HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 15, 2001

• 1106

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I'm calling the committee to order, colleagues. We have an agenda with a number of items. Hopefully we can move through them quickly. I think we'll just follow the order on the agenda.

The first item deals with the adoption of a report from the private members' business subcommittee, to whom we should extend our thanks and gratitude for dealing with the onslaught of the new private members' business in a new Parliament. It all comes in the front door at once. I'm sure it was a large task. You have the product of their labours in front of you now as a draft report. The items shown in that report are the items selected as votable.

I think we should ask the chair of the subcommittee to comment if she wishes.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'd like to move the report, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to pass on my gratitude to the committee members. Madame Dalphond-Guiral made a guest appearance. Mr. McNally and Mr. Borotsik were there, and all parties were represented by intelligent and cooperative people. It was a very good meeting. It was so good that I think I'll stay on as chair. Remember I took the chair reluctantly. I'll stay.

An hon. member: Power corrupts.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's a great committee.

The Chair: On division.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would like to move this report, and I think Madame Dalphond-Guiral would like to also move a motion attached to this, one not depending on the other.

I would like to thank everyone. All the bills and motions that came through yesterday were extremely good. I was trying to make a comparison yesterday to a beauty contest or a dog show, whichever was less sexist. They're all good. We just have to pick the best of a good batch.

So I'd like to move these, I'd like to thank the committee, and I'd like to thank the staff of the committee, the clerk, and Jamie. It was a very cooperative, very excellent meeting.

The Chair: Thank you for moving that. Colleagues, there might be a window for debate on the motion to adopt. If there is...

Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Before reading the motion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you the context, very briefly. The Official Languages Act...

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, you want to move a second motion?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: I'm happy to do that, but I would like to deal with the report first, and then we'll get to your motion.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Perfect. Very well.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Just a procedural question, Mr. Chair. How soon can we get at this? It's always an issue. When do you report this to the House and when does this kick in, or do we decide that?

The Chair: Without any unanimous consent in the House, the soonest the report would get into the House would be tomorrow during routine proceedings. If it were the will of the members in the House to allow it to be reported at some point today, then it could go in today.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Would we obtain more hours? Would it start sooner, or does it not matter?

• 1110

The Chair: That's a fairly technical question. How soon could we spin a private members' business debate?

The Clerk of the Committee: If it's tabled tomorrow, private members' business would start on Monday. If it's tabled today, it doesn't matter. It's too soon. There's not enough notice.

The Chair: That's fine. Thank you for asking that.

If there is no further debate or discussion on that private members' business subcommittee report, it has been moved that we adopt it and report it to the House, so I'll put the question on that.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): As a committee member my question is, when are we supposed to have received this report and reviewed it as committee members prior to passing judgment on it?

The Chair: That, Mr. Macklin, is an excellent question, and it's a very important one for new members. In fact, it is true that the members of this committee, other than those who served on the subcommittee, have only seen this report in the last few minutes.

Here we're working on conventions. We have given to the private members' business subcommittee the job of recommending the selection of votable items of all the private members' business in the hopper now and chosen by lottery, and they have made selections and recommendations. It has been the practice as long as I've been around for this main committee to accept the recommendations of the subcommittee and not to quarrel with them. However, if this committee has questions or issues about the recommendations, this is the time to take them up. But because we assigned to the subcommittee the difficult task of selection and recommendation, most members don't see any wisdom in cross-examining on the process. It's fairly tedious as it is, and we usually simply report those recommendations to the House.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Mr. Chair, the question I have is, could we at least have these in advance just so that we could review them at our leisure?

The Chair: That might be a good suggestion. I'll just check with the clerk on process.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, if I can, we completed this process at 6:30 last evening. I'm sure the chair was very diligent throughout this process, but I think you may have received it at midnight last night at the earliest or perhaps 9 this morning.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin does make a fairly good point about—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I was just asking for clarification, Mr. Chair, if he wanted it two days ago or three days ago. If it was just simply this morning, then that could be done.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): My comments concur. Functionally, I understand how business perhaps moved from there to here. We're just asking for an opportunity to have seen this prior to coming into the meeting, whether it be an hour, two hours, or three hours.

The Chair: We're dealing with a procedural item here. I think we had better clarify it for the new members so that there's a good understanding of what we're doing. Give me just a moment while I confer with the clerk.

I'll recognize Mrs. Parrish and then Mr. Jordan.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Just for clarification, what happens is that everybody who wants to puts a private members' item in a drum and there's a draw. The drum spins and they pull them out. The order they come out in is the order they're debated in the House.

There were 30 motions and bills. They come to a private members' business subcommittee, which is made up of one person from each party. The people who have the private members' bills and motions come and present for five minutes and answer questions on why they think it should be votable. If it's not votable, it gets one hour in the House with no vote called at the end. If it's declared votable, it gets three hours in the House and a vote is called at the end.

• 1115

It's pretty delicate in there. We listened for about six hours over two days. We listen to everybody's presentation, and then we clear the room and go in camera and debate among ourselves and try to work on consensus. There is no voting. On consensus we pick these bills. But again it's a very delicate process. We completed it at 6:30 last night. Because it's confidential, you really can't circulate it ahead of time. We like to finish one day and start the next with it.

What we can do in future is give you a list of all the bills and motions with this attached to it. You can look at the ones that were chosen and the ones that weren't, and we could undertake to give them to you half an hour before the meeting.

You must understand that there's a whole bunch of people who want to know if they're votable, and they're not supposed to know until it's in the House. For them it's life and death sometimes. So we don't want to tempt anybody to leave bits of paper lying around.

If this committee says no, then we have to go back and deliberate again. Usually, you trust us.

It would be very interesting to come to one of our sessions. We'd love to have you. We could substitute you for the other Liberal, and you could watch how it's done.

Mr. Paul Macklin: That's very good. Is the document we're referring to a report showing the ones that have been identified—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: As votable.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Is this the other draft report?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's totally separate.

What we should present as well—and I think we used to do this—is all the other motions and bills. You can see that 23 will get one hour in the House and seven will get three hours in the House. Then you can see which ones we've chucked. I don't mind doing that.

Mr. Paul Macklin: All right. Now I understand. I was thinking that you were dealing potentially with this report, which seems to be multi-paged, and we hadn't had a chance to read it.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: So I really didn't have to explain all that.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin's likely imminent comments about receiving an advance copy of other documents will probably be well taken, but we'll get to that later.

Did you want to say something, Mr. Jordan?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Just to pick up on what Mrs. Parrish said, this report, because it's a consensus... if we tried to make a change to that now, my God, we'd... We just have to delegate them to do it and accept their recommendations, because it really is a non-partisan committee.

Mr. Paul Macklin: My comment was directed more to the other report than to this report. The consensus I can understand. This one seemed to be somewhat more lengthy.

The Chair: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Just to follow up, there's no question that it's a non-partisan committee because the Liberals don't even have one and—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: You did notice that.

Mr. John Reynolds: —the numbers are skewered.

I think it does point out that when we get to our next step in talking about rule changes, we should be looking at this whole thing. Why should we have a committee, even if it's non-partisan, deciding who gets a votable item? They should all be votable. They should be drawn out in order and hit as they come. Make it fair. I think it will be very good when we get to that stage to remember today's debate. It's not fair to the people we put on the committee to have to make that choice, and it's not fair to all the other members on the Liberal side, my side, or any other side who just don't get that opportunity through the luck of a draw. That's not what democracy is all about. I think we should remember that when we get to the debate on this issue.

The Chair: We have an item coming up later on in this meeting that may touch on the same thing.

I'm going to put Mrs. Parrish's motion to adopt this report on private members' business and to report it to the House.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It's carried unanimously. Thank you.

Now we move to our second item. I'm sorry, we're not moving to the second item of business. We're moving to a related item from Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't allow you to forget me.

Everyone around the table knows that the Official Languages Act requires certain things. At the end of the subcommittee meeting, I said to my colleagues that a certain number of support documents presented by members with their motion or bill had been presented in only one of the two languages. Since we are at the beginning of a new Parliament, it seems important to me that a clear message be sent. I can understand that a new member of Parliament may not be aware of this, but during these two days of hearings, we heard people who have much more extensive parliamentary experience than I have. I find this unacceptable.

• 1120

I will read what I presented to the subcommittee yesterday, on February 14. This motion was seconded by Lorne Nystrom and passed unanimously. I would very much like the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to pass this motion. I will read it:

The Sub-committee on Private Members' Business regrets that some of the support documents to motions and bills, proposed by members to the Sub-committee are not being translated, a situation which violates the Official Languages Act.

Mr. Chairman, as you can easily replace the words “Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business” by the words “Committee on Procedure and House Affairs”, I will give you a copy of this motion in the hope that everyone will approve it.

[English]

The Chair: All right. Madame Dalphond-Guiral and others on the subcommittee have noted, with regret, the absence of two language presentations by members at the subcommittee. This refers to documents presented by members at the subcommittee. It's an expression of regret and the wording speaks for itself.

As chair, I have no problem with members adopting a motion of this nature. With the committee there's nothing procedural that would prevent us from doing it. So let's consider the motion as having been put and we could discuss it.

Our goal here is to address a deficiency in the way members are appearing before the subcommittee. It shouldn't happen that way. Does the subcommittee clerk want to speak to this?

Ms. Bibiane Ouellette (Clerk of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business): I had mentioned to all members that if they were submitting any documents they had to be in both official languages. When they appeared before the committee I told them that if it was in one language I couldn't distribute it myself, so the messenger or the member himself distributed the document.

The Chair: Okay, so let's have a bit of... Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I would like to raise a very simple little point. I suppose that the motion was written in French at the outset. It was drafted in French first, was it not?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Of course.

Mr. Jacques Saada: You used the word “déplore”.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I fully agree with the motion...

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I chose my words very carefully because I am seeking unanimity.

Mr. Jacques Saada: The English word that was used in the translation may not be as strong as the word “déplore”. It says “regrets” which does not mean the same thing as “déplore”.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: “Deeply regrets”. How about that?

Mr. Jacques Saada: It was just a matter of translation, but I think it was worth raising.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Does the word “déplore” mean the same thing? Very well. I have no problem with using a word that is closer to the French sense. You understood that, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our colleagues who come to the subcommittee with documents in one of the official languages do so to their own detriment in being able to curry favour among their colleagues on the subcommittee. I think that should be well noted to all our colleagues. We did have this discussion after we finished the selection process.

In terms of the actual wording—and maybe this is a technicality—if we were to say that this violates the Official Languages Act, I'm not sure we'd be entirely accurate, in that members can come in either official language. I think it's been an unwritten practice of collegiality that we do this. For us to come forward with wording that perhaps is a bit stronger than it needs to be... I think the intent we want to transmit to our colleagues is that the best thing to do is to bring documents in both official languages if you want your item to move forward. Perhaps that should be the message we're sending to our colleagues.

The Chair: Okay. Ms. Parrish and then Mr. Reynolds.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: The reason we were tolerant yesterday was this was the first big draw. It happened on Thursday evening or Thursday afternoon. You can't get translation over a weekend, and by Tuesday and Wednesday it was very difficult for members to do that.

Secondly, none of us have time to read much of the bulk of supportive material that is handed out at that committee. So it's really not doing any damage.

• 1125

We were quite patient, and Madame Dalphond-Guiral was very tolerant yesterday. But in the future we will check the timelines a little more closely and make sure people understand when they're called that if they don't have the material in both languages it won't be read. I think that's as strong as it needs to be.

The Chair: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: I could support the motion if you take out the very last, “a situation which violates the Official Languages Act”. My legal opinion is that it doesn't violate the act, but I would think anybody would be very... You know, it's not proper in this place to do it. I agree that it should be done, but I don't think it violates the act. I think if you just took that out of it, I could vote for the motion, but I can't vote for something I know is not correct.

An hon. member: Make an amendment.

Mr. John Reynolds: I would like to move an amendment to withdraw everything after “translated”. The period should end at “translated”.

The Chair: This is something for Madame—

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: In any case, this is not in compliance with the spirit of the act. Could we say that the situation violates the spirit of the Official Languages Act? Very well? You are surely going to miss me.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I'm just going to jump in here rather than getting too technically procedural.

Madame Dalphond-Guiral has suggested a friendly amendment to her own motion that would refer to the spirit of the Official Languages Act. If that were acceptable to colleagues around the table then we could dispose of the motion fairly quickly.

I think we're all of a similar mind here. We all agree on what we're trying to do. Madame Dalphond-Guiral's motion seems to move us in the right direction. This motion, if adopted, would be available to the subcommittee for future reference when they take in material.

Could we proceed on that basis, then?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: May I make a comment? There were documents which were not in both official languages, but I can tell you that as far as I am concerned, the assessment of the value of a motion or a bill has absolutely nothing to do with whether the support documents were bilingual or not. I can even say that in the case of my first choice, there were a certain number of things that were not bilingual. One of my colleagues even said to me: "Yes, Madeleine, but you supported..." I answered him that I had indeed. Official languages are one thing; content is another. I wanted to make that clear.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So the amendment is “violates the spirit of the Official Languages Act”. Is that the amendment?

The Chair: Yes.

If members concur on that, we'll amend the motion.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. Now I'll put the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, for dealing with that.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I did not want to interrupt while the motion was being passed, but now that it has been passed, may I suggest that in order to raise the profile of the decision our committee has just taken, our colleague Ms. Parrish, who is the chair of the subcommittee, communicate with the 301 members of the House to inform them of the content of this motion? This could have a preventive effect, to avoid a recurrence of such a situation. It is only a suggestion. I will not make it a motion, but I suggest that we inform all our colleagues rather than limiting ourselves to appending it to the proceedings or archives of our committee.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Guimond, for your comments.

I would ask the clerk of the subcommittee to take note especially of Monsieur Guimond's remarks, because it is in fact the clerk of the subcommittee who would arrange to communicate with all members who would be making presentations to the subcommittee.

Maybe for a while it might be useful to photocopy the motion we've just adopted and send it along if there is a communication. Let's make sure we do that correctly at the subcommittee level. Thank you.

• 1130

Now we can go to the next item of business, which is this 36th report. This is the item Mr. Macklin was referring to earlier.

Colleagues, you'll recall that in the last Parliament the committee had taken a decision to recommend to the House that we revoke the 100-signature rule for a number of reasons, which we can summarize by saying that the rule and the procedure just didn't work very well. It didn't accomplish the end result we were all seeking. So at the steering committee a couple of days ago it was the view that we should get back and deal with that. You will recall our committee did adopt this report and report it to the House, but it was not concurred in by the House, so what we refer to as the 100-signature rule continues on in the Standing Orders.

I think the steering committee consensus was probably unanimous. What we really wanted this committee to do was go back to where we were, readopt the same report or a similar report, and refer the matter of amending or reconstructing a fast-track mechanism for private members' business, a procedure that would fulfil our objectives of allowing some private members' business to move more quickly without the lottery. I don't want to put too many of my own words into this, but essentially we are being asked now by the steering committee to consider readopting the report we adopted in the last Parliament, with or without a modification.

You have it in front of you. Mr. Macklin hasn't had a lot of time to read this. In fact there may be a few members who were not with the committee in the last Parliament and will not have had a chance. Let's acknowledge that now, and we'll see how far we can get in discussion.

I'll recognize Ms. Parrish. Go ahead.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Lee, first of all, I think it's a bit irregular to take a report from the last Parliament and adopt it holus-bolus in this Parliament, so I won't be supporting it.

Secondly, I think we have a new committee that's been formulated, and much of what we heard last night was the frustration of dedicated members who had had bills and motions sitting in the lottery for seven years and this was the first time they'd been pulled.

I think, and I'm absolutely confident, that this 100-member rule can be finely tuned. I think it hit the shoals of destruction last year because it was being applied incorrectly. It wasn't the way it was intended.

I would like the opportunity to propose an alternative motion, which is to suspend this report for three months, or until such time as we can present an alternative finely tuned process for fast-tracking.

I'm going to use Mr. Guimond, with his permission, as an example. In the last Parliament he had a bill, which is again votable today, that he'd done a lot of work on. The House had supported it and it had gone right through and the election caused its termination. With the 100-signature rule, he wouldn't have to sit in the lottery for another seven years waiting for it to be pulled. He could, in a timely fashion, bring it before the committee, as it was yesterday.

So to throw out the baby with the bathwater I think is a big mistake. To take a report from the last Parliament and resubmit it is a big mistake. I would have no difficulty giving an alternative recommendation today, which is to suspend the 100-member rule for three months, or until such time as the subcommittee is able to study it and bring back a more finely tuned rule—or a report that we can't fix it. To do this, I can't support this.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan and then Ms. Catterall.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'll second the motion.

The Chair: I'm sorry, just before you go, could I ask the clerk to work on some wording, just in case members want to proceed in that fashion.

Mr. Joe Jordan: As somebody who was intricately involved in the report, I can certainly support the motion to suspend.

• 1135

I think what we have to deal with—and this touches on something Mr. Reynolds talked about in terms of whether all private members' items should be votable—is that in this last round, which was the first draw and which usually is pretty representative of them, there were 30 drawn, of which a handful are votable. So there is always going to be more people who want their private member's bill votable than there is going to be space unless we deal with the space. So you have to have some way of taking 30 and getting it down to 5.

You said that random wasn't democratic, but random is at least, I would argue, fair.

The problem we had is that we went from having about 15 criteria to simplified criteria of about 6. But again the end result was that the subjectivity fell on the members of the committee, and that wasn't fair. We were arguing the content of bills when really we should have said, does this meet the criteria? So it depends on how high you put the bar.

The problem with the 100 signatures was that everyone went out and got their 100 signatures, so it all of a sudden became just another thing you had to do. When you signed someone's list, did it mean you were going to support it? That was never clarified. And I think Carolyn's right, we can probably fine-tune that mechanism.

But we're replacing one with another. Until we have enough hours to accommodate everybody, we're always going to have a culling or a paring-down, and there's always going to be criticism of what that mechanism is.

So I think when you review this, you have to look at the two things. Is there any way we can get more hours for private members' business? If you don't address that, then all you're going to be arguing is the merits of one way of paring them down against another.

This got out of control because people outside of Parliament were lobbying members to sign certain members' bills, and it was just completely off the rails in terms of what the objective of this was.

Having said all that, suspending it, I think, is probably just as useful, and once they review it they can come back with their report.

The Chair: Next is Ms. Catterall, followed by Mr. Reynolds and Monsieur Godin.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): As I recall, those who were on this committee at the time hashed this over pretty thoroughly in the last Parliament.

I'm not sure what the process would be for suspending the application of a standing order. Can we do that without actually rescinding it? I'd appreciate some clarification on that. However, we do have a new Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, and if they are interested in having a second look at this, as long as it could be back to us and resolved before the summer recess, I would have no objection to that, and I'd be prepared to move that we refer it back. But I would like to know if we can in fact suspend the operation of this rule, if not actually rescind the standing order.

The Chair: The clerk is consulting on that now.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Are there any bills in there right now that have received 100 signatures?

A voice: Not on the list presently.

Mr. John Reynolds: There's nobody. So we don't to have to worry about that.

The Chair: There wouldn't be a member out there who would be prejudiced by us taking action now.

Mr. John Reynolds: I think it's a good idea. I think we have to look at all of these things and just knock it off for 90 days, and let's get down to finding a way to make it work for everybody.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Do you know if we can do that?

The Chair: Suspend?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes.

The Chair: We're working on it.

[Translation]

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, before the election, a committee had studied this and had asked that we eliminate the practice of collecting the 100 signatures. Currently, some members are already collecting signatures, because the practice has not been abolished. Yesterday, I signed one of those 100-person petitions. That means that there are already members who are going around having their petitions signed. I agree with the proposed suspension but I would like it to be longer than three months.

When this was discussed in committee we came to the conclusion that this business of the 100 signatures did not work. This was examined, checked out. When a colleague comes to see us and asks us to sign a petition, we agree to do so to give him the opportunity of presenting his bill or his motion to the House of Commons. Afterwards, as I was saying earlier, the member believes he has the support of the colleague who signed his petition. This creates unnecessary friction among members. The member believes he has the support of a given colleague and is surprised to see him vote against his measure. This creates friction and I don't think we need that at all.

Concerning the 100 signatures, I suggest that we submit the matter to a subcommittee which would quickly return a recommendation to this committee. We mustn't think of suspending the practice for three months, because if we do so, there will still be members who will continue to have petitions signed to prepare themselves and it will be a war to obtain signatures on petitions. It will be a competition to see who can act the fastest and it will create a problem. I think that we should refer the matter directly to the committee, which could prepare recommendations quickly, and perhaps look for a better solution. If we let people think that the 100-signature petition may be back in three months, I think that people are going to continue to have petitions signed.

• 1140

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godin.

It was my perception that the suggestion we would rescind the so-called 100-signature rule sent a bit of a chill or a fear factor around the House that the whole thing was being flushed and that we would in fact lose the only fast-track mechanism available. But I'm pretty sure it's the view around the table that we don't want to scrap the fast-track mechanism, we just want to fix it. So we either revoke and reconstruct or suspend and reconstruct. Mrs. Parrish has suggested that we suspend, which would have the same practical impact as a revocation, and then when the subcommittee has completed its work—and I'm sure they'll do their very best to reconstruct something that works better than the old rule—we can replace the old rule with the new proposal. That, I think, is the sense of where we're going.

Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to give a very quick bit of history here. I was in the first Parliament when we came up with the recommendations. They were, for one reason or another, never brought forward and implemented. In the second Parliament we looked at them again. Then there were some shenanigans in the House, which in retrospect I agree with, that got this put into the Standing Orders.

If we have it killed, I have absolutely no faith we'll ever get it back, and that's just a cynical view from a backbencher.

In the past you could have up to 20 people second a bill. I want you to know that Standing Order 92(1) says:

...the Committee shall not take into account the number of Members jointly seconding an item, but shall allow the merits of the items alone to determine the selection...

So we were allowing the 100 signatures to affect the determination of the committee, which was against the standing order that took precedence over the 100-signature rule.

I will make another commitment to you. I am so confident that this can be fine-tuned and fixed that I will say we will report back to you before the next draw, which is six to eight weeks hence. That way everybody can continue getting their signatures if they choose to. The business of the House will not slow down. Private members will not get frustrated. I am absolutely confident we can have a proposal back to you before the next draw, and then you either kill it or implement the changes.

Madam, you had better stick with me. You're staying on this committee.

The Chair: Are we all heading in the same direction here, that we just need to—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I will bring it back before the next draw.

The Chair: The difficulty with not suspending it through the chair is that it may invite other MPs to continue gathering signatures.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's fine. Through you to Mrs. Parrish, you're suggesting that MPs can continue to get their 100 signatures.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: If we won't accept them, they can continue to get them.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They can continue to get them, and there will be different rules and criteria set potentially before the next draw. But it doesn't dissuade anybody from getting their 100 signatures. It's still there as an order, and they can continue to do it. You will report back to your committee, and then we can make the final decision as to how that's going to be handled. Then there's no suspension required. Is suspension available under the rules?

The Chair: Mr. Robertson and the clerk indicate yes, suspension is available.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So we have two choices—

The Chair: Your chair hasn't thought through what happens if we're going to have some kind of grandfathering for the old 100-signature rule and the new one. We have an opportunity now to make a break and repair the mechanism without MPs believing they may somehow have the benefit of the old rule when it is our clear intention here to alter it. I'd feel more comfortable clearly suspending it so that all our members know we're reworking this thing, and we start with a clean slate.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can we hear from the clerk as to the suspension procedure?

The Chair: The clerk has indicated we can do it, and we've been working on some wording.

• 1145

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): The difficulty with not suspending would be that if a member presented a list of 100 signatures next week, they would be put on the order of precedence in accordance with the standing order as it is worded. To prevent that from happening, there would have to be a suspension, and the advice is that a suspension of a standing order is possible. It is done on numerous occasions.

Mr. Joe Jordan: And there are not 100 signatures currently on the—

Mr. James Robertson: There is no 100-signature item pursuant to this standing order that has been filed with the clerk of private members' business or on the order of precedence at this point in time.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, but they're signing right now.

An hon. member: They can do that. It doesn't matter.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I know, but to me it's wrong.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Then we should tell them to stop it. They're wasting time.

The Chair: Given that we can suspend, I'm inclined to suggest that we suspend until—and we have to be clear about when the suspension would end. In my view, it would be suspension until the procedure and House affairs committee reports to the House.

Also, if we report and our report isn't concurred in by the House, is it our intention that the suspension has ended, or do we want a concurrence in the new mechanism? I think we want a concurrence in the new mechanism as reported by the committee so that the suspension would last until the House adopts a report from this committee providing a reworked mechanism, an amended mechanism.

Could you work on that wording then? The committee recommends that the standing order be suspended until the House adopts a report of this committee containing a revised fast-track mechanism.

An hon. member: Do you have a timeline on that, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: We can insert a timeline.

Mr. John Reynolds: I think you have to. If you don't have a timeline, the House could never concur and the motion would be gone.

The Chair: Suspended for infinity.

Mr. John Reynolds: You'd end up with the worry that Ms. Parrish has right now. If you eliminate it, you'll never get it back. If you don't put a time limit on it, the House could never concur and—the same thing—it would be gone.

So you have to say that in 90 days it goes back on if we don't have a report—

The Chair: I'm suggesting that we use the wording I've just used, “or the earlier of”, x number of days, whichever... It will be the earlier of a report back or... How long are we willing to wait?

Mr. John Reynolds: Ninety days.

The Chair: That's not 90 sitting days; that's 90 days.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's 90 real days.

The Chair: So suspend until the earlier of... the wording I used before, which would be adoption by the House of a report from this committee or in 90 days.

Colleagues, we are amending the three-page draft you have in front of you to add...

The clerk and Mr. Robertson advise that we can simply abandon the former report and report a very simple motion in accordance with what we've discussed. I'll ask the clerk to read what we have now, and this is in English, for openers. Let's start with the English version. I've been speaking to him in English, so...

The Clerk: If I understand properly, the motion is that the committee recommends that Standing Order 87(6) be suspended for 90 days or until the House adopts a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs containing a fast-track mechanism, whichever comes first.

The Chair: A replacement fast-track mechanism, whichever comes first. Does that...

• 1150

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Could you repeat that in French? I have a comment to make.

The Clerk: That's quite an exercise, Mr. Guimond.

[English]

The Chair: Would anyone like to comment while the clerk is working through this?

The clerk is ready.

[Translation]

The Clerk:

That the committee recommend that Standing Order 87(6) be suspended for a 90-day period or until the House adopts a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs containing a fast-track procedure for private member's business.

There is the matter of the first of those two terms. I forget how to do that.

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to hear the text in both languages because we must not presume that we know what the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business will decide. The Sub-committee on Private Members' Business might suggest to our committee that there not be a fast-track procedure.

If I understand the gist of the report correctly, it is the elimination of the 100-signature procedure that is creating a lot of flack. But I would not want, in the text of the resolution, to presume that there will be such a recommendation. Perhaps there will not be. I would like to see the words "if applicable, a fast- track procedure"—and the clerk can re-work the text—because we might decide to go back to what we used to do, and consider the possibility that there not be a fast-track procedure.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Both possibilities are being considered, that there be one, and that there not be one.

[English]

The Chair: The wording we are now working on provides that if there is not a report providing a replacement for the standing order within 90 days, then the suspension will end and the old rule will carry on.

Mr. Joe Jordan: We'll be back to where we were.

The Chair: Yes.

The chairman has used the words “fast track”. It's a new concept, and I think I'll abandon the term. The wording will now be that the committee recommends that Standing Order 87(6) be suspended until the House adopts the procedure and House affairs committee report containing amendments to Standing Order 87(6)—I've just removed any reference to “fast track”—and with the 90-day reference.

While the clerk is working on it, is there any other comment on this? I take it we're all in agreement to proceed in this fashion.

[Translation]

Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, even if the person I am replacing is seated, I simply want to say that it is important that members be informed about this. We are now in the third week of sitting and several members came to see me to say that they were collecting the 100 signatures. I think that respect for our colleagues dictates that we at least prevent them from taking on extra work unnecessarily. I don't know how we can manage this, but let's say it concerns me.

That being said, I won't say anything more, Mr. Chairman. I am withdrawing.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think we have to distinguish between the idea of a fast track and what we actually had, because the 100-signature process we're clinging to here and don't want to give up... If you look at the number of 100-signature bills that actually made it to the floor of the House, you had a better chance in the draw than you had in that process. So we're not giving up any great thing here. The people who are in the middle collecting signatures... we should communicate to all members that they should probably not continue to engage in those activities. We're back to where we started.

Suspension is not a problem, but let's not fall in love with the 100 signatures, because it really went against what we were trying to accomplish, which I think we all agree on. I think we should send something out today or tomorrow, whenever we can, to all members, saying that this has been suspended and therefore there's no benefit to getting 100 signatures for your bill. There are only so many hours in a day, and that was taking up a lot... Again, you get the lobbyists involved.

• 1155

So I think we need to decide, whatever the wording is, to get them to stop that. Nobody has gone so far as to get the 100 and be on the Order Paper, so we're not going to have to deal with that issue. But for somebody who maybe has 60 of their 100, it's better to stop them now than let them think that somehow they're going to circumvent the draw, because they're not.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Following on what Mr. Jordan said, I want to make the same comment. Does the committee and the chair accept the fact that we should be corresponding with our colleagues to tell them to cease and desist with the 100 signatures? If so, Mr. Chair, you may also suggest in that correspondence that there is a move in place to try to—don't use the term “fast-track”—enhance an expedited process for private members' business. We would give them some hope that there is going to be some other process and mechanism. Don't just simply say don't do it because we're stopping this particular process for 90 days. That's only my opinion to the chair, but I haven't heard the chair's opinion on Mr. Jordan's suggestion that this be communicated.

The Chair: That is a good suggestion, Mr. Borotsik. If we adopt this motion and report to the House, then I'm going to ask the clerk to communicate with every MP by e-mail noting what the committee has done and saying we're looking for an improvement to the standing order.

Mr. Joe Jordan: And they'll have an opportunity to participate in that discussion.

The Chair: Yes, they will.

The Canadian Alliance had suggested that the motion state that it becomes effective on the date the House concurs in it. I don't have a problem with adding that in. It's in order to do it.

So the motion is that the committee recommend that Standing Order 87(6) be suspended effective on adoption by the House for 90 days or until the House adopts amendments to Standing Order 87(6) as recommended by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whichever comes first.

Before we actually vote on it, I'd like to say that we will need to have fairly consistent support in the House to get this concurred in. The sooner we do it and open the door to the changes, the better off all our members will be. So I'm hoping for your support and advocacy in the House as this thing comes down the pipeline.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: When will this be put?

The Chair: As soon as we can get something in print in its final form. It'll be shown to all the parties in final form before it's moved in the House.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We don't need a motion on this, but we're asking the clerk to communicate this—as I discussed earlier and as members have made the point—to colleagues in the House.

Mr. Grant McNally: We will not assume an action of the House before it happens.

The Chair: That's a good point.

Colleagues, in the event you encounter members who think we're trying to remove the fast-track mechanism, please try to convey our intention that we're trying to make it work better.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Nobody complained last night after they had gone through it.

The Chair: Some members may misunderstand the way we're doing this.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): You can indicate that in your letter.

The Chair: Sure, we'll do that. The letter should indicate the positive, constructive approach we're taking on this, rather than a bushwhack.

We'll hear from Mr. Guimond before we move to the next item.

• 1200

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Perhaps I should talk to the chair of the subcommittee about this, but it might be more relevant for our research assistant to prepare a comparative study of British law for the benefit of the subcommittee, and to make our work more productive. Does a fast-track procedure for private members' business exist elsewhere, in parliaments such as our own that emulate the British model? We want to improve things, and I would like to know that. Perhaps we will find a procedure of that type in a parliament in India or New Zealand.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Colleagues, as a subsequent matter, we have to refer this issue to the private members' business subcommittee. We need a motion to do that.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I so move.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan moves that the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business study the issue of Standing Order 87(6) to improve the effectiveness of the standing order and report back within 60 days.

Is that general exhortation in that form satisfactory? Is it satisfactory, Mr. Bergeron? If it is satisfactory we'll move it. I'd be happy to recognize you, but I just want to know if the wording is satisfactory.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, you will probably be able to answer my question. I was wondering why you deliberately avoided referring to a fast-track procedure, if I may use the expression. I know that the current practice does not allow for a fast-track procedure, but isn't it the wish of the committee to find or discover a mechanism that would indeed allow for the application of a fast-track or accelerated procedure?

A voice: The fast-track procedure is still in effect.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, it is not; it has been suspended.

[English]

The Chair: I believe the wording we have does include that. Mrs. Parrish is the chair of the subcommittee. I don't think there's any misunderstanding about what we're doing here. Thank you for that.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It's carried unanimously. Thank you.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I simply want to ensure that the wish my colleague expressed has been conveyed properly and that Madam Chair will take it into account in the work of the subcommittee, it being understood, of course, that the subcommittee is free to organize its work as it pleases.

[English]

The Chair: She has heard your exhortation and she's nodding approvingly.

Can we move on to the next item of business, which is a report from the Chief Electoral Officer? Mr. Robertson, can you let us know what Parliament might expect to be receiving from Mr. Kingsley?

Mr. James Robertson: I checked with Diane Davidson, the head of legal services for Elections Canada. Under the Canada Elections Act, within 90 days of the date set for the return of the writs, which was in mid-December, the Chief Electoral Officer is to provide the Speaker of the House of Commons with a report on the general election. I believe that date is mid-March, about March 16. It is currently Mr. Kingsley's intention to table his report on the election in accordance with the act in mid-March.

The act also sets out a longer period of time. It does not set a time limit for legislative changes. Rather than rush into recommending legislative changes, the Chief Electoral Officer intends to take longer to come up with proposed specific suggestions for any changes to the act. That report may not be tabled until the autumn, but his report on the election will be tabled in mid-March.

• 1205

The Chair: This is simply a signal to all of us that we will likely want to have Mr. Kingsley appear before us subsequent to his report to the House.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: His estimates are tabled on February 27. I would like to suggest we get him here as quickly after that as possible to discuss a lot of issues, and then we can get him again when he tables his report in March.

The Chair: Good. There's a two-week gap between the estimates and his report. The steering committee was of the view that we should have him appear within that timeframe. We're looking at the last half of March or...

Mr. John Reynolds: March 15.

The Chair: If Mr. Kingsley comes on March 1, his report will not have been presented to the House.

Mr. John Reynolds: But we'll have his estimates, so we can still ask him lots of questions. I'd like to get him as often as we can.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: I have sent it to all of my members asking for a letter on the voting systems that they seem to have so many problems with. I don't need to see his electoral report to ask him questions on that. We can ask him, quite legally, based on his estimates, to appear before this committee.

I would like to move we invite him—I don't know what day February 27 falls on.

An hon. member: Tuesday.

Mr. John Reynolds: I would move that we invite Mr. Kingsley to appear before this committee on March 1.

The Chair: Thursday morning, March 1. There is no problem doing it at the main committee. I'm in your hands.

We'll decide later about what, if anything, we would do in relation to his report. We'll make a decision later.

Mr. John Reynolds: We might need him for more than one day.

The Chair: I think we'll have lots of business.

That's fine. We're all agreed then. I can see a consensus here.

The first thing we'll do is propose this to the Chief Electoral Officer and hopefully his availability won't be in question. That's a consensus.

Mr. Clerk, you have that to work with. Thank you.

The next item is... I'm sorry, Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like us to invite not only Mr. Kingsley, but also political parties. Each of the parties could delegate someone who would come and make a presentation or give us an overview of the problems his or her party had.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Not for the estimates, Yvon, perhaps after.

A voice: This isn't the place. When he has tabled his report.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Perhaps after, but not for the estimates.

[English]

The Chair: The suggestion that we have members provide their views on some issues is a good one. I'm sure that for the first meeting Mr. Kingsley's presentation, however short it may be, with members' questions, will take up our meeting time. But we'll keep that in mind.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: You might ask Mr. Kingsley if he could supply us, before he comes, with a synopsis of the complaints he's received from returning officers across Canada. I know in my constituency there were very scathing letters sent back to his office about the service they got, and it would be nice to have some of that—just a synopsis from him of complaints he's received from chief returning officers across Canada. I know he doesn't even reply to some of them very well.

The Chair: All right. Mr. Clerk, you can communicate that to Mr. Kingsley. Thank you.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There are two issues here. One is the estimates and Mr. Kingsley coming to speak to the estimates, and I agree with that. The second issue is a report on the election, which is going to be tabled in mid-March. What Mr. Reynolds is asking for right now should be tied in with that report, as to all of the complaints they've received from the returning officers and all of the deficiencies they've had with respect to Elections Canada.

Is Mr. Reynolds suggesting that the estimates be the time when we talk about that? I don't necessarily agree with that. I think the estimates is one issue and the report is another. How can we talk to the report when we haven't received the report yet?

• 1210

The Chair: Let me just speak to that. During the estimates procedure all manner of issues related to the departmental spending envelope, all the things they do, all the policy decisions they take, can come up, and often do. As a result, the estimates procedure is a mixed bag, a grab bag, of everything, and it would not be out of order for Mr. Reynolds or anyone else to raise issues.

I understand what you're getting at, Mr. Borotsik. It is quite possible that what we're going to be looking at here will involve a number of issues and more than one meeting. If he's coming on estimates, we'll see what the tide brings in.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: You bring up a very good point. Some of what I'm looking for has to do with estimates, the money they spend, and how they get things done. They do tie in together quite closely.

The Chair: Mr. Kingsley will be notified and asked to attend. In the event he has some constructive suggestions to order his presentation or presentations to the committee, he will pass that on to us and you can have a look at it.

I now go to item 4 of “Other Business”. The steering committee has taken note that our own Standing Orders require a debate in the House of Commons on the Standing Orders generally. That debate, I believe, is to take place between the 60th and the 90th day. That is Standing Order 51.

It was the view of the steering committee that we are likely to get into Standing Orders reform issues in advance of that window. It was the view that we, as a committee, should ask our colleagues in the House to advance the date of that debate to earlier than the 60th day. The date will be selected in collaboration with the House leaders, but we do want to signal that to the House. It's my understanding that the House leaders are generally receptive to that.

This will be a motion then to crystallize our view as a committee. If someone would move it, we can debate it.

Mr. John Reynolds: I so move.

The Chair: The motion is under item 4, in the arcane language of the House, that we get the debate going earlier.

Is there any further debate on this? Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll put the question.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Item 5, on a ranking of matters that we were going to deal with, electronic voting bubbles to the top. The steering committee was of the view that we should begin the preparation. It's not something we can jump into tomorrow. It does need some preparation. Colleagues will note that there have been two previous reports of our predecessor committee and there has been some preparatory work done by research on this over the years, including before this meeting.

I'm going to ask Mr. Robertson to outline what may be available to members to open the issue—background material—with a view to getting some witnesses. I guess we will have to have the clerk here.

Mr. Robertson, could you outline that for colleagues?

Mr. James Robertson: Very briefly, the issue of electronic voting has been discussed by this committee and its predecessors going back to the McGrath committee. In 1994-95, the committee established a subcommittee on electronic voting, which was chaired by Monsieur Langlois of the Bloc. It was composed of Mr. Randy White, Mr. Derek Lee—they were the main members.

It reported back to the committee, which tabled a report in the chamber indicating that electronic voting was technically feasible, saying that applied votes were then being used as a time-saving device and that there was no need to invest the capital cost of an electronic voting system at that point in time. Then it set out in fair detail various components and considerations for an electronic voting system.

• 1215

The issue was then discussed by this committee in 1997-98 at the request of Mr. Boudria, the government House leader, and Mr. White, the opposition House leader, and a series of meetings were held with those two individuals plus the clerk and the staff of the House of Commons. Again, the committee decided at that time not to proceed, but it did not make any definitive decision on the issue. The matter came up on several other occasions without being discussed in detail.

So at this point the issue is back.

The report from 1993-94, which we can recirculate, does set out some of the background and considerations that were felt to be important at that time.

The Chair: What I'm going to suggest, then, is that Mr. Robertson circulate that particular report. I'm also going to suggest that he draft or craft what he would believe to be a useful document in framing the issue, something that's not too long but that will at least raise or outline the key issues that would be involved in our consideration of electronic voting.

Then I'm going to suggest that we ask the clerk to come by and that we devote at least a first meeting to it, and maybe other meetings, and we'll determine around the committee whether this thing has legs. The clerk, Mr. Corbett, has experience in looking at these things going back a few years. I leave the issue there for discussion now. My suggestion is that we ask Mr. Corbett to come after Mr. Robertson has had an opportunity to circulate to members the two documents we've referred to.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Do you need a motion for that?

The Chair: Yes, well...

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Can I also request a third document? Jamie talked about the fact that it was debated at this committee in 1997. Could we have the minutes and any resolutions that came out of that meeting as well so that we can get a good perspective as it developed? This is one of those ideas that if they keep bringing it back enough times, we'll all give up and let them do it. I'd just like to look at the debate that went on at that time as well.

The Chair: It's doable. The file is getting thicker as we speak, but there's no harm in that.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, the committee had produced a report when the matter of the electronic vote was studied.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: My recollection is that there was no actual report of the committee. There was a document prepared by the House administration for this committee that outlined a business case for electronic voting, but I don't believe the committee did anything more than decide not to proceed with the matter for a year's time at that point.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: There was an hour-and-a-half debate. I'd like to see the evidence.

Mr. James Robertson: There were several meetings at which the matter was discussed.

The Chair: Let's embark on that basis, then. We'll circulate the materials and we'll set aside time for a meeting. We'll continue with electronic voting, but we will be... We may finish it, who knows?

But we have to allow for Mr. Kingsley to be here on the date suggested earlier, and there may be a follow-up to Mr. Kingsley's meeting. We may need more than one meeting. So is that a reasonable basis on which to proceed, then?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We have consensus. That's good.

I have a note here on item 6, the parliamentary calendar. Your chair wasn't exactly sure what to do with it. I carry one around in my wallet. But Mr. Bergeron was referring to something other than the piece of paper. Could you enlighten us, Mr. Bergeron, on what you wanted to have happen?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Quite so, Mr. Chairman, during the previous Parliament, some parliamentarians expressed a certain number of concerns. Those concerns were transmitted by the Parliamentary Centre that had organized a symposium on that matter, a symposium that raised a great deal of interest about the parliamentary calendar. When I say parliamentary calendar, I am not simply referring to the piece of paper on which the dates of the House sittings are printed, but also to a reassessment of the organization of the work, in such a way that we might eventually free up one day per week so that the House does not sit on that day or sits in a different way so as not to oblige a large number of colleagues to be here on this fifth day.

• 1220

The House Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in the wake of the work that had been done by the Parliamentary Centre, decided to strike a subcommittee where this matter was studied during at least two or three hearings in the company of the Clerk of the House. So some ground-breaking work was done on that issue but for one reason or another—it would be too long to go into it—everything was shelved until recently, when, in the context of this review of the way in which Parliament operates, discussing the parliamentary calendar has once again been raised as a possibility.

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, to avoid delaying the work of the committee, I suggest that we recreate this subcommittee we had during the previous Parliament, in order to allow a small group of members to examine the matter and submit a proposal to this wider committee which might eventually be submitted to the House.

[English]

The Chair: It's a subcommittee suggestion.

Mr. Reynolds, on that subject.

Mr. John Reynolds: I think Mr. Bergeron's idea is a good one.

Our caucus asked me to bring to this committee—and it would be good going to the subcommittee—the idea on the votes. I think there was a consensus in our caucus that they'd like to see the votes taking place right after question period instead of always late in the day, and maybe predominantly on Wednesdays but certainly Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. If there could be some agreement to that, I know our caucus would agree with that.

I think there's also the discussion about Fridays, whether we should be sitting on Friday at all or maybe Friday should become private members' day, with the votes the following week, so that members could have debates all day long on Friday with no question period. That gives you the hours you're looking for.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Absolutely, yes.

Mr. John Reynolds: There are those of us who don't want to work on Fridays.

For those who have a private member's bill, they could be here on Friday and have all day to debate it.

Those are the kinds of things I'd like us to look at. I think your idea is an excellent one, rather than involving this whole committee, because we could take forever.

The Chair: Colleagues, we see all these little reform issues coming up in the spring, just like the tulips.

Mr. Clerk, have we sufficient resources to set up a subcommittee?

The Clerk: It's free. It's a motion.

An hon. member: We can afford that.

The Chair: Nothing in life is free.

We'll need some volunteers. Mr. Bergeron, do you recall the structure of the previous subcommittee?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This subcommittee would function in the same way as our subcommittees here; there was a member from each political party plus the chair, who is from the government party.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I wonder if this isn't a situation where we might set up a subcommittee of the whips from the five parties, because largely it's going to affect our functioning, and I think we're all well aware of the concerns of our members around those issues. I wonder even if it needs to be set up as a subcommittee or if we shouldn't just agree to meet and to come back to the committee with some suggestions.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It would make it more formal for this committee.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If you wish.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think I would prefer to have this subcommittee even if it's composed of all the whips. But I would like it to be—

The Chair: All right.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If we're going to have all five parties represented in a proportionate way, then we'd be into the whole committee again, not just a subcommittee. As long as we agree that anything we bring forward would be by consensus, I think this would work with the five whips meeting.

The Chair: There appears to be consensus on it. What we want to do is establish a subcommittee on the parliamentary calendar and it would be composed of the whips.

Mr. John Reynolds: Whips or their designates.

The Chair: That's fine, that it be composed of the whips or their designates. I think that's a great idea.

The Clerk: Do you want a chair to work with?

The Chair: No, the whips can consensually work out their organization. That will be excellent.

• 1225

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I think it should be the chair and also the whips who form this committee.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik, you're out of order.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron moved that a subcommittee on the parliamentary calendar be struck, composed of the five whips of each of the recognized parties or their designate.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

There are two final items. On the televising of committee proceedings, colleagues, you are aware that there was a report adopted by the House that set out the rules to be used for televising committee proceedings. At this time the broadcasters who are available to broadcast these, to televise these meetings, do not believe they can comply with our rules—all of them.

I've been working with them for a few months, and we're attempting to compromise in a way that can satisfy our parliamentary requirements. There's been some progress, but I don't have the finished product. I just wanted to alert you that there's some work being done on that and we hope to have a product shortly.

Last but not least, I'll just indicate that the party leaders had all agreed to change the name of the industry committee to industry, science and technology. Just so you're all aware, we're not sliding things around without your knowledge, and that change will be introduced in the House shortly.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: If we have finished the rest, I want to raise a point. I find the way in which we work very pleasant here, because everyone speaks whenever it suits him, but when we hear witnesses, our interventions will have to be more structured. Perhaps this was done in my absence. If that is not the case, it will have to be done.

[English]

The Chair: No. This committee has not previously adopted a structured question format for witnesses. We have some party leaders and whips here, and the thing generally takes its own direction. It has been my recent practice to recognize colleagues from either side. I would lead off with the official opposition, maybe another one from the opposition, and then a government member, but for five minutes. The five minutes isn't always that strict either, but it has worked without too much prejudice to any of the members.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I didn't speak to ask that we have a formal structure, I intervened to prevent us from having to debate the necessity of having one before a witness. I simply want us to agree amongst ourselves beforehand.

[English]

The Chair: No. If there's strong objection to my suggestion that we each take our five minutes the way we've done it previously, then speak to me. Usually what happens in these circumstances is the members frown and stare at the chair and the chair tries to respond so everybody is happy. We'll try it and see if it works. If it doesn't, I'm in your hands. We can get more structured.

Mr. Bergeron, one more item.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a brief question, Mr. Chairman. Concerning the subcommittee on the parliamentary calendar, as there is no chair, who will be responsible for convening the members and how often; perhaps it could be our colleague the government whip? Since there is no official chair, there will have to be some coordination which, I presume, will be done by Ms. Catterall.

[English]

The Chair: Who's going to lead in the dance? The chief government whip will lead. Is that agreed?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: All right. That's fine. Any further business?

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Since we've been volunteering for this subcommittee, may I make a suggestion? Can we have this subcommittee struck perhaps in the next week or so? For my purposes, I would like to go to my caucus and hear some input. Perhaps if we could call the first subcommittee meeting later on next week, then we can come and set the agenda, and from there we can go forward. If Madame Catterall could take that direction, perhaps she could let us know when the meeting would be struck after caucus.

• 1230

The Chair: I see a consensus on that. That's fine.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: In order to prepare for that, I would appreciate it if the clerk could be in touch with me and we'll pick a suitable time. We all have basically the same schedule of meetings, so it shouldn't be too hard to find one spot where we have some time. I wonder if our researcher could also go through the work done by the previous committee on Standing Orders and identify anything with respect to the challenger of the House that came forward in the debates in the last Parliament or in this committee's discussions. That would give us a starting point.

The Chair: Seeing no further business, we stand adjourned until the next notice of meeting.