HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Á

1110

Mr. Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC)

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. Bélanger

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 066

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, let me begin. Order, please.

    I'm going to begin, before we go to the order of the day, by reminding you that on Thursday we continue our examination of security on the Hill. We will in fact be proceeding to RCMP headquarters. We will leave at 9 a.m. for a two-hour session, so we would leave RCMP headquarters at 11 o'clock. Transportation will be provided, and we will meet at the west door. Colleagues, you will be reminded of this: we meet on Thursday at the west door at 9 o'clock for the two-hour visit to wind up our examination of security on the Hill.

    Today, you will see, we have two items of business. One is the striking of the legislative committee on Bill C-55. If it's okay with you, we'll deal with that as soon as we have received the last of the names from the parties, which will be sometime during this meeting. Once I have the complete list, I will read the names out to you and ask you to approve those names for that committee. This is something we have to do soon; there's a House of Commons deadline on it. So we're leaving item A until I have received all those names. I thank the parties who have provided the names so far.

    If I may, then, I'll go to item B. It is pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), consideration of the existing procedures governing private members' business. The document we are using as the base for today's discussion, which I will outline in a moment, is “Round Table on Private Members' Business: Issues and Concerns”. If you don't have a copy of it, please so indicate and we'll see you get one. That's the document we're dealing with.

    Now, I'd like to give you, colleagues, as well as I can, my idea of what we're trying to do. I know you've already studied this document in great detail. It is, I would say, a wish list of the 32 of us who attended the round table. There are some things in there that are very practical, some things that it seems to me are very impractical, some things that have been discussed a great deal in the House of Commons, and some that have not been discussed very much.

    As I understand it today, our objective is not to make decisions. We're not going to have votes today to change private members' business. The idea is to look at that summary and then try to sort from it areas in which we think we can move.

    In my mind, by the way, this is not so much a matter of personal opinion, although obviously members all have their own points of view, but of members looking at it and saying to themselves, in some cases, “Yes, that's something we can move through in a very practical fashion and change.” They're also looking at other things and saying, “Under the existing circumstances, it doesn't look as though that is going to go any place.”

    That's my interpretation of it, that we're trying to lay the groundwork to move forward to some practical, possible changes in private members' business--to move the thing in the right direction.

    Now, obviously, as usual, I'm in the hands of the committee, but that's the way I think the steering committee and the committee have directed me to work: to look here at practical suggestions.

    Does anyone feel willing to open this discussion of practical things? By the way--I see Gary looking at me here, and I'll tell Gary this and the rest of you--I think this is the appropriate point of view, because we spent many hours on this topic, and then it just disappeared. We have to be practical.

    Dale Johnston.

Á  (1110)  

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we go in camera to discuss the rest of this private members' business, and I'd like to speak to that motion.

    The Chair: Okay, that's a perfectly legitimate motion.

    Go ahead, Dale.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: This is not the first time this committee has dealt with private members' business. Indeed, since I've been here it's been dealt with in the 35th, the 36th, and now we're in the 37th Parliament.

    If we really want to make some meaningful change, which I certainly do, I think we have to look at the fact that our round table on May 2 heard from 31 members of Parliament, who overwhelmingly said they wanted to make meaningful changes to the way private members' business is done, and the best way to do that is to make them all votable. If you don't want to have private members' business that is votable come before the House of Commons, then I guess you simply don't bring any private members' business. To discuss business in the House that isn't votable seems to me to be a tremendous waste of the public's money and parliamentary time.

    I think because the business hasn't been conducted in the past in camera, we tend to get into the real politics of all of this stuff, and that's not really productive. It's fine politics, but it's not really productive.

    For those reasons, and many others that I could expound on if I felt I needed to, I would very much recommend that we vote to go in camera, not simply to exclude the public, but so that we can do some honest and real work in this committee and effect some honest change in the way private members' business is conducted.

    The Chair: Is there any discussion on the motion?

    Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, when we reported back at the last committee meeting, we did in fact propose that the committee sit in camera. Later, we decided not to sit in camera. Initially, I was in favour of our discussing this matter in camera, but since the committee decided last week not to opt for this course of action, from the standpoint of public perception, I think we would be ill-advised to sit behind closed doors at this time. I would really rather the meeting be open to the public and I would like to make a motion to that effect.

[English]

    The Chair: A proposal is not a motion.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: No, sir. I'm referring to Mr. Johnston's motion.

    The Chair: I understand.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Johnston moved that the committee sit in camera. I move that today's meeting be open to the public, mindful of the fact that...

[English]

    The Chair: We could do that by defeating this motion.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: No, no.

    The Chair: Okay, please go ahead.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: However, if, after today's meeting, the consensus is that we need to pursue the matter further in order to come to some conclusions and that to do that, we would need to sit in camera, then I would have no objections. In other words, I'm not against the principle as such, but I'm against the idea for now.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): First of all, Mr. Chairman, I don't think our sitting in camera would be viewed as unusual. If that were true, then all of our in camera meetings would be unusual. It's perfectly normal for a committee to sit in camera occasionally, particularly when it is drafting a report. For the most part, committee meetings are open to the public. However, when the time comes to work on a report, it's normal for the committee to sit in camera. There's nothing unusual about this.

    Mr. Chairman, with all due respect for Mr. Bélanger and for Mr. Bryden, I have to say that last week, I was disappointed to see two individuals who themselves were in a conflict of interest situation on some issues actually sit on the committee. Mr. Bélanger was the one who moved that the meeting be open to the public, and I felt that there was a conflict of interest. Mr. Bélanger was the one who moved that we sit in public, and I felt there was conflict of sorts. There were those, including myself, who supported the motion, but I gave the matter more thought and determined that I had not come to this decision as a committee member with full knowledge of the facts . It's not right to ask a person to serve on a committee when that person has a problem with the matter under consideration, much less for that person to make motions to the committee.

    I'd like to do the right thing today by supporting the motion that was just moved. If we want this committee to do its job and for members to feel comfortable doing it, as my colleague was saying, we need to sit in camera. I think we should reverse our earlier decision and sit in camera.

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, colleagues, I have Rick Borotsik and a request by Mauril Bélanger to speak on this thing. I'd like both interventions to be short, and then I'm going to call the vote.

    It seems to me we're here to work, one way or the other. So, Rick, if you would be very brief....

    And, Mauril, you're a guest today. I'm pleased to have you speak, but I hope you'll be brief.

    Rick.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief.

    I support the motion. The steering committee initially had discussed this. They came up with the decision that in fact the first meeting should be in camera so that it could be very open and have some active discussion.

    Final decisions for any changes to private members' business will not be done in this meeting. It's simply a meeting to try to put forward some workable solutions. Any final decisions will be made at an open session of this particular committee, at which time each and every member of Parliament, and certainly anyone else who has an interest, can speak to that.

    I'd prefer that it be in camera, as originally suggested, and then, as I say, go forward from any suggestions from their proposals.

    So, Monsieur Bélanger, through the chair....

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mauril.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I'd like to raise a question of privilege.

    Mr. Godin alleged that I was in a conflict of interest situation. At the start of last week's meeting, I said that a conflict of interest might exist. I thought that perhaps this was not the case when you agreed to allow me to serve. I should point out that if in fact a conflict of interest situation did exist, I would be the first to admit it and I would withdraw. However, I would also demand that four other current members of this committee withdraw as well because they too would be in a conflict of interest situation. I'm referring to Mr. Godin, Mr. Borotski, Mr. Tirabassi and my Bloc colleague, Mr. Guimond.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I don't believe there is any conflict of interest in their case, Mr. Chairman, but since Mr. Godin alleges that I...

[English]

    The Chair: Let me say that you were perfectly entitled to speak and say what you did. If it had not been so, I would have ruled it out of order. Okay?

    Is that it?

[Translation]

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is there a conflict of interest where I'm concerned, yes or no?

[English]

    The Chair: No--

[Translation]

    Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

[English]

    The Chair: --not in that sense.

    I can have one more intervention on this, very briefly, from John Reynolds, and then I'm going to call the vote.

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention that the modernization committee, which was taking place about a year ago at this time between House leaders, was all held in camera. That's why we had so much success in getting some changes made that needed to be made in the House.

    I would also mention that today there are 20 committees meeting in this House right now; 13 of them are in camera. So it's not unusual.

    The Chair: Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: On a point of order, a point of clarification, or whatever you want to call it, when I speak about the conflict of interest, it's not about members of the committee doing their work as members of the committee, but because, in this special case, Mr. Bélanger had a case that was refused to be votable, and he was dealing with that case himself, as far as I was concerned.

    That's the part. It wasn't by normally being on a committee dealing with issues of the House; it was because it was a special case on which he was refused, and he was dealing with that case when he--

    The Chair: I understand the argument. It was an unusual situation, but he was a bona fide member of the committee at the time.

    You heard Dale Johnston's motion, that the committee go in camera.

    (Motion agreed to)

    [Proceedings continue in camera]