HAFF 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.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, September 18, 2003
| Á | 1110 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher) |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
Mr. James Robertson |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
Mr. James Robertson |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Robertson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1115 |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1120 |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
Mr. Dale Johnston |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1125 |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Á | 1130 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Reynolds |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Á | 1135 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Robertson |
|
The Chair |
|
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Marlene Catterall |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, September 18, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Á 
(1110)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): I want to welcome you all back. Everyone looks very, very happy. I'm pleased to see that.
You have the agenda before you. The first item is consideration of the steering committee report. Our steering committee is officially called the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. You have that report before you.
At the steering committee we discussed these items. You can see some indication of priority in there, but my intention is to raise them to get some idea as to whether you agree with what has been suggested here or whether you have other suggestions as to how we work in the coming months.
The second item relates in fact to our subcommittee on electoral boundaries. It's dealt with in the report and it is a motion that we may or may not introduce, depending on how you receive the report, which is agenda item number one.
The third item also arises from the steering committee report, and that is a report to the House extending our pilot project on the televising of committees.
So number one is the main item; numbers two and three likely follow through from it.
I know you got this report yesterday and spent the evening reading it, but I'll go through it.
The first matter is the conflict of interest code. As you know, the legislation has proceeded through the House. We are left with finalizing technical changes to the Standing Orders. We introduced an interim report on that, which summarizes where we are so far. There are two or three sections that are noted in the interim report as requiring further study. It says here we will devote another meeting—likely, the steering committee thought, one meeting—to that topic. It would be fairly soon.
On the question of privilege that the government House leader raised and the instance of concern, I'd like you to read that if you can. By the way, my memory of the meeting, for those of you on the steering committee, is just a little bit different. Essentially the suggestion is that we consider the question of privilege, but that given that the courts are involved we consider the general case rather than the individual cases. And then it says: “It is recommended that the committee receive further documentation before deciding on how to proceed.”
John Reynolds.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, could I ask you, what documentation are we waiting for, and why is it taking so long? It's not a secret that we want to do this.
The Chair: I don't know why it's taking so long, but the documentation is explanatory material on the current status of the two court cases.
Jamie, do you want to explain?
Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): At the steering committee meeting it was pointed out that there had been two appeals raised in each of the cases, and information was requested on the nature of what those appeals were. We're just getting those. We should have something by early next week for the members of the committee.
Mr. John Reynolds: That should not hold us up—
Mr. James Robertson: No.
Mr. John Reynolds: —because this Parliament is supreme, and we should be going ahead with what the House leader of the government asked for.
Mr. James Robertson: Yes.
Mr. John Reynolds: Okay, thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, the next item is the broadcasting of committee proceedings. As you know, for two or three years now this committee has been promoting the greater exposure of all parliamentary committees to television. We have put in place a procedure whereby, with appropriate notice—which by the way is very simple—any TV channel can place a camera or cameras in any committee room, gavel to gavel, under some other, you will recall, rules for that. We ran an experiment. The experiment ended, Jamie, when?
Mr. James Robertson: At the end of June.
The Chair: The suggestion here essentially is.... First of all, we have taken it up a little bit, but there are not sufficient statistics to say we should make a report to the House. So the suggestion here is that we approve a report extending that experiment to the end of this Parliament. And that, by the way, is agenda item three today.
“Election by secret ballot”: you can read that.
Excuse me? I'm sorry; I missed it, John.
Mr. John Reynolds: Rather than go back saying we recommend that we extend the guidelines to the end of the current Parliament, why not just put them in? If it's working, it's working.
The Chair: It involves a report back to Parliament.
By the way, we're not sure it is working. It appears the media are not taking it up as much as we would think. That's one thing.
It also appears to me, even though we—that is to say, this committee—have sent material to committee chairs on a number of occasions, that the committee chairs or the committee members are not taking it up, John. So there may be something wrong with the design at the moment.
Dale.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): I would think that wouldn't be a very good reason for not having it in the Standing Orders. I mean, the Standing Orders would make this procedure available, and I don't think the utilization of it should have anything to do with whether it's kept in the Standing Orders.
Quite to the contrary, if the trial period proved that it was just nothing but a hassle that hampered the functioning of the committee, that might be a reason to take it out of the Standing Orders. The fact that people don't capitalize on its availability I don't think is a reason.
The Chair: I welcome discussion.
The position at the moment is that it's provisionally in the Standing Orders. We're simply extending that it be provisionally in.
Marlene Catterall and then John Reynolds.
Á (1115)
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I'm a little happier with the interim solution, but I'm okay either way. It's in the Standing Orders now, and let's keep it there.
The modernization report is going to recommend the Internet broadcast of all House and committee proceedings. I suspect the committee is going to be seized of the issue of how to implement that. Rather than considering any changes to the status quo right now, let's do everything in the context of the full broadcasting of all committee and House proceedings via the Internet.
The Chair: John Reynolds.
Mr. John Reynolds: I agree with Marlene. We can wait a few weeks, because this is going to come into the House, I hope, in the next few days and we can approve it.
It's rather silly if we don't put it in the Standing Orders, because we're building a building that we're just in the process of approving, meaning that every committee room is going to be fully set up for television and everything else. Obviously, it's going to happen, so we may as well get those things in order.
I don't mind waiting until we decide how we're doing with the Internet.
The Chair: Okay.
Dale Johnston.
Mr. Dale Johnston: I agree with what's been said. But just for clarification, I understand this standing order means that anybody or any network who wants to come in and shoot their own footage can do so too.
The Chair: Absolutely, as long as they leave it gavel to gavel—and by the way, as long as they make the tape available to the House of Commons within a certain period of time.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, yes.
The Chair: So it exists now. It is only provisional and it will still be provisional. It's in there now and can be done.
Are you comfortable with that?
Mr. Dale Johnston: Yes, I can handle that.
Mr. John Reynolds: Until we've discussed the other....
The Chair: Okay, that's fine.
The next item is election by secret ballot. You'll see that the original decision was that we would, at this time, review those procedures. The suggestion of the steering committee is that there's no reason to reconsider the procedures at this time and that they should stay in effect.
Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: On the electoral redistribution, there are a couple of items here. Bill C-49 is the legislation bringing forward the date when the new riding boundaries come into effect, bringing them forward from August 25, 2004, to April 1, 2004. I always think April 1 is a very good day for parliamentary things.
Colleagues, the bill is now in the House. We assume that it will be referred to this committee. It should therefore have been reviewed by the House. It will be given a high priority by this committee.
There is a suggestion made here, though, because there was discussion. As most of our work on this matter has been done by a subcommittee, should it not be referred to the subcommittee? The decision was no, it's not appropriate that a subcommittee consider a piece of legislation that has been referred by the House, but it is appropriate that the committee, which is us now, urge the whips to consider making their party representatives, those who were on the subcommittee, acting members of this committee while we're considering Bill C-49.
Is somebody here from the PCs? Yes. If you could register that, assuming that the committee agrees.... I guess it's the same people. The idea is to accommodate the experience the subcommittee members have.
The second item has to with the same matter, but a different angle of it. This is the review of the procedure for reorganizing riding boundaries following each major census. It's recommended that the committee consider extending and enlarging the mandate of the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment in order to allow the subcommittee to present a follow-up report on its work.
This, colleagues, would be the post-mortem on the procedure we have just gone through.
By the way, I'll complete it. I'll go to John and then Yvon in a moment.
It's further recommended that the subcommittee hold an open meeting for interested members to discuss the latest redistribution with the chief electoral officer.
Now I need to explain that to you, because the chief electoral officer organized for others, yesterday and today, such a post-mortem meeting. He invited MPs to it yesterday. The steering committee said that it was not an appropriate time to invite MPs. It was very difficult for members of Parliament who were interested to go. I was to explain that to Mr. Kingsley. He's circulating a letter, by the way, cancelling or postponing the MP part of his post-mortem.
This recommendation by your steering committee is to replace that. Mr. Kingsley knows of it. In other words, we would have Mr. Kingsley here on the Hill, and we would build the open meeting into the post-mortem that our subcommittee would run.
John Reynolds, then Yvon Godin.
Á (1120)
Mr. John Reynolds: I think that's a very good idea. One of the problems I found was when I made a presentation to the committee in my own riding, which ended up being the largest one in Canada for this redistribution, they didn't listen to any of it. I would have liked an opportunity to come back and argue with them about the merits of their decision.
Mr. Dale Johnston: Debate.
Mr. John Reynolds: No, it's “argue”.
I sat there and watched them look at a map, but they didn't understand what the hell I was talking about. I thought that I had an agreement when I left, but the riding was too large. I have a five-and-a-half-hour drive on one end. It's crazy, but that's life.
I think we should have a look at it so there is more of a debate and it's properly presented. I'm happy to see them come back to report on it.
The Chair: John, you should know that many members have approached me, and I'm sure they've approached other members of the committee. Members have some concerns with it, and here's one of them.
Yvon Godin.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I also think we need to...[Editor's note: inaudible] When Mr. Boudria rose in the House of Commons yesterday, he was thinking about the old days, not about today's technology. There is no reason why we should have to wait 12 months before we see these changes implemented. This explains why we need to pass a special bill so that this can be done in April rather than in August.
If the committee merges, it will be a much larger entity. Mr. Reynolds has expressed some concerns and would like to voice his opinion. How will the committee operate and who will be making the decisions? Furthermore, how did the various committees arrive at their respective decisions?
Let me give you one quick example. I won't go into the details, but the committee can look at this matter more closely. When it first reported, the commission announced that there would be no changes in certain ridings. In some instances, no one was on hand when the first report was tabled. Subsequently, in its second report, the commission proposed sweeping changes to the riding. By then, it was to late for people to make their views known to the commission. Things like that happened. As I said, we need to review thoroughly how these commissions operate.
[English]
The Chair: We are broadening the mandate.
Paul Macklin.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I just wanted to speak in support of the—
The Chair: Oui?
Mr. Yvon Godin: It's just that he made comments about Boudria being in the House yesterday. But Boudria yesterday was speaking just about the time. I want to make sure it's not just about the time.
Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: I think we have to look at this whole process on an annual basis—I shouldn't say on an annual basis, but as and when it's actually being done after each census. Some things are becoming extremely obvious. I think what you find out is that there are some things that procedurally are inherently unfair.
One of the most obvious ones to me was when, once we had brought forward presentations to the electoral commission and the commission had gone back and examined the riding boundaries and made changes, they were going to make changes to someone's riding who had made no representation because there had been no anticipated change to their riding. Then their riding changed, without a chance for them to bring forward their views, as happened with me and with John MacKay in our relationship, where his riding more or less absorbed the shock of the change in my riding back to its original form. I think such situations clearly call for an opportunity for that person to be heard. There should be a consultation process with the affected riding or ridings.
The Chair: Okay. That is agenda item number two, colleagues.
Now let us turn to security on the Hill. I know John Reynolds is particularly interested in this, and members of the committee understand how we've handled it so far. I have, as you know, met on a number of occasions now with representatives of the Senate. If you would, read the item here: “It is recommended that the Chair take the necessary steps to seek an informal meeting of the members of the committee”—this is not me—“with the members of the appropriate Senate committee for the purpose of discussing matters of mutual interest regarding security on Parliament Hill.”
This is a change, because previously, colleagues, you will recall I was delegated on your behalf and I reported back to you from time to time. This now is suggesting that there be a large informal meeting. In other words, it would be our whole committee, with our staff, and it would be with whichever committee they care to put forward. We have some idea which one it would be, but that's the Senate's own business. We would meet in one room in an informal meeting, with the two committees meeting. It would not be a joint Senate-House committee or anything like that.
After taking advice—we discussed this in some detail, and if you wish, we'll discuss it now, but I'm not sure we should—the complications of having a formal Senate-House committee are so great it simply is not worth it. That's what this recommendation means.
The second part says that before we do that—because we've been doing it for some months—“It is further recommended that this committee meet in camera to discuss security on the Hill prior to meeting with the Senate committee members.”
John Reynolds.
Á (1125)
Mr. John Reynolds: I agree totally.
I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman.... When some of us were in London—I think it was in April or May—on other issues, we took half a day aside to visit the security people in the House of Commons. We got some written reports, I understand—
The Chair: They're reported here.
Mr. John Reynolds: That's okay, as long as we all have that in front of us to read before we meet with the Senate. It worked so well over there it was unbelievable, but it follows along with Commissioner Zaccardelli's having talked about having one force.
The Chair: Michel Guimond.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to comment about the first part, or the first paragraph of our report. As for your initial comments, I want to stress that this meeting must remain informal. I wouldn't want anyone to think that our committee's agenda is dictated by proceedings in the Senate. We share space in the same building, the Centre Block, but that's merely coincidental. Therefore, it needs to be made very clear that this meeting will be of an informal nature. I don't know if holding a joint meeting would be relevant.
The Chair: Thank you, Michel.
[English]
And you're exactly right on that.
The last item in the steering committee's report, colleagues, is Bill C-408, which is Eugène Bellemare's bill, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act oath or solemn affirmation. It is recommended that the sponsor of the bill, Eugène Bellemare, be invited to appear before the committee at a suitable time for the purpose of answering questions about the bill, and we would build that into our agenda in the coming weeks.
Michel Guimond.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Will our clerk be drawing up a list of relevant witnesses? Will he be asking us to submit names, or will we hear only from Mr. Bellemare on Bill C-408?
[English]
The Chair: The other members of the steering committee can tell me this, but my interpretation of the steering committee meeting was that we should get Mr. Bellemare here first, and when we've heard what he has to say, design the follow-up to it. Jamie is saying to me that when we've heard what he has to say, the committee will decide exactly what you said, how to design the follow-up to it. So at the moment it's recommending that the member be called to take us through his bill.
Michel.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: I don't know what Mr. Bellemare plans to say, but I did follow this debate in the House and I was a member of the Subcommittee on Private Member's Business. I believe Mr. Bellemare has tabled his bill on one or two occasions since 1997, in each case unsuccessfully. Under the new rules, his bill can now be considered a votable item. I know very well where Mr. Bellemare stands and I think our clerk should know that I would like to hear from some experts, regardless of what Mr. Bellemare might have to say. That's my party's position.
Á (1130)
[English]
The Chair: That sounds very plausible to me. So subject to that, can we concur with the steering committee? I'm not sure we need a vote on it.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay, agreed.
We proceed to the motion that is item two, that the mandate of the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment be extended, and that pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi), the subcommittee be empowered to inquire into and report on any matter relating to the redistribution process.
Would someone move that, please? John Reynolds.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: So, colleagues, we will proceed with that. The subcommittee will be re-established. The whips, I hope, will remember the point we made--we will remind them, Thomas--that wherever possible, members of the subcommittee should be substituted into the main committee for those hearings.
To item number three, the draft report is before you. It explains what we said. I have Joe Jordan moving it, which is the extending of the televising thing.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Colleagues, is there any other business?
Marlene Catterall.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I have a couple of small items in the context of Bill C-49. I understand it is the House leader's intention to consult with members of Parliament about name changes to the ridings under the new boundaries and to bring forward a government bill that would accomplish that. That makes redundant the private member's bill doing name changes for the existing ridings, so I'll be contacting everybody who has a name change in that particular bill, plus others who have written to me. The other House leaders and whips may want to do the same with their colleagues, ask them if they still wish the same name change they had previously requested. That's another thing that will have to be worked into our agenda fairly expeditiously.
The Chair: Marlene, can you explain that again, because the Senate had some problems with this, you may recall, when I went to them. This is a private member's bill, but it's an omnibus you gathered together on behalf of all the parties.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: There is a bill now before the Senate. It went through the House as a private member's bill implementing name changes members of all parties had requested for their ridings. That bill applied to the existing ridings, but doesn't apply to the new ridings. So if we're going to be dealing with a bill to implement the new ridings, the government House leader has decided that he might as well bring forward a government bill that implements name changes members of Parliament want. That makes my private members' bill, which is now in the Senate, redundant, so I will get back to the people from my party, and I would ask the others to do the same. Do they still want those name changes incorporated in a government bill, and could they consult with their other members?
The Chair: Before you go to your second item, could I go to John Reynolds and Yvon Godin on the points you've already made?
Mr. John Reynolds: We agree that's the way to do it, and we've actually brought it up in our caucus. Also, I've sent a memo to every member. I've actually got a couple in already, and we'll get those ready by September 26.
The Chair: All right.
Yvon Godin.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin: That was my question and I see that Mr. Reynolds has already forwarded the letter to his caucus. We'd like to know if this would require many changes. The commission reported and immediately afterward, some Members who had no intention of seeking a name change reversed their position. We're concerned that the whole thing could snowball. First off, we want to know if there are many changes. There may be one or two in Quebec. For example, you mentioned the riding of Papineau. I just want you to know that our party is concerned. We'll see how each political party is going to react.
[English]
The Chair: Michel Guimond.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: It's not often that I sing the praises of the Leader of the Government, but I think he's opted for an excellent approach instead of flooding the Senate with bills. I'm not saying the Senate isn't up to the task, but I think this approach will save us time.
As for the number of changes, what difference does it make if we're talking about 2, 12, 40 or 126 name changes. We're still talking about a single bill. One commission member indicated that in Quebec in particular, the hope was to eliminate ridings composed of two or more names. Ridings should have only one name, although this doesn't reflect the reality of the situation since ridings have often doubled in size. Like our Canadian Alliance colleagues, we put the question to caucus and we'll be able to meet the deadline of the 26th. We're not worried that there will be 40 or 42 in total in Quebec. Now is the time to act. No one will be able to say to us that all of the lists and maps were printed using the old names and we won't be forced to spend about $500,000 per riding for a name change.
Therefore, it's in your best interest to respect the deadline. I'm not responsible for the NDP's strategy. It's hard enough as it is coordinating our own party's strategy.
Á (1135)
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Michel.
Marlene, you might want to comment, or you might want to go on to your second item.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: No, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure we were making room for that in our agenda, and especially I would ask everybody to let the members whose name changes are in the existing private member's bill know they have to let Don know that they still want it in the new bill, if they do.
The Chair: All right, next item.
Ms. Marlene Catterall: I just wanted to ask about the striking committee report and when we expect to deal with that.
The Chair: I should have mentioned it. I jumped over it by mistake. Thank you. We only have one party list. You all know that it's ten sitting days. What happens on the tenth day if we don't have a list? The committee just goes ahead and--
Mr. James Robertson: We're in trouble.
The Chair: I'm advised that once those lists are received, the precedent is that the committee does not need to meet. It would be introduced into the House in an automatic way. Am I right?
The Clerk of the Committee: You can do that, yes.
The Chair: As Thomas has carefully put it, we can do that. Is that okay with you?
Ms. Marlene Catterall: Then the clerk would submit it to the House or you would table it in the House.
The Chair: It's been done before.
We urge all the whips to get the lists in as quickly as possible. The PC's is the one we've received. Thank you very much. This is fine work by the Progressive Conservative Party.
Colleagues, unless there is any other business, the meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.