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]

Monday, February 12, 2001

• 1533

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Colleagues, we're back here now to complete our committee striking function. You'll notice from our agenda that we have the committee lists to approve and, if approved, to report to the House. Then we have under other business whatever we wish to do in dealing with Mr. Strahl's motion, which we got a look at at our last meeting.

We'll also need to address the next meeting. With your permission, maybe I could do that first. We have a meeting scheduled for tomorrow morning as a subcommittee on agenda. I'm advised that this Thursday we will likely have to consider a report from the private members' business subcommittee and that report, if acceptable, would be reported to the House on Thursday or Friday. I'm just alerting you to that. As it stands now, then, if we're in agreement, we'll have a steering committee meeting tomorrow at 10:30 a.m., and we'll have a full committee meeting to deal with private members' business and anything else that may come up, including a report from the steering committee on Thursday morning.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would like you to clarify something for me. Can you tell me why the meeting of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure has not been scheduled in the regular slot of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, that is at 11 a.m.?

I realize that in the past, the subcommittee on agenda and procedure has met at 11:30 a.m. when a meeting of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee was scheduled for 11 am. However, since most members of this committee have a fairly tight schedule, could we possibly, in the absence of a committee meeting, avoid scheduling meetings of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee at any time other than the usual time slot? This would be much appreciated.

• 1535

[English]

The Chair: I didn't quite grasp your objective. The meeting tomorrow morning is at 10:30, which is our normal start time. However, it's a subcommittee meeting, not the main committee. I assume that if the whips and members are available for the main committee meeting, they're also available for the steering committee meeting. Are you suggesting that we should delay the subcommittee meeting tomorrow morning until eleven?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, if that's convenient for everyone.

[English]

The Chair: I'll just check with the clerk. Do you see a problem?

The Clerk of the Committee: No.

The Chair: That's fine.

The meeting notice has gone out, but everyone appears to be here. I'll leave it with the clerk to sort out the logistics. So instead of 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, it's 11 o'clock for the steering committee of this committee. Thank you, colleagues.

Now we'll go to the first order of the day, and that is consideration of the committee lists. Colleagues, you have in front of you a document that is stamped “Confidential until presented in the House”. I know that you'll all abide by that. You've had an opportunity to look through it. The lists have been provided by the whips, so each of the parties presumably is content with the form and content. We have a few moments for the parties to give it the last once-over. You already are aware that whips have the opportunity to change the committee lists by virtue of a motion we passed at our last meeting, so if there are any corrections, that can be accomplished.

We're in a public session here. If we were to debate it, we would probably not be in a public session.

If there's no need to debate, we'll simply have a motion to adopt the draft first report as it sits in front of you.

Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Chairman, just a very simple little issue. Under the agriculture and agrifood committee, you've identified Mr. Speller as a member of the committee. He is also identified as an associate member. So which is he, a member or an associate member?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): He's a member.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Have we cloned Mr. Speller? If we have—

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): You have very sharp eyes, Mr. Borotsik. I suggest that we remove Mr. Speller from the list of associate members. Thank you.

The Chair: A very special thank you to Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You owe me one.

The Chair: Just in case you lose your day job, you're really good at editing.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, there's another tiny point.

The Chair: Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Under the national defence and veterans affairs committee, one member is listed as Elise Wayne, both in English and French. It should read Elsie Wayne, I think.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Regan. That's correct. We'll change the given name of Mrs. Wayne so that it's spelled properly.

I encourage colleagues to keep looking. The clerk is happy to have guidance from members.

Colleagues, the clerk advises that in the event there is any other thing of a typographical nature, you could call the clerk. Part of our motion that may be moved here is that there is authority for the clerk to alter the report to take into account spelling errors and things of that nature.

I would be happy to receive a motion from the floor.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I so move.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I second that motion.

The Chair: It's moved by Mr. Saada and seconded by Mr. Godin that the draft report as amended be adopted as the committee's first report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House and that the researchers and clerk be authorized to make such typographical and editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1540

The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.

Ms. Catterall, as government whip.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, given that it has taken us somewhat longer to get the committees readied through the striking committee to report to Parliament because of changes in the committee structure and so on, I wonder if we might have agreement around the table to table this report in the House later this afternoon.

The Chair: I'd be delighted to do that if the committee members want me to do that as chair and if there's agreement around the House from the various parties.

Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have no objections at this time to the report being tabled later this afternoon, but I disagree with the contention that we are running late. We always meet the deadlines set out in the Standing Orders.

[English]

The Chair: That's fine.

Mr. Jordan and then Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Do you mean that we're going to table it and seek concurrence this afternoon?

The Chair: That's correct. We'll be introducing it to the House and seeking concurrence for adoption at the same time.

Mr. Strahl and then Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): On the other business we're going to talk about here, of course part of the motion that I brought forward was that the changes to Standing Order 106 would be attached to this first report and tabled at the same time. So I'm interested to see where this other business goes before I say that we should move ahead expeditiously with this other idea. I'd like to know what the committee thinks of this addendum to the report, which would also come into effect at that same time.

The Chair: The two add-on issues were introduction and concurrence in the House this afternoon and waiving notice for two or three of the committees in the event that we felt that way.

Before we get any kind of agreement here or in the House, we're going to have to deal with Mr. Strahl's motion.

We have adopted the report. Members may or may not wish to leave the room with it. They may wish to leave it here. The clerk would be happy to collect them. As members, it's whatever you wish to do, but there will be collection availability in the event that you wish to leave your copy here for the usual purposes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There are typos in there.

The Chair: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, I have forwarded an amendment to Mr. Strahl's motion, and I want to make sure that amendment is moved and is in order.

The Chair: Let's get into that area of business. I have a copy of Mr. Borotsik's motion.

Looking back to the last meeting, as chair I can check with the clerk. Did we ever move Mr. Strahl's motion?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: We did move it. Thank you. So that's before us now. Mr. Borotsik, go ahead.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I move that Mr. Strahl's motion be amended by striking out the following words in paragraph (2): “of whom two shall be Members of the government party and the third a Member in opposition to the government”.

The Chair: Unless there are other comments, I suggest that we now proceed to deal with the amendment, and then we'll deal with the motion, unless you just want to kick the whole thing around, back and forth.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Do we have Mr. Strahl's motion in front of us? I don't see it on our agenda.

The Chair: Your chair has a copy in front of him.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have Mr. Borotsik's, but I don't have Mr. Strahl's.

The Chair: We'll circulate Mr. Strahl's motion.

Let's have Mr. Borotsik describe his amendment, please.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated at our last meeting, I do support Mr. Strahl's motion that it be a secret ballot and that chairs of committees be elected in that fashion. As part of his motion, Mr. Chairman, he also indicated that there be two members of the government and a member of opposition. What I'm suggesting is that we strike that and that each standing committee be open to all parties.

Let's be very blunt and honest about this. The Liberal Party obviously has the majority at the present time and can have their chairman elected to the committee. However, as I indicate, in a minority Parliament this in fact may not be the case. Certainly with this paragraph, if it is agreed to, in a minority government situation it would still give the government the opportunity to have two members elected to the chair as a member of government.

• 1545

I believe that by a change to the House procedures and operations, Mr. Chairman, as many people as possible would have an opportunity to sit as chair. So I would like to have that removed from Mr. Strahl's motion, and I would certainly support the motion as amended.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just so people know, the reason I left that portion in there is that is part of the current standing order. I just left it in unchanged because I didn't want to ruffle any more feathers than I thought I might already ruffle with the proposal.

To speak to the general gist of what we're trying to accomplish here, basically it's to replicate what we currently have in place for the election of the Speaker in the House of Commons for the chairman of each standing committee. You have the fairly lengthy motion in front of you. It gives a rather detailed process on how that would occur. It's modelled almost exactly on what we go through in the House of Commons to elect the Speaker.

The effort is to allow each committee to have greater discretion and greater control over arguably the most important member—I know we're all important members—on the committee, which is the chairman, who helps to set the tone and who hopefully has gained the respect of all members of the committee.

In giving them this freedom to choose the chair of the committee, they can help set the tone of the meeting and of the committee. They can help in a sense to set the agenda as far as a cooperative agenda is concerned and help, I think, to advance causes that are not necessarily executive driven but are committee driven, which is of course the purpose of the committee.

I have seen a few straw horses put up, at least in the media, by people who say that we can't do this. I know the government House leader argues that we have to wait until after our Standing Order 51 debate. That's the debate where we all get into it. We have a special daylong debate on changes to the standing order.

But of course that's not really true. We've already changed standing orders. We already changed the Standing Orders in the creation of these committees. We changed the number of committees, the names of the committees, the membership on the committees, and so on.

Changes to standing orders can be done, and are often done, by mutual consent. Especially if given direction by this committee, we can certainly move ahead with changes to standing orders that we think would be in the best interests of the House.

It's also not an original idea. I don't claim originality on this. I don't think Bill is here today, but it goes back as far as the McGrath committee report. It has been reinforced and endorsed by members on all sides of the House, including Liberal members of Parliament who have said publicly and have been quoted in the paper saying that they think this would be a move forward, that it would be a symbolic gesture on behalf of the government to allow the election of the committee chairmen by secret ballot in a way that means that this whole thing isn't orchestrated in some smokey backroom but is in fact allowing committees, which are supposed to be masters of their own destiny, to really have a chance to do that.

We saw certain examples in the last Parliament where chairmen of committees were basically put in place not by the will of the committee, but often, in fact, people were brought in for a specific vote, they elected a chair, and then those people left. This is obviously contrary to the spirit of what we're trying to accomplish, which is independence for the committees and allowing them to set the agenda themselves without taking orders from the backroom boys. And I don't mean the singing group.

Again, we can change these. This is often done. It's not just a theory. Unless someone can see something I've missed in there, I think the specifics are very clear on how it can be done. It's not just a conceptual idea but an actual how-to list of how it can actually be accomplished. I've been through some messy nomination meetings for chairmen at some committees.

In a sense I think the clerks would like it and the House would like it. It takes the sting out of any procedural wrangling as to how you might elect a chair, requests for secret ballots, dilatory motions, you name it. Sometimes we get into that. This again is very specific as to how it would go ahead. It would be orderly. It would be something we're familiar with because we've just gone through almost exactly the same thing in electing our own Speaker in the House.

• 1550

I just think it would be a good thing for this Parliament for us through our initial report to send a message that I think would be interpreted by all members of the House that there's actually some substance to the throne speech's talk about interest in modernizing Parliament. This is an actual step that would be meaningful.

The last point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, is that although it's not detailed in Marleau-Montpetit whether or not we can put another attachment to the initial tabling of our report under Standing Order 104, which is the list of names, there's also nothing in there that prohibits that. It doesn't say specifically that you can add something to it, but it doesn't say specifically that you cannot add to it. I do think we can add this to it.

It would be, I grant you, an unusual first report of the standing committee but I think a very welcome one. I think people would see it as a step toward modernizing Parliament. Since the Liberals hold the hammer on every committee as far as numbers go, I fully expect that they would chair most committees, and I have no problem with that either. It's just that on occasion when they want either to deviate from that practice or from a particular person in the chair, this process would allow them to do that.

As far as this amendment goes, again, I left the wording in there because that's the wording that's currently in the Standing Orders. I'm not married to that, and I'm happy to go either way with the committee's wisdom on that particular amendment.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

Next is Ms. Catterall, followed by Mr. Borotsik, Mrs. Parrish, and Mr. Regan. Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm further down the list, I think.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I didn't want to interrupt during Mr. Strahl's comments. The matter before us is the amendment. We should be focusing our discussion on that until it's dealt with. I knew it was important to hear his comments anyway, so I didn't want to interrupt.

The Chair: That's technically quite correct.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Although you did muse—

The Chair: I did consider kicking the whole thing around, but in a general way, certainly a no-fault comment.

I'll now go to Mr. Borotsik, then Mrs. Parrish and Mr. Regan.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I was about to make the same comment, Mr. Chairman, that under normal procedures one would deal with the amendment and have that taken to a vote and then go to the motion either as amended or not.

The only comment I would like to make otherwise, and Mr. Strahl brought it up with regard to the Speaker, is that my amendment says exactly that. Each and every member of Parliament has an opportunity to put his or her name forward as Speaker of this House. This is exactly what this amendment calls for. By removing that paragraph 2, it allows anyone to stand for the chair or the vice-chair of a committee. That is the same procedure we went through for the Speaker of the House. With a Liberal majority, we recognize that the government has certain opportunities. But I see no reason we should not allow others to put their name forward as well.

That's the amendment in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman. Certainly I would like to see that voted on before we deal with the motion in general.

The Chair: Thank you. Mrs. Parrish and then Mr. Regan.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Actually, as usual, Chuck inspired comments, but I'll save those until after I've addressed this amendment.

I have a lot of difficulty with your amendment, Mr. Borotsik. Having been here seven years, had I seen any sort of cooperation on the part of the opposition when they in fact felt there was a good piece of legislation before us.... They were still under some wild need to act as opposition rather than as partners in this business. So I think it would cause great difficulty if you had an opposition member chairing a committee when you were trying to get legislation through, which is what the government is here for. I think this completely destroys Mr. Strahl's argument. I couldn't handle this one at all. There's no debate in my mind.

The Chair: Are you finished, Mrs. Parrish?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, mine was a point of order in relation to the fact that we should be focusing on the amendment at the moment. I'd like to speak later when we're on the main topic.

The Chair: All right. Mr. Bergeron and then Mr. Godin. We're dealing with the amendment.

• 1555

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would tend to object to Mr. Borotsik's amendment, but for reasons far removed from those of Ms. Parrish. First of all, I wish to point out to Ms. Parrish that at the Quebec National Assembly, half of all committee chairs are held by government members, and half, by members of the official opposition. Far from being cumbersome, this arrangement enhances the spirit of cooperation in the various committees. In my opinion, it's somewhat outdated and conservative to argue that if opposition members chair committees, nothing will get accomplished. In one part of the vast and beautiful country that is Canada, we have a remarkable example of how sharing this responsibility enhances the spirit of cooperation between government and opposition members.

Unless Mr. Borotsik is himself willing to bring changes to his own amendment, I have to disagree with the way it is currently worded because, in the highly unlikely event the government takes a somewhat harder line where the opposition is concerned, this amendment would allow it to proceed with the election of a Liberal Chair and two Liberal vice-chairs. If we strike the words “a Member in opposition to the government”, the outcome could be the total opposite of what Mr. Borotsik is hoping for. Quite possibly, neither of these three individuals could be from the opposition.

If Mr. Borotsik were willing to move a sub-amendment to his amendment to ensure that at least one of these three persons was an opposition member, then I would be prepared to give my support. However, as things now stand, I cannot vote in favour of this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to speak to this amendment. Ms. Parrish notes that she has been here seven years and when she sees how the opposition behaves sometimes... I don't know how the Liberals behaved 13 years ago when they sat in opposition. Perhaps they weren't reasonable and she had a bad experience. As a rule, a committee must be impartial and set its own rules. I think decisions need to be reached here, to show that democracy prevails within this committee. That's why Mr. Borotsik's motion has my support.

This would be in keeping with the changes that are taking place in Parliament and with our perspective on the situation. Our experience with the election of the Speaker of the House of Commons was not an unpleasant one. There were no restrictions and the Speaker was elected by secret ballot.

The committee has always worked well. I think this would be a compelling reason for committee members to work as a team, and especially, to put their trust in their colleagues, whether from their own party or from the government party, unless of course, they don't trust their own colleagues. Obviously, government members would still be in a majority position when votes are taken, but this would give members the opportunity to nominate whomever they wish and to get some support. This motion goes both ways.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): I just wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, with regard to Mrs. Parrish's comments about having a chairman from the other side, that about half of the committees in the Senate are chaired by opposition members, and that legislation still seems to work its way back for royal assent. So things do work as long as people are working together.

The Chair: Have we fully debated Mr. Borotsik's amendment? Seeing no further debate, I'll put the question—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that we have a secret ballot on this motion.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would like to ask for that secret ballot vote for all the reasons my colleague has put forth for his motion. I'd like to suggest that we have a real chance of implementing this democratic measure, and by having that secret ballot we can get rid of some of the pressure that might be on members of this committee to vote in a certain way. I think that might be a start for this. If we don't go that way, there might be pressure on some of the members of this committee to go a certain way in order to prevent this democratic measure from coming in.

• 1600

The Chair: So as a point of order, or as something, you're asking members to consider addressing this motion by secret ballot.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. I would like to put that forward.

The Chair: Fair enough.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I second the motion.

The Chair: Mr. Godin sees that favourably.

Do we have any comment on the suggestion? Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I was elected to do public business. I intend to do it in public. That's the only way I can be held accountable by my constituents, and I intend to be held accountable.

The Chair: Is there any other comment on the suggestion of Mr. Breitkreuz that we adopt a form of secret ballot in considering these amendments?

Perhaps I'll just confer with the clerk to properly deal with this suggestion or motion by Mr. Breitkreuz.

It won't surprise colleagues that there really isn't a rule that will govern in this instance. We are all masters of our own procedure here. I'll point out that previous practice, from the view of the chair, has always been a vote, not a secret ballot. That is the practice we would assume we would continue with at this point in time. The suggestion is that we vary it at this point. If the committee were of a collective mind to do it that way, then we certainly could. Now I'm going to seek the collective view of colleagues on that, and if there is not substantial consensus...I would certainly go with a consensus, but I can put it to a vote as well. But if there is substantial dissent.... Would members prefer a vote on this, or do you just want me to seek heads?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'd like to call a vote. How else can we determine a consensus?

The Chair: Yes. Well, the chair has gotten really good at this over the years—at least I think I have.

Let me then seek hands—yeas—in support of Mr. Breitkreuz's suggestion.

Mr. John Reynolds: Have a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: A recorded vote? I'm happy to consider it this way. We might as well deal with it.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I actually think we have no hope unless we make it a secret ballot.

The Chair: The chair is going to seek whatever support or opposition there may be for this. Let's decide how we're going to deal with it.

All those in favour of pursuing Mr. Breitkreuz's suggestion or motion, please raise your hands. Those who are—

Mr. John Reynolds: Can we record it?

The Chair: All right. Mr. Clerk, could you record this? I'll put it as a regular vote.

All those in favour of Mr. Breitkreuz's motion, please indicate now in a recorded vote.

• 1605

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

The Chair: Now we'll proceed to vote on Mr. Borotsik's amendment to Mr. Strahl's motion.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'd like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 5)

The Chair: We'll now consider the main motion. Debate can continue on that.

Mr. Strahl, is this on debate?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes.

The Chair: Let me just point out that you had a huge kick at the cat earlier, and you spoke very well, but I'm very pleased to let you lead off for the second time.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I'm detecting some resistance to this, which is unfortunate, I think.

I just came back from Britain with the government House leader, where the committee chairs, interestingly, are in proportion to the number of MPs in the House. In other words, they share the load there. In the Senate they share the load. In Quebec half of the chairs of the committees are from the opposition.

This is not an attempt to get anything like that. This isn't as draconian as that, that I would actually ask the government to even share some of the chairmanships of a few of the committees. Heaven forbid that we should ever get out in front of the pack on this.

But there is some reluctance, I think, because, as I think Ms. Parrish mentioned a while ago, what if we make a mistake? What if there was something wrong?

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if I can make an amendment to my own motion or not, but since we're in a committee forum.... Perhaps a point eight on this would be that these changes will expire at the end of the first session, unless endorsed by the House.

A voice: A pilot project.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That gives us a chance to implement this, to give it a whirl. If it works well, I think we could continue with it. But it does give us that out, that it would revert back to the original Standing Orders unless endorsed by the House at that time. That would give us a session to try it. At the end of the session, if it doesn't pan out for whatever reason—we've missed something or there needs to be something....

If I can make that friendly amendment to my own motion, maybe it would adjust some of the concerns on the Liberal side that this is somehow written in stone. This way we could give it a whirl. A year from now, if it's unworkable, we can go back to the way it was. At least it would allow us to think in terms of modernizing the way we do business, instead of saying it has to be that way because that's the way it is.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'm advised by the clerk that technically the amendment would more properly come from another member, Mr. Breitkreuz or....

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'll move this motion.

The Chair: Thank you.

It's a quasi-friendly amendment apparently. In any event....

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Now we have to vote on that amendment.

The Chair: Yes. We have another amendment to deal with.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Can you not just include it, Mr. Chairman, as a friendly amendment and then deal with—

The Chair: If it's the view of members—

Mr. Rick Borotsik: They're going to vote against it anyway, so let's just put a friendly amendment forward.

The Chair: Is that okay with you, Mr. Strahl?

• 1610

Mr. Chuck Strahl: If that's okay with the committee.

The Chair: Is that all right with colleagues?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: It appears to be fine. All right. We'll consider as a friendly amendment that we've added a clause 8 providing for expiry of the provisions at the end of the first session unless the House endorses it in another fashion.

Let's continue the debate. I have on my list Mr. Jordan, Mrs. Parrish, and Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The point I want to make is that, first of all, I certainly recognize that this amendment was put in with all sincerity by the opposition. But we've been here 35 minutes. We have an amendment on the table. Then we had a PC amendment to the motion. We've had a Bloc amendment to the PC amendment, and then the Alliance put forward a friendly one. Then the Alliance amended their main motion.

The point is that we're talking about changing the Standing Orders of the House. I don't think it's something we want to do on the fly. I think we're required somewhere between the 60th and 90th sitting day of the House to review the Standing Orders, and I think this issue might be better viewed in a more holistic approach to an overall review on parliamentary reform. I think it's dangerous to pull one thing out.

I fell victim to this last time. The 100-signature rule looked like a great idea. It looked like an idea that could increase democracy and empower MPs in terms of their private members' legislation. But when it was put in place, it was just fraught with problems, and it ended up being a real mess.

This is certainly an interesting proposal, but I think the entire issue of parliamentary reform needs to be looked at. It's very dangerous to pull certain issues out.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Scary.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Chuck, we've gone down the line here, and everybody has had a different opinion. If the opposition was united on it, that's one thing, but we have four different views over there. All they are agreeing on is that they don't like the current rule. Let's take our time and make sure that we do this thing properly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Next is Mrs. Parrish, followed by Mr. Borotsik, Mr. Regan, and Mr. Bergeron.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: First of all, Mr. Chairman, as the grandmother of the 100-person rule, I resent my colleague's implication that it's a mess.

Mr. Joe Jordan: You didn't have to live through it.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, but I'm back to fix it. With a little fine-tuning it will be perfect.

I have a question for Mr. Strahl, as long as he promises not to give a great long speech. By going to a paper ballot or a secret ballot, what you have in the back of your mind, of course, is that will get rid of the Liberal chairs. You talk about making it similar to the Speaker's rule. I don't see how the two are absolutely parallel because in the Speaker you have someone who's supposed to be totally neutral and non-partisan in the House of Commons. That Speaker no longer attends caucus or any Liberal functions. That Speaker is just going off into the nether regions of Kingsmere never to be heard from again until the next election for Speaker. If you're drawing a comparison, are you proposing that if any of these people are elected by a secret ballot, they then will disappear out of the caucuses and out from under the influence of their colleagues as caucus members? I'd like a very short answer.

Also, I am quite interested in finding out that my education has been lacking. I probably haven't been on enough trips to England. I think the idea of shared chairmanships and proportional chairmanships is quite fascinating.

So I agree with Joe. I think it's probably one of those things that I'd like to look into in great depth. You may end up getting more than you asked for. But I think to do it at this time without all these questions being answered would be precipitous.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: I better stick to the list, Mr. Strahl, unless it's a point of personal privilege or a point of order.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There were a couple of short questions there. No, I don't want to get into a long speech.

The Chair: No, save those for question period.

Mr. Borotsik, followed by Mr. Regan, Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Saada, and Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you. I'll be very brief.

Speaking in favour of the motion, Mr. Chairman, I don't see any danger at all in putting forward something that's fairly unique and a change to the process we have right now. It's a simple change, that of a secret ballot. We're going to have people put their name forward for the chairmanship of a committee. By secret ballot the members of that committee will elect that chair, and 99.9 times out of 100 that chair will be a government chair. Make no mistake about that.

• 1615

All it does is give all of us around a committee table the opportunity of saying legitimately who it is we feel would best chair that committee.

Mr. Chairman, Canadians perhaps see the House of Commons as not being a place where we can accomplish an awful lot. We see party lines unfortunately being developed. I tell Canadians that there's one venue where we can in fact accomplish certain tasks in this government, and that's at committee. We can do it. We can share opinions and in fact agree with opinions, whether they be from the government side or from the opposition side.

This is a simple change and a very positive change to a rule that starts the process whereby, Mrs. Parrish, we can in fact tell Canadians that there is a positive step forward.

With regard to the analogy of the Speaker, that has nothing to do with the impartiality of the Speaker or the chairman of this committee. That was simply an analogy to say that we already have a secret ballot for an executive member, a Speaker of this House. We can have a secret ballot to have a chairman elected, but that chairman still will have his or her opinion as to how the committee should operate.

I sit on the agriculture committee. We've had chairmen who I would much rather see being appointed from other members of the Liberal benches, quite frankly. I think that they would do a much better job to make sure that we work together so that we can get our better opinions put forward, Mr. Chairman.

This is really just a small step. I wish that all members of this committee would look at the potential, not the downside but the upside. You keep talking about the 100 signatures. Mrs. Parrish, you said yourself that fine-tuning can work and work much better than what was there before. If we don't start now, nothing's going to get changed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for my opportunity to speak, and I will support the motion as put forward to this committee.

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Regan.

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

First, I want to say that I know Mr. Strahl would never put forward a motion that would be draconian, using a phrase he used earlier.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I also think that members on this side are interested in any proposals that will help to improve the functioning of Parliament. I think we're going to be going through a process, as has been discussed, of a global review of the Standing Orders. That's an important process and an important opportunity for us as members to find ways to work more collaboratively to make Parliament work better. I would like to see us look at this issue along with other issues in the Standing Orders as part of that global review.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Regan. Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say to Mr. Jordan, who earlier stated that the four opposition parties all have different views, that I support Mr. Strahl's amendment. Of course we have different opinions about the sub-amendment, but as far as the amendment itself is concerned, I believe the opposition parties stand united. I agree with Mr. Borotsik that there is no risk here because Mr. Strahl's motion still guarantees that two of these three positions would be filled by government members.

The current situation would change very little. However, instead of voting for the chair and vice-chairs by show of hand, we would have a secret ballot.

As Ms. Parrish was saying, perhaps we could eventually consider assigning committee chairs on the basis of overall party representation in the House. Perhaps we could follow the lead of the National Assembly and sharing all committee chairs more or less equally between the government and opposition parties.

Of course, we could consider this motion in conjunction with a review of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. However, to all intents and purposes, the motion on the table calls for electing the committee chairs and vice-chairs, not by show of hands, but by secret ballot.

I don't think we can compare the 100-signature rule, with everything that implies, to the motion on the table which merely calls for is a different approach to electing the chair. We could always consider at a later date the overall assigning of committee chairs.

• 1620

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Saada, Mr. Strahl, and then Ms. Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, when the vote was taken earlier on the proposed amendments and sub-amendments, I noted that there was a considerable amount of improvisation, not from the standpoint of substance, but in terms of the proposed approach. If there's one thing we should avoid, it's amending the Standing Orders of the House on the fly. I'm a little concerned about this, regardless of the substance of the motion and its merits.

Firstly, if we were to adopt this motion, we would end up with two types of committees at the House: the House Affairs Committee, the chair of which has been elected in the traditional manner, and all other committees, where different procedures are followed. Is this really what we want?

Secondly, if we proceed with individual changes—and I believe some of my colleagues have already mentioned this—we have no way of gauging with any certainty the impact of any given change. I would rather we look at a series of measures aimed at improving the way the House operates than take a piecemeal approach, only to realize that some things just don't work and be forced to backtrack and make further changes. With all due respect to Mr. Strahl, that's not the best way to go about things.

Thirdly, Mr. Bergeron just made a reference to opposition party unity. I don't think anyone will fault us for having unity within the government party. That's only logical.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Jordan was the one who alluded to that.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Exactly. Ensuring that committees and Parliament work efficiently and the whole issue of secret ballots are two different things.

Last year—and Mr. Reynolds will certainly recall this because we saw an example of this last year or two years ago—the House was divided on a bill pertaining to criminal records. The Chairman at the time had been elected by open ballot, since the Standing Orders hadn't yet been amended, and still, on an issue that was important to everyone, we managed to achieve unanimity, precisely because it was an important piece of legislation.

Putting it another way, the public wants us to set partisanship aside when the public interest is at stake. We can accomplish this without having to resort to secret ballots. These are not a sine qua non.

I have a question though. Mention was made of the Senate, where chairs alternate, as well as of the National Assembly. If we agree to secret ballots, there's no guarantee that we'll be able to actually proceed with them. We haven't progressed one bit on this. All I'm saying—and I apologize for taking up so much time—is that setting aside the merits of this proposal, I'm really not ready to forge ahead with this. Therefore, I can't support your motion.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, Ms. Catterall, and Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two or three points.

There has been quite a bit of chatter from the chairs of the standing committees in times past about the necessity for some staff help for the chairs to help them do their job—either an extra stipend or some more staff help or something in order to give them more help.

Just so you know, I've said to the government House leader I don't know how many times, why on earth would we want to give more assets to the government if it's only going to be government members who chair the committees? In other words, you ask for more help for the committees, or more assets, or more staff or whatever, and they set out in the morning and say “And we're going to make sure it always goes to our hand-picked guy only”. That's the one guy who gets it. I've always said to him, “You'll never get it if I have anything to say about it, because it's always going to the guy you're patting on the back instead of the guy chosen by the committee”.

Secondly, about this talk that says we can't do this piecemeal, I don't mind this argument being put forward, but there are some tender ears...there are some new people on this committee and they should know that is basically horse feathers, because this piecemeal thing is the only way we ever change anything around here. There has never, ever been a wholesale change of the Standing Orders—ever. It's always done piecemeal, because you can only address an issue, regardless of whether you do two or three or half a dozen at a time.... Changes to the Standing Orders on how we vote died on the order paper. That was a piecemeal proposal we had in the last Parliament. It died on the order paper.

• 1625

I won't get the clerk to do it because he won't be able to accomplish this, but if you ask him to go back to the all-day debate we had last time on Standing Orders 50 and 51 and tell us when this committee dealt with that and came up with the proposed changes that were brought up in the House, the answer will be never. Never, ever did we debate in this place and put forward proposals for a wholesale change to the Standing Orders—never, not once. It's never done that way, folks. I don't mind you saying that, but don't pretend it's the truth because it's not the truth, Joe. We always do it piecemeal. That's the only way we do it.

On the final point, as far as Joe being worried about the unity of the opposition parties, you're going to find absolute unity, Joe, from the opposition parties on this and absolute unity on this motion, especially with the opt-out clause here that says if it doesn't work, let's go back to the way it was.

But, folks, let's not use this excuse that we can't make changes, because it's the only way we ever do things around here: we make a change and if it doesn't work we make some more adjustments. To sit there and say that nothing can change because we haven't done that before is a cop-out of the worst kind.

The Chair: Ms. Catterall, Mr. Tirabassi, and Mr. Breitkreuz.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I don't think anybody said we've never done it before, but there are a few good examples where, when we have done it before, it hasn't proved to be very productive when we've had to double back and make changes.

Just by way of example, subsection (2) of the proposed standing order says:

Each standing or special committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen....

It then goes on to describe in great detail the process for the election of the chairman. I wonder if he might point me to what subsection of the clause describes the election process to be followed in electing the two vice-chairmen.

It is a direct question. I wonder if he might answer it so we can proceed.

The Chair: If colleagues don't object, you were seeking a citation or a reference to the specific procedure for the election of vice-chairs.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Right. This clause is intended to—

The Chair: To replicate something that already exists?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No. It's intended to provide for the election of three officials for each committee. As far as I can see, it doesn't do that.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl, go ahead.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just quickly, my thought was—and I think it's clear in here—that the committee chairman is elected by secret ballot. Depending on which side of the House is represented by that chair's position, the other two positions are filled, as we usually do, by nominations from the floor. This specifically addresses the election of the chairman. Until you know which party is represented in the chair, the other two positions can't be filled. Those positions would be filled subsequently in the manner we normally do it: someone is nominated and put forward.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Thank you.

Mr. Chair, this is a perfect example of why we shouldn't do this kind of thing on the fly, because subsection (2) very clearly says:

Each standing...committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairmen...by secret ballot as follows:

And then it only provides for how you do that for the election of the chair of the committee.

We have a lot to consider. I think there's a serious commitment around Parliament generally to look at a number of ways in which Parliament can work better. The House leader knows those discussions are going on at different levels. They will go on within each of our caucuses. I really would prefer to take the comprehensive approach and make sure we're dealing with all the details and not try to ad hoc it.

Quite aside from all of that, one of the issues that this committee will know I have a great interest in is de-sexing the Standing Orders. I don't think Mr. Strahl honestly expects me to vote for a motion that repeatedly says “chairman”, “chairmen”, etc.

[Translation]

The same mistake appears repeatedly in French.

[English]

In fact, he knows very well.... Apparently, he's not interested in my views on his motion.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That is as it reads in the standing order now. I just followed the same language currently in the standing order.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: He knows very well my interest in our review of the Standing Orders, taking this whole issue into account, and getting out of the last century and into this century.

Thank you.

• 1630

The Chair: Mr. Strahl is real good with friendly amendments, so if we needed one we could—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We could certainly change that.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next is Mr. Tirabassi, followed by Mr. Breitkreuz and Monsieur Godin.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With all due respect to the fine submission of Mr. Strahl and his attempt, I'd like to speak to what I believe is the timing of the proposal. You referred to fresh ears, and now you're going to hear from me. I sensed right from the beginning that there seemed to be an urgency to it, in certainly the way it was first presented. I think that was further evidenced today by the fact that when I came in, I raised certain uncertainties, because now we had amendments to something that was being put forward with, as I perceived it, some haste.

My understanding is that numerous changes have been discussed as to how we did business in the last Parliament, and certainly as a new member I would like an opportunity to see that.

The task at hand, of course, is to choose the most effective chairperson for a committee and to get on with the work of a committee so that it can be most effective.

What I'd like to state is that I'm in favour of looking at this perhaps as part of a total package. It's quite disturbing to hear, Mr. Strahl, that in the past the only way we've dealt with things in here is by a piecemeal approach.

I suggest that might be the first change you would want to look at. Albeit I respect the magnitude of this committee compared with what I've sat on in my former life, nonetheless anything that I've seen move forward positively is something that took some time to discuss as part of a total package and not a piecemeal approach. So I will not be supporting the proposal.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

Next is Mr. Breitkreuz, followed by Mr. Godin.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

I listened with interest to the comments just made. I wasn't going to comment on them, but I was wondering if he was told how to vote when he came here.

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]...to the committee with comments like that.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I've been listening to the debate. We aren't asking for a huge change here. The argument was put forward that MPs are accountable to their constituents for their actions in this place. It was not a problem when it came to electing the Speaker. No one argued that should be open so that they can be accountable to their constituents. I don't know if anybody would go back to the way we previously selected speakers.

I'd like to defend my amendment that there be a trial period. If it doesn't work, it can be changed. By putting in a sunset amendment, this should really encourage members to support this and at least to try this very, very small change.

An hon. member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Just a brief word about the amendment itself. Mr. Jordan said that the opposition was not in agreement on this amendment and I believe I'm the fourth opposition member to voice his support for the motion.

As far as the 100-signature rule is concerned, I don't think we should be afraid to try a new approach. If it fails, well then, so be it. We'll make the necessary adjustments. I'm not afraid to try something new.

There's talk of taking a piecemeal approach. It would be nice if the government opted not to adopt legislation in piecemeal fashion. By that I mean that when we look at employment insurance, we will consider the overall picture, not merely one or two program components.

Since 1986, the government has proceeded to amend employment insurance bit by bit, until it has been totally destroyed. Now, it wants to restore the program bit by bit. I disagree with this approach, but we have to face reality.

Earlier, someone said that the opposition was alone in calling for a secret ballot. I want the record to show that a government member was ready to side with the opposition and that a colleague dissuaded him. I saw him pull down his colleague's arm.

Therefore, if we can't have a secret vote, then we should simply authorize the government to advise us of the name of the committee chair. It would be much faster. We would save time and we could all go return to work in our offices. Meetings like this are nothing more than a charade. That's why I... stop that. I'm just telling it as it is.

• 1635

You come here, we say nothing and we're supposed to be an impartial committee. Let's act like one then and work together. That's why I think we should vote on this proposal.

One last word about the 100-signature rule. It was a pilot project, one of many that the government conducts around the country. If things pan out, fine, but if they don't, that's fine too. I simply want to say that we are not afraid to try a new approach if it benefits democracy in this country.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to comment on what Ms. Catterall had to say on paragraph 2 where we would elect the chairman and two vice-chairmen. If you read the motion fully, it only talks about electing the chairman in a secret ballot, not the other two. If you go to paragraph 3, it says quite plainly:

The clerk of the committee will preside over the election of the Chairman and will ask for nominations....

It goes on to explain how that secret ballot is to take place.

With regard to the word “chairman” versus what you would prefer, which is probably what we all would prefer, that's not the opposition's fault. The government has had plenty of opportunity to change that word over the years. You've been a member of that government for seven years, and they haven't changed the word.

Some of the new members say take your time. This issue has been talked about since I came here in 1972, and it still hasn't changed. Yet governments such as the Government of Quebec have changed it. The mother of parliaments, where we take most of our lead from, has changed it. The Liberal government in British Columbia, which will be the government 30 or 40 days from now, has made it public that they will allow opposition members to chair committees. That's because they're progressive and are looking to make change.

As a person who was a speaker of a legislature and who has been involved in Parliament for over 20 years, I think this motion is a very positive one, and I would hope members would see fit to support what my colleague has put forth. This is not a major change.

Earlier today we talked in the House about whether we can move this motion into the House today. That's not in the standing order. The standing order says 48 hours. If we're going to be that particular that we should follow the Standing Orders and not make changes, then let things happen as they happen. But this House gets together all the time and by unanimous consent does things that don't follow the Standing Orders. That's done sometimes just with the negotiation of House leaders. We all hear about it. We support our House leader all the time. We never get mad at him for what he does, so when he makes a deal, we go along with it with unanimous consent. So these things are done often. This is not a big deal.

Having been part of a government, I know you have to do what you have to do.

I just wanted to get that on the record.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds.

I see no further debate. I'd like to make a couple of comments after we dispose of the motion.

Mr. John Reynolds: I'd like a recorded vote, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

The Chair: As your chair, I want to make a couple of comments, and I hope you'll listen. In this particular motion and in the debate I did not hear a lot of contrariness expressed in relation to the substance of the motion. I'm certain there's a consensus here that the issue of a secret ballot should be part of our consideration of standing order changes, and work on that particular bundle of issues, subject to the will of the committee, is in progress. Our researcher has been working on this, and it has been imported from the last Parliament. So I think it has been a useful opening of debate.

However, I did want to address how we're going to get along on this committee. Among all of the parliamentary committees, I think it has been the tradition around here that this committee has been the least overtly partisan. That's for a number of reasons, including the fact that the House leaders and the House leadership are represented here at the committee. Secondly, the committee itself does not do a lot of legislation and policy matters. We in fact are dealing mostly with the business of the House, our House, our part of Parliament. It's a lot easier to be non-partisan and parliamentary when you're dealing with our House than when you're dealing with legislation sometimes, or policy matters.

• 1640

That's the kind of business we usually do. So I'm hoping we will be able to continue that tradition and will have more discussion among ourselves informally and that we can approach issues from the parliamentary perspective.

There will be, from time to time, winners and losers and votes that are close. Inevitably, that will happen. But as we look at the potential for reform in this Parliament, it is really this committee that will make it or break it. Either we're going to adopt one or several or many measures of reform or we're not. So that requires some patience and some discussion and certainly a lot of non-partisanship as we do that.

So I hope all members and I as chair will certainly do our very, very best to ensure that this attitude prevails as we embark on this. Any member may feel they want to call another colleague on being too partisan, and feel free to do that. But at the end of the day, if we become too partisan here we won't accomplish our goals. If we don't accomplish our goals, each of us, I don't want to say we'll fail in this part of our work in Parliament, but we will not have accomplished for our colleagues what I think we all want to get done, at least in this session. So I leave that there.

On the third item, this may not be the appropriate forum, but I'd like to get concurrence on this striking function report today and get it to the House. If your chair doesn't do it today, with consent of all the parties, then in the ordinary course I would introduce it tomorrow morning, on Tuesday, and it would be dealt with in routine proceedings, hopefully with concurrence then.

There are three committees out there that I understand want to get going now—and that's members from all parties who want to get going. They would be seeking to waive the 48-hour notice of meeting. I don't know how members feel about that, and this may not even be the right forum, but I'm requesting that, on behalf of colleagues in the House, so we can get the show on the road.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, for the same argument that some would make today that we shouldn't rush into things, the Standing Orders call for this to be introduced in a certain way and I think we should follow that procedure.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Absolutely.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, so that's tomorrow morning. That's fine. Good enough.

Any other business? Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You suggested that we should add secret voting to our list of issues to be discussed under the Standing Orders, and I wouldn't disagree with that. But I think the discussion today was broader than that; it really was the process of selecting committee chairs. I wonder if we could characterize it that way so we're not restricted as much as....

The Chair: I was referring only to the selection of chairs.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Robertson, you've got that nailed down?

Okay. I'll see the steering committee tomorrow and see you all on Thursday.

The meeting is adjourned.