PRHA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

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 25, 1997

• 1109

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Order. Colleagues, before we begin today, let me say what we're here for. We're here under the committee's mandate pursuant to Standing Orders 92 and 108(3)(a)(iv) in relation to private members' business.

The orders read:

Consideration of a Draft Report from the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business on its Order of Reference from the Committee in relation to the First Report of the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business, tabled during the 35th Legislature (2nd Session).

Our guests today are members of the Portfolio Committee on Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Petitions, from South Africa, with their chair, Mr. Petrua Matthee.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: We welcome you all. I apologize for the fact that we are in this committee room, which is not really set up for us to have a huge audience. We normally do not attract this kind of attention. I do have some concern about it, though, because of translation.

Colleagues, it may be that as we get going and we know how many of us are here we allow some of our guests who do not speak either French or English, if I might put it that way, to come forward and take these seats so that they can take advantage of the simultaneous translation.

• 1110

Mr. Petrua Matthee (Chairperson, Private Members' Legislative Proposals and Petitions; Member of Parliament, National Party of South Africa): We all understand English.

The Chairman: But you would need it for French.

I apologize; normally in our committee rooms we would have translation for you, but we don't in this particular room.

Colleagues, before we go on to the orders of the day—and I know we all have very busy schedules—perhaps we could go over where we stand on various things.

First of all, today the main topic is private members' business, but I would also like, at the end, if it's humanly possible, to consider how we're going to follow up on the Elections Canada presentation of last week. I have some thoughts on that. Perhaps we can do that today if it's humanly possible.

Thursday, November 27, the topic is electronic voting. As I think you know, a group of officials went to Washington. We have a draft report. On Thursday I think virtually all of our time will be occupied with that.

Next Tuesday is, as you'll recall, the fateful first Tuesday in December. We've been committing ourselves to doing various things by the first meeting in December. There may be a report from the House schedule committee. If there is that, it will be our main topic.

Now, if there is not, and that subcommittee is meeting again this Thursday, there will be other matters, including, possibly, if we've not finished it, a follow-up to electronic voting.

Thursday, December 4, is the briefing on the business of supply, with Marlene Catterall.

Then there are the outstanding items, as I see them. One is our review of the standing orders. There's a draft report proposal floating around. I'm hoping to get some feedback on that, although I think we have an idea of how we're going to proceed. It may well be that on December 9, which is the last week, we would begin our proposed review of the standing orders.

You will recall, the idea is that we would have a rather special meeting—in this case, likely with the Clerk of the House—and then in the new year have a more elaborate meeting dealing with the standing orders.

We already have a modest file of suggestions in addition to the considerably detailed suggestion Randy White provided for us.

On the matter of rules for joint committees of the Senate and the House, material is being circulated along the lines I tried to outline the other day. You'll be receiving some notes and a table showing rules in the House, rules in the Senate, and suggested changes.

It's possible that if in fact we do have space on December 2 we can deal with that matter. So that's the rules for joint committees on December 2.

With regard to private members' bills originating in the Senate, I have received a letter from the Senate—or from somewhere—suggesting that this is best referred to the House leaders. It came from Yvon Charbonneau. I will circulate that letter and the suggestion as soon as I possibly can.

The briefing on renovations on Parliament Hill, which is a thing that's ticking, I would suggest we leave until the new year.

I've gone through those things, colleagues, so that we all have some idea where we're going. Is that okay? Does it sound reasonable?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): I think it sounds reasonable—

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl, I mean.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, I was confused. Randy and I look like brothers, though.

The Chairman: My apologies, Randy.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm hurt.

On the electronic voting, I'm generally in favour. It looks good; we've all heard that.

I'm wondering, is there anybody out there who has a dissenting opinion on this?

• 1115

One of my caucus members wrote me a pretty detailed letter of the problems that he thinks we're maybe glossing over a little bit. Is there anybody out there who says, by the way, it's not entirely peaches and cream, that there are some other sides?

I don't want to rush into something, only hearing one side, and think to myself at the end that I never did think of that. I'll bring up a couple of those things when we have this meeting, but I wonder if we've had witnesses. Is there even anybody who would say, in general, they think it's not a great idea?

The Chairman: Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I simply wonder, of those who have gone to other legislative assemblies—including the government House leader, and I believe Mr. White has, and I don't know who else. I don't know that in their remarks they were glossing anything over, but I'd be interested to know if they did hear of anything that was contrary to what they've already expressed, which was basically that it's something positive and going in a direction that seemed suitable to our own legislative assembly.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments on that point?

It's an important point. The session later this week is a very important one. We have discussed it here at the committee; I assume some of that information has gone out again.

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Chuck is asking for dissenters. I'm not convinced that electronic voting is beneficial. I've not been to Washington or other places to which the group travelled with respect to electronic voting. I guess the only question I have with respect to that issue is, what's the purpose of it? Is it to make things more efficient? Is it to save money? I don't know. Maybe those are issues we could talk about at the meeting.

The Chairman: If I might suggest, the debate would be at the meeting, John, but there's a general point here. I hope colleagues will go back to their caucus colleagues and talk, and have already done so.

Mr. John Solomon: For example, Mr. Chair, if I might, if we're going to spend x number of dollars on electronic voting, I think if you ask the members if they had a choice between spending those dollars on getting some decent computers in their offices, there'd be no choice; it would have to be computers. But if we're going to have computers as well with this, I think that's a possibility.

The Chairman: Again, John, I think that's debate about the issue, and it's the more general point. Somehow or other we should be able to feed in these other views—and we've just done so—at the meeting on Thursday. I hope colleagues are consulting their caucus on this matter.

On the general schedule, it sounds okay. We could then proceed to our main item of business, and I think everyone has a copy of the first report of the subcommittee on private business.

Yvon Charbonneau, if I could turn it over to you, we'll proceed from there.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I would like to report on the work done by the sub-committee under the mandate given to it.

We have been able to use the work done last year by the sub- committee. Our new committee examined the analysis carried out by the sub-committee.

The Chairman: Excuse me.

[English]

I would ask our guests if they would care to come to the table. It may be that all the members will arrive, but if in fact you need translation it's there.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Our subcommittee has reviewed the report prepared last year by the then subcommittee. We shared the analysis made by the then subcommittee. We have adopted the recommendations that have been prepared, with minor changes, and we have adopted others without any amendment. This is a unanimous report—with an exception?

• 1120

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I do have a minority report. I just wanted to get on the record some of the things I was concerned about.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Okay. It can go to a vote. I was not aware of that.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm sorry I didn't inform you.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: That's the reason why I was not aware: my colleague, Mr. Epp, did not mention it.

I will go through the recommendations, reading them, and then we'll answer questions, if there are any.

On Standing Order 92(1), it's recommended that:

Standing Order 92(1) be amended to remove the provisions that not more than five motions and five bills may be designated as “votable items,” and to provide that not more than ten items from the order of precedence may be so designated.

There was some dissatisfaction with the respective number of motions and bills, five and five. Therefore it becomes ten, without its mentioning if it is five of this and five of that. It could be six and four, four and six, seven and three; but the total is ten.

The Chairman: Colleagues, if we go through them in that way—and by the way, I think a commentary like the one Mr. Charbonneau just made is quite appropriate—and then we come back and do them one by one, would that be okay? We have some sense, then, of what the subcommittee is thinking.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I am introducing the second recommendation. There was also some concern to find an alternative way of putting on the agenda motions or bills coming from the members. By “alternative” I mean other than the draft. So we recommend that:

The Standing Orders be amended to allow items outside the order of precedence that have been jointly seconded by at least 100 Members to be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence, unless the Member proposing the item already has an item in the order of precedence. The 100 Members must include at least 10 Members from each of a majority of the recognized parties in the House of Commons.

[Translation]

I would like to inform Francophones that there is a slight difference between the English and the French versions.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I did not receive the English version, Mr. Chairman. I had nevertheless asked for it.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I will repeat the first line in English:

[English]

The Standing Orders be amended to allow items outside the order of precedence—

These words, “outside the order of precedence”, have not been translated into French.

[Translation]

The text would therefore read as follows in French:

@ti24 2. De modifier le Règlement de manière à lui permettre de placer en fin de liste de priorité des affaires qui ne font pas partie de l'ordre de priorité appuyées conjointement— Three or four words were simply forgotten.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, is the French version available?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Does Ms. Dalphond-Guiral have a copy in French?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Oh, it is a copy of the English version that she was asking for.

[English]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The third recommendation is that:

Order Paper

The fourth is that:

Standing Order 97.1 be amended by substituting “60 sitting days” for “six months” so that it would read as follows:

A standing, special or legislative committee to which a Private Member's public bill has been referred shall in every case, within 60 sitting days from the date of the bill's reference to the committee, either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving the reasons therefor.

• 1125

Number five is that:

Recorded divisions on Private Members' Business begin with the sponsor of the item, if he or she is present, and then proceed beginning with the back row on sponsor's side of the House, and then the back row on the other side.

It's to send a clear message that these are members' bills and motions and the front bench is not necessarily the first to rise. It would be the back bench, the middle bench, or any other bench than the front bench.

Number six is that:

Order Paper

Number seven states:

The House of Commons appoint, by resolution, a Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, who would be responsible for the provision of legislative drafting services for Members, and that he or she be provided with sufficient staff.

Finally it states that:

Priority be given to the drafting of private Members' bills for Members who have not previously had a bill drafted during that session of Parliament.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Yvon.

[English]

Do any other members of the subcommittee want to comment briefly before I go to the list?

Mr. Bob Kilger: I wonder if it would be appropriate to have the dissenting opinion first.

The Chairman: On the committee? Ken, you said this was a dissenting report or whatever, but these are your views.

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, and I believe I represent not only members of our party but also other members who have expressed themselves in the previous committee. I would like this to be on the record as something we should very seriously look at.

The Chairman: So it will be Ken Epp, Carolyn Parrish, and Mac Harb.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): For greater comparison, if the member would refer to this paragraph if there is a specific objection, I would appreciate if it is noted during the presentation.

The Chairman: Okay. Are you comfortable with that, Ken?

Mr. Ken Epp: Sure.

The Chairman: Thanks, Rey.

Mr. Ken Epp: I need to begin by apologizing that I do not have a French translated version. I'd like to therefore take the occasion to actually read this so the interpreters can do the interpretation. That way the people who don't understand the English language will get it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Chairman, is it the norm and it is usual for us to study a dissident report that has not been translated into the other official language of Canada?

[English]

The Chairman: That was the point of my question. I see it. It's called a minority report, but my sense is that these are Ken's views. I accept his points and other people support them, but to me it's not a minority report in the formal sense, and that's one example of why it's not.

[Translation]

Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Is it usual for a member of the committee to table with the committee positions that have not necessarily been explicitly outlined before the sub-committee?

• 1130

[English]

The Chairman: Ken, if I might—

Mr. Ken Epp: I can explain that, Mr. Chairman.

During the time in our subcommittee when we were debating this, I tried to put these points forward. It did not reach consensus there. In an attitude of collegiality, I said okay, that I would go along because I wasn't able to persuade them.

I did not at that time anticipate that I was going to actually write this up and present it to the larger committee. Actually I came to that conclusion only this morning, thus the reason for the lack of translation.

The Chairman: I'm sure it won't—

Mr. Ken Epp: It is an afterthought, but I really do believe we should have this on the record, primarily because if you look at the witnesses heard by the subcommittee in the previous Parliament, which are to a large extent the basis for this, there were a large number of MPs, including members from the other parties, who talked about these topics.

The Chairman: I'm not at all objecting to it being on the record. I'm trying to make the point that it seems to me it's not a formal minority report. A minority report could be appended to our report to the House of Commons, for example.

At the moment, I think if you can proceed and get it on the record, our colleagues don't have any objection. We've had a suggestion from Rey Pagtakhan that you simply keep us on track as to where these things fit with respect to this report.

Mr. Ken Epp: It's a dissenting point of view, then, if you want to call it that.

The Chairman: Whatever.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. Good. Here it is. Let me just read it.

While the Reform member on this subcommittee gives hearty endorsement to most of the recommendations, there are several items of disagreement.

First, the Reform Party believes that all private members' business should be votable and that appropriate measures should be taken to assure an increased amount of time is available in the House for such business. For example, perhaps all of Friday's business or all of Monday's business could be devoted to private members' business. This could be further facilitated by limiting debate on private members' bills to two hours and on private members' motions to 90 minutes.

The Chairman: Colleagues, to me that ties most closely to number two.

Carry on, Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: My second item is that votes on private members' business should be held once per week, possibly right after Question Period on Wednesdays.

The Chairman: Colleagues, to me that is a new recommendation.

Mr. Ken Epp: That would be in order to maximize the involvement of members in view of the fact that if we're going to do this Friday or Monday thing, a lot of members will choose not to be here. This will focus them on the issues and they will have to make a wise decision on how to vote.

Third, if the present system of a private members' subcommittee is kept to determine which bills are votable, we suggest that the absolute veto of any member be replaced with a system of point rating on specific criteria and that the items with the best rating be selected. The list of criteria needs to be revisited. Just as it is offensive for a single member to be able to veto the votability of a bill in the House, so it is offensive for a single member of the subcommittee, behind closed doors, being able to veto the votability.

The Chairman: Again, Ken, I see that as a new item.

Carolyn Parrish and then Mac Harb.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I wanted to speak to our recommendations, but with your indulgence I'm going to speak to these.

I think the first point is a totally new recommendation. It has absolutely no relevance to what we've presented to you because we haven't talked about the votability of items. We've assumed that we were going to keep the same order and the same numbers we had before.

Also, changing the length of debate and everything else is a very dramatic departure from what we were actually considering in that subcommittee and from what our recommendations are. I don't see how number one ties in.

Speaking directly to Mr. Epp's first point, as I did in the committee, my belief and the belief of everybody delegated to the committee in the previous session is that this will undermine private members' business and make it all equally unimportant. If every single bill is being voted on, nothing gets the strength or the support of a committee taking it into the House and making it unique and special.

This one was thoroughly debated in the last committee. It was debated again in this committee. There was no consensus. As a matter of fact, Mr. Epp was the only one who had that point.

The idea of a vote on private members' business being held once a week again has nothing to do with any of the recommendations in front of us.

As for all of section three, the committee chairman, to his credit, has agreed that we will go on and look at this as part of our function in that committee. Again, it's a direction that's already been given to him and he's already agreed to do it, so I don't think it needs to be part of a sub-report to this.

• 1135

Going back to the original recommendations, I have a little bit more interest in this than I normally would as a member of the committee because I chaired the original committee that brought the recommendations forward, and I'm very pleased with what Mr. Charbonneau and the rest of the committee have done.

We had fairly unanimous agreement, despite Mr. Epp's piece that he just put out. He was pretty well in agreement with what we were doing in there, as he states in his opening statement.

Just a clarification for everybody. The stuff here isn't terribly dramatic. The idea on voting from the back row down to the front row really reinforces the idea that cabinet does not give direction on a private member's bill. If we go to electronic voting, it will be redundant. That one is there simply in the event that electronic voting doesn't materialize.

Number two is really irrelevant. All it says is that if we deferred a vote that's already been debated fully in the House, when we have the next row we can put one more bill in there instead of letting that keep an artificial space. It simply gives more business an opportunity to come forward.

On the first recommendation, we have artificially been forced not to exceed five and five. We'd like to have ten in total, the same ten, but we'd like to be able to shift between motions and bills without that artificial separation.

Number four—Daphne Jennings already had this bill passed. Hers is six months; we wanted to change it to 60 working days. Actually, this would give more time to the government because sometimes we have long recesses over Christmas and so forth, so it just fits with what we do in the rest of our business.

I think the most dramatic one is that the House of Commons appoint by resolution a law clerk. It's being considered by the Board of Internal Economy. We would like to reinforce that as a recommendation of this committee. It wouldn't be binding, I'm sure, but I think we're at the stage where there's been a lot of controversy over not having enough people there drafting bills for us and we would like that recommendation to stand.

The prorogation was done in the last government. We prorogued part-way through the session. When we came back the House leaders moved this, and we are just formalizing what was done in the last Parliament with recommendation number six.

I'm very much in support of this report. I was disappointed when it was presented too late in the last Parliament to have anything done other than just having it received. It turned out it's probably a good thing—sometimes when something bad happens, something good comes out of it—because this time we had the Tories and the NDP participating in this as well as the three parties that did last time, when we got concurrence from them. Bill Blaikie was on the committee and Mr. Doyle.

It's very strongly recommended. It's a good report. It's a good amendment to a process that seems to work very well here. I highly recommend we support it.

The Chairman: I have Mac Harb, Ken Epp—because I kind of cut him off—and Randy White on my list, but I'd like, as soon as we could, to get to consideration of the items that are actually on here. Can we move it along?

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the report, as a start, and to commend the committee on a job very well done. But I wanted to raise two very quick points.

First, the drafting of private members' bills and the length of time it sometimes takes for those bills to be drafted is really a concern of mine.

Second, once we introduce a private member's bill and the House recesses and we try to reintroduce it again, it has to go through a process of re-looking at the bill and so on. I'm concerned about the time it takes, in some cases, to reintroduce private members' bills. For example, the last time I introduced a number of private members' bills, there were copies made of them. This time, I want to reintroduce them but I don't need any more copies. Nevertheless, they have to go through the same process of being printed, so it will incur costs to the House of Commons, in a sense.

I wonder whether the subcommittee has had a chance to look at the question of the length of time it takes for a private member's bill to be prepared. Also, if a bill has to be re-introduced, the length of time that takes— In some cases, some issues are critical in terms of the time element, and if you miss the time element the bill could become irrelevant.

The Chairman: Perhaps I could refer back to Yvan Charbonneau on that.

Yvan, would you care to respond to that?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: No. I am unable to answer that question. I do not have the concrete experience he is referring to.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Mac Harb: I just wanted to—

The Chairman: I appreciate that. Thanks, Mac.

Ken Epp, then Randy White, and then Rey Pagtakhan. As I said, Rey, we want to go as soon as we can to consideration of the recommendations. So it's Ken and Randy.

• 1140

Mr. Ken Epp: First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the clerk be empowered to have this document translated and to provide it to all members who need it in the French language. Would that be possible?

Second, with respect to the mandate of it and whether or not I've answered a question, I did go to the motion of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the previous Parliament, because I thought that exact motion was being repeated for us in order to do this study in our subcommittee, and that motion says explicitly:

That the Committee undertake a study of Private Members' Ballot Items to determine the possibility of allowing all or more such items to become votable, and to study the disposition of Private Members' Bills at committee stage—

I think we did discuss this in our subcommittee, and the report you have before you, I believe, accurately reflects the majority and in some instances the unanimous approval of that subcommittee. But this one item—which is what triggered this in the first place—is the problem so many members have. They work on private members' business, then it's not votable, and they're basically shut down by the little subcommittee that determines whether it's votable. If they go into the House, unanimous consent is required to make it votable. A single member can say no and thereby stop a private member's initiative.

Thirdly, if it does become votable, it then goes into committee where that private member's initiative can be stopped dead in its tracks in the committee.

Our subcommittee addressed some of these items; you've seen them here. For example, there is the requirement that the committee report a bill and if it doesn't it's deemed to have been reported. They don't any longer have the ability to stop it. But what I'm addressing specifically is the fact that we still believe that private members' business should be votable.

I want to very strenuously show that's on the record, and I would like to point out, as I did before, that this is not just the Reform that held this view. In the previous Parliament, when that subcommittee met and they received submissions, there were other people who actually came to the committee and gave verbal reports. There was a lot of support for even having fewer private members' items but at least having votable those that we do deal with.

That's a very strong point and I really think we need to look very seriously at that, beyond what the subcommittee has done.

Thanks.

The Chairman: No problem with the translation.

Randy White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I would compliment the committee on their work, but I have some concerns about the process of private members' business. I wonder whether this first report precludes this Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs from considering other more relevant issues on the subject. If the answer is no, then I'll just continue with a couple of comments.

One of the very serious problems with private members' business is the strength of private members' business in committees. Typically, when private members' business goes to a committee of this House, that's where the business stays. It never gets back out on the floor again for voting or for implementation.

An hon. member: Did you see the report?

Mr. Randy White: Yes, I can see that.

In my analysis of private members' business of the 35th Parliament, 266 bills were introduced and three received royal assent. Those that received royal assent were: one minor one to do with the Auditor General Act—it enables him to report more than once a year, I believe; hockey and lacrosse as national sports; and jury duty related to the UI program. I hardly call those earth-shattering issues and I'm just wondering— I'd like to spend some time on this recommendation number four and maybe get an explanation.

The Chairman: I assure you we'll get to recommendation four when we've done one, two, and three.

Mr. Randy White: We may do that, but I'm giving you my opinion now.

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Randy White: My opinion is that we do have to spend a lot more time on that issue, because I think the lack of confidence in the private members' business is not related to a lot of these other issues but is related to whether or not they actually become bills.

• 1145

Finally, in the second session of the 35th Parliament, 344 bills were introduced and only six received royal assent. That's an abysmal record, quite frankly.

The Chairman: Okay.

Again, it's still my hope that we can deal with this systematically.

Rey Pagtakhan, Chuck Strahl, and then Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I would like to raise a question on procedure. The purported Reform minority report is being presented, I understand, after the draft report of the committee has been presented to the committee.

The Chairman: Rey, we've agreed that this is getting on the record Ken's opinions and a variety of other things and that it's not an official minority report or whatever. It might become an official minority report when we report to the House of Commons, but at the moment it's simply a rather formal way of expressing some views.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I apologize. I was out.

The Chairman: I know.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm raising the issue, though, if I may express my point, because it could create a precedent that a committee of the House, having agreed upon a report— and for any reason a minority position is provided to the House itself.

In this instance, Mr. Chair, the mother committee is the equivalent of the House. The subcommittee is reporting to the mother committee. If we allow this as a precedent as a minority report— to which I object, too, because these sentiments can be expressed in debate in consideration of the draft report. There should be no minority report and it should not be allowed an opportunity, on the part of the subcommittee, to consider it as a minority report.

Having stated that, again, I apologize; I was out.

The Chairman: I appreciate that. I think Ken Epp and our colleagues understand that point. We've agreed that this is simply placing on the record some opinions.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Before I speak to the second paragraph of the draft report of the committee, just as a reminder for me, the political parties become recognized when the number is at least how many in the House, 12?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Yes, 12.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay. My observation of this second paragraph, then, is that if you consider a political party of 12, and you must have at least 10 from the party, from each of the majority—

The Chairman: It's the majority, not from all parties.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Is it 10 members from each majority?

The Chairman: It's three out of five parties.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If you have five parties you have to have three representatives.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Oh, a majority of the recognized political parties put together.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If you have two parties you would have to have support from both parties.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: To me, the thing is not very clearly worded, but the point is now clarified.

The Chairman: Okay. Chuck Strahl, followed by Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a couple of points. We've all seen what's happening in the House lately with private members' business and legislative counsel and so on. It's a timely report and good work. I think you have caught a lot of the sentiments of members who are concerned that they're getting their business sidetracked and so on. You've caught that sentiment. I think even the voting procedure is an attempt to address that. So I think that's good.

I would like to comment on point one. I also would argue that many of the members I've talked to have made the point that they are willing to take their chances in the House of Commons but they find often the decisions of the subcommittees choosing the votable items to be unintelligible.

In other words, they never hear why their bill wasn't accepted. They just get the verdict that it wasn't accepted. They say that they don't know why a bill to make a horse the national horse of Canada will get a votable—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It was not votable. I was on that committee. It was not.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It wasn't? Pardon me. I withdraw that example. But there have been some, though, where they say, well, that doesn't move me at all, nor do I think it's in the national interest, but you know, here is a substantive amendment to the Young Offenders Act that we think is a great bill. Of course it's just a matter of opinion, but the problem is they say they will take their chances on the draw, because we realize not all of them are going to be votable, but they really are willing to take their chances.

• 1150

If somebody brings forward a bill—I'll use this as the other end of the example—and says the most important thing I can think of in my private member's bill is to make this horse the national horse of Canada, then you say, then you try to defend that to the public, Mister, that you've taken up the time of the House on this subject when most members are going to say this is not as important as many others. I think that in itself would focus the private members' bills— instead of some of the frivolous ones we've had, forcing members to say, if I'm going to get this votable, I had better have a pretty serious subject in hand.

So I do agree with Ken. I don't know how you determine this, but I do think there is broad support for the idea “I'll take my chances with the draw”. The subcommittee would be unnecessary if that happened, because we would take so many motions, and if you have a cockamamie motion you did for some lark, then you try to explain it to the Canadian people.

If I could just say it to the subcommittee, who, again, I think have done good work on this, I still think the pressure on you is that there is an unrealistic expectation that you are to be all things to all people. You cannot be; so I would say your own protection in the sense of respect of colleagues and so on is to say, listen, really everyone has their own opinion—you wouldn't have drafted that bill if you didn't think it was important—therefore it's not for me to tell you it's not important enough to vote on.

I just leave it with you that there is a feeling out there that they would just as soon have whatever is drawn be votable.

The Chairman: Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: He is telling us today that in his opinion all private members' bills should be votable. He is not saying that all of the bills drawn should be votable. We had a discussion on this in committee and we were in agreement. At the end of the discussion, no one still believed that all bills should be votable. I did not say "all of the bills that are drawn".

It is one thing to deal with the number of bills that should be votable or with the conditions under which they should be votable, and it is another thing completely to demand that they all be votable.

As far as the third proposal is concerned, Mr. Epp is saying that we should perhaps take a look at the way in which the bills that will be votable are chosen.

[English]

When that suggestion came forward, I opened the door to revisit the criteria. Why not? It is possible to imagine another set of criteria, to weigh these criteria against the others, and then to come to a clear understanding about the positive reasons that lead us to select this and not select the other. It is envisageable. But it does not mean we accept every bill and motion as votable. It means we will address the issue as to how to determine the votability.

So we agreed very clearly on the importance of our selecting the items to be voted, although maybe in a different manner. Maybe it has to be assessed by the committee. But there will be the assessment of the committee, anyhow.

• 1155

As for Mr. White's concern, does it fall within the purview of our subcommittee or of this committee to be concerned as to which occurs after it has been set on the agenda of the House— Our work is to select what will be on the agenda, on the order of precedence. Then it's other people's responsibility to see what's happening. We have to prepare the order of precedence of the House in a reasonable manner.

If the bills that are going to be voted are not going to be voted, are going to be voted by the House but rejected by the Senate, are to be voted by both chambers and not to be implemented afterwards, does it fall within our purview to look at it?

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall, Carolyn Parrish, Stéphane Bergeron, and Randy White.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: First, I would like to commend the subcommittee on a good report, especially given the high feelings members of Parliament have about their private members' business, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple of comments on some of the recommendations and perhaps a couple of other things that might be considered.

It seems to me that there's fairly substantial consensus on this, and rather than just discussing the report generally for another half hour I wonder if you might go through the recommendations and ask on which ones there is basically consensus that they are good recommendations, and then if we could come back and discuss the ones on which there's not that kind of consensus or that people might want to see slightly amended—

My comment, for instance, on number two is I'd like to see a limit of five placed on the additional orders that could be added to the order of precedence, because I don't think you want to entirely swamp your given procedures with a new procedure. I think perhaps we might want to provide clear direction to the subcommittee to make clear to members of Parliament what the criteria are, because I don't think most members of Parliament who appear before it know what those criteria are. The subcommittee may.

I wonder if you might want to go through the recommendations quickly, approve those on which we have consensus, and then spend our remaining time developing those on which there's perhaps not full agreement and which need further discussion.

The Chairman: That has been my objective, but on the other hand I think it was very important to discuss this formal expression.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: And to deal with this as amendments—

The Chairman: Colleagues, I have three people still on the list as it stands. Can we go quickly through this list or would people care to start the list now?

Carolyn, Stéphane, and Randy, I have you on the list. Do you want to remain on the list? It's your prerogative. Carolyn, Stéphane and then Randy, if you could be brief, we might then get to the individual items.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: My comment is that this is an evolutionary process. In the back of the report there was a thorough review done by McGrath in the late 1980s and there were changes that came out of this. This is, again, moving it without very dramatic change. It's moving it in a direction that, as has been said from the other side of the table, responds to the needs that have been expressed by private members in the House over the last four years. Remember, it's an evolutionary process.

Second, as far as votable items are concerned, many MPs come before us when they're drawn and say they don't want their item votable. You have to remember that many purposes are served by private members' bills, one of which is to address a particular concern in your own riding, to air it in the House, and possibly to inspire the government to come in with very formal legislation on it, depending on how it's received in the House.

Many of our members don't want their bills votable and they tell us that after they're drawn. I caution you that there are many purposes for private members' bills. They're not all specifically to become law and votable.

The last one I'd like to address, because it's very important, is the deliberations. Why do we not, when we come out of the private members' deliberation committee, explain to people why their bills were not chosen? It frees up the people in that room, your people, our people, from each party, not to be partisan. They don't have to defend their own party's people. They can go in there and observe each bill on its merit knowing that they're protected by being totally non-partisan, voting for the best bills and not having to justify to those people when it's over.

• 1200

We can make up reasons, but if you want absolute honesty in that room and it works well, you cannot come out of that room and give a list of reasons why your bill wasn't accepted, because that puts too much pressure on the members there to be partisan and this is what we're trying to avoid. Thank you.

The Chairman: Randy.

Mr. Randy White: I want to get back to item four, but is this the place and the time to do it? When do you want to do this?

The Chairman: There is some logic to this order.

Mr. Randy White: I'll wait. No problem.

The Chairman: Colleagues, can we look at item number one, which is that:

Standing Order 92(1) be amended to remove the provisions that not more than five motions and five bills may be designated as “votable items,” and to provide that not more than 10 items from the order of precedence may be so designated.

Are there any comments on that? Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, having given up my right to vote, please allow me to underscore the excellence of the work done by the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business that, as Ms. Parrish explained, is the continuation of a lengthy reflection begun several years ago in the House of Commons, supported throughout the last Parliament by the thinking of our colleagues and that is now resulting, further to the report tabled at the end of the last Parliament, in the report we have before us today.

I would nevertheless like to make a few comments, pertaining in particular to paragraph one. I always have a little bit of difficulty with arbitrary numbers that are set in advance. We are saying that there must not be more than ten private members items of business, but that we can choose up to ten. There is a problem if the number is limited to ten and there is also a problem if less than ten are chosen.

Having clearly established for our colleagues that there are criteria, namely that of appropriateness and that of enriching debate in the House of Commons, if we choose fewer than ten private members' bills or motions, then that will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of those MPs whose bills or motions were not accepted. Indeed, their motions or bills will have been considered insufficiently appropriate or not enriching enough for the House to debate them. It is particularly unbearable and insulting for colleagues to have their peers impose such peremptory judgement on them without even having had a debate in the House. That is the problem if we must choose fewer than ten.

In limiting ourselves to ten, there will also be other consequences. This means that even if on a given day there are more than ten bills or motions that might enrich the House's thinking, the members of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business will have to limit themselves to this arbitrary maximum of ten.

I am all for drawing the line somewhere, because criteria must be set, but I would like to see us grant the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business the discretionary power to go beyond this limit in such cases where the pertinence and the quality of the bills and motions would justify it.

I simply wanted to alert you to my uneasiness with limiting the number to ten, on the one hand, and, on the other, the uneasiness I feel with the idea that we might choose fewer than ten, simply because this limit is there. Therefore, the limit is a problem both in the cases where we would choose fewer than ten business items and for those occasions where we would have liked to have gone with more than ten.

[English]

The Chairman: We're dealing with number one, Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, if we take into account this recommendation in light of the observation of the Reform that all items be votable—item one of its sentiment—and if we take into account item three of that sentiment, that there be a revisit of the specific criteria and the discussions that have ensued, what I am hearing is this. We either believe that all the motions and bills placed before the House are of equal quality and value, and therefore no one should make a judgment except by a random draw, which is based on a statistical principle of fairness— If they in fact are of different quality and value, criteria must then be prescribed and a selection must take place.

• 1205

We have not gone beyond the point of debate in this instance. In fact, when I look at the sentiment of the Reform Party, it is relevant to this first paragraph. It is almost a contradiction or, depending on how you look at it, it is in fact a compromise, and we have not debated it.

At this point, I will propose the possibility of a random draw for ten, fifteen, twenty—or whatever we agree to as a number—that will be deemed votable if we believe in the principle that all bills and motions are of equal value and that all bills and motions from all members are of equal quality. If we determine in our wisdom that they cannot be, then we have to go to examining the criteria themselves.

At this point, to my thinking, we are debating numbers when we have not yet determined clearly whether or not we have indeed resolved the fundamental question. Is there a difference between motions and bills, and is there a difference in motions and bills among all members of Parliament? I am tossing it to you, Mr. Chair, because we are being asked to vote on a number when we have not yet resolved a fundamental question. Maybe the chair of the committee could help to explain that.

The Chairman: By the way, I agree with you. I was wrong. I think Ken Epp's first one deals with this one and his first and third ones are actually alternatives. But I don't want to get into that.

I'm going to go to Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: By adopting the first recommendation, it settles the problem, it settles the issue. It's not a question of considering all of the items votable; that's not the matter under consideration here. It says that out of those that have been drawn, we select ten, and they can be either motions or bills.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Can I address this, Rey? What we're doing is keeping the same system we have. What we're saying is that there is a filtering system. All we're doing with the first recommendation is getting rid of the artificial boundaries between motions and bills. We're saying that we sometimes have seven excellent motions and only three good bills, but we are artificially restricted to doing five and five. We are not departing from the standard. We still filter, because there is no underlying agreement that every single bill that comes forward is of equal value. I wouldn't want to sit in judgment on that.

What we're saying here, simply mechanically, is that we agree to the ten being drawn. It fits into the legislative timetable. It has always worked that way, and we haven't changed that. All we've said is that we are not going to artificially say there must be only five and five. We're going to allow ourselves to move to six and four or whatever within that draw.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It could be twelve, it could be eleven, or it could be thirteen. The point is that there is no boundary between the two categories.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: This is a very simple amendment. It is not the dramatic amendment that Mr. Epp is looking for, which is to allow every bill to become votable.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane, if you have something to add,

[English]

and then Bob Kilger.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would simply like to say, in response to Mr. Charbonneau's comment, that I understand the idea of removing the boundaries between bills and motions. I therefore see this as a very appropriate, worthwhile and positive amendment. What is a problem for me, however, is the maximum of ten. I find that this number was set in an arbitrary fashion and that this might lead to problems, as I mentioned earlier, both when we choose fewer than ten and when we would like to choose more than ten.

The Chairman: Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I believe that we are moving in the right direction. We are giving greater flexibility to the sub-committee and even to the members who will have bills or motions.

Regarding the concerns of Mr. Bergeron and of others relative to the total of ten, we could say 12 or 15 and there would still be a line drawn in the sand. I believe that for the time being, we should state our position and decide if we want to move forward with this motion.

[English]

The Chairman: Is there any other discussion of recommendation one?

• 1210

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would like to comment on Stéphane's point. If we give the subcommittee the discretion to go beyond ten, there will be enormous pressure to select an 11th or 12th item, for whatever reason. It is the same thing as with the speed limit on the highways. It is set at 100, but why not make it 110? If it is set at 110, why not 115? So there is always this pressure to add five kilometers or to add one or two items—

Sir, if your suggestion were to give us a margin of flexibility of two, say, this would give us a second key to lock the door. We would then stop at 12. This would be manageable, but if we just open the door without specifying a maximum number, when is the discussion going to end?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I agree with you and I feel such a proposal would be very acceptable, especially since the limit of ten has not been changed for quite some time while the number of MPs keeps increasing. Therefore, each member has a reduced opportunity to get a bill or motion accepted when the number of members in the House increases while the number of votable motions remains the same.

So maybe we could have a margin of two more or two less.

[English]

The Chairman: Can I just call a straw vote on number one so that we can proceed? It's a straw vote because the formal vote will come at the end, when we're considering the report. Can colleagues give me an indication of who would be in favour of item one in the first report of the subcommittee and those who would be against it as it stands?

At the moment, we have nine yeas and three nays.

Ken Epp, please.

Mr. Ken Epp: I just want to explain this. If we maintain this system, I would be in favour of this particular recommendation, but I think we would do better to change the whole system so that this choice doesn't have to be made.

The Chairman: I can understand that.

Mr. Ken Epp: That's why I voted against it.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: If I could just briefly comment, I think Rey is right. Basically, you have a debate on your theory behind this. What do you think? Do you think they should all be votable? If not, given that, then what you have to say is by all means a better arrangement for this proposal number one than what we currently have.

However, I'd still like to advocate my previous position, and I'd just like to clarify it. It's not that private members' business should be votable, not that every single bill necessarily be votable. There's a difference. When business hits the floor, it becomes business of the House.

Not every single bill can ever be votable. We've never suggested that.

The Chairman: I'm going to proceed to number two of our subcommittee, then:

Stéphane Bergeron and Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In view of the experience we just went through on recommendation one, I doubt very much this discussion is relevant. I will nevertheless tell you my views on item two, although they will be strictly useless.

Where it says "ten members from each of a majority of the recognized political parties", there might be a problem depending on the number of parties recognized in the House of Commons. A majority of two is what, one or two? How would this work out under different scenarios?

• 1215

Another issue is what happens if a party has only 12 members. Would this party be less solicited, since it is more difficult to get the approval of ten members out of 12? The figure of ten seems quite arbitrary. It might be preferable to talk about a fixed percentage of each of the recognized parties in the House rather than "ten members from each of a majority of the recognized political parties in the House of Commons".

I feel it would be better to talk about a percentage of members from a majority of recognized parties.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think that's an interesting point, but I also think this is a good move. I think it was Mr. Harb who said earlier that there are often things that are very timely, and if you don't deal with them in a timely way, they become irrelevant. When that's the case, usually members of Parliament generally have a sense that it is the case, and that it is an issue they would like to see Parliament dealing with then, not two years later.

I think this is an interesting addition. I would like to ask the committee, though—it's silent on this—if it anticipates the subcommittee also determining which of those become votable, or if they would all be non-votable. Since we're putting a new procedure in place, I'd like to see a limit of maybe five on the number that could be on the order of precedence through that route.

I don't think we're ready to abandon the other route, but I can see this becoming very popular with members of Parliament who want to jump over everybody else who's been waiting in a queue. More power to them if they're prepared to go out and do the work, but I don't think that should take over the procedure we have now established.

I would like to suggest an amendment, and I'd like to hear the comments of the chair of the subcommittee. I guess the amendment would be to allow up to five items outside the order of precedence to be added through this mechanism.

The Chairman: Should I go to the chair of the subcommittee first? Yvon Charbonneau, and then Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: My deputy chair will handle this one.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you.

The purpose of this was to take the bingo hall out of it, to take away the notion that it's strictly chance, which brings a lot of frustrations. That's number one.

I like Marlene's amendment, but I'd like to see it not be more than one. Because we have the draw, we pull our numbers and this goes to the bottom, there shouldn't be more than one per. It comes to the committee to still be evaluated in terms of its votability. This doesn't guarantee votability, but if you have a hundred people co-signing a bill, it would be very difficult for the committee to resist that impetus.

So I would agree with Marlene that while we're in the testing process to see how this works, it should never be more than one added in this way.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That would be in addition to the twenty on the Order Paper?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No. Our first draw last time had 30 drawn. This would be the 30th, so they'd only draw 29 if there's notice that there is already one there that made it through this process. They then come to the committee and we pick 5 and 5, or 10 in combination. That one may not get picked, but I think the chance would be very slim that it wouldn't, so I would propose an amendment to your amendment to say that not more than one be added per draw.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: And then we can revisit that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, then we can revisit it.

The Chairman: Marlene, do you want to comment on that?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'll consider that as a friendly amendment to my amendment.

The Chairman: Could you write it out, and could one of you repeat it to us?

Rey Pagtakhan, briefly.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: My difficulty with this recommendation, Mr. Chair, is that it will negate the very principle of selection criteria. I thought I heard in your intervention, Carolyn, that when a hundred members have signed the bill or the petition in support, it will be very difficult for the committee to resist.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: But not impossible.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Of course. But if you then say that it is very difficult to resist, there is the power of numbers, but there may not necessarily be the power of quality based on criteria. So again, I can see the potential contradiction. I think we either believe in criteria as the basis for choice or we don't. Why should we allow a special entry on the basis of the power of numbers in support? I really have great concern about this recommendation two.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll do the straw vote thing again, but on the amendment first.

Sorry, go ahead, Marlene.

• 1220

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The amendment is basically to amend number two to stay in line with what the deputy chair has suggested, that the standing orders be amended to allow one item outside the order of precedence— has been jointly seconded by— and so on.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, do it right in the first line. Allow one item outside the order of precedence.

The Chairman: To allow one item.

Colleagues, do you understand that?

It's the very first line, first phrase, “Standing orders be amended to allow one item outside the order of precedence”.

This is a straw vote, okay? Those who would support such an amendment?

We welcome our colleague, John McKay.

Those against?

So again, we have the same. We have nine in favour and two against.

Could we now proceed to item number two of the subcommittee's report?

Those who are in favour of this item as amended? A straw vote.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: May I respectfully ask the chair why we are having a straw vote when we have about ten minutes left in the meeting? Why can't we just vote?

The Chairman: My thought was that in the end we need to vote on this entire item in a formal way in order to move it on to the House of Commons—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: All right.

The Chairman: —if you don't mind.

And Carolyn, if I might say this, I think the discussion is very important.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes. Absolutely. I agree.

The Chairman: Those in favour of item number two as amended? It's a straw vote just so we know whether we have to put something aside at the end.

We have one against.

Item number three:

Order Paper

Discussion? Straw vote, those in favour?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Could we just have a quick explanation? Just give us a rationale for that. Is this a change from the current system?

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

What happens now is that we have deferred votes. Let's say a Thursday vote gets deferred to Tuesday. The debate is finished and the hours have been devoted. It's just been moved for a vote on deferral. If we have a draw that day, we can't fill that space even though the space is gone.

This gives us more space for bills.

The Chairman: Okay. Straw vote, those in favour of subcommittee recommendation number three? Those against?

It's unanimous.

Number four of the subcommittee report:

Standing Order 97.1 be amended by substituting “60 sitting days” for “six months” so that it would read as follows:

Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: First of all, I don't want to take away anything from what's already been mentioned in going around the table earlier about this change to the standing orders. The concern I have— and keep in mind that I want this to work, I don't want to go back to some of the issues I think Mr. White was probably referring to. I think we can all remember only too well certain matters that were dealt with in private member's business in the last Parliament. They went to committee and never saw the light of day again.

It's not my purpose in any way, shape or form to want to encourage that. In fact, I want to do everything I can to contribute in any way I can to not only discourage that, but to see that it cannot happen again.

• 1225

I have a concern here with regard to the 60 days. Again, reminding myself of what I said to Stéphane earlier, you have to draw the line in the sand somewhere.

Maybe it's a matter of slightly amending this amendment so that there would be a provision for the committee entrusted with private members' business to go back to the House not only for the reasons already stipulated, but to ask for an extension. This is so that we don't box ourselves in with either 60 days— It was six months previously.

I don't think there's a magical formula as such, but I want to make this work. I have a concern in terms of the time restriction. I know that others have gone to more effort already to look at the parliamentary calendar. I think Marlene has some examples of where we shouldn't be in any difficulty, but then again, I just want to be cautious, that's all.

The Chairman: Let's look at page 7 of the original report. I believe this sort of amendment was in.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'd like to speak in favour of the recommendation of the standing order change as it reads here. It's a concern of private members that their bills go to committee and then are deep-sixed for no reason. To come back and just ask for more time is another way of deep-sixing it. After it's referred to committee, if all they do is report back and say they need another extension, they need another extension, they need another extension, then that can go on and eat up the whole Parliament. I'm concerned about that.

This puts a time limit on that, and a reasonable one. I can remember being in a committee just a week or so ago when a government bill had to pass within one week. The government said this had to pass so it pulled out all the stops. The opposition, of course, worked with the government to ensure that it was all done within a week.

Surely if we can pass changes to the Warrants Act in one week, then we can deal with a private member's bill in 60 days. That's my feeling.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall, and then we'll go back to Bob Kilger with respect to the amendment.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have some concern about this. I certainly share the intention of it: a private member's bill that's passed through Parliament should not then be virtually able to be done in by a committee.

Is this the best way to solve that or not? I'm not sure.

I'm very conscious of the work of committees. If a bill were to go to the finance committee in the fall when it's in the middle of pre-budget consultations, is it reasonable to ask the finance committee at that time of year to make sure that within two months they've dealt with a private member's bill that was serious enough to be considered votable and therefore maybe serious enough to take some time from the committee to have public hearings on the content of the bill? That's my concern. The temptation might be to report back that it be rejected if they don't think they've had time to give it enough consideration.

Somebody who happens to get a bill through on March 1 could expect a report back to Parliament within seven months. Somebody who happens to get a bill through when Parliament first returns in September can expect a report back by the same deadline. It seems a little bit weird the way the 60 days and the parliamentary breaks work out. I'll show you the chart I've drawn up, if you want.

Let's say you have the finance committee starting pre-budget consultations soon after Parliament resumes. Say it has a very serious private member's bill in that portfolio and has to report back before Christmas. That might be both unfair to the bill and to committee.

You might have a justice committee bill while the justice committee has significant— Let's say we're in the middle of doing the report on the Young Offenders Act. You're telling me it only has 60 working days to report back on the private member's bill. Do you see my concern?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There aren't 60 sitting days between September and Christmas.

• 1230

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, there are.

A voice: No, there aren't.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Two in September, three in October, three in—I'm sorry you're right.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

The Chairman: Bob Kilger and then Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I thank Mr. Strahl for drawing my attention to— I think it was on page 7. If I understand correctly, this is the amendment that was proposed by the previous subcommittee looking at this same matter.

If it's a matter of only allowing by way of compromise, if the disposition of the committee is to even consider that there can only be one request for an extension and put limits on that extension of a maximum of 30 additional sitting days— I want to see this work. I'm not here to try to allow the practice of the previous Parliament; that's not my intention. But I want to have a playing field that is reasonable and responsible so that the matters that do go to committee will be dealt with. I have a concern with the 60 days, that it's tight. There's no denying that.

Listen, from my responsibilities as chief government whip, I'm not announcing anything new to you that government legislation obviously has priority. But in the end I want to be respectful of the private members' business and individual members' interests and work in that area. So I'll propose an amendment that would include the addition of—

The Chairman: What about if on the very last line of the recommendation, following the word “bill”, it would say “or requests that additional time be provided to the committee for studying the bill”? No?

Mr. Bob Kilger: Only one request for extension and a maximum of 30 additional sitting days.

The Chairman: Jamie is going to write that out.

While he's doing that, we'll hear from Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have the same point.

The Chairman: Jamie will read it to us as it stands now, then, and this is beginning on page 2 of our report. It's dealing, as we know, with recommendation four. If you could start somewhere in the second last line, Jamie—

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): It reads:

a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill or to request a one-time extension for 30 sitting days to be provided to the committee for studying the bill] and giving the reasons therefor.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I like that. The only thing is the other part of the proposal on page 7, which is that if they just don't bother to report back at all, which is another choice the committee would have, then the bill is deemed to have been reported without amendment. That's not in this one on page—

A voice: It's on page 7.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But page 7 is not what we're debating.

Mr. James Robertson: That's correct. It should have been in there. I think we went back to Standing Order 97.1 and it wasn't there, so that's why it's missing. But the intent of the subcommittee was that it would be there, so we'll add that word.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So the intent of the subcommittee is that it will be the same as the one on page 7, with the amendment that Bob has put forward. We don't want to leave that sentence out; it's a very important one.

The Chairman: So let me get this straight. We're going to add the whole thing?

Mr. James Robertson: At the end of the reworded Standing Order 97.1, at the top of page 2 of the report, we'll add in wording basically saying if no bill or report is presented by the end of the 60 sitting days or the additional 30 sitting days granted by the House, the bill shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment.

The Chairman: Is that okay?

A voice: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. On the drafting of that, we can handle the drafting in the resolution that we use at the end of the report.

Does everyone understand the intent and the location of that amendment? We'll have a straw vote.

All in favour of the amendment? Those against?

On recommendation four as amended we'll have the same principle of voting.

Those against?

• 1235

It's unanimous.

Recommendation 5:

Discussion? Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: Do we go back row, back row—

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: If that's clear to everybody here, okay.

The Chairman: A straw vote. Those in favour of this recommendation? Those against? It's unanimous.

Recommendation six:

Order Paper

Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I would like some clarification. My concern here as government whip, and I make no bones about it, is that private members have something that basically ministers do not have.

Mr. James Robertson: That is correct. The wording of recommendation six is based on an order that was adopted by the House at the beginning of the second session of the last parliament, at which time they had certain government bills come in at the same stage at which they had been at prorogation.

This amendment to the standing orders would apply solely to private members' bills. In the case of the government bills that wish to have a similar procedure, there would have to be either a separate change to the standing orders or an order of the House on an individual basis.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Based on what I've been informed, Mr. Chairman, I would vote against this one. I don't take anything away from the substance—I agree with the substance—but in so far as there isn't a quid pro quo here I won't—

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a question, Mr. Chair, about the private member's bill. Is this just for the bill you personally had introduced in the previous parliament or for a bill that was introduced in the previous parliament?

The Chairman: I think it reads—

Mr. James Robertson: First of all, it would only be between sessions of the same parliament, and I think the intent was that it must be the sponsor from the previous session.

Mr. John Solomon: It wouldn't have to come from the same—

Mr. James Robertson: No, and perhaps that's the clarification or not, depending on what—

The Chairman: Do you want to address that point as well, Carolyn?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No.

If you are going to be brutally honest, Mr. Whip, I think what sometimes happens in a prorogation part of the way through a session might be that you have a lot of stale legislation and it's not moving and you want to get a clean slate and you want to get rid of it. So I'm not suggesting this would be something the government should automatically adopt on government legislation, because we control the agenda there. But for private members it's a lot of work to start over again and go back through the process. Really, those individual bills, in all humility, don't have the same strength and character as government bills do. So it's protecting the little guy. The big guy doesn't want to be protected, because he controls the agenda, and the big guy often wants to get rid of some stale legislation or wants just to stop the whole process and get off the merry-go-round.

So I think the two should be treated quite differently. But if you're going to vote against it—

Mr. Bob Kilger: I just advise—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, that's fine. But I think the reason is—

The Chairman: Perhaps I can comment on John Solomon's point.

I think, John, it is clear in the—

Mr. John Solomon: It needs clarification, because some people would like to introduce other members' bills.

The Chairman: That's right. No, it is clear that it is the member's own bill.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I seek clarification, Mr. Chair. I'm not clear. You spoke of a private member and then spoke of a motion for first reading of a public bill. Is there not an error there? I don't understand it.

• 1240

Mr. Robertson: These are public bills introduced by private members, which are the definition of private members' bills. There are also private bills, which is a totally different procedure. They can be introduced by private members, but this only applies to what are commonly known as private members' bills. They're public bills applicable to all Canadians, but they're introduced by private members rather than the government. It's the terminology of the orders.

The Chairman: It's a technical term. It doesn't mean government bills?

Mr. Robertson: No.

The Chairman: Rey, is that okay?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I understand it now.

The Chairman: Those in favour of this recommendation? Those against?

We have seven for and two against.

We'll proceed to number seven:

I'll go right back to Ken.

If I might, for my own sake as the chair, I would simply ask if we need to consider the question of cost here.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, who will define what will constitute sufficient staff?

The Chairman: Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It means a sufficient staff, a reasonable staff. It is subjective in a certain sense, but it also means something positive. We have common sense in this place and we can go further with such a motion. It gives the idea of having staff, not just one person without staff around them.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): A point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. A law clerk can mean a variety of things. Does a law clerk in this instance mean a lawyer, or does a law clerk in this instance mean a person who provides assistance to a lawyer?

The Chairman: I did notice it's spelled with a capital L and a capital C. Perhaps that explains it. Jamie?

Mr. Jamie Robertson: This was a position that used to exist in the House of Commons. It is known as the law clerk and parliamentary counsel. That is why the term is capitalized. I don't believe it has to be a lawyer, although that historically, to my knowledge, was the case; it was a lawyer.

Mr. John McKay: For the purpose of the intention of the amendment it strikes me that a lawyer is the person you want, not support staff. Possibly that should be a point of clarification.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As for the support staff required by the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, we are presently looking at this issue in the Board of Internal Economy. We hope to reach an agreement very soon to provide the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel sufficient support staff to meet the needs of members.

[English]

The Chairman: Bob Kilger and then Yvon.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I would just add to Mr. Bergeron's last intervention. We're all aware of this issue. It has been on the mind of a lot of members. Certainly the board has been seized with it for the last few meetings. We hope today to resolve the matter.

I don't know if there would be a willingness to put this one aside for this day. We can come back to it if need be. I would welcome the opportunity to allow the board to deal with the matter today. It eventually comes to the board by virtue of the dollars attached to the position. I would just ask if it would be possible to put it aside for a day.

The Chairman: Yvon Charbonneau and then Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Somebody asked if this has to be a lawyer. Not necessarily. In French, the position is called a "légiste". This does not mean that it has to be a lawyer registered with the Bar; it is a Law Clerk. The person would have much the same knowledge as a lawyer, but it is a "légiste".

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

• 1245

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, contrary to my colleague on the government side, I think we should pass this resolution here, in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs since it is a matter of re-establishing a position that used to exist in the House of Commons. To this end, a political will must be expressed, this political will being under the purview of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Ultimately, it will be the responsibility of the Board of Internal Economy, and I agree on this with my colleague on the government side, to follow up on our motion and to find the resources necessary to proceed with hiring. But I think we need to show our political will to the Board of Internal Economy by passing this recommendation today.

[English]

The Chairman: Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Again, we agree to disagree on this issue as before. Hopefully we'll agree when it comes to dealing with the matter of the Board of Internal Economy, but I would simply make a motion that this matter be deferred.

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I wonder if I can come up with a compromise and suggest that this committee strongly recommend that the Board of Internal Economy consider appointing— That way it gives the impetus you're looking for without tying anyone's hands. Is that all right?

A voice: Okay.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm such a mediator. May I propose that amendment?

The Chairman: I'm sorry?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'm proposing an amendment that's a compromise. This committee strongly urges the Board of Internal Economy to appoint a law clerk by resolution.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is there a word for more than “strongly”?

The Chairman: Colleagues, we have an amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As a matter of procedure, maybe the government whip should withdraw his motion.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll work on it. D'accord?

So the amendment now, colleagues, for number seven from the beginning is something like:

This committee strongly recommends that the Board of Internal Economy appoint by resolution

—and then—

a Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel

—and it proceeds from there. Is that understood?

Those in favour of the amendment? Those against the amendment? It's passed unanimously.

Those in favour of recommendation seven as amended? Those against? It is also passed unanimously.

Next is recommendation eight:

Priority be given to drafting of private Members' bills for Members who have not previously had a bill drafted during that session of Parliament.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would need some clarification, Mr. Chairman. What do we mean by giving priority to the drafting of private members' bills? Every bill needs to be drafted, no matter what. Is this simply to determine the order of drafting? If it is simply that, I do not see a problem.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: It is as you say.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Well, okay.

The Chairman: Is that okay?

[English]

John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: It's not quite as clear as some members might think it is. How would this work in the following scenario? A member has a bill being drafted and he or she has had a bill drafted before. Some new member comes in and says, “I want a bill drafted”. Does that mean the drafting ceases and the bill keeps getting bumped to the back of the queue? How does this work differently from what we have now?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Some members have eight or ten bills ongoing. If a member has one that's being drafted and someone comes in at the end of that drafting period, that job's completed first. I'm thinking of Mr. Szabo because he has a lot of bills, for example. Let's say he comes in with another bill, a brand-new bill. They'll say, “No, I'm sorry we have three members who have never had bills drafted, so they will come before you and then we'll go to your bill”. But you don't stop in the middle of the process.

Mr. John Solomon: Isn't it first come, first served if you're in there and have a bill drafted, regardless of your party? I know in the last parliament it was sometimes quite difficult because New Democrats got bumped to the back of the queue on a regular basis, even though we were putting in a lot of bills.

• 1250

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You wouldn't be bumped on the basis of party, you'd be bumped on the basis that you'd had, in a six-month period, five bills drafted. Someone coming in who's never had a bill drafted gets on the next list, and then you get moved to after that person.

Mr. John Solomon: That's not clear, Carolyn. If I've had five bills and they're doing my sixth and somebody new comes in, does that get frozen?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, they finish your sixth, and then—

Mr. John Solomon: How does this differ, then? It's still first in, first out. You're not clear.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You could have three or four people waiting. You don't do it by timing—one minute to 1 p.m., one minute after 1 p.m. If six bills come in on one day and five of them are drafted by people who've had bills drafted before and one of them hasn't, that person will take precedence.

Mr. John Solomon: Okay.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: It's fair play, just like in a sandbox.

The Chairman: Is that okay, John?

Mr. John Solomon: Well, this motion doesn't clarify it as Carolyn explains it. I guess what she's saying, then, is that if a member introduces, or has the law clerk take, five bills at once, and then a new member who's never had a bill comes in, then that member only gets one of his five.

I've not known a circumstance like that to happen. Maybe that has happened. I know I've had four or five bills drafted but they've been in seriatim. I introduced one; it was drafted; I introduced it in the House of Commons; I proposed another bill to the clerk—all usually in a queue.

I think you should clarify this motion to that effect, because this is not clear as it stands. As it reads right now, to me, it means you can interrupt a member who's had a bill already before the House of Commons and keep bumping that person to the back of the queue, and they can never get their bill drafted.

The Chairman: While they're looking at it, then, Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I think we have to safeguard against defeating initiative and hard work on the part of members. Because someone has had three or four or five, if he works at a sixth he will be defeated only because he has done a lot of work. That will destroy the fundamental value of initiative and hard work. I would suggest that we go for the basis of first come, first served. If we'd like some kind of opportunities for others, as John was saying, then first come, first served, but no one must admit more than one at any time.

In other words, it would still be first come, first served, but if somebody has been doing a lot of work up until after the conclusion of the previously submitted bill from that given member, in that case we will not defeat hard work. There will be some opportunity for others who may be slow in working but not to the point where if you have already had five you will never have a chance any more, waiting, meanwhile, for those who would only work on one for the whole of Parliament.

So I would object to this as being not very clear. It's not serving the purpose of first come, first served, or valuing initiative and hard work.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I understand the concern of Mr. Pagtakhan, but I do not know how we can answer it with the language presently before us. But one thing is certain. In my understanding, this proposed amendment aims to improve a situation that exists presently, i.e. a dramatic lack of resources for drafting bills and motions from private members.

As I mentioned earlier, the Board of Internal Economy, following pressures from colleagues and the House, is working actively on a quick solution to this problem. If we could find an agreement satisfactory to all parties, it would go a long way to solve the problem we have at the present time, that of a chronic lack of resources for the drafting of bills and motions.

[English]

The Chairman: John Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Before we get too judgmental about the work of individual members of Parliament, and one being more industrious than the other, there are all kinds of ways one can be industrious in this area. It doesn't manifest itself by the bills that one collects. They may be thoroughly embroiled in their committee work and may be sitting on more than one or two committees.

So I resent judgmental statements like that on members.

• 1255

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, may I interject on something relevant to my earlier comment? Let it be clear that I was referring only to the preparation of the bill and it has nothing to do with anything beyond the drafting of the bill.

The Chairman: Thanks, Rey.

Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I would invite the members to review what is in the report on pages 9 and 10. It gives the idea, the inspiration, for this motion. There are some words of explanation or introduction to recommendation eight. As you might read, it's a matter of trying to be fair, or fairer, to our colleagues who would not have had the chance to draft a bill before and to give them priority in the context of scarcity of resources, through better allocation, and to give priority to their need if there is a conflict. I think it's sound. I think it's to be fair to our colleagues.

The Chairman: With respect to recommendation eight, those in favour? Those against?

We have five in favour and three against.

That, colleagues, brings us to the entire report. You have before you on the agenda a proposed motion.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: If I may suggest it, as I was looking here— I voted against recommendations two, six, and eight on a straw vote. My dilemma is that three out of eight make me vote for it, or not against it. To reflect the sentiment of the numbers, although it was defeated, for the purposes of the record I would like to move for a division, at least for my purposes, of recommendations eight, six, and two from the others.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion of Rey's suggestion?

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, while I voted against number one, I'm fully supportive of the package, and as such I will support the work of the committee as amended.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Each member of the committee could have a different combination of votes. If a member voted against such and such a recommendation and for such and such other ones and if that combination is not the same division as Mr. Pagtakhan wants, we have no other choice than to vote on the whole package.

[English]

The Chairman: Rey, in light of that, I'm in your hands as to how I handle your—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I would like to move that we divide the recommendations as I have indicated, and if that is defeated by the members I will abide by the rule of the majority.

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: We will proceed, then. Would you look at the proposed motion. It's in three parts. Would someone care to move that motion? Bear in mind we're now referring to the resolutions as amended. You'll see the proposed motion contains instruction for editorial changes and so on, so those amendments will be built into the resolution.

Mr. Ken Epp: I need a clarification. If I vote in favour of this report, then again it's going to look as if it's unanimous, but I do want to put in the minority report. That's the thing I have here. Should I vote against the whole thing just so I leave that door open, or what is the deal?

An hon. member: Don't take a chance. Vote for it.

• 1300

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: You've registered your protest. I think as a member of the committee you voted with us there. I think it would be very appropriate if you voted for it.

The Chairman: I'm advised, Ken, that the report has to be accepted. It could be indicated as accepted on division, which indicates that there is some dissension to it. You have to dissent. Afterwards, in terms of a minority report, the committee has to agree to append a minority report.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Chair, just so it's clear for the record, on recommendation number eight— According to the recommendations on page 9 of the first section, this motion now means that, in essence, if a member has had a bill drafted and is presently having a bill drafted— it says here that the bill will be bumped to the back of the queue as long as new members keep introducing bills. That's the explanation in here, which I think is undemocratic. If there is a ploy to defer a private member's bill once somebody gets wind of it, you could have 25 new members introduce bills and this bill would never see the light of day. I think that's anti-democratic. It's ridiculous. It's nothing to do with the reflection of individual members, but in essence you can be first in and you may never get your bill done.

I'm wondering whether members understand this. That's exactly what you voted in favour of, and I think that's outrageous. I think it's nuts.

The Chairman: Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Even though that recommendation has been voted on, I repeat that in my sense the decision has to be made first whether the resources people will help this one or the other one. If two members come at the same time and one has already had a bill drafted and the other not, priority will be given to the second.

Mr. John Solomon: It doesn't say that here. Let me read it to you:

We would suggest that a clear policy be adopted whereby the requests of Members who have not had private Members' bills drafted be handled in priority to those of Members who have received assistance in the drafting of private Members' bills during the same session of Parliament— regardless of when such requests were made.

I think you had better clarify it or we're going to oppose this. I think it's nuts. It's anti-democratic. It doesn't streamline anything.

I can see the explanation Carolyn Parrish gave. If I put in five bills and somebody else puts in one— okay, one for me and one for that person. Not to suggest ulterior motives to anybody, but if there's a private member's bill to be introduced, for example, on MP's pensions and nobody wanted this issue to see the light of day, they could introduce 25 or 30 new private members' bills and they could be done before that one ever sees the light of day.

I think there's a problem here and I would like that clarified in writing, if possible. Otherwise I'm going to oppose this motion of the package.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chair, if you want to re-open recommendation number eight, it's your privilege.

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau, would you care to move the motion that is before us?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The motion reads:

That the Report from the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business on its Order of Reference of October 28, 1997 in relation to the First Report of the said Sub-Committee tabled during the 35th Legislature (2nd Session) be adopted (as amended); that the Chair, in cooperation with the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to make such typographical and editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the Report; and, that the Chair present the report to the House.

[English]

The Chairman: All members have heard and read the motion.

Mr. Ken Epp: You forgot to say “as amended”.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: No.

Mr. Ken Epp: You did say it?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Yes.

Mr. Ken Epp: I missed it, then. My apologies.

The Chairman: Those in favour of this motion, please indicate.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, I know my motion was defeated. I will go with the package with reservations on items two, six, and eight.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Colleagues, I want to thank you for your patience. I think it was worth our while to discuss these important matters very carefully.

• 1305

The matter of the chief electoral officer will be left until the next time. But colleagues, we have the question of the dissenting report.

Mr. Ken Epp: I would like to ask permission to submit a dissenting report and have it attached to the committee's report.

The Chairman: I'm not sure we have a quorum. I regret to say that we've lost a quorum. I'm concerned about that. Because we have all the people at the table, could just the members of the committee raise their hands please? There are nine. Okay, Ken, proceed please.

Mr. Ken Epp: I ask for permission from the committee to append a minority report to the committee's report.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to restrict in any way the possibility for members or opposition parties to issue, include or append dissenting opinions in a report.

However, my difficulty with the request of our colleague from the Reform Party is that the minority report Ken wants to append to the report of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business should have been submitted to that sub-Committee before being submitted here, in order for us to append it. I feel that we would establish a weird and dangerous precedent by accepting after the fact to append a minority report to a sub-committee report that becomes the report of the full committee.

In my view, this would allow anyone not to say in sub- committee what they have to say. This would make the work of the sub-committee totally superfluous, since everybody would want to deal with their issues in the full committee.

So, I repeat that I do not want in any way to gag a member of an opposition party, because I know how important it is for opposition parties to be heard. But it is just as important to respect the time and the place where one should properly speak up. I think this dissenting report should have been appended to the report of the sub-committee and not to the report of the full committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: What Mr. Stéphane Bergeron just said is nothing but good old common sense. Ken's opinions have been partially expressed in the sub-committee. At any rate, they were not written down. We could not see it coming. We could have discussed further some aspects if he had mentioned his intention to dissent in the full committee. At any rate, there is a huge inconsistency between his first point and his third point. Therefore, I do not see what good would come out of going along with this.

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I agree with my colleague. The other concern I have is that this is a very informal way of presenting a dissenting view. By doing so, you have generously given him a lot of time to discuss it. It will appear in the minutes. I think the registered protest is there, but I think it's a very informal way of bending the rules, and I wouldn't agree to it.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, I thought I was being as generous as I could be by showing this committee in advance that I intended to do this. I thought that I was following the correct procedure in order to get it in as a minority report from the procedure and house affairs committee.

Now with respect to my need to show this as a dissenting report from the subcommittee, I would need some legal advice on this, but it's my intense opinion that I have the right as a member of the procedure and house affairs committee to table a dissenting report when this goes to the House of Commons. It really has nothing to do with what I did or failed to do in the subcommittee. I'm really rather taken aback by this, because I thought it was almost an automatic thing. I didn't realize that a committee could refuse a dissenter from tabling a minority report.

• 1310

The Chairman: I'm advised that procedurally this is in order. The concern of course is the fact that the report, which has now become this committee's report, was a report of the subcommittee, and that if it's thought of that way, it is the subcommittee that should have been advised of it. But on the other hand, colleagues, I'm advised that procedurally this is an acceptable procedure.

Ken has placed before us—and I assume this has to be the minority report, in this form; this is the dissenting—

An hon. member: The heading would change.

The Chairman: No, but the content would not change.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification. Are we submitting this as a minority report to the subcommittee report or a minority report—

The Chairman: No, this is a minority report now to our report. That's what we're voting on. Technically there was no minority report to the subcommittee report.

Ken, I have the motion here.

John McKay, do you want to say something?

Mr. John McKay: Mr. Chairman, it's not clear to me. Is it Mr. Epp's right to append any report he may wish to make to a committee report, or is it entirely discretionary on the part of the committee? I wasn't clear on your—

The Chairman: John, my understanding is the committee has to agree. So if it's the committee appending it, the committee has to agree.

Mr. John McKay: So then it's a discretionary matter. Then the question really is how do you exercise your discretion in terms of appending any report regardless of whether it's a minority report or anything.

The Chairman: There is a motion Ken now has, which he will move, which under normal circumstances would be the normal way of—

Mr. John McKay: Is there any presumption here? Is there a presumption in favour of a report being appended unless the committee decides otherwise, or any presumption in play?

The Chairman: Marie.

The Clerk of the Committee: For a dissenting opinion, it's up to the committee to adopt the motion and agree to print the dissenting opinion after the chairman's signature. It's in Standing Order 108(1)(a), and it's always a motion that's put through a committee. So the committee has to agree as a committee to append a dissenting opinion.

Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Chairman, before I very loosely asked for permission. May I now place the proper motion, since I did not know it?

I move that the committee authorize the printing of a dissenting opinion from the Reform Party as an appendix to the report and that the dissenting opinion be printed after the chairman's signature.

That is my formal motion.

The Chairman: The dissenting report referred to is exactly the wording we see here, the three items.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, on the sheet that was brought to the attention of my colleague, I read the traditional motion that is tabled for presenting a dissenting opinion:

That the dissenting opinion be provided to the Clerk of the committee in both official languages by—

Therefore, there is a possibility for a dissenting opinion not to be in both official languages at the time the motion is carried.

The Clerk: May I answer, Mr. Bergeron?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Please.

The Clerk: You will find motions saying that the committee can require it to be in both languages, but some committees have adopted motions allowing a dissenting opinion to be in one language only. This committee has a precedent, on the Jacob case. There were dissenting opinions from two parties and the committee agreed that they could be submitted in one language only.

[English]

The Chairman: You've all heard the motion.

(Motion negatived)

Mr. Ken Epp: You will tell your whip that I will now rise in debate on this issue.

The Chairman: I will do so.

Colleagues, thank you again for your patience. We will return to the chief electoral officer at our next meeting.

Mr. Ken Epp: Better plan for a day.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.