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]

Wednesday, February 7, 2001

• 1533

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.

Pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to nominate Mr. Derek Lee.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): I second the nomination.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I move that nominations be closed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I invite Mr. Lee to take the chair.

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Thank you, colleagues, for your vote of confidence.

We'll now proceed to the other organizational matters we have to deal with. We have to elect two vice-chairs, and we'll also create a striking committee. I don't think we will be in a position today to complete the selection for a private members' business subcommittee. Also, there are a couple of other routine motions we'll probably want to deal with.

So let us move to item B on our agenda, which is the election of two vice-chairs. We're in a position now to receive nominations for the vice-chair positions.

Mr. Strahl.

• 1535

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to nominate John Reynolds as one of the vice-chairs.

The Chair: Very good.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I second that nomination.

The Chair: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'd like to nominate Jacques Saada for the other vice-chair position.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I second that nomination.

The Chair: Thank you.

Are there any other nominations for the positions of vice-chair? Seeing none, I'll declare nominations closed.

(Motions agreed to)

The Chair: We will then acclaim both of the individuals, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Saada, as vice-chairs of the committee.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Congratulations, gentlemen.

We have a series of routine motions to deal with. Let's do the striking committee first, colleagues. This is the committee of whips that will be managing the membership of committees over time. They do this without reference to a specific meeting of this committee. Their reports are introduced into the House and usually adopted routinely without debate by consent. I would receive a motion from any of the members here today in the form of what's shown in item 4.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): I so move, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik moves that we create a striking committee using the wording shown in item 4 of the agenda.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Now we'll deal with the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. This is our steering committee.

Mr. Clerk, can you enlighten us as to the composition of this subcommittee in the previous Parliament, including numbers, names, and parties? I think all of the parties are usually represented.

I'm reminded that the subcommittee in the last Parliament was represented by one member from each party with myself in the chair. I'm reminded also that the two vice-chairs were the representatives of their respective parties on the subcommittee. So if we could start there, that would be Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Saada. We're looking for three other parties.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): I will be representing my party.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney would be pleased to nominate Mr. Bergeron as a member, and Mr. Saada is nominating Mr. Godin. Also, Mr. Mahoney is nominating Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: As long as he doesn't get to make a speech, I'm going to nominate him.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: For the record I'll let the clerk read the names of the members of the subcommittee.

The Clerk: The members are Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Saada, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Godin, Mr. Borotsik, and Mr. Lee.

The Chair: There is the substance of that committee. I'll take a motion.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I so move.

The Chair: Mr. Regan moves adoption of a committee composed of those individuals.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

As I said, with regard to the private members' business subcommittee, we're probably not in a position to actually complete that today. It's my proposal that at our next meeting we would adopt a motion contingent on there being a report on associate membership tabled and adopted in the House. There will possibly be members on the subcommittee who are not members of the main committee. They will be made members as associate members of this committee. I think we don't have quite enough meat on the bone to complete that exercise today, so if it's okay with members, we'll put that over. I note that the House will likely have a draw tomorrow, Thursday, for private members' business, which will cause that subcommittee to kick in fairly quickly.

Mr. Bergeron.

• 1540

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, do you know for a fact that we will not be able to move forward today and nominate the members of the subcommittee on private members' business? You seem to take it for granted that we won't be able to nominate all of the subcommittee members at this time. We, on the other hand, are prepared to proceed immediately to nominate our representative to the sub-committee.

[English]

The Chair: In any event, we're going to have to come back to it, but if you wish to indicate for the record now who will be on that subcommittee, we'd be very happy to take the name. But we're going to have to do another motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Why?

[English]

The Chair: Because I believe we will not have all the names of all the members who will sit on the subcommittee. We will only have some.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What makes you think that you won't have the names, since you haven't asked for them?

[English]

The Chair: I'm looking around the table, and I'm seeing some blanks in the motion if we proceed at this time. Your party may know precisely who it wishes to have sit on the committee, but not all parties do. But I can run around the table. Does the Canadian Alliance Party know?

Mr. John Reynolds: If I were to table our list of associates right now, then I could give you the name.

The Chair: You do know, and the Bloc Québécois does know.

New Democratic Party, do you know which of your members will sit on the committee?

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Yes, it's Bill Blaikie.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, do you know who will sit on it?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, I'll be sitting on that.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I think I will probably propose Mr. Proulx and Mrs. Parrish for this committee.

An hon. member: Who?

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Marcel Groulx and Carolyn Parrish.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Your chair stands corrected. It looks like we all do have a handle on that.

We'll just go through it again for the clerk.

Mr. John Reynolds: Sir, I would table a list of our associates and name Garry Breitkreuz, who is on that list, to be our representative.

The Chair: All right. I'll just go around the table. We have Garry Breitkreuz from the Canadian Alliance—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Guimond will be representing our party, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: —Monsieur Guimond from the Bloc, Mr. Bill Blaikie from the NDP, Mr. Borotsik from the Progressive Conservatives, and Monsieur Proulx and Madam Parrish from the Liberal Party. That's five members. Okay, we have a team.

Mr. Saada moves that we create a private members' business subcommittee. Here's the wording we'll be adopting. It is moved by Mr. Saada that subject to the adoption by the House of the list of associate members of the committee, the subcommittee on private members' business be composed of Mr. Garry Breitkreuz, Monsieur Guimond, Mr. Blaikie, Mr. Borotsik, Monsieur Proulx, and Madam Parrish.

Mr. Saada, did you have any suggestions as to who would be the chair of that subcommittee?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Am I becoming the resource person here? No, I don't.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Can I make a suggestion, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: You'd better.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm very pleased to see that we have at least one woman sitting at the table, and I would be honoured to nominate her to chair this committee.

The Chair: If it is the case that the members of the Liberal Party don't have a concrete suggestion for the chairmanship of that subcommittee, then we really couldn't complete this motion. We really do have to know who the chair would be, and I think Madam Parrish wishes to consult a bit more on that.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Yes, I'd like to. I actually did that job for three years, and I think someone else should have the opportunity—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You were very good at it.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I was, and I will be again if they're really stuck.

• 1545

The Chair: I want to thank colleagues.

The clerk suggests that this committee appoint a chair at a later date, that we proceed with the motion and put the committee into being. Is that all right?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: All right. The motion is that the subcommittee be charged with carrying out the responsibilities of the committee under Standing Order 108(3)(a) insofar as private members' business and the business related to private bills is concerned, and the motion will be that this committee will appoint a chair at a later date. That is the motion.

Mrs. Parrish, on the motion.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chair, if it would help speed things up, because there is a draw tomorrow, I will chair the first session, and then we'll discuss it further. Would that make it easier for you?

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): We don't want to lose slots on that.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes. Is that all right?

The Chair: I see a lot of heads nodding yes. With your great experience and—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm volunteering for one sitting.

The Chair: Should we refer to you as interim chair or chair?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Interim chair would be lovely.

The Chair: All right. We will be adopting a motion today using wording identical to that shown in number 5 on your agenda with the exception that the second paragraph will read:

That Madam Parrish be appointed interim Chair of the Sub-committee.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Stephane Bergeron: I would rather see a permanent chair.

The Chair: We have to deal with our quorum. Mr. Clerk, can you enlighten us? Is the proposed motion drafted for our reference today identical to that of the previous Parliament?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I readily concede that the motion, as drafted, is identical to the motion of the previous Parliament. However, I was wondering if, simply out of deference to the witnesses who will be appearing before the committee, whether we should not go with a quorum of three, including a minimum of one opposition member, when hearing from witnesses. Obviously, this is not the standard quorum. I think we all agree that the committee can hear from witnesses in the absence of the usual quorum. However, out of deference to the witnesses, I think the rule should be that at least three committee members be present, including a minimum of one opposition member. I would like to move this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: So your amendment is to place a proviso on that motion to say provided that there be a minimum of three members present.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Three, including one from the opposition.

[English]

The Chair: Three including the chair, including one member of the opposition.

Fortunately, Messieurs Montpetit and Marleau have prepared a sample resolution that is perfect for us, and ours would read:

That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings and to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Marleau and Mr. Montpetit.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We have a motion involving a research officer. You have it in front of you. It's number 7. It reads:

That the Committee retain the services of one or more Research Officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist...

We already have the very able assistance of Mr. Robertson.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Next is witness expenses. Mr. Clerk, is this identical to previous Parliaments?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: This is a provision that we be authorized to pay reasonable expenses in the usual form. I'll receive a motion to that effect in the form of number 8 on the agenda.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bergeron.

• 1550

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, shouldn't we also adopt a routine motion calling for the distribution of documents to committee members in both official languages?

[English]

The Chair: We could do that if members wish. It is done in some committees, just to make sure that there are no ambiguities and no embarrassments. Unless Mr. Bergeron has something specific in mind, what we often do—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Montpetit and Marleau.

[English]

The Chair: Do you have something specific in mind?

Messieurs Marleau and Montpetit have done their homework.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Why do we have a chair? Why don't we just use the book?

The Chair: Yes. Here, take it and read it.

This is a suggested motion from those who have come before us, and it reads as follows:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute documents to the Members of the Committee in the language received, and to ensure that such documents are translated and distributed as promptly as possible.

That's the suggested motion. We should read that en français.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Read it again, please.

The Chair: Colleagues, the difficulty in this area comes up when a witness or a group presenting information brings a document in one language only to the meeting. They may have provided it a day beforehand, maybe not. We are not in a position as a committee at that point to take their paper and throw it in the garbage. We really have to listen to them, and they want members to have it. But by the same token, since we're a committee that must work in both official languages, it does not seem proper to have the clerks distribute a document that is in only one of our languages.

What other committees that I have served on previously have done is authorize the clerks of the committee to engage in the distribution of documents only where there is a two-language document, where there is a translation. If there is not a translation, then the clerk would not normally participate in the distribution. But the witnesses themselves could. There's nothing to stop a witness or an agent of a witness or an MP, for that matter, from distributing the document to colleagues in one language. So the motion we might adopt is one that would restrict the clerks from distributing one-language documents only where there is not a translation available.

There is a motion and it reads:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to circulate the documents received only when they exist in both official languages.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We have to talk about our next meeting.

Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, before we discuss our next meeting, I want the committee to know that I think a priority issue for us should be the last election. For instance, the voters' list was completely unacceptable. Only 61 per cent of Canadians were able to vote in the last election. Even Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, admitted that over one million people were left off the voters' list.

Here's an example of one problem we had in our region. I don't know if you experienced something similar, but I've spoken with a number of MPs. We've even received letters from Liberal MPs saying that some action is warranted. On the list, the address of one person from Petit-Rocher, New Brunswick, appeared as Beresford, while a resident of Bathurst was listed as living in Petit-Rocher. When a young person graduates from school or reaches the age of 18, his or her name is not automatically put on the list. Consequently, I would like the committee to investigate this matter and to call Mr. Kingsley to testify. My constituents were disappointed and upset with the voting process. I would like your support on this.

[English]

The Chair: In a purely technical sense it might be out of order to be looking at future business. I don't underestimate for a minute the importance of the subject.

• 1555

We'll have another intervention, and then we'll decide what we're going to do.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chair to Mr. Godin, I sent a letter to the chair expressing exactly those concerns. I think the steering committee should consider what priority this should be given, and it should be on a future agenda. You will get a lot of support from this side of the table. I don't think it's fair to get into it now. I think it's something the steering committee should look at and prioritize, and we'll all come to that debate prepared.

The Chair: The chair would also note that we will be in receipt of a report from Canada's Chief Electoral Officer approximately next month.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: And then we can grill him.

The Chair: But, clearly, it's the wish of you and/or your party and Mrs. Parrish to put that issue to the steering committee and that it be dealt with by this committee.

Mr. Strahl.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Did you wish to speak, Mr. Godin?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I just want to say that I agree with the proposed course of action. According to the agenda we received, we could have broached this subject today. However, that agenda was changed. I'm ready to follow procedure. I want to thank you, because I think we all had the same problem. Our country and our democracy will be the better for it. I'll bring the torch and you can carry it...

[Editor's note: Inaudible]

[English]

The Chair: Okay. We'll hear from Mr. Strahl, and then we'll get to the next meeting.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before you were elected as the chair, sir, I sent a notice of a motion that I'd like to bring forward at this time. I have also sent a notice of this by e-mail certainly to all the other members of the committee, but I have sent copies to the clerk in both official languages.

The motion reads as follows:

That the committee prepare and report to the House the following standing order change to accompany the report establishing the list of committee members pursuant to Standing Order 104(1).

That Standing Order 106 be replaced with:

106(1) Within ten sitting days following the adoption by the House of a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursuant to Standing Order 104(1), the Clerk of the House shall convene a meeting of each standing committee whose membership is contained in that report for the purpose of electing a Chairman, provided that forty-eight hours notice is given of any such meeting.

(2) Each standing or special committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen, of whom two shall be Members of the government party and the third a Member in opposition to the government at the commencement of every session and, if necessary, during the course of a session by secret ballot as follows:

(3) The clerk of the committee will preside over the election of the Chairman and will ask for nominations from the floor. After the nominations are closed, the clerk will announce the candidates to the committee members, and if necessary, list the names on a board in view of all committee members.

(4) The clerk of the committee shall provide committee members present with ballot papers.

(5) Members wishing to indicate their choice for Chairman shall print the first and last name of the Member on the ballot paper.

(6)(a) Members shall deposit their completed ballot papers in a box provided for that purpose on the table.

(6)(b) The clerk of the committee shall, once all Members wishing to do so have deposited their ballot papers, empty the box and count the ballots and being satisfied as to the accuracy of the count, shall destroy the ballots together with all records of the number of ballots cast for each candidate and the Clerk shall in no way divulge the number of ballots cast for any candidate.

(6)(c) In the event of one Member having received a majority of the votes cast, the Clerk shall announce the new Chairman to the committee.

(6)(d) In the event of no Member having received a majority of votes cast, the candidate with the least number of votes cast will be dropped from the ballot. Another ballot will be taken. This process will be continued until a Member receives a majority of votes.

(6)(e) Any Member wishing to withdraw their name may do so at any time.

(7) Within ten sitting days of the receipt by the clerk of the standing committee of a request signed by any four Members of the said committee, the Chairman of the said committee shall convene such a meeting provided that forty-eight hours notice is given of the meeting. For the purposes of this section, the reasons for convening such a meeting shall be stated in the request and that the clerk be authorized to make consequential amendments if required.

That's the end of the motion, Mr. Chairman.

As you can imagine or have heard, the motion is basically an effort to allow for secret ballots to be used in the election of chairmen of our committees in this Parliament. The reason I did it in the standing order form, of course, is that it would require us to follow some sort of process that all committees would be familiar with and that the clerks can handle not on the whim of every committee but on the direction and adoption of this report in the House. It would allow for exactly the same process we use in electing our speaker, which is that basically every member is eligible to be a chairman, but certainly people are entitled to withdraw their name from consideration, and that a secret ballot be used for the selection of the chair of every committee.

• 1600

I wish I could say that this was my original idea, but it comes actually from members on the government side. The actual wording is my own, but the concept was brought forward by members who suggested that it would be a good process. Not that I doubt the legitimacy of your election, Mr. Chairman, which is a fine choice all around. But I think people in committees generally want to know that the person who is presiding over the meeting—just as we like to know that the person presiding over the House—has the confidence of the members of the committee itself.

This motion would accompany the tabling of our first report, which is our membership report, and it would establish a new standing order to replace what is currently Standing Order 106.

The Chair: I have some thoughts about the procedural regularity of your moving a motion at this time.

If there are any comments, I'll hear them, and then we'll deal with the procedural things.

Ms. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: First of all, Mr. Strahl, I think it's a rather interesting idea, and I'm shocked and dismayed to hear you think it's unusual for a member of the governing party to put forward ideas such as this. If you'll recall—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I didn't say I was shocked.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, I'm shocked and dismayed. You said you were giving us credit, and you seemed a little surprised.

As you will recall, when I chaired the private members' subcommittee in another life, I myself put forward the idea of having us vote on private members' bills from the back row down to the front row. So we're not all stuck in time.

I am a little concerned for the same reason I was concerned about Mr. Godin's. I think for something as important as this we should have been given proper notice, and it should be put on an agenda for future discussion. Having also chaired that committee, the idea of the 100-person rule, as you went through it with us last time, turned out to be a great idea until it was tested. So I'm very reluctant to give quick approval to something without giving us some time to think about it. I would like to see this on a future agenda. I would like to hear your rationale for it, and I would like to give it great thought—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I bet.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would like to defer it.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chair, if I can—

The Chair: By the way, we're being pretty flexible here today. There's ample time to have a bit of comment. We'll get to know each other, and—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you for the flexibility.

It's simply a matter of a question to Mr. Strahl. I assume he would like to see this implemented, if possible, so that the choice of the upcoming chairmen of the committees would follow this process. If we do defer it, unfortunately, it may well be deferred for such a timeframe that we would miss, obviously, this window of opportunity. I assume that's what Mr. Strahl is looking for.

The question for Ms. Parrish is would it be deferred for only a matter of a number of days so that we can still have this motion, if it is in fact passed, be a process for the upcoming committees and the upcoming chairs?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Borotsik, to you through the chair, I think the chair and the steering committee make that decision. The fact that it's in the eleventh hour before we have to decide on this set of chairmen is irrelevant. It should have been introduced six months ago if we wanted it to work this time. So I think we have to follow the normal process. I've been burned by doing things too quickly, and they didn't turn out the way anybody wanted them to, so I'm cautious.

Mr. Yvon Godin: But this is a new Parliament, not six months ago. That's the past.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Standing orders remain from Parliament to Parliament.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Again, I suggest we should follow due process here.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I've heard a couple of concerns brought up from this other side. We don't have to table the list of names for the committee membership until next Wednesday. Hopefully, we can do it sooner, but certainly we don't have to do it until next Wednesday. I have circulated this to everyone, but they haven't perhaps had time to look at it in-depth and so on. There is plenty of time to have a meeting to consider this before we table our report in the House. So any time from tomorrow to next Tuesday we could have a meeting to consider this, if we would like, and that would give ample time to have it distributed and mulled over and what have you before we submit our... My motion actually reads “to accompany the report establishing the list of committee members”. There would be time to do both. We could consider it. Then we could accompany the list, and it would be in place for this Parliament.

• 1605

I do think it's in order, though, Mr. Chairman. On page 830 of Marleau and Montpetit it says that a motion can be entertained once the chairman has been elected in a committee, so I think this is completely in order. I don't think that's a problem.

I do understand that there's some reluctance to... I did distribute it to both the clerk and members, but I would be willing to hold off if we could get agreement to hold a meeting to discuss it before we submit the list.

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron, you had a comment.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, as I see it, this motion is quite in order and in line with the jurisprudence as set out in Montpetit and Marleau. Consequently, with all due respect to Mr. Strahl and other colleagues who have expressed their views thus far, I don't see how we can invoke procedure as a means of refusing to consider the motion introduced by our colleague.

[English]

The Chair: It's the view of the chair that we're certainly capable of dealing with a motion such as this. However, I want to explain to you why I don't think that should be done today, but I'm only talking about today. This committee at this point is operating under an explicit reference from the House under Standing Order 104. We're not like any other committee. The House established this committee and gave it a very specific reference under Standing Order 104. You've all read it, I'm sure, before you came here today.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I was in bed last night reading up on it.

The Chair: I knew you would.

Essentially, we have been charged specifically and only for the purpose of creating lists of committee members and to make a report to the House of those lists so that committees can be established. So we really wouldn't want to adopt any business of substance prior to that. I'm not saying that we couldn't do something in tandem with it or immediately after or whatever. But as of today we have only established ourselves as a committee, and we haven't even completed the task of adopting lists of members as asked by the House.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Now, Derek.

The Chair: Until we actually complete that task of adopting lists of members, I don't think we're in a position to make any other report to the House. If members want to debate an issue, we can do that. I wouldn't rule the introduction of the motion as being out of order, but I would rule that the adoption of the motion before we do the other item of business would be out of order.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But, Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Although I've been very technical, it doesn't have to alter the flow of what we're doing here today. It's just that I am not inclined to allow the adoption of this motion until we've completed the business the House has given us.

Yes, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I know that you're trying to be technical on it. I'm not trying to be nasty about this, except that we had that one charge from the House, and then after we talked about that, we went ahead and had motions on appointing a subcommittee on private members' business and stuff. None of that is in motion 104 from the House. In other words, we've already gone on with the business of this committee. So we have gone well past tabling membership lists in the House, which is Standing Order 104. We are now well into the business of this committee, which is striking subcommittees, talking about quorum, and adopting other motions. We've adopted eight motions here today, none of them 104-related.

• 1610

I'm just making the point that Montpetit is quite clear that after the election of a chair, a motion is in order, which is why I didn't bring it before you were in the chair, because of course it would have been out of order. So I just bring it forward.

Now, I could withdraw this, Mr. Chair, till Tuesday or till tomorrow—I don't mind—if the committee is of the opinion that we need more time to look it over and consider it. So I'm prepared to withdraw it, although I think right now it's completely in order. I can't see how it possibly could be called out of order.

The Chair: The chair has acknowledged that the introduction of the motion is in order and there's no need to withdraw it. If you withdraw it, you would simply have to reintroduce it. But we can defer it until the next... We can do whatever we want as a committee.

I'm not saying your introduction is out of order. I accept it as being in order, but I might have reservations on disposition of it. I'll wait.

Mr. Saada has a comment.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I respect your opinion. According to my understanding of our mandate pursuant to the motion adopted on January 30, this motion was very clearly out of order. However, if the motion is in fact deemed to be in order, then I suggest we vote on it and dispense with it here and now.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I respect Mr. Saada's position with respect to calling the vote, but equally I respect Ms. Parrish's position that she would like to in fact look at the motion, look at the ramifications of that particular motion. In fact, from what I see on the surface, this is an excellent opportunity to move forward to that democratic process that we all love and cherish.

Now, if it means voting on this now and having everyone vote against it simply because they don't want to go forward, then I would suggest that we defer it, perhaps till Monday, as Mr. Strahl had suggested, and that Ms. Parrish could study it, as others could, with all of the pros and cons, and then deal with it at that time. Simply to put it on the floor to have it defeated by a Liberal majority I don't think serves a useful purpose.

An hon. member: Or have a secret ballot vote on it now.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Or have a secret ballot vote. Mr. Strahl would like secret ballots on this one.

I think members of the government side certainly would like to look at the possibility of implementing this, so rather than bringing it forward for a vote and having it defeated, as Mr. Saada would like, let's... Can we sit next Monday as a committee to discuss this?

The Chair: We were just about to get into our next meeting when this motion came up.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chair, I would move that we defer the vote on this until the next meeting, to be held no later than next Tuesday.

The Chair: Okay. If that's okay with Mr. Strahl, then the motion is before us.

This is not to continue the debate, but I regard this motion as a motion of significant substance, not just a routine motion. It purports to change the Standing Orders to create a protocol for the election of committee chairs.

So we'll put that over to the next meeting. And the next question, colleagues, is when the next meeting will be. I'll try to set what I believe to be the framework.

The Standing Orders require us to report back to the House with lists of committee members within 10 sitting days of the date that this committee was established. By recollection, this committee was established on the Tuesday that we came back following the throne speech. That would allow us, by my count, until next Tuesday to report back to the House. In order to report back on Tuesday we'd likely have to meet Monday.

I'm suggesting a Monday meeting at 3:30 p.m. In order to do that, we need to have the lists from all of the parties. I think most of the parties are probably ready, but I'm not sure whether all are. I suppose we should be seeking some undertaking from all of the parties around the table that we will have lists for Monday afternoon so we can proceed with our meeting.

Mr. Deputy Whip for the Liberal Party, are your party's lists available?

Mr. Jacques Saada: They could be available for Monday, yes.

The Chair: For Monday. By the way, that has to be available to the clerk.

Mr. Clerk, when do you need the list so we can make use of it at the meeting?

The Clerk: Well, it will be confidential if they e-mail it to me.

The Chair: It's always confidential, of course, but when do you need it?

The Clerk: If we meet on Monday—

The Chair: Monday afternoon.

The Clerk: —they can send it Monday morning.

• 1615

The Chair: The clerk is suggesting Monday morning, like 11:59 a.m. as a deadline. All right?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Canadian Alliance?

An hon. member: 11:59.59.

The Chair: Okay, fine. The Bloc Québécois?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not before 11:59.59 on Monday. Not a second sooner.

[English]

The Chair: New Democratic Party? You're okay with Monday morning?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Our list has already been tabled.

[English]

The Chair: Progressive Conservative?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: This is for tabling our membership?

The Chair: Your list to the clerk Monday morning.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The list has already been supplied to the clerk from the Progressive Conservative Party.

The Chair: Very good.

All right. And there's one little add-on. In the event your party has an associate membership list—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That has also been tabled, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You guys are real good. Okay.

That associate membership list process could be accommodated at the same sitting. So that is Monday at 3:30 p.m. for the next meeting of the committee. Mr. Strahl's motion will show up on the agenda and we'll have our committee lists in place.

Does that complete our business today?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: All right. Thank you very much.

We're adjourned.