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]

Tuesday, May 2, 2000

• 1110

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Order. Colleagues, we're continuing with our study of the standing orders. You'll note from today's agenda that item B deals with a riding name change, in the name of the member for Rimouski-Mitis.

We have with us again today the clerk, Mr. Marleau, and the deputy clerk, Mr. Corbett. We're continuing with the discussion. The researcher has prepared and the clerk has distributed a basis for discussion. I may describe this as chapter 1 of our rule change deliberations. We made apparent progress at the last meeting, enough to warrant reducing some of this to writing.

A technical item—we are discussing what has been prepared as a confidential draft of a report to the House. It is customary for our committees to deal with those in camera—not always, but it's the practice more often than not. I leave that in your hands. If members wish to go in camera, we could do that. If not, we'll stay public and on the record. I'll just throw that out there.

Before we get started, Mr. Blaikie, did you have something you wanted to...? No, okay.

Then let's continue. The format has been actually a little bit like a round table, with the occasional question to Mr. Marleau. I think we're tight enough on this now that we should probably go in camera. We can abandon that at some point if members wish to. It will be the nature of the conversation that will be going back and forth here. There's probably no need to have a written transcript of that type of banter.

So I'm going to ask for someone to move that we go in camera. Mr. Kilger has moved that we continue the meeting in camera. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

• 1115

[Public proceedings resume]

The Chair: We're in public session. We'll change the lighting and designation.

Now, is there a will to dispense with the choppy transcript and simply carry on our discussions without transcription, and at some point we'll go back into transcription? Would that be agreeable?

Is that workable, Madam Clerk, to carry on a public meeting without transcription? We'll have translation, but we won't have transcription. We will not have a written record of this until we—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Why?

The Chair: To reduce the cost and the—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: How bizarre! No.

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Okay, there is not a will to do that. Let's carry on with our discussion.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: So there is transcription?

An hon. member: This is being transcribed?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: So watch what you say.

The Chair: Who's first off the bat? I'll recognize Mr. Strahl, then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you need a motion on this report, or do you just want to continue our round table discussion?

The Chair: I'm going to suggest we make comments on the report as it is there. We don't need a motion. It's a discussion document for now.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, sure.

The two points I think we need to settle, then, are as follows. One is obviously where we have not decided the number of minutes. On the second page, where we talk about the question-and-answer period with the minister, we say, “provided this period shall not exceed” a certain number of minutes. I don't think we actually meant 20 in Roman numerals there. So I'm going to suggest that it be 45 minutes, but that's a proposal.

The only other thing I saw in here that I would suggest be changed is, further on in that same paragraph, where it says, “The Speaker may also decide to defer his or her decision until the next sitting day”. I think the word “also” is unnecessary, because I don't know who else but the Speaker could do that. It just seems to me it should say, “The Speaker may decide to defer his or her decision”. “Also” makes it sound as if there's someone else involved there, and basically it would be the Speaker's call. So I think the word “also” should come out of there, unless I've missed something.

The Chair: On that precise topic, I'll recognize Mr. Blaikie, and then I'll go to Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I see the point, but on the other hand, I think the wording is related to the fact that the Speaker can put the motion if he's satisfied, or if not, he may also decide. There are two things there. That's all the “also” relates to. It's not a big deal one way or the other. It won't change what....

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't know if the clerk has an opinion on that. Is the word “also” necessary? Maybe I'm splitting hairs here, but it just does seem unnecessary.

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): The only opinion I would venture is, to take Mr. Blaikie's point, whether “also” is there or not, the Speaker can decide to defer his or her decision. It just may imply that it's an alternative for the Speaker. There's that dimension of the word “also”: over and above, the Speaker may decide. If you take the word “also” out, it's clear the Speaker may decide the next day.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron and then Mr. Knutson.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I am reading and rereading the draft report, and unless I am misreading it completely, I cannot find a point on which there seemed to be a consensus during our last meeting. It does set aside a minimum of one sitting day in the event of a time allocation motion, but it does not say that at least one member from each political party should have an opportunity to speak to the question.

• 1120

To me, that seems to be a fundamental issue in light of what happened during the consideration of the Canada Elections Act at third reading. Only two political parties out of five were able to speak on the Canada Elections Act during third reading. I was told that that would be incorporated, but it has not been.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Marleau, do you have a comment? We had discussed that at our last meeting. It appears as though the draft has not yet taken that into account. Is it viable to address that at this time, in this particular standing order, or in another related standing order?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Marleau: It has been incorporated, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps not in the right place to satisfy Mr. Bergeron. You have to read the sentence after the word “Order Paper”, which is in italics in the text:

... on the Order Paper shall be deemed to have spoken, provided that after a Minister has proposed a motion pursuant to this section of this Standing order, a period of time not exceeding XX minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members, including a Member of each officially recognized party in the House,...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is not at all what I was referring to, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: I understand. I didn't want to interrupt Mr. Marleau, but I believe Mr. Bergeron was referring to the circumstance that occurs when, because of the time allotments, one of the parties gets squeezed off the end of the agenda and doesn't actually get to get a speaker up.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Three of the parties.

The Chair: Three of the parties. Some parties don't get a chance to speak.

You can go ahead, Mr. Bergeron, and re-articulate that.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Marleau, you were referring to the possibility for each political party to have an opportunity to speak during the debate, if I can put it that way, or during the questions and comments on the time allocation motion itself. But once the discussion on the time allocation motion itself has been completed, we resume debate on the issue on the Order Paper. I want to ensure that at least one representative of each officially recognized party has an opportunity to speak when there is a time allocation motion.

Mr. Robert Marleau: If that is the case, the same wording, if I can put it that way, would have to be incorporated into paragraph (b), below, which addresses the notion of an extended sitting and devoting a minimum of one sitting day to that type of debate. It's in line four:

... called and debated for the remainder of the sitting day, the length of that debate shall be deemed to be one sitting day...

That is where we would have to add “provided that one member from each officially recognized party has an opportunity to speak”.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It says: “shall be deemed to be one sitting day”. Shouldn't it say “shall be deemed to be at least one sitting day”, depending on the wording of the motion by the Government House Leader? It could potentially be more than one sitting day. It is at the discretion of the Government House Leader.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, there could be more than one sitting day to debate the motion.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In that case, it should read: “at least one sitting day”.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That clarification would have to be added.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron:

... at least one sitting day, provided that a period of time [...] provided for government business [...] and provided that one member of each officially recognized party have an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The same wording has to be added.

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

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Following on Mr. Bergeron's point and moving backwards, I don't think the government has any difficulty with dividing up the time that remains for debate after we time-allocate to guarantee each opposition party gets at least one speaker. We would agree to wording that would achieve that.

• 1125

By the same token, we would agree to the division of the mini question period, or whatever we're calling that—the ad hoc question period I guess is a better term—so that each opposition party gets at least one.

On the issue of time, though, our proposal was for 15 minutes. We think 45 minutes is excessive. As a compromise, we would suggest half an hour.

On the issue of who attends, I understand the opposition wants there to be substantive debate in this ad hoc question period, that they don't want it just to be Don Boudria or the House leader. If Carolyn Parrish becomes the House leader, they don't want it to be just a debate between the opposition and the House leader. They want a substantive debate. However, there may be times when the Minister of Finance isn't available. He may be travelling. So we'd like some flexibility on who speaks for the government, and we'd like to make sure the wording gives us that flexibility obviously.

I don't know that we're going to be prepared to vote on precise wording today. I guess this came from the clerk, is that right—Mr. Marleau?

The Chair: Mr. Marleau's office actually drafted it based on the discussions we had at the last meeting.

Mr. Robert Marleau: With Mr. James Robertson.

The Chair: Yes, it was a collaboration.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The usual editorial input.

The Chair: No one really wants to take authorship of what we've talked about.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gar Knutson: As of now and until I check with the House leader, there's general agreement in concept with what the opposition wants. I just wonder if it's possible to get agreement on the half hour.

The Chair: Well, let me address something. I had noticed as well the precision used in identifying the minister who would respond, and I don't know whether that occurs anywhere else in the standing orders, where the House has said a particular minister shall respond. It's my understanding that usually the government makes its own decision about which minister will speak for the government.

By the same token, I realize this particular initiative is focused on a particular bill, and that bill has a minister moving it. And the House leader will be somewhere in the process too, because if a decision is made to do time allocation, that process involves the House leader. So we might need to either rework that or fuzz it up or be more specific.

Secondly, I want to propose something a little bit novel. Mr. Knutson has suggested 30 minutes as a reasonable question period. As you all know, as soon as we conclude the debate, whether it's 15 minutes or 30 minutes or 45, we will have bells ringing for a vote. So I thought it might be useful to let the debate on this, the question period, run for 15 minutes, then commence the half-hour bell, which would ordinarily follow, and continue the question period for another 15 minutes into the 30-minute bell. That would be a savings of time. We would actually recoup 15 minutes, a quarter of an hour, of lost time. That's something we haven't done before; we have not debated during a bell.

This is a question period where the members involved are already in the House, so we could quite efficiently recoup 15 minutes of bell-ringing based on this suggestion. The debate would conclude after 15 minutes, the bells would continue to ring for a further 15 minutes, and when members would assemble in the House, then we would have our vote.

I throw that out for your consideration.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm not sure about the novel idea. I'm not opposed to that. As long as it's not disruptive in any way, where people are barging into the House, assuming it's a good time to do other business or something, I could be convinced of that, I think.

• 1130

I am concerned a little bit about the idea of which minister will answer the questions, only in that what I don't want to see happening is for this to turn into another late show. This should be a highlight for the minister to promote his or her bill and a highlight in a sense of something other than question period to look at for a change.

I'm a little nervous if it just becomes the fact that parliamentary secretaries are there to answer the questions and therefore everybody says we'll have to wait until the guy with the full title comes in. As long as it doesn't turn into that...otherwise it misses the point.

This is a chance for the ministers to shine, but it's also a chance for meaty questions of the person who is actually going to be making the decisions and who has to justify why they're bringing in the bill. As long as it doesn't evolve into a question of just putting up a junior person to kill this half hour, I do think it could be a very innovative and very good part of a revised Parliament here.

I don't want it to get into just a matter of having to kill this half hour. That's why I think the designated minister idea is in there. The fear is that it gets into putting up whoever you have kicking around to just blather on, and then nobody can ask a meaningful question because you have a minister who's not in on the cutting edge of this bill. That's why that's in there, I think.

As far as the bells ringing is concerned, as the chairman suggested, that may be workable. Again, this is a trial period, so perhaps 30 minutes is something we could work at. I don't know. I am concerned about the idea of the minister, that it's not important to have the right minister there. I think it is. If the minister's going to propose the bill, then we should have the Q and A to that minister; otherwise the whole thing starts to devolve.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: First of all, in the beginning the idea was that if the government was going to move time allocation, there had to be some price to pay, some real opportunity for the opposition. This was to be part of the package by which we could all agree to some circumscribing of the ability of the opposition to delay by using the tactics at report stage that we've seen used in its most exaggerated form recently, although it has been around for a long time.

So the idea was to have the minister come. It's the minister's bill. Ministers come before the committee, and we don't send somebody else to the committee to answer for the minister at estimates any more than you would send somebody else in this context. Then the government said, “Can't we have the government House Leader do it as well? Couldn't it be for both of them?” We said okay. Now the government comes back and says, “What if the minister is travelling and we might want to have somebody else?” This takes the meaning out of it. The idea is that if the minister wants this bill badly enough and if there's a justifiable reason for moving time allocation, the minister should be prepared to come to the House and answer for the reason why.

We compromised enough, as far as I'm concerned, when we said the government House leader could answer questions as well. It seems to me that the draft we have before us reflects that. To simply say that now anybody can answer.... Why should we kid ourselves? Why should we say we hope it won't become this? I say this with respect to Chuck, who I think is being overly nice about this. It will become a late show. It will become meaningless because it will be a strategy on the part of the government, as sure as I'm sitting here, to put up parliamentary secretaries. You won't have the minister. That's the idea.

If we can't have that, then let's forget it. It's not what we have in mind. It's a further delusion of the idea behind this. If we can get over that, the 30 minutes is a good compromise. It is a temporary measure. Surely to goodness between now and December the government could give a try at having the minister there on the occasions when they were going to have time allocations. It's not like something that's going to be written in stone from now until doomsday.

Perhaps there could be something even written in with the unanimous consent. If there is some extraordinary circumstance and the opposition is not unreasonable, we can say, okay, we understand. To just give the government the kind of leeway to put up anybody they feel like I think is just ridiculous.

• 1135

The other point having to do with Mr. Bergeron's point is making sure that after time allocation is moved all parties have an opportunity to.... I wasn't clear when I listened to Mr. Knutson. He said the government was okay with dividing the time that remained.

Mr. Gar Knutson: We're open to whatever you want.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: What we're talking about is not dividing. We're not saying, okay, there's 10 minutes left, let's divide it between the five parties. No, we're talking about making sure that each...so I just want it to be clear, because I wasn't sure whether there was a hidden meaning there when you said it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: There isn't.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: All right. That's one hidden meaning gone. Now we have to get down to the not so hidden meaning of can we put anybody up?

The Chair: Perhaps Mr. Blaikie has attributed too much weight to my words. Out of great respect, I know how much respect he has for the chair. I was really just thinking out loud.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I wasn't referring to what you said. I was referring to what Mr. Knutson said.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: And I just have to say that—

The Chair: No. You've made your point and you've made it well. I do understand it.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I have one more point to make.

The Chair: Okay. Go ahead.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: There was a discussion in the newspapers yesterday, and today we received papers in the mail from Peter Dobell. We're having this seminar next week, and there's a lot of discussion about how to make committees more relevant and how to make them less of a rubber stamp.

All I am saying is I find it offensive that the government members say...I know that perhaps they have to do this anyway, but do they really have to put it on the record. I'll have to check with the government House leader. I thought this was a committee where perhaps the government House leader and the other House leaders for that matter, including myself, might have to take into account what the committee decides rather than saying the committee can't decide that. We'll have to check with the government House leader.

These are the kinds of things that if they occur should at least be discreet.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson really meant that he wanted to check with the government House leader and other members of the House and various permanent members of the committee.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I see.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You know, Bill, you're right. I am nicer than you.

The Chair: I'll have to protect Mr. Strahl here today.

Mr. Knutson and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I want to deal with the most insignificant issue first, the fact that Mr. Blaikie found my comments offensive. For the record, I'm just trying to be straight. I'm trying to speak without any hidden agenda, without any hidden motive. If you'd like me to speak in code, if Mr. Blaikie would prefer me to speak in code, to be discreet about these things, then I'll try to do that so as not to offend him. That's not my particular style, but I can adjust out of respect for the tradition.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's how you regard the committee. It something that has to do with the government bill.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It just shows how I regard my job.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Which is what? What's your job? I thought your job was a committee member, not as an agent for the government House leader.

The Chair: It's an insignificant item and we're going to move on from it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm doing my job, and I'm just trying to do it the best I can, but I will make that adjustment.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

Mr. Gar Knutson: I'm not finished yet.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson has the floor. We're trying to keep the transcript less choppy rather than more choppy.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Who cares about the transcript?

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, please.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I understand that the opposition doesn't want it to turn into a late show and that you don't trust us and that we will try to turn it into a late show, and that's fine. However, if the Minister of Finance happens to be at the World Bank or the Minister of Foreign Affairs happens to be at a disarmament conference...the decision to time-allocate a particular bill may have nothing to do with that particular minister; it may have more to do with the House agenda and what's coming up next.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's an argument for good planning.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It is. If we had perfect control over the way things worked around here, we could do precise planning. Unfortunately, we don't, and I don't think the opposition wants us to. It's just like I can't control this meeting, nor do I want to.

We need some flexibility that gives the opposition the confidence that we're just not going to put up parliamentary secretaries, yet by the same token gives us some flexibility on what ministers appear.

• 1140

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Just try it between now and December.

Mr. Gar Knutson: That argument works both ways. Why don't we just keep open minds and not be so cynical about our motives and how we're going to...?

The Chair: Can I just wedge in a question to the clerk? On the wording “the minister in whose name the bill stands”, is it clear to all of us what that means? What does it mean, Mr. Clerk?

Mr. Robert Marleau: It means the minister whose portfolio is inscribed on the Order Paper is sponsoring the bill.

The Chair: Is that always the minister who moved the bill?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No. Mr. Peterson could move a bill for Mr. Martin, but in the subsequent Order Paper it would appear in Mr. Martin's name.

The Chair: Okay. So it is quite clear that the phrase identifies the minister whose portfolio governs or covers the bill.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. That's great.

I'll go to Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask Mr. Knutson to clarify what he meant when he said that he was prepared to share the time among the various political parties. According to what Mr. Blaikie said, I understand that it is not a question of splitting the time, but allowing each political party, under the time normally allocated, to continue the debate until the time available has run out. That covers that.

I wanted to add my voice to that of my colleagues to insist that the minister in whose name the bill stands be the one who must appear in the House when there is a time allocation motion. At first glance, I'm less open than my colleagues to the idea of reducing the time for questions and comments to 30 minutes.

There was something else too, Mr. Chairman, but I will come back to it.

[English]

The Chair: We'll come back, with great pleasure.

Mr. Kilger, and then I'll go to Mr. Strahl and Ms. Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify that the duration of the question period has not been reduced, but in reality increased by 20 or 30 minutes. That was the first government proposal.

I also want to point out that Mr. Bergeron's interpretation with respect to the participation of a member of each political party in the debate is right. That is what I recall from the last committee meeting. I agree that the new paragraph or the additions reflect that interpretation.

[English]

On Mr. Blaikie's comments, and supported by my colleagues on the other side, with regard to the minister, it's the government's best wish, because keep in mind if Mr. Blaikie says let's try, I submit, in the same spirit of enthusiasm, that the government needs a little more flexibility on the chance.... If by December 31 the government has abused the spirit of this new text, we'll wear it.

It's clearly our intention to provide the minister for that period of time, for that question period of time, but on the chance it's not doable, we would still like to be able to have the flexibility to continue with our legislative agenda and not be hamstrung by it. It's not because the government has any idea of doing something different and all of a sudden you would never see a minister. As a parliamentarian, I would be the first to join others in withdrawing this arrangement after December 31 if the government had broken the spirit of the agreement.

I know from our side there's a great deal of interest in finding an accommodation. While on the one hand we are increasing the time limit and recognize we should never be in a situation again as we were previously with the Elections Act, we simply ask on this count for a little flexibility. In good faith we will meet the test of fairness from our colleagues opposite.

• 1145

The Chair: I will go back to Mr. Strahl, then Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a question for Mr. Marleau, perhaps. Back in the olden days, when Bill Blaikie was here and the McGrath committee was always busy at work, there was basically a prohibition against parliamentary secretaries sitting on standing committees. Am I right?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: For a couple of years after McGrath....

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That was the case. But David just mentioned to me that his understanding is there wasn't actually a standing order prohibiting it; it was kind of a note in the margin saying it was expected that parliamentary secretaries would not sit on standing committees. Because it was put that way, it basically became the rule for that period of time.

Is it possible that something could be added to this—like the note in the margin idea—saying, “It is the intent of the government to do this”? The note in the margin could say that under normal circumstances they would produce the minister whose name this bill was in, but then it would give what you folks are talking about on the government side—that rare exception when something happens.

I guess the question is, would it have any power to have the note in the margin idea, which would kind of make it well understood what we're trying to accomplish here, but on that rare occasion they're talking about would give you some kind of flexibility on the government side? I just wonder if that would have any power, other than just moral suasion, or is it something that would guide the actual discussions.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The issue of parliamentary secretaries sitting on committees following the McGrath report was a self-imposed condition that the government accepted to do, in the spirit of McGrath. It was never in the standing orders, as was pointed out. It evolved over time, or regressed, depending on your point of view—disappeared.

As worded here, the standing order would not allow a parliamentary secretary to speak, as a minister of the crown. A parliamentary secretary may second a motion in the House for a minister, but may not move a government order. Hence, as I read this, a parliamentary secretary would not be recognized by the chair to intervene.

I'm going to risk a suggestion, Mr. Chairman, in the context of maybe trying to help the committee. You could add wording something along the lines of “the minister of the crown in whose name the bill appears on the order paper”, or “the acting minister”, and, if you wanted to make it more restrictive, “if the House consents”.

You have situations where portfolios are often backed up, such as the Peterson-Martin approach to the financial world, if you like. You could always consider the possibility that if the minister was legitimately unavailable, and it was attested to by the government, an acting minister could present himself or herself for that period. That's a suggestion, in terms of how you might want to add some flexibility on the government side. But a PS would not be allowed, under this wording, to intervene.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: If we follow that route, an acting minister is not a parliamentary secretary; they're another minister that is basically batting as a substitute.

Mr. Robert Marleau: It is not any minister. The government issues an acting ministers' list when there are ministers absent from the country or on business away from the House. So a specific individual is identified as acting for that minister.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so I'm clear—it may have some merit—the idea would be that if the defence minister was out of town and the veterans affairs minister was the acting minister in that portfolio while he was out of the country or whatever, then we could change this wording so it would be “the minister or the acting minister of that portfolio”, not just any minister.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That was my suggestion.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. I'm interested to hear other responses to that. That may have some value.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm a pretty old-fashioned and traditional person. I haven't been here as long as Mr. Blaikie—and stop laughing at me.

I think if you deviate too far from the question period protocol, you'll be making too many changes at once, so it will be very hard to see how this will work.

• 1150

First of all, as a parliamentary secretary I will tell you, definitively, there is no way any minister of the crown would put a parliamentary secretary into the lion pit for half an hour voluntarily. There is no minister who would send their parliamentary secretary in for that for half an hour.

First of all, there's no guarantee you guys will be sending in your critics for that portfolio in that half-hour period. I would suggest your party leaders, your best questioners, will be put up.

So I think you're putting us at a disadvantage if you can choose who you put in to question and then won't put in the normal critic for that portfolio. We should still have the flexibility we have in question period. The Speaker looks at either the Prime Minister or the House leader or Mr. Gray to decide who's answering the question. If you deviate from that protocol too much, you're running the chance of not testing how this procedure works well in the context of what we have. You're throwing in too many changes.

I listened to Mr. Klein on TV last night. He was responding on behalf of the Minister of Health in Alberta, saying, all right, I'm bringing in closure on this because it's time to vote on it. We've debated it. We've done it.

Sometimes the answer's going to be the House leader's answer. It's going to be a mechanical answer. It's going to be a procedural answer. I go back to my original point that if you start playing with this too much, I think you're not testing the process with a new introduction. It's just like that hundred-signature rule for private members. It's all been messed up.

So I think you go to the question period protocol. Be assured, not any minister of the crown in this House will put a parliamentary secretary before the lions for half an hour. They won't do it. You don't want a parliamentary secretary making mistakes that you wouldn't want yourself. I think there will even be times you'll get the Prime Minister answering on behalf of a minister because it's important to him, as the clarity bill was.

If you start putting in too many rules on this thing, you're not testing this concept and you're trying to change other things. The next thing that can happen is that in question period it's going to have to be the minister who answers.

There's also the possibility—not that I would introduce any bad ideas into your heads—that if the minister you want is not there, you would all fold your arms and say, “Well, we can't proceed with this. The right minister's not here. We have to stop everything and bring somebody back from China.” It gives you the opportunity to have a very good delay tactic here on closure.

I go back to the original. This is a giant step. It's a test. I think we should stick to the QP protocol, unless you're willing to say, always, that you're only going to have your critic ask the questions. Test what you're trying to test, which is a half hour of accountability in the House by somebody designated by the government. I'm telling you, it won't be a PS. There's no way Mr. Gagliano would send me in there for half an hour—no way.

The Chair: I want to ask colleagues to refer to the page prepared by our research. It attempts to focus on the process of the question-and-answer period. It relates partly to what Ms. Parrish has just said. I think we should not move on or send something back to the House unless we've considered some of these issues about the content and just how precise and relevant the questions have to be, etc.

While you're reading that, I'm going to ask the clerk about the suggestion I proposed earlier—that is, using 15 minutes of the 30-minute bell to continue the question-and-answer period.

Would that be practically viable, to the best of your knowledge?

Mr. Robert Marleau: It could be made to be “operable”, if I can use that word, but as this is drafted now, the Speaker would not yet have made his or her decision. Therefore, there are no bells ringing.

What you have here is a motion proposed, a question and comment period ensuing, and thereafter, after a time limit, the Speaker deciding three ways—yes, proceed and put the question, then bells; or no, which is no bells, and deferred to the next day, for 24 hours, at which time there would be bells. So your bells are not occurring while you're having the questions and comments, as drafted.

• 1155

You could consider limiting the bell to 15 minutes in light of the fact that the government House leader has already given notice, at a prior sitting, of time allocation, and practice has ensued in recent times that time allocation notice is given and usually invoked the next sitting day. Although that's not necessarily binding, the House isn't entirely surprised. It has had a full day's notice. A motion is discussed for 30 minutes, and a 15-minute bell, I think, would probably allow enough time for the whips to advise the members.

The Chair: In the current procedure for time allocation there is no reference to the Speaker on this issue of prejudice or an infringement on the rights of the minority. I don't remember where that came from here in this discussion. Obviously one of us raised it as an issue.

Does this exist elsewhere, anywhere in our rules, to your knowledge, where on a particular issue the Speaker is asked to, on a sidebar, determine whether or not there has been an infringement on the rights of the minority?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I think it exists, sir, intrinsically in the role of the speakership.

The Chair: All the time.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, all the time, where there can be tyranny on either side. It could be the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the minority. We've had speakers decide that the tyranny of the minority should cease at a given point in time.

So it's the role of the Speaker. This makes it specific to a particular procedure, and it exists in Great Britain in much the same language.

The Chair: Yes. Maybe someone would want to....

On that point, Mr. Strahl? Sure.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It was part of our original submission. Actually, I have a private member's motion very similar to this as well. It's based, at least in part, on trying to dovetail what is going on in Britain with our own particular traditions as well.

For example, if, as has been pointed out, some of the parties have not yet spoken to a bill and there is time allocation so that they don't get to speak to the bill, the Speaker could step in at that time and say, listen, we're not going to have time allocation until everyone has spoken once. He may step in and do that.

The rationale behind it is that I would think the Speaker is not going to throw his weight around on this—he never does—but it would be a type of cautionary thing so that everybody understands that when time allocation and closure comes down, it's the last straw for the government. They've had it for whatever reason.

On the other hand, the Speaker can just say, as part of the equation, well, I'm going to also have an opinion on this; we're going to make sure everybody gets to speak on it or whatever. If there is a huge public outcry, or whatever his or her evaluation of it is, it just allows the Speaker to be part of it instead of just saying, well, whatever you guys say. Certainly the motion is there, but the Speaker now brings his expertise to it as well, saying that, in his opinion, this other thing is in here.

So it's an attempt to bring what they have in Great Britain, where basically the Speaker judges on all the bills, to my understanding, as to how much time is going to be spent debating. In this case he says, well, before we move to this, which is a serious step, we have to make sure there's no infringement on those minority rights.

That was my thought behind it when I proposed it, and that's what the attempt was.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm not sure whether we're making any progress here, but I think the government was willing to go for the acting minister with the consent of the House. I can't speak for all the opposition, but it seems to me that if we have that notion of acting minister and consent, that would be okay with me.

To the idea that this is a test and we need to find out whether it works, I'd say what we're really testing is whether requiring the minister to be here in this way works. If we don't require the minister to be there, then there's nothing to test.

So I don't see any connection between this and question period. The regular question period is a completely different thing and a completely different protocol, and I certainly wouldn't accept that the protocol that applies in the daily question period should somehow apply to this. This is a different category altogether.

• 1200

With respect to the thing that has been prepared for us about interpretation, or what is to be expected in this, I find some problem with the idea that:

The time is to be used to discuss the reasons for the time allocation motion, and questions, comments and answers are to be strictly relevant to this question.

The idea behind this, for me anyway, is that if the minister wants this bill through and is prepared to use time allocation, then one of the prices he has to pay, or however you want to describe it, is that the minister is then willing to come to the House and give special access, extraordinary access if you like, on the floor of the House of Commons to the opposition, not just in respect of why the time allocation motion is moved but on the bill itself. To me, that was part of the idea.

I'm comfortable with the idea that the questions and comments and answers are to be strictly relevant to the reason for the time allocation. To me, that would vitiate certainly what I had in mind, and that would be that, yes, they could have to do with time allocation and why the minister feels it is so necessary, etc. But it could also have to do with the substance of the bill—one or the other. I mean, the time will pass. The 30 minutes or 45 minutes, or whatever it is, will pass. But I don't think it should be interpreted this strictly.

The Chair: There's also a third item for discussion and debate, and that is what I'll call the Trojan Horse of the infringement of the rights of the minority. If we thought for a minute that what we were proposing here was an infringement of the rights of the minority, why would we even be considering it now? And as we build in a question period and a vote, putting in—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The standing orders aren't based on the intention of any particular government at any particular time—

The Chair: No.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —so we can debate this without impugning the motives of the people present. All we're trying to do—

The Chair: Is to impugn the motives of the people in the future.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —is to construct as ideal a world or as ideal a set of standing orders as we can.

With respect to the other matter that you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the bell, I think you will recall that at an earlier meeting I suggested that if time were the problem, we could, if we wanted, go with the 45-minute period and then have a 15-minute bell.

You've come up with a different version of that, but if we're open to playing with the bells, then I would go back to my earlier suggestion that we have a shorter bell and a longer question period, rather than trying to overlap them in a way that could prove somewhat difficult—certainly innovative but somewhat difficult.

The Chair: There's no desire to do anything but improve the efficiency of the House time, because once the government has decided to go to time allocation, it's arguable that many people on the government side won't care how much time is left to debate because at some point the clock will run and we'll get to a vote.

The motive in making that proposal was simply to make sure the House time was maximized; a half-hour bell with nothing going on in the middle of the day is something we'll have to discuss later. I think it's a terrible waste of parliamentary time. The opposition may have a different view.

In any event, I want to hear from members a continuing discussion, and perhaps we could follow along Mr. Blaikie's path on the issue of not the rules but the rubric, the protocol, that would govern the question period.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just briefly, I agree with Bill. I do think that relevance has to be part of it, but not just on the question of why you are time-allocating. It needs to be a question of “Why do you feel it's necessary to bring this bill forward at this time? We don't think it's that much of a crisis.” As long as the proposal is relevant to the bill, it does seem to me that we need a little broader discretion on that part. It needs to be relevant but not just about time allocation. You might say “Why are you bringing the Devco bill? I am concerned that somebody might have some details of the bill and I think you're not debating that thoroughly.” Allow the minister to defend why that's there. It seems to me that's simply common sense.

I do think the other issue you brought up, Mr. Chairman, about the infringement on the rights of the minority idea.... It does say on page 570 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice that “the Speaker has ruled that the Chair possesses no discretionary authority to refuse to put a motion of time allocation” if all the procedures have been followed. In other words, under our current rules, there is no discretion given to the Speaker. He has no discretion on closure. That's a ruling. That's the way it stands right now.

• 1205

I think the reason this is here is, although we may have our problems from time to time with the way the Speaker rules, in my opinion, having the Speaker in the mix means that the neutral chair of our proceedings at least has a chance. You can appeal to him and say, “Please look at this, at what's happened here.”

It's certainly not reasonable until another couple of hours go by, and we could at least make that appeal; whereas under the current rules, the chair possesses no discretion. That's why that's in there.

The final point I had, which was in response to Ms. Parrish's comments about how we handled it, is that I think rather than looking at this as a question period, we should look at it as a traditional response to a question-and-answer period following a speech. If you say that the minister has made the presentation as to why the bill should go ahead, as any other member would during that question-and-comment period, the member can't stand up and say, well, I'm going to let this other guy answer those questions for me. I mean, you have to respond because it's your speech and you have to be the one to respond to the Q and A.

It does seem to me that's more in line with what we're doing here rather than a question period, in which it is, as you say, the discretion of the government to pick the minister. I think if we look at it in terms of the common Q and A that follows a presentation by any member in the House, that would be the proper way to look at it.

I agree with Bill that if it satisfies the government, we move to include the acting minister. I think that's reasonable, if you have an acting minister. I didn't realize that was an official thing, that when the minister is out of the country you have an acting minister. But if that minister is going to speak on behalf of the government, it's reasonable that they speak in the House on behalf of the government as well. Then it's not just anybody, but it's that person who is in town holding down the portfolio while the other minister is off doing their thing.

So I don't have a problem with the idea of an acting minister, and if that makes it more palatable to the government, it gives you really a whole other way to schedule this thing. It should be very possible, if not for the minister, then certainly for the acting minister, to answer on behalf of the government.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have three short questions.

First of all, how would you translate “acting minister” in French? “Suppléant”?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Suppléant.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: With respect to Mr. Blaikie's comments, perhaps we could solve the matter quite easily by deleting the word “strictly”.

[English]

The Chair: At the word “strictly”....

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: To delete it.

The Chair: To delete.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Which line are we on?

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie has identified three issues that would, if we adopted a rule like this, with all of its elements, routinely come up. One is the need to time-allocate. The opposition may or may not agree with this need. Second is the substance of the bill itself, which could come up in the question and answer—you like the bill or you don't like the bill; it's stupid, smart, whatever. Third is the Trojan Horse of the—I'm sorry, I shouldn't call it the Trojan Horse—infringement on the rights of the minority.

So in saying that the questions and answers are to be relevant to the question, there are three questions. There are three issues there. And that's a lot of territory. That's okay. I'm not objecting to it. Those are the issues that are actually in front of the House at the time.

So your suggestion is a good one. We should be a little bit more flexible. But what about the suggestion that the questions, comments, and answers are to be short and sharp?

I think that's a reasonable direction. We all realize that things slide around a little bit in the House, and the Speaker gives a fair bit of latitude.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On the other hand, questions, comments and answers are to be short and sharp. That point is already in the list somewhere. Moreover, maybe in that case we should only keep the second sentence in that bullet, in other words: “Interventions are subject to the relevancy rule.”

• 1210

If I have to speak on a bill or on a time allocation motion, you don't expect me to talk about the sexual behaviour of red ants in South Africa. As a result, I think we should only keep the second sentence in the first bullet: “Interventions are subject to the relevancy rule.”

[English]

The Chair: I'll just throw this out. What about “no dilatory motions”?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It is already there.

[English]

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Clerk, you've had an opportunity to look at the seven bullets. It's a bit of a smorgasbord of suggestions. What do you think would best serve the House, from the Speaker's perspective in presiding over this question period? Do you think there are any essential items in there, or are they all optional?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Indeed, the attempt was made following Mr. Hill's suggestion to take some inspiration on what the Lefebvre committee has said about the question-and-comment period. They become guidelines for the chair. I think the word “strictly”, which has now been quite well zeroed in on, is a bit narrow, particularly in the context of, say, having a time allocation motion moved at second reading. It's quite possible that the minister in the exchange would want to talk about the bill and the kinds of commitments he or she may or may not want to make about the committee stage and amendments they might bring at that level.

So you could have quite a substantive little debate on one amendment issue about the bill. So I think you want to build in the kind of flexibility that could build consensus in terms of the committee stage, in terms of commitments the minister may or may not make.

The word “sharp”, in the third bullet, is qualitative rather than descriptive.

[Translation]

The word is “pointu” in French.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That would be guaranteed.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Exactly, and difficult for the chair too. The words “short and concise” might be more helpful to the chair than “sharp”. And “pointu” en français has another dimension to it as well, in terms of what it might ask the chair to interpret.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: They don't want to be ruled out of order because they're dull.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Exactly.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'd never get to ask a question.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Robert Marleau: I couldn't say that as an officer of the House, Mr. Blaikie.

The last point I would comment on is that you may want to state, for clarity's sake and for members' understanding, that no dilatory motions can be moved. But the text of your proposed standing order clearly says “no amendments”. There's no debate, and there's no amendment. Therefore, technically that's redundant. The Speaker would not accept any motion once you've embarked upon the question-and-comment period, because you've asked for no debate.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That doesn't mean they won't try it.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Well, there's that. So you may just want to say no motion may be moved. It's not a question of dilatory motions; no motion may be moved. That just reinforces the text for the standing order that says you're not having a debate, you're having questions and comments. I don't know if my colleague wants to add more to that as we're looking at it. Those are essentially my comments.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Here is one last point. I sort of agree with Mr. Blaikie. If we have to determine how to divide up the hour of debate and the bells, since we are taking for granted that there will be half an hour of debate and half an hour of bell ringing, I would say that in my opinion, there should be 45 minutes of debate and a 15-minute bell. But I would not agree at all to reduce the hour scheduled from the start.

So I rather agree with Mr. Blaikie on that: there should be 45 minutes of debate and a 15-minute bell. Otherwise, if we have 30 minutes for debate, I would not agree to reducing the 30-minute bell.

A voice: A one-minute bell.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: A one-minute bell per minute of debate.

• 1215

[English]

The Chair: You're sure a gambler, Mr. Bergeron. I don't know how we got the hour, but you must recall it somewhere in the previous proceedings.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It was there.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson is waiting to make a counter offer.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It was two hours a day on time allocation. That's where we started. Remember, we started with two hours.

The Chair: Have we achieved a kind of consensus on the principles here? I'm resisting a temptation to say we have a consensus. But we certainly had some good comments.

Does anyone wish to clarify anything else? Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): It's on a question of clarification. When I came in we were discussing the apportionment of time or the dividing of time. The two words mean similar things but sometimes are interpreted differently. I want to be sure, if you could assure me, what you mean by this because there are five parties that could share this time. It could be that one could be bumped out of it. I want to be sure, in terms of the five points, that each one receives the same amount of time and doesn't get bumped out of their opportunity.

The Chair: Yes. If you look at bullet number 5, Mr. Richardson, I believe that is an attempt to try to describe what the intent is. It doesn't mean equal time for parties, but it does mean every party in an equitable manner.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's not down to the seconds, but it's something the Speaker has to manage.

The Chair: Yes. It wouldn't preclude a government member from railing against the motion either—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We live for that day.

The Chair: —or otherwise.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Hope springs eternal even at a McGrath committee.

The Chair: Colleagues don't have difficulty with that particular bullet number 5, do they? Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just briefly, it does seem to me that if we can agree with that in an equitable manner, and it also says all the parties must be included, then I suppose it would be a point of negotiation with the others. How are we going to do this? Are we going to each take two minutes and move down the rows and then come back to start again? How we do that, I think, could be negotiated. It seems to me that as long as everybody gets the first crack, then we have to find a way to do it.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's not necessarily negotiated. It's up to the Speaker. The Speaker sees who's rising and judges accordingly. People have to be there at the beginning to indicate how many people are trying to get in. The Speaker does his best, starting with the principle of having all the parties involved.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Sure.

The Chair: Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson: I suggest that Chuck has come up with an idea, and maybe it's not going to be the exact amount of time between all of you, but certainly you should come to some form of consensus and report back to the committee on what you feel is workable for all five parties where fairness is in play.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Monsieur le président—

The Chair: I think there's a reliance on the Speaker here. The Speaker will ensure an equitable allocation of time. The Speaker always does. Our researcher points out that depending on the bill, there might be—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: There might be some bills that some parties don't want to have anything to say about at all.

The Chair: —more volume coming out of one party than another.

Let's take this all as progress. I'll get our table here to work on something. Then it will be shopped around in the usual manner.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Then we can have another meeting?

The Chair: We keep working on it. We haven't had any discussion on the previous or the included motion. That would be the vote application where there is substantial consensus at this time. So let us conclude our discussion on that.

I'll move to the second item on our agenda, if that's okay. We have to make a decision about the private member's bill that would change the name of the riding of Rimouski-Mitis.

• 1220

The question we have to decide is this. Is there sufficient need for us to actually hear viva voce evidence from witnesses from parties who have objected to the proposed name change of that riding? I'll ask the clerk, but we had invited those who had objected previously to resubmit or re-articulate their objection, and there was some sense, I gather, Madame Clerk, that they had hoped they might be called as witnesses. Could you provide us with any helpful information on that?

The Clerk of the Committee: I spoke with both Michel Tremblay, the mayor of Rimouski, and Ghislain Fiola, the mayor of Mont-Joli, who were the two co-signatories of the letter that was sent to Suzanne Tremblay outlining their concerns with the proposed riding name change. Both informed me that the letter outlined their case, and both led me to believe they would not need to make a written submission, but they anticipated they would be called before the committee to give evidence as to why the proposed riding name should not go through. I informed them at that time that I would have to bring it back to the committee and the committee would be deciding whether or not they wished to hear witnesses on this particular private member's bill, and I would get back to them once the decision had been made.

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, let's have some informed input.

Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Even if the name change goes through, it's important to hear them so that the word that goes back out into the public is that we're here to listen. Sometimes we can convince them, if there's a strong enough case for this, and they can come around to our way of thinking. So I think we should hear them.

The Chair: Okay, that's one view.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It's grassroots politics.

The Chair: The parties who've objected are elected mayors in these municipalities. Certainly there's no shortage of respect for their views and the people they represent, but I need a bit more direction here in the chair. If it's the view that we should hear more evidence on it, then we can proceed.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: According to the clerk, the two co- signatories of the letter, Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Fiola, said that the body of the letter that they sent to Ms. Tremblay spoke for itself. They identified their interest, if need be, in appearing before the committee. However, I reiterate that the body of their letter, according to Mr. Tremblay and Mr. Fiola themselves, outlines their concerns on the issue.

In that regard, I am surprised by the position taken by Mr. Fiola since the municipality of Mont-Joli is part of the La Mitis RCM. You can see in the documentation provided that the RCM of La Mitis stated on several occasions that it was unanimously in favour of Ms. Tremblay's proposed name change. Although Mr. Fiola is in fact an elected official, it seems to me that his point of view is not shared by the City of Mont-Joli council, but that instead it is his personal point of view, since the municipality of Mont-Joli has unanimously supported the change.

In light of the informal discussions we had among ourselves, I wonder if we could not respond to what the City of Rimouski wants by simply changing the proposed name around, calling it Rimouski- Neigette-et-La Mitis instead of La Mitis-et-Rimouski-Neigette, all the more so since Ms. Tremblay is not opposed to the change.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, if committee members maintain or adopt Ms. Parrish's suggestion to hear from these two people, I think that we should also hear from citizens in favour of the change so that the positions in the debate are balanced, and because the latter position seems to be the one held by most people in the riding.

• 1225

[English]

The Chair: Your chair is still seeking some direction here. Mr. Strahl?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It does seem to me that normally what we've said on these name changes is the reason they go through the House by unanimous consent is that normally we say we don't do an inquisition on any of these changes. It's up to the member of Parliament to be convinced of it. If it doesn't look ridiculous—you don't name it after your grandchild or something—then it's up to you to justify it in the riding. If you can't and if it in fact costs you votes, well, don't come crying to me if you lose the election over it. That's your business. It does seem to me that we've never done this before, ever.

If we're going to start down this route...I bet we've had a dozen riding changes, name changes. I think Stéphane is right. If we're going to start hearing a couple of people who are against it, we'd better bring in the other mayors who are in favour of it. We're going to have to have a couple of days of hearings on it times a dozen different ridings. I just don't want to get into this.

The reason we've never stood in the way of any of these name changes is that the member of Parliament is going to have to answer for it. I think that's the way to leave it. If these mayors say this is a big deal to us and we're going to work like the devil to defeat this member in the next election, have a nice day...often these things are discretionary. You're not going to get unanimity. It's somebody who is trying to do the best she knows how as she interprets the will of her riding. I say let the member make those proposals. We've done a dozen of them in the House. We've never ever questioned them. I say let this one go the same way. That's my feeling. Let them answer to the electorate for their actions.

The Chair: Just to clarify what's going on here, originally, as I understand it, and I stand corrected if I'm wrong, the proposal of Madame Tremblay was to change the name from Rimouski—Mitis to La Mitis-et-Rimouski-Neigette.

Subsequent to discussions, various positions were accommodated and now the proposal is that the bill would change the name from Rimouski—Mitis to Rimouski-Neigette-et-La Mitis.

There is an adding in of the words “Neigette” appended to “Rimouski” and the words “et La”. The name change proposal has changed from what it originally was so that the citizens of Rimouski and the citizens of La Mitis would still be very prominently recognized in the riding name. The name Neigette, I understand, is a name used for the regional municipality. The name change is not now radical in terms of its nature.

I want colleagues and the chair to be aware of that.

Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I just want to verify, through you, with the clerk that we've given them the opportunity to send us documentation. They declined. I'm prepared to close the matter today. I went through a name change of my own. We've had the member here. I subscribe to the theory that a member will wear, or otherwise, the name change. I'm ready for the question beyond everything else.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): What was your name before?

Mr. Bob Kilger: I added Charlottenburgh.

The Chair: I just want the record to show that the interventions of the respective councils, through their mayors, has resulted in a change from the original proposal and it is one that appears to try to respect both the original name and the perceived need of Ms. Tremblay and others to modify the name a little.

Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I'm comforted by a few things, Mr. Chairman. First of all, in the new name, the name Rimouski is the first name as it was. La Mitis remains at the end of the title. There's been one addition. I remark that there have been no deletions from the previous name. I think the member has done due diligence, notwithstanding that there are some opposing views from some other elected officials within other jurisdictions. I say that respectfully.

• 1230

The Chair: I think it's clear the respective city councils have done their jobs well too.

Mr. Mills.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm one who has recently had the benefit of the support of this committee in changing his riding name from Broadview—Greenwood—which didn't mean anything anywhere in Canada—to Toronto-Danforth. My provincial counterpart came to me on Friday and was horrified that I should do a name change without deferring to her view. I think they have a different set of objectives, because as you know, in the province of Ontario, when you change your name, the province might follow.

And there's no cost to this—we'll run out the paper that we have on the shelf, then convert to the new.

But I think if you set a precedent at this committee where you start making the sitting MP subservient to outside or provincial views, you're really diminishing it a lot further than we already are.

The Chair: Yes, I think colleagues expect that the MP will stand on the issue and justify it to his or her constituents.

Mr. Kilger has moved the question. I'll put it....

Colleagues, we're going to have to go clause by clause on this bill. It's not a large bill, but this is a clause-by-clause consideration.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Have I left anything out?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Is it as amended? Is it this bill that I have a copy of?

The Chair: I'm going to ask that the transcript be radically altered here, because we do have to deal with the matter that Mr. Strahl has raised.

Can I have unanimous consent to delete the last part of the transcript? I believe we should not have concluded clause by clause in the manner we did. It would be procedurally inappropriate. Do I have unanimous consent for that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you. Just give me five seconds.

(On clause 1—Name changed to “La Mitis-et-Rimouski-Neigette”)

The Chair: We're going to go back into clause-by-clause consideration of this bill now. I'm going to go to clause 1, but I believe it would be very much in order for Mr. Bergeron to move that clause 1 be amended by changing the name of the proposed name change, that is that the name of the riding be Rimouski-Neigette-et-La Mitis. So could he move that?

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to point out earlier on that it would perhaps satisfy the mayor of Rimouski, and that my colleague for Rimouski—Mitis was not opposed to it. I would not want to be the one to alter my colleague's original intent. So if you do not mind, I do not want to move the amendment.

[English]

The Chair: We have two options. We can have a colleague move this, believing it is the proper amendment to be made, or we can defer it until Thursday morning. But I....

Mr. Bob Kilger: I'll proceed.

The Chair: Mr. Kilger then will move—

Mr. Bob Kilger: I'll proceed in good faith, Mr. Chairman, that the name be amended to be Rimouski-Neigette-et-La Mitis.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Shall I report the bill?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Carried as amended?

The Chair: Well, the bill was amended.

Shall I report the bill as amended?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We will also have to amend the preamble, but not the title.

• 1235

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Once it's reported to the House, Mr. Chairman, does it then become...it becomes the business of the House, but we'll have to work on unanimous consent to get it all passed.

The Chair: That is correct. It would probably then go into fast track.

All right. We have concluded then. Thank you very much. We now stand adjourned until Thursday morning.