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, September 21, 2000

• 1107

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Okay, let's get down to work.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Is Mr. Lee cranky?

The Chair: Yes.

Colleagues, here we are with big smiles on our faces. We're going to do some business dealing with our subcommittees, and then we're going to get into the issue of the commercial representation of parliamentary things, at the request of the Speaker. We'll look at some of those issues.

I see a quorum. The first item will be the draft report constituting our private members' business subcommittee, is that right? All right, the first thing the clerk wants us to do is the report from our steering committee, so let's do that.

You have a copy in front of you. The steering committee has met and suggested the following agenda, as set out there. You needn't view it as a biblical list; it can be modified as needs arise. These are the items we have committed to look at.

Okay, I'd like to see a motion. Mr. Fontana moves the motion drafted by the clerk, as set out in our agenda.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Can I have one question, please?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: With regards to numbers 1 and 2 as they relate to the review of the Standing Orders, I was just wondering, Mr. Chair, if you had an opportunity to find out, because I know the steering committee talked a little bit about it, whether or not the serious look by this committee subsequent to the House leaders of all the parties, through the summer, going to look at the electronic voting would be covered under number 1. Or is there an opportunity to add a (b) part, that that specifically be looked at by this committee in a very serious manner once again? I wonder if the chair could tell us whether or not that's covered off in number 1 or whether or not there could be a special provision that it be looked at separately.

• 1110

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Fontana.

Any of the members from the steering committee are certainly at liberty to correct me if I don't have this perfectly, but it was my recollection that the electronic voting issue was a definite part of the Standing Orders review. At some point it was discussed separately at our steering committee meeting, but it was included in number 1, which is the review of the Standing Orders.

Mr. Joe Fontana: If the understanding is that in fact part of the number 1 review is that this committee would look at that as a separate item in conjunction with changing the Standing Orders, that would be fine. This committee, over the course of four or five years, has looked at it. I know we're getting to the point where we might want to look seriously at it before the next Parliament returns. So if that's the understanding, then that's fine.

The Chair: Mr. Fontana is suggesting we look at the electronic voting proposals as a distinct envelope in the Standing Orders review, that we take note that it is there as one of the several envelopes but that it be noted as an envelope. I think that was the understanding of the steering committee. Is that okay? Thank you.

Are there any other comments? Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): On the same subject, you said that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs' steering committee had understood that the electronic voting issue was of course to be examined as part of the Standing Orders review, but as a slightly separate issue.

Was Ms. Catterall's intervention in subcommittee going the same direction? I was rather under the opposite impression, Mr. Chairman. Of course, we would touch on the electronic voting issue, but must it be done as a separate envelope?

[English]

The Chair: I don't think anybody is making it a distinct issue. Mr. Fontana simply wanted to confirm that the electronic voting proposals were seen as an envelope in the Standing Orders review, and it's confirmed that it is.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Were you going to move adoption of this, Mr. Fontana?

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): I'll second it.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a short comment.

Of course, I was not going to oppose this report, but I would perhaps have preferred that it mention that some business is still pending, that the committee has not yet been completed all its work but that it will.

[English]

The Chair: Yes. Items that weren't specifically listed were noted verbally in our meeting, and one issue that Mr. Bergeron is interested in can be raised by him at an appropriate time. Members have taken note of that. Thank you.

There is some other housekeeping business, and that is item C on your agenda: consideration of the membership of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. There are two matters, actually. First is the replacement of Mr. Hill by Mr. Reynolds on the steering committee, and second is the private members' business subcommittee. There are two proposed motions down there that the clerk has kindly provided. If I had a mover, I would recognize him or her.

Mr. Fontana moves that John Reynolds replace Jay Hill on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The second item is that we have to set up our Subcommittee on Private Members' Business and we have to replace Mr. McCormick and Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): How can we be replaced?

• 1115

The Chair: That's a tall order.

Okay, there is some other possible shuffling on this subcommittee among both the government members and the Canadian Alliance. So if it's okay with members, we'll defer that business item until our next meeting.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Now we'll go back to item B.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Have we reached a decision concerning item C?

[English]

The Chair: I'm sorry?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Who will be replacing Mr. McCormick and Mr. Jordan?

The Committee Clerk: The item has been deferred until next Tuesday.

[English]

The Chair: We will defer that issue until the next meeting.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would have liked to make proposals.

[English]

The Chair: We still have some work to do on this complex issue.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Nobody wants the job.

The Chair: Anyway, we have deferred it.

We'll now move to our main item of business today, which is the consideration of this issue of commercial representation of symbols of the House of Commons. We have two experienced parliamentary counsellors here: our clerk of the House, William Corbett; and Mr. Rob Walsh, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel.

Mr. Corbett, I'm certain you've had an opportunity to see the letter prepared by Speaker Parent that raised the issue of whether we wish to look more closely at the use by commercial enterprises of the symbols of the House of Commons, which is apparently now going on from time to time without any regulation. Permit me to invite you, then, on behalf of colleagues, to open the issue.

The first question obviously is what restrictions are there, if any, at the present time? What symbols are there, if any, at the present time that are generally seen as parliamentary or being used by Parliament or others? Perhaps you could lead off on that.

[Translation]

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is my first appearance before your committee in my new role as Clerk of the House.

[English]

It's an honour. Thank you.

Over the past few years, there has been an increasing use of the symbols of the House and of Parliament for commercial purposes. There has been advertising in local newspapers and national newspapers using the Peace Tower

[Translation]

and the Centre Block, sometimes the Peace Tower only and, at other times, the whole Centre Block or the side of it where the House of Commons is located.

[English]

for commercial purposes.

The most recent occurrence that sparked the Speaker's concern and the executive committee's concern was a case where there was a brochure being circulated on Parliament Hill to try to sell rings to members of Parliament that used the term “parliamentary ring” and that implied there was some attachment or some endorsement by the House of Commons. The advertising contained, in addition to the title “parliamentary”, an image of the Centre Block and the Peace Tower.

In the past, in terms of preserving the dignity of the House, the Speaker has made representation to those using the images of Parliament Hill—the Centre Block, the House of Commons, the Peace Tower—asking them to cease and desist. In most cases they have indeed done so, but this particular use of the symbols or representation of the House of Commons was upping the ante in that it was being circulated on Parliament Hill and was implying that there was indeed some endorsement and/or issue under the authority of the House, which was of concern to the Speaker and to the executive committee.

• 1120

There are not many arms or tools in law at the present time for the House to defend itself from these uses. There is in section 80 of the Parliament of Canada Act a specific prohibition on the use of the expression “Parliament Hill/la Colline parlementaire”. It simply prohibits the use of those two words together, in combination. It does not prohibit the use of the image of the Peace Tower, the Centre Block, or the chamber of the House of Commons for publicity purposes or for commercial purposes.

There is a section in the Trade-marks Act that prohibits a commercial enterprise from using any word or symbol that would lead to a belief that the merchandise they are trying to sell is produced, sold, or performed under governmental patronage, approval, or authority.

The third tool, if I can call it that, in the tool kit in order to defend is the parliamentary law of privilege in the use of any symbol by an enterprise or individual that would indeed constitute an attack on the dignity of the House and therefore could be deemed to be in contempt.

Basically these are the only tools at the House's disposal at the present time. There is no symbol that has in any way been adopted by the House. There is no formal trademark protection of any symbol, be that the Peace Tower, the Centre Block, or the chamber itself.

In Great Britain they have indeed taken the position of agreeing upon a symbol, a logo, that represents the House of Commons and being prepared to defend that vigorously, but then to ignore all other uses of images—pictures of the chamber, Big Ben. They simply turn a blind eye to all of that because they have a symbol that they are prepared to defend.

I think more or less the concern of the Speaker, the executive committee, is to know what the views of this committee would be in terms of whether the House should take further steps in order to defend itself legally or under the law of privilege to protect its dignity in the face of an increasing use of these symbols for commercial purposes and other purposes. Mr. Walsh has a number of examples of recent advertising in the local newspapers where the Peace Tower, Parliament Hill, the Parliament Buildings, or the Centre Block have been used, which we can circulate if the committee so desires.

That more or less is framing the nature of the concern, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Walsh, you may wish to make an intervention or a list or show us some of the examples. Would you like to do that now? Do you think it would be useful to us?

• 1125

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): I'm at the disposal of the committee. I do have sufficient copies of some examples of advertisements in the print media using the image of the Parliament Buildings, if the committee members would like to see them.

The Chair: Yes, if you've prepared them, please distribute them.

In your remarks, Mr. Corbett, you opened by noting that it was your first appearance here. We all warmly welcome you and wish you all the best, on behalf of all of us and all Canadians, in your new role as clerk. You're not new to the table at all, but you nevertheless have all the clerk's responsibilities now. It's an onerous job, and we do sincerely wish you well.

Also in your remarks you pointed out that since we have not adopted any symbol, we may tend to look at all of them as belonging to Canadians and deserving of some protection. I just wanted to reinforce that although we will discuss these symbols today as somehow being proprietary to Parliament, we all recognize that in saying that we really mean they belong to all Canadians—not to Parliament, not to the Senate or the House of Commons, but to Canadians—and that is our objective here as we review that.

So we'll go to questions and comments. I'll recognize Mr. Reynolds for five minutes.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to congratulate Mr. Corbett also on his appointment. We are very happy with it and wish you well.

You wanted to know the committee's opinion. I'd like to know your legal opinion. A lot of times you'll see these ads that are sort of funny, not really offensive, but then I look at this other one, where you have a big tanker truck sitting on the lawn of the House of Commons. I find that pretty offensive. So I'm wondering, legally, what is the distinction. How would we set something up so that if people wanted to use that symbol they would have to get approval before they used it?

Mr. William Corbett: I'll defer to the law clerk, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I am reluctant, as the House legal counsel, to express legal opinions pertaining to any particular item before the committee or this issue with any specificity, as it may well be a matter.... Following the views expressed by this committee to the Speaker and in terms of the board, the board may be looking at taking possible action, and on that occasion I will perhaps be advising the board. I would not want to prejudice the House's position by publicly giving any specifics about the legal position of the House.

But let me offer this. Trademarks are of a commercial nature and they are primarily designed to protect the proprietary interests that a commercial enterprise might have in a logo or image. As the clerk has mentioned to you, there is also the avenue of parliamentary contempt, a citation. That perhaps goes to what the member just expressed regarding one of these ads seeming offensive. That goes to the issue of the dignity of the institution, and as the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Well, whether you're offended or not is a very subjective matter, and indeed the institution, the chamber, might well be offended by one ad and not by another. So that's the contempt route.

But in terms of the Trade-marks Act, for example, there it's a case of primarily defending the institution against being drawn into commercial associations or undertakings of a kind that it is not associated with and which may indirectly offend its dignity in its own mind, but nonetheless which it's not associated with. As the clerk indicated, it's a question of governmental patronage approval or participation. That's really the distinction you have to make between the commercial side of things and the more institutional sense of its own dignity in protecting that institution.

Mr. John Reynolds: Do we have this trademark now? Those pictures of the House of Commons, are they trademarked?

Mr. Rob Walsh: The House has no registered trademark as such.

Mr. John Reynolds: Could we?

Mr. Rob Walsh: We could.

Mr. John Reynolds: That's fine.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bergeron, I would normally recognize another opposition party, but Mr. Jordan has indicated.... It's not clear whether you were—

• 1130

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I refuse to take him up on his offer. Mr. Jordan has already had to yield his place on the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business. I refuse to pull the rug out from under his feet on this second issue.

[English]

Mr. Joe Jordan: It certainly is an interesting issue. If you're going to trademark it, you get into the argument of who owns it.

But the issue that concerns me—and I think we've touched on it—is whether there is a danger if we don't do something, especially with the ring. The way they've laid that out and the way they've pointed out that they also supply the RCMP and the air force, there really is an inference here that this is some kind of officially sanctioned item.

Apart from just the general issue, are there not potentially liability issues? If somebody were to buy that ring and it didn't work out—I don't know, it didn't fit or something—is there not the risk, if we don't make the distinction legally, that we could be at risk down the road? It's kind of a liability issue too. If it seemed to be a Government of Canada initiative, there are certain things that go along with that in a consumer's mind, and if we don't take steps to make the distinction, are we not a little negligent?

Mr. Rob Walsh: At the risk of causing certain commercial undertakings some discomfort in saying this, I think if the House's name was associated with the sale of vehicles having certain kinds of tires, which were coming off and causing deaths and injuries, it well may be the case that the House would feel very vulnerable to a claim against it in that regard. As for a ring with an image of Parliament, if the ring didn't fit, I don't see the same—

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, but the point is, where do you stop?

Mr. Rob Walsh: As for where the line is, I've given you an extreme example, so it's easy to draw the line. Yes, you get into a line problem, as you do in distinguishing between what offends the dignity and what simply is an embarrassing commercial association. Where is the line that causes members to say, hey, wait a minute, I don't like that? It may be suggested that an easier solution is to register a trademark and then just—

Mr. Joe Jordan: In trademark law, if businesses don't take active steps to protect it, they lose it, right? Or could?

Mr. Rob Walsh: They lose it de facto in the sense that the other party is gaining the benefit of using that mark, presumably with impunity, and to some extent part of the market is being lost to the holder of the trademark because they're allowing someone else to use it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thanks.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I was interested in what Mr. Corbett had to say about trademark law and the fact that it precludes any advertisement implying that the Government of Canada endorses, supports, or whatever the wording is. To what extent would it help deal with this problem if trademark law were amended to say you can't imply any government or parliamentary endorsement? Mr. Walsh may want to have a look at that and how far that would help us with this.

Mr. Rob Walsh: Without being too picky, we get into saying what does “parliamentary” mean, as between the two Houses, and who has the complaint? But without picking on words, I think the member's comments, Mr. Chairman, are very valid relative to amendment to either the Trade-marks Act or the Parliament of Canada Act or both.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The second thing is that I would hate to see us get into a position of setting up a bureaucracy where everybody who wants to use a representation of the House of Commons, arguably one of the first two most important symbols of this country, next to or ahead of the Canadian flag, would have to come and have approval. That could be costly, time-consuming, and maybe not productive in terms of what we want to accomplish. I would hate to think that the tourism bureau for the national capital couldn't use a picture of the Parliament Buildings in its promotion or that anybody advertising tourism in Canada couldn't use that without specific permission. I guess I'm looking for what the other options are here besides a new bureaucracy.

But what I'd like to suggest, Mr. Chair, is this. Given the workload the committee has this fall, I wonder if there'd be any consensus to perhaps establish a smaller subcommittee to look into this and report back to the full committee.

• 1135

The Chair: There might be. Let's just hold that suggestion down until close to the end of the meat of our agenda today. It's a good suggestion, Ms. Catterall.

Next is Mr. Bergeron and then Ms. Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: First, I would like to echo my colleagues' congratulations to Mr. Corbett and, through him, to the others who have been appointed to the Table.

I think in this year-2000 new democracy, it would be increasingly desirable that appointments related to the House of Commons be made by consensus of all the parties represented in the House. That being said, it goes without saying that if the government had gone through the trouble of consulting us, we would have been in complete agreement and happy to contribute to your appointment, Mr. Corbett. I therefore congratulate you.

The issue concerning us today preoccupied me personally when I first received this advertisement—I'm referring to the parliamentary ring ad. At first, I also thought for a while that it perhaps had the support of the institution, as Mr. Jordan was saying, but I soon changed my mind when I saw that it was in English only. Had it been approved by the institution, it would have been in both official languages. Nevertheless, my first reaction was to ask myself if this company ad had some support from the institution.

Obviously, this experience shows how important, how relevant the issue at hand is. We are discussing amongst other things the parliamentary buildings and the term “parliamentary” itself. Will we be registering the term “parliamentary” as a trademark? If so, who will be authorized to use it and in what context? Everything becomes a bit complicated.

In the same manner, will we be registering the parliamentary buildings as a trademark? I already find it very embarrassing to use the term “trademark” in relation to the parliamentary buildings, particularly as these buildings belong to the Canadian people. It is normal for Canadians to want to identify with them, to use them, because they are probably very proud of these buildings.

It becomes slightly embarrassing though when companies use these symbols to promote a product, to sell their merchandise. Mr. Walsh has given a good explanation of the impact it could have if, for example, it were to be used to promote a car or a tire, as you were saying, and that, after some years, it appeared that the death rate due to the use of this product was very high. Up to what point could Parliament be held liable, between quotation marks, for having promoted this product?

I'm therefore in agreement with Ms. Catterall when she says that something must be done. But what? Must we register the parliamentary buildings as a trademark? Would that prevent Canadians wishing to depict the parliamentary buildings from doing so? This poses a certain number of problems.

I am asking a question. The possibility of giving the House of Commons a particular logo, a visual symbol that would belong to it has been raised. I would tend to be very favourable to such a proposal because I think the institution must have its own symbol and that this symbol must be slightly different from that of the Canadian State as such. This having been said, in what way would the registering of a House of Commons logo prevent anyone from using parliamentary buildings after all to promote a product?

Mr. Corbett, you mentioned earlier the case of the London House of Commons which uses a logo containing a portcullis. It is willing to defend it in court, but it has let go of Big Ben and all the rest.

• 1140

I do not know if, as a parliamentarian, I would be at ease with the idea of a company using the Peace Tower or the Centre Block to promote a product after a logo has been registered.

How can the contradictory arguments that we have been hearing today be reconciled? Is there legislation that would allow us to reconcile these or would it be necessary to enact a new law to this effect that would allow anyone wishing to use and depict the parliamentary buildings to do so, while preventing their use by a company wishing to make money out of a product?

Allow me another slight digression. Another problem that has been well explained by Mr. Walsh also is knowing who is responsible for the protection of the image of Parliament. Is it the House of Commons or the Senate?

Mr. William Corbett: Or both.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Or both. But you know that there are very few relations between both institutions, that in some regards they are in fact non-existent.

Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I think that I must support the proposal to form a subcommittee, because Mr. Bergeron has raised several issues to which I cannot provide quick answers. I know that in London, they have a logo which goes back centuries and which everyone identifies with the House of Commons. This logo or symbol is not registered as a trademark, but they have decided, as parliamentarians, that it represented the House of Commons MPs and that they would defend it.

Moreover, there are other depictions, including those of Big Ben and Westminster Palace, of which you can also buy souvenirs. Our problem is that we do not have such a symbol that is identified with the House of Commons. Our business cards as House of Commons officials depict the Peace Tower with half a block on the left, but we do not have such a symbol. I would say first that we have to find some symbol. If we want to follow their example, we have to find what symbolizes the institution of the House of Commons.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It does not solve the problem. Once we have found the symbol and have said that we are ready to defend it, will the institution be free of liability should the buildings be used for commercial purposes, should, to go back to Mr. Walsh's example, Parliament be used to sell a certain type of tire and should we discover, one or two years later, that the death rate linked to the use of this tire is very high? Would the existence of a logo exonerate in some way the House from the liability of not having prevented the commercial use of the image of its buildings? Would the existence of a logo that we are ready to defend legally exonerate the House from liability for the use of the buildings' image?

Mr. William Corbett: Other symbols are not in fact formally adopted as symbols.

Mr. Rob Walsh: Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the logo simply used on a vehicle, for example, would be insufficient to make the House of Commons liable to the public for the quality of the tires and the consequences of using these tires if they were defective. In this context, Mr. Chairman, I think it would simply be embarrassing for the House of Commons. But the possibility remains that, in an extreme situation, it could maybe create a legal problem for the House of Commons. However, one must not exaggerate.

• 1145

In my opinion, the important thing for the House of Commons is on the one part to preserve the dignity of the institution and on the other part, as the Speaker in London was saying on television in January 1997, that the symbol is a good tool to indicate that a document or a place is official. It is a good tool for the institution. For this reason, the Speaker's role is to prohibit the use of this symbol by others. The symbol's function is to indicate that we are dealing with something official.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Now to Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I also would like to welcome both of you and congratulate you. I'm glad to see that Mr. Walsh is still here, and I'm glad to see that Mr. Corbett has been promoted. I'm sorry to see that Mr. Marleau, with his normal modesty and humility, sneaked off in the middle of the summer so that nobody could make a fuss over it. I think it's very typical of the man. I appreciated the work he did.

Now let's go to the tempest in a tower. You've heard of a tempest in a teapot. The symbol that absolutely amazes me is that here is this tanker sitting on the front page, and we're worrying about gas prices across the world, not just in Canada.

We're sitting here fuddling around for 45 minutes over whether somebody can use a building that's owned by the taxpayers. Every taxpayer in this country owns this building, every Canadian owns this building, and we're fussing over using it as advertising. We should be pleased that it gets exposed as much as possible, because everybody says that the Canadian government has a very low profile and that people in the provinces don't understand what we do. We should pay people to use this. It's a pile of stones. It can burn down, it can be rebuilt, and it can assume a new shape.

The symbol of this country is the Canadian flag, and the usage of the Canadian flag is governed and tightly controlled so that people don't use it for advertising or in a disrespectful fashion.

This whole discussion is actually a complete waste of my time. If we're going to spend subcommittees and hours worrying about who put a picture of a tower on a piece of advertising, I'm going to get off this committee, because this is really not something I should be spending my time on.

The other thing that's interesting is that the oil tanker that is in this picture actually was there. The company got an award for having the cleanest, most highly efficient gas. We should be proud of them. They're proud of themselves. We invited them to put that tanker on the front lawn. I was here that day. If they choose to tell the world that they got an award from the automakers for having clean, highly efficient gas, then yes, let's let them do it, because we let them put the tanker on the front lawn.

I have about five more minutes, and I'm out of here.

The Chair: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I agree with Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No! I'm out of here for sure.

Mr. John Reynolds: The Speaker sent us a note asking for our views. He didn't ask us to set up a subcommittee or anything else.

I think the view has been made known that we have a concern over certain types of ads. If the Speaker wants to look at it and trademark a logo, that's fine with me. That's why we elected him as the Speaker, so that he will look after the precincts. Yes, I'm offended. I don't think we should have trucks on the lawn, but that's one point of view. But I agree, let's get on with the real stuff we're here to do and just give the Speaker our views. The clerk is here to take them. He'll have them in written form.

When he makes a recommendation, he can send it back to us. He has the staff and the lawyers. There are not too many lawyers on this committee. Let them do their job. Every party has given their opinion. He'll know what it is. If he wants to make some changes, he can come back and tell us what they are, and we'll tell him either that we like them or we don't. That's his job.

The Chair: I also have a couple of questions. But go ahead, Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: The issue with the rings is really that either through intention or exception, they've tried to make it look as if it had some sort of official recognition. Can the Speaker not write a letter to that company and say “We think this crossed the line; next time make sure you clearly point out that this is not sanctioned”? Can we not deal with them that way if we think someone crossed the line and we need to make that point?

Mr. William Corbett: Indeed, in this particular case a letter was sent, and it's my understanding that they did cease and desist.

• 1150

The Chair: I'd like to ask a couple of questions related to this. The Canadian flag has been mentioned. Can I ask if there are legal protections built into the protection of the use of the Canadian flag? I'm not personally aware of them now. Is there a piece of a statute that would prohibit certain uses of the Canadian flag, commercially or otherwise, that show disrespect for the flag? Is there anything like that out there now?

Mr. Rob Walsh: I must admit you've caught me by surprise, Mr. Chairman. I don't think there are, but I should double-check. There may be in other contexts. I hear a member mentioning elections and campaigns. There may be prohibitions in the context of elections such that you can't use the Canadian flag for your purposes.

But the statute creating the flag, I don't think.... You may recall the big debate in the United States some years ago about use of the flag as apparel or clothing and so on. I don't think we have those kinds of.... But I need to double-check on that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay.

Secondly, it appeared to me that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had at some point decided to gather together its own symbols and trademark them—I believe they trademarked them—and they then allowed the commercialization of them as a revenue-generating function. I suppose that option would be available to Parliament, to the Senate and the House, should we wish to do it, but can you confirm that this is what the RCMP did, that they simply decided to trademark what they had, protected it, and then commercialized it?

Mr. Rob Walsh: I can't officially confirm that, Mr. Chairman, but it's my understanding from what I read in the press that it is what they did. I could seek confirmation if that's the committee's wish.

The Chair: It may not be necessary. I don't think we have to. I just wanted to get that historic thing on the record.

Mr. Rob Walsh: That's the nature of any trademark. Once you've registered it, you then have proprietary interest in it and you can license it out and sell it or whatever to others.

The Chair: Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I just want to come back to the flag; we're just skating around it. There is a protocol already established by the Government of Canada on how this flag can be used and on what occasions it can be used. Rather than—

The Chair: Right. That's a protocol, but I was inquiring as to whether there were prohibitions. We're not aware of any prohibitions.

Mr. John Richardson: I see. Then the prohibitions would have to line up with one's definition of use, and maybe that would be the way we would stop that use of the flag, in the manner that's—

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Robertson has pointed out that we've been asked to consider this by the Speaker. There are two or three bundled issues here. We don't have to do more work on this as members of Parliament; it is quite feasible for us to send the matter back to the Speaker with our collective opinion. The Speaker is fully capable of advancing the file in a way that he thinks is appropriate to the House, depending on what our advice may be.

So it may be that a better course of action here is simply to wrap up the matter and send some advice back to the Speaker. We would do that by way of a letter. We wouldn't have to report to the House.

Now, if I could just try to assemble the consensus on this, I'm going to ask a couple of questions.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I would move that we send the Speaker a letter attaching today's notes and views and say that these are the views and notes of this committee. I move that, and then I move we adjourn.

The Chair: Well, I—

Mr. John Reynolds: Do I have a seconder?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: It's seconded.

The Chair: I want to thank the member for pre-empting the remarks that the chair might have made.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'm sorry. I thought you were finished.

The Chair: No, I wasn't finished. I recognized you because you're an eminent member of our committee. But if you will allow me to—

An hon. member: Finish.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: Just speak to the motion—

The Chair: Don't make me cautious about recognizing people, please.

The other issue here is the issue of whether or not the House should consider developing a logo of its own. Members may have different views on that, but it might be useful to ask the Speaker to consider that. Should he wish to embark on something that would develop a logo that would be an asset to the House in the future, he could get back to us and other members with his views. But in a sense we would put the ball back in his court.

• 1155

Is that something we could make reference to in the letter? I don't see any objections.

A very short comment, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If you have accepted my colleague's motion, I would perhaps have something to say.

[English]

The Chair: All right. I'll put that motion, that we send a letter back to the Speaker, attaching the transcript of our views today and the views of our witnesses, and that we then adjourn.

Do you wish to speak to that motion? Go ahead.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to underline that my colleague Marlene Catterall has herself made a motion, during question period, for the establishment of a subcommittee. I do not agree with Mr. Reynolds' motion. Let me explain.

It is not because I think the committee itself should spend more time discussing this issue. On this, I agree with my colleague and with Ms. Parrish and Ms. Catterall. However, I think that the issue deserves to be examined, since the Speaker asked us to do so and that members of this committee could possibly be sufficiently interested to wish to sit on the subcommittee that will review it.

I think we have touched on something very important and very interesting today, Mr. Chairman, following the presentations made by our two witnesses. If a logo were established and if it were to signify sanction of a document by the institution—a publicity ad among other things—, we would no longer have to fear—at least I do not think so—that other depictions of Parliament be used since everyone would know that the logo is the symbol of official sanction. I think we have here an interesting solution and that Mr. Reynolds' motion, despite its merits, gets ahead of an interesting avenue that we have only begun to explore.

I can understand that some colleagues would not want to spend time on this issue, would not want to study it, that they would have no time to waste on this issue, but other colleagues might want to pursue it. Let's give them the possibility of sitting on a subcommittee which will examine the issue, since that is what the Speaker wishes.

[English]

The Chair: We have a motion that we will correspond with the Speaker and that we will adjourn. Mr. Bergeron has made a suggestion. Before the letter is sent, I can deal with any one of you in terms of what might go into the letter, provided it's reflective of our discussion today.

I just want to confirm. I'm assuming it is the consensus that we very much support whatever actions the Speaker would take in the future to protect all of the existing parliamentary symbols in the way he has done in the past. I assume that goes without saying. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I'm going to ask our staff to draft a letter reflective of our discussion today. I will put the motion, if members wish, if there is no further discussion.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: There is just one point that might also be included in your letter, in the event this motion passes, Mr. Chair. We might include with that letter that the Speaker consult with the House leaders of all parties, because I think—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Or the Board of Internal Economy.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Or the Board of Internal Economy. It's something the board in fact might want to take up.

The Chair: Okay. Good suggestion. I'm sure he'd do that in the ordinary course as the servant of all of the House. That being said, I'll put the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We're adjourned until Tuesday.