here.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On that point, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could begin our work and decide later whether or not our two colleagues should come. If we feel it is appropriate, we can then determine when we would like to have them here. That was my first point.

Secondly, although we have moved off that topic to a certain extent, I would like to come back to the point raised by Ms. Parrish. I think she is raising an important point which she had already raised when the report was studied in committee. She had asked that we get in touch with the Privacy Commissioner to obtain his advice on the possibility of parties using the electors' list to recruit members.

For one reason or another, it seems that no one from the department or the committee, no members of the committee, took the initiative of passing on that inquiry to the Privacy Commissioner. Consequently, perhaps we should look into it.

I want to add in this regard that regardless of practices or procedures put in place by our party in the House because of circumstances we are all familiar with, we are entirely ready to co-operate with all other parties in order to see the Electoral Act amended in any way that might improve it; it is the fundamental law underlying Canadian democracy and it explains our presence here today, each and everyone of us. So in that connection, have no fear.

I would prefer that we do it, even if this means that we might have to be a bit more flexible on certain matters, such as the following: that the non-elected members of the other House have the opportunity of expressing their opinion on the Electoral Act, which in fact allows the elected members of this House to be here doing what they do.

• 1140

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, thank you for that.

If there are no further comments or business, we've done our job. We've used the 30-minute bell very well and efficiently. Thank you very much.

We'll adjourn.