HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 10, 2001

• 1107

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I see a quorum.

We have an agenda of four items today. Hopefully, we can get through them quickly. You have the agenda in front of you. I think we'll take the issues in the order they are on the agenda, if there is no objection.

We'll be dealing with two proposed reports to the House on technical matters. Although we're drafting a report, if it's all right with members, we will not go in camera. I don't think there's a need to do that in this case.

Why don't we go right to the first item of business? I direct your attention to a draft report in connection with the parliamentary calendar.

You will recall, colleagues, we had earlier reported to the House, with the 11th report, a desire on the part of members to expand the potential window for the parliamentary break week that occurs every March. The proposal was to expand the break week to two weeks, add an additional week, and to account for the additional week by adding it to the beginning of the parliamentary calendar in January.

The proposal has appeared generally acceptable to colleagues. In our general report we did not offer precise wording that would allow the clerk to specifically implement the proposal. In front of you is a recapitulation of the 11th report, together with specific wording that would accomplish the objective.

I notice Ms. Catterall is here. She chaired the subcommittee on this issue. Do you have a comment, Ms. Catterall?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I think it's okay, as I read it again. I first read it a couple of weeks ago. It seemed to me there was a contradiction. It didn't allow for the flexibility of coming back a week earlier in January. I think I may have misread it. It seems fine now.

The Chair: Is there a comment from the clerk or from research on that?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): The intent of the draft was to preserve flexibility.

• 1110

It is reflected in paragraph 2(b) at the top of page 4. It indicates, in accordance with the report, that the Speaker will consult with the House leaders. By September 30 of each year, he will set out the non-sitting weeks. It would be expected that if there were to be a two-week adjournment in March to accommodate the school breaks, the House would probably return a week earlier in January, with the only caveat being how Easter falls in a particular year.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I see now that this chart is clearly subject to revision through paragraph 2(b).

Mr. James Robertson: The original chart in the current Standing Orders removes any discretion. It says there shall be a one-week break midway between the return of the House at the beginning of February and the Easter recess.

The Chair: Okay. For the record, the purpose of that was to make it possible for MPs with families to make the break week coincide with some of the school break weeks that occur in the month of March. They do not happen consistently in every province and in every school board on the same week or weeks. By expanding the break window, we double the likelihood of capturing some more quality family time for those members who have the need.

Ms. Parrish, then Mr. Saada.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I would like the record to show this does not increase the time we have off. In fact, it just reallocates the time. We don't want to look like the Province of Ontario, which sat only 31 days one year. We do work hard up here, and we do put in our time.

The Chair: Yes, the House does not lose any sitting time as a result of this proposal.

Mr. Harris, and then Mr. Saada.

Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Ms. Catterall, did you chair the committee?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, it was a subcommittee of whips.

Mr. Richard Harris: In your committee work, did you find this two-week period would accommodate most provinces? I know in B.C. we have a different week from Ontario, etc.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Even within different provinces, there can be different weeks. Sometimes it's at the discretion of the school boards. We found this would not, in any given year, accommodate every school break. The Speaker is given the flexibility to ensure, probably over two years, it would allow every member of Parliament to have the week available with their children or grandchildren.

Mr. Richard Harris: I can remember, since I've been here there has never been a break when my kids were on spring break. It was kind of disappointing.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Frankly, the spring break pattern is all over the map, all over the country. This at least makes it possible that over a period of one or two years everybody would have that week at least once.

Mr. Richard Harris: Okay. I have another comment. I certainly have no problem with this suggestion. I would strongly suggest that when the report or the recommendations are tabled, it be accompanied by a news release clearly laying out the family reasons, etc., so as not to allow the media to beat us up for wanting more time off.

I'm sure Mr. Naumetz recognizes the importance of parliamentarians spending time with their families when it's possible. As I said, I've never been able to spend a week in the last eight years with my sons while they were in school, because of the timing of the breaks. I think a news release is needed. I'm sure the Canadian people would be understanding and so would the media.

The Chair: I think it would be very refreshing to have your remarks somehow recorded in the media, but we have no control over that. Perhaps we can quote you in the press release.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Perhaps we can indicate to Mr. Harris that the subcommittee's initial report was very clear. This is not an additional week off. It is a different arrangement of the same number of weeks. We will be working as hard as we've always worked.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): What's this “week off” stuff? Do we only work when we're in Ottawa?

The Chair: Mr. Regan wants to intervene on a point of privilege here. He wishes to say there's no such thing as a week off for an MP.

Mr. Richard Harris: We'll spend the week taking our kids with us as we travel through the constituency. That's what will happen.

The Chair: Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I have two brief questions.

I believe we're talking about a recess of two consecutive weeks. The report states "a two-week recess", so I can say "consecutive".

• 1115

I am not saying that that is not what we should have, but wouldn't we have more flexibility if we were to decide that the two weeks might not necessarily be consecutive? Suppose we were to go back to the Easter weeks, which are not consecutive. Is my question clear?

[English]

The Chair: Yes. The wording here allows flexibility in all relevant respects to the Speaker and to the House. Is that what you're asking? Is there enough flexibility?

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes.

[Translation]

Do I understand correctly that the Standing Orders will be amended to allow the Speaker to choose among the options set out here? It is not clear.

On the one hand, I understand that the Speaker would have some latitude for deciding which would be the break weeks, but on the other hand, we have set out a relatively tighter schedule. Does that mean that the Speaker has a choice, provided he complies with these parameters, or does he have more latitude than that?

[English]

The Chair: As the chair reads it, the flexibility allowed to the Speaker is confined by the parameters set out in the calendar in the wording of paragraph 2(b).

The flexibility is reflected in paragraph 2(b), which is on page 4, and that involves consultation with the House leaders. So there are parameters for the exercise of the discretion. The Speaker isn't going to be able to do whatever he or she wants. But there's adequate discretion to accomplish our objective.

If there's any confusion, I'm sure the Speaker will sort it out.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The subcommittee actually looked at the calendar for the coming four years. The big problem is Easter shifts every year. So it was not possible to set out a calendar that would work in every year.

In some cases, to get the two-week March break it might be necessary to come back a week in January, and in another year it might be desirable to cut the Easter break to one week from two. So that's why there had to be maximum flexibility for the Speaker to accommodate that two weeks in March and decide where else in that spring period to pick up the extra week to compensate.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Very briefly in response to Mr. Regan's comment, Mr. Chairman. I would simply say that in French, there's no mention of a "congé", but rather a parliamentary recess. Moreover, of course we agree fully with the report, but I would just like to ask the chair a procedural question. Have we not already passed that before the committee dealt with the question of privilege? I was under the impression that we had passed that.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No.

[English]

The Chair: You mean before we tabled the 11th report?

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: You passed the 11th report which was tabled in the House, but which was not passed in the House. That report contained a general recommendation about what the committee was recommending. So what we are doing here is to repeat the descriptive portion of the 11th report, change the last paragraph, which was a general recommendation, and insert the recommendation you see here, which is specific. So we will be tabling this in the House, and when it is passed, both the content of the 11th report and the specific recommendation will be passed at the same time.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The report we tabled was the one designed to tell the leaders which way we were going. Is that correct?

The Clerk: That is correct.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But had we not passed this specific recommendation just before the committee dealt with the question of privilege?

[English]

The Chair: We had not actually adopted specific wording, but complicating the procedure was the fact that the other committee, the special committee, was not of a mind to include this issue with their other reform issues, so they referred it back to this committee and we're simply completing the task.

I think we were of a mind that the special committee might wish to complete the task itself in its work, and they were of a mind that they didn't want to. So we are the hod carriers and we are simply doing our job here.

Mr. Saada.

• 1120

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I just wanted to know whether someone wanted to move the motion.

[English]

The Chair: That's a great idea. I think Mr. Saada just moved it. I'll put the question if there's no more discussion.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. Now we can move to the next item, which is an additional draft report on the matter of the 100-signature rule.

You will recall that our subcommittee under the chairmanship of Ms. Parrish is reviewing the 100-signature rule for private members' business. In our earlier report to the House on this, we suspended the operation of the 100-signature rule for 90 days on the assumption that would allow enough time.

As things have evolved, the subcommittee is doing quite an exhaustive review of this, and we did extend the time for the subcommittee's work. As a result, we have to deal with the issue of the suspension period of the 100-signature rule.

In order to allow sufficient flexibility, I think we should be continuing the suspension of the 100-signature rule. As you'll read in the report in the last paragraph, we recommend it be “suspended until the House adopts amendments to or reinstates Standing Order 87(6)”. So until one of those two events happen in the future, the 100-signature rule would remain suspended. To do anything other than that would be reckless on our part, I suggest, because while we're trying to fix the thing we can't have members making use of the 100-signature rule. It would be inconsistent with our arrangements here.

So that is the motion. The rest of the wording is a preamble explaining what has happened. I'm inviting someone to move a motion to do this.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Thank you.

The third item is a bit trickier, but I do not believe members will be of a view to complete disposition of it today.

You will recall that this committee looked at a matter of privilege involving the rule of the legislative counsel and their professional relationships to members in the House and their obligations to members in the House. You will recall there was some arguable lack of precision in how those relationships were defined, and that there had been some changes that had evolved over time, with or without the acquiescence of members. The privilege matter revealed that those professional relationships, in order to serve all of our members, needed a bit of reworking and we needed to give perhaps better direction to the legislative counsel and the clerk. I hope I'm not being too obtuse in describing this.

But at the end of the day, because there were elements of those procedures that related to the work of the Board of Internal Economy, the Board of Internal Economy undertook the task of asking the clerk to draft new guidelines that might be appropriate. However, as you know, the board doesn't meet in public, and the board did not want to adopt any changes without going to members more generally. So they have referred the matter of these proposed new guidelines to us for our views.

The question we have to decide today is would we want to discuss these guidelines, not today, but would we want to discuss them ourselves, hear witnesses if so advised, and make a decision and report it to the House. We could take that approach.

• 1125

I incline to a second view. Before we actually make those decisions on behalf of our colleagues, I'm suggesting that we circulate the guidelines to all colleagues electronically and allow those who care about this, who have a real interest in it, to read them and get back to us.

I'm a little uncomfortable having members of this committee—and you may feel the same way—actually making the final decisions about those relationships between the legislative counsel and MPs without actually communicating with the MPs and saying here's what's suggested, what do you think?

So we can either do option A, which is to deal with it ourselves, or option B, send the stuff out electronically to our colleagues, invite their comment, and then make a final decision based on that consultation process.

Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC): Mr. Chair, I am strongly in favour of the latter. I agree that it would be incumbent upon us and the responsible thing to do to consult with our caucuses, because this is—as is much of the work of this committee—something that impacts very directly on the work of members of Parliament. I would be extremely uncomfortable in proceeding with accepting or even delving into further discussion of this matter until we have had a chance to run it by our various caucuses. So for the record and for the committee, that would be my position.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bergeron and then Ms. Catterall and then Mr. Harris.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the two suggestions you made. I do not think that one would exclude the other. I think we can very well ask what our colleagues think and, subsequently, possibly hear from witnesses. I think it would be important to call the clerk as a witness, because one of the reasons the Board of Internal Economy referred this issue to us was that they tried, after reviewing the issue, and as far as possible, to respect scrupulously the spirit and letter of the report we tabled and passed in the House. However, from an organizational standpoint, there is apparently some problem with implementing not only the letter, but also the spirit of the recommendation we made. Consequently, the Board of Internal Economy referred the results of the clerks' work to us, and told us that the only authority that could tell us whether it accepted this on the basis of the recommendations made was the committee that made the recommendations. That is why the matter was referred back to us.

So I think it is important, in addition to consulting our colleagues, to get some feedback from the administration about the difficulties inherent in applying the rules as we set them out in our report.

So there are some difficulties; I acknowledge that. I have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr. Corbett, and he has some difficulties with it, but I think it would be good for all committee members to have the clerk explain why, in strictly organizational terms, there are problems implementing the spirit and letter of our recommendation. Ultimately, we will have to make a decision and perhaps change a little the terms of the recommendations we made during the last Parliament.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Catterall, Mr. Harris.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I agree that this affects each and every member of Parliament. I would like to seek the opinions of our colleagues. The board struggled a fair bit with the wording of this, trying not to put a quality decision on one option or the other. I think we could clarify it even further, before we circulate it to our colleagues. For instance, paragraph 2(b) is suggesting there's a different service level—one is better than the other.

• 1130

I would prefer to see us amend that to say “depending on the confidentiality option chosen”, and then we could put under the next section, “Extent of Confidential Access—Option 1, Option 2”, and make the same amendments in the French version.

It's just that to me that makes it a little clearer that we're not offering a superior and an inferior level of service. It's just two different options.

The Chair: Yes, you're pre-empting the consultation by bringing to our attention something that you feel is very obvious.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, and that I'd like to put out to our members something that is as clear as possible about our intentions.

The Chair: Okay.

Does the record show Ms. Catterall's comments? Have you taken note of those things? So we can alter the draft as sent to us by the Board of Internal Economy and send it out electronically to each member.

Mr. James Robertson: Do you want a covering letter?

The Chair: Oh yes, we'll have a covering letter. We'll do it the usual way, with our committee members' names on it, and then invite written comment in return. I'm just trying to think of a date. We should hold out a date—a deadline. If I recall, this is the month of May. Would the end of May be a sufficient window? I think it would, really.

Okay, let's invite them to comment no later than the end of May.

Mr. Harris.

Mr. Richard Harris: Mr. Chairman, as you know, we've had some concerns about the financial and human resources implications of a change. In our dissenting opinion we pointed to recommendation 3, feeling that there could be more people involved and more staff involved than what are possibly mentioned in paragraph 3. We support your second suggestion, by the way.

I wonder if there's a possibility—and that question, as I understand it, has never been answered—of bringing the clerk back specifically to address the financial or human resources implications that paragraph 3 or any other part of this would cause. We could do it in probably an hour sometime, just before we send it out to the members, so that we are able to satisfy our curiosity.

The Chair: Well, let's communicate with the clerk and ask for some kind of an answer to the costing implications. That's what you're getting at—the costing implications.

Mr. Richard Harris: We would like an answer to the costing as well as the human resources implications, such as whether there would be any unnecessary delays caused by it. Because in our dissenting opinion, we did have a suggestion here in paragraph 2 of a different form to put recommendation number 3 in, which would pretty much cover everything.

The Chair: Okay. I have a suggestion. The clerk is going to be here at our next meeting. If we were to alert the clerk now to the question, it would certainly be within the estimates envelope. I mean, you may have other issues you want to—

Mr. Richard Harris: Yes.

The Chair: Maybe I'll ask the questions, so it won't come out of your time.

Mr. Richard Harris: I think Mr. Bergeron had some concerns along that line as well.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Well, Mr. Robertson, if you would prepare the question to reflect Mr. Harris' view, I will ask it, and also alert the clerk. I will ask it when he's here for estimates. That might provide a short-circuit answer to that.

Is there any other comment on this now? I can see an obvious consensus to consult. Are there any other comments? Mr. Bergeron? No. Ms. Catterall?

• 1135

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I agree with Ms. Catterall's recommendation, but before sending it to our colleagues, would it be possible to see the final text, if only in an unofficial form, Mr. Chairman? Perhaps we could just glance at the text before we send it out to all our colleagues, unless you really wish to bring it back to the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Robertson advises us that he'll revise the text as suggested earlier and bring it back next Tuesday. We can approve it then, and then we'll circulate it.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have a question. If we give members until the end of May to respond, does that allow us to deal with it before the potential adjournment of the House?

The Chair: In my view, it does, but.... Yes, in my view it does.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It would be nice to have this resolved.

The Chair: If the House leaders were to decide the first week of June that we'd finished all our business, it might be a problem for us, but—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Wrap it up.

The Chair: —I'm sure all members of the committee would loyally return. Even if the House has risen, they would return to complete—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It isn't going to happen. Don't even go there.

The Chair: I know that you all would.

I think there is sufficient time. But, you know, colleagues, if there isn't, we may have a four-year or five-year mandate for this government, and the fall looms large in all of our planning agendas. So there's no great loss if the matter has to go over to the fall.

So there's a consensus on that. There's no need to move anything. The clerk and the researcher understand where we're going. We'll have a draft letter for our colleagues for approval.

Now I'll turn to the fourth item, radio and television broadcasting of House committees. You will recall, colleagues, that about three or four meetings ago we adopted proposed changes to the then-existing rules for a committee television. For the record, those rules are contained in what is called our 48th report.

The amendments that were before the committee on that date at that meeting evolved from discussions with the press gallery broadcasters. I'm wondering whether colleagues would be prepared to reconsider what we did at that time.

I've had discussions with the broadcasters. If I could be fairly clear and precise on it, the changes that we made to the draft amendments deleted a provision that would have altered the requirement for providing tapes by broadcasters to the House. The 48th report says that all the broadcasters must provide a tape of what they record.

Our amended final version says that this is still the case. In addition, on a motion moved by Mr. Bergeron and adopted by the committee, the House broadcasting unit will engage in discussions and negotiations with the broadcasters with a view to developing a protocol or an arrangement for archiving of the recorded material.

Those negotiations are a good thing. However, there aren't going to be any negotiations as I understand it because there isn't going to be any taping. There isn't going to be any taping because the rule still requires that a tape be turned over forthwith.

So if it is our general goal to move to and experiment with a test of committee broadcasting, then in my view the only way we're going to get there is by releasing a little bit and backing off a little bit on the requirement of a tape.

• 1140

We can certainly continue to urge or even require the House broadcasting unit to develop an arrangement with the broadcasters to obtain copies of all of the recorded material for archiving purposes. It's a question of cost and logistics, all of it minor. But a protocol for archiving purposes would probably be viewed in a better light by the broadcasters than the automatic requirement of turning over a tape.

So I'm suggesting that we revisit this. Clearly members want to firm up on development of a protocol to get material for archiving purposes. Even if the archivists only keep 20% of it, it still has a parliamentary objective, a worthy parliamentary goal. But if we do nothing now, as I understand it, we're not going to get any committee broadcasting other than what already exists in the one or two committee rooms that are equipped. If we don't do it now, we may not do it in the fall, and the thing may drift on.

So I'm putting that to you now. I am suggesting that we reinstate the provision that was deleted governing the provision of the tape and also retain Mr. Bergeron's motion, or at least the intent of it, so that a protocol can be negotiated between the broadcasting unit and the broadcasters. There may even be a need to firm up Mr. Bergeron's motion.

I had a discussion with him before the meeting to actually put some dates in there. In discussion, we talked about requiring the broadcast unit and the broadcasters to complete some kind of negotiation by, for example, the end of September. If that were to happen, we would know where we stood in October. In any event, in November we've got to look at it again because if we don't look at it again in November, it will die in December. Some of us may want it to die in December, but we will at least have had the test.

So that is my suggestion. I'm in your hands. There is not any motion that's been drafted, but the original motion, the original provision, is still in front of you. Have we got any material in front of members now?

A voice: No.

The Chair: No, we have it available. Are members prepared to take this up now? I would urge you to do this, because we're running out of time if this test is going to begin.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Are you suggesting that we might want to ask for a report back on those negotiations by say the end of September?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Is that the mechanism we would use to have a report back to the committee by the end of September?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Or whatever date we choose.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: By September.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If we say September, any time before the end of September is okay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: So that's the extent of what we're discussing then, Mr. Chair? Just so that we're crystal clear, it's to give the go-ahead to pursue these negotiations and then report back in September. Then we pick it up from there and go forward?

The Chair: No, my suggestion is more than that.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Okay.

The Chair: My suggestion is also that we back off the explicit requirement for delivery of a tape—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Prior to that.

The Chair: —as was in the original draft of the amendment.

Mr. Peter MacKay: We could suspend that for a time.

A voice: For a test period.

The Chair: Yes. The whole thing is really a test period. And we retain Mr. Bergeron's motion that requires the broadcast unit to negotiate something with the broadcasters for the purpose of archiving. We should insert a date, as has been discussed, and reinstate the provision that would allow the Speaker to require a copy of the tape to be delivered forthwith if he required it for a parliamentary purpose.

• 1145

Mr. Peter MacKay: Can you just give us a very quick overview of what it presently entails when you talk about the delivery of a tape?

The Chair: Do you mean in the 48th report?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes.

The Chair: The original 48th report rule simply says:

It will be a sine qua non of allowing the electronic media access to committee meetings that they deposit with the House of Commons a copy of a complete tape of each committee meeting that is filmed under these guidelines as soon as possible after the completion of the meeting and, in any event, within 24 hours....

Those are the rules that the House has currently concurred in.

The proposed amendment said:

Video recording of committee meetings is subject to the expressed condition that the party so recording retain the original tape(s) for a period of 35 days, and upon receipt of a request in writing from the Speaker of the House of Commons, deliver forthwith the original tape(s) of any committee meeting videotaped pursuant to these rules.

The first set of rules has a mandatory requirement to deliver a tape. The amendment, the second rule, is that they are required to keep the original for 35 days. If the Speaker requests the original, then it is turned over forthwith to the Speaker. I didn't use the words “for a parliamentary purpose”, but that was the intent. We may want to insert those words. If we had put that second provision in, that circumstance would continue until the end of the year. That's the test period.

Mr. Bergeron's suggested requirement that the broadcast unit negotiate an arrangement for archiving is to be carried out in the interim, and a deadline for them would be sometime in September. There was some discussion of that earlier. We return to the House about the third week of September. I wouldn't see a need to have a report prior to that.

An hon. member: We return on September 17.

The Chair: Does that answer your question, Mr. MacKay?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: I have Mr. Harris next on the list and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Richard Harris: Actually, I think my question was answered. The 35-day period would be put back into the amendment.

The Chair: Yes. The broadcaster must keep the original for 35 days in case the House needs it.

Mr. Bergeron and then Ms. Gallant.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I've a number of comments, Mr. Chairman. With all due respect, I must say that I do not subscribe to the argument that there could not be any negotiations between the Broadcasting Unit of the House and the media before the project can go forward. In my view, that argument does not stand up.

I think if the Press Gallery were acting in good faith, it would have been very easy for it over the last two weeks, and even over the last three weeks, to sit down with the House Broadcasting Unit and try to negotiate something so that this morning we could have a basis on which we could negotiate. The fact is that the people from the House Braodcasting Unit told us and repeated that as far as they were concerned, it was not difficult to reach an agreement with the Press Gallery that could meet the mutual requirements of the Gallery and parliamentarians, who want to keep the images for the archives, for the House and for future generations.

• 1150

That said, since the Press Gallery seems to want to demand, as a pre-requiwite, that the project be launched before any negotiation can take place between it and the House Broadcasting Unit, since this does seem to be a sine qua non condition for the Press Gallery, which apparently has the right to impose such conditions on us, then so be it—let us begin the project so that the negotiations can proceed.

I would also like to make two comments about the project itself. It is now mid-May. We have one recess week left. There are rumours that the session may end around mid-June, which means at the most we have three, perhaps four weeks of sittings left. If we want this pilot project to be relevant at all, I think we have to consider extending it until the end of June 2002. That is my first point.

Second, we should set a deadline for the termination of negotiations between the Press Gallery and the House Broadcasting Unit before the end of September. This deadline should be a sine qua non condition for the continuance of the project. Let me explain what I mean. If the Press Gallery feels that it can go ahead whether or not there is an agreement with the House Broadcasting Unit, in September we may find ourselves in a situation where there is no agreement and hence the status quo would be maintained until the end of June or until the end of December, depending on what the committee decides. That means that the tapes would be kept for 35 days before being destroyed, and we, as an institution, would lose them for good.

So I want a deadline that we include for the termination of negotiations between the Press Gallery and House Broadcasting Unit to be a prerequisite for the continuance of the pilot project until the end of December or the end of June, depending on the committee's decision.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The fact is we don't have a record of committee proceedings right now. We are not losing anything by lifting the requirement from our earlier report. I don't feel, as a parliamentarian, I'm losing something I currently have.

I would like to go further and make sure that in fact we do get it. I think the benefits of having more committee meetings broadcast far outweigh any minor concern I might have over the next few months about whether I do or don't get to see and keep every recording. It is not now being made, in any case. I don't have it, in any case. I haven't had it forever, except for those few committees that happen to meet in the Railway Committee Room.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: They won't be broadcast. They will only get clips for the news.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We want a record to say what really happened, not just what they showed on the evening news. It's legitimate and laudable. I think that's where we should end up.

Between now and the end of September, there will be a maximum of six weeks in which committees will be meeting. It will probably be less than that. They don't normally meet the first week back. They may not meet the last week in June. I'm willing to take a bit of a chance here.

I do wonder, Mr. Chair, since you've had these discussions with the broadcasters, what you might think of a proposal where we let committee chairs know when we have decided what we have decided, and also let them know, if they're concerned any committee meeting of theirs has been taped, that they may ask the Speaker to request a copy of the tape. It may help somewhat.

• 1155

Certainly if a committee chair who had given that opportunity to the media were to have concerns about how the media had used that tape, it would be quite legitimate for that committee chair to exercise his right to request a copy. So I'm really not concerned.

With so few weeks of committee meetings left before we get a report back here, I hoped we would at least agree that for that short period of time.... It's not four months. It would involve only five weeks of committee meetings being taped that otherwise wouldn't be taped.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think I was misunderstood, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Do you want to clarify it, Mr. Bergeron?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would really like to clarify what I mean.

I am not asking that nothing start before an agreement is reached between the House Broadcasting Unit and the Press Gallery. If we are not losing the recordings, because you claim that we will not be losing them, at the very least, we will not have them by the end of this session. Between now and the time we adjourn in June, we will not be able to have an archival record of the video recordings of committees. I can live with that.

All I am saying, is that if we convey to the media that after the end of September, whether or not there is an agreement with the House Broadcasting Unit, they will be able to continue, there is a very good chance that there will not be any agreement by the end of September. My point is that there must be an agreement by the end of September between the House Broadcasting Unit and the Press sGallery in order for the pilot project to continue.

Is that...?

[English]

The Chair: That's fine.

Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to agree with both of my colleagues. There is a distinct possibility, and I've said this before, that clips will be taken out of context just as quotes can be taken out of context. I think the responsibility and the obligation will be on the part of the media to make sure they don't abuse this privilege during this trial period. I would like to see how they establish a good working relationship with us on this.

Generally speaking, I think that for people who aren't knowledgeable about the content of the committees, watching them is about as exciting as watching paint dry.

I really believe we have a right to make total fools of ourselves, and the media has a right to record such foolishness. But I would hope that this would all be done in a very professional way. If we don't try it, we'll never know. The media can record everything we say now with a pen. What's the difference between a pen and a film? The difference is that a clip on television can be devastating.

I agree with Mr. Bergeron. If in fact there is game-playing to make us look foolish, then we can suspend the exercise. If there is a responsible use of the tapes, then we can proceed. That's how I would support it at this point, as Ms. Catterall and the chair have suggested.

The Chair: Keep in mind that in the end we don't have to suspend anything. The pilot period will end on its own in December.

I also wanted to point out two other things. Although there has been a lot of reference to the clips that will be used for news broadcasts, keep in mind that CPAC provides broader coverage, which is available for broadcast, rebroadcast, and webcasting over some relevant period of time, and that's a different kind of coverage. Those are two different types of video coverage that will happen under these guidelines, not just the 30-second news clip.

It's possible that over the summer period one or more committees will wish to meet just after we adjourn, just before we come back, or somewhere in the middle. I am thinking of the environment committee, which has a history of popping up here and there and pursuing issues. If they were to meet over the summer, they might well want to use one of the permanent camera rooms. But if they held a hearing outside of the parliamentary precincts, CPAC or other broadcasters might wish to cover that hearing under these rules.

Whether the viewers are watching paint dry or really have their teeth sunk into a serious public interest issue, we will never know. But if we don't try it, we'll definitely never know.

• 1200

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Agreed.

The Chair: We're not clear—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could we ask the clerk or the researcher to prepare something for Tuesday?

[English]

The Chair: I think we can do it today. I think we already have the ability to insert the original provision into the rules, the one we took out at the last meeting. We can insert that. We can insert a date—we can do that right now—for the conclusion of negotiations between the broadcast unit and the broadcasters into Mr. Bergeron's motion and then we're done.

So I'm going to suggest we do that, and I need the help of the—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: And anybody's who isn't satisfied with the way the report turns up in the House can yell and scream at the chair.

The Chair: Yes. The wording now is:

The House Broadcasting Unit will 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.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could we have the text, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, I'm sorry. This can be distributed.

[Translation]

An Honorable member: We're working in the dark. It is not...

[English]

The Chair: You will find this on page 7 of the amended 48th report.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: May I ask, do we need this report adopted by the House?

The Chair: Yes. In order to be effective, whatever we decide today would have to be reported to the House and concurred in.

If you turn to page 7, at the bottom of page 7 you have the wording authored originally by Monsieur Bergeron. All we need to do to that is add to the very end of it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, that is not it.

[English]

The Chair: No? Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The recommendation should read as follows:

The House Broadcasting Unit and the Parliamentary Press Gallery shall develop a proposal...

And it goes on to say:

... for the acquisition and archiving of the tape-recorded materials by the House of Commons by the end of September 2001.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, that's essentially what I'm saying. We're just adding in the date.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.

An hon. member: No.

The Chair: Are you looking at the bottom of page 7?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

The Chair: Do you see the underlined portion—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

The Chair: —that says the House Broadcasting Unit will develop in consultation with the Parliamentary Press Gallery a proposal?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No.

The Chair: You don't see that.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I see that.

The Chair: But you don't like that wording.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's it.

The Chair: Would you—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I modified it.

The Chair: I listened to the translation of your proposed modification. It sounded identical. Please read it again.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I will repeat what I said, Mr. Chairman. Begin quotation:

The House Broadcasting Unit and the Parliamentary Press Gallery shall...

[English]

—should have to—

[Translation]

... develop a proposal for the acquisition and archiving of the tape-recorded materials by the House of Commons and submit this proposal to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs by the end of September 2001.

[English]

The Chair: It sounds okay to me. It may be that there are nuances between the French and the English. The English translation is coming across identical to the original wording.

[Translation]

The Clerk: There is a difference in meaning between "consultation" and "agreement". In one version, it sounds like more of a process, whereas your version puts more emphasis on the development of a proposal.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I repeat: "They shall."

An Honorable member: "They shall," that is it.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—île-d'Orléans, BQ): That places an obligation on them.

[English]

The Chair: And the difference in English between the word “shall” and the word “will”. There are nuances there. So that's fine. The wording will be “shall develop” by the date you have mentioned.

• 1205

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This proposal will have to be passed by the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Are we content with that? All right.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I am sorry, Mr. Bergeron. Did you say: "will have to be passed" by the committee?

An Honorable member: Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Jacques Saada: We do not have to pass it. We have to look at it, but we are not obliged to pass it if we do not like it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, what I mean is that I think we will have to include a new provision stating that if the agreement is not approved by the committee, the pilot project will not continue.

Mr. Jacques Saada: May I suggest the following, very simple wording: "It will be referred to the committee for approval." We can reject the agreement if we wish, because it is up to us to make the decision. It is not necessary to say what will happen. The proposal must be submitted to the committee for our approval. If there is no approval, we will take whatever decision is necessary.

[English]

The Chair: I think that's a very—-

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We have to make it clear to the Press Gallery that in order for the pilot project to continue, an agreement must be reached between it and the House Broadcasting Unit.

Mr. Jacques Saada: The principle is very simple. The two have to negotiate and come up with a proposal. This proposal must be submitted to us by a certain date and we reserve the right to approve it or not with all the consequences that implies, including the termination of the pilot projects.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, except that in a case such as this, that is not the only consequence. Anything could happen.

Mr. Jacques Saada: We are leaving the door open. We will see what we get. Why should we lock ourselves into an automatic decision at this point? We want to decide what will be done with that proposal. They will be making a proposal to us, we will look at it and make a decision. It is up to the committee to decide what is done.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: To me—and I am under the impression that some colleagues seem to agree—the two parties must reach an agreement, otherwise the pilot project cannot go forward.

Mr. Michel Guimond: There is an absolute obligation.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There is an absolute obligation.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, we agree. It is just that I do not think it is necessary to include all the possible consequences in the wording.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There is only one possible consequence.

Mr. Jacques Saada: There is only one?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is correct. There is only one.

Mr. Jacques Saada: There is only one we must approve. If we do not agree, the whole thing collapses.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That is correct. However, I do not think we should be sending an ambiguous message to the Press Gallery. The message must be clear. The message is that they must reach an agreement, otherwise the pilot project cannot go forward.

Mr. Michel Guimond: No agreement, no pilot project. That's it.

Mr. Jacques Saada: We agree on the substance. I was just trying to simplify the wording.

[English]

The Chair: I can say, Mr. Bergeron, that you are certainly tenacious.

I lean to the view of Mr. Saada that we will require that agreement to be done. We will look at it. If we are disappointed we might look for amendments. If we like it we may adopt it. In terms of what the committee would do with the pilot project, we can be advised at that time as to what we would do. In any event, the test dies in December unless we do something else to continue it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But, Mr. Chairman, I also suggested that the pilot project would end at the end of June 2002.

[English]

The Chair: What was the logic behind that?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The logic behind that, if you had listened to what I had said earlier, Mr. Chairman, is quite simply that, at the very most, the time we have left...

[English]

The Chair: The only logic I saw, Mr. Bergeron, is you wanted to extend it so that you could insert your new clear option. Please, give the media a chance to do their broadcasting. We will have a month approximately now, and we will have three months in the fall. If it is a disaster, it dies an ignoble death. If it's a winner, we reinstate based on our experience over the four months. If we don't have a deal between the broadcast unit and the broadcasters, members will be advised at that time whether they love the thing or hate the thing, or whether they want to continue.

I lean to the view of Mr. Saada that there is no need at this point to box ourselves in.

• 1210

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I gather from your rather abrupt reaction that when you ask me a question, you are not really interested in the answer.

[English]

The Chair: I was just trying to move the thing ahead.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, could I say something?

I don't think there's any question that the media will be very well aware of this discussion. Even if we feel there's been bad faith, I don't think there's any question that there has been a genuine attempt to reach a satisfactory agreement by September.

The media know that we could choose at that time to suspend the pilot project. I would prefer to proceed with an expectation of good faith, knowing that's it's always in our hands to do that if we're not satisfied in September. We don't have to construct the guillotine right now. Everybody knows it's there whenever we choose to use it. Rather than assume bad faith, let's proceed and see what we want to do in September, as you suggested.

The Chair: I should add that in our own report we have required ourselves already as a committee to review the operation of this before the end of November. We're already bringing it back in November.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We don't have to wait that long if we choose not to.

The Chair: Mr. MacKay.

Mr. Peter MacKay: I've listened to both Mr. Saada and Mr. Bergeron, and I don't think there's a significant difference. It's a bit like a negative billing option. We're going ahead. If at the end of this expiration period there is not satisfaction with the service or with the performance, it comes before the committee, and that's the end of it. We do in fact have the ability to cut this off at the knees.

The Chair: In fact it's sunsetted for December 31.

Mr. Peter MacKay: It is.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Could we have the wording now?

The Clerk: The wording you suggested?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes. How would it sound?

The Clerk: Here it is:

The House Broadcasting Unit and the Parliamentary Press Gallery shall develop a proposal for the acquisition and archiving of the tape-recorded material by the House of Commons and submit this recommendation to the committee for approval by the end of September 2001.

[English]

The Chair: Do members want to approve it or disapprove it before the end of September?

Mr. Peter MacKay: It's only for consideration by the committee, not approval.

The Chair: I'm sorry. It's for consideration, yes.

Mr. Peter MacKay: Consideration means either approval or denial. You're assuming we're going to approve it.

The Chair: Are we okay on the wording, Mr. Clerk?

[Translation]

The Clerk: Could we say: "submit to the committee for adoption?"

[English]

The Chair: What if it isn't passed by the committee?

[Translation]

The Clerk: What about: "submit to the committee?"

Mr. Jacques Saada: "submit to the committee for decision."

The Clerk: You said: "submit to the committee for decision?"

[English]

The Chair: Now, we're going to need some motions to adopt that provision. We'll need another motion to reinsert—I don't have a short way of doing this—the original amendment I had read earlier at paragraph E of the 48th report, third bullet, that says that video recording of committee meetings is subject to the express condition, that is, the 35-day retention and the ability of the Speaker to obtain....

Mr. MacKay has moved a motion that would make both the changes, including the first motion adopting the provision spoken to by Mr. Bergeron.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

• 1215

The Chair: Thank you.

We should have a motion to adopt the draft report as amended today—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: And direct the chair to report to the House.

The Chair: —and secondly to direct the chair to report to the House.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: And to request that—

The Chair: Can I just stop here?

Am I going to report an amended 48th report, in other words a consolidated version, or shall I just report the amendments?

I'm thinking here of convenience for those who would want to see what the broadcasting rules are, because if you have to have the 48th report and then take the amendments and put them together, it would take you about half an hour to figure out what the rules are.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Could the chair table the report as amended and indicate clearly the amendments?

Mr. Peter MacKay: Just highlight the amendments. Put them in bold, the way they appear before us. Put the amendments in boldface.

The Chair: Okay. Let me put that motion, that I'm to report the amendments.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The next thing is just the administrative convenience of having a consolidated set of rules. Maybe we should now ask the clerk or the researcher to actually prepare an administrative consolidation. It should be clearly marked as a consolidation of the current broadcasting rules based on the 48th report and the amendments, submitted and concurred in. Is that feasible? I'll just check with the researcher.

Here we go. Our problem is solved. We had omitted to mention the fact that unfortunately the 48th report rules all died because it had a sunset date. Those rules had a sunset date of a few months ago.

What I will then be reporting are the amendments we've adopted, consolidated into an amended 48th report.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Could I also have a motion that the clerk and the researcher be permitted to make appropriate editorial changes to the report as needed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Ms. Gallant, you had a point.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Are we onto other business?

The Chair: Sure. It being just prior to the time we have to leave, go ahead, please.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yesterday the 14th report was tabled, and I'm wondering if it is your intention to move concurrence on that.

The Chair: That is a very good question, one I have wrestled with over the last day. I'm in the hands of the.... Any member of the House is of course in a position to move concurrence. I'd be happy as chair to give notice of a motion to that effect. I wouldn't do it unless it were the view of the committee that we should do it.

Mr. Jacques Saada: What is the 14th report?

The Chair: That's the privilege matter we reported yesterday.

There are two views. The first view is that it's a relatively important matter for the House. There are issues of relatively high significance. It was the view of the committee that we should be fairly firm in our position, and it was referred to this committee. We've done our work. We've reported back, and I think there is across-the-board consensus that it is an appropriate report and a good report.

The House should actually advert to it and concur in it just in any case anybody doubts that the House feels similarly strongly about the wording in the report. That's the first view.

• 1220

The second view is that because we have not asked the House to do anything, there is no need for the House to actually take the matter up and do something.

So it's not clear to me which is the best way to go. A middle ground is if there's no dissent among members of all of the parties in the House—no visible dissent—we could invite House leaders to agree that it be concurred in, on consent without debate. If that's the unanimous view around the table, then that would accomplish all of those goals.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So moved.

The Chair: Okay.

Then we have with us here today an appropriate assortment of individuals who sit with the House leaders and whips. If it is agreed, the committee will see that it's communicated to House leaders, and if there is a green light there, then somebody will move concurrence. I'd be prepared to give notice of that. Is that okay?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: All in agreement.

The Chair: Does everybody agree?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So this is on the basis that the House leaders agree. Is it contingent upon that?

The Chair: Let's put it this way: if the House leaders don't agree, we'll try to figure out what's cooking and bring it back to committee for the views of members, and we may still go ahead with it.

A voice: They will agree. It's fine.

The Chair: Yes. You know it's not clear that every House leader will be enthusiastic about the report, but.... Okay, so I see a consensus to do that, and I'll do that.

Ms. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Okay, I'm not going to comment on Mr. Wappel pro or con, but I would wonder whether we have the agreement of the committee to request Mr. Kingsley to put out a letter or press release, stating that it is impossible to find out how people vote.

Let me just read you something. Mr. Wappel said, “There are many ways I can get the information. It can be gleaned by anybody if they know what they're doing.”

My constituent writes:

Canadians deserve a very public and full explanation of the system from a judge or some other person who is above reproach. A simple statement from Mr. Wappel or some other government person with a possible vested interest in obtaining such information will not convince me of the integrity of the system.

I would propose that Mr. Kingsley is above reproach, and that we just write an informal letter to him asking him to do a press release clarifying that no one, with the exception of a single ballot being placed in a single box by a single voter in a location that's designated a poll.... There's no other way you would know.

The Chair: I have in hand a press release, dated May 10, issued by Mr. Wappel.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, my constituent says that's not good enough, and I agree.

The Chair: Oh.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: My constituent said it, and I agree.

The Chair: No, but Mr. Wappel states in the press release how he became aware of how the voter says he voted.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I now have at least 16 letters in my office saying that they want to know definitively if anybody can find out, and they want an answer from somebody other than Mr. Wappel.

The Chair: Okay, a good suggestion. Maybe this will help. It's a good suggestion, Ms. Parrish. It's obviously an issue that's out there for us to deal with.

Mr. Kingsley will be here next Thursday on estimates.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's a long time from now, Mr. Lee. I think we need a phone call to him or a letter.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): It's a straightforward request. Why don't we do it?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's a simple request.

The Chair: If members want me to do that, we'll do it today.

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Today.

The Chair: Okay, all right.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: With no reference to Mr. Wappel, as it's not a judgment on him.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Clerk, more homework.

We'll do that. Is there consensus on that—no dissent?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: All right.

Now I just want to let you all know.... Well, Ms. Gallant has another comment.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I'm not sure that we all agree with that proposal.

The Chair: On the Chief Electoral Officer.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Right. I think we have to be convinced, first, before this goes forth.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Harris.

Mr. Richard Harris: Has Mr. Wappel clearly stated that he was wrong—that the quote was wrong—or that he was misinterpreted in his letter?

The Chair: I invite you to read the press release.

While you're reading that, I'll just make note that next Tuesday we have the Speaker and the clerk on estimates. On Thursday we'll have Mr. Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer.

• 1225

After the suspension week—the “break”, when we have to go back to the ridings and work hard—we will have Minister Gagliano and former speaker John Fraser from the Parliamentary Precincts Advisory Committee on the issue of modifications to the parliamentary precincts, a major issue for many of our colleagues.

We have questions coming up. I wanted to let you know this while Mr. Harris and Ms. Gallant are reviewing.

Ms. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Since I made the proposal, may I clarify why I'm making it?

Any reporter worth their salt with be calling Mr. Kingsley today and asking him these exact questions. It looks a heck of a lot better if a group of parliamentarians from all parties say we have a concern as well, because the reporters are going to be calling Kingsley as we speak. This would reassure the public that this can't happen in Canada.

I don't know why this is complicated.

The Chair: It's not complicated.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: If you leave it, Mr. Kingsley will be in the paper tomorrow anyway, but he'll be there at the prompting of a reporter. This is a chance for us to be proactive in a multiparty way and take the bull by the horns quickly.

The Chair: Okay. We'll wait for Mr. Harris and Ms. Gallant to review the press release.

I see a couple of other hands...Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: It's okay.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I wanted to comment as soon as they're finished discussing.

The Chair: Okay.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I too wanted to say something for their benefit, but since they are trying to convince each other...

[English]

The Chair: Let's allow the record to suspend for 30 seconds or a minute.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: May I raise another question?

The Chair: Do you want to go back on the record, or do you want to suspend?

We're now suspended.

• 1227

• 1229

The Chair: Okay, we're back on the record.

We'll hear from Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: We concurred that we can go ahead with the press release. We'll agree to that. But I do want to confirm when Mr. Kingsley is coming.

The Chair: A week today.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: A week today. Okay.

Mr. Richard Harris: Will it be this committee?

The Chair: At this committee, yes. Yes, he'll be right over there.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On the estimates?

The Chair: On the estimates, yes, which includes almost everything we'd ever want to ask questions on.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Would it be clear that we have concurrence to go ahead and ask Mr. Kingsley to issue a clarification that nobody knows how anybody votes?

The Chair: Allow me to clarify something. Ms. Gallant referred to a press release. I had understood that I was going to write Mr. Kingsley. I could make the letter public—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Or call.

The Chair: I could make the letter public, and that would be all I had to do. I wasn't actually going to do a press release.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I'm referring to Mr. Kingsley's press release.

The Chair: Ah. He may wish to respond with a press release.

Mr. Harris.

• 1230

Mr. Richard Harris: Okay. The directive we're going to give him, or the suggestion, whatever you call it, is not going to direct him to come out. He's going to.... Basically we ask him to explain the security.

The Chair: Yes. We're going to invite him to make the public aware of the confidentiality of all our voting procedures.

Mr. Richard Harris: Right. Okay.

The Chair: Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I heard you reporting on the work that lies ahead for the next few days or weeks. I note with satisfaction that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure is doing an exceptional job, and I am very pleased about that.

[English]

The Chair: Well, colleagues have been so cooperative. We're going through our work very quickly. We still have to do the poet laureate bill. I think what we have to do is schedule a steering committee and perhaps in August or July.... It's a great suggestion, Mr. Bergeron.

Anyway, thank you, colleagues. We're adjourned.