HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 13, 2001

• 1105

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I see a quorum for our business today. We have two specific items and then we'll maybe chat briefly on future business.

The first item on our agenda is Bill S-10, a Senate bill putting in place a poet laureate. Colleagues, this item is before the committee, the main committee, because the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business was unable to reach a consensus on votability of this particular bill. You'll all be aware that this is a bill that has been fully adopted in the Senate and forwarded to the House for our consideration.

An editorial point suggests that members in our House would be quite miffed if a bill that was fully adopted in this House were sent to the Senate and the Senate decided it wouldn't even vote on it. Because of the differences between the Senate rules and our House rules, that is what has happened in this case. By not making it votable, we're simply saying that the bill will never have the benefit of any consideration by the House of Commons. I'll make reference to a historic and traditional comity that exists between our respective houses, the House and the other place, and I thought committee members should have the benefit of dealing with this issue at the main committee.

So the question is whether or not we will make Bill S-10 a votable item in the order of precedence in the House of Commons. So I'll receive comments on that.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Do you want a motion?

The Chair: We should start with a motion.

Mr. Paul Macklin: I so move.

The Chair: Mr. Macklin moves on a motion in an appropriate form, Mr. Clerk, that Bill S-10 be a votable item in the order of precedence.

So there's the subject, colleagues. Is there any comment on that?

Mr. Jordan?

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): A quick point of clarification, if the chair of the subcommittee is here. This bill came before the private members' subcommittee like other private members' bills. It was decided to not make it votable, or did they decide not to decide?

The Chair: It wouldn't arrive at the subcommittee like other House bills because this bill would not have been selected in the draw. This bill would have been sent from the Senate to the House and put on the agenda of the subcommittee.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Did the sponsor make a presentation there?

The Chair: Mrs. Parrish is here. She can enlighten us on this.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): First of all, it did arrive at the subcommittee just as any other bill did. It wasn't red flagged as a special bill and, in fairness to the committee, we hadn't dealt with this in this session nor had we in my experience dealt with a Senate bill before. As always, the debate around bills and whether they're votable is not subject to public scrutiny. Let it suffice to say that it was not chosen by a majority of the committee, by consensus, as a votable bill. We were also, as I said, operating under the assumption that it was to be treated like any other bill.

It has subsequently been suggested to us that it is for special treatment. We do have three spaces left for votability. If the committee were to decide to make it votable today, I don't think any of us would lose any sleep over it.

When it came back to the committee for reconsideration, the reason we didn't make it votable is the committee does not want to second-guess itself. When it makes decisions, it doesn't want every single person—whoever becomes non-votable—to come back and beg us to change our minds. So we have no problems, if I'm speaking on behalf of the committee, with your overruling us. There are spaces available. Nobody was passionately for or against it and it would be just fine.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan, you still have the floor.

Mr. Joe Jordan: That's fine.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan's finished.

We have a list. First Mr. McNally, then Mr. Bergeron, then Ms. Davies.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, CA): I'd like to make several points, Mr. Chair.

As a person who subbed on the subcommittee that heard the presentations, yes, we were unaware that there was any difference between this item and any of the others we received. I think we will be in peril from our own colleagues should we move in this direction, given that we had 30 presentations, all containing very good ideas. Our colleagues will be visiting us to ask why this idea that originated in the other place should receive precedence over something that's good work done by a member of the House of Commons. I think this is something we need to consider when moving on this.

• 1110

I think it is also a good illustration of why we need to have all items votable, so we don't get into these kinds of quagmires as to what is votable or non-votable, where it comes from, and who makes the presentation. I think we need to be very wary of that.

My last point is that as a member who sat on that committee—just as my colleagues from all parties did, giving up six or seven hours of our time—I am reluctant to revisit an item that was decided in good faith amongst the members. I think this is going to perhaps set a precedent for those members who will sit on that subcommittee in the future. They will wonder about their own usefulness in going through that exercise if something could simply be trumped up in the future.

I would have one question, and that is, how many bills come from the other place through this process or have come in the past? Do we know that?

The Chair: My experience is that there is one per year, and it may be less than that.

Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): I believe the clerk has the statistics on the number of Senate bills. I think that would be about right. They're not very numerous.

Mr. Grant McNally: Should we allow this to happen? Will that increase the frequency? Will other members of the other place thus see this as an opportunity to bring forward motions by superseding... If we set this as a precedent, will that become an avenue for legislation from the other place to be brought forward and supersede items put forward by members of our House? This would put us in a very difficult position as members, to be accommodating for our colleagues in the other place yet to be able to justify that as members of the subcommittee or the committee of the whole in this particular area.

The Chair: Let me try to answer a couple of questions.

Colleagues may ask why we should allow a berth for a Senate bill in this House. The reason is probably that the Senate is the other House of Parliament and it has already, as a House, adopted the bill. Secondly, if the Senate were to perceive that this House would not allow any vote to take place on fully adopted Senate bills, it would be a snowy day in August when any of our private members' bills would ever see a vote in the other place. It is comity I am referring to here, so that is the reason it should be put to members.

In terms of Senate bills pre-empting our private members' bills in the order of precedence, this is not the case. Senate bills that are made votable here do not pre-empt any of our bills on the 10-votable-item list. They are not in our order of precedence in that sense but are added in to our private members' business. We will still have 10 votable items, so this will not affect the votability or selectability our members currently determine in private members' business. Yes, it will take up private members' business time, but it won't pre-empt the order of precedence or the ability to be votable.

Mr. Grant McNally: So you're saying it doesn't take away one space. It's in addition to...

The Chair: I did have other individuals.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, CA): Go ahead.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron and then Ms. Davies.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les—Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I won't hide the fact that I feel somewhat uncomfortable with Mr, Macklin's motion for several reasons.

First of all, I would like us to be sure that this motion is not a precedent, and that, as a result, in future, any motion or bill passed by the Senate will receive preferential treatment from this committee. In other words, it would skip the step of the Sub- Committee on Private Members' Business and be passed almost automatically by the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That was my first concern.

• 1115

My second concern is similar to what Mr. McNally was saying a few moments ago. It seems to me that we are giving preferential treatment to a bill or motion from the Senate, and that we are doing this out of courtesy. We are behaving in this way because this was passed by the Senate and every time we pass bills, the Senate passes them as well. I do not find this argument completely convincing. It is true that bills we pass are generally passed subsequently by the Senate as well.

I am referring to Private Members' bills and motions which are subsequently passed by the Senate, but there is no automatic practice in the House of Commons. In fact, the Senate has complained several times about the procedure that we have put in place.

The fact is that this is the procedure in place at the moment. The Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business is responsible for deciding whether bills and motions put forward by members of Parliament are in order and whether bills and motions that originate in the Senate are in order as well.

To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, there has never been any other procedure. Please correct me if I am wrong. This means that a bill or a motion passed by the Senate must be subject to the same process as those that apply to our own bills and motions. That is, they must be accepted by the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business. I think it is excessive to claim that if we were to refuse to decide that this bill or this motion is votable, the Senate will do the same thing with bills and motions that originate in the House of Commons. This has never happened in the past.

Moreover, I cannot imagine that tomorrow morning the Senate would dare decide to rule out of order a motion or a bill passed by the House of Commons, which is composed of elected members. It is unthinkable that the Senate, which is made up of appointed people, would reject a bill or a motion that has been duly passed by the elected representatives of the people of Canada and Quebec.

I would like to see them do that, Mr. Chairman. I have another concern, Mr. Chairman, but I have forgotten it for the moment. I will come back to it later.

[English]

The Chair: Well, we'll be happy to hear from you again.

We usually let Mr. Bergeron have the last word, so how appropriate. Ms. Davies, then Mr. Reynolds, then Mr. Saada.

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I just wanted some clarification because it seems to me that certainly it would be a very strong argument if a bill from the Senate were taking up time of private members' business, which, according to your discussion, it will not. In fact there are three spots remaining, as I understand it, so, if anything, the members may be upset that there are still three spots remaining that haven't been filled.

The question I have is that on previous occasions when we've had bills from the Senate, we have had votable items before. I remember the one on social conditions that was voted on. Now what was different about that one? Was it because it was sponsored by a member in the House, or was it different in any respect in terms of the procedure it went through? That's the one I remember.

The Chair: No, I have been hanging around this committee for quite a few years, and my recollection is that all of the Senate-adopted bills that have come through have been selected as votable. In each case there has been a minor number of phone calls and considerations that went with it, slightly in advance of when it came through, simply to ensure that the practice of making this stuff votable was made votable. But the Senate would never want to suggest that the House must, in every case, make something votable. If the Senate were to adopt a bill that said the House of Commons should abolish itself and sent it to us, of course they wouldn't expect us to deal with that one. It's just that the practice is there, and I don't recall in the past any difficulties with the Senate bills. Some of them have been adopted; I recall Senator Kenny's bill on alternate fuels for the federal automobile fleet that was adopted, and there have been others.

• 1120

Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Saada, and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'd just like to understand procedure, Mr. Chairman. This has gone to the subcommittee twice, I understand. We voted to make it non-votable. Why is it here? Why do we have a subcommittee if we have to bring things back and make second guesses on what they're going to do?

The Chair: The subcommittee does not make things non-votable. The subcommittee recommends votability, and, in this case, on the second go-round they were unable to achieve a consensus on it and—

Mr. John Reynolds: That's good lawyer-talk, but the fact is that committee decides what items are going to be votable. They've decided this item should not be votable—

The Chair: No, they didn't. They only decided which items should be votable—

Mr. John Reynolds: But this was not one of them.

The Chair: And this was not one of them.

Mr. John Reynolds: The question I'm asking then is, why is it here? We have a subcommittee to make these decisions. Why is that back here? It's a non-votable bill; that's what the subcommittee's recommended. Why are we debating it again? Should I go back then and get all other 20 bills that the subcommittee has suggested be non-votable and bring them here one by one and let us debate them in this committee? We'll be here forever. Why is a Senate bill something special?

I agree with Mr. Bergeron. To say that the Senate would hold our bills up—the Senate holds them up if the government wants them to. They've done that in the past. We've had bills in the last session go through, sit in the Senate, and never get finished because the government... and that's the government's business, fine with me. Governments make those decisions. The Senate never finishes a bill, but, basically, any bills we send them should be debated and voted upon.

Maybe it gets back to the argument where I think some of us agree that all private members' bills should be votable. I happen to agree with that. If that was the case, I'd say, this wouldn't be before this committee now either.

But if we're going to debate in this committee why one Senate bill should be votable that isn't on the list that's come to us from the subcommittee, I think we should take all the other 20-some-odd bills and start debating them one by one and making decisions individually on those, too.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Saada, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I am a little confused, because the name of the subcommittee is Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business, not Parliamentarians' Business. I fail to see why Senate bills are referred to this subcommittee.

We cannot compare the process for adopting legislation in the Senate, which includes three readings, to a process in which a draw is used to select bills for debate and a vote. I think there is a fundamental difference here. If I understand Mr. Bergeron's comment's correctly, he is concerned mainly about the principles at stake. He is not so concerned about the bill as such, but rather about a fundamental principle.

I would like us to consider two points. I would suggest first of all, that in light of the name and mandate of the subcommittee, any Senate bill that has gone through all stages in the Senate be automatically in order in the House of Commons, and that there be no debate by the subcommittee, because this is not part of its mandate.

Moreover, if the first premise applies, there would be no change in the number of private members' bills that would be votable as a result of a decision by the subcommittee. This takes nothing away from parliamentarians in the House of Commons, and it allows us to be polite to the Senate, because we would adopt the process that they adopted before us.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, there is a view now that we may want to revise our Standing Orders to indicate that when a bill comes to us from the Senate, it is simply made votable. Private members' business will be channelled into private members' business slots, and government bills that come from the Senate will be channelled into the government business slot in the House. That would be an appropriate way.

We may get a chance to do that later this spring. I suspect we will. Right now, we have to deal with this one Senate bill, and we're in the hands of members.

Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Guimond.

• 1125

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, because I already spoke about this in part in my comments earlier.

I think Mr. Saada is right when he says that the main point of my remarks was to set out some principles. If, to date, the Senate has had to submit bills and motions from senators to a subcommittee, the reason is that that was the only procedure that existed. Perhaps we should in fact change this situation.

If necessary, we might also want to consider the advisability of deciding whether all private members' bills and motions could be votable. If they are ridiculous or unacceptable, they will be rejected. If they are interesting bills or motions, we would vote for them.

We are not yet at that point. We are here to decide whether the committee is of the view that this particular bill should be votable, because the subcommittee has decided to refer the matter to us. Since this is the only procedure that exists, I think we have to treat this bill the same way as all the other bills reviewed by the subcommittee. If necessary, we might have to debate, however briefly, the intrinsic value of this bill using the grid that has been divised to determine whether or not a bill is votable.

It is not enough to say simply that the bill was referred by the Senate and that it has gone through all the stages. We could reply to that argument that of course the bill has gone through all the states, but that these stages were carried out by a non-elected body. A bill put forward by a private member is the work of an elected representative of the people. In my view, that is very different.

Perhaps we may want to resume this debate at some other time and in some other place. However, the fact remains that since this is the only procedure that exists at the moment, I think that in order to determine whether this bill can be votable, we must use the criteria established by the committee to assess its intrinsic value. I will probably have a few other comments on this matter a little later, Mr. Chairman.

Once we get into that discussion, we are no longer talking about principles.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond, Mr. McNally.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans): Mr. Chairman, I have two comments in response to Mr. Saada's remarks, and I have an additional argument to put forward for committee members.

I do not want to get into a big debate with you, but Mr. Saada reminded us that we were talking about the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business. However, it seems to me that when the chair of the subcommittee explained the procedure, she mentioned that the bill was presented again to the subcommittee by a colleague from the House of Commons. I believe Ms. Jennings reintroduced the bill. So that weakens to some extent the argument that the bill originated in the Senate. Of course the bill originated in the Senate, but it was reintroduced by a colleague from the House of Commons.

[English]

The Chair: In fact, having a member in the House or in the Senate move the bill from the other House is the standard, normal procedure. It is not a back-door arrangement. I just wanted to make you aware of that. Ms. Jennings' moving of the bill in the House of Commons is similar to what would happen every time a Senate bill comes into the House of Commons.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, but Mr. Saada seems to be saying that since we are talking about the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business, we should be accepting only the business of private members of Parliament.

Second, when Mr. Saada said that this would not reduce the time spent studying bills that are votable, I would maintain that the opposite is true. The time would in fact be reduced because in the daily order of business, there is a period of time set aside for this item. If we were to introduce a number of Senate bills, other bills put forward by members of Parliament would have to be postponed, because we would not spend Saturday or Sunday studying them. So the time set aside for private members' business would be reduced.

• 1130

My other argument, which I put forward at the subcommittee meeting, is that ultimately, this might allow a member of Parliament to do indirectly what he or she was unable to do directly. Let me explain what I mean. A member of Parliament has complained to the subcommittee in the past because he was unable to convince the subcommittee that his bill should be chosen. I am choosing not to name the member in question. He told us that he had been tabling bills for six and a half years, and that this was the first time that one of his bills had been drawn. But it is a question of luck. It is as though someone were to say that he had been buying lottery tickets for 30 years and that he had never won the jackpot. There is nothing we can do about that. It is no one's fault if bills are not drawn; that is the whole idea of the draw. But this unfortunate and unlucky member of Parliament could, were we to accept this procedure, find a senator to introduce his bill, and that would make it eligible automatically. I think this approach could invalidate the work of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Guimond, I wouldn't underestimate the challenge of getting a private member's bill through the Senate. They don't pass bills over there, I'm assuming, just because a member of the House of Commons says he wants his bill passed.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If you have a good pal on the other side...

The Chair: Secondly, if something like that were to occur, I'm sure members of this committee and the subcommittee would take note of the back-door route that was intended to pre-empt our own processes here. I think the member might have a difficult time getting the bill made votable.

Now we're dealing with the problem of not having Senate bills automatically votable. We're asked to use our judgment. We've made reference to the previous practice, but your points are well taken in terms of perspective.

Mr. McNally, you could wrap us up.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'll try to synthesize some of the debate. Good points were made by all. I think we should not support this motion and I'll try to explain why.

First of all, I think we are in peril of sending to our colleagues the idea that the subcommittee could possibly be trumped by the committee of the whole; not that it is actually happening, but the appearance and the perception that it could be happening because the item has come forward twice with different members on the committee.

Then we work with our colleagues in the Senate and let them know there is obviously a problem here. We are going to remedy it by the suggestions of the chair, either by revising the Standing Orders, creating the new process for the Senate bills, or perhaps even doing something right now without changing anything. The bill could be adopted as an item of the government, as I think the chair suggested, with credit being given to the member of the Senate who brought the item forward, because obviously time has been put into it. That part of this revision of the Standing Orders then would also include a debate on making all bills votable.

I think that would be a good way for us to solve this issue now. Pre-empt the notion that other members, our colleagues, might want to ask for revisitation of their items. We could solve the problem that way.

The Chair: Thank you for that. Seeing no further interventions, I'll put the question then.

This is your third time up, Mr. Bergeron. A short intervention would be fine. I'll give you a couple of minutes here.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We have established a number of principles. I mentioned one of them, namely that if we were to decide that this bill or motion is votable, we should do so in accordance with the principles under which the subcommittee works, and that if necessary, we should consider the intrinsic value of the bill.

I don't know whether you listened to my remarks carefully or not, but I think it is important that we have a debate on the intrinsic value of the bill itself, with respect to the five criteria. There is something I find somewhat disturbing, Mr. Chairman. I am told—and you will correct me if I am wrong—that the reason Bill S-10 is before the committee this morning is not because the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business decided to refer it to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, but because you decided to put it on the committee's agenda this morning. I find that rather disturbing. If this is the case, by what authority did you decide, on your own, to refer it to the committee for review if the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business did not do so?

• 1135

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Could you recognize me, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Ms. Parrish, I'm happy to recognize you.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I never want to disagree with Mr. Bergeron because we get along so well, but we did in fact refer it here.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: The difficulty we had there was we did not want to reverse our position, so we brought it to the full committee.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: With recommendations.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

The Chair: And I wouldn't want that acknowledgement to pre-empt any future ability of the chair to bring something to our agenda, because the chair thought it appropriate. In any event, I'm in the hands of the committee.

Mr. Macklin has moved that Bill S-10, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Parliamentary Poet Laureate) be made a votable item.

Mr. John Reynolds: Could we have a recorded vote?

The Chair: A recorded vote, okay.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We'll now move to the next item on the agenda, which is televising of committee proceedings.

At a previous meeting, colleagues, I had advised you that I was informally discussing possible amendments to the rules governing televised committee proceedings with the potential broadcasters of those proceedings. As you know, we had the 48th report of this committee in the last Parliament adopted by the House in concurrence, and that report contains the rules for television broadcasting of committees. Most of you will have noted that there's not much television broadcasting going on, and that would have been contrary to our original general objective. So there are in fact a couple of wrinkles, a couple of obstacles, to implementing these rules, and the broadcasters were not clear on how to proceed.

In any event, I think we have the ability to overcome the obstacles and I'm going to outline them to you now. It does involve changing the rules, as adopted by the House, and in order to change them we would have to report to the House and obtain a concurrence from the House.

So do colleagues have the 48th report? Yes, they do. You either have, or will have, received in your offices copies of the 48th report, and I'm going to refer you to what are three areas of contention. And we can discuss it. My hope would be that at the end of this one of us would be prepared to move amendments that could be drafted. We wouldn't get them drafted here today, but the clerk and our researcher could draft appropriate amendments for our consideration at a later date.

As I say, there are four. The first one has to do with who retains and keeps a copy of any tape that would be made of a committee proceeding. The rules provide that in paragraph 1A, page 4: “The House retains a copy of all such proceedings for its archives”. In paragraph 1E on page 7, the rules provide that the broadcaster deposit with the House a copy of the complete tape of each meeting that is filmed under the guidelines and do it within 24 hours of the end of the meeting.

• 1140

The broadcasters felt this was too onerous. They have proposed, and I have discussed this with them, that any tape of any committee proceeding should be retained by the broadcaster—my suggestion was for a period of 30 days—and that it would be turned over forthwith at the request of the Speaker, or the chair of the committee through the Speaker, to be used for a parliamentary purpose.

Instead of the House having an archive of taped committee proceedings in addition to its existing Hansard and the audio recordings, the House will not have it, but the broadcaster will have a tape, which the broadcaster will retain for a period of time, in the event the House, through the Speaker, or the committee through the Speaker, wishes to review the tape. One can only conjecture as to why we would want to. The tape will not necessarily be of the whole meeting. It might just be of a portion of a meeting.

If the committee being televised is in one of our permanently camera-equipped rooms upstairs, then we of course have that tape because the House is taping it. If there is a tape of a meeting taking place with mobile or portable equipment by a broadcaster, otherwise in accordance with the rules, we would not have a House copy of the tape. There would be a tape maintained in existence for 30 to 60 days, at which point it would be recycled.

So that is the suggestion now. We won't have an archive of taped committee proceedings if the tape is made by a broadcaster. Does anyone want to discuss the suitability? Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Yes, Mr. Chairman. Is it suggested 30 days or 60 days, because I've heard both?

The Chair: You're quite right, you did hear both. As chair, I suggested 60 days. The broadcasters say they don't keep their tapes any more than—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thirty days.

The Chair: —a couple of weeks. They suggested back 30 days, which is a bit of a stretch for them. I was of the view that we ought to get it just a little bit over a month, 30 plus something, maybe 35 days, and offer that as a compromise, with the knowledge that in the ordinary course we would lose, we all would, mankind would lose, the video recording after let's say 35 days.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I have another question. It is either the Speaker of the House or the chairman of the committee who can request the copy of that particular tape. Has there been any suggestion that an individual member of that committee could also request a copy? I suspect it would only be done on those committees where there is some requirement, perhaps some controversy as to what perhaps was said by a witness or what was said by another member of the committee.

Right now, as I understand it, the suggestion or recommendation is simply the chair or the Speaker. What would happen if a member of that committee wished to have a copy of the tape?

The Chair: Under the proposal thus far, a member could not. The member would have to go to the chair or the Speaker and the Speaker would request it, or the chair would request it, under the existing proposals.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Currently, do members have access to those tapes that are retained by the House, those tapes that are in place now in the permanent committee rooms?

The Chair: I'm certain they would. Could I just check with Mr. Robertson? Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So in those situations a member would have the ability then to access those tapes, but in this circumstance a member would not have the ability to access those tapes. I find that a bit of an anomaly, Mr. Chairman, and I think each and every one of us had better talk about that, to determine if in fact we would like to see that responsibility abdicated.

• 1145

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, then Mr. McNally.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I was a member of the committee, as were others who are present here, when we reviewed this matter.

In my view, having the House keep archives of committee proceedings was at the very heart of our report. If we were to accept the compromise formula you have presented, I would say that the House is abdicating its responsibilities. We are literally abdicating the right of the House to retain for its purposes and for the institution itself an audiovisual record of committee proceedings.

Mr. Chairman, the people from broadcasting claim that it is too expensive. What is expensive? The cassettes? If that is what is expensive, we will have to agree to provide them with cassettes.

We must insist that the people from broadcasting provide this service in the interest of the House. The broadcasting policy passed by this House, and which is still in effect, requires that we do this. We would be breaching the House of Commons broadcasting policy if we were to waive the keeping of a record of what was done and filmed in the House or in its committees.

In my view, Mr. Chairman, we should not accept this motion. It is not a compromise. In my view, it is an abdication of our desire to keep records. If the people in broadcasting think that tapes cost too much to buy for the archives of the House, the House will buy them cassettes, unless their objections are other than merely financial or economical in nature.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. McNally, then Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Grant McNally: Mr. Speaker, I think we would want to have copies of such tapes in this day and age, where we're creating a historical archive of material. We do that with a written Hansard that's available from all committee meetings. This would be an extra, I think, that would be of benefit.

I think back, as a hockey fan, to the early days of Bobby Orr's career, in the early seventies. Much of the tape was lost because they recycled the tape. Tape was so expensive they couldn't afford to archive it, and so some of his best moments are gone.

I think this would be a good opportunity for us to have a record where members would have access to it, the House would too, and individuals who study parliamentary... As much credit as we give to committees, sometimes no one is listening or no one is watching. There are people who care. We are making history, and debates that occur in committee are part of that record. We just have to look back to debates that happened with the Constitution—lots of things happened there that are now part of the historical record. I think we'd be losing an opportunity to put that in place.

Whether we do that by order of this committee, or by asking the Speaker to have a standing request to get those tapes, or we build it into the proposal somehow... I think we would be remiss if we didn't seize the opportunity to work that in somewhere, to have tapes of all committees archived that members and individuals could have access to, for historical purposes.

The Chair: There's a difference between what a public broadcaster or those who would videotape the proceeding—whether it's live or taped—would do and what the House does now. If the House tapes something, I'm advised that it's archived and kept indefinitely.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right.

The Chair: I suppose we all have some sympathy for the Bobby Orr situation. The broadcasters would probably say, if the House wanted to do that, please do. It might even be possible to copy all of the stuff they've done. But with all of these things, of course, there's a cost. If we're all of the view that we want to keep our baby pictures here in the House of Commons, then I guess we should put up the money for that, do a budget allocation and provide for it.

• 1150

It is possible to do that, of course, at any time, as soon as the House is ready to begin keeping, sorting, editing, and archiving. The House is quite able to do that even under this proposal.

There's also the element that if we were to proceed with correcting the rules, it would be for a trial period that would end on December 31 this year. I thought we would recommend a sunset for it, because if it didn't work we could just let it die. If it did work, we would have to reinvent it a little bit. But those are good suggestions.

Just remember the cost element. We don't have the ability right here to say we're going to allocate $30,000 a year to tapes and someone to manage the archive, although I understand there's already somebody doing archiving for the reading room feed that we take up there.

Thank you.

Mrs. Parrish, and then Mr. Borotsik.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: With all due respect to Mr. McNally, I don't think there are too many Bobby Orrs of the debating field who are going to be working at too many committees—Mr. Bergeron probably excepted—but generally speaking, to me, archiving hours and hours of committee debate would not be something worth saving.

The other thing is I think you have to remember what they want this for and make it as difficult as possible—I'm sorry. They don't want this to make us look good like Bobby Orr. They want to pick our worst moments and have a good time with those.

I think you have to be aware, particularly with paragraph E on page 6, that you can make all the rules you want, but the bracket “The media will be free to use the film in whole or in part” immediately puts you juxtaposed against yourself on a show someday, contradicting yourself, because at one meeting you're going to say one thing and at the next meeting you're going to say something else, and they're going to clip those two little pieces together and you're going to look like a sausage.

So as long as you know that's why they're doing it... That's number one.

Number two, it's so reporters don't have to sit through these boring meetings. They can get the film and watch it, and they can pull out your worst moments and not actually have to invest a lot of time in doing that.

So as long as you understand what this is all about, guys, don't make it easy for them. Don't pay for it; don't archive it. Make them go to a little bit of work for this. I would not support any expense incurred by this. You're helping the media make us all look like monkeys' uncles.

I remember when I was on the school board years ago, cable 10 wanted to come in and tape our meetings. They only wanted to tape part of it, and they never wanted to show all of it. They just wanted to show the bloopers, the really bad moments, to say this is what the boobies do at the school board.

So as long as you allow them to take and juxtapose pieces, you are setting yourself up big time. I'm really glad you have a sunset clause in it, because I can just envision this—it's going to be awful. I think we're far more relaxed at committees—I being one of those people—and I think that will stop.

I don't like speaking in the House of Commons, because I'm constantly aware of Hansard and television and everything else and I get nervous. So I'll stop speaking here as well, because I'm going to be more concerned about what I'm saying and where it's going to appear, particularly in my riding.

The Chair: Okay—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm not quite finished, Mr. Lee.

As long as you guys know this is what you're doing, do not make it easy; make them keep the tapes for 60 days. If that's going to make it awkward for them, too damn bad—and I hope the Hansard reports that.

Now I'm finished.

The Chair: Thank you. I always thought your work was of a much higher standard than the one you described earlier, Mrs. Parrish.

Mr. Borotsik, and then Ms. Catterall and Ms. Davies.

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

With all due respect to Ms. Parrish, I think we're way beyond that debate. We've already decided as a House that there will be television within the House and in the committees. We can have that debate if you wish, but the fact of the matter is we already have television cameras in most of what we do. From a personal perspective, I think we should just continue and have all the committees televised, for any number of reasons. But I won't debate that.

• 1155

What I would like to ask the chairman, who has been involved with the negotiations, and Mr. Bergeron—whom I'm not going to speak so kindly of as Madam Parrish, but he has been involved in some of these talks and negotiations... I'm not quite sure why the news media themselves are balking—up to 24 hours I can understand—at not allowing the tapes to be made available to the House. Mr. Chairman, is it in fact cost? Is it a liability issue, perhaps, with the media themselves? Is that what they're looking at? Is it property rights or is it timing? Is it a 24-hour thing that is really their hang-up or is it a 30-day thing that could have them become a little bit more responsive to our requests? Is it cost, liability, property rights, or timing? I don't know.

If it's cost, let's look at cost. You know, $3 a tape, with 900 tapes, is what? Twenty-seven hundred dollars a year, plus time. Maybe if that's all the cost is, we should, as the House, be looking at that kind of a cost for an archiving. It's really immaterial.

Mr. Chairman, you've been there. What is the issue?

The Chair: If I may be so bold to try to characterize the views of the media, there are two things. One is cost, albeit minor. It's the cost of a tape and a cardboard box, whatever they put these things in.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Three bucks.

The Chair: No, it's a bit more, but they do very, very quality recording here.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Oh, sure they do. So cost is really the issue? What is the second?

The Chair: This is broadcast quality and it's not the same thing you have on your home camera most of the time. But in any event, it's cost.

And the other is a freedom-of-the-press template that they're looking through when they look at their work in and around the House of Commons. They look at the relative flexibility that the print media have and find our rules for the video coverage seem to be stricter. We don't require the print media to deposit copies of their written notes.

So those are the two reasons. It's tough to address the second one, the freedom of the media and the press around here. That is a whole other envelope. Right now, it's the cost factor.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The cost seems to me to be a red herring. If what you tell me right now, Mr. Chairman, is true, then it seems this freedom of the media, freedom of the press, this property rights issue, is more of an issue than is the cost of it. We have to decide who has the ownership of those committees. I suspect that everyone around this table, including Madam Parrish, would agree that we have the ownership of our committee meetings. If there is a tape being made or a recording being made, we should have the opportunity and the right to be able to say to those people, we have ownership of that. I guess that's what the issue is. That seems to be the crux of this whole thing.

I would be very, very upset to suggest that we would not have access to those tapes on a regular basis. Now this 30 days... Maybe that's the way we get around it. You said that there may be an opportunity to say that within 30 days, if there is a request from the Speaker or from the chair, those tapes will be made available. We can, I suspect, by this committee say all tapes will be requested within 30 days by the chairman or the Speaker for those tapes and then they would have to comply. Is that not correct?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: There are ways of getting around everything.

The Chair: The wording we've been working with so far involves their turning over the original to the Speaker, not a copy, but this is just a detail.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is that an important detail?

The Chair: If the Speaker is looking for evidence of something, then I think he'd want an original—but it's details and details.

Ms. Catterall and then Ms. Davies.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I want to clarify something you said earlier. You were talking about the tapes, whether they should have to be provided to the House and so on. But I thought I heard you also say that they want to be able to video only a portion of meetings.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: This is something we're very strong about. Is that a change you're recommending? We seem to have gotten sidetracked on a less important issue.

The Chair: Let me go through the four items, because Ms. Catterall has pointed out there are other things, and our discussion, of course, is moving beyond the 30- to 60-day retention and we're into the more general things.

• 1200

So the first thing was the period of time they would retain a tape for. The second item is the notice period they would have to provide to a committee if they were going to have a camera there.

The original rules require a 24-hour notice. They were of the view that if that were the case, they don't always know on the morning of a meeting where they're going to send their media crews. I think we're all familiar with that. The media decide in the morning where they're going to send their reporters and their cameras. Often they're making decisions at the last minute.

So what this 24-hour notice period would effectively cause is that the media would then give notice to all the committees every day, on a pro forma basis, saying they're going to come to the committee. That would be pointless.

So it occurred to the chair that just because the media gives notice that they're going to come and record, this doesn't give them an entitlement to record. It's only notice that they're coming. Then I thought, what purpose does the notice period have if the committee doesn't want the media recording? They don't have to have them.

If the media were to give only five minutes' notice to the chair or the clerk that they were going to record, the chair and the members of the committee might say “Fine. Nice suggestion. But we're not interested. We'd like more notice.” It would end up with a lot of pro forma notices given and it wouldn't really be effective.

It occurred to me that what you needed was a reasonable notice and the committee never being prevented from denying that there would be coverage. The committee is always in control of its proceedings. If the media gave notice they were coming a half-hour before to the clerk, the clerk could tell the chair, and the chair would advise members as the meeting began—which is what would happen anyway. The chair isn't going to send out a special note to members to say, “By the way, the meeting's going to be televised tomorrow”. That's not what would happen.

So I thought the reasonable notice requirement seemed to be a rational fit, the committee always being in charge of whether or not they're going to have cameras there. That is the next thing.

The next issue is the one raised by Ms. Catterall. If they're coming to cover a meeting, do they have to cover gavel to gavel? That's what the rules require now, gavel to gavel.

The media are of the view that this is unfair, that they don't have the resources normally to assign a one- or two-person crew to do a gavel-to-gavel proceeding. We have two-hour meetings. They may just want to do one witness.

Our discussion then evolved into a suggestion of whether they could come in or leave at the time of a natural break in the committee proceeding. A natural break would be a change in the witnesses, or the chair might decide it's time for a coffee break. I don't know—like they do in the hockey games. We've already mentioned Bobby Orr. A natural break occurs in a hockey game when there's a whistle and they do the commercials.

So maybe if there's a natural break in the committee meetings, that's a reasonable time for a crew to come in or leave, or just leave. So that is how it evolved. Instead of gavel to gavel, it would involve a natural break. But there would be complete coverage throughout the meeting and there would not be a disruption—that was one of the concerns of members—of cameras coming in and leaving while witnesses are being questioned or while there's a debate going on. So that is the third piece.

The fourth piece is equitable coverage of all committees. It was a view of members that we ought to be trying to ensure that the public have an opportunity to view all of our committees' functioning from time to time. But the judgment whether or not there has been equitable coverage really would lie with us, the members. That could only be judged after a period of time.

It would be impossible for us to put a rule in place now that would ensure equitable coverage in a rational way. That's why the sunset clause; that's why the test period, to see just how equitable the media were able to be. We'd like to feel they are ad idem with us, that they agree with us that part of the role of media coverage is to give the public a view of Parliament functioning, irrespective of the policy issue.

• 1205

Fifth, there was the trial period, the length of the trial period in the sunset, if there was to be a sunset.

So thank you for raising that, Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I just wanted to have an overview of what we're dealing with. I do have a slightly different opinion from Ms. Parrish. I know it's strange for Liberals to disagree with each other, but that happens from time to time.

I think it's very important for the public to see a lot more of the committee work that happens among members of Parliament. I think that's where some of the most productive and by and large non-partisan work is done. It's an opportunity to see more of the full range of what Parliament deals with, so I'm certainly interested in facilitating that.

I can accept the argument of the broadcasters that they shouldn't have to bear the expense of Parliament's records. I really don't have a big objection, but I'm not sure how much is really proprietary and how much is really caustic. I suspect it's more proprietary. But we're giving them a privilege they don't now have. I don't want to put too fine a point on that.

I think it's not unfair to ask that the House be able to have a copy especially for a pilot project, but I think we should bear the cost of it. I'm not sure we should bear the cost of shelves and shelves in the Library of Parliament, frankly, when it's so easy to digitize video recordings now. I think we obviously have to modernize how we keep this kind of material.

I seem to recall that when we did the first report we had substantial advice from the clerk on parliamentary privilege. I wonder if the chair can enlighten us or refresh our minds on that and on any risks we might have in relaxing the rules we had agreed to in the previous committee.

The Chair: My recollection of previous discussions in relation to parliamentary... that got the whip's attention—is that any privileges at play would never be impaired by any rule we adopted. I suppose a member might say his or her privileges might be affected by someone taking a photo or a video recording of it and running off to make a million dollars with it. That's going to be with us in any event. We have coverage of the House that is recorded and made available to the public now that can be used publicly. We haven't had any incidents that I'm aware of, or any serious problems. So I can't add anything specific in relation to privilege, unless Mr. Robertson has anything.

If I may use the term, this would appear to be “privilege neutral” in its scope at this point in time, unless something develops in the test period if we adopt it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: One final question. Is it your impression that they're absolutely adamant about not providing copies to the House of Commons? I do want to facilitate this, but—

The Chair: Under the ruling we're discussing now, if the Speaker were so advised, it would be quite possible to simply request on a pro forma basis that copies be made and send over a tape.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'd rather be up front about what it is we want, though.

The Chair: The Speaker could say this is for a parliamentary purpose and that he's going to require this for the test period. He can provide for the tapes and can pay for the tapes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But if that's what we want the rule to be, let's make it the rule up front. Then, maybe with modifications, we could pay for it.

The Chair: Well, if members felt the need to have all of this stuff taped and archived, that's how we would do it. I guess we'd say we have a budget, so here's $8,000 for tapes for the next seven months. We can throw it all away later. There might be waste, spoilage, I don't know.

• 1210

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But I'm told Bobby Orr was at least 50 years old.

The Chair: If members wanted to recommend that as we get this thing moving and if we adopt the changes we should also ensure that we have copies of everything videotaped or broadcast from a committee meeting, at least for this year, at least for the test period, we could make that part of our conclusion, if we reach a conclusion.

Ms. Davies and Mr. Saada.

Ms. Libby Davies: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Actually, I'm glad you put all of it on the table, because then we get a sense of what the reaction is from the broadcasters.

It's interesting to see the five points, because I think it becomes clearer that there are different agendas. There is the agenda of Parliament about why we think there should be electronic media at committees, and then there's the agenda of the media. I think that's very clear now.

Each of the five items you've put on the table that they want a change on, based on the report, basically would facilitate them running in and out of committees. Whether or not one calls it a natural break with a witness, I think what's going to happen is we're going to have some sort of change taking place when various witnesses appear—whomever the media deems to be the star witness or whatever—as opposed to what I understand the committee's original intention to have been, which was to give a real sense visually of what happens in the committee, whether it's a boring witness or whether it's a star witness. Presumably, that's why we also would have an archive, right? We do have huge archives in the House of Commons, and this would be a part of those.

So I do have some concern that these particular requests are really moving into a different kind of agenda that is really understandably facilitating what the media wants, but it's for a very different purpose. It's to get out those clips that they want quickly, and not to have to give notice and not to have to turn things over, etc.

I'm also very concerned about the notice period. It seems to me that even if a committee agreed that it would be the day of, or five... they're still going to just basically make the request to everybody. To have some sort of reasonable notice on the basis that coverage isn't going to be everywhere, it's going to be in certain committees—particularly in relation to number 4, which is equitable coverage of committees—it seems to me that it's very important to have some sort of notice.

For a small party, if there were some sort of provision whereby we knew where coverage was going to be, that's actually a consideration, to be frank. For those of us who have difficulty having members on every single committee, that's an issue for us that you may or may not be sensitive to.

So I have some concern about these changes and that this has really kind of shifted from what I think the original report was. And remember, it was a trial period, right? So I think it's a reasonable thing to err on the side of being more cautious about it and of making it clear this is Parliament's view of what access should be about in terms of control and so on.

The Chair: Our predecessor colleagues certainly did exhibit some caution, but it was reasoned caution.

Just to add to what you've said, Mr. Robertson also points out that as much as we, as members of Parliament or the staff, might want to have notice, there may be witnesses coming to a meeting who would appreciate knowing in advance that they're going to be broadcast. It might affect what tie or dress is worn. Who knows what it might affect? We all have a bad hair day.

It was the view of the chair that whatever rule was in place for notice, if that procedure ever became pro forma, it really wouldn't do the job anyway. It then became one of reasonableness. It became one of being the decision of the chair and members of the committee as the committee began. Committee members can go in camera—which would exclude the public—if they wish and if they feel the public interest requires that.

So nothing is lost in the absence of notice other than the niceties you've referred to. And they're more than just niceties, I suppose; they're sometimes very practical things. But if the media did wish during the trial period to simply show up with five minutes' notice, they would bear the risk of not being able to do the work they wanted to do.

• 1215

And yet, if we left the existing rule in place, the broadcasters would probably just give pro forma notice to every committee and in most cases not show up, and that wouldn't provide much help either.

Ms. Libby Davies: Can I ask you a question?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: If the media—electronic media—give five minutes' notice, it puts an awful lot of pressure on chairs, or even on the committee as a whole. Then the pressure's really on to respond almost instantly, and I really question how you would be able to deal with the issue of making sure that there was equitable coverage, unless the committee also dropped that one. Then you're really losing the sense of what I think the purpose was, right?

Basically, committee chairs are going to be inundated with requests five minutes, an hour, before a committee, saying, “We want to come”. There's going to be no way of ensuring that there's an equitable coverage on different kinds of committees and different kinds of business.

The Chair: Keep in mind, colleagues, as well, that there's more than one type of video coverage that comes into our rooms. We have the permanent coverage and the feed out of the railway room, and then it might be extended to the reading room. So we'll have two committee rooms fully outfitted.

The second type is what I will call, for want of a better word, the CPAC coverage, where CPAC decides that it wants to cover the committee proceeding, all of it, and they would set up.

Then the third type is the broadcaster, who isn't too sure, but they spend all of their day on the Hill, cherry-picking the news. So they would come to committee, but they wouldn't just cherry-pick for two minutes. If they were going to come in and cover it, they'd have to cover the whole segment of the meeting. In some cases, that might be two hours. There might be no natural breaks. The chair might be so darned irritated that the chair would say, “We're working right through; there's no natural break”.

Ultimately, I think there would evolve a kind of protocol between members, the committees, and the broadcasters, but you'd need a trial period to work it out. You'd need a trial period to see if it was working properly.

There will be flaws and wrinkles developing, I'm sure, but the trick... I always viewed this as trying to get the process in place, get the television broadcasting started, and fine-tune it as it evolved.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would just like to quickly state my concerns about two or three matters. Of course our committee is master of its own destiny, but I am a little concerned that this control over our work would be diminished if we were required to go to the Speaker of the House in order to have access to the tapes. I have no doubt that the Speaker would grant us access, but I think it would be reasonable for us to be able to do so ourselves for our committee.

Moreover, we would also be abandoning part of our responsibilities, or at least, our control, if we were to leave it up to the media to decide what type of work they would cover, how long they would cover for, and which excerpts they would use.

I am also concerned about the notice. We impose rules of courtesy upon ourselves. We have to give colleagues notification of our intention to present a motion. The media, however, could turn up without any notice. It is a complicated matter. I have some reservations about this.

I am also very worried about the equitable coverage of committees. Who will decide what? We know very well that some committees sometimes deal with some very hot topics. We need only think about the debate on Air Canada, the merger, and so on. Clearly, such topics attract the media more. How can we insure that committee coverage would be fair? I am not opposed to anything in particular, I am just wondering out loud.

[English]

The Chair: Well, on the issue of equitable coverage, this is not something the broadcasters are in a position to deliver in advance. We will only know if coverage has been equitable in our judgment after the trial period. We cannot know it in advance.

• 1220

In terms of what the broadcasters would show, they currently choose what they wish to show from the House of Commons. When they do a news program and show a clip from the House, they show what they want. So I'm less fearful than you about the cherry-picking and more sanguine about the impact on the House. This is part of the reform envelope of what increased coverage of our committee work will do for the House and for the public.

But we're now in the situation of being about to take our first dive off the diving board, and we're all being cautious—both in the public interest and politically. But we all have to conclude that we're going to jump here; we're going to dive. Right now, under the current rules, we're not getting any movement or progress. These revisions are rational, and a test period, albeit a short-term one, might allow us to move ahead.

If there are problems, there isn't a committee in the House that isn't fully in control of its own process and procedure. If they don't want cameras, they're not required to have them. A committee will never have that imposed on it. Unless members of a committee decide they want cameras, the cameras are simply not going to be there.

Go ahead, Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would just like to add something that I should have said at the beginning, but which I forgot. I will conclude with this. I want to mention, as Ms. Catterall said herself, that the main objective, which is to make our work accessible to the people of Canada, should guide us in all the decisions we make. Clearly, that is the fundamental principle.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is a good way to end.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, we don't appear to have any consensus on this. I'd like to send you some written material, which I couldn't provide today due to a lack of time for translation.

The broadcasters did communicate with us this morning, referring to the previous meetings and letter. They appreciate our efforts to expand broadcast coverage of the important work of House of Commons committees. Oddly enough, there is desire on both sides here to make progress, so maybe we should be discussing this informally among ourselves. I'll try to get the proposals down in writing and get them properly translated.

I think we're down to short strokes. We're not under any obligation to accept these proposals. We can stay with the existing format and have next to no coverage. But on the assumption that our colleagues want to see more coverage, I think we should entertain these suggestions. So I'll send that to you.

Now, can we leave that topic for future consideration? Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Can we have the clerk redraft it with your suggestions in?

The Chair: Yes, it will be redrafted and sent out. We'll bring it up at a near future meeting.

Mr. John Reynolds: Great.

The Chair: But before that, we may want to have a steering committee, or we may want to discuss it among ourselves.

Now, off transcript, let's now talk about future business. I think, colleagues, you're familiar with where we're headed.

Our next meeting this week will be Minister Boudria on the Canada Elections and Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. That's Bill C-9, and you're all familiar with Bill C-9. At the same meeting, Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, will follow Mr. Boudria.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: At the same meeting?

The Chair: Yes. We think we can achieve some cost efficiencies dealing with Bill C-9. Mr. Kingsley, as we pointed out earlier, has a number of issues and reports that we have to deal with in future meetings, so I think we could probably deal with Bill C-9 at that meeting. We might even get to clause-by-clause—I don't know how members are feeling about that and whether they're comfortable with the bill as drafted or whatever, but it's not a long bill; it's a short bill.

• 1225

So we'll try to get through that on Thursday. If we can't, we'll certainly bring it back to another meeting and we'll collaborate on future business beyond that.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I would like to ask you something before the meeting ends, and it is not about Bill C-9. Mr. Chairman, do you intend to schedule on the agenda of a future meeting the letter we received from our colleague Stan Dromisky, from Thunder Bay?

[English]

The Chair: Yes. All of us here at this committee, with the able assistance of Mr. Robertson and the clerk, put together a list of Standing Orders rule changes and other reforms. Mr. Dromisky's letter, which deals with a particular issue, will be added to that. We are about to send out a letter to all colleagues inviting their input. I will send them our list of reform of Standing Orders change issues. We have a long list, and Mr. Dromisky will find his items there.

I didn't send the letter this week because the House leaders had been discussing possible debate in the House and there was a possibility that the debate might happen before we got the letter out. But I gather now there's time to send the letter. So you'll all have a copy of that letter, and I've taken the liberty of putting all your names on the bottom of the letter so your colleagues will know where you are to talk about these issues. They'll be very excited by the whole envelope, I'm sure.

There is no further business. We'll adjourn.