HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

Á

1150

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

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

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Á

1155

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

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

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Â

1210

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 064

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 4, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1150)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin?

    You have the agenda before you. We're going to, unusually, start with item one, but I'd like to mention items two and three first. When we get to those, you're supposed to have the notes on Eugène Bellemare's bill regarding the oath. I'd be grateful, not that you need things to do.... I think the notes are available for the media as well. They're here somewhere. I'd be grateful if you'd glance at those and refresh your memory so that when we get to it we can deal with it fairly promptly.

    On the third item, you are supposed to have a letter addressed to me and dated October 28. It's from the clerk, Bill Corbett. I'd be grateful if you'd read that and get your heads again around the matter of the delegated legislation, because it seems to me that as long as we're up to speed, it's something we can deal with fairly promptly.

    Now, if we could move to agenda item one, which is our consideration of the question of privilege, there are two things I want to say.

    First of all, I was very disappointed with the leak from this committee. I say this not out of spite or anything like that, but it is a bit embarrassing for the committee, which is supposed to be in charge of stemming leaks, to have a leak. It is of some concern to me.

    By the way, I want to say that I was particularly concerned that a staff document that was circulated in an in camera meeting was leaked, because that document was a briefing for an in camera meeting. It's of some concern to me. I'd be glad for members to address that in a moment.

    As you all know, we have a motion before us. When we get to that point, I'm going to proceed with our discussion of the matter of privilege with respect to the motion. The motion has been tabled, and I agreed it would be.

    Before we do that, I would like to draw your attention to what our own steering committee said as to how we should proceed in this matter. This is from our own steering committee report of some time ago. There it is: Tuesday, September 16. This is our own steering committee. “It was noted that the two incidents which gave rise to these questions of privilege have each been appealed to a higher court.” That's still the case. “It is thus recommended that the Committee consider the privilege at issue in general rather than these two incidents in particular. It is further recommended that the Committee receive further documentation before deciding how to proceed.”

    I simply, as your chair, remind you of that, because that's what I've been operating under.

    John Reynolds, and then Dale.

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, I want to talk about the proposed leak. There was no leak. A reporter, using his brilliance, went to the Internet and pulled the report off the Internet. He called me and asked me for a quote on a report of the library that he had read that was available on the Internet.

    There was no leak from this committee. It was legitimately available. Through the genius of the fellow sitting on the end, he went to look and he found it.

    The Chair: If that is the case, I suppose I need to apologize humbly to all members of the committee. Do I? I do. I didn't realize that. I appreciate the point.

    Mr. John Reynolds: I was phoned and I would not comment. I was phoned later and he said that he had a copy of this report. It was available on the Internet for anybody who wanted to look at it.

    It was not prepared for this committee for in camera either. It was prepared for Parliament. I guess they put it on their Internet site.

    The Chair: I withdraw my reprimand, colleagues. I'm delighted that the record of this committee is still so pristine. Okay.

    Yes?

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Can we confirm that in fact it wasn't prepared for an in camera meeting? I mean, I don't know that.

    The Chair: By the way—

    Mr. Geoff Regan: The question I would raise is why was it on the Internet?

    The Chair: Before we get into that, my assumption, when I circulate things at an in camera meeting, is that is what it's for: it's an in camera document. If that is not the case, I apologize.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, but we don't know that. I don't know the answer. The fact that it was on the Internet doesn't tell me for sure that it should have been on the Internet. That's the question I think we ought to answer.

    The Chair: I will look into that at a later occasion, if that's okay with the committee. I'll report back at the earliest possible opportunity. Thank you very much.

    Now, colleagues, you all have the motion. I will read it into the record:

That this Committee report to the House that based on historical precedent, a claim of privilege by a Member of the House of Commons to avoid appearing in court as a witness does not apply to a Member named as a defendant in a civil action; the privilege can be claimed, however, by a Member not named as a party but who was simply asked to appear as a witness; in relation to the case of Ainsworth Lumber Co. v. Canada (A.G.) and Paul Martin, the Member for LaSalle--Émard had no claim to such privilege; in relation to the case of Telezone Inc. v. Attorney General of Canada, such privilege could be claimed by the Member for Ottawa South; and that this Committee undertake a further review of this privilege as it relates to Parliament in the 21st Century.

    That's the motion.

    I will go to Geoff Regan and then Joe Jordan.

Á  (1155)  

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

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): I think you had me speaking before Geoff Regan.

    The Chair: I did. I thought it was to do with the previous issue, but you're on the list.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I—

    The Chair: No, I will go to the opposition first.

    Dale goes first, and then Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: This concerns your opening comments, Peter, about this issue: that the report said it should be dealt with in a general rather than a specific manner. What exactly does that mean?

    The Chair: Let me give you my interpretation of it. My interpretation was, Dale, that we have been directed by the House to consider the important matter of parliamentary privilege for all parliamentarians; that this had been triggered by these two cases, but it was the general situation for parliamentarians we were considering rather than these two, particularly because neither of these two members had requested the Speaker to deal with their cases as a matter of privilege.

    Jamie, do you want to go further on that?

    Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): I'll just read the order of reference from the House of May 26, 2003:

That the question of the immunity of Members of the House from being compelled to attend court during, immediately before and immediately after a Session of Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

    The Chair: Dale.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I think that's all for now. I just wanted to get straight in my head what this meant by “in general”, rather than in “specific” cases. I think that will do.

    The Chair: By the way, my interpretation is always open to interpretation here. I urge that. I'm trying to do what the committee wants.

    We'll hear Geoff Regan, and then Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, before I go ahead, would you read again what you read from the steering committee report, the wording that referred to “specific” versus “general”? I thought it was fairly clear, but let's hear it again.

    The Chair: Our own steering committee report from September 16 says:

    “It was noted that the two incidents which gave rise to these questions of privilege have each been appealed to a higher court. It is thus recommended that the Committee consider the privilege at issue in general, rather than these two incidents in particular. It is further recommended that the Committee receive further documentation before deciding how to proceed.”

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I think it's pretty clear from the face of that wording that we were to look at the general question, which is of interest and importance to all of us, of what the privileges are. I don't think we've completed that work by any means in order to report to Parliament on it. I think we ought to do a little more investigation rather than simply rely on one report from the Library of Parliament. I think, for instance, we have to have the Speaker and the Clerk of the House here.

    The Speaker is expert in this area. If I recall correctly, I believe he's appeared in court, in fact, on related matters and would be an excellent witness on this topic.

    Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in view of the fact that the steering committee directed us how to go about this, we ought to follow its direction and try to give a general indication at some point in a report to the House what the privileges are and what we can expect in the future, for those of us who may be asked to appear in court.

    I can understand why our colleagues and friends across the way have brought this motion, but I think they ought to consider that where there are court matters going on, rather than advancing political ends we ought to be recognizing those court matters and should therefore, as suggested in the steering committee, deal with this in a general manner.

    The Chair: Next is Joe Jordan, and then John Reynolds.

    Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I'm not comfortable with this motion for a variety of reasons, although it's already in the public domain. I've talked to a few people who play around the edges of these sorts of issues, and one of the things I'd like to get to the bottom of—and I guess this is in a general sense—is that “a member named as a defendant in a civil action” is fine, but if the actions undertaken were in their capacity as a minister, that fact has to be taken into consideration. I don't see that distinction in some of the legal analysis to date.

    I guess I would support having the Speaker in, or maybe the clerk, or maybe both, because there are two issues. One is whether the rules were followed, and the other is whether the rules are right. I think we have to look at both those things and try to achieve some clarity, because that's what we were asked to do.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Mr. Reynolds.

    Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I should say that the House leader of the government himself has made it quite plain that the courts shouldn't decide what is privilege in this House and what is not; it should be this House.

    An hon. member: Exactly.

    Mr. John Reynolds: This House and other Houses of Parliament over the last 100 years have made it very plain that you do not have privilege if you are charged as a defendant. You do if you're called as a witness. Those are the rules that the Library of Parliament has given us, and it is as neutral as anybody.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Let's hear from experts on this, like the Speaker, for example. Why not hear from the Speaker and the Clerk of the House on the same topic?

    The Chair: Let's hear what John has to say.

    Mr. John Reynolds: The Library of Parliament, with all due respect to our Speaker and other lawyers you might bring in, has the best lawyers in the country. They look at the precedents, and what they have quoted in the document that you've read was the precedents in every parliamentary democracy: that defendants do not have a right of privilege.

    The Chair: Mr. Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: What we have is one legal opinion. I've practised law, and I know legal opinions sometimes vary. There are times when people rely on one opinion, but I think it's unwise in this case. If we're doing an investigation of this issue, to rely on one legal opinion and not consider the opinion and views of the Speaker and the clerk doesn't make any sense to me.

    The Chair: Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: I was just going to say, the other thing that tips the scale is that the Supreme Court hasn't decided whether to hear the appeal yet. If they do hear the appeal, we're going to get reams of political opinions on it. So that specific case and the precedent around it will get a very thorough discussion.

    I'm concerned about the specificity of this motion when we've been asked to deal with the issue in very general terms. I would not want this to turn into some kind of a partisan chess game.

    The Chair: Dale, and then Werner.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, one of the things that occurs to me is that when the government House leader suggested that this be sent to the committee, his point probably was that this is something that should be decided here rather than in the courts. So I think this motion is headed in the right direction, and obviously I'm prepared to support it.

    The Chair: Werner.

    Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The point I'd like to raise is that there seems to be some debate as to whether this motion is specific, whether it deals with a particular case or a general case.

    I would like to suggest to you that it is exactly a general case. It deals with a general situation, that a person who finds himself a defendant does not have the parliamentary privilege that someone who is not a defendant does. It seems to me that's the general case. The fact that these two particular items are on here is simply illustrative of how that general case would be applied, and I think that's the issue.

    But the really important issue is the one that Dale just made, that Parliament is to decide this, not the courts.

    The Chair: Michel Guimond, and then Geoff Regan.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'd like to congratulate the parliamentary leader of the Official Opposition for his motion, which we received last week. On further reflection, I'm wondering if my intervention on this motion could be interpreted as a question of privilege, in keeping with the interpretation of our colleague Mr. Reynolds. Nevertheless, I've decided to vote in favour of this proposal because it's important to make a distinction. The motion in fact calls for making a distinction between a member of Parliament who is the defendant in a civil case, and an MP who conversely, is subpoenaed to testify as an ordinary witness in a case. In light of this distinction, I urge committee members to vote in favour of this motion. I intend to do just that on behalf of my party.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Michel.

[English]

    Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of things. First of all, it's clear from the steering committee report that there was no intent from the opposition, for example, to report in a specific manner in terms of individual cases until they read the Library of Parliament opinion, which they found politically advantageous. Then they decided to change their approach and bring forward this politically motivated motion to.... Look, they're laughing and smiling; they'd never admit that. Then, for our friend Werner to suggest this is not specific, this motion, when it actually says that one member has no claim to privilege, and that another one does....

    It actually specifies that one of these members has no claim to privilege, and for the other one it could be claimed. I think he ought to read it. The member had no claim to such privilege, and you're telling me that's not specific, Werner? Come on, let's live in the real world here, folks. We know what's going on. I think we all know what's going on here: this is a politically motivated motion, and it ought to be defeated.

    The Chair: I'm going to put the question.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I'm not quite finished, Mr. Chairman.

    Otherwise, you're going to have a situation where ministers spend all their time in court as defendants with people who aren't happy with decisions of their departments.

    The Chair: John Reynolds, briefly, and then the question.

    Mr. John Reynolds: Then thank God. They should be like everybody else when they're screwing somebody, and they deserve to be sued. And it keeps the lawyers going.

    Mr. Speaker, with reference to the report of the library, to blame the opposition for reading something that's politically advantageous, prepared by a totally neutral body with hundreds of years of experience in Parliament of doing that, is not correct. The Library of Parliament is one of the finest recognized agencies of a parliament in this country, if not the world, in what they do. It's filled with lawyers, like yourself, who do things fairly for the rest of us.

    We're doing our job. If we didn't do our jobs then you could hammer on us, but we're doing our jobs.

    So, Mr. Speaker, put the question.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.

    The Chair: A recorded vote. Thomas, please call the names.

    (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

    The Chair: The motion is defeated.

    John Reynolds, then Joe Jordan.

    Mr. John Reynolds: I would then like to move a motion that we invite the Speaker, the Clerk of the House, and Mr. Martin to this committee to explain some of the issues that are before us.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Talk about being specific. What is the advantage to a general inquiry into this issue of having one of the specified members come to this committee? Again, talk about being political, Mr. Chair. It's outrageous.

    The Chair: I'll call the motion. Let me call John Reynolds' new motion please.

    An hon. member: I'd like a recorded vote.

    The Chair: It will be a recorded vote.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: We've had no notice of this. It's not in writing.

    The Chair: On this committee we don't need notice. It's a legitimate motion.

    Thomas, call the names.

    (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

  (1210)  

    The Chair: The motion is defeated.

    Joe Jordan.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, I'd like to move that we do call the Speaker of the House and the Clerk of the House on this matter.

    The Chair: Colleagues, we don't really need a motion for such a thing, but I'm quite willing to treat it as a motion if you wish. Do you want me to treat it as a motion, or are we going to accept that this is how we're going to proceed?

    Mr. John Reynolds: They could bring the law clerk with them, so if they need legal advice when they're here—

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Sure, fine—

    The Chair: Okay.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: —and whatever people they deem necessary.

    The Chair: Okay, we hear that.

    Mr. John Reynolds: You could say the Speaker, the Clerk of the House, the law clerk, and any other people they deem necessary to be with them.

    The Chair: Colleagues, are you all comfortable with that?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    An hon. member: Not if they deem it necessary.

    The Chair: Okay, colleagues, we'll proceed in that fashion. I'm comfortable with it.

    Concerning agenda item two, you have the briefing note. I suggested at the beginning that you look to the briefing note on the oath. My suggestion is we need a meeting at which we will call expert witnesses to consider this matter. Are there any comments on that? Are you okay with it?

    Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): If I understand correctly, Mr. Bellemare will not be testifying again before our committee.

[English]

    The Chair: He did.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That is correct.

[English]

    The Chair: Oh? He will if the committee wishes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I see. I for one would like to hear from him again. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to share with you a comment that was made when Mr. Bellemare appeared before the committee last October. Do I have a few minutes to do that?

    The Chair: By all means.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I won't start a filibuster, but at the time, I made the following comment:

In 1993, Mr. Bellemare apparently was quoted in the media as believing that swearing loyalty to Canada would be a way to counter the rise of the Bloc Québécois.

    Mr. Bellemare responded to this comment in the following manner:

I object because that was not my intention. It was reported by the media. We don't know where it came from, since the source is not quoted. Was it in the Citizen, the Globe and Mail or La Presse? The document doesn't say?

    And he went on to say this:

I have no idea where that was said, because I don't remember every saying that kind of thing. First of all, I am not from Quebec, but from Ontario. How could I fight against a fellow from the Bloc Québécois? It would have to be during an election, or a one-on-one situation. That is really taking it too far, when you go and look...

    So, I asked him this:

But if we were to find the quote, and let us say that you did state that your aim was to combat the rise of the Bloc Québécois, then would you be prepared to withdraw your bill?

    To which he responded in a somewhat Liberal fashion: “I would say that I was misquoted [...]

    I checked my facts, Mr. Chairman -- and I want to thank the staff of the Library of Parliament for sending me the pertinent document - and I could give you a dozen or so quotes that accurately reflect Mr. Bellemare's views. I don't feel that his bill should be retained. I'm prepared to read some of these excerpts to, if you'll pardon my English.

[English]

    “An oath to the Queen--or to Canada and its Constitution--runs contrary to the beliefs of the Bloc Québécois, formed to work for Quebec independence after the Meech Lake accord died in June 1990.”

[Translation]

    Further on, we note this:

[English]

    “Bellemare doesn't know if such an oath would leave Bloc MPs open to treason charges for advocating the breakup of the country.”

[Translation]

    And he continues...

    The Chair: Just a moment, Benoît.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

[English]

    The Chair: Do you want to add where they are? You're giving the date, but you're not citing the name of the paper.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I can give you the date as well as the name of the newspaper. The previous quote is from Ottawa's Factiva. It was part of an audio rebroadcast at 2:15 p.m. on December 8, 2000.

    The next bit is taken from the same edition of the same newspaper. However, these comments were made at 1:44 p.m. The following is said about Mr. Bellemare:

  (1215)  

[English]

    “He acknowledges a problem for separatist MPs.”

[Translation]

    In the March 15, 1994 edition of Factiva, the following is said about our party:

[English]

    “I don't think they have a right to sit here.”

[Translation]

    As a democrat, imagine being told that we shouldn't have the right to sit in this House.

    The following was printed on the front page of the March 15, 1994 edition of the Ottawa Sun:

[English]

    “Oath killed by Bloc 'rats'”.

[Translation]

    I could give you several more examples. The Financial Post reported how, on June 16, 1997, at 11 p.m., Mr. Bellemare made the following comment:

[English]

    “I don't know what they are doing in the House of Commons.”

[Translation]

    Also, in the March 15, 1994 edition of the Calgary Herald, we find this report:

[English]

    “An angry Bellemare charged that Quebec voters made 'a sad mistake' when they elected 54 Bloc MPs...”.

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, when a Member testifies in good faith before the committee, maintains that the intent of his bill is not to call into question in any way the participation of Bloc Québécois members in the democratic process and argues that if he was quoted, he was in fact misquoted, although there is evidence from comments reported in the newspapers or on the radio five years ago that his bill does not reflect any noble intentions on his part, but rather constitutes a direct attack on a party's participation in the democratic process, then I have to ask myself, even though I'm not an expert in legislative procedure, why we even continue to debate the proposed legislation. Perhaps you can answer that question for me.

[English]

    The Chair: Joe Jordan, briefly.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for that. I think we have an issue here in what he is referring to.

    If you could help me, what's the history of this bill, and in what form has it landed in our lap? Has it been deemed votable? Are we to make that decision?

    The Chair: Jamie.

    Mr. James Robertson: Under the new system, this bill was votable. Under the new system, it has received second reading from the House and has been referred to this committee after second reading.

    Mr. Joe Jordan: Okay. I think at the very least we need to hear witnesses and need the sponsor of the bill back here too.

    The Chair: Colleagues, that was my....

    By the way, we have the addition that Benoît has made. But I'm comfortable to move with this, Yvon, if it suits you: that we have a meeting, we call witnesses, we invite our colleague to return.

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I too will be supporting this motion.

[English]

    The Chair: Colleagues, are you all comfortable with that?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Then we'll proceed on it.

    Mr. James Robertson: Could we get names of witnesses?

    The Chair: Yes, thank you, Jamie.

    I forgot to say, I would ask all parties—and we need Thomas to convey this to the parties who aren't here at the moment—if you would, to suggest names of witnesses to the clerk. I would suggest you do that before Thursday at five o'clock.

    That's done, then.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Parizeau.

    Some hon. members: Oh! oh!

[English]

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): I'm not sure whether some documents in fact already exist. I'm wondering if we could ask our researcher to compile some form of list of the oaths of office in a variety of similar jurisdictions—the various provinces, particularly Quebec, but also Britain, Australia and its states, New Zealand, and other similar countries.

    The Chair: Jamie, are you okay with that?

    Thank you, Scott. I appreciate that.

    Colleagues, shall we move to item 3?

    You all have the letter of 28 October from the Clerk of the House, Bill Corbett, addressed to me as chair of the committee.

    Jamie, do you want to speak briefly to this?

    Mr. James Robertson: Parliament last June passed Bill C-205, which had been sponsored by Mr. Grewal. It was passed and received royal assent last June. It sets in place a disallowance procedure, applying in the House and Senate, for regulations dealt with by the Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations.

    Presently, the House of Commons Standing Orders contain standing orders regarding this joint committee. Because this bill provides a slightly modified procedure in legislative format, the Clerk of the House was asked by the Speaker to review the existing standing order provisions. He has now done so and has sent this letter.

    He is proposing that the Standing Orders be amended as shown in the appendix to the letter; that the existing standing orders be replaced by these new ones. This would also mean that the procedure would be the same in the legislation and in the Standing Orders and would allow the Speaker to rule on procedures involving delegated legislation, because they would be under the Standing Orders. The Speaker cannot interpret or apply law as found in Bill C-205. This would avoid the inconsistencies.

  (1220)  

    The Chair: The recommendation is contained in the last real paragraph of Bill Corbett's letter.

    Is there any discussion of this?

    Mr. James Robertson: If this is acceptable to the committee, what we would do is prepare a very short report just citing what the clerk has cited in this letter, giving the background, and recommending that the House adopt the new regulations attached thereto.

    The Chair: Colleagues, if you're comfortable with this, I'd accept a motion to that effect by Judi Longfield.

    Dale, please.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: What I'm reading is this is basically just for our approval and it's already gone through all passages.

    The Chair: That's right. Whatever they are will be accepted by us and presumably by the House.

    Essentially, Judi's motion is that we recommend to the House the modification to the Standing Orders attached here, or words to that effect.

    (Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I have a question of clarification, and I probably should know the answer.

    Does the code of conduct that has now gone to the Senate for approval from the House, specifically with regard to members' travel, govern cabinet as well?

    The Chair: It governs all members of Parliament, which includes members of cabinet--unless they're not members of Parliament.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's right.

    The Chair: But there's a code, am I right, Jamie? There will be a ministerial code as well.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: For example, if someone happened to go to a fishing lodge, they would also have to file their plane ticket and their accommodation expenses?

    The Chair: Yes. It's under item 15 or 16 in what we've tabled, and the three items along the lines that you suggested are all in there. Yes, that's right

    By the way, notice of concurrence in those standing orders was served today.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Fabulous.

    The Chair: Colleagues, is there any other business?

    I'm going to adjourn the meeting at the call of the chair.

    Oh, colleagues, I'm sorry. Can members of the steering committee, or in their absence, a member of each party, remain behind for five minutes of in camera discussion?

    Marlene, Yvon, Benoit, and Dale.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]