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, April 6, 2000

• 1114

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the committee to order. I see a quorum.

The first item on our agenda today, colleagues, is consideration of a report from our subcommittee on private members' business. They have reviewed the inventory from the lottery and other sources. We are now asked to consider and adopt that report for introduction into the House. If one of us will move adoption of the report, we may consider it.

Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I move we concur in the report tabled by the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

Is there any discussion of this report? You will have it in front of you. It's one page, and there are three motions and one bill listed there. As per usual, this report would have been adopted, based on consensus of the subcommittee.

• 1115

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chairman: Thank you.

The next item continues our consideration of the reference from the House on the subject of confidentiality. We have back with us today Robert Marleau, Clerk of the House; and Mr. Rob Walsh, Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel.

We also have in that envelope a motion that was submitted by Mr. Knutson. The terms of the motion are set out in our order of reference, our agenda paper in front of you. I'm in your hands as to when we would consider the motion. The agenda shows that the motion was not moved, but it is there for our consideration. Perhaps we should go to our witnesses and keep the motion in mind.

Given that this is a second appearance by the witnesses, I'm going to, with your support, keep our interventions at five-minute rounds, to try to speed up the process.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I have a small point of order. If we wish to discuss the contents of that motion with the witnesses, would it be preferable to have it moved before we get into—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): No, no, later.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Later?

[English]

The chair will rule us out of order.

The Chairman: No.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chairman: The issues in the motion are all before us, in any event.

I suggest we allow both of the witnesses, or either of them, to make an opening statement to bring us up to date, if they believe that would be helpful to the committee. I'll start with Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hope we'll be able to get on to a couple of items where we have some suggestions for you, in the context of your order of reference. With your indulgence, I would like to respond to some of the testimony you've heard over the last two meetings.

First, Mr. Chair, I need not give you a lecture on parliamentary privilege or contempt of the House in relation to committees. You wrote the book, as I understand it.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): The rest of us didn't write the book.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I have to say that I was astonished, when you opened your proceedings on Tuesday, that the two witnesses alleged they had been harassed for testimony they gave before your committee.

In terms of my own person, I have to categorically deny that. As Clerk of the House, I have to say that never in those four years was such a matter brought to my attention by witnesses or any other officer of the House. It's a serious charge. But it is in the full power of the committee to deal with it, and as you well know, it is in the full power of the committee to give it the weight it wishes to give to it.

I want you to know that from a personal standpoint, from what I know as of this morning, I give it no weight at all, and I'm speaking as an officer of the House.

Secondly, there were comments made about this institution—who runs it and who should run it. I wish to disassociate myself entirely from those comments. I do not believe the House is run by the government, nor do I feel in their control.

• 1120

No employee under my authority has the mandate from me, the Speaker, or the Board of Internal Economy to give strategic political advice to members on either side of the House. The claim that all that is left for the private member, once a majority government has been elected in the House of Commons, is legislative counsel under the cloak of solicitor-client is surreal.

Thirdly, there's only one culture at the House of Commons in the staff, and it's the culture of service. Their first loyalty is to the institution. Their second loyalty is to the institution, and so is their third. We are in the service of members on both sides of the House, and a cloud has been cast over all procedural officers who have not taken oaths as lawyers. That's wrong and that's false.

A minor point, but an important point, is there's a two-tier system, or a two-speed system for the treatment of amendments filed by backbenchers, versus ministers. That's a myth in the minds of those who have articulated it. There's only a one-speed system; it's one of professionalism. Every amendment, regardless of its source, gets viewed, reviewed, and if necessary reviewed by me, as to whether it's in order or not.

I want to state categorically that any attempt to flood the system with thousands of amendments makes no difference to the clerks at all. If the government's agenda and Mr. Boudria's planning is thrown off because we need to take the necessary time to do the job to advise the chair, then that's the way the cookie crumbles.

We have never rushed back to the House because we didn't have enough notice. Some of you may remember the chair putting before the House one grouping, simply because the chair did not have the time to do them all. If necessary, we'll take the time it requires and put them one by one before the House, until the Speaker is satisfied as to whether they're in order or not.

As to the confidentiality of the relationship between you and clerks, between you and lawyers, all I want to say is the relationship between procedural clerks predates any legal counsel, any legislative counsel, in the House of Commons of Canada. It doesn't exist in Great Britain. There's no such thing as a parliamentary counsel at Westminster in the House of Commons.

In most Houses across this country in the provinces, a parliamentary counsel is an employee of the government. As far as the options you have to gain a greater sense of security about that relationship are concerned, I'll be happy to answer your questions.

[Translation]

I will now, if I may, call on Mr. Walsh and ask him to speak to us for a few moments and that is all I will say.

[English]

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have to say at the outset that I of course subscribe fully to what the clerk has just said, and indeed I find myself moved by it.

My being here has been a long and difficult trip. I have come here rather late in my life....

• 1125

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Give him some time.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Let's take a break.

The Chairman: I think the best thing we could do now is get into questions. We'll certainly come back to Mr. Walsh.

I'll start off with Mr. Hill and then Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing today. It's obviously very difficult to address the allegations that have been made to this committee.

The central issue the committee is grappling with is the issue of confidentiality and whether or not a solicitor-client privilege exists between the legal and/or legislative counsel and members of Parliament when they're called upon to draft either amendments for government bills or private members' business in particular, and I think also by extension when they perform the role of legal counsel to a member of Parliament when inquiring about issues concerning their employment and the employment of people who work under them.

In the ruling the Speaker made, he said there's a team in place, and confidentiality exists within that team, and to the best of all of our knowledge, it's never been breached. Can you identify for the committee, Mr. Marleau, who constitutes that team?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I can identify it in general terms. Mr. Walsh may want to be more specific about it. If you're looking for who, we didn't bring that list with us today.

The law clerk overseas both sides of the operation, legal and legislative. The legal side is much more, shall I say,

[Translation]

I am trying to get across to you the idea of a bulkhead.

[English]

a small umbrella. Essentially it's all lawyers, except their support staff. There, as we said in the previous testimony when we appeared before the committee, the principle of client-solicitor is applied or is in effect, or the spirit of it is in effect. It's still a debate amongst you as to whether it truly applies or not, but that office has conducted itself as if it does apply, up to and including the demands or requests for limits that the Board of Internal Economy, as the employer, would apply.

On the legislative side, there are the legislative counsel, who interact with members directly, taking their instructions; there are legal translators, who do the translation as they see it; there's administrative staff; and there's a small group of, I believe, at the present time four procedural clerks, who have at the current time a speciality on the legislative side in terms of amendments. They interact with the legislative counsel, or are supposed to interact with the legislative counsel, in order to provide service to the member. There's some support staff as well.

In the context of the rare occasions when we get a large number of amendments, a couple of more procedural clerks with expertise in the background might be moved in for that particular task, but all under the same confidentiality relationship.

There, on that side of the operation—I gave you my answer as clerk the last time; Mr. Walsh may wish to comment further—I subscribe more to the notion Mr. Gallaway shared with you at the last meeting or the second-last meeting. In my view, there is no client-solicitor relationship in that relationship. This is not something that's going to end up in a judiciary process. That's the debate you're having. I'm not joining in it. I'm telling you how we see it.

• 1130

But parliamentary privilege applies, and it applies in the absolute. If anyone, including the photocopy operator, were to violate that confidence, it would be covered by parliamentary privilege. It's an in-House activity that is managed and dictated by the House. The law society of any province has no say, in my view, in what goes on in that office.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay. In all your years here at the House, have you ever known of a case where there's been a breach of that confidentiality outside of this team as you've just described it?

Mr. Robert Marleau: In my thirty years here at various levels of the organization and in my thirteen years as clerk, I've had no complaint that there has been a breach or a break in the confidentiality relationship with the member that might have gotten out to another member or to another party.

Mr. Jay Hill: Because the problem might be—

The Chairman: I'll just give you notice that we've hit five minutes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay. Could I just ask one short question?

The Chairman: Really short.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

Could part of the problem be that members of Parliament are just not aware that this information is shared amongst that team? Is it perhaps just misinformation more than anything else that's created this problem—a perception problem?

Mr. Robert Marleau: It certainly is part of the problem. There's also been a very large turnover of members since 1984, again in 1988, and again in 1993. I must say when I sat at the head of the table and looked at the House in 1993, I'm glad anybody knew my name.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Robert Marleau: That has impacted on what members know and expect, and the learning curve, as you know, is sometimes beyond one mandate in this organization. We do orientation sessions and follow-up sessions, but you know the nature of your life. I put on orientation sessions, repeated six weeks into the Parliament, and it's hard to fit them into your calendar. In those sessions, we do discuss these relationships.

We expect that the clerks or the lawyers working and interacting are the first communicators of that confidentiality, and they are certainly not to be those to destabilize it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I had recognized Ms. Parrish, and then we'll go to Mr. Bergeron.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Remember at the last meeting I talked about recollections of the whole plan to try to alleviate the problem with drafting legislation. Finally, through the help of Jamie, I was able to find the meeting. It was on Thursday, May 30, 1996, and it was looking at main estimates. In this, we have a very interesting proposal, and I'm quoting from the report:

The subcommittee of the Board of Internal Economy has examined this question following a request by the third party in the House

—at the time the Reform—

when a scheduling conflict arose in their capacity to support members drafting amendments at the report stage of Bill C-68 while at the same time helping with the drafting of private members' bills, which is quite a different matter, but a service provided by the same office.

In this whole discussion, Mr. Langlois brought up a very serious objection. At that time, the plan, to try to expedite things and save money and streamline, was to send those three lawyers to the Library of Parliament. Mr. Langlois objected rather strongly.

So what I'm asking you is, did you come up, at the Board of Internal Economy's subcommittee, with the prospect of going to the clerks instead of to the library, as was proposed in this meeting, to address Mr. Langlois' concern while still addressing the Reform concerns?

Mr. Robert Marleau: The office's mandate, resourcing, the demands have been under review since 1994, after we experienced a downsizing, followed by the board recommendations known as the Gagliano plan.

One thing I want to make clear from what I heard in some of your exchanges with the previous witnesses is there was no targeted downsizing. Everyone left under the early departure incentive plan, voluntarily and with a smile on his or her face, by the way. No one office was targeted.

• 1135

The board charged us, as managers, with a staffing freeze imposed for every departure and a salary cut for every departure, to re-engineer, to rethink how we do business. During that entire period there was discourse between me, Mr. Walsh, the board, Camille Montpetit, and the deputy clerk, Mary Anne Griffith. None of this was necessarily done without the members knowing something was going on.

You raised that testimony from Mr. Langlois on May 30, which I remember. He asked me if it was a rumour, and I said “No, it's not a rumour.” I was very candid about it. At that point the board had charged me to discuss with the librarian the possibility of transferring those resources and offering them on a confidential basis, in much the same way the researchers are offered by the library to all of the committees.

There was also a debate at the time as to whether legislative counsel should be at every committee meeting, you may remember, and we just didn't have those resources. I say that in that very transcript to Mr. Speaker from Reform at the time.

You were talking about May 30, 1996. On June 18, 1996—and here I'm not divulging a board matter, as it's in the minutes that were tabled by the board in the House—the board decided not to approve the subcommittee's recommendations concerning the mandate and the structure of the legislative counsel services.

No further action was taken within the 35th Parliament. We continued with exactly the same thing we're operating under now. So this strange change that occurred in October 1996 did not really occur then. It occurred much earlier, a year earlier, following the Gagliano plan, and that's the memorandum we provided to the clerk.

In the 36th Parliament, you well remember—Mr. Gallaway remembers for sure—there was real pressure at the beginning of the Parliament in terms of delivering these private members' bills. We're talking strictly of private members' bills at this point, because it's not about amendments.

I can't tell you what the decisions were, because none of the subcommittee reports were approved by the board, and the last discussion of those subcommittee minutes was on March 16, 1999.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Can I just interrupt here? In the minutes of that meeting, it says absolutely right here:

There are no great dollar savings in this move. It represents three salaries shifting to the library. What we see, though, and what the librarian has seen as the advantage to it, is that there could be more efficiency, better service to the members and committee members, since there's a continuum in the analysis of bills and in the drafting of amendments thereto.

You also say to Mr. Langlois:

...there is no shift from the legislative to the executive. I certainly understand his feeling that members and backbenchers and members in opposition require independent, autonomous service. The library is under the control of the two speakers and functions in the same non-partisan, executive-removed manner.

So all through this testimony—and I'd be pleased to share it with everyone—there is a problem we've been trying to deal with, and you've been dealing with it.

I think the problem we had with the people who testified the other day is they're burned out. They've spent a long time drafting amendments and bills that are not going through, and maybe they should be shifted around. Maybe we should start moving people back into Justice for a while so that they can have some success.

I feel very badly that you have to go through this.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Bergeron for five minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would for my own part like to say that I fully appreciate how difficult it must be for the Clerk and for Mr. Walsh to appear before us today, considering what may have been said in the course of the last two sittings of the committee. I understand there may be a certain uneasiness.

I would also like everyone to understand that it was probably just as difficult for the two people who appeared before us earlier on, to talk about those things we asked them to tell us.

From what I have been able to see, some of the things that were said here roused the Clerk and Mr. Walsh to indignation. I am referring, for example, to what was said about the House being subordinated to the government. These statements were perhaps a bit extreme, but no one here can say that the theory of the separation of powers is being wholly applied in Canada, since everyone knows full well that in the British parliamentary system the government derives from the parliamentary majority. There does exist, then, if I may say, a slightly incestuous relationship between the legislative branch and the executive branch in the British parliamentary system and we all know that.

• 1140

As for strategic advice, I agree with the Clerk that personnel of this House's administration have no business providing members with any strategic or political advice whatsoever. Perhaps what was meant by that was simply that advice may sometimes be used strategically by the member who receives it.

As to the existence of a two-track system, I agree with the Clerk: in terms of results, there may be no difference between amendments put forward by the government and those put forward by members, but we should all recognize that in terms of process, there is a definite difference since government counsel, within the Department of Justice, do not have to hand their amendments to a clerk before tabling them, whereas legislative counsel and clerks actually work together on amendments introduced by individual members.

There is, then, a difference in terms of process. Is there a difference in terms of the result? The Clerk says no. There is indeed no reason to believe that there would be a difference in terms of result, but there is, nevertheless, a difference in terms of process. That is an issue that we must address.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Marleau how long he has been Clerk of the House.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Since July 3, 1987.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Since 1987.

Mr. Marleau, in the course of our last sitting, I referred to a document we have obtained from the Library of Parliament and that was published in 1988 under the authority of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. It is not a Library of Parliament document but a document from the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. According to this document:

Legislative services are provided by lawyers from the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel who are experienced legislative counsel. There services are provided on a client-solicitor basis.

There is no ambiguity here and this document, presumably , is published under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Commons. You were already Clerk of the House of Commons at that time, Mr. Marleau. How can it be said, then, that there is nothing in writing concerning solicitor-client privilege since we have here a document from the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, printed under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Commons, which states very clearly, without the slightest ambiguity, that there does indeed exist, between members and legislative counsel, a solicitor-client privilege of confidentiality?

Mr. Robert Marleau: When you drew the committee's attention to that document—I saw that in the evidence—I had a very difficult time locating it. It is a pamphlet written by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel in 1988 for an orientation session organized on behalf of new members.

You will recall that in 1988, the election took place in November and the House reconvened on the 12th of December. Frankly, that document was drafted entirely by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, on very short notice, and I was not aware, when you asked me this matter, that this document did indeed state such a thing. This is the first time I have before me a document which states this clearly.

However, I did say, at the time of my first appearance before the committee, that there are, within the House of Commons, lawyers who have claimed and who still claim, out of a sense of professionalism or out of zealousness, or simply because they choose to do so, that there is indeed such a thing. In my answer to you last week, I said that, as far as I was concerned, there was no such thing. The team is currently headed by a lawyer who shares my doubts in this regard, just as the Public Service and the Department of Justice also hesitate concerning this aspect of the relationship between various departments and their clients. A corporate lawyer providing services to a client other than his employer, in a municipality for example, could experience the same sort of disagreement in this regard.

That is the only answer I have. I wish I had found this document before you did, but I would have explained it in the same way I have.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to...

• 1145

[English]

The Chairman: Just for the record, we're at six minutes and twenty seconds. The rather extensive preamble to your question has allowed the time to elapse. But I'll let you finish up.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Since the Clerk referred to the situation in the Public Service, within the Department of Justice more specifically, I would draw his attention to another document I have, this one written by Mr. Michel Desjardins and published in 1999 under the title Solicitor-Client Privilege in the Federal Public Sector. On page 18, you will find quoted a judgement of the courts, where it is very clearly indicated that:

[English]

...communications with a most confidential agent are not protected if that confidential agent happens not to be a solicitor.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Marleau: I have no knowledge of this document, but I have read several others in the same vein. As I am not a lawyer, I feel free to voice an opinion that we will be binding on none of the lawyers seated at this table.

I think that the concept of solicitor-client privilege is there to protect the client in cases where his or her relationship with the solicitor will be broached in the course of court proceedings. Apart from that, if you take the relationship you have with other professionals, such as your dentist or your doctor, the confidentiality of the relationship is assured, but with regard to a lawyer appearing before a court, you are privileged so that your defence or your claim may not be prejudiced. That is the distinction that I would draw.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Gallaway, followed by Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Marleau, we seem to be getting caught in this web of solicitor-client privilege versus parliamentary privilege. I want to ask you a very different question. What you're saying here—and I agree, I think—is that parliamentary privilege is certainly equal to and, it could be argued, greater than solicitor-client privilege. So any concern about solicitor-client privilege is a false concern, because parliamentary privilege, if you want to stack them up, is better.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I agree. As you well know, the House never subjects itself to an outside jurisdiction or authority—

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Sure.

Mr. Robert Marleau: —so why should the Upper Canada law society tell you, as members, how to organize your law offices or your legal counsel or your legislative counsel?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Okay.

I want to go, then, to the order of reference. Point (b) refers to the “reallocation of current resources to the various political parties to allow them to have their own legislative counsel”. Would you not agree that this is perhaps in itself a breach of privilege, that suggestion?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Well, I don't think a suggestion, as part of your debate, is necessarily a breach of privilege.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: No, but if that were enacted.

Mr. Robert Marleau: If it were enacted unilaterally, without the agreement of the House, it could be interpreted as taking away something from members that they may feel is inherent to their role.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Okay.

Mr. Robert Marleau: But the House would have to decide that.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Perhaps I can move to the memorandum from Mr. Walsh, dated September 13, 1995, and the other one attached, dated November 27, 1996. In particular, with regard to the one from September 13, where there's this reconfiguration, we've been talking about tensions, to put it politely, between your office and the legislative counsel office.

What I want to know is this: How much of this is driven by decisions made at the level of the Board of Internal Economy vis-à-vis money, budgets?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I can tell you that very little has been driven by the Board of Internal Economy recently, because every single proposal we've put on the table for resolving this kind of issue has not found agreement among the people there. What has transpired in this context is that we, the managers, have been trying to meet the demands and the service in a context where we've had to cope in that period of time with somewhat limited resources.

That's been relaxed now, and we're working on it. We have people in on term to try to improve the service and turn it around.

• 1150

But there is no conflict between my office and the law clerk's office, absolutely no conflict at all. Indeed, there's a concerted effort, by having these procedural clerks interact with legislative counsel, to provide a better service.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: With regard to this reconfiguration—and you've talked about recently, but I'm referring to the time around September 13, 1995—was this reconfiguration in 1995, as evidenced by the September 13 memo, in any way driven by financial considerations—in other words, you have less money to engage legislative counsel?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'd have to say no, sir.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Okay.

Mr. Robert Marleau: May I say why?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Yes.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Because the “why” is important in this context. It wasn't just reduced resources.

Remember, at the beginning of the 1994 Parliament, after the 1993 election.... During the previous two Conservative administrations legislative committees were created for the first time, with a panel of chairs and whatever else. For two Parliaments we composed with that.

What was called the public bills office was created then, where legislative clerks with experience in legislation were all in one unit. They interacted with the law clerk in terms of amendments and stuff, but all bills were steered, if you like, administratively and supportively, to the members in that office.

The new Liberal administration categorically stated.... While they did not remove legislative committees from the Standing Orders—and one, the first one since 1994, was used recently—it became redundant to have this whole office sitting there, waiting for a legislative committee to be created. I had committee clerks at the standing committees where the legislation was going. So we redeployed those resources, and a certain number of them ended up in the legislative counsel office.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I have one final question, Mr. Chairman.

You've made the comparison to Great Britain, which is, in one sense, fair. But might I point out to you that in the Senate of Canada there are two legislative counsels? Would that not be a fairer comparison?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I believe the law clerk's position in the Senate is a hybrid position. They do both the legal and the legislative.

In the late eighties, 1988-89 or thereabouts, we found here that business was now competing. Members wanted their bills. Legal work quadrupled, maybe a hundredfold. That's the period when 15 members of Parliament were under investigation for criminal offences. We found that we could no longer have both quality legal service and quality legislative service. That's why the two streams, as compared with the Senate.

Mr. Roger Gallaway: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't really have any questions, per se, for the witnesses, but I do want to make a comment or two. Of course they should feel free to comment or respond.

I just want to say that with respect to the whole question of the allegation or insinuation or whatever that somehow the House is controlled by the government, and, by implication—or perhaps even explicitly, depending on which testimony you look at—that somehow the clerk and the officers of the House are under the control of the government, I think this is a claim that needs to be rejected.

It's one thing to say, as I would often say myself, given the meshing of the executive and the legislative in the parliamentary system, that Parliament is controlled by the government.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: And that's as it should be.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's as it should be procedurally, according to our rules. Whether it's always as it should be in other ways is another matter. But that's a different claim.

I mean, the government rules the legislation, the government rules the rules, unfortunately. A lot of the rules of the House have been set unilaterally by government majorities in recent years, and that's unfortunate. But again, that is different from saying that the government somehow is in control of the House itself, talking about the Speaker or the clerk or officers of the House. That, it seems to me, is the claim I certainly reject, and it needs to be clearly rejected, I think, by this committee.

• 1155

On the matter of confidentiality, the way I see it, it doesn't really matter what people thought some time ago. It's clear from this memo of September 13, 1995, that they were instructed that these are the rules that now pertain. If people wanted to object to these rules, they've had plenty of opportunity between then and now.

It may be that there was a failure to successfully communicate this new regime, if you like, so that members weren't always familiar with it or even that the policy was miscommunicated or not communicated properly. The fact is that if this memo is to be taken as serious evidence, and I think it is, this policy has obtained for some time. Frankly, I don't find any problem with it. I don't think there's anything wrong with the clerks and the lawyers sharing information, etc., as long as there is confidentiality within that team, to use the concept that's been employed a number of times.

That's not a problem for me. But if it is a problem for the lawyers, if there is this conflict between lawyer culture and the culture of the House, then it seems to me that is something we need to address as a committee and have something to say about. It's not a context in which we should find fault with the clerk or with the table officers or with that policy in and of itself. It's something that has to do perhaps with the particularities of how lawyers understand themselves and perhaps a longstanding conflict in how lawyers understand themselves when they're working in this particular kind of context. That's something that perhaps we can address, although I would suggest it's probably difficult to address. It's something we do have to address.

At some point we'll get to the motion that's before us. We may be able to have before us at some point a report that addresses these things. I would hope my comments would be taken into account when that report is drafted.

Certainly either Mr. Marleau or Mr. Walsh should feel free to comment in what time is left on what I've had to say.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Any response from Mr. Marleau or Mr. Walsh?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'd just like to reiterate, Mr. Chair, that we did say at the outset of our testimony last week that we certainly had no resistance on the part of the clerks or ourselves to consider other options that would make members feel more secure about the sharing of information. I talked about segregation of databases—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's not so much the members who don't feel secure right now. It seems to be the lawyers who don't feel secure about their professional consciousness.

Mr. Robert Marleau: We know of at least two lawyers. I don't know of any others.

My sense is that we need to secure members. There's been a certain amount of destabilization here. I'll deal with the staff in terms of whether it's stable or not, but it's the members we need first to stabilize.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, I don't feel destabilized.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's impossible to destabilize you.

The Chairman: I was going to recognize Mr. MacKay, but we did have an open window for Mr. Walsh if he wanted to make an intervention before we continue with the questioning.

Would you like to do that now, Mr. Walsh?

Mr. Rob Walsh: I would, Mr. Chairman, in just a brief response to Mr. Blaikie.

I reject this notion of two cultures. I've spent 27 years as a practicing lawyer in three different provinces. There's no reason that a lawyer couldn't function quite effectively in this environment. I reject totally the suggestion that there's some profound cultural problem here.

First of all, I would like to apologize to members for my false start, but maybe this time I will be more successful.

I would like to put on record first off that I want to assure the committee, along the lines of what the clerk himself said in his opening marks, that I am one of a number of people on staff here at the House—I think we're around 1,400—who are profoundly committed to serving this institution in its business but who take no part in that business. We have no interest in your debates and we don't look to any outcome.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You and the public.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rob Walsh: Let the record show that was an intervention from a member of the committee.

• 1200

I express regret again that I find myself here on this occasion having to respond to the allegations and misrepresentations that were provided to this committee by two of my staff. I was indeed shocked by the opening statement you heard on March 30.

I want to say categorically that with respect to the alleged chastisements, to my knowledge there have not been any chastisements to these two lawyers by me or anyone acting under my authority with respect to the meeting of November 1996. With regard to the allegation of harassment ever since, I categorically, unequivocally deny that there has been any harassment or treatment of a kind that could be described as harassment or any other negative, pejorative term visited upon these two lawyers following the meeting of November 1996.

Further to that, I would emphasize that I do not know what it is the lawyers said to the committee. I certainly was not there. It was an in-camera meeting. The two lawyers were invited to attend and appear before that subcommittee. I was surprised at that. I was not invited to appear before that subcommittee. That's fine. I did not make any inquiries as to why I was not invited. I did not seek an opportunity to speak to that subcommittee. I respect the fact that the subcommittee was doing its business as it saw fit and I stayed away.

I certainly did not talk to these two lawyers about their testimony to that committee, nor have I read any transcript of their testimony to that committee. I have no basis on which to chastise them for what they may have said to that committee and I certainly have not engaged in any harassment of a kind that they seem to allege took place since that time.

The only other thing I want to say briefly at this time is that the committee has been misled by the notion of a sudden change in October 1996. There is that memorandum already referred to, dated September 1995. In fact, the changes were earlier than that. I have documentation that can verify that February 2, 1995 was when these changes started, where clerks came into working in the same office as lawyers. These two lawyers from the outset were totally opposed to working alongside clerks and that's the origin of the problem here.

Finally, I would like to briefly say that this notion of a two-chair system is a myth. It's a false problem presented by the two lawyers. In political terms, you might call this scare-mongering. It appeals to the concerns that members of the House may legitimately have about the confidentiality of information they provide to staff, a concern I fully respect and ought to do so. All staff at the House fully respect this.

You are entitled to be concerned and you are entitled to assemble, as you have today, to look at this question in light of what was said and debated among you in the House. I take no interest in that debate either, except to assure you that you have the support of the professional staff—committee clerks, procedural clerks generally, and lawyers—to respect the confidentiality of your business.

The unfortunate inference from the testimony of these two lawyers is that committee clerks cannot be trusted. They didn't say that, because they acknowledge there was no breach of confidentiality. Notwithstanding the general tenor of their evidence, they did not claim any breach of confidentiality by the committee clerks. I want to say personally as a lawyer that the procedural clerks here are fully trustworthy and they are fully professional, and I'm proud to work with them. You don't have to be a lawyer to be trusted in this place.

I have nothing more to say. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Walsh.

We've been at this for about an hour. I think some members would like to get to the motion and get us working toward a conclusion.

I'll just indicate that I've had indications from Madame Dalphond-Guiral and Madame Catterall and then some indications of requests from Mr. Kilger and Mr. Knutson for first round. If we carry on with the interventions as structured, we'd perhaps spend another half hour. That wouldn't leave us much time to deal with the issue. I'm in the hands of members, so if members wish to reorder what we're going to do now, they're at liberty to take it up now on a point of order. Otherwise I'll recognize Mr. MacKay for five minutes.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will be brief.

I want to thank both of the witnesses for being here. We've had a lot more light shed on this. I certainly wouldn't want either of you, Mr. Walsh or Mr. Marleau, to feel this has been an attack instigated by members of Parliament. We've been given information that we've been forced to deal with. I can certainly speak for myself in saying we have the greatest confidence and the greatest appreciation for the work of the clerks and the lawyers.

• 1205

I also come from a culture of lawyers, and practised criminal law, in particular. I learned very quickly that there are eight sides to every story. Oftentimes I'd have a client come to see me, and when I went to get disclosure from the crown or the police, I'd think, “Well, this obviously isn't the same person who was in my office”.

On the apparent—I can't think of a better word to describe it—personality conflicts that have sort of come to light, I don't think we are tasked to deal with them. It's a competitive environment we live in at the best of times, and everybody has a history.

I guess I'd like to go back to the sort of impetus for this entire matter, and that is why the change was made. We've just been told by Mr. Walsh that it occurred around February 1995. Then we have the memo, and there were conflicting dates as to when that actually took place. But I'd like to know what wisdom went into that decision to merge the lawyers and the clerks.

Mr. Robert Marleau: It's along the lines of what I answered to Mr. Gallaway. The House had an early retirement incentive plan with a closing window of December 31, 1994, open from October 1994. In that two-month period of time, we lost 25% of our human resource capacity.

For February 2, when the House was going to meet, we had to meet the House with the resources left. So in February, because we knew it had been stated by the government at the board, in the House, and to chairs that there would be no use of legislative committees on the horizon.... As a matter of fact, they said then there would be no use of special committees on the horizon, and to this day there's no money in the budget for special committees. It was cut out then and has never been reinstated.

We had an office called the public bills office, with seven, eight, or nine—I forget how many—procedural clerks, a deputy principal clerk, and a principal clerk. It had been charged for eight years with the management of the legislative process. Everything evaporated and shifted back to the committees branch, in terms of the standing committees.

It was a sensible management decision not to leave those resources sitting there, when there had been some losses of staff and legislative counsel and they were working on the same process. We simply moved them across. There was no subversive plan to reduce those resources or cultivate another culture. It was simply a logical, sensible, managerial decision, at a time when a staffing freeze was on as well.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So it was based strictly on efficiency and—

Mr. Robert Marleau: Efficiency and operations.

Mr. Peter MacKay: —making do with what was suddenly a much reduced workforce.

With that as a backdrop, I have a much better understanding. But you can still appreciate, I suppose, the fact that.... I'm not saying there is a class difference here, but the lawyers, because of their legal training and if they had come from the private sector, would have had a different view of what solicitor-client privilege was.

We had discussions about what that meant, and some lawyers viewed it differently from other lawyers. Some lawyers in a firm, for example, won't share or won't seek advice, even from other lawyers in that same firm, when they've been dealing with a specific client. There are different views on that. But one has to appreciate that if they were working under that particular understanding and it changed, even though they were told and it was set out that those were the terms of their work environment, perhaps it wasn't accepted.

That said, I guess my question is why was it not communicated to members, or at least House leaders, that this had changed? I would suggest that some members of Parliament, mistaken or otherwise, were under the impression, as recently as this week, that a solicitor-client privilege relationship existed—whatever their interpretation of that was,

Mr. Robert Marleau: Throughout that entire process, there were reviews at the Board of Internal Economy and subcommittees of the Board of Internal Economy. The subcommittee on downsizing went through every single operation throughout the organization. There were briefings given to caucus by whips about major changes in services, householders, and a series of other services.

• 1210

You wouldn't believe what it's like to try to get it down to a selection of four business cards compared to fourteen, and the consultation process we went through on that.

All I can reply is it didn't seem necessary at the time. With six years of hindsight, yes, maybe it should have been better debated and communicated that the relationship was still confidential. But whether I have a clerk in the journals branch or move them over to table research or committees branch to serve this committee, do you really want me to communicate every time to the members of Parliament that the assignment is still as confidential as the previous one? We just assumed that was part of the culture.

The Chairman: Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Rob Walsh: If I may respond to the question, there can be differences in views among lawyers, not so much with the meaning of solicitor-client privilege perhaps, but with the application of it in a given situation.

I would draw to the members' attention that these lawyers, as the member suggests, may have been concerned about what became of solicitor-client privilege they claim to have been hired under, and arguably had their training under. I don't believe either of these lawyers has any experience of any significance in the private sector.

In any event, on the discussion I had with them beginning in late 1994 and early 1995 and the concerns they expressed, as you heard them testify on Tuesday of this week and Thursday of last week, I think Mr. Côte emphasized that he's had to explain to members that there wasn't solicitor-client privilege there and the confidentiality they might have thought existed.

Mr. Chairman, I have never received a single complaint or comment from any member of the House with regard to confidentiality or the apparent absence of solicitor-client privilege. It was my judgment that confidentiality was being preserved, as I thought it was relevant to the operations here. That is to say, as the memo of September 1995 indicates, confidentiality within the team must be respected, and secondly, there should be no disadvantage caused to a private member by virtue of using our office. I thought that was sufficient. I frankly—and maybe in hindsight I stand to be corrected—didn't think there was need for a communication plan on that point.

But even if now in hindsight it would appear to some members that there should have been communication, I can only draw to your attention that I have never had a single inquiry, comment, or complaint from any member of Parliament on this question since it first arose to my attention, by these lawyers in early 1995.

I would say to you as well, Mr. Chairman, I invited these two lawyers, if they were concerned, to write to their law society explaining their concern. I'd be pleased to discuss this matter with their law society if this matter is of that great concern to them. To my knowledge, neither has ever written to their law society.

I stand open to discuss this matter and always have. I have simply not been afforded an opportunity to address these issues, as these two lawyers would suggest.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Walsh.

I'll go to Madame Dalphond-Guiral, and then Ms. Catterall. I will try to be very strict on the five minutes. Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. MacKay posed the question I would have liked to see you answer, that is to say why you did not state this very clearly to members. You know, as we all do, that in life, as in politics, perception is of the utmost importance. All the members felt that there did exist a close relationship of confidentiality. Now, because of a simple incident, we are compelled to admit that this very close relationship was but a figment of our imagination, that it does not in fact exist.

Mr. Walsh, before deciding to slacken this relationship of confidentiality, without doing away with it altogether, did you consult the Law Society? I understood what Mr. Marleau was saying when he explained that the House is a self-sufficient institution. The same goes for me. I, too, am self-sufficient. Did you consult the Law Society and seek its opinion in this matter? If not, why not?

Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chairman, I had not seen any confidentiality issue that might concern the responsibilities that lie upon a lawyer. That is why I did not consult the Law Society or enquire of the various Law Societies. I had indicated to counsel at the time that if they had any concerns, they should themselves write to the various Law Societies. As far as I could tell, there was no problem in that regard.

• 1215

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Considering the changes that were brought in concerning the confidentiality of the solicitor- client relationship, is it your intention to personally inform every member of the changes introduced in February by your office?

Mr. Robert Marleau: The Board of Internal Economy is currently addressing the issue. Without revealing any of its confidential discussions, I may say that the matter is currently on the table. In the context of these regrettable incidents, I would suggest a solution that will permit members to always rest assured and to always be informed. I would suggest an arrangement whereby members could never claim they have not been informed of the type of relationship and of the degree of confidentiality afforded him or her. The best type of communication is constant and direct, one on one.

I recently had to do with a large Ottawa law firm concerning a personal issue stemming from a property case. When I met with my lawyer, the first thing he did after saying that he thought he could help me was to hand me a short note outlining the terms of the contract between him as lawyer and myself as client. The contract that I signed clearly stipulated that I undertook to retain the services of such and such a lawyer for the purpose of... and that I recognized that we would be dealing on the basis of a confidential solicitor-client relationship.

In order that members might feel more secure, we could ask that every time they contact the Legislative Counsel Office, they simply countersign their request. That is what is called a retainer. It is common practice among lawyers. We can then afford members the opportunity to indicate that they wish the issue to remain strictly confidential as between themselves and the legislative counsel or that, although confidentiality is desirable, the legislative counsel will be aloud to consult, albeit confidentially, with the law clerk and the procedural clerks if necessary. Any member who desired the strictest confidentiality, who really wished to maintain the umbrella of the solicitor-client relationship, would then have the opportunity to make his choice clear. Members who would prefer a more efficient and perhaps more expeditious type of service and who want to be sure that there will be consultation to determine whether their amendment is receivable or not, could then choose to enlarge the umbrella.

On the legal side, we would adopt the concept of retainer. When a member asks legal services for an opinion on issues concerning labor relations or a legal action relating to his or her parliamentary duties, we would specifically let that member know that the request will be dealt with, if he or she signed the consent form, on a solicitor-client basis, which would allow law clerks and parliamentary counsel to consult with their colleagues of both the private and the public sector. This solicitor-client relationship would be kept within whatever parameters the Board of Internal Economy had established. I believe that we must also protect the Board of Internal Economy which makes administrative regulations, defines your functions, delegates to you a certain number of financial responsibilities and, to a degree, manages your status as an employer.

If you were to agree to this method, any member coming to seek advice tomorrow concerning an amendment, would be asked, following consultations and instructions, to sign something to that effect. You already have to sign motions when you bring them to the Journals Branch. This way, we can perhaps avoid the type of confusion which has occurred during the last six years, even before this particular incident.

Madam, you know very well that you do not always personally go to see the law clerk or parliamentary counsel, or the Journals Branch. This way, we could at least make sure that members have seen the document and, in that regard, with all due respect for their abilities, we would not be acting on verbal instructions given us by a member of your staff. The game of telephone has the same effect here as it does elsewhere. The Journals Branch has the same requirements, and the member's own signature is required: that of a staff member will not do.

• 1220

[English]

So I think this form of retainer would dispel a lot of concerns, and if the MP wants a strict confidentiality, nose-to-nose with an individual providing advice, that's his or her choice.

There's a cost to that: inefficiency. There's a cost in terms of turnaround time and there's a risk that when it hits the journals branch the clerks might find that it's out of order. That would be the MP's choice, and he may his own reasons for that. A lot of the amendments we draft never see the light of day. You use them for negotiations privately within your own caucus and outside your own caucus. We just make the sausage. What you do with it

[Translation]

That is for you to decide, madam. We could resort to this mode of communication whenever a legislative counsel or a legal counsel deals with a member on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

In terms of trying to keep the sausage inside the skin, we have a time problem here. I have Ms. Catterall, Mr. Kilger, Mr. Knutson, and Mr. Harvey. With the emphasis on brevity, Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I feel something needs to be said to Mr. Walsh in particular, but also to Mr. Marleau and to a lot of people who aren't at this table and haven't been in this room. That is, I think we all appreciate how difficult the last few days of our meetings have been for you and how difficult it has been for you this morning to have to come before us to respond to some of the testimony we've heard. So I want you to know that we appreciate this.

Madame Dalphond-Guiral referred to a relationship of confidentiality that does not exist now. I think it's really important to understand the difference between confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege. Everything I have heard assures me absolutely that confidentiality does exist, that a member's work is treated entirely confidentially within the institution, and it's never in the hands of somebody who could possibly benefit from that knowledge in a political way. It's never in the hands of the government, it's never in the hands of members of another party. I've heard no evidence to the contrary.

But what we don't have is solicitor-client privilege, which I have come to appreciate is probably not necessary, because when I go to have an amendment drafted or even a private member's bill, I'm not seeking legal advice, I'm seeking drafting skills.

When members do seek legal advice from legal counsel, it is treated on a solicitor-client basis, with the exception of if it comes into conflict with their duties to the institution. Am I right in that understanding?

Mr. Rob Walsh: Yes, you're right, essentially, Ms. Catterall, but I should really admit to being the origin of some mischief here, perhaps. When I discussed solicitor-client at the famous meeting of February 18, 2000, and on earlier occasions, my point was that as lawyer to lawyer, the concept does not apply here, in my view. Confidentiality is in place, let me say, as if solicitor-client did apply here. I can assure you on the legal side that it's not correct, as I've heard it said, that relations are strictly speaking solicitor-client. But that's a legal point. That's all I'm making: it's a legal point. As a practical matter, you can be assured that relations are treated as if it were a solicitor-client relationship, because confidentiality is indeed respected by the lawyers.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. MacKay raised the other issue that I want to be clear on before the committee, and that was what does solicitor-client privilege mean, even if it did exist? To me, it doesn't mean my lawyer shuts himself or herself off from all other advice that might help me in my case. Obviously the person who operates the photocopier knows what my lawyer is doing for me. The law clerk is most likely to be asked to do some research on my case. Another member of the firm might be consulted. My lawyer's secretary, or whoever does the production of documents for my lawyer, would know what my lawyer is working on.

So lawyer-client confidentiality doesn't mean, even where it exists, that only you and the lawyer know what you're talking about. In fact, it seems to me that our own legal counsel who made the case against the kind of arrangement that exists now would also use parliamentary library researchers, for instance, to assist them in preparing your private member's bill or your amendment, and might of their own volition consult a clerk if they felt that clerk had some expertise in the area. Have you known that to happen in the past?

• 1225

Mr. Rob Walsh: Where the legislative counsel might consult? Indeed. The member may have done research in anticipation of asking for a private member's bill or an amendment with the Library of Parliament researcher. They mention who that researcher is, so the drafter might, because the instructions might not be as clear as the drafter needs for his or her purposes, speak to the researcher to get a better picture of it. It saves the member time, and it's done on a purely professional basis. I've never known that to be a problem.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Would the lawyer be required to do the lawyer's own photocopying, the lawyer's own typing, or input on the computer?

Mr. Rob Walsh: No, definitely not.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think I made my point. There's never existed total confidentiality with the lawyer.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Kilger and Mr. Knutson. Mr. Harvey's been anxious, so I'll go to Mr. Kilger and then to Mr. Harvey. No, we'll go to Mr. Kilger and see where we get. How's that?

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Put the pressure on, why don't you.

Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues on both sides of the table in thanking both Mr. Marleau and Mr. Walsh for being with us today, and being here under not the most ideal conditions. Certainly I think they've once again demonstrated their professionalism. And maybe it wasn't part of their testimony, but I at least could sense their deep affection for the institution. It's regrettable, yes, that a cloud was placed over the heads of many, including the two witnesses before us today, our very own clerk, and others.

Be it as it may, all witnesses previous, and Mr. Marleau and Mr. Walsh, have testified that in fact confidentiality does exist. I certainly, like Mr. Blaikie, have not been destabilized. I think I've been more reinvigorated in terms of the people who serve this institution, serve it well. We, as parliamentarians, equally to the best of our efforts try to make this establishment work as best as possible for the best interest of Canadians.

I would like to give the remaining time I have to Mr. Marleau and Mr. Walsh. I wonder if they might have other suggestions. I'm wondering, for instance, whether it might be useful for us to consider printing the amendments, because of course many amendments and a lot of the work that is done for the members and done by the drafters, legislative counsellors, doesn't see the light of day, and disappears in this great black hole. I think it might be useful too if they were printed before ruling on their admissibility. I think it would continue to be an educational tool to members to see the amendment and begin to understand why they are ruled in order, out of order, and so on and so forth. Plus it becomes, I say selfishly, possibly a political tool whereby at least you have something on an official document of the House that the fight was fought: I didn't win this round, but at least let it be recognized back home or wherever it might be useful.

The next one is whether in fact it would be necessary.

[Translation]

Before we had computers, we still managed to function. Today, we have computers and it was my understanding that this databank was, indeed, within the umbrella. I wonder whether data might be severed.

• 1230

I would like to have the opinion of our two witnesses concerning these alternatives. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Your first question concerned the printing of amendments which are not in order. I believe that before 1989, all amendments submitted to the Journals Branch were printed on the Order Paper, whether they were in order or not. When the Chairman brought down his ruling in the House, he began by stating which amendments were not in order, then went on to selected groups of amendments and then went on to a vote. I read through the record of the committee's last meeting and noticed that you had referred to such a possibility.

We, the clerks, have been placed, I must say, in a difficult or uncomfortable position. We are asked to act as a messenger to members and to inform them that the result of their work will not be tabled before the House, or even printed. We know full well that, within the context of parliamentary debate, the opposition wants to put forward alternative solutions. It sometimes simply wants to suggest an improvement to a motion that is before the House and its efforts are not always adversarial, but majority members and other members do not always welcome the suggested improvement or the proposed alternative. It seems to me completely in line with human dynamics to not want to see simply cast aside or swept under the rug an amendment which reflects the fundamental position of a party on a given issue and to thus forego any opportunity of officially articulating that particular idea. To say that this amendment of Mr. Harvey's would have been tabled before the House, if the clerks had not rejected it, is one thing, it is another thing entirely to wave the Order Paper of the House of Commons containing the amendment mentioned in the notice of motion and to say that the Speaker rejected it without really understanding what is was about. In the latter case, you at least get a concrete expression of the effort and of the intent.

The rationale behind the amendment to Standing Orders, if I may deem such a change to have been decided by the House, is that when the Speaker rejects an amendment, because of a lack of prior consultation, members have a tendency to rise on a point of order and to engage in debate with the Speaker, drawing his attention to the fact that a certain dimension of the issue has been neglected, and this is so even though Standing Orders provide that in such a case the Speaker's ruling cannot be appealed.

I would suggest a hybrid formula in light of the issues you have raised. I would recommend that we go on printing the amendments, but that before an amendment is formally rejected in the House at paragraph one of the Speaker's decision, derived from his consultations with the clerks, we do our work and explain to you that such and such an amendment has been rejected for such and such a reason. This way, we would avoid surprises the next morning. Members would still have the right to argue against this rejection on the House floor, since the Speaker would not yet have handed down his ruling. This formula would be more flexible and could, I think, give members a greater feeling of satisfaction, including government backbenchers, who do not always support either bills that are in preparation or the policies that underlie them. Members who have tabled amendments could then at least let their constituents and the people whose concerns they have tried to articulate in the debate know that they have made a definite effort and that this effort is recognized in an official document of the House.

Your second question concerned the databanks or, more specifically, what I refer to as the segregation of the databanks. If that is what you wish, we can separate them by a firewall. That would not be a problem. I should stress, however, that the current databank is not managed by the law clerks. The Journals plus databank is manage by the Journals Branch and it is from that databank that can be obtained the amendments that have been tabled and signed by a member for placement on the Order Paper. The law clerks have access to this databank so that they may input the amendments. What we suggest is both simple and economical. We could do this by using the equipment that we already have. We could have a databank connected to Journals plus which would enable us to transfer the amendment to that bank at the time when it is tabled by a member before the House.

• 1235

If this will make members feel more secure, as I said in the course of my first appearance here, it would not be a major problem. If a member signs a request, or a retainer, and indicates a desire for broader consultation, we will proceed as we are presently doing. In spite of what Mr. Bergeron said a little earlier on concerning a dual track, there is, in fact, only one. The advantage, for members, of having the law clerk act in concert with the clerk, is that, at the end of the day, the amendment has a greater chance of being found in order instead of simply being rejected after being placed on the Order Paper.

As for government amendments, the second procedure does not even bear mention. I said it was a myth. Mr. Walsh has precise figures concerning the number of amendments table by the government compared to the amendments tabled by the opposition. For what period would that be?

[English]

Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chairman, in the current session we have over 1,300 amendments moved at committee or at report stage from private members, mostly opposition. Only four were government.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Four amendments are from the government. It doesn't take a very long time to scrutinize four amendments. If they're getting favoured treatment by surprising us, well, it takes more than four amendments to bog us down.

The Chairman: Thank you.

I'd just comment that the matter of publishing these things is slightly outside the envelope of the confidentiality issue we're dealing with, but I do appreciate that there is a linkage.

I want to go to Mr. Knutson, and I want to know what Mr. Knutson wants to do with his motion.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I want to move it.

The Chairman: Okay, so be it.

It is on the agenda paper. There's no need to read it. Mr. Knutson moves the motion. It's on the table, and we're now in debate on the motion.

Did you wish to speak on it, Mr. Knutson, or should I go to Mr. Harvey?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I think we should hear what my honourable colleague has to say.

The Chairman: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, I do not have a law degree. I sometimes feel, though, that, on some issues, this enables us to put things in perspective and better define our priorities. I think that our point...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are we debating the motion?

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, allow me one or two brief comments. At the beginning, this discussion may have appeared superficial. I believe, however, that after the evidence that we have heard, it may help to increase the efficiency of our work as members. I am thinking, in particular, about the Clerk of the House's last comments.

For us, as members, to observe the officialisation, as it were, of a political process... I found out, for example, a few minutes ago, that changes brought to the names of our ridings will be tabled before the House under a fast-track procedure. It is important that such things be written down, since it obviously shows the work that we have accomplished.

Along with the report that will be tabled on that issue, and in particular concerning confidentiality, an issue which will obviously require very close attention on the part of those who are versed in law, I believe it is important to address the concerns voiced by members. I feel, however, that the major issue is mainly one of housekeeping.

I was not here during the evidence of the witnesses who appeared today. However, when a member who is able to guess the answer to his question, asks people who work in that office whether they feel that professional and administrative services have been politicized and hears: “I would rather not answer that question”, surely there is, in that, a lack of solidarity. I may be wrong, but I think there is a huge problem there.

Mr. Chairman, I do not even expect an answer. All the better if we can reassure our colleagues concerning the various steps and procedures that apply to amendments, but I think that the problem is, first and foremost, a housekeeping problem. That is why I am convinced that they will manage to solve it among themselves.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1240

[English]

The Chairman: Does that need a reply from either of...?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I can assure you that the staff relations matter is now before the Board of Internal Economy, and it will be dealt with in the fullness of time.

The Chairman: I did have a request from Mr. Bergeron for a second round.

Mr. Bergeron, did you have an item you wish to address? If you wish to ask a question of the witnesses, that's great. I would prefer not to go to a complete round. I would prefer to get to dealing with the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to understand the process. The motion has been formally tabled. We are therefore debating that motion and, consequently...

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, that's where we are. That's fine. Do we need the witnesses any further?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would have liked to examine the witnesses, but Mr. Knutson has decided otherwise. We are therefore going to debate the motion. Do you expect this debate to be a lengthy one?

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, let's debate the motion.

May we let the witnesses withdraw?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I just want to ask Mr. Marleau whether this motion is entirely consistent with his suggestion. It is, as I heard it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You have tabled the motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau would probably say the committee's business is the committee's business.

Mr. Gar Knutson: So are you ruling my question out of order?

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau, I shouldn't even have attempted to answer. Do you have a response to Mr. Knutson's request?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If the witness is taking questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a few myself.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Fine. In the interest of dealing with this expeditiously, I withdraw my question.

The Chairman: That's a good suggestion, and we will allow the witnesses to withdraw.

I thank the witnesses very much for attending, for clarifying the record in matters that obviously some committee members had some difficulty with. I wish them well in their other endeavours in the House, and I thank them for their continuing excellent service.

Now, dealing with the motion, we're in debate on that motion. If the chair could just suggest it, I hope Mr. Knutson would regard it as a friendly amendment. I suggest that we add a phrase to paragraph two, so that it will read, “the drafting of amendments or private members' bills or motions”.

Is that okay?

Mr. Gar Knutson: That's fine.

The Chairman: Okay, now we're in debate. Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, considering that this meeting of the committee will normally end at 1 P.M., it seems that I will be the last one to speak, since I intend to use the 15 minutes remaining before adjournment to make a few comments. We can go back to Mr. Knutson's motion at the next meeting.

I am rather disappointed and...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, are you telling the chair that you plan to make an intervention that's going to last fifteen minutes?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I do not believe it is open to you to interrupt me when I am discussing a motion agreed to by the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, I think the chair does have an opportunity to interrupt, and I'm going to insist that I do. If you don't like it, you can challenge the chair. Let's get that one out of the way right now.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, on the basis of which Standing Order?

[English]

The Chairman: Do you wish to challenge the chair, Mr. Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like to know on the basis of which Standing Order you claim to interrupt me.

[English]

The Chairman: You have an opportunity to challenge the chair right now.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No. I have the opportunity to discuss the motion, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Well, if you're not going to challenge the chair, then you're going to have to submit to whatever the chair does in the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: And you will have to specify under what Standing Order you would be making such a decision, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm not a witness here, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are we discussing the motion?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, I would like to engage in reasonable debate on the motion. If you're telling us that you're going to filibuster, then colleagues will have to decide what they want to do. If there's no intervention elsewhere, I'll let you have the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was going to say that I was disappointed, shocked even, not by the fact that Mr. Knutson, the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Secretary, has tabled a motion which may, in itself, be quite reasonable, but by the fact that he has introduced it in order to put an end to the committee's proceedings.

I do not, for my own part, believe that we have had the opportunity to hear all the representations that we would need to hear in order to resolve the issue.

• 1245

Furthermore, we have witnesses here before the committee who were supposed to throw light upon the issue, but manoeuvres were made to prevent me from asking further questions of the Clerk of the House. I had a rather interesting one concerning what happens in the Senate. The Senate, as an institution, is not that far removed from our own, the House of Commons. Although its members are not elected, it is not that far removed from our own.

In the Senate, in all likelihood—and, Mr. Chairman, I would have liked the Clerk to confirm as much—there is, between the law clerk and the senators, a solicitor-client relationship. Furthermore, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, Mr. Mark Audcent, is named under a Senate resolution. In fact, he was named four years ago after a debate in the Senate. He was also appointed by virtue of a Senate resolution, whereas our own law clerk, from what I understand, is appointed by the governor in council. I do not wish draw from that fact any particular conclusion, but I nevertheless see two very different processes at work here.

I would have liked to have the opportunity to question the Clerk regarding what appears to me to be a rather fundamental difference between the two institutions. Unfortunately, Mr. Knutson, along with the government majority no doubt, has decided to not give me that opportunity and to see to it that I would not be able to ask the Clerk this question. I was also prevented from calling other witnesses, although I clearly indicated that I would not take advantage and that there was only one further witness I wished to call, Mr. Pelletier, the one who hired the two legislative counsel.

The two legislative counsel have consistently told us that when they were hired they were fully persuaded that there did indeed exist a solicitor-client privilege. The person who hired them, and who convinced them, it seems, of the existence of such a solicitor-client relationship is no longer employed by the House. That person would perhaps have been able to explain to us why, at that time, he had claimed that there was a solicitor-client privilege.

Unable, for various reasons, to call Mr. Pelletier, we had already had preliminary informal discussions with a view to eventually calling somebody else who might be able to tell us something of the institutional memory prevailing at the time concerning the matter of solicitor-client privilege.

The motion introduced by Mr. Knutson prevents me from hearing anyone else. All this should have been done by common consent between ourselves and the party in power. But no, rather than trying to agree on a witness who might have been able to cast some light on the belief, held by the legislative counsel, that there indeed was a rule concerning the confidentiality of the solicitor- client relationship, a decision was made to cut off all discussion.

We will therefore be calling no further witnesses, and we have gone so far as to dismiss the witnesses who took the trouble of coming here today on the grounds they are no longer needed. We will then be going on to the next topic although I am not at all convinced that the members of the committee have all the information required to make a relatively enlightened decision.

Why should we wish to seek further explanations from someone who was there at the time? Very simply, Mr. Chairman, because those who are in a position to decide today have obviously modified a procedure which they claim never existed. According to Mr. Marleau and Mr. Walsh, the solicitor-client privilege never existed. It seems, however, that it did indeed exist and that efforts have been made to change it.

Of course, we are now told that confidentiality is being maintained with regard to everything that takes place under a certain umbrella, but we do not even know, Mr. Chairman, exactly who is under the umbrella. I would have liked to ask Mr. Marleau and Mr. Walsh certain questions in that regard because the answers that we heard last Tuesday were somewhat evasive. I do not mind being told that there is a relationship of confidentiality among the members of the team covered by the umbrella, but we do not even know who is, in fact, part of that team. In certain cases, this team includes the procedural clerks. In others it might include the Journals clerks. It was even implied that it might eventually include the clerks of the committees. Who has, in fact, a place under that umbrella?

• 1250

How can we, as members of the committee, determine this and ask our researchers to draw up the bases of a report if we cannot find out from the clerks what is what with respect to this issue which has yet to be resolved?

Why does the Senate consider it important to maintain the confidentiality of the solicitor-client relationship between Senators and legislative counsel and why can we, members of Parliament, not be guaranteed this same level of confidentiality in our dealings with the legislative counsel?

Ms. Catterall was saying earlier on that it is entirely normal for a legislative counsel to share information with his or her secretary, with support staff, with the data entry person, with the technician who does data entry. Of course, we admit that, as do the legislative counsel themselves. Did Mr. Marleau not himself give a very telling example of the difference between the way things are presently being done in the House of Commons and the ideal mentioned by Ms. Catterall?

Mr. Marleau told us he had consulted a law firm on a purely personal matter. He had to sign a form in order to retain the services of a solicitor, a form establishing, between himself and members of the firm, a solicitor-client relationship of a confidential nature. Ms. Catterall, will the solicitor retained by Mr. Marleau not share information with his assistant, his secretary or a technician? Of course, he will. The solicitor-client relationship of confidentiality exists none the less. It exists in any case.

Now, we have to determine whether it exists here and what that entails. Mr. Marleau claims to have no knowledge of any document demonstrating the existence or non-existence of this privilege. We have, indeed, not been able to locate any document demonstrating that such a solicitor-client relationship does not exist. We have, on the other hand, obtained a document which proves that this solicitor-client relationship does indeed exist. We referred to that document earlier on before the committee. It is a document which we were able to find at the Library of Parliament, a document published by the office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, a document drafted under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Commons. So we do have a document.

The Clerk attempted to minimize the importance and credibility of this document, saying that it had been hastily drafted, in-house according to him, that is to say by the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. To my way of thinking, that in no way lessens the value of the document, Mr. Chairman, since it was drafted within the House by the competent authorities at the time and under the authority of the Clerk of the House of Commons.

It is my belief that the existence of such a relationship has been clearly established at least once in writing and we have been unable to find, as Mr. Marleau has himself admitted, any other document disproving or denying the existence of solicitor-client privilege.

On the basis of information I was able to obtain from the Public Service, and from present practice in the Senate, I must conclude that such a relationship did in fact exist. It certainly did exist, as I said a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, since a decision was made, by the administration of the House, to modify this solicitor-client relationship.

Again, it is claimed that nothing has been changed in regard to the confidential nature of that relationship. Until proven otherwise, no one here would dare question the integrity, the professionalism and excellence of persons on the staff of the House. That includes the clerks, but also the legislative counsel. I feel they are being thoroughly professional in their work.

That being said, however, we all know that something has occurred in the House. Something that is probably not due to any ill intention—I would hope not—but an incident that has leads us to believe that something happened.

• 1255

Mr. Walsh says he has never received a complaint on the part of a member having learned from Mr. Côté that this solicitor-client relationship no longer existed. Of course there were no complaints, but are we not today faced with a situation that is much more serious than a simple complaint? We now have a parliamentary committee examining the issue and hearing witnesses which, on both sides, have revealed some very troubling occurrences.

Was it necessary to wait for a complaint brought on behalf of a member before reacting or perhaps, I should say, pro-acting and letting members know that the solicitor-client privilege which had existed until 1988 had suddenly and surreptitiously ended around 1995? I say surreptitiously because members were not informed of the fact and also because the memoranda we were shown are not entirely clear on the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I say again that I am disappointed and shocked by the attempt to put an end to the hearing of evidence, and in a most ungracious way at that. Not only has there been an attempt to put an end to the hearing of new witnesses, but in point of fact a curb has been put on the hearing of the credible witnesses which I and the rest of the members of the committee would hope Mr. Marleau and Mr. Walsh to be. I am convinced that they could have still given the committee information which would have been most useful to us in the task we have undertaken.

Mr. Chairman, I have carefully studied the motion introduced by Mr. Knutson. As I was saying a little while ago, I have, on the face of it, no reason to believe this motion is not a reasonable one. And yet, in the order of reference agreed to by the House of Commons on Thursday March 16th of the year 2000, it is stated, and I quote:

On unanimous consent, Mr. Gauthier (Roberval), seconded by Ms. Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis), moves that motion No 59 (Routine Business) standing in the name of Mr. Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie) be withdrawn and replaced by the following:

That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and that the various possible solutions, namely

a) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality, or

b) the reallocation of current resources to the various political parties to allow them to have their own legislative counsel services

be reviewed by the Committee and that a report proposing practical solutions be tabled in the House by June 1 2000.

The House divided on the motion which was agreed to.

What I understand from this order of reference which, I repeat, was agreed to by the House on the 16th of March 2000, is that we were essentially to examine two motions, the first concerning a restructuring of the service in order to ensure confidentiality. Mr. Chairman, may I remind you that this was a motion unanimously agreed to by the House in order to ensure confidentiality.

There is no middle way in this. It is perfectly obvious that the House wishes to ensure the confidentiality of the work performed by the legislative counsel. I might also stress in that regard that the Reform Party asked the House leader whether he would cooperate with us and that the government House leader said to us, not once but twice, that he undertook before the House to cooperate with us as much as he could in order to get to the bottom of this.

If you wish, Mr. Chairman, I could even quote from the blues that you might see for yourself such an assurance was indeed given to us by the government House leader. But what do we see today? Members on the government side are attempting to muzzle the committee and put an end to the hearing of the witnesses, to put an end to the hearing of the two witnesses we have here today.

Is this the cooperation mentioned by the government? Is this, Mr. Knutson, the cooperation Mr. Boudria mentioned in the House? Is this the kind of cooperation you are going to give us? Is this the generosity my colleague Bob Kilger referred to yesterday, the day before and in the course of the preceding days? What sort of generosity is this? Who is this generosity intended for and what is its purpose?

• 1300

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I have a point of order, but I waited until my colleague finished a sentence.

Speaking of generosity, you established at the beginning of the meeting a speaking time for us of five minutes. Mr. Bergeron has now spoken fifteen minutes, and I'm wondering if he wouldn't mind sharing the discussion on the motion before us with other members of the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I would say to my colleague Ms. Catterall that not only is five minutes the prescribed time span recognized both by tradition and by practice, but it is also the length of time accepted by all the members of this committee for the purpose of questioning witnesses.

This does, however, in no way constitute a rule or standard governing discussion of a substantive motion and, Ms. Catterall, since we are currently debating a substantive motion, with all due respect, I would ask you to quote any of the Standing Orders preventing me from discussing this substantive motion. As I am addressing the very substance of the motion, Ms. Catterall, you will allow me, with all due respect, to continue my remarks. I will obviously not be able to speak indefinitely on a short three paragraph motion, but I would at least like to be able to conclude my remarks.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: On the same point of order, Mr. Chair, I wonder if Mr. Bergeron might respect the time limit of twenty minutes that would be imposed on him in the House.

He doesn't have a lot of time left. If he doesn't like the solution that's been proposed by my colleague, I really would like to hear what he would like to propose the committee recommend on this matter, rather than just his tirade.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Now, back through the chair—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: —we're continuing debate on this motion.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): On the same point of order—

The Chairman: I'm going to recognize you all.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: It is—

The Chairman: No, I'm going to recognize everyone, Mr. Pickard. Just give me a moment to try to give some focus to this.

We are debating a motion by Mr. Knutson that would give drafting instructions to our researcher. There are elements of the instructions that perhaps are not strong enough or not extensive enough in the view of Mr. Bergeron, one of our members, one of our esteemed members and contributing members.

A report can be drafted in the manner proposed by Mr. Knutson's motion. Mr. Knutson's motion does not adopt or finalize the report. If, when the draft report comes back, we have an opportunity to deal with the report as it has been drafted, I know the researcher will be circulating the report among members and I know the researcher will be taking into account some of the comments just made by Mr. Bergeron.

Is it possible that we could allow the researcher, with or without adopting the motion, to go back and craft a report that would be reflective of both the motion and, if consistent with the motion that's been put, the comments of Mr. Bergeron? Mr. Bergeron would still be at liberty, when we dealt with the draft report, to urge inclusion of other items.

I put that out to members as a possibility now—

Mr. Gar Knutson: That's fine.

The Chairman: —so that we could deal with the motion and conclude, without having finalized the report.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Once again, with all due respect, I would like to submit to my colleague Ms. Catterall that Standing Order 116 very clearly states that the time limits that apply, in the House, to the debating of motions do not apply in this committee. I would ask her to reread Standing Order 116.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your allowing me to outline some of the things that concern me in Mr. Knutson's motion and that could eventually be considered by our researchers when preparing the draft report. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that we are, to my way of thinking, not yet ready to begin drafting a committee report since we were not able to hear all the witnesses it would have been desirable to hear. These witnesses are few.

I go back now to the order of reference I was mentioning before being interrupted by Ms. Catterall.

[English]

The Chairman: Excuse me. I know you're continuing on your submissions, but I did have other points of order, from Mr. Pickard in particular, and Ms. Catterall, I believe. I'm just going to let them raise their points of order.

Mr. Pickard.

• 1305

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As was stated by Monsieur Bergeron when he started his comments, he was attempting to take up the time of the committee. As a committee member, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is the right of the committee to direct how this committee operates, and as a member of the committee, I feel that my rights are being infringed upon and every other member's rights are being infringed upon when a member decides, for his own purposes, that he will stop the business of the committee. The result of that kind of action is that it impedes every member here, and it is our right to back the chair on the chair's decision to restrict the time of people in debate. Quite frankly, I have no problem with this committee setting that direction. If that's what Mr. Bergeron wishes to have happen, then certainly we can do that.

I'm not sure it's the wisest thing in the world to push us to, Mr. Bergeron, but I believe this committee can do that. Why do we not try to work together on the issue, and, as the chair has suggested, first let the drafters look at the information. Then if you have added information you wish to bring forward, you can well do that. That leaves that option open to you. No one is restricted in having their rights taken into account, but the rights of the majority are still as important as the rights of an individual. I believe this is a problem, and the committee has a right to deal with that.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[English]

The Chairman: No other members wish to be recognized, so Mr. Bergeron, on the point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I must say that I very much appreciate the wise words of our colleague Mr. Pickard, but I must once again, and in all due respect, tell him that if I had simply been reading the telephone directory here, he would have been entirely justified in speaking up as he did. But I was not reading the telephone directory. If I indicated I would be taking up the remaining time, it was not with a view to filibustering. I knew full well that since the meeting was scheduled to end in only 15 minutes, the information I wished to convey to you would take up all the time that was left.

Mr. Pickard, correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I know, I have not strayed from our topic. I have not digressed. I have raised no fallacious or dilatory argument. I have only raised arguments that have to do with the motion introduced by Mr. Knutson. With respect, Mr. Pickard, I disagree with you.

[English]

Let's work together. But I think the way Mr. Knutson put this motion is not the way to work together. This is what I was stating in my intervention, besides what I was saying about

[Translation]

The substance of the issue.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be allowed to continue in order to reach my conclusion. If I am constantly interrupted in this fashion, I will probably not be able to conclude my remarks concerning the motion introduced by Mr. Knutson. I accept that we may not necessarily agree to it today, but since our researcher must draw upon what is said in the House in order to complete his drafting, please give me at least the opportunity of finishing my sentences.

[English]

The Chairman: Carry on.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson on a point of order.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's more a question.

My understanding is that the researcher could present us with a draft report on direction from the chair. It doesn't require a motion of this committee. If I'm correct in that understanding, then this motion is unnecessary. If Mr. Bergeron wants to give direction on what he wants, some suggestions....

The Chairman: Mr. Knutson, I think you're correct. The way this particular committee of the House has operated ever since I've been here is on a fairly collegial basis without taking great gobs of time to deal with issues. There's a lot of discussion that goes on off the record, if I can put it that way, among the House leaders, the whips, and members. This particular debate on this motion is somewhat novel.

• 1310

So it would be the view of the chair that most of what Mr. Bergeron is urging upon us could be done in the more traditional ways. But if he wants to get things on the record, that's okay too.

We're talking here about a report. We're on the record and meeting publicly at this time. I could do that.

Mr. Bergeron, I'm going to assume, without asking you to reply, that you've not completed your remarks and that you have more you wish to say on this issue. I'm looking at the time, and it's 1:10. This is way beyond the time we normally adjourn. So the chair would certainly accept a motion to adjourn to the call of the chair, if any members wished to move that. But when this procedural element is over, we'd go back to Mr. Bergeron at this meeting.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It having become obvious to me that Mr. Bergeron does not intend to allow any other member of the committee to debate this particular motion in time to deal with it during today's meeting, and given that I would like to continue the debate with at least a draft report before us, which would give all members of Parliament an opportunity to put forward what they would like in that report, I would like to move that the question now be put.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I do not wish to introduce this motion. That is the reason why I was asking that another motion be introduced.

[English]

The Chairman: Just give the chair one moment.

My understanding is that one wouldn't move a motion until one had the floor on a basis other than on a point of order. But I certainly would....

Perhaps the chair should indicate what I have in mind. Colleagues, clearly you do not want to continue on a lengthy basis beyond the current time. There seems to be a consensus to adopt a motion or least give drafting instructions.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I have a point of order.

The Chairman: What I might be inclined to do is simply recognize someone who would move that we adjourn to the call of the chair, that we would come back in the next meeting. If Mr. Bergeron could be recognized, he might be able to continue his remarks. If he weren't recognized.... Well, ultimately we would get around to recognizing Mr. Bergeron at some point. But this business could come back immediately at the next meeting as our first item of business, and we could also move on to other business at the same meeting.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Could we reconvene this afternoon, Mr. Chair? Frankly, in my view, we've had two meetings more than we should have had on this issue.

The Chairman: Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if Mr. Bergeron could indicate to us what amount of time he requires, in addition to what he's had, to complete his remarks. I don't know, are we talking ten minutes, fifteen minutes? Or whether he has any....

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): A couple of days.

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, did you want to reply to Mr. Kilger on his point of order?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in answer to your remarks and in answer to what Mr. Kilger has said.

First of all, in response to your remarks, I would say that inasmuch as the meeting has now been adjourned, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that from a procedural standpoint, I should be the first to speak at our next meeting and be the first to continue my remarks.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly willing to discuss with Mr. Kilger, after our proceedings have adjourned, what should happen next.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe Mr. Bergeron answered the question in terms of time.

[Translation]

How much time will Mr. Bergeron require?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kilger does not seem to have fully understood my response. I do believe I was quite clear. I am willing to discuss this issue with you after we have adjourned.

• 1315

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Before the committee moves to adjourn, it needs to know what's going to happen, what Mr. Bergeron's intentions are, and—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In response to your question, Ms. Catterall, I would have to say that at this point in time I do not have the slightest idea. I wish to be able to conclude my remarks.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Are we ready to reconvene this afternoon?

The Chairman: The chair certainly would select a time to reconvene on this issue. In the interim, the chair might even get the researchers started on a report. So that wouldn't prejudice any interventions later on the report, on the assumption the matter came up at a meeting and on the assumption someone could be recognized on debate on the motion.

Colleagues, I think we might accomplish the goals of the committee here by adjourning now to the call of the chair. Just give me ten seconds.

The chair was obtaining procedural advice from the clerk, basic things like how do you call a meeting.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I move the adjournment of the meeting.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: To the call of the chair.

The Chairman: There's a motion, then, to adjourn—to the call of the chair, as usual—and, I would say, get counsel from other colleagues in the interim, and we'll get back together on this and future business as soon as we can.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: I think I have a non-debatable motion in front of me, but go ahead on a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I simply wish to indicate once again, Mr. Chairman, that according to my interpretation of Standing Orders, I should be the first to have the floor at the committee's next meeting.

[English]

The Chairman: Just to give you a heads-up, Mr. Bergeron, if we're interrupted by an adjournment, we start fresh at the next meeting.

We've had the motion to adjourn.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We're adjourned to the call of the chair.