SMEM Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

SOUS-COMITÉ DES AFFAIRES ÉMANANT DES DÉPUTÉS DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 4, 2001

• 1539

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)): We have a quorum, so let's begin. We'll begin by thanking the staff very much for doing this.

One of the comments I've received from a couple of people is this idea that I will not be completing the survey with their name. Some people say that sounds mildly threatening, or embarrassing or whatever. I don't know how you all feel about that. Let's just have a free flow of thought here without being formal, until we get out of control.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, CA): How will we know if they're referring to one only?

Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): I think she's referring to the first page, where it says Mr. Borotsik, I believe at our first meeting, suggested we ask those members who were not able or not willing to complete it to indicate—so we didn't wait for them; we know how many responses we're getting.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: If we have a deadline, they have to meet the deadline.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: We could take that out, and as you say—

The Chair: Let's take that out.

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Especially if you are now asking them to sign their name at the end.

• 1540

A voice: But we need a deadline.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, I think we should look at that first page. I think it's a little bit too much to expect everybody by this Friday.

The Chair: Oh, no, you can't.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: We originally planned to send it out last week, so now we'll be sending it out probably after the break. I think if we were to send it out in the next few days, it would get lost, with people going home for the holidays.

The Chair: So why don't we make it the first Friday back? That gives them a week. Make sure it's in their hands on the Friday before everybody comes back so the staff can prioritize it. And if you have a date on it, I'd make the date much larger and in bold.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Is a week enough time? Or the following Monday?

The Chair: If you leave it till the following Monday, they'll lose it over the weekend. I know that's how it works in my office. If my staff realize they have one week to make me do something, they make me do it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: So what are we saying as a deadline?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: It would be the 27th, the Friday.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We're coming back the week of the 23rd.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: We'll distribute it the week after Easter, the break week. It will go to each member's office, and we will ask for it back the Friday—

The Chair: You'll still get them on Monday and Tuesday, and we'll accept them.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: So April 27th.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes.

The Chair: Everything below there is taken off.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Okay. You will have this in some kind of an envelope and they will return it in the envelope, confidentially. How will it be distributed?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: In the past we've distributed it electronically. I don't know if there are advantages or disadvantages to that.

The Chair: Can I tell you something? If it's distributed in paper form, in an envelope, and it's done by internal mail so that it comes in that box in the door, the staff give it ten times more attention than they do if it comes the other way.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We get so much e-mail, it's just...

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Okay. We'll distribute it by hand, by internal mail. Do you want to include a return envelope?

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would.

The Chair: Make it as easy as possible. Stamp it “Internal Mail” and put the label on it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Can we also say on the envelope that it's for members only? If it just comes in as an envelope...

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: “For the eyes of the member only” will get their attention.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's right. We only get that on the envelopes with the budgets.

The Chair: We don't want to abuse that, though.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Well, no. It's one.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: No, there are other things that—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Are there?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Between members.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I had better check my office, then, because they open them. I don't see them.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Do you want it to say “Personal and confidential, for the eyes of the member only”?

The Chair: Go for it.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Okay.

The Chair: All the background is fine.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: There were a few changes to the French version that Monsieur Proulx had given us, and through a misunderstanding we did not include them. They affect the French text. He compared the French and the English to make sure they...

[Translation]

An honorable member: On what page?

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We'll do it quickly.

[Translation]

On page 2, in the section entitled “Contexte”, second paragraph, it says:

Outre le sujet du vote, nous sommes en train d'étudier la règle qui oblige un député—

We would change that. Madam found a formulation which would say: “étudier la règle par laquelle un député peut obtenir la signature d'au moins 100 députés”.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Exactly.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: The translation that we have in the original text is no good.

Mr. Michel Guimond: How is it worded in English?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: In English, it's much more—It says:

[English]

...reviewing the provision whereby items of Private Members' Business that are supported by at least 100 Members...

[Translation]

Then, there is no obligation as such.

The following wording is much better:

[...] par laquelle un député peut obtenir la signature d'au moins 100 députés, représentant [...] s'il veut inscrire une affaire de plus à l'ordre de priorité.

Then, on page 3, third point, it says:

Sous le régime actuel, certaines affaires ne peuvent pas faire l'objet d'un vote parce que la liste des projets de loi ou motions faisant l'objet d'un vote est déjà complète ou parce qu'il ne reste pas assez de place.

It's a bit odd. We should say: “ou parce que le nombre d'ouvertures sont peu nombreuses”. Is that correct, Madam?

Mr. Michel Guimond: “Le nombre d'ouvertures sont peu nombreuses” instead of—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That translation is more in keeping with the English text. In English, it says:

[English]

...or the number of places is limited.

[Translation]

It's because the expression “parce qu'il ne reste pas assez de place...”

An honorable member: Could we say: “sont minimes”? I'm not sure—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We could say: “que le nombre d'ouvertures sont limitées”.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, I think I would prefer that.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: It's better than “peu nombreuses”.

• 1545

Shouldn't we rather say: “Les ouvertures sont limitées en nombre”?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Indeed, what is meant here is that some items cannot be made votable because the list is full. But “ou parce qu'il ne reste pas assez de place” means that if, for example, there are three places left and we meet 15 colleagues, only three of them will eventually be able to come in.

[English]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We have the same problem in English then—page 3, third bullet:

Under the current system, some items are unable to be made votable because there are no openings available for votable bills or motions

—and then we say—

or the number of places is limited.

Maybe we don't need to say “or the number of places is limited”.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I don't think so.

[Translation]

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Then, we would not need—

An honorable member: No, that's it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We could take off "ou parce qu'il". Okay, I have no problem with that.

[English]

So “or the number of places is limited” is removed.

The Chair: It's redundant.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, it is.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Also on page 3 there's a new first and last bullet under “Advantages of Making All (or Virtually All) Votable”—just so you see those.

Mr. Michel Guimond: What bullet, Jamie?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The first one, “It would help enhance”, and the last one.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Okay. Those are new.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes.

The Chair: When you get to the actual survey on page 7—I know this sounds really stupid, but there are going to be members, particularly new ones, filling this out who don't know the difference between a bill and a motion. So when you look at number 6, they're going to wonder why a bill gets two hours and the suggestion is that a motion gets one. If you could put a very brief definition behind them... after “bill” say “drafted legislation” and after “motion” say “general concepts”. Otherwise they're going to say what's the difference and why are we doing this, and nobody's going to want to ask because that makes them look dumb.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: If we're already on page 7, I have a major operation to suggest. I think question 3, which says “Do you think that all items of private Members' Business that are drawn and placed on the order of precedence should be votable?” should become question number 2. Otherwise—

The Chair: Reverse the order.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Then question number 2—

The Chair: For number 2 they'll fill 30 in on the right, if they're consistent.

Okay. Just reverse the order of those.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Number 2 should be started by saying “If no,” because if they answer yes to the new question number 2, they don't need to answer question number 3. Then what is now question number 4 should become a subsection of the new question number 3.

The Chair: It can stay as number 4, but it's logically following 3.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: If they've answered yes to the new question number 2, that all items of private members' bills that are drawn should be votable, “How should votable items be determined or chosen” shouldn't be there. They shouldn't answer it. Therefore it should become 3 b).

The Chair: All right.

[Translation]

An honorable member: Do you agree with that?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, because what they do—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think that could be confusing. I don't see any problem with the way it's set up.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I think if we leave it as 1, 2, 3, the way it is, they'll go at question number 2 and they'll find an answer of some sort, which will probably be 20, let's say. Then they'll read the other one and they'll say, oh—

The Chair: They'll say that's what they really wanted.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes.

The Chair: I can see reversing the order. I don't see putting b) subsections because when you get the new 4, if you've chosen all things votable, then you just put “not relevant” or “all votable”, or you'll fill something in.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We have to also consider the people who are going to tabulate the results of this, and if we're going to make it too complex, then we won't—

The Chair: But I agree with switching them.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: But they're smart people.

The Chair: They're smarter than us.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The reason we put 2 and 3 in the current order is we wanted to be cautious that we didn't bias the survey any more than necessary. However, 2 and 3 can certainly be reversed without any problem, and logically it makes more sense.

Number 4... perhaps to address Mr. Proulx's concern, we could keep it as a separate question but say “If not all are votable, how should votable items be chosen?”

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Sure. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: That way it's clear if you say... you can't really say you want everything votable and then you want them decided by some other means.

• 1550

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think that is a key thing. If they're not, if you don't wish them all to be votable, how should they be selected?

There are new questions in there.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: On page 2 there are a few changes. I'll just go through them very quickly.

On number 7 we've added “an amended 100-signature system” so they're not necessarily being asked their opinion on the current 100-signature system.

We've added in a d) under number 8, giving them the choice, that by signing an item on the 100-signature process they wanted to bypass the lottery.

The Chair: Which is how it was intended, by the way. That was the original intention, which was completely lost.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have a question or a comment on that when you are finished.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Okay.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: If they choose to have all private members' bills votable, they then will probably want to do away with the 100-signature rule.

The Chair: No, because the 100-signature rule still takes you out of the lottery.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Right, and it bypasses it. But in my conversations in the last week, I have found that there's a lot of support for having each member have one bill in the life of a parliament. That seems to be something that people in all parties are very interested in. How would that option work if you had the 100-vote thing overriding that? I don't think the two would work together. If you make all votable, and they're allowed one during the life of a parliament, and then if they want to bypass the system... Would that work?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Theoretically I think you could do it, in the sense that you would be guaranteed one bill or motion in the three- or four-year life of a parliament. If you came up with a subject where you could get 100 signatures, 10 from each of the majority of parties, that would mean you could go to the front of the queue and you could get your bill or motion considered at the beginning of the parliament rather than waiting your turn in sequence or according to the lottery.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It probably would be a lot more difficult though to get 100 signatures if we went to all votable.

The Chair: Sure, but the advantage there would be that it could be a very timely issue—for example, farm subsidies. If you have to wait four years to be pulled... But—and I shouldn't say this—we've been calling three-and-a-half-year elections. So let's say you happened to be in the last section, you might not want to wait, in case there's an election. You might want to just try to do it as quickly as possible.

I am not 100% convinced, based on past surveys, that people are going to say all should be votable anyway. I think if we're going to take this opportunity of surveying, we might as well cover all the bases too. That's why you have to do that, because that was the original purpose of this committee. It got a bit sideswiped by Mr. Bryden, but we're back on track.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The other thing is that each time I go through this survey I realize that so many of these issues are interrelated. Your suggestion of giving one member a right to have one item made votable in each parliament is hard to explain because there are too many other variables—if everything is votable, if you have the 100-signature thing, if you allocate hours by party, etc. I think all we can do from the survey is try to get as much of a feel for where members stand. Then this subcommittee will have to look at the results and decide where they think the members are going and what combination of features is best to recommend.

The Chair: The other thing that's coming to mind, after what I just said, is in section c)... First of all, I don't think you can get one per year per member. It's impossible. I think you have to take “per year” out and just leave “per session”.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm sorry, where is that?

The Chair: Question 4 c). It says “one per Member per year or session”. You could never get 301 in a year, and you wouldn't have 301 who would want to do it.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: So it should probably say “per session”.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: You'd have to have either; you can't have them on the same line. You could have “one per Member per year”, which doesn't seem realistic but we can leave it in there, and then “one per Member per session” would be a separate choice.

The Chair: Why would you offer them one per year when we can't do it?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Then it would be up to the House leaders to decide.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Could I suggest we add “per session or parliament”? A session could be quite short if the government chose to do so.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We wouldn't get it in in a year—

Mr. Jamie Robertson: No.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: —but per session is...

Mr. Jamie Robertson: In an ordinary session of about two, two and a half years, you could get most people in who wanted to go in.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, just take out “per year”.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes.

We've added a new introduction to section 9, just to clarify—

• 1555

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Excuse me. In 8 d), do we need to put in “in a timely way”? If we didn't put it in, it would solve a translation problem. In French, we're saying

[Translation]

"le court-circuitage du tirage au sort en temps opportun".

[English]

The Chair: You can leave that off. You can say, “for the item merely to by-pass the lottery process”.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Period. Okay. Let's remove “in a timely way”, and then in French we can remove

[Translation]

"en temps opportun".

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. James Robertson: There's a new introductory sentence in number 9, just to clarify that only one is added to the order of precedence at a time.

Number 10 is an attempt to get at the issue Mrs. Parrish brought up. Originally the 100 signatures would have got you onto the order of precedence; it didn't get you automatically votable.

The Chair: But the history has shown that every one that has gotten through has been made votable.

Mr. James Robertson: That's because only one was allowed at a time. The interpretation of the Standing Orders, as drafted, or as adopted by the House, was that if you made it votable, it didn't take away from the 10 votable items that were currently there, which was not the original intent.

The Chair: The difficulty we got into with Mr. Bryden's bill was that he amended the bill on the floor. So some of the people who signed, believing they were supporting it—truly seconding it—were all in a flurry over that. That takes away that possibility, because you should always have the option of amending a bill on the floor. You shouldn't take that option away from somebody.

So if you go back to the original intent, which was strictly to get you out of the lottery, it shouldn't automatically be votable and it should be amendable.

I should always go back to my original thinking. It was perfect.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: We have a translation problem in number 9. When we're saying “at one time”, they have translated this by saying

[Translation]

“en même temps”,

[English]

which means “at the same time”.

Mr. James Robertson: Okay.

The Chair: Could you substitute “per draw” instead of “at one time”. It says “Currently, only one 100-signature bill”—

[Translation]

An honorable member: We could say: “à la fois”.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: “À la fois”.

[English]

would be better, but what's the...

Mr. James Robertson: I think “at one time”... It was considered to be at each draw, but it could be added between draws. It isn't actually tied to the draw per se. So I think “at one time”—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay,

[Translation]

“à la fois”

[English]

is good.

[Translation]

Mr. James Robertson: “À la fois”

[English]

is fine.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Number 10.

Mr. James Robertson: Number 10 is just to try to clarify whether the 100-signature item should be votable. Of course, if they're all votable, that becomes an academic question, but—

The Chair: Remember, in section B we're—

Mr. James Robertson: Yes, we're focusing on one issue.

The Chair: We have to do that.

Mr. James Robertson: Yes.

Under “Other Issues”—

The Chair: Can I just throw in another monkey wrench? Instead of A being all votable, why don't we make A the 100-signature process? Let them think that through first, in case that's what we end up with, which was the intent of this committee.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Where's that?

The Chair: Instead of starting with all of section A, which is on votability, make section A the 100-signature process. Let them think that through first before they get to section B, which will then be the page on votability.

Mr. James Robertson: So questions 7, 8, 9, and 10 will become 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I think we should start by leaving question 1 there.

The Chair: Okay, and put that outside of the subsection. Stick that above A. Have A, which is the 100-signature question, B “All Votable”, and then C “Other Issues”. Actually, B is out of sync there. It should be the first section.

Okay, Marcel? Number 1 stays as number 1—

Mr. Marcel Proulx: I know what you're saying. I'm just trying to...

The Chair: I'm trying to focus back on what we were told to do.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We have both. Our mandate is actually to examine both issues. I'm just thinking that it may confuse the issue if you start reversing them now.

The Chair: No, because they won't want to think about the 100-signature rule.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Shouldn't we be logical in the sense that if it was not for the votable or non-votable, the 100-signature process would not exist?

The Chair: No, it would still exist to speed things up.

• 1600

Mr. Marcel Proulx: No, no. If the question of being votable or non-votable or being drawn didn't exist, the 100-signature process would not exist. Therefore, we should leave the all votable section first, should we not?

We should be taking this logically by... first, there's a system that exists with the draw, and then there's a system that exists once you've been drawn, as being votable or non-votable. Secondly, if you want to bypass these points within that first process, there is a 100-signature process that exists.

The Chair: All right. Can I make another suggestion? You have “Introduction” and “Background”. Could you not put the preamble to votability before the votability section? Put the preamble to the 100-signature process before that section.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Okay.

The Chair: Then you're separating them in people's heads. Otherwise they're not going to read all that.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: That's right.

The Chair: They're going to read it when it becomes relevant to the questions they're answering.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Can you go over that one more time? So we have “Introduction”—

The Chair: Leave those the way you have them.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: “Introduction” is fine.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Okay.

The Chair: Then when you start into the questions on votability you put this as your preamble there, exactly the way you've got it. Then right after it you put the questions on votability. Then at the end of the questions on votability you put the 100-signature preamble, which goes to here. Then you put the questions on the 100-signature process. Then you can do the general comments and then do that last section, section C.

Does that really mess it up?

This is kind of like a race horse designed by a committee, which turns out to be a camel.

There are certain scientific principles that are followed in making up questionnaires, which we are blowing right out of the water.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Exactly.

The Chair: Can you live with this?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: I can live with that. The difficulty in this survey is, as you say, that some people don't understand the difference between a bill and a motion. In trying to explain those kinds of issues, it gets very large. The idea of trying to keep the two separate was that this becomes three pages if we put it in here. We can certainly—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think we have to put some responsibility on the members to figure this out. We can go back to our caucuses and say, listen, this is coming, and ask if they have any questions. We can explain that there's a difference between a bill and a motion. I don't think that's a major hurdle. It shouldn't be a problem, I don't think.

The Chair: But if the written section is supposed to help people answer the questions, let's put them in the right spots.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes. I think you have a good point there.

The Chair: Because it breaks one way of thinking, and then you slide into it. It's almost like doing three surveys in one.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes. My suspicion is that there are two groups of MPs. One group knows all about this and the other group goes “Huh?”

The Chair: How about the group that says “I don't give a damn, Scarlett”?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: I wonder if it would make any difference if we had the text in one colour of print and the questions in another colour of print.

The Chair: That would help too. Yes. Some people will never read the text.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Yes, I know.

The Chair: They will just answer the survey, and that's fine. That's their choice.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Either because they know it or because they don't want to know it.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes, but I think we should still go her way, putting the text, the questions, and then the other text—

The Chair: But leave the order the way it is.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Yes.

The Chair: Is that okay?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: And we'll try to do it in different colours so that at least it's distinguished.

The Chair: And then under “Name” you're going to have—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: You have “Background”, you have items votable and the preamble, you have the 100-signature process, and you're putting this “General” section before C or D?

The Chair: You're going to put the little discussion... Yes, “General” will go before C.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: C and D would follow.

The Chair: So “General” goes in there.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: All right.

The Chair: In a different colour.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Fine.

The Chair: Blue.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: We'll try.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Green.

The Chair: Red.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: The only problem is it needs to be a colour that will fax properly, so if members choose to fax it back... we really care about the answers. So we have to have a number of colours—

The Chair: You can't fax red. Is red one that you can't fax?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Red faxes the best.

The Chair: Well then let's do the preamble in black and the questions in red.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: We'll try.

The Chair: After all, who's in charge? Just nod your heads because I'm going to get my own way anyway.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: We'll check with the experts and probably go with red, if we can do it technologically.

• 1605

Paragraph 11 has three parts and it is all relatively new. I think we gave out copies, but it says:

a) Would you agree to a limit on the number of private Member's bills and motions that each Member can have on the Order Paper at one time?

b) Would you support allowing each private Member the right to have one private Member's bill or motion made votable during the life of a Parliament?

c) Would you support Private Members' Hours being allotted to recognized parties as reflected by their standings in the Chamber, to be allocated to their party Members?

The Chair: That's an evil question. Who thought of that? You're evil.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'm just wondering if it's worded correctly.

Why?

The Chair: Why? Because the Tories and the NDP are going to scream at you.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Well, what's fair?

The Chair: What's fair is that we won the election and we should have all the time. How's that? That's roughly what we're saying, that you guys didn't win enough seats; therefore you get a lot less time.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: No. If you go to one member getting a bill during the life of a Parliament, it's fair.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Except that it's not all members who are going to use it.

The Chair: Yes. I'll never use it. I'm kind of like the Pope. I make the rules but I don't play the game.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: But still, they should have that option if they wish, and some will utilize it and some won't. You have to have some fairness in how these things are allocated.

The Chair: Okay. I like the question. Just leave it in there. It's an excellent question. I just wondered what mind came up with it, that's all.

Anything else?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: On 11 b), because we've changed 4 c)...

The Chair: I like b) there because it reinforces it. If they've said yes to one and no to the other, you know you can throw the survey in the garbage.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Which one are you talking about? Which one are you on?

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Section 11 b) is the same as what existed as 4 c), which we've changed from “one year” to “the parliament”.

The Chair: We'll make sure the wording is consistent, but I like asking the question twice.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, I think you should because it applies to both sections. I would leave it in there.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: I think to be consistent we'll say “one per parliament”. I think that's easier to organize than to say “one per session”. The session could be three months long and it could be difficult. So in both places we'll say “one per parliament”.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: They'll shoot it down because it means one per four years, basically.

The Chair: Or three and a half.

Mr. Marcel Proulx: Some members have one per week.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: Some members will end up better with this; some members will end up worse. There aren't too many members who have more than one votable in a parliament at present.

A voice: Let's put it on the list.

A voice: We're lucky if we get three.

The Chair: When you put in the brief definitions for bills and motions the first time, put them in brackets and put them in bold. In 14 you're going to be asking the same questions again. We have to make sure it has sunk in.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: On paragraph 12 we've added “Other specify” for when they would like private members' business scheduled, just so there's a bit more flexibility there.

Those are the essential changes. There are no changes to page 3 of the survey part. At the end, we'll indicate under “Name” that the name and answers will be kept confidential, to assure members.

The Chair: If your caucus chooses to give you back the envelopes and you bring them to us, that's fine. How you run your own caucus is your business.

Mr. Guimond and Mr. Borotsik didn't like the idea of “We know you didn't fill out your survey”, but that's their problem, not ours. You do it your way.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I wouldn't know that anyway because they have the option of returning it to you or giving it to me. I still won't know.

A voice: Do we give the option of who to return it to?

The Chair: Yes. You might want to do that on page 4, or return it to your representative and we can list the reps.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, you had better list them.

A voice: We're on the first page?

The Chair: We're on the very back page.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: We'll list it again on the back page.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Do you want to put in there that if you have any questions with regard to the survey, contact your member on the committee?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Either return the form to the committee chair, the clerk, or your member.

The Chair: If you're going to label the return envelope, you might not have to put all that on there. You can maybe get that on the bottom of page 3. Nobody is going to turn over that back page. They're going to think they're finished.

• 1610

So if you've done a label for all that, you can say “Return to the clerk or to your representative on the committee”.

A voice: You have to change the date at the end.

A voice: Yes.

The Chair: We're going to see if we can eliminate doing a page 4.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: But the translation will have a different pagination.

The Chair: It looks like it fits. It's perfect. We're out of here.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: What we will probably do is e-mail this to your offices next week, if you want to review it yourself prior to it going out.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Is there anything wrong with us letting our members know what's happening here and what the survey will look like?

The Chair: No. I've been discussing it.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: There's nothing secret about this.

Mr. Jamie Robertson: It's a public meeting today, so anyone who wanted to listen in could do so.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: So I can go back and tell them what's going to happen.

The Chair: Perfect. Good committee. We do get our work done quickly and efficiently.

We're adjourned.