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, November 29, 2001

• 1112

[English]

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

I appreciate your patience. I think you understood. The committee that was in here previously had been bumped twice before they arrived in this room. They had witnesses who had come to Ottawa specifically for the occasion. There was no blame attached to this; it was simply an organizational problem. I appreciate your patience.

I thought we should begin, but before we get to the general items, I remind you that next Tuesday we continue with the votable items. A week today, Thursday, Mr. Kingsley returns. He's here principally on modernizing the electoral process, which includes changing our electoral boundaries. He's going to explain that again to us. It includes changes in the various procedures—for example, the use of the householders in the election, and some members have mentioned pre-election expenses, a variety of things to do with that.

Also, I would draw to your attention the very thick report, which we saw briefly, but Mr. Kingsley has now tabled it in the House of Commons, and which every member of Parliament has. It is Modernizing the Electoral Process, with a lot of changes in it.

We can't do everything at this one meeting, but I would suggest that members who have interests in various changes here have them ready, so that once Mr. Kingsley has proceeded through his main points we can question him on those. You will recall that at his last meeting with us we suggested that there should be a regular meeting with this committee. I think we should follow through with that at the end of the next meeting. That's personal advice, if you like.

• 1115

Following the meeting that's a week Thursday, the next Tuesday we may need to clean up, I hope—I heard from Garry Breitkreuz that he's very hopeful—the votable items matter. We'll see next Thursday what we will be doing the following week. Okay?

Now, colleagues, we can proceed to today, and this may not take us long.

Item A is the guidelines for legislative counsel. You have copies of those guidelines. The key part—we saw them two or three weeks ago—is the letter at the end. If you could look at the letter at the end of that report, it says “Draft practice guidelines for legislative counsel”, which is Jamie Robertson, October 9, 2001. The very last page is a draft reply to the Board of Internal Economy.

When I raised this here the last time, the suggestion was that the committee—and this was before I was chair—has made some very modest, almost editorial, it seems to me, changes, but they were returning it to the Board of Internal Economy, saying that no concerns and problems were expressed by MPs to us.

My understanding now is that the official opposition, which had some concerns about that, is now in agreement with that. Is there any discussion of this? My suggestion is that if there aren't any other changes, we should simply proceed with this.

[Translation]

You wanted to say something, Yvon?

[English]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): No, I was just looking at which document you were referring to.

The Chair: Oh, excuse me. Okay.

Mr. Yvon Godin: You're fast like a bullet today.

[Translation]

The Chair: It's on the final page of the document.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, are we referring to the part that begins with..

[English]

“The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the honour to present...”?

The Chair: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Then I have no idea what we're talking about.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. We'll wait a minute till everybody knows what we're doing. I do apologize for this.

Colleagues, again, it's “Draft practice guidelines for legislative counsel”. If I could have a French version I could probably say it in French as well.

[Translation]

The document is entitled “Draft Practice Guidelines for Legislative Counsel”.

[English]

My point was—and I apologize for speaking quickly—that it seems to me what we're considering is the letter that forms the last page of that document. There's a draft letter from this committee to the Board of Internal Economy. It essentially says that we looked at these draft guidelines the board referred to us, and with a few modest changes—which were made before I became chair of the committee—we return them to the Board of Internal Economy and say that members of Parliament have not expressed any concerns or problems to us, and we thank the board for consulting us. In other words, we looked at them, we said they're generally okay, and we're sending them back.

Again, to explain, at our last meeting when I first raised this, not knowing the history of it, there was some concern from the official opposition. My understanding is that concern has now been satisfied.

Would someone move that this draft reply become our reply to the Board of Internal Economy regarding draft practice guidelines?

[Translation]

Yes, by all means, go ahead Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I believe a small correction is in order. In the next-to-last line of the second paragraph of the French version...

A voice: Of the letter?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'm sorry, yes, of the letter. It says: “... le comité conclu”. The word “conclu” should be spelled with a “t”.

The Chair: Thank you for pointing that out, Jacques.

[English]

Are there any other...? I don't want to rush this thing through.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'd like to move it.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: If we could move then to the second item, which is the draft report on broadcasting—or as I think of it, the draft report on televising committees—there are two documents. There are the briefing notes—Jamie Robertson's briefing notes on broadcasting. I've got that written here. In English it says “Broadcasting of Committee Proceedings: Summary and Status”. The other document is a draft report for this committee to consider.

• 1120

Jamie's briefing note is important, because what it says, in essence, is that given the time since this committee initiated this new approach to the televising of committees, there has not been enough experience for this committee to comment. If you look, there's a table there that shows it.

Therefore, our draft report says two things. It recommends that the timelines be extended. Instead of a deadline now, as we just don't have enough experience, it will be extended roughly six months, so that more information can be gathered. That's one. That's the main recommendation. But before that, it also says that this committee will undertake to actively promote the new guidelines with the standing committees, with the chairs, in order that the committees will try to take more advantage of the new procedure, so that in six months' time we can comment on it more effectively.

Is there any discussion of this? Cheryl Gallant and then Jacques Saada.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): I have a question regarding page 4 of Jamie's report.

The Chair: Okay. That's the one with the chart on it.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yes, and it relates to this chart.

First of all, Mr. Robertson, can you explain how you track requests? What is the process? If somebody were to request a tape, how would you keep track of that and then relate it to this chart?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): This chart was actually prepared by Patrice Martin, the clerk. He consulted all of his colleagues in the Committees Branch of the House of Commons and requested from them details of how many notices had been received from the electronic media that they intended to film a meeting, which is the second column, and how many sittings had actually been televised. On a few occasions the media advised the committee through the chair and the clerk that they would be televising and then they decided or did not have resources to show up and do it.

The third column I believe is where, under the nineteenth report, a committee could request the Speaker of the Commons to request from the broadcaster a copy of the tape of the meeting. According to the information from the clerks, no requests for tapes were made; no committees asked the Speaker to send an official request for a copy of the complete tape.

We did request from the Speaker's office any information that they had as to exactly how many requests they had made on their own initiative, or had been requested of them through unofficial channels. We understand that there have been no requests made.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So that does not include requests for tapes from individual members of the committees?

Mr. James Robertson: That's right. I presume that any individual MP, like any citizen, could contact one of the electronic media who had filmed the meeting and ask for a tape or a copy of a tape. That would be up to the media as to whether they provide that on an individual basis.

Under the nineteenth report, the Press Gallery members were required to provide a copy of a tape if the Speaker requested it.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: And the Library of Parliament doesn't have to keep track of individual requests?

Mr. James Robertson: No.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Okay, thank you.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: I have another minor detail to mention.

The Chair: Certainly.

Mr. Jacques Saada: You signed the English version of the report, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I did.

Mr. Jacques Saada: However, the French version is signed by the former chair.

A voice: The ghost of Mr. Lee.

[English]

The Chair: It's the report. I'll have the operation next week.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Is there any other...?

• 1125

Okay, colleagues, the motion is on our agenda, to be moved by somebody in a moment, that the draft report be adopted as the committee's report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House.

Just by way of explanation, we will undertake to work on your behalf with the other committees to raise their awareness of the new procedure and encourage them to use it in its various dimensions. Okay?

Would someone move this motion?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: That will be our report.

Colleagues, is there any other business? Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): I'd like to ask that at a future meeting we reconsider the decision on Tuesday that we made in relation to private members' business, a report of that subcommittee. I wasn't aware at that time that the two occasions when the bill was brought to that subcommittee were not during this Parliament.

What that means, for example, is that if there had been a bill brought by a Conservative member in 1992 to the House of Commons, to that subcommittee, and declined, and another bill were brought forth in 1993 by someone who hadn't been here before—for example, a Bloc member, when it wasn't here before that, or a member of the Alliance wasn't here before that—then it would be rejected. I don't think it's the intention of the committee to say that. I think we have to make the distinction between Parliaments for that reason.

The Chair: Okay. I'll certainly take that under advisement.

I want to explain, though, that I have struggled as chair to get a reasonable block of time for consideration of this votable items matter. I'm quite willing to keep struggling with that, but already that struggle has cost us a fair amount of time, Geoff. So I would hate, on next Tuesday, for example, to have another digression so we don't deal.... You understand my point about the votable items.

I'm in the hands of the committee, so I will take it under advisement, if that's okay with you.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I have a few things I'd like to say, Mr. Chairman. We will then have a discussion. The leaders in the House met, and then we met. A subcommittee was struck to make some decisions. The subcommittee met and made some recommendations. We studied these recommendations and we rejected them. Our decisions were forwarded to the leader in the House and now, they have come back to us. What should we do? Send them back again?

If a decision was made by the previous Parliament, it doesn't mean that someone can reintroduce the matter during the new Parliament. The members serving on the committee were duly elected. Decisions were made at the time and unfortunately, someone is attempting to get something in through the back door. We discussed this on Tuesday.

I think we should reopen the debate, if necessary. However, a decision was made and how far are we prepared to go? We'll ask the House or...

[English]

The Chair: If it's the wish of the committee that we have a general discussion and debate on this matter now, obviously I'm quite willing to do it. But I want to say to you—and it's the same with the votable items—that it does seem to me that if we as a committee spontaneously re-engage in a debate like that, not having known beforehand that we were going to do so, it's not likely we're going to come to a result. It seems to me it should be on the agenda so you have a day or two to think about it again and then we can discuss it properly.

Mr. Geoff Regan: That's what I was seeking.

The Chair: I understand that. I'm in the hands of the committee.

Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—l'Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Godin has already said a little of what was on my mind. We would need to seriously reconsider the raison d'être of this committee if, every time a controversial decision is made or every time some prominent members of the House—parliamentary leaders, not to mention names—disagree with a decision, that decision is revisited.

I find Mr. Regan's comments very distressing. His arguments are the same as the ones put forward yesterday by Don Boudria. I thought my colleague had more backbone than that. I'm very disappointed to see him act like Mr. Boudria's mouthpiece.

• 1130

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

You've heard my remarks, colleagues. I am in the hands of the committee, but we are a very argumentative group of people—

An hon. member: We are.

The Chair: —and any subject I put in here we could discuss for several hours. The question is whether it is worth it.

[Translation]

Go ahead, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, with all due respect to Mr. Guimond, I don't feel his comments contributed to the debate in any way. I do however, think we have some major problems to contend with. Each time we discuss a topic, we proceed with relative speed.

For example, last Tuesday, we considered the report of the previous subcommittee. We really didn't take the time to review it thoroughly. Since we are very busy, would it be possible to schedule a meeting where instead of examining one or two topics, we could take a serious look at what we really want to accomplish.

Our main problem, in my opinion, is that we take a piecemeal approach to solving problems. Basically, we haven't adopted specific criteria for dealing with such matters. I'd really like us to hold a meeting to focus on this subject exclusively. It's not important whether it is scheduled in the coming days or coming weeks. The point is that I really think we need to meet, look at the principles we want to embrace and at the role the subcommittee should or should not play. We need to take a serious look at this matter. Everything that was said this morning is a corollary to all of this.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

When I said I take it under advisement, it was for various reasons. I've just explained one of them to you. The other is that, as I understand it, we are engaged in a major look at private members' business. So say we had this debate today, and say next Tuesday we decide to make all items votable....

I'm serious. I take it under advisement. I understand the point. I made the point that you need to think these things out before we have a debate. In particular, it seems to me we should wait to see what happens Tuesday, or the meeting after that, on votable items, and then, if we could, turn to this.

[Translation]

You have the floor, Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with one thing and I would like it to be noted in the record. We make a decision, which is then forwarded to the leader of the House. The decision is sent back to us. There may be new members on the committee, but the fact remains that a decision was reached. If we're talking about future decisions, then that's fine. However, the members of the subcommittee on private members' business were responsible individuals. They made a decision based on the facts presented to them. They made a recommendation which we backed and now, because some people are unhappy, the ball is back in our court.

This is unacceptable. It's fine if we want to talk about the future, but I don't think it's fair to revisit this issue. I've seen the committee at work and a decision was made. We had some productive discussions. Now there are new members on the committee which has reversed its decision and is doing what the government wants. Since when does the Leader of the House talk to the whips in an effort to convince them to reconsider a decision? That's what Mr. Boudria did and his actions are unacceptable.

[English]

The Chair: As the Speaker would say in the House, that is debate, Yvon, but it's fine with me.

If I might comment, this is a very unusual committee. We mention the House leaders, but we have at least one House leader on it, and we have five whips on it. This is a very, very unusual committee. So we should know. If anyone knows what they're doing, we should.

Geoff Regan. And can this be brief, Geoff? I hate cutting things off, you know that—

Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

I object to some of the comments that have been made, but I want to say that it seems to me that it's been suggested that I shouldn't be bringing or shouldn't be able to bring a request to the committee that we reconsider this, and I think that's entirely inappropriate.

The Chair: Okay. And I've made it clear that it's not a motion, it's a suggestion. The committee has all heard it. It's on the record. The chair has it. We're going to come back to this thing.

Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned until 11 o'clock on Tuesday, when the topic is votable items. Remind your other colleagues that a week today is Mr. Kingsley.

The meeting is adjourned.