HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 24, 2000

• 1144

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order. We have a quorum now. Monsieur Godin, thank you for attending.

Colleagues, we are considering the report from the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, dealing with the Moravian Church. Mr. Jordan, a member of the subcommittee, will be able to enlighten us now on that.

Mr. Jordan, can you explain the bill and the process?

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Certainly.

This is a rare circumstance when we are actually dealing with a private bill as opposed to a private member's bill. It's a situation where certain organizations are federally incorporated by acts of Parliament. This particular organization is a church organization. They are applying for changes to their statutes of incorporation. Given the fact that they incorporated federally in the last century, they have to come before Parliament.

• 1145

The bill has to be presented as a private bill. It was sponsored in the Senate. It now moves to the House of Commons and is being sponsored by, I believe, Mr. Johnston from the Reform Party.

It's a pretty straightforward act. Essentially what they're asking for is a lifting of the ceiling on the amount of real estate the church is allowed to own. Over the course of history, they have adjusted it. I think it initially started at $50,000 and then went to $500,000. They're now asking that that ceiling be removed. So it's a bit of a house-cleaning issue, but again, it's a very unusual and rare circumstance, in the sense that because of the way they incorporated, they have to come back to Parliament for these changes.

They're asking for one other thing. This has been going on since 1993. Unfortunately the senator who was sponsoring it in the Senate passed away. But they had listed it, gazetted it, and they had a time period for comments. They got no comments at all. What this would do is essentially waive the requirement that they go through that procedure again, because there are costs associated with that. We discussed it at length at the subcommittee yesterday.

The Chair: Okay. So the subcommittee is satisfied that the procedure is appropriate, the bill is in good order, and we may proceed to adopt the report as drafted, the substance of which has come from the subcommittee. You'll see a draft report in front of you, colleagues. Is there any need to delve further into the procedure? I don't see any myself.

Can we just have a comment from the clerk or research that the procedure here is appropriate to the Standing Orders and is consistent with the procedures used in the past?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): Yes, that is correct.

The Chair: Thank you.

First Ms. Catterall, then Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I have just a quick question. I'd like to know that this would not be creating a precedent in any way.

Mr. James Robertson: No, I don't believe it would create any precedent. This process has not in fact had to be used since the 1960s, so it doesn't arise very often that there is this kind of problem.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But it has been used before?

Mr. James Robertson: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): For the people who are making the submission, I will go along with the committee, but I think it's outrageous that there isn't a member of the Reform Party here to present this bill, since they're sponsoring it. I find it very unusual that our government continually makes allowances for their shenanigans and allows things to go on with due alacrity, and everything else is being held up in here.

No, get the smile off your face. It's not amusing. I would like to vote against it actually.

The Chair: Okay. It is intended—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to move to defer it until there's a member of the Reform Party here, please.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. The smile got me.

The Chair: Let's hear from Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I can certainly sympathize with Ms. Parrish, but it was sponsored in the Senate by Senator Nick Taylor. Really, I don't think it's a partisan piece of legislation. The decision by the subcommittee as to who would bring it into the House of Commons was really a geographical decision; it wasn't an ideological decision.

In fact I think this church has had to jump through a number of hoops to try to get this straightened out, and I wouldn't want to hold them hostage. I don't think there's going to be any political capital in this for anybody. It's just an administrative thing. So I appeal to my colleague to reconsider.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: If this were deferred until Tuesday, would it be the end of the world for this group?

Mr. Joe Jordan: I'll defer to the clerk on that.

Mr. James Robertson: No. It is scheduled for debate on 17 March.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I move for deferral.

The Chair: Has the motion to deal with this been moved? I don't think it has been.

• 1150

Ms. Parrish has moved that we defer consideration until a subsequent meeting.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): There seems to be a real concern from you, Mr. Chairman. Is there a reason for more concern than we've talked about?

The Chair: Your chair simply sees the efficacy of disposing of a matter that is not of huge significance, a matter that's been dealt with by the subcommittee.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: We're blocking the committee from moving ahead. Thank you.

The Chair: Dealing with an item of business at a time when the rest of the business seems to be moving so slowly would be efficacious. That's the view of the chair.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Might I point out that we don't have a quorum for the purpose of making a decision in any case, Mr. Chair, so the deferral has to be automatic.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Catterall. Your chair had seen a quorum. Regrettably—

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Once it's raised, it's no longer—

The Chair: All right. I'll take a motion to adjourn.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We can continue and hear the witness, can't we?

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Are we going to adopt the report?

The Chair: Members seem to be divided on a number of issues.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: There's no quorum. I believe the chair has to recognize that fact.

The Chair: So what would members like to do for the balance of our meeting, in relation to which the chair had earlier recognized a quorum? What would members like to do now?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would suggest we proceed with consideration of the other item on our agenda and hear from the clerk as our witness today, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Is it the desire of members not to deal with the first item of business? So be it. We won't deal with the first item of business. We'll go to the second item of business.

We have the clerk here, Mr. Marleau, and we have approximately ten minutes to deal with the recommendations he's provided to us.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On a point of order, isn't it a bit silly... Presumably we're going to talk about this for more than ten minutes, so we're going to cut it off by the vote. I just think it doesn't make sense to get started when we can't finish it. Why don't we just go have lunch?

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Knutson.

So we have the “I don't want to deal with it” class, we have the “We don't have a quorum” class, and now we have the “Isn't it silly?” class. I am willing to entertain a motion to adjourn.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I'll make that motion.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.