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, April 24, 2001

• 1103

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I'll call the meeting to order, colleagues.

Our business today is set out in our agenda. Why don't we start with item A. Monsieur Guimond had raised a procedural matter with us involving distribution of documents from witnesses at our meeting, and he wanted to discuss that issue with us.

Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

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

I don't want to get into a prolonged debate and I have not drafted a motion. I will appeal to the good will of members which has prevailed in this committee. I've only been a member of this committee since February and I've observed that most comments are not tinged with partisanship. I served on the Transport Committee for seven years, notably alongside my colleague Ms. Parrish for several of these years, and the same climate prevailed there.

• 1105

Regarding the distribution of documents in both official languages, approximately three or four years ago, as no doubt my colleagues will recall, we welcomed to the committee Mr. Figueroa and several other political parties, including representatives of the Christian Heritage Party who distributed notes drafted in English only.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to attack you on this. You probably felt that the best way out of this dilemma was the solution you chose. However, I don't want to see a recurrence of this situation and I want us to be clear on this.

For the benefit of colleagues, those who were absent as well as those who were in attendance, I remind you that the Christian Heritage Party did not have notes in both official languages because it hadn't had time to find a translator, given the little advance notice it had received. Since joining the committee in 1993, I've heard this reason given repeatedly. I'm not saying that the witnesses were acting in bad faith. However, you did say that neither the clerk nor the pages would officially distribute unilingual documents, but that these could be consulted if desired.

With all due respect... as you can see, I am speaking without acrimony and keeping a civil tone of voice. That's so rare for me that I barely recognize myself. Even I'm surprised by how pleasant I'm being today.

I merely want to say that we should agree on the same course of action adopted by the Transport Committee where the same thing occurred and now everything is going smoothly. In Canada, a country that some people feel is the most beautiful in the world, a country that is officially bilingual from coast to coast to coast and where in all levels of government, people can be served in the language of their choice, it should be understood that within the precincts of Parliament, when a witness does not have a document available in both official languages, that document will not be distributed, either directly or indirectly.

I'm suggesting that we follow this rule of thumb because our committee may well decide to travel, perhaps even to Quebec to hear from witnesses in Quebec City and Chicoutimi, and the same kind of situation could arise.

Obviously, we won't have any way of verifying whether the witness sent the translation of his document to your respective offices ten minutes before the start of the meeting. We won't be asking security to check into this.

However, within the confines of this committee, we should agree that as Chairman, you have the authority to tell the witness from the Christian Heritage Party who didn't have time to get his notes translated that these will be circulated by the clerk to all committee members only when they are available in both of Canada's official languages.

That's all I wanted to say. As you can see, I remained very calm and composed. Thank you for hearing me out.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, Monsieur Guimond has made his point. He has not moved a motion. I think we've all understood the intention of his remarks and I'm sure we all support them, at least in a general way, so we could have some short interventions. If colleagues feel that the record requires them to say something, then please do—but briefly. We don't have to vote on anything here.

I should point out that when the committee was organized in this Parliament, we did adopt a motion authorizing the clerk to circulate documents only when they existed in both official languages. That was our instruction to the clerk. I won't go beyond that. It's a perennial challenge for us to keep two languages viable in our committee.

• 1110

If there are brief comments, then let's do that.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I certainly agree. We say they have to be in two languages, but if they're not we still distribute them. I think we should stop that; I don't think we should allow it. Even if the notice is short, I think witnesses should know that if documents aren't in both languages they won't be distributed until they've been translated.

The other thing is, I don't think they necessarily need to distribute briefs anyway. We have them here, and the position they're presenting is on record. So in the interest of saving trees, we might try to discourage these—because I don't know who has time to read them.

We should make it very clear that witnesses aren't going to be given an opportunity to distribute a document until it exists in both official languages. I think that's a pretty clear rule, and I agree that we need to follow it.

The Chair: That's the environmentally sustainable solution to the whole darn problem: we just won't accept any briefs, just do it orally.

Any other comments? I had some hands. Ms. Parrish and then Mr. Saada.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I want to back up what my colleagues on both sides have tabled. We've had this difficulty at private members' business committee meetings. If the rule exists to allow witnesses to distribute material themselves, you're really skirting around the issue. If the clerk will only handle material in the two official languages but they can distribute it themselves, you're not really penalizing them in any way.

Secondly, you have simultaneous translation. At the private members' business committee, we distribute no documents unless they're in both languages. I think we should enforce that here as well. It means nothing to just have a different set of hands deliver them. I agree with Joe and Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I totally agree. I think proceeding in this manner would be rather hypocritical. Documents mustn't be distributed, to uphold official languages principles, but someone always finds a way to circumvent this issue.

There is also a secondary problem to consider. If documents are distributed in only one language, the recipients will be in a position to ask more in-depth questions than the individuals who didn't get a copy. In my estimation, this shows a lack of respect for the spirit of the principle that we must uphold. In my view, it's important to set some guidelines from the outset.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Do you want a motion?

The Chair: No, I'm not so sure we need a motion. The only thing that went wrong here is at that particular meeting I told the witness that, in law, witnesses were completely free to distribute whatever they felt like—briefs, or some McDonald's french fries, or whatever. Of course, I will refrain from doing that in the future. The rights and liberties of our citizens should be known to them already. I won't err again by inviting a single-language distribution from the private sector.

Monsieur Guimond, to wrap up.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm still convinced that there is no need for us to adopt a motion. All we need to do is agree on some internal rules of procedure. It was merely an observation on my part. I'm not threatening to table a motion, but if this happens again, we will have to set down additional guidelines.

It all starts with the clerk, in my estimation. When the clerk convenes a witness, either by fax, by e-mail, by telephone or by formal letter, he should indicate to him clearly that if his submissions are not in both official languages, he will not be permitted to table them at the meeting.

In conclusion, I would like to relate to you an incident that should never happen again, in my estimation. I don't want to see my colleague Stéphane Bergeron, other Francophone colleagues and myself become the committee's language censors. Here's what happened.

The Transport Committee heard testimony from Canadian Pacific officials in the course of its study on the privatization of Canadian National. Canadian Pacific has assets of several billion dollars and a large workforce. However, officials arrived at the meeting with a submission drafted in English only. The then Chairman of the corporation asked if I wouldn't mind letting him circulate the interesting observations CP had to make to committee members, even though the submission was unilingual English.

• 1115

I personally have no desire to act as a language censor. We have rules and we have an Official Languages Act. Therefore, the committee needs to set guidelines for itself. I wouldn't want it to come down to my giving my permission, whether or not there is unanimous consent.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Regan wants to make a very short intervention.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I want to suggest that we should indicate to witnesses that members of the committee have agreed that they will not accept briefs that are not translated—

An hon. member: Period.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Period. The members of the committee have agreed that they will not accept briefs unless they're translated. They can mail them to people or whatever, but that's the way I would put it.

The Chair: If it is your wish that I indicate that to witnesses.... At least all the government witnesses are going to have their briefs translated, of course. That's a good suggestion.

There are two other interventions, but please, colleagues, we're hammering this one to death.

Mr. Bergeron, and then Mr. Borotsik.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I just want to add to Mr. Regan's comment, which, in my view, was extremely relevant.

We can ensure that we give witnesses sufficient lead time and when we deal with informal organizations with few resources, we could ask them to forward their brief to us in the official language of their choice so that it can be translated in advance for distribution to members on the day of their scheduled appearance.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): I just want a clarification from Mr. Regan. I know he didn't suggest that any committee member should not receive a brief outside of the committee, whether it be in both official languages. I want that for the record.

At the committee meeting—I accept totally what has been said around this table—there should not be a piece of paper that goes out that is not in both official languages. But certainly if those same NGOs or those same stakeholders or organizations come to my office, then I can accept any type of brief I want, in any official language. I just want that specified right now.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you. I appreciate that comment.

The Chair: Okay, Monsieur Guimond is going to let that one stand.

Thank you, colleagues. We'll move on to our next item of business, which deals with the broadcasting of House committees issue.

You should have in front of you some food for thought, some proposals to amend the existing rules. I want to indicate at the outset that your chair has been fairly active in this, in trying to bridge the gap that existed between the rules contained on our 48th report and the views of the broadcasters who would be broadcasting our committees. There were three or four stumbling blocks, and I made every effort to achieve a compromise. The compromises won't satisfy everyone. But the issues raised among us, and by the broadcasters, all show up fairly prominently in the draft that I've seen, and it's there for your consideration.

It was my view that if we're to have a test of this televising of committees regime, it should take place this year. There is apparently a sunset provision inserted that would automatically, without any further move, sunset and terminate the broadcasting rules at the end of this year. So if members in the House, our colleagues, were dissatisfied or wanted changes, there would be a window to implement that. It would require further work on our part, in all likelihood around the month of November. Anyway, the issue is now before us, and I'll recognize members in discussion.

Mr. Bergeron.

• 1120

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I realize that Mr. Jordan's motion has yet to be moved, but I know that everyone present received a copy. It is my also understanding that you are familiar with the wording of the motion that is to be moved in a few minutes' time.

I am admittedly a little taken aback by your comments, unless the word “compromise” has different meanings altogether in English and in French. In French, a compromise is, by definition, a means of satisfying all parties present to their satisfaction. I understand from what you're saying that you have sought a compromise, one on which not everyone will agree. You're assuming from the outset that some will not be in favour.

It's quite understandable because contrary to what you indicated before the parliamentary break, while there was some question of informally discussing a compromise on the televising of debates, here we are meeting this morning and a discussion has yet to take place.

If such a meeting did take place, I wasn't in any way a party to these proceedings. The compromise appears rather shaky because no effort was made to find a solution that satisfies all of the parties involved.

When we last adjourned, Mr. Chairman, you said that we would informally discuss the matter to try and find a solution that satisfies everyone. I've now received a motion from Mr. Jordan which I would imagine will be put forward in a few minutes and which...

[English]

The Chair: Let's get the motion on the table, then, and get it moved.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I believe I have the floor at this time, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: I'm not sure what other point you'd like to make. Either you want to speak in favour, speak against, vote in favour, or vote against.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, it appears that you have confirmed my initial assumption, namely that you are closely associated with this draft motion because you automatically assume that Mr. Jordan will want to move it even before I've had the chance to speak to the issue.

[English]

The Chair: You have a problem with me being associated with the issue?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No. I have a problem with...

[English]

The Chair: Let's go with the motion and get it on the table.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, my concern is that while there has been no informal discussion, contrary to what you said before the break, you've come up, through Mr. Jordan, with a “pre-cooked” formula which represents a compromise, but one that is not acceptable to everyone.

[English]

The Chair: All right. I'm a little unclear about the point you're making. We have some business to do here. You may quibble about the definition of the word “compromise” in the English language or the French language; that is your right. But is there a motion on this?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I so move.

The Chair: Moved by Mr. Jordan.

Okay, now let us—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You're denying me the right to speak, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, I'm very unclear as to how I can respond to what you're saying. But—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we've discussed this matter over the course of several meetings, but never in the context of a duly worded motion. Why then are we required to do so today? Why can't we discuss the advisability of amending the 48th Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of the 36th Parliament, without having to do so within the context of a motion?

Why are you insisting that we have a motion on the table, if not because you co-authored the motion with Mr. Jordan? You want us to adopt this motion today because until now, we have debated the matter without having an actual motion on the table. Why can't we continue in this vein today? What you really want is for us to discuss this motion that you co-authored with Mr. Jordan.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

• 1125

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, before Mr. Jordan's formal motion, our discussions centred on a proposal that was still informal. We were doing exactly what we had agreed to do. At least that's how I genuinely understood things to be. We had agreed to discuss the matter around the table and once we had a consensus of sorts, to adopt a motion. I think everyone has lived up to their part of the bargain. I really don't understand what the problem is.

We can't start over again. I for one believe that we fully respected the agreement that had been reached. If there's some problem with the process, I can't turn back the clock. However, I think it's time we turned our attention to content. If the only way to do that is by tabling a motion, then that's what we will do. End of discussion. Members shouldn't be ascribing motives to anyone.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

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

I personally would like to get on with the business of the issue of trying to get video and television into the committee rooms. We've had lots of debate around this table, all of us suggesting what is best for Parliament. We have another stakeholder in this, which is the media themselves, who feel they want to do what is best for them.

A compromise, in the definition of the word, was not necessarily a compromise between members of the House and parties of the House. It was more of a compromise between the media and the Parliament.

In reading the information on the report and also the proposed motion that is supposed to come forward, I believe that perhaps we have met halfway with the media and the Parliament to try to resolve the big issue. I would hate to get hung up on partisan or party politics and lose sight of the real issue, which is trying to get television into the committee rooms.

There are some issues I would like to talk to on the motion; there's no question about that. I think there are some issues on which perhaps we gave a bit too much away in the negotiations. I wasn't at those negotiations, Mr. Chairman; you were. I think this committee in its wisdom said at that point in time, “Go ahead, try to negotiate the deal, and then we'll see if in fact it's going to fly at the committee table”.

So that's where we should be now. Mr. Chairman, it's totally within the rules to accept a motion to put it on the table and debate that motion. So I would suggest we go in that process and then we can deal with the motion.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: First of all, I will be supporting the motion. This is not an about-face. I have been portrayed in the media as being against having them in our committee rooms. I was against paying for being hoisted on my own petard, but that doesn't seem to be evident in this motion, so I'm quite contented with it.

I think it's important to realize that you've negotiated it to the point that it's a trial run now, and you've put the sunset clause in. Rather than talk about it for the next 25 years, I'd like to see it in operation. I'd like us all to see it in operation. As long as you have a sunset clause on there, I don't see the difficulty with it.

I think we get into it, we give it a try, see how it works, then we come back and debate the good and the bad that's come out of it. But to sit here and talk about it much longer I don't think is productive. So I'll be supporting the motion. Let's just get on with it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Put it on the table.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It is on the table. Joe put it on.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's been accepted?

The Chair: It's been moved, yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's been moved, even though I had the floor at the time? That's in the rules, presumably.

[Translation]

Can we speak to the motion now?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, as I've already indicated to you outside the confines of this committee - not during the past two weeks because, contrary to what you said, there have been no negotiations or even any discussion about this matter - and as I have stated on several occasions here in committee, I'm quite prepared to make a number of concessions, which could qualify as a compromise, on a number of issues which appear to be a problem for the Press Gallery.

However, one point on which I'm not prepared to compromise in any way, not for partisan or personal reasons, but because I feel it is in the interests of the institution of Parliament, is the requirement that the media supply to the House of Commons the original, the copy or whatever of the images captured so that these can be preserved by the House.

• 1130

It's quite commendable of us to want to accommodate the media in order to allow Canadians and Quebeckers to see what transpires in committee, but contrary to what Ms. Parrish was saying, if we leave everything with them, we won't really be defending the interests of public or of Parliament, but the interests of the press. Whatever the press wants the press will get.

In my opinion, we are not asking for a great deal. Those in charge of House administration told us that it was more than reasonable for us to ask the press to supply us with copies of the tape recordings.

The motion co-authored by Mr. Jordan and by the Chair reads as follows:

I would like to further move that the House Broadcasting Unit develop in consultation with the Parliamentary Press Gallery a proposal for the acquisition and archiving of the tape-recorded materials by the House of Commons.

However, until such time as the Press Gallery and the House Broadcasting Unit develop such a proposal, what will happen to the first tape recordings of committee meetings? Nothing.

Let me say this: once we authorize the press to tape record committee meetings, they will take their sweet time negotiating with the House Broadcasting Unit. They will put off as long as they can negotiations to turn over copies to the House of Commons because permission will have been granted to them to capture these images without having to provide the House with a copy, unless the Speaker requests one.

Are we going to find ourselves in the position of having to ask the Speaker to request a copy of the tape recording from the press after each meeting? And, even if we do systematically make this request of the Speaker, who's to say that he will go along with it each time?

Mr. Chairman, you are always anxious to please the press, but you have to realize that this formula could prove very damaging for the press. If the Speaker of the House of Commons were to systematically decide to approve all requests, the press would not simply be required to provide a copy of its tape recordings; it would be required to turn over the original copy, which means that it would never be able to keep the original tape recording. Therefore, this motion could well prove equally damaging for the House of Commons and for the press.

The solution is a compromise that would be reasonable, feasible from a logistical standpoint and acceptable to the House of Commons and to the press. It would involve asking the press to systematically supply copies of all their tape recordings of committee proceedings. All we would need to do is agree on the format or decide whether to supply the tapes, and the problem would be resolved.

We listened to a highly informative presentation several weeks ago before the break. What happened to all of this during the break? What action was taken further to the presentation by the people from the House Broadcasting Unit? None whatsoever. We were told that this was a simple, feasible solution to the problem and that an agreement could be reached with the press. Now, it's as if this presentation never took place. We're back to the initial position taken by the Chair of this committee, which was to let the press keep the original tape recordings and have them produce copies at the request of the Speaker of the House.

• 1135

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move a formal motion. I would delete the paragraph entitled “Tapes of Televised Meetings” and I would move that an agreement between the House Broadcasting Unit and the Press Gallery be concluded so that they agree from a technical standpoint on the best way of enabling the House of Commons to preserve a copy of the tape recordings of committee meetings.

I also have a considerable problem with a number of other issues and you know my position on this. However, like my colleague this morning, I'm prepared to concede on all of the other points. I feel that in the interests of Parliament and of our constituents, this institution must preserve all tape recordings of committee meetings.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I second the motion.

The Clerk of the Committee: Could you please provide me with a copy of your amendment in writing?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's very simple. You delete the paragraph entitled "Tapes of Televised Meetings" and substitute in its place the proposal calling for an agreement between the Press Gallery and the House Broadcasting Unit.

The Clerk: Would the wording be exactly the same?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm not necessarily asking for the status quo. I'm simply saying that the House Broadcasting Unit and the Parliamentary Press Gallery should agree on a reasonable time frame and on the procedure for producing a copy of the tape recordings for the House.

In essence, I'm reverting to the wording of Mr. Jordan's motion.

[English]

The Chair: I guess the appropriate procedure now is to deal with the amendment. Is there discussion on the amendment?

An hon. member: Question.

The Chair: I'll call the question.

The amendment calls for deletion of a clause. Would you indicate what Mr. Bergeron's motion is, for the record?

The Clerk: It is that Mr. Jordan's motion be amended by deleting the section entitled “Tapes of Televised Meetings” and that that section be replaced with the penultimate paragraph of the motion.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Our next item of business is the subcommittee on the calendar.

Colleagues, I appreciate your efforts to construct something here. In the view of the chair we're back where we started. Unless there's a need to proceed further with this.... Do you want to make changes? I don't know what colleagues want. Let's just leave it.

Let's go to our next item of business. This is a report from the subcommittee on the parliamentary calendar. Ms. Catterall, do you have a comment on this?

• 1140

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Yes. My apology for the interruption. We are now talking about the subcommittee on the parliamentary calendar?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would suggest, Mr. Chair, in line with the report that was presented to and adopted by the committee some weeks ago, that we ask that amendments to the Standing Orders be prepared to give effect to the recommendations, and that the committee deal with those.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Catterall.

By prior informal notice, the clerk has actually had an opportunity to draft some amendments. Those amendments will be circulated for review. We'll take it up at a future meeting, as soon as we can find a window.

Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Can I just get clarification? I think we discussed this very briefly before, and I think it was characterized in the media that we were trying to take more time off. But we're not; we're just moving weeks around. Is that right?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Right. The people who are writing about our reports should read them, shouldn't they?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Not that any are in the room.

The Chair: You'll have a chance to look at those amendments. We'll bring them back. These will be amendments to the Standing Orders. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Any further business? Ms. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Either I will serve notice or if we have goodwill here we might be able to discuss this very briefly today. Everybody has received—

The Chair: Why don't you just serve notice?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I serve notice that I would like an extension on reporting back from private members on votability and so forth, the 100 signature rule.

The Chair: Thank you for that notice.

Seeing no further business, we're adjourned to the call of the chair.