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 27, 2001

• 1142

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin?

As you know, our principal item of business today has to do with the matter of votable private members' business. The committee has agreed it would do at least two full, as we said, back-to-back meetings to give this topic some justice.

Marie-Andrée Lajoie, the principal clerk, House proceedings, is here to be a facilitator for the matter.

Already we're late. Members in various parties have told me their schedules have become complicated.

I would suggest we proceed with the matter of private members' business and our subcommittee report, which Carolyn Parrish raised the last time. I think we have to do it now.

I would suggest we then proceed to the draft report on the question of privilege. I can explain to you what happens with it. The draft report you've all received is the majority report.

It is my understanding there's going to be a dissenting opinion. This committee need not see the dissenting opinion, which in fact, as I understand it, is being translated at the present time. We can pass the draft report we have here. The dissenting opinion would be attached and would proceed to the House of Commons as usual. I don't think the dissenting opinion is a complication at all.

Colleagues, my suggestion is that we try the first two items. Then there's the matter of votable items.

Garry Breitkreuz is here. As you know, he has been leading in the matter of the votable items. He had some problem on Thursday. Several of you have problems now. One suggestion would be that we could hear Garry now, proceed, then leave it, and come back on Thursday and if necessary next Tuesday to the matter of the votable items.

I'm in your hands.

Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): My understanding is Garry can't be here on Thursday. Why don't we block next Tuesday and Thursday and you hang on to it?

The Chair: I can explain it you. Again, it's up to the committee because we can do it.

We have moved the chief electoral officer around a few times. The committee has indicated to me very strongly we want him back here. The day we have him is next Thursday, having moved him a couple of times.

Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Then let's move him again. He's here to serve us. Let's move him to this Thursday and give two solid days next week.

The Chair: John Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Garry can do this today and next Tuesday. We could do this other business on Thursday, if you prefer, because I'm here Thursday.

The Chair: We have to do the two items now. We have other business on Thursday.

Garry, do you want to comment?

• 1145

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): We could get the wheels turning today. It may not take very long. Then you can go on to some of your other business. We can put the things all of us may have on the table. It may not take long.

The Chair: Jay Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): I want to raise one point, Mr. Chairman. When I raised a concern a couple of weeks ago about the agenda of this committee, people on both sides of the table seemed to be pretty insistent that somehow we had to have back-to-back meetings on this subject.

Now I hear the Alliance is prepared to split the meetings on Thursday, next Thursday, and all this nonsense. Why do we keep changing our minds every week?

The Chair: Again, I've been following the general wishes of the committee. My intention today was to have the first of the so-called back-to-back meetings. My sense is we won't be able to do it.

I'm going to proceed with the first two items on your agenda. If they don't go very quickly, we'll see what happens.

It is pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iv), selection of items of private members' business.

Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: You're going to have to be patient with me. This should have been dealt with last Thursday.

The Chair: I apologize.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: To make sure everyone is clear here, there have been a lot of rumours going around. Jay has been getting a lot of e-mails. I have been getting a lot of e-mails from people who are pushing a particular bill that was not made votable.

Last Thursday morning was the last day we could have passed votable bills on to the House agenda. People who know private members' business know, when we didn't do a report last Thursday, there were no votable items selected. There was no big mystery. There are a lot of people who make a whole career out of understanding how this works. We were not on the agenda last Thursday. Therefore, everyone assumed there were no votable items. They were correct.

We've been getting e-mails from people saying so-and-so's bill should have been made votable. We've been taking a lot of heat for it.

There was no consensus. There were no votable items. There were none even in the ballpark that we could massage. It is not essential to have unanimity. We didn't have any bills declared votable because we didn't have any within shooting distance. This is the first part of my report.

The second part of my report is, in the last four out of five draws, we have had a Senate bill placed on the draw. Each time, four out of five times, we have come to you and said we are not making the decision, you make the decision. We've made no recommendation.

This time we are recommending unanimously from the committee that the Senate bill not be made votable. It is a bill that has at least twice come through members of the House of Commons to the committee and been made not votable. I'm not saying this is what has happened, but the appearance is it could be a way of coming around through the back door.

The other problem is the Senate bills move to the bottom of the Order Paper. Right now, we have two sitting there. This will stack three. The House business will be tied up with Senate business on private members' bills for several weeks running.

We are strongly recommending this bill be made an example where you do not make it votable. Again, it's the will of this committee.

Secondly, we are reporting that we did not choose any private members' bills from the House of Commons selection.

The Chair: I have a technical point. Am I not right that far more Senate private members' bills have come to the House than House private members' bills have gone to the Senate?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Absolutely.

The Chair: Jay Hill, and then Joe Jordan.

Mr. Jay Hill: I want to concur with what the chair of the subcommittee has relayed to the committee this morning.

I want to stress the point, Mr. Chairman. I think we're seeing an unfortunate by-product of the fact that members are becoming frustrated with the process. Those of us who support making all private members' bills votable would be able to point to something like this. We would suggest that people, in some way, as they come to understand the procedure a bit more, are looking at any avenue to promote their particular bills, whether it is to get a colleague in the Senate to introduce it or in any other way. The hundred signatures was another way to try to circumvent the existing system.

I think until this committee deals appropriately with the issue of making all bills votable, we're going to continue to see this type of activity. We at least have the possibility of an allegation that an individual is merely trying to circumvent the system and make a bill, that quite possibly would be made non-votable in the House of Commons, votable by effectively going through the other place.

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would like to clarify something. I don't think Jay is making that accusation, nor am I. I'm saying the bill that's coming from the Senate has gone through private members' twice, from members of the House of Commons, and both times been made non-votable. This bill has been looked at, this is its third time around, and we highly recommend that it not be made votable.

• 1150

The Chair: I want to respond to Jay. My preamble today was part of the effort to try to get to the votable private members' business.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I tend to agree with Jay, but I think what we're treating as a symptom not a problem. I think Jay has hit on it. The problem is that there is a growing frustration. If we could put a criterion in there that says if this has been before the other place, you can't use this stream to end a round.... Certainly, I don't fault the MPs for trying it, but it just underscores the larger issue of votability of private members' business.

We probably don't have time today, but I talked to Garry because he's spearheading this. One of the issues where we may be able to move forward is that, historically, agreement at second reading is agreement in principle of the House. I think that tends to be problematic, and that tends to start the whipping process, which we're trying to avoid on this.

We're looking at what we might look at in terms of perhaps voting on sending it to committee prior to second reading, which means that the House.... I think we could find a solution.

The Chair: Keep to the topic. I understand the argument. I know you can make the relationship, Joe, but let's keep to the topic, which is the subcommittee report.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay.

The Chair: Mac Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): I'm one of those people who gets trapped in the system. I would suggest very strongly that some of us backbenchers on both sides of the House sit in this House for 10, 12, 13 years waiting to have a bill drawn. When they draft that legislation they take into consideration all of the criteria that are set out, in a sense, in order to make that legislation votable.

They've been drawn already. They have gone through the process of waiting. Then after they are drawn and they are put on the list, they go through the committee process and the subcommittee process. Notwithstanding the quality of the bill, whether or not it's a good bill in the best interests of the House, in the best interests of the nation, in the best interests of the world, it doesn't matter. At the end of the day they find they come back to some sort of a process, God knows what, and then decide this bill is votable and this one is not votable. This is notwithstanding the fact that we already have a set of criteria that we should be able to measure that legislation against.

Frankly, I'm exceptionally frustrated and upset in terms of what has already taken place, not only this time around but in previous times too.

You are not going to get unanimity at any given point in time on a lot of things in this House. We know that. The process as it is, if we are calling for unanimity, isn't going to work.

I suggest what needs to happen in this particular case is that this report should be sent back to the subcommittees. I do not want to see a situation where some of the legislation of national interest and some of international interest...I don't want to see it in the public domain that a committee of this House has decided not to allow one bill to be votable.

I talk in particular about the bill that I have brought forward, which deals with illegitimate children and Canadian legislation. I do not want it to send a signal to the world, in particular when there has been great interest in it from the national media as well as television...trying to find out whether or not this legislation is going to be votable.

I can't turn around tomorrow and tell them that a committee of the House of Commons decided to allow the remaining federal legislation's reference to a child as being a bastard or illegitimate. Frankly, Mr. Chair, I cannot stand up and say this with a straight face.

To save the embarrassment that might come out of this, my suggestion is that this report be sent back to the subcommittee so they can have a second look at it. If it means they have to take a longer period in order to come back with a tangible recommendation to the committee, well, let it be so.

For God's sake, Mr. Chair—and I'm sorry for using this word—do not come out with a situation where you go back to Parliament and say, well, we have five or six bills and none of them is votable. It doesn't matter whether these bills are good or bad.

I would like to put in a motion to refer it to the committee.

The Chair: Mac, you can't move a motion because you're not a member of the committee, but we hear you.

I have a point of order.

• 1155

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the other members who had motions or bills before the committee were fortunate enough, like our colleague, to have the opportunity to make a presentation. I find it totally unacceptable.

He was able to make a presentation to the committee, while others were denied that opportunity. We'll talk about that as well, but I think it's unfair to the other members who didn't get the chance to make a presentation. Unless every members who was denied the opportunity is allowed to make a presentation, then I find this unacceptable.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, I understand the argument. I don't particularly want to rule this out of order on technical grounds. Mac is here as a private member of Parliament. He's entitled to be heard, but briefly.

I'm going to go to Garry Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The discussion we have before us right now highlights the whole problem. With all due respect, I understand the frustration. I have received many e-mails accusing me of blocking bills from becoming votable. I'm getting them as much as everybody else is around this table. I point out to them that I don't think I'm the problem. I don't think the members of the committee are the problem. I think our hands are tied.

To send this back to committee, as Mr. Harb suggests, isn't going to solve the problem. We can't change the rules of the House of Commons. I think this committee has to deal with the big issue first. And then perhaps we can have some motion put forward here to re-examine all the bills that have come forth in this Parliament, to deal with them in some way. I think there's a certain urgency here to deal with this issue.

If we wait until April there's going to be even more frustration building up. If we started having all bills and motions made votable at the beginning of February, we could start dealing with some of the backlog.

The Chair: Okay, we're going to deal with the general issue. We're dealing with the subcommittee report and Mac's comments on the subcommittee report.

Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to the point of order of my colleague Yvon Godin.

I have to admit that my tongue was twitching and that it was hard to resist the urge to interrupt him. That's not a criticism. You are a flexible and open-minded person. I found you showed considerable patience in allowing the member to make his presentation, considering that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. We are in the process of studying the report submitted by our colleague Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Harb was commenting more on item C on the agenda, which involves coming up with a formula. Mr. Breitkreuz's comments also pertained more to that matter. Without repeating what Mr. Godin said, I think that allowing him to express... I'm certain he enjoyed venting his frustrations. Maybe he'll enjoy the rest of his day more. However, what about all of the other members who weren't fortunate enough to be selected? They weren't even given the opportunity to speak.

I also did a head count of the number of members from the Liberal majority. There is a procedure in place if someone wants to be replaced by another member on a committee. Our whip has to sign some relevant forms. If nine Liberal members aren't enough, perhaps they should table a motion to increase their membership on the Procedure and House Affairs committee to 22 members.

Therefore, speaking on the same point of order as my colleague Yvon Godin, I ask that we focus our attention on the agenda item.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mac, I have to say that I agree with you on this.

[English]

You're here as a private member. Any member of Parliament can attend any committee. I have accepted that. You have had a say here. Michel also just said our third item of business is the general topic that you're dealing with.

I don't very often agree with Garry—do I, Garry?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It's a non-partisan issue.

The Chair: It is a fact that if we follow your suggestion, it would go back to our subcommittee, which, as you know and as you explain, operates on consensus. So you're going to get the same result.

I would need to rule that we're going to move now to a motion.

Carolyn, would you move a motion?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would move a motion that no bills presented to the subcommittee were deemed votable.

• 1200

The Chair: Any discussion?

Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): We don't have the written report. That's what I'm saying.

The Chair: There's no written report. My understanding is we don't need it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would like to make a point concerning not making a bill votable that comes from the Senate, because this is very much a two-edged sword. I frankly don't want the Senate starting to decide that private members' bills coming from the House are not votable. I'd like to therefore amend the report to make the Senate bill votable.

I understand the frustration when the same bill, essentially, has been moved non-votable in the past by the committee. It seems to me the committee might wish to give a guideline to the subcommittee that it need not rule votable Senate bills that have previously been ruled non-votable in the same Parliament, having come from a member of Parliament.

I don't think in the absence of a clear direction to that effect that we want to now start arbitrarily saying, no, this Senate bill is not going to be votable. So I would like to move to amend the report so that the Senate bill before the subcommittee is made votable.

I'd be happy to subsequently move a motion that we provide that guidance to the committee, that bills previously ruled non-votable remain non-votable should they come from the Senate.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: My comments concern the amendment moved by Ms. Catterall.

If we go along with Ms. Catterall or if we decide that this bill should be deemed a votable item, this means that we go along with the idea of a member, working with a senator, managing to do something indirectly that he would otherwise not be able to do directly. That makes absolutely no sense. Moreover, it would be much easier for government members to take this step. There are no NDP or Bloc Québécois senators. In any event, we object to the Senate as an institution, so that isn't surprising. There is a Canadian Alliance senator and a number of Conservative senators. A Liberal member whose bill was not selected as a votable item by the subcommittee on private members' business could work with one of his party's senators, or with a like-minded independent senator, and succeed indirectly in getting his bill selected. This makes absolutely no sense.

What if members of the subcommittee on private members' business twice agreed amongst themselves that a particular bill should not be selected as a votable item? What if they manage through a roundabout way to have the bill selected? That's crazy, Mr. Chairman and for this reason we should reject Ms. Catterall's proposed amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Garry Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We're discussing a symptom here of a problem that runs much deeper. If we go the route suggested by Ms. Catterall, we're going to do something unprecedented, where this committee overrules what the subcommittee has put in place.

Now, if you go that way, you are excluding about half the members of Parliament from using an avenue that other members have, and I'm talking about those in opposition who do not have close ties to the Senate. There are two main parties in the Senate. That means if we want to circumvent the system and get our private member's bill onto the floor of the House of Commons, we don't have close ties with the Senate so we can't bring forth our bills in that way.

The frustration that MPs now experience in bringing their issue to the floor of the House of Commons is really the root of this problem. Some MPs go through the Senate and therefore get their issue onto the floor of the House of Commons. That works for Liberal MPs, but that doesn't work for those of us who don't have close ties with any of the parties in the Senate.

• 1205

I say it's not fair if we now decide to make all Senate bills votable.

The Chair: Jay Hill, Joe Jordan, and Jacques Saada.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak against the amendment by Ms. Catterall, partly for the reasons Mr. Breitkreuz has alluded to. I note, with Ms. Parrish being called away to other business, there is not one government member of the subcommittee present to vote on the amendment before the committee at the moment, whereas there are a number of individuals on the opposition side who do participate in that subcommittee.

I would agree with previous speakers. I think Ms. Parrish was quite correct when she said there was unanimity on one issue, and that was amongst that subcommittee. Anytime you get unanimity, Mr. Chairman, as you know, it's quite unusual, with all the various parties and their agendas present.

The subcommittee did make the point that they believe we have to make an example at some point of this process that, whether intentionally or not, is clearly circumventing the existing process of votability for private members' business. I think it's inappropriate that the government whip is the one who wants to make this amendment. And should the government decide, by dint of their majority on this committee, to vote down the recommendations made unanimously, I repeat, by the subcommittee, that will send a very serious signal about the very reason and very existence of the subcommittee and the work it tries to do in a non-partisan manner.

The Chair: I just want to make the point again: it's not just that it's a Senate bill. This particular bill is a Senate bill that has been through the House process.

It's Joe Jordan, then Jacques Saada.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I think Ms. Catterall makes an important point that we consider the implications of what we're doing. I think if we can provide a rationale for it, which I think clearly is that we shouldn't have defeated Commons bills recycled through the Senate, they could live with that.

I agree with Jay. It's a very dangerous precedent, because the subcommittee, by design, does not have a Liberal majority on it. If you then want to have a Liberal majority committee second-guess everything they do, I think that's probably something we want to avoid.

The committee has ruled. We may not like it, but overruling it.... I think we can give a rationale here as to why this particular bill.... If anybody asks—they may not—the reason we didn't give it the automatic stamp of approval is we're concerned about the fact that it was dealt with twice by the lower House, and it has just come back through that procedure.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I can understand very well the government whip's position on this matter because she has to juggle everyday with the parliamentary calendar and so forth. However, I think item C on our agenda will be very important because it deals with how matters are addressed in a very generic way.

In the past, we have indeed said that bills emanating from the Senate would be deemed votable items, precisely because they originate in the Senate. We'll be looking at this matter again a little later today, but even if this case, we have a unanimous recommendation from a subcommittee charged with selecting votable items. I wouldn't want us to be perceived, whether rightly or wrongly, as a tribunal to which the decisions of a subcommittee of our own making can be appealed.

This would give me cause for some concern. The arguments invoked were fair. I would have liked an opportunity to discuss Ms. Catterall's concerns, not within the context of this Senate bill, but more broadly within the context of the constraints we face as a government going about its daily business.

I would have liked us, if at all possible, to examine this whole issue from this perspective, rather than from the standpoint of a particular decision that we must reverse today.

[English]

The Chair: Garry, very briefly, and then Marlene again.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

• 1210

The Chair: Je m'excuse. I'm sorry, it's Garry, very briefly, then Yvon Godin, then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Marlene has raised a very good point, and I don't think we should brush this over too quickly. I don't want to get into a fight with the Senate, because if we make all private members' business votable, we're going to need them and we're going to have to cooperate with them. Can we somehow make it clear that the decision we've made applies only to this one bill that has been recycled, apparently? I don't want to get into a fight with the Senate over this kind of thing. You've raised a legitimate point, and we're going to have to deal with that point, but I think it's obvious that this is circumventing the normal PMB cycle.

The Chair: Yvon Godin, then Marlene.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, that's the problem. If we want to place our trust in the subcommittee... Representatives of each party have a decision to make and they make it bearing in mind the information available to them. Perhaps Ms. Catterall might want to review her proposed amendment and then we could focus on the real problem. Perhaps I might suggest she withdraw her amendment. Then we could look at the steps that need to be taken to avoid encountering the same problem in the future.

That's all I wanted to say. This is an important matter. If a subcommittee isn't worth more than this, people won't be rushing out to serve on committees and subcommittees. It won't be worth the effort. If we want this committee to be respected, we have to support its decisions.

[English]

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I would never want to think that any committee I sat on would be simply a rubber stamp for a subcommittee either.

I am prepared to withdraw my motion, but....

I just want to make the point that if the Senate starts saying no to Commons bills, to making them votable, then it's the opposition parties that have more to lose than the government members, simply because you generally present more private members' bills. I think the majority of votable private members' bills that have gotten through the House have been opposition bills, so it's the opposition that stands to lose more if the Senate starts saying no to bills coming from the House, not the government members. So I do think it's something either this committee or a subcommittee needs to have a more careful look at.

I also think it would be wise to adopt a guideline or recommend to the subcommittee a guideline that says if a bill or motion has previously been ruled non-votable in the House, it should not be considered votable just because it subsequently comes from the Senate. I think that's a very important guideline. I don't know if we need a motion to provide that guidance to the subcommittee or not, Mr. Chair.

I would like—again, I don't think we need a motion—the record to show clearly that in regard to this particular Senate motion, the committee is agreeing it not be votable because it's previously been presented in the House and previously been deemed not votable—not on one occasion, but, I think Carolyn said, two. I think if we have that rationale clearly in our minutes today, it would be very helpful. Then if you would like a motion in terms of guidance of the committee on previous similar situations, that would send a clear message to members of Parliament that there isn't a back route around the subcommittee.

I will withdraw my motion.

The Chair: Garry.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I just want to make a slight amendment to what you were saying, that the Senate be guided by the same rules as the House of Commons on introducing the bills. For example, if at the end of our discussion today we agree you can introduce something only once in a session of Parliament, the Senate should not be an avenue to circumvent the rules we have in the House of Commons.

The Chair: Marlene, if the amendment is withdrawn...the record, by the way, now stands. We have the official record of the committee.

It seems to me, Marlene, this is the sort of motion we should consider toward the end of our main debate on votable items. If the committee would undertake that we will return to this amendment at that point, I think that would be the way to handle it, if that's okay.

Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Had you recognized me earlier, Mr. Chairman, when it was my turn to speak and before making your final comment, you would have heard me say that there is a way to break this impasse.

• 1215

I can appreciate what Mr. Breitkreuz is saying. We had already talked about it, in any case. You may recall the last bill originating in the Senate - not the one about the national poet, but the one before that. The subcommittee was reluctant to select it as a votable item because the subject-matter was entirely new and had never been brought to the House's attention by a member. You were not the chair at the time. Mr. Lee was. It was explained to us that it was not to the House's advantage to start saying that Senate bills would not be deemed votable items if they were not interesting enough, because the Senate could retaliate in some way toward House bills.

However, to break the impasse, contrary to what you just said, instead of waiting until we come to item C on the agenda, that is when we discuss ways of improving procedures, maybe we could at least explain our reasons for not wanting Bill S-22 to be selected as a votable item.

Here's what I would suggest. If Ms. Catterall agreed to withdraw her amendment, we could then proceed to amend the subcommittee report tabled by Ms. Parrish. We could say that no item was selected as a votable item and add - I'm making this up as I go along - that as far as Bill S-22 originating in the Senate is concerned, since the House of Commons twice determined that the subject-matter should not be deemed a votable item, that is why the subcommittee arrived at this decision not to select it as a votable item.

By proceeding in this fashion, the Senate would not get the impression that if ever there was another bill like Bill S-10 respecting the poet of Parliament, it could be deemed a votable item, given that it was never tabled by a member. Moreover, the Senate would not be left with the impression that bills originating in the Senate would never again be selected as a votable item. We need to rule on the specific case of Bill S-22 and without a doubt, we need to refer to this case in the subcommittee report presented by Ms. Parrish.

[English]

The Chair: I want to repeat that, as I heard this discussion, it wasn't to do with the fact that this was a Senate bill. It was to do with a bill that, as someone said, has been recycled through the House.

Colleagues, you heard Michel's suggestion about withdrawing it.

By the way, I have been thinking that we would simply vote on....

I'm sorry. Michel.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: The reason is not because it's a recycled bill. I tabled a bill having to do with mechanics' tools and the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business decided not to select it as a votable item. I put forward various arguments and some subcommittee members felt that it should in fact be selected. Let's not reject Bill S-22 simply because it's a recycled bill. We've acknowledged that Bill S-22 originated in the Senate and that normally it should automatically be deemed votable, albeit at the bottom of our priority list.

However, since this matter has already been discussed on two occasions by the subcommittee in conjunction with a bill submitted by the House and rejected as votable items, if we were to accept Bill S-22 simply because it comes to us directly from the Senate, we would be encouraging members to take indirect action, when direct action has failed. That's the reason why we are rejecting Bill S-22.

[English]

The Chair: That's on the record as well.

My suggestion was going to be that we vote on the motion we have before us, that there not be a report to the House and that we simply accept the fact that this subcommittee recommends there be no additional items of private members' business. That was the way I was proceeding. That was the way the motion was phrased. It was not that the committee accept as its own the subcommittee's report.

In light of the discussion we've had here and what is on the record, I will call that vote.

• 1220

The motion is:

That no Bills presented to the sub-committee be made votable items at this time.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: We are not providing any additional explanations with regard to Bill S-22. For the purposes of this report, you don't care to explain why Bill S-22 was not selected as a votable item. Why not?

[English]

The Chair: My point, Michel, is that there is not going to be a report, so we're not going to report to the House. We're going to receive it here as a committee. Michel, the explanation will be in the transcript of this meeting. We will pick that up again when we've completed the debate on the main item.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We will now deal with the draft report on the question of privilege. I'll explain again that, as I understand it, there will be a dissenting opinion. The committee does not need to see that dissenting opinion.

Would someone move the draft report?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I so move.

The Chair: Are there any comments on the draft report or changes? I have looked at it.

We'll go to Yvon Godin and then to Cheryl Gallant.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: One opposition member disagrees. I simply wanted to personally voice my opposition. I do not support the report, particularly the reference to any disclosure being unintentional. Anyone can come up with that kind of excuse and I cannot accept that. I cannot go along with a report that says the leak was unintentional. I didn't intend to run over my cat, but well, I did anyway. There is still the question of fault. Therefore, I cannot agree with this aspect of the report.

[English]

The Chair: As I explained, you're perfectly entitled to say that. The dissenting opinion will be attached. As long as it meets the criteria we set as to length and in both official languages, it will simply be attached.

Next is Cheryl Gallant and then Jay Hill.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): There are four things. First of all, on page 5 there is the statement “and that no basis exists to warrant the initiation of a criminal investigation by the RCMPolice”.

I'm asking that we add to that from page 11 of the Deloitte & Touche report, just to offer balance:

...a small portion of the article contains or alludes to information, which, at the time prior to the tabling of the bill itself, was classified secret and was subject to protection as a confidence of cabinet.

This is a disquieting aspect.

Secondly.... Are you ready?

The Chair: Just give us a minute so that we can catch up with you. This is in 6.3 of the administrative review in both the English and French versions. In the English version it's in the second sentence, which begins with “The disquieting aspect....”

Okay. We have that one.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So we'd like that inserted to provide balance.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, there is no 6.3 in the version we have.

The Chair: It's not the report. It's a quotation from the report that Mr. Fadden presented to us. It's being added at the end of paragraph 12. That's the suggestion.

Cheryl, do you have a lot of items?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: No.

The Chair: Okay. Go ahead.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Second, in the third line of number 13 of the standing committee report it says “Virtually all of the information”. Rather than saying “Virtually all”, could we put “Much”? There were discrepancies between the actual bill and....

The Chair: Colleagues, let's get it straight. It's a change to the beginning of the second sentence in paragraph 13 of the draft report. Instead of saying “Virtually all”, it would say “Much”.

So we have two changes. Speaking to those changes....

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: A point of clarification. Are we to understand that these changes are in lieu of a minority report from the Alliance?

• 1225

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: No.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Oh, okay.

The Chair: Are there any other comments? Paul.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): With respect to the second comment concerning “Virtually all”, I think “Much” is far too soft, shall I say, in terms of the way the report was worded from Deloitte & Touche. I think we should be able to put “Most” of the information, if we're going to use different terminology.

There are only two instances I recall where in fact there was a difference. I think the concept is, “almost all”. However you want to categorize that—whether it's “Virtually all” or “Most of” the information—I think “Much” isn't quite that demonstrative.

The Chair: Let me take them both separately. I'll take the second one first, as Paul Macklin was just discussing it.

The motion is that “Virtually all” be replaced by “Much”. Cheryl, you've heard his discussion. What do you want?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: We would accept “Most”.

The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I wonder if I could ask our researchers this. My recollection is similar to Mr. Macklin's. There were one or two points out of that whole article that were not consistent with previously available information. Was it one or two?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): I believe there were two in the chart they provided to the committee.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Then I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that “most” dealings could be 51%. What we should say, to be perfectly accurate, is: “With the exception of two points, all the information contained in the article....” That would be perfectly accurate, based on the evidence we heard.

The Chair: Adjust it to “Most...”? Cheryl, what are you going to do?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: We'll accept “With the exception of two points”.

The Chair: The suggestion is “With the exception of two points”. So the motion on this second part then is that “Virtually all of” be replaced with “With the exception of two points, the information contained....” That's what it will read.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now, if we can go to the first one again, this is, as you'll recall, in paragraph 12 of the draft report.

Cheryl, would you read it again? I have it here, but it would be better if you read it. It's to insert after—no, in the quotations, right?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant:

The disquieting aspect, however, is that a small portion of the article contains or alludes to information, which, at the time prior to the tabling of the bill itself, was classified secret and was subject to protection as a confidence of cabinet.

The Chair: Okay. That's a quotation, colleagues. It would be a quotation.

Is there any discussion? We have a motion that this quotation be inserted.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: May I ask our researcher for comment again. Notwithstanding that particular comment, the authors of the report still concluded that no evidence has been uncovered to suggest that information was purposely provided to the media in this case. I haven't reviewed the report in the light of Ms. Gallant's comments, but I'm not comfortable putting in something that seems to imply a conclusion other than that the researchers actually came to.

Mr. James Robertson: Could I suggest, to try to address those two points, that at the beginning of paragraph 12 we could say, “The Deloitte & Touche report said...”, then include the quote that Ms. Gallant has requested be there, which was raised by several members at last Thursday's meeting, and then say, “The report concluded...”—because the quote that is currently in paragraph 12 is in fact their conclusion.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

Mr. James Robertson: But they did, as she says, make the comment earlier in the report.

The Chair: Okay, Cheryl?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yes.

The Chair: Jamie will say that again, and then I'll call the motion.

Mr. James Robertson:

The Deloitte & Touche report said, at paragraph 6.3, “The disquietening aspect, however, is that a small portion of the article contains or alludes to information, which, at the time prior to the tabling of the bill itself, was classified secret and was subject to protection as a confidence of cabinet.” The report concluded....

—and the rest of the existing paragraph 12 of the report follows.

The Chair: Is there discussion?

• 1230

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Why don't we add the word “However”, so it would read “However, the report concluded...”?

The Chair: Colleagues, are you comfortable with that phrasing of it now?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The motion is carried and that change is also made.

Would someone care to move the report as amended?

Sorry, Cheryl.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: It appears that there's a grammatical error on page 2, the sixth point, line three, where it says “piece of legislation that had had to be prepared”. It seems that it's redundant to use the two “hads”.

The Chair: I found that to be correct.

Mr. James Robertson: I think that should probably read “It was a lengthy, omnibus piece of legislation that had been prepared in an unusually short period of time”.

Thank you.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: That's smoother. Could we have a recorded vote on this as well?

The Chair: I was going to explain that.

I'm going to call the vote on the draft report as amended, and I've been asked for a recorded vote, so it will be recorded. There will then be another vote that will confirm the dissenting opinion.

The motion is that they can attach a dissenting opinion as long as it's subject to the criteria the committee sets.

(Draft Report as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 7)

The Chair: I would accept a motion that there be a dissenting report subject to the usual criteria, that it be available in both official languages and that it be no longer than the main report.

Mr. Richard Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to let you know, on behalf of the opposition parties, that the translation, the French version, will be delivered to the clerk later this afternoon. It is indeed being done as we speak.

The Chair: On that understanding, a dissenting opinion subject to those criteria will be attached to this report. Will somebody move that for me? Paul Macklin.

Mr. Richard Harris: In addition, Mr. Chairman, the consenting report has the confidence of all the opposition parties.

The Chair: I'm sure the record will show that.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: A point of order. I hold in my hand slightly more than a quarter inch of paper, all of which is printed on one side only. It's especially ironic when one of the reports says that electronic voting and information technology is supposed to help us move towards a paperless society. If one multiplies the number of copies provided just for this committee meeting, we have at least three or four inches of unnecessary paper wasted. I hope the House has a sustainable development plan. I hope the waste of paper isn't part of that plan, and could we please ensure that whatever the committee gets wherever possible is printed double-sided? Thank you.

The Chair: Duly noted.

Colleagues, could we move now as well as we can to the study of votable items pursuant to the order of reference from the House of Commons?

I'm in your hands, as I tried to discuss at the very beginning. It's now 12:35 p.m., and I know from members on all sides that there are members who have other commitments. It was no fault of ours that we started late. I'm in your hands.

Garry, do you understand the point I've been trying to make all the time? I've been trying to get you a block of time.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

The Chair: Can you do something useful now and then we can continue on Thursday?

• 1235

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: As soon as Mr. Jordan has finished speaking to his colleague, I think we can introduce in concept a proposal for the committee at this point and then deal with it probably next Tuesday.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Jordan. We have been talking and discussing a concrete proposal for this committee, and he will briefly outline it for you. If he describes it in the same way as he's described it to me, I'm in general agreement with this. I think it would move a long way to making all private members' business votable, and I think we should hear what his proposal is at this point. I think it's a good one.

The Chair: Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I touched on it earlier. We can adjust a number of things, but essentially what you're changing in the Standing Orders is that if you introduce your bill or motion at first reading, and if it's drawn and it's made votable, what the House actually votes on is second reading, which historically has been that the House agrees in principle with the thing.

What we're looking at is that somehow a reference to committee is voted on prior to second reading, so you don't have to say “I'm 100% behind this idea”. You are feeling that maybe this is worth having the committee look at, and therefore there would be a vote at the end of debate for every item that's drawn. But what you would be voting on is not second reading agreement; it's whether or not the issue has enough merit to be referred to the committee. The committee would then have, although we'd have to adjust it, a timeline to report back to the House on what it found. Right now I think it's 60 days. I don't think that's long enough, because Justice might get six or seven in a week. But I think we can figure out how we deal with that.

A voice: It can't be automatically reported back.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Yes, that's something to consider.

The other issue that I think we can address with this concept is that you need to get it in final form to go in a barrel and never see the light of day. I think we can deal with the private members more along the lines of motions, in terms that this is the issue, or put it in bill form, but I think we can take some of the work off the legislative counsels and clerks, because you really wouldn't have to have it in bill form until it got to the committee, until it went that far.

The Chair: Garry Breitkreuz.

And Marie-Andrée, I know you're listening to this.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We're very short of time today, so would that be agreeable to you, Mr. Chair, if we would work together on a proposal and bring it back at the next meeting?

The Chair: But you can't be here Tuesday. You do understand, despite what Carolyn Parrish said, that I do feel a strong commitment to the chief electoral officer for the following Thursday. I think if we leave it longer, we won't get him back before Christmas. We have moved him two or three times—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: We can have one day, right? Can we have Tuesday?

The Chair: Tuesday's fine.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Sure, if we have one hour or whatever—

The Chair: Colleagues, we've fleshed this out. There will perhaps be formal proposals for us.

Marie-Andrée, you've heard this idea.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie (Principal Clerk, House Proceedings): Absolutely.

The Chair: You know what's going on.

Colleagues, I would suggest we meet Thursday, that we deal with the report on televising the House, and the draft guidelines for legislative counsels, which we have in fact worked something out on. That might be a relatively short meeting Thursday, and then Tuesday we will return to the matter of votable items. Are we agreed, colleagues?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned until Thursday.