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, November 6,2001

• 1113

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, our main item of business is pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), and it is consideration of referendum regulation proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, pursuant to the Referendum Act, S.C. 1992, chapter 30, subsection 7(6), consideration of a draft report. That is our principal item of business today.

I'd just like to explain to you the rest of the agenda, though, because the following two items do follow on from the draft report. Essentially, I have a proposal as to how we will handle those in future committee meetings. Those are items B and C, having to do with electoral boundaries and the issue of householders during an election campaign.

The fourth item is a completely different matter. You have material on it, and I will come back to it. Something has just been drawn to my attention about it, and it may well be that we would need to postpone that item.

So if we could, we'll proceed with the draft report on the referendum regulation first of all, colleagues. I would also like to introduce to you Mollie Dunsmuir, who is here because Jamie is unable to be with us today.

Mollie, we welcome you to this very important committee.

If you could look at the draft report—you all have it, and I'd welcome any comments on the draft that you have—I think the English version meshes with the French, in that we already have one change here. In the second paragraph, there's a long sentence. Six lines down in the English version, it says that a copy of each regulation that the Chief Electoral Officer proposes to make shall be deposited. You can see that it changes the tense and makes it clear in the English. My understanding is that it's already clear in the French. It says that a copy of each regulation that the Chief Electoral Officer proposes to make shall be deposited.

• 1115

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): What are we looking at?

The Chair: I'm at paragraph 2, which is a fairly long one, on line 6 in English. The end of that line should read...let me read it as it is so that you can all find it: “a copy of each regulation that is proposed to be made shall be deposited”. The suggestion is that it's clearer in English if it says, “a copy of each regulation that the Chief Electoral Officer proposes to make shall be deposited”.

Is it agreed, colleagues?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I have one more.

If you go down to paragraph 4, it says, “The Committee has a number of other concerns”. It is suggested that we strike “other”, because the first paragraph simply refers to us commenting on the regulation. It would then read, “The Committee has a number of concerns with respect to the procedure”. We're no longer dealing with the regulation itself, but with the procedure by which it...so we strike “other”.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Colleagues, I know you are all reading this with eagle eyes, but in paragraph 7—and I'm afraid I'm again dealing with the English version—six lines from the end, there's a typo. It says “he”, and the word should be “it”.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Which one?

The Chair: Good thinking. The second “he” should read “it”.

I'll say it again. This is in paragraph 7, in the English version. Six lines from the end, it should say, “he indicated that it was his intention”. It currently reads, “he indicated that he was his intention”. Do you see that in the English?

Is it okay in French? Again, as usual, Yvon,

[Translation]

the French version is excellent.

[English]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I can't believe it. I will tell that to the official language—

[Translation]

The Chair: Jacques.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I believe there's a problem with paragraph 6 of the French version of the report.

The Chair: Paragraph 6?

Mr. Jacques Saada: The English version notes the following:

[English]

Mr. Kingsley has shown a willingness to accommodate the Committee and Members, but it should not rest on his discretion.

That means one thing.

In French, I don't think we're giving this message at all. Actually, we are saying:

[Translation]

M. Kingsley s'est montré prêt à se plier aux contraintes du comité et des députés, mais nous ne pouvons pas nous attendre à ce qu'il nous accommode.

[English]

It doesn't give the same meaning at all. In French,

[Translation]

the sentence needs to be rewritten. It's almost as if there was a contradiction.

The Chair: Yes, I see that.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That is not the meaning we were intending to convey.

The Chair: Do you have an alternate version to propose in French?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I would certainly have phrased it differently...

The Chair: Would either Pierre, Michel or Yvon...?

[English]

The Chair: Could you give us a moment, and we'll try it?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Why don't you read it in English, then give us the translation.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes, but a literal translation creates a problem.

[English]

The Chair: It is suggested that we could pass this with simply the notation that the French version reflects the English. Is that—

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: We could say...

The Chair: Yes, Michel.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): We could say: “mais cela ne devrait pas être laissé à sa seule discrétion.”

Mr. Jacques Saada: Indeed, the discretion in this case is ours, not his.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Therefore, we could say: “cela ne devrait pas être laissé à sa discrétion.”

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's right.

• 1120

[English]

An hon. member: Do you have that?

The Chair: We have that, so with that intent in mind, colleagues, would someone care to propose the motion before you?

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I know we're a highly respectful bunch of people, but in the English version that I'm looking at, in paragraph 4, we took out “other” just before the word “concerns”. It now reads, “has a number of concerns with respect to the procedure to be followed with respect to proposed Regulations”. I would suggest that we take out the first “with respect to”. That we have concerns “with the procedure to be followed with respect to proposed...” would read a little better.

The Chair: Jay, you're absolutely right.

Mr. Jay Hill: Not that we're not—

The Chair: Are we agreed, colleagues?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Jay, thank you for that.

Again, would someone move that the draft report as amended—and with those notes, Jacques—be adopted as the committee's report to the House, and that the chair present the report to the House?

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: With regard to items B and C, which have to do with boundary readjustments, the matter of householders, and any other matters outstanding with respect to Mr. Kingsley, my suggestion is that we call Mr. Kingsley back probably during the first week in December, and that we raise those two matters and anything else outstanding.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): When exactly would we do that?

[English]

The Chair: Probably the first week in December.

Are we agreed?

Mr. Jay Hill: I have one question on that. It may have come up in that last meeting without me being aware of it. What is the timeline for these changes? When does the process for the electoral boundary changes start?

The Chair: Geoff will give you...we have a table, but do you want me to just reprise it in general terms?

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay. Maybe I'm just getting a little ahead of everything, that's all.

The Chair: We have until the June 4—

An hon. member: I'll give him a copy.

The Chair: There's a copy of it here.

Mr. Jay Hill: All right, thank you.

An hon. member: It's 2004.

The Chair: It's June 4, 2004, or something like that, I hear. That's the ultimate deadline.

Mr. Jay Hill: So we have lots of time. That's the point I was going to raise about having him here in December.

The Chair: That's right, so any election before June 2004 is under the existing rules, Jay. Any election after that date will be under the new rules.

Mr. Jay Hill: That makes sense.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Are you asking when the process starts, Jay? The information is there in front of you in terms of when the process all begins.

Mr. Jay Hill: I just wondered about the timeline and whether having him here in December...obviously, we can't prejudge what concerns each of us is going to raise. I wondered whether that gives us adequate time, or whether we should speed it up a bit. That was my only concern.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Okay.

The Chair: I hear you. Just so you know, I have other things that I think take priority over that for the moment, and I'll bring them to you, okay?

Yvon, Michel, and then Jacques.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I'd like to focus for a moment on paragraph 5 of the report.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, but you do realize we have passed it, Yvon, right?

An hon. member: It has already been passed.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You guys go so fast in English that we—

The Chair: No.

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, I was looking at—

The Chair: Please.

Mr. Yvon Godin: This is just a point, okay?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Maybe it has passed, but I was looking at something. In the fifth paragraph, on the seventh line and going onto the eighth, we say, for example, that it should be made by Parliament. I was just ready to suggest “and in consultation with other parties”. We're talking about elections, and we have other parties that are not in Parliament. We could consult with them for their views.

The Chair: First of all, we're discussing it on a friendly basis, although it has passed. I would suggest to you that the consultation with the parties is in the Canada Elections Act, and that for the advisory committee to the Chief Electoral Officer, that is a part of the process. But I'm not an expert.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, if you're having statutes made by Parliament, that involves the consultation of parties, so each party obviously has a chance to make its views known.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): But isn't he talking about parties not represented in Parliament, like the Green Party?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Oh, them.

[Translation]

The Chair: Is that what you were referring to?

[English]

An hon. member: Yes, other parties.

• 1125

The Chair: Again, those other parties are what I was addressing. The advisory committee that the Chief Electoral Officer has includes representation from the Green Party...I don't know about the Communist Party, but from the small parties. I think they are in the loop. I really do.

Do you have any more comments on this, colleagues?

[Translation]

Pierre.

Mr. Pierre Brien: Are regulations in fact adopted? When legislation is amended, the bills go to second reading, then are referred to a committee, and are then given third reading. People have an opportunity to make their views known at that time. The process may be different in the case of regulations if in fact Parliament does not adopt them. However, to the extent that it does, they must then be referred to a parliamentary committee where groups will have the chance to make their views known.

The Chair: That's right.

[English]

If we could go to item D on the agenda, then...Jacques.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I need to have something clarified.

When Mr. Kingsley appeared before the committee, it was agreed that it would be preferable for us to intervene a priori, not a posteriori, or in other words, before he was set to make a recommendation to us. Was his appearance in line with the recommendation that we be consulted beforehand, or was no follow-up action given to this suggestion?

[English]

The Chair: Are you still talking about the report?

Mr. Jacques Saada: No, I'm talking about the boundaries. When he appeared, we said we wanted to be consulted before, not after.

The Chair: There are a number of things in this report. One of the things we have said in the report to which we've just agreed is that the Chief Electoral Officer should report to this committee. We've said this committee is going to call him once a year to discuss a variety of matters related to his position. That's in that report. The meeting in December is a follow-up for things we did not finish at the previous meeting, and particularly the riding boundaries, because that issue is urgent. That's the first example of us calling him back to see that he's working on these things.

My thought, Jacques, is that he is going give us another briefing on the procedure and the deadlines, and we're going to comment that it's too short or too long, that the members don't have sufficient time to deal with it, and so on. That's my understanding. The procedure that is in the act is already underway, so we are calling him in so that we're in the loop.

[Translation]

Yes Michel.

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

I agree that it's a good idea and that we absolutely must meet again with Mr. Kingsley. Could you refresh my memory as to the following question?

Do you recall when Mr. Kingsley is scheduled to receive the census 2000 findings from Canada's Chief Statistician? As far as the electoral boundaries readjustment process is concerned, would the meeting not be more productive if Mr. Kingsley had this data in hand? Even if we had to call him back later, we could still review some of the findings.

[English]

The Chair: The answer is both yes and no.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: How can you answer “yes” to my question? I want to know when the Chief Electoral Officer will be receiving that information.

[English]

The Chair: The point you were making was that it was a good idea to meet with him then, and I would say it is. When that process is underway and when he has those figures in March, I really think we should meet with him again. We have said that we have to get...but for the moment, Michel, we're trying to follow up on loose ends that were left over from the last meeting, including getting our heads, as a committee, around this very important process that's going to unfold over the next two or three years.

Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: On that, Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that when we have him here in December, we'll be dealing mainly with concerns that one or all of us may have about the process of how we go about redefining the boundaries of the constituencies. Then, as you say, perhaps we can have him back in March, when the census itself comes out—

The Chair: Exactly.

Mr. Jay Hill: —and when we'll perhaps have specific concerns about specific ridings.

• 1130

The Chair: I think Michel was exactly right on that. It's about this one issue and any other issues that are still outstanding with the Chief Electoral Officer at the moment. It's part of our effort—I have to phrase this right, because it's on the record—to make sure the Chief Electoral Officer and this committee are in constant and good communication.

Can we go to item D? You have the material. Quite simply, if you go to the very last page of the briefing material that Jamie Robertson provided for us, we would essentially approve that letter to the Board of Internal Economy.

The Canadian Alliance has advised me—and this was before my time—that they had a dissenting opinion attached to the 34th report. It had to do with one particular aspect of that. Scott may wish to address this, but if that's the case and the Alliance has a concern, my suggestion simply is that we postpone this, and the clerk, the researcher, and I would have discussions with the Canadian Alliance. I would then bring it back to you again, in the light of those discussions.

Scott?

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): That would be ideal.

[Translation]

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Was the Canadian Alliance Whip aware of these concerns when the Board of Internal Economy met to discuss the matter?

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid: These have been around for a while. They came up quite some time ago and, yes, our whip is informed about them.

The Chair: Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just to perhaps bring up to speed some of the committee members who wouldn't be aware of the history of this, Mr. Chairman, it really stems from the fact that the Alliance is concerned about costs, as is always the case—and it was previous to that, with the Reform Party. At a minimum, we felt the Clerk of the House should be called before us—we would obviously give him some prior notice—and be able to present to the committee some idea of whether or not this would add extra costs, staffing requirements, or anything like that, to the operations of legislative counsel. He should be able to apprise us of that, in the interests of budgetary matters.

Secondly, also for the sake of some background on this issue, our sense was that the thing should have been reversed. We would probably want to address that if we were going to have a subsequent meeting on this issue. In other words, less restrictive confidentiality should be the norm. Then, because some extra costs would probably be associated with having greater restrictions for the confidentiality of the legislative counsels, that should be upon request by the individual member. He or she should obviously be well apprised that such an alternative exists, but that should be the option, rather than the norm being the more restrictive confidentiality, with members then having to request a sharing of the information, as currently exists.

The Chair: Jay, that is very enlightening.

I just heard of this. I'll get my head around it, and we'll bring it back—and I can see various ways. One is the one you just suggested. Perhaps we need a meeting on it in this committee. The other might be to adapt this letter in such a way that we make sure the Board of Internal Economy thinks of those matters. I'll try to think of ways around it, and I'll come back to the committee with a proposal, if that's okay.

Colleagues, if I could now talk to you in terms of our future meetings, I mentioned Mr. Kingsley for the first week in December. I suggested that because it does seem to me that immediately after the break, if not earlier, we have to come back to this question of privilege. The House has given us that, and we have to deal with it.

My suggestion is that unless we hear from the Privy Council Office tomorrow—odds are that we are not going to—we will not have a meeting on Thursday, because we don't have the report on the question privilege. For the moment, the Tuesday and the Thursday of the week we come back should be set aside for the question privilege. By that time, we will have the report. Certainly, we can deal with that matter on the Tuesday. If necessary, we can also deal with it on the Thursday.

• 1135

During the second week back, on the Tuesday and the Thursday, we have agreed that we're going to have at least two consecutive meetings on the votable items matter. I would suggest that we do that on Tuesday and Thursday of the second week back, on November 27 and November 29. The week after that, we would then have Mr. Kingsley here.

So it goes like this: If we get the report tomorrow—which we likely won't—we would meet Thursday. If we don't, we meet on the question of privilege on the first Tuesday and Thursday after we come back. We go to votable items on the following Tuesday and Thursday. The matter of the report on TV broadcasting—for which we have a deadline at the end of November—will be brought back at some point in that period of time. It's something I think we can handle very easily.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, if I remember correctly, the PCO representative didn't hold out much hope that we would get this. It's not like they told us we'd get the—

The Chair: I have a blank on Thursday. My assumption is that if we were to get that report tomorrow, you would want to meet Thursday. But the odds are that we're not going to get it.

Colleagues, do you agree to that? On the first two days when we come back, we'll deal with the question of privilege. During the second two meetings after we get back, we'll deal with the votable items. In there somewhere, we'll also deal with the televising of committees. Then, at the first meeting in December, we'll have Mr. Kingsley here.

Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I'll just raise the concern that there seems to be quite a lot on the agenda of the committee. For all of us to decide that we don't need to devote Thursday to other business... It's not that we can't find some other use for those two hours in our day; I recognize that all of us are pretty busy people. But it would seem to me that, given the motion on the votable private members' issue given to us by the House in June, perhaps we might want to meet for a couple of hours and bat some of those issues around so that we can go back to our ridings over the break week, digest those ideas, and think about them some more. I don't think this is going to be easily resolved, as we've found out already. It's going to take perhaps more than two meetings to try to drive this to some form of resolution.

This is just a suggestion, but it seems to me that to shrug our shoulders and pass up the opportunity to meet on that particular issue...we could have everyone here to present the different options that we see, because some of the members of the committee obviously are poles apart. Carolyn isn't here today, but obviously she holds very strong opinions on this issue, and it would obviously be my hope that she would be present for that discussion on Thursday.

I just throw that on the table for consideration.

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm in the committee's hands. Just so you know though, Jay, my thought was that, in the event that this Privy Council report came in, we would certainly have to deal with it immediately. That's the reason I left it. So we'd be in an either/or situation for Thursday.

Paul Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I'm just concerned in the sense that once we start considering this matter, we'd like to carry on with it. At the moment, we already have had one meeting at which we've had an opportunity to raise issues and, as you say, develop the chasms between positions. I don't know that there's any particular reason to meet again unless we were going to try to put those together in a forum that would lead us to a conclusion. I think it has been clearly stated that we should have at least two consecutive meetings that would deal with this, so that we can develop and work on a resolution. With all due respect, I would suggest that the format that you're suggesting would likely be more appropriate.

The Chair: Colleagues, do you have any other comments on that issue? Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: In rebuttal to that, I fail to see... Whether there is a break week in between having these meetings or not, surely to goodness our memories are good enough that we can remember what happened Thursday a couple of weeks from now. If they aren't, then we have some more serious problems than private members' votability. It just seems to me that, given the agenda facing the committee...and I recognize that it posed the issue. I would certainly be supportive of the fact that if the report is our priority and it comes back, then that's what we would deal with on Thursday. I don't have a problem with that. But I think it's a bit shortsighted to say that if it doesn't come back, the committee has no reason to sit, Mr. Chairman. That's the point I'm trying to make.

• 1140

[Translation]

The Chair: Pierre Brien.

Mr. Pierre Brien: I agree with Mr. Macklin. I prefer to go with your proposal, namely that we hold two consecutive meetings to immerse ourselves in the spirit of the report. Our memories may be good, but I'm not certain that if we were to discuss the same subject this morning that we discussed two weeks ago, we wouldn't have to start at the same point again. Therefore, I would rather we have two consecutive meetings and then go from there.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, colleagues, do you have any other comments on this? No?

I understand the arguments, and I've gone through them in my own mind, Jay. But if it's okay with the committee, we will meet on Thursday if—and we'll advise you very quickly—we receive the report. Otherwise, we will not. We will return after the break, on the question of privilege for two meetings potentially, on votable items for two meetings, and then we'll have Mr. Kingsley in.

Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned.