JUST Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, June 5, 2003

¿

0920

The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.))

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.)

¿

0925

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

¿

0930

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

¿

0935

The Chair

Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

¿

0940

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

¿

0945

The Chair

Mr. Joe Peschisolido

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

¿

0950

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

¿

0955

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

À

1000

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

À

1005

Mr. Derek Lee

Mr. Pat O'Brien

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Peschisolido

À

1010

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Mr. Joe Peschisolido

The Chair

Mr. Joe Peschisolido

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

À

1015

The Chair

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz

The Chair

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

À

1020

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.)

À

1025

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

À

1030

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

À

1035

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mrs. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Jennings

The Chair

Mr. John McKay

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

À

1040

The Chair

Mr. Joe Peschisolido

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Patrice Martin)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Peschisolido

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Cadman

The Chair

Mr. Pat O'Brien

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

---

NUMBER 055

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, June 5, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿  (0920)  

[English]

    The Chair (Hon. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)): I call to order the 55th meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

    This morning, as we had planned, we will be discussing the process of private members' business.

    But we also received notice from Mr. Breitkreuz of a motion he would like to put forward, and he has done it according to the rules. I give the floor to Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I will put my motion forward. I think you all have copies of it. I'll read it and make a few comments, and then we can discuss it. I move that the committee examine the options to effectively deal with the massive non-compliance with the firearms registry and consider what implications non-compliance with the program and the charter challenges, which are currently before the courts, may have on the cost and effectiveness of the program. I emphasize both parts of that, the cost and the effectiveness of this. I think it's incumbent on this committee to examine the ramifications of the huge non-compliance.

    I have some statistics from the justice department. These are the government's own estimates. Almost 300,000 licensed individuals still haven't applied. They have the licence, but they haven't applied to register their firearms. That's a huge number across the country. Over 300,000 owners of registered handguns haven't re-registered their guns as required by the law. Over 500,000 gun owners missed the licensing deadline two years ago. They don't have licences, and there's no way that they can now comply with the law. They cannot come forward at this point to apply for a licence without admitting that they're a criminal, neither can they register their firearms. That's another huge concern. About one-quarter of the gun owners in Quebec don't have a firearms licence.

    I could give you anecdotal evidence as to why this is a huge problem, but there are some numbers that indicate the cost of this thing. If one-tenth of the people are charged, the Library of Parliament estimates that it will be another $1 billion. There's no way they can even come forward now. The deadline, as you know, is June 30. We were told just yesterday that a lot of the files were lost. Let me give you one anecdote to show that there's a huge problem. One of my neighbours came to me on Sunday and he said, Garry, I did all the paperwork. I've done everything. I have not heard back from the government. So here are people who have tried to comply with the law, and somewhere along the line all the records have been lost. Things like this have to be dealt with.

    I bring this before the committee because I don't know where else to go. I think we can open it up for discussion. I hope that everybody will support this motion. I've tried to be non-partisan in the way that I've approached this.

    I don't know if anybody has any questions on this before we vote on it, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I thank the member for his motion and his comments.

    Mr. Chair, I would like to suggest to members of this committee that we need to put this motion in perspective. I think that after I provide a bit of clarity to some of the figures Mr. Breitkreuz has mentioned, it will put it into proper perspective and will make it clear why I'm asking members of this committee not to support the motion. Mr. Breitkreuz has mentioned a whole series of figures. I'd like to provide accurate and current figures and facts, which in my view are clear and compelling and indicate the true state of compliance with regard to the firearms program. First of all, more than 80% of firearm owners--that is, 1.9 million of them--across the country have valid licences to possess or to possess and acquire firearms. Moreover, fully 1.5 million licensed firearm owners have at least one registration certificate in the Canadian Firearms Registry system. That is a rate of 80%. It's up from 75% just three months ago. So registration and compliance is improving, and we on the government side fully expect it to continue to improve.

    Secondly, Mr. Chair--and this is quite important, because it wasn't mentioned at all by Mr. Breitkreuz--72,000 letters of intent have been sent to the Canadian Firearms Centre by firearm owners who have indicated that they would be registering their firearms before the extended registration deadline. Those letters have been processed.

    It is true that the Solicitor General has indicated quite clearly that the registration deadline of June 30 will not be further extended. However, this government wants people to continue to comply with the legislation, and I'd like it to be known that the Canadian Firearms Centre will continue to accept firearm licence and registration applications after June 30. We will continue to help people to comply. That includes, for instance, continuing free Internet registration through a recently introduced online service to license and register applicants. That new online service will allow individuals to confirm their application requirement and the status of their own application.

    It is also true, as mentioned in the motion by Mr. Breitkreuz, that there are matters with regard to the firearms legislation that are before the courts. In my view, it would be inappropriate to comment on those specific court cases, but I would like to remind members of this committee that the Supreme Court in its decision regarding the reference on the Firearms Act in 2000 ruled that the licensing and registration provisions of the act were constitutional and were clearly directed at enhancing public security.

    So I would encourage the members not to support this motion.

    I would encourage those firearm owners who have not yet indicated their intention to register to do so. I would urge any members who have knowledge of Canadians who are not in compliance with the registration act to encourage them to comply. It is clearly Canadian law, and I think it would behoove all members of Parliament not to turn a blind eye when they have personal knowledge of someone who is not in compliance. As members of Parliament, it is incumbent on us to encourage those Canadians who we know are not in compliance with any Canadian law to comply with that law.

    Thank you.

¿  (0925)  

    The Chair: Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    First of all, I don't imagine that anybody who has been part of this, either on the outside watching or as an MP involved in this whole registry, doesn't recognize what a bit of a fiasco, to say the least, it has been up to this point.

    I want to commend Mr. Breitkreuz for the work he has done. Frankly, on our side a lot of us thought, when is he going to get off this? When is he going to turn the page and get on to something else? But it turned out that there was a good reason to be dogging this thing.

    I don't think you'll find any members on our side who are happy with the enormous cost this registry has turned out to have so far.

    The Solicitor General appeared before this committee not long ago. I think that, finally, the registry is in the right place. It appears that the Solicitor General and his officials have this registry under control as much as possible at this time.

    Having said that, I have a problem with his motion as it's worded. The key word that concerns me in Mr. Breitkreuz's motion is the verb “may”. That's the right verb, but it's very hypothetical. We almost would have to use a crystal ball when taking this motion and dealing with it as a committee. I don't know how we can possibly know what the cost could be, given a whole series of things that could happen. I commend the intent of what you're doing, but it's so hypothetical that I don't know.... We have many lawyers on this committee. They can perhaps speak to this better than I can. When you get into a court challenge or a legal action, I don't know how you can know what the cost of even the simplest one is going to be, let alone something like this. I just find it well-intentioned but highly hypothetical.

    I think that, finally, after much too much expense, this registry appears to be moving in the right direction.

    The last point I'd make, Mr. Chairman, is that I've been on many committees in the House, including chairing some, and they're all quite busy, but I think this would rank as one of the busier ones right now. There's a long list of topics of great urgency and importance that we are hoping to get to someday.

    I'll just put those thoughts forward.

    The Chair: Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): I think I know why the member wants us to devote time to this. I know he's a concerned member of Parliament who wants to see that we run our programs effectively and efficiently and in accordance with the law. On that part I have some sympathy.

    But we have a lot of other fish to fry here. I just want to point out as counterpoints that I am advised there is an approximate two-year delay in processing inland immigration applications. A lot of people are inconvenienced by that, including families, couples, and people looking for employment. There is approximately a two-and-a-half year family-class application processing time in New Delhi. On the immigration side as well, there's a three-month delay in getting front-end family court applications into the new Unified Family Court. That's a justice issue. We're a little bit short of judges.

    Once in a while a computer will crash. Things like this happen in government. I think that's all that's happening with the firearms registry. It's a new system. It's going to have bugs. It's going to take awhile to get everybody in.

    Some of the things that Mr. Breitkreuz is asking us to do here are things that the public officials would do. In other words, check it out, fix it, find out what's going on, and project the costs. I don't think that we as a committee have to do that work. I think the officials are going to do that work.

    If there's a question that Mr. Breitkreuz wants to ask, he can ask it in the House. He can put in on the Order Paper. Or we might even want to take a look at it in the fall after some water has flowed under the bridge.

    I think there are other things that excite me much more than this, things that are much more important to Canadians.

    Mr. Breitkreuz' other objectives here are probably not my objectives as a government member. But I wish him well in the exercise, just as Mr. O'Brien has wished him well.

    Thank you.

¿  (0930)  

    The Chair: Mr. Macklin.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Thank you, Chair.

    I would like to confirm a couple of comments that have been made today. One is that all of us have been concerned about the way in which the gun registry developed. I think that was clear. Even the Minister of Justice commented to that effect, and when the Auditor General brought down her report, she did make some comments about the way in which it had developed, although she did say that it wasn't really all that surprising, that in fact it's not unusual for costs to escalate when you're starting a new program. In this case the costs did escalate, and we agree with you on that point.

    The second point I would like to make deals with the specifics of your motion. I think there is substantial disagreement with your use of the term “massive”. You are indicating that there is massive non-compliance. The evidence seems to indicate that at this point there is substantial compliance with the firearms registry. Maybe I could say massive compliance, because 80% certainly suggests to me that there is massive compliance. So it would be difficult for me to accept that as a fact I could rely on within the context of this motion.

    Going beyond that, when we talk about looking at the effectiveness of this program, this program only came into full force and effect in January, and, technically, with the extension to June 30, it will only be fully effective at that point. Looking at it from the perspective of the Auditor General, she said that she would look at the efficacy of this in a few years. In other words, you have to give some period of time for something of this nature to demonstrate whether or not it can be fully and properly effective over the long term. The Auditor General, whom we rely upon greatly for advice and counsel, has indicated that she would be looking at that within a few years. So I think that it would certainly be premature to look at the effectiveness.

    I do agree with the other statements made with regard to costs. As suggested here, I think we would be going on a bit of a fishing trip in order to figure out what costs might be applicable to this program at this point.

    Bearing all of that in mind, I think it would be inappropriate for me to support this motion based on the facts I presented.

¿  (0935)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Peschisolido.

    Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Richmond, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to reiterate some of the points that my colleagues have made.

    First of all, I'd like to commend Mr. Breitkreuz for all the work he has done. I believe that we've reached a point of examining the abuse within the registry, and a lot of the credit ought to go to Mr. Breitkreuz and the great work he has done. If this motion had been brought before this committee nine months ago, I believe it's more than likely that Mr. Breitkreuz would have received support to look at what is going on there.

    I don't think at this point there will be much disagreement that the management of the registry, not the purpose of the registry, hasn't been what it ought to be. But the government has acted. The Solicitor General has taken the right steps. We've looked at ways to deal with what is a very complicated issue.

    My last point is that this may not be the location to look at a full-scale analysis of the implications of non-compliance, the program, and court challenges. As was mentioned earlier on by my colleagues, we have quite a bit on our agenda to deal with. I don't believe that the motion correctly looks at two points: one, the proper venue for examining the implications and, two, whether or not it would be effective and efficient for us to look at it given that we have many other issues to deal with.

    Having said all of that, Mr. Chair, I'm not prepared to support Mr. Breitkreuz' motion, even though I commend all the work he has done on this file.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I don't see anyone else. I'll go to Mr. Breitkreuz to close.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I was really hoping that this would be given more serious consideration. The fact is that 20% of people are not complying with a Criminal Code provision. The Firearms Act is in the Criminal Code. According to Marlene, 20% of people are not complying with it. That's massive. That's huge. To me that is very serious. So I don't know how we can dismiss this as something that shouldn't be of major concern.

    There was a bit of a dispute over the word “may” in there. The cost-effectiveness of the program was supposed to have been done. When you have a major crown project--that's anything that goes over $100 million--the cost-effectiveness of that program is supposed to be done before the program is even put in place. It still hasn't been done. It's not a hypothetical exercise. You can actually study this and try to determine what the costs and the effectiveness of the program will be.

    Recent developments indicate that it's not going to be effective at all. When you have eight provinces and three territories saying they really don't want to have anything to do with it, that to me is a serious problem that should be thoroughly examined, because that indicates to me that you've put in place a law that is unenforceable.

    Look at what has happened. I suspected back in January that there were some huge problems behind the scenes, and yesterday or the day before the Solicitor General confirmed that many records were lost. Nobody knows what records were lost. How can you--

¿  (0940)  

    Mr. Derek Lee: He didn't say that.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, he said that the computer crashed and the records were lost, and they don't know how many.

    Mr. Derek Lee: No, he didn't say--

    The Chair: We'll do this in order. Mr. Breitkreuz has the floor. I'm going to give him the last word on this. If anybody wants to respond, they can do so afterwards.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: The records were lost. I know of people who have been waiting for six months. They phone the department, and there's nothing there. So the records are lost. I don't know how you can say that the records are not lost. How can the courts enforce a law where the people have tried seriously to comply with the law and yet the records have been lost and there are computer screw-ups and all of this? The courts are going to laugh that right out of the courtroom. That's all part of the examination of the effectiveness of the program. The provinces choosing not to enforce it is also something we have to consider.

    Where will this now go? I don't think there's another Criminal Code provision that has this kind of problem associated with it. It's incumbent upon us as a committee to deal with this, because in the area of half a million Canadians will be affected by this. That's a large number. You say that we have other fish to fry. I think that's a pretty big fish. I was hoping that this would be given a lot more serious consideration.

    I have to close with this comment. You talk about the fact that people will still come forward. You say, we're still working on this, and we'll still issue the licences and the registration certificates. It is impossible for these people to come forward. They cannot comply with the law. With the way it is structured and the fact that no amnesty has been put in place, they can't comply. If you don't have a licence, you cannot register a firearm. As of June 30 you cannot put a firearm into the system that is not there. It is an impossibility. I don't know if you understand this, but it is an impossibility to comply with the law at that point. That to me is a huge problem, which this committee should somehow wrestle with, and that's not happening.

    The Chair: We're not done yet.

    Mr. Lee, Ms. Jennings, and then Mr. Peschisolido.

    Mr. Derek Lee: In terms of fish to fry, Mr. Breitkreuz had not yet reached the point in his argument where he referred to the apparent refusal of some of the provinces to enforce the provisions of the Firearms Act, and I expected that as an issue. That is an issue.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I brought it up.

    Mr. Derek Lee: It wasn't in your written motion, and it was not referred to earlier. I don't for a moment think that's an insignificant issue. It's something we may want to look at.

    In fact, after June 30 we may want to look at the state of affairs. But I'm rather inclined to give the public officials an opportunity to fix the things that are broken and to make the system work. I'd be concerned if somebody who had tried to comply with the law was charged, let alone convicted. But we won't get a picture of this until we've allowed some time to go by. If the member were to raise this in the fall and put some tangible cases in front of us, I'd be prepared to look at it then. But not today.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I add my voice once again to those of my colleagues who commend Mr. Breitkreuz for the work he has done on the firearms registry.

    I do want to say on the issue of compliance that the Canadian Firearms Centre will continue to accept firearm licence and registration applications after June 30. So for an individual who has not yet registered his or her intention to apply for a licence and their registration application and who do so now or after June 30, the Firearms Centre will continue to accept those applications. So I would urge all Canadians who have not yet taken that first positive action to register with the Firearms Centre their intention to apply for their licence and their registration application to do so.

    In terms of the part of the motion that talks about dealing with the consequences of the court challenges on the cost and efficacy of the program, I can only once again add my voice to those of my colleagues. Even if this committee wanted to look at that, there is no way we could. We have no idea what the decisions of the courts will be with regard to those challenges. Therefore, we have no idea what implications there could be for the legislation and the application of the legislation.

    As I said, I encourage my members not to support this motion, notwithstanding that we do commend you for the work you have done on this issue.

¿  (0945)  

    The Chair: Mr. Peschisolido and then Mr. Sorenson.

    Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Mr. Chair, Mr. Breitkreuz is accurate in that it has been extremely frustrating and difficult to get many individuals registered in the system who want to register. My office and I myself--and, I'm sure, many other MPs on this committee--have intervened and have gone through frustrating, difficult weeks on end, with messages and phone calls bouncing back and forth and all the administrative difficulties that has involved. Yet we got it done. It took time and energy and involved a lot of frustration, but it has gotten done. My office received hundreds of requests, and I'm sure it has happened all across the country. So I'm sympathetic on that point.

    However--and this is important--it isn't June 30 yet. Also, we don't know what's going to occur after June 30. We don't know what the final number is going to be. We don't know how this program is going to pan out. It seems as if this motion is going on the assumptions that were in place six months ago, a year ago, and doesn't take into account the new approach the government is taking.

    So for that reason, Mr. Chair, even though I'm very sympathetic to the points Mr. Breitkreuz is making and the intent of the motion, I'm not prepared to support the motion.

    The Chair: The final word will go to Mr. Sorenson, if that's okay, Mr. Breitkreuz.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: No. If he--

    The Chair: You can both go. But that's it. We want to move to the next item.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): I would like to congratulate Mr. Breitkreuz for his ongoing dedication to this issue.

    This is unquestionably the number one issue in my province. Mr. Peschisolido, who has an urban riding, talks about the hundreds of files and times he has helped people through. If you take a rural riding, I can guarantee you that the number for the inner urban riding can be multiplied many times, and that's what I'm dealing with on a day-to-day basis. So if you've had hundreds, you can appreciate what we've had.

    Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to do a number of things: to build law, to assess law, and to see how effective the law we've built has been. We have had eight or nine years of this gun registry law. It has been a fiasco, and we've gone from one blunder to another. The administration of the firearms registry under the Minister of Justice has failed. Under those bureaucrats it has been a nightmare, and it continues to be a nightmare. I'm not satisfied when I hear members of a committee say, it's not as bad as it used to be. We're working toward it. It's getting better. We have a registry in criminal law that has cost close to $1 billion, and after eight or nine years we hear that it's getting better.

    This motion simply calls for this committee to examine the effectiveness of the law we've put in place and to examine the impact it's going to have on those individuals who have not complied with the law, some who refused to comply with the law, some who have tried to comply with the law, some who have been frustrated with the law, some who have had to take a firearms course--

    An hon. member: Shame, shame.

¿  (0950)  

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: --exactly, shame, shame--and some who have had to pay hundreds of dollars to take a course in safety in order to be able to purchase a firearm. They've had firearms for 20, 30, 40 years, and now in order to purchase a firearm, they've had to spend hundreds of dollars. They've used a firearm regularly, and now they're paying. So here we have enshrined in criminal law a complete burden to a lot of the gun owners.

    Mr. Lee says that the provincial governments are stepping forward and saying that they aren't going to enforce this. He says that we may want to look at this after June 30 and that this is a problem. Yes, it is. It's a major problem that provinces are laughing at a registry that they say can't work, and they will not spend money to enforce it.

    Mr. Peschisolido says that we don't know the numbers. We don't know how it's going to pan out. There are just too many things we don't know about this firearms registry. But there are a lot of things we do know. We do know that it needs to be examined and that we need to look at the options. We do know that if we're going to be accountable, we need to at least say that it's not just a registry that we're going to keep pushing away because it's not working out. We're going to be examining it so that we know what the effects will be on those law-abiding citizens who for one reason or another aren't on this registry now. We don't know. It's law that we don't know. It's very disappointing to hear the government say, maybe we'll look at it next fall, maybe we'll do this, maybe we'll do that, but in the meantime just leave it alone.

    The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz is going to close. Then we'll go to the question.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I don't think we realize the seriousness of this issue. I've been listening to the comments, and I don't think this committee grasps the nature of the problem here.

    I'll conclude with this one comment. I think it's precisely because we didn't deal with the problems that should have been anticipated long ago that we ended up with the fiasco we have. It's precisely because we're not going to deal today with the problems we can foresee coming in the next few weeks that we're going to encounter an even bigger fiasco. This is going to be a huge problem, and I think we're burying our heads in the sand if we don't acknowledge that.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I'm going to call the question. Do we need to read the motion? I think we all know what it is.

¿  (0955)  

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'd like a recorded vote.

    (Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)

    The Chair: We're going to the next item, which is the process of private members' business. I'll quickly frame this. As you will recall, we began debate on a Wednesday on Mr. Robinson's private member's bill. Mr. Toews made a motion to send it back to the minister. That motion was debated, and the debate continued through the course of the day. We met the following morning. Mr. Toews wanted us to consider the possibility of bringing in some kind of motion in the following week so that we would prevent deeming it reported without a decision. The chair ruled against the admissibility of Mr. Toews' motion, and it was deemed reported. Also, there was discussion around the fact that the process did not allow us to have a discussion or make a decision on the bill. Clearly, this could be done on every private member's bill. I'm not sure that was the intent. So I offered the opportunity to the committee to have the discussion we're having today.

    Having given that background, I'm going to make a list. I have Mr. O'Brien, Ms. Jennings, Mr. Lee, Mr. Macklin, and Mr. Peschisolido.

    Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    With regard to the specific motion of Mr. Robinson, some of the media are reporting that this committee passed his motion. I don't know if there's something you can do as chair or that the committee wishes to do to correct that mistake after the fact. I had a reporter argue with me that the committee passed it. It's incredible the confusion that caused. Given the significance of that particular private member's bill, I think we should consider a clarification from the committee today. Not that anybody will run it, but....

    On the issue of a private member's bill, we have to do something to stop that. I agree that we can't have a situation where basically a committee is prevented from dealing with a motion. I support whatever we have to do within the rules to make sure that never happens again on any private member's bill. It's not just a concern about this particular one.

    The Chair: Ms. Jennings.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Without speaking to Bill C-250, Mr. Robinson's bill, given that he's not here, I would like to speak in general terms. I find it quite curious that a member who has a private member's bill is able to be a witness and speak to the bill, to sit as either a regular member or a substitute member on the committee that is holding the consultations, and then is called upon to do the clause-by-clause and report back to the House. I found myself in what seemed to be another dimension, a surrealistic world.

    Let me give you examples in another arena where this would simply not be accepted. You have a very high profile criminal case of youth prostitution. The judge has just recused himself because he had a transaction with a family member of an individual who has subsequently been charged. A lawyer who had transactions with a member of the opposing side would be called upon under our ethics code to recuse himself.

    I have no problem with a member of the committee that is dealing with that particular member's bill testifying, but I myself would find it difficult, given the way I've been trained in my previous profession, to then sit in judgment of it. This is not dealing with motions that members of the committee bring up to be dealt with by the committee, where the motion is tabled within the committee. I'm talking about issues that are brought before the House and the House then refers to the committee. That's one area that really perturbs me, and I would seek clarification. I would ask this committee, if it's in agreement, to seek clarification from the House and the Speaker as to the appropriateness of a member being able to appear as a witness on their private business, which the House has referred to a committee, and then sitting on the committee while it deals with the issue.

    The other element that I find perturbing is that when the House refers a matter to the committee, the committee should have the opportunity to deal with that matter. Filibustering, in my view, precludes the committee from dealing with the matter in a substantive way, and I would like that to be looked at. I do not think that the changes made by the procedures and house affairs committee dealing with private members' business were looked at with the possibility that this could occur. I think that's also an issue we should have the House look at, if the other members are in agreement.

À  (1000)  

    The Chair: Mr. Lee.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I'd like to make three points. I would have thought that the procedural one was fairly easy. The prospect of allowing a member who sponsors a bill--or any member, for that matter--to filibuster a private member's bill through to the end and force the deemed report back is not what was intended by the change in the rules as I recollect. Therefore, we have to fix it. The only fix I can see--there may be others available, and I think we should make reference to it in whatever we're going to do here--is simply to say that we add to the rule that the chair shall interrupt the debate at an appropriate point in time to allow the question and any amendments to be put and report it back to the House. That would deal with both cases, where a member on his or her bill or any member was filibustering and preventing a committee from doing what the House asked it to do in the first place.

    The second point is history and process. The modernization committee is hard at work. For me this is a dead ringer for them. They could solve this problem in three-and-a-half minutes. If we can report back to the House quickly, great. If we can't, then just do a letter saying that we see the problem and make the suggestion and send it to the House leaders. I can't guarantee it'll be disposed of, but my sense is that if we can nail this down quickly, it'll be resolved before the end of the month.

    My third point is Mr. O'Brien raised the issue of a patently inaccurate report of the committee's proceedings. I would support a motion, if there were one--I might even move a motion--to call the newspaper that reported that and bring them in here and ask them why they improperly did it. This is a much more expedient solution than a notice of libel or suing them somewhere and getting lawyers to work on it. We can solve it ourselves. If Mr. O'Brien wants to move that motion to call them in, I would support that motion. I would argue in favour of it, and I would be prepared to assist in whatever procedures are necessary to ensure the attendance of that newspaper.

    Those are my three points.

    The Chair: I need unanimous consent to entertain the motion. There was no notice.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: It has not been made yet.

    The Chair: I'm sorry. When you referred to Pat, I thought that's what you were doing.

    Mr. Derek Lee: I was just saying that if he wanted to move it, I would support it.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: I'd like to speak to it first.

    The Chair: Let's follow our list.

    But I make the point that we need consent, and I'll seek it.

    I'd like to make a point for clarification purposes. I did a number of interviews on the specific nature of deeming reported. I made it very clear what it meant. You didn't see me quoted anywhere. The reality is that wasn't a particularly interesting story compared to we passed it or we defeated it or whatever. But just so you know, I did a number of interviews.

À  (1005)  

    Mr. Derek Lee: Calling them in would be an interesting story.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Am I the only one who's aware of the misreporting?

    Mr. Derek Lee: No, I've heard it from somebody else.

    The Chair: We have a list: Mr. Macklin, Mr. Peschisolido, Mr. McKay, Mr. Marceau, Mr. Cadman, and Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Thank you very much, Chair.

    Firstly, with regard to the modernization process, we always like to take our time because one of the concerns we have is that the law of unintended consequences comes into play, and I think this is an example of where that did come into play. I would like to reinforce the concept that was brought forward that the conflict of interest is something that needs to be identified and defined in the process and made clear. Even if they were the only person representing a party, I think there would need to be special rules available to make sure that person could only appear before the committee in one capacity. I give full credit for the fact that one uses the rules to their ultimate purposes, but, on the other hand, I think it certainly defeats the original intent of this particular process.

    Secondly, I do agree with Mr. Lee in terms of time being designated. I do believe that it can be clearly stated within an amendment to the Standing Orders that the question and any amendments be put prior to the expiry of the time permitted pursuant to the Standing Orders, so that a committee may fulfill its requested function.

    Thirdly, I would say that another matter that might need to be looked at, again looking at unintended consequences or consequences that may flow from a process, is the issue of quorum. If in fact we did get to the point where it was down to that time, how would we deal with the loss of quorum, and how would that relate to the time that would be allocated? In other words, let's suppose that we filibustered down to the last minute and then the place emptied or at least he or she managed to take enough members from this place so that there was no quorum to allow us to finish the business. The time therefore elapses on the calendar, and suddenly we find ourselves in the same predicament. So I would ask that the issue of quorum be examined in that regard as well. I'm sure that the procedure and house affairs committee or the modernization committee would be an appropriate place to make certain that this would go forward. I would certainly encourage them to make a swift determination so that we don't run into this problem regardless of who brings forward a private member's bill.

    The Chair: Mr. Peschisolido.

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

    I'd like to deal with three issues. The first one has been discussed by Ms. Jennings and Mr. Macklin. It deals with the role of MPs and of committee members. You had a committee member who was doing everything and, as has been mentioned, there was a conflict of interest. You get to determine whether or not what you're proposing is accurate. You're scurrying back and forth to the clerk. You're witnessing. You're in effect mucking up the works. Any entity can only function if there are clear rules and individuals are playing by clear designated rules. In this situation that didn't occur. I think we saw it occurring, but we didn't do anything to stop it. We couldn't. But I think we're going to have to look overall to make sure that this doesn't happen again.

    The second point deals with timing, and that's what it was. On the one hand, we were ordered to finish it within a certain time period. We got an extension, but we had time constraints. On the other hand, there weren't any time constraints on the procedural possibilities for members. So you had a very weird situation where we were empowered and instructed to report back, and we were prevented from doing it because of sequencing as to who had the chair. A member of Parliament kept talking, which prevented myself and the other members of this committee from carrying out our role, which is to provide our input based on our own views and principles and, perhaps more important, to represent the wishes of our constituents.

    The last point deals with the reporting on what this committee has done. We all have our views on this issue. We have constituents on both sides of the point. What I found troubling is that it was deemed that this committee had come to a conclusion, that we had voted on it. We had not voted on it. I was troubled to find a press release, which was sent out by one of my colleagues on the opposite side, stating just that, that the government members of the committee had endorsed the motion--

À  (1010)  

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: We'll call him, too.

    Mr. Joe Peschisolido: --which was the last thing that happened. This has not been a very good exercise, and we're going to have to make sure that it doesn't happen again.

    That being said, though, this exercise isn't over. I don't pretend to be an expert on procedure, but we have to change one important thing, and that is the second point, the time allocation. You had two trains coming together. You had one side that had to report back in a certain time period. There's a Czech author who does very weird plays. It felt as if I were in that kind of environment, where we had to.... I thought my colleague across the way was trying to help me determine who the Czech playwright was. It was surreal. We couldn't speak to a motion because we had time allocation, yet we had to endorse our member's right to speak on, as if that were a wonderful right, which it is, ironically. I'm pleading here to make sure that this never happens again. We're going to have to make sure that it doesn't reoccur.

    The Chair: I want to throw in a couple of matters, rather than have everybody finish and then put the questions and have everybody feel the need to respond.

    First of all, Mr. Peschisolido mentioned that rules were broken. I don't think any rules were. I watched closely. You said that rules were being broken. If they were, I'd need to know what they are. I think that's important. I think that was just a statement. I don't think it had to do with particular rules. I think you might have found that what was happening wasn't right.

    Mr. Joe Peschisolido: Mr. Chair, let me clarify. No procedural rules were broken. But within that context, it was just bizarre.

    The Chair: The second matter I would want people to consider when speaking to this has to do with whether in pursuing a process whereby we could guarantee a vote if we so chose, we want to eliminate the possibility of deeming a private member's bill reported back to the House. That is one of the options. You could see an instance when the committee is really busy and says, we don't have time to put our mind to this, and, without prejudice, we're simply going to send it back to the House and let it decide on it at report stage or third reading. Under the circumstances, unanimous consent might sound like a reasonable and efficient way to do things in the absence of a bill. Generally speaking, when you have a bill, there's at least one person on the committee who's at odds with everybody else, and unanimous consent is tough. That's why you have to work it into the rules. I don't want to say any more than that. I just want to put that in play so that as people speak to this, they may speak to that.

    The next person on my list is Mr. McKay.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief intervention because I have to leave?

À  (1015)  

    The Chair: If the committee has no objection.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'd like my voice to be heard on this as well. I look at this as an ethical thing as well. I think that what happened was unethical. It's an obvious circumvention of the democratic process .

    We would like to have made amendments to this, and I think those amendments would have protected against some of the negative aspects of this bill. Mr. Chair, we may not even be able to make those amendments in the House. The way it is now unfolding, we may be prevented from doing that as well. So I think the question the committee has to deal with is, can we retroactively correct what has happened here? I leave that question with you. Other than voting against the bill because we couldn't deal with it properly, is there some way that we can retroactively deal with this? It looks as if it's possible that we can't correct some of the potentially negative things about this.

    The Chair: I would make the point, without commenting too much on the substance of the bill, that at the end of the day there's going to be a vote in the House of Commons. There's a certain democratic element to that.

    The other thing I would want everybody to consider--and I may have to take members on this side back before 1993, but maybe we don't have to take Mr. Lee far--is that filibusters are a part of what we do here. It's a legitimate exercise. We speak of the ethical nature of this. I can find a filibuster in the history of all the parties represented here as a way of dealing with issues that they think are.... I remember spending very long nights, Mr. Breitkreuz, looking over at you and thinking, why did you do this to me, Mr. Breitkreuz? You see my point. I just want to put it on the record that this is an option that exists. We may have difficulty with how it's exercised. That's why we're having this discussion. But I don't want us to be too hard on anybody who has used an option that everybody has used.

    That's as much editorializing as I wish to do.

    Mr. Breitkreuz, I appreciate that you have to leave. I wanted to say that while you were here.

    Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): First, Mr. Chair, I want to comment on the resplendent irony of this discussion. Basically, this is a shutting down of free speech in order to shut down free speech. Whatever else the contents of the bill are, it's a chill bill. Whether or not you support it, the intention of the bill is to restrict hateful comments toward homosexuals, which essentially is a restriction on free speech. By using the filibuster technique, Mr. Robinson basically shut down free speech in order to shut down free speech, which seems a little bit bizarre in a democratic context.

    The second point has to do with a member who wears the hat of a witness and the hat of a member. That seems to me to be a pretty obvious conflict of interest. Marlene Jennings has spoken well on that point. I have nothing to add other than I think that is a significant point, particularly the way in which Mr. Robinson executed that, interrupting and contradicting witnesses in the middle of their testimony. That was pretty offensive as far as I was concerned.

    The third point is--and this may need to go to the modernization committee-- if a committee feels that it has had its rights aggrieved, as does this committee, there should be an automatic right on the part of the committee to yank the bill back out of the House. That may be a way of dealing with it. It's deemed reported. I had no say whatsoever in this bill in spite of the fact that I listened to all the witnesses and was forming an opinion as I went along. I had no opportunity to submit amendments, to debate, to do anything, and I have some real serious reservations about this bill. I think the committee should have it on motion that for a deemed reported bill, it should have one kick at the can, and the kick at the can is to yank it back out of the House and to deal with it as it sees fit. That would deal with the issue of filibustering it to death.

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I may be young, but I have been in politics for close to 18 years now. I'm quite sure that any of us who found a flaw in the procedures—as Svend Robinson did—that would allow him to advance his bill or idea would have used it. It is all very well to disagree with the approach used, but he did find a flaw that allowed him to advance his bill, and I say good for him.

    Let us now look at the issue of the dual role, that is where a committee member is also the witness. I would suggest that committee members be careful here, particularly those on the government side. I would remind you, for example, that Mr. Macklin is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice and a member of this committee. He must therefore promote bills put forward by the Minister of Justice. The same is true of Marlene Jennings. She is the parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor General. These individuals also wear two hats—one as a member of the committee, and another as the promoter of the bill, because that is the role of parliamentary secretaries.

    In my humble opinion, we could also have said that parliamentary secretaries wear two hats, one as the champion of a bill, and another as a committee member.

    I can understand that some individuals may not agree with what Svend Robinson said, but we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. I have reservations about that. I would be quite willing to have the committee ask the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to avoid a recurrence of this situation, by requiring a vote within a certain period of time, for example, but I would like us to be careful here, because if we prevent people from wearing two different hats, that could apply to parliamentary secretaries as well. I think it would be unfortunate if parliamentary secretaries, who are so familiar with the bills being presented, could not take part in the discussion.

À  (1020)  

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'll be very brief because I think just about every point I wanted to make has been made. Richard just made my main point.

    With all due respect to the parliamentary secretaries across the way, I think we have a conflict there, which is reflected on the government business side of things. It's nothing personal. I appreciate what the parliamentary secretaries add to the debate, but I find it troubling, and have always found it troubling, to have parliamentary secretaries actually voting on clause-by-clause.

    With regard to the issue at hand, we have to do something about this. I'm sure it's all over Parliament by now what happened here. If I'm fortunate enough to get a bill before this committee, I know what I'm going to do. I think we had better submit some recommendations to the appropriate places to do something about this. I like John's idea of being able to yank it back for one kick at the can. I think what we do here was completely subverted on this particular bill. As Richard said, Mr. Robinson found a loophole, and congratulations to him for doing it. But I think we want to close that up really quickly or else something has been started here that could cause this Parliament an awful lot of trouble.

    The Chair: I'm going to take this sentiment and apply it quickly to same-sex marriage or same-sex union, whatever it is.

    Mr. Maloney.

    Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    It's perhaps unfair that the attempts to democratize or make the private members' business fairer has led to what some would term abuse. Others would call it undisclosed consequences. Others will say it's unethical. Others are saying that he has used the rules to the best of his ability and congratulations. I think it's perhaps all of that. In the House private members' business has three hours of debate, and within those hours of debate there are time limits on the length of time an individual can speak on a bill. Perhaps the idea of time limitation of some sort is something that should be looked at, and the proper forum is the modernization committee.

    The 60-day rule certainly had its merits. There was a good reason for it. A bill could come to a committee and not be dealt with at all. When the bill is actually being looked at, it's unfortunate that the question is not called. Perhaps we're looking at an amendment to the rules, keeping the time limits on it, to say that on that 60th day the question must be put, and any amendments before that, so that there has to be a final determination on or before that 60th day to prevent that. This will affect all committees and all private member's bills, so I think we should put our concerns in writing to the modernization committee and allow them to deal with it and look for our input as well as input from all committees.

À  (1025)  

    The Chair: I want to make one more point so that we don't end up doing the same thing and have unintended consequences. I can envision a circumstance when we would receive a complicated bill and we're really busy and we don't think we have time to deal with it in a thorough fashion so we want to deem it reported. I can see that possibility. When you say the question must be put, the option would be that it would be for the committee to decide that it would be put. I don't know if we want to take away the option of deeming a bill reported, because the moment you say you have to vote, everybody's going to say, I don't understand the bill well enough, and now we have to have witnesses, and you back up a whole bunch of activity from that moment. I think that when the modernization committee conceived the idea that you could simply say, we don't want to attend to this bill, they didn't think of what happened. I don't want to confuse anybody, but I do think that option is an option they intended to exist. When you say the question must be put, that takes away that option. I want to put that forward, not as an opinion, but just to make sure that we keep that in mind.

    Mr. O'Brien is next.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I agree that, unfortunately, the committee wasn't able to fully deal with the bill because of Mr. Robinson's tactics, and I regret that. But I also agree with those who have said that he used to his advantage the rules as they existed at that time. He's an expert at doing that. It's a challenge at any time to chair a committee that Mr. Robinson is a member of. I've had that experience, and you have to watch at all times. He and I have commiserated about that, and I have no problem saying that when he's not here. I've shared that in conversation with the current chair as well.

    I want to go back to the misreporting of what the committee did. Until Mr. Peschisolido made the comment, I was unaware that there had been a press release. If there was a press release saying that the committee passed Mr. Robinson's bill, then I hardly want to make a motion hauling in the press who took that at face value and misreported it. But I'd like to see the press release. I think that press release should be tabled with this committee. I'm unaware of who did that, and I'm unaware of its contents, obviously.

    Mr. Chairman, I would like to have you on behalf of the committee issue a press release today. If you need a motion, I'm prepared to make a motion that the chair issue a press release today clarifying what really happened with regard to the committee dealing with Mr. Robinson's bill and clarifying in no uncertain terms that it did not even vote on, let alone support, Mr. Robinson's bill.

    The tall fellow from Reuters was the first reporter who approached me, and I said that I wasn't able to be at that committee meeting because of other commitments. He said, you missed an important meeting. They passed Svend's bill. I said, no, they didn't. They didn't even vote on it. Then on Monday of this week, I think it was, one paper in my home city reported that we had passed this bill. If only a couple of reporters misreported it, it could be sent to those people.

    I want to see the press release. I want to have it tabled at the committee. I want to have the chair issue a corrective press release today. If you need a motion to that effect, I'm prepared to ask for leave to make the motion.

À  (1030)  

    The Chair: There are two things. I'll need consent to make a motion, because we didn't have notice, or I'll take it as notice, one or the other.

    The second thing is that to add to the way this impression has been created, I think we have to put on the record that perhaps the most attention our bill has received occurred on Friday night at the national Progressive Conservative leadership convention. I don't know how many people in Canada were watching that. For the record, if we're going to gather together what caused an impression to be created, then we have to gather that in. It was on television. The candidate who withdrew on Friday night said that the reason he couldn't support Mr. MacKay was because of Mr. MacKay's support--don't hold me to a particular language here because I can't say for certain, but you understand my point--for the government's denial of Mr. Toews' motion that would have allowed a vote to be taken, and thereby passed the bill and so on. If we're going to gather together what caused an impression to be created that something was passed that was not, that was simply deemed reported, then that has to be included, frankly.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman, because The London Free Press article I referred to did reference one MP specifically, besides Svend Robinson. It referred to Peter MacKay as kind of the bad guy with unnamed government members in allowing this terrible travesty to take place. If you want to reference that speech, I agree.

    I'll ask for leave of the committee right now to make a motion that the chairman--

    The Chair: It will have to be notice. We don't have a quorum now.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Okay. I give notice that I will present a motion that the committee chairman on behalf of the committee issue a press release to set the record straight about how the committee in fact dealt with Bill C-250.

    The Chair: The timing in fact works. I will prepare something in anticipation of receiving that motion so that when we are actually debating it, we will have a statement that will try to articulate what happened, the rules, and so on.

    You're on next, Mr. Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I just have two...

[English]

    The Chair: No, not next. Mr. McKay is next. Ms. Jennings is after Mr. McKay.

    Mr. McKay.

    Mr. John McKay: I just wanted to pick up on Richard's point about the conflict between a witness and a member. I don't think it's analogous to the presence of PSs on a committee. PSs on a committee are there to promote the agenda of the minister. There's not much doubt about that. There are days when I have different opinions as to whether that's a good idea or a bad idea.

    Having said that, I don't think it should be conflated with the issue of a member acting as both a witness and a member of the committee. You should either be a witness or a member, but you shouldn't be both. I think that needs to be addressed by the modernization committee. We in effect deprive other witnesses of the ability to influence the vote and the debate by virtue of not making them members of the committee. Marlene's analogy to a courtroom seems quite apt. You can't be both a defence counsel and take the stand on behalf of your client. That doesn't make any sense. If it doesn't make any sense in a courtroom, I don't know why it makes any sense here.

    The Chair: To extend that further, you would also be a member of the panel of judges.

    Ms. Jennings.

[Translation]

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I would like to come back to the potential conflict of interest when a member of Parliament is both a witness and a member of the committee. I have just one point to make. If my earlier comments implied that I meant there was an ethical breach, I apologize, because that is not at all what I meant. I simply wanted to say that there is a conflict of interest, in my view, when a person is both a witness before the committee and a member of it. It is like being both judge and judged.

    I gave the example of the code of ethics of lawyers, of members of the bar. I did not say that if a member of Parliament was a witness and a member of the committee that he was committing a breach of ethics, because this is legal and in keeping with the standing orders. So we are not talking about a breach of ethics. In my opinion, it is a conflict of interest that the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons did not anticipate when it suggested that this procedure be adopted. I think the matter should be referred to the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons for study.

    I come now to the assumed conflict of interest that stems from the fact that I wear two hats—one as the parliamentary secretary, and the other as a member of the committee. Other parliamentary secretaries who are members of this or other committees wear more than one hat. It is true that I wear the hat of a member of Parliament and that of the parliamentary secretary; I must therefore defend government policies. I wear the hat of a Canadian citizen, of a Quebecker, of a woman, of a member of a visible minority, of a mother, of a wife—so I wear a number of different hats. Like all the members of the committee, I wear several different hats. However, when a person is a member of the committee and the committee is making decisions about bills and motions, it is not appropriate to be a witness before the committee as well. That is the difference.

À  (1035)  

[English]

    The Chair: Respectfully, you are. You haven't been yet. But as a parliamentary secretary, you appear as a witness.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I've never appeared as a witness.

    The Chair: No, but you do. It's in your job.

    Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I've never heard of that.

    An hon. member: That's when a bill is presented. She's not being a witness. She's not giving testimony. She's moving the bill along.

    The Chair: Technically speaking, she's a witness. Technically, she's on the witness list.

[Translation]

    Ms. Marlene Jennings: That is news to me, because the parliamentary secretary has never been a witness on any of the committees of which I have been a member.

[English]

    The Chair: Respectfully, they do.

    Mr. John McKay: She has so many chapeaux that she could open a haberdashery.

    The Chair: We'll take the burden of one of those hats.

    Monsieur Marceau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You said what I wanted to say in the first place with incredible eloquence and speed. I will therefore not come back to the issue of the parliamentary secretary, because I have nothing to add to your brilliant comment.

    However, there are two matters I would like to raise, because we cannot settle everything here. Could we ask Philip or another one of our researchers to prepare a press review on Bill C-250 and on the press releases. I do not know whether Pat O'Brien would agree, but that would allow us to debate the letter with some knowledge of what has been said and published.

    Next, rather than suggesting a way of modernizing the standing orders, could the chairman draft a letter explaining what happened in committee, expressing the concerns we had about what happened and asking the experts—because I do not consider myself an expert on parliamentary procedure—to review the matter as quickly as possible? Even if we all acknowledge that Svend did the right thing because he advanced his cause, there is a problem. Let us ask the experts to review the matter and let us state clearly that this type of thing should not happen again. Then, let us move on to something else. There are so many things we have to discuss. Could we move to a different subject?

À  (1040)  

[English]

    The Chair: My list has been exhausted, unless there are others who wish to speak to this.

    We have some research assignments and writing assignments. We have notice of a motion.

    Mr. Peschisolido.

    Mr. Joe Peschisolido: On a point of clarification, Mr. Cadman mentioned that there's a possibility we will not be able to amend this bill in the House. Can the chair elaborate on that?

    An hon member: That was Breitkreuz.

    The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Patrice Martin): I don't know what he meant. There's the possibility to put an amendment on notice.

    The Chair: I think that has been done, in fact.

    Mr. Joe Peschisolido: I'm aware of that and I appreciate that, but I just wanted some further discussion on it. Unfortunately, Mr. Breitkreuz isn't here right now to discuss why he believes that in this particular case we will not be able to put forth amendments.

    The Chair: Because of the fact that it moved quickly from 29 to four or five, maybe there was some fear that we'd get caught not being ready or something. That's the only thing I can think of.

    Mr. Cadman.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a rule in place that says that if you didn't try to get the amendments done in a committee, you can't bring them in at report stage?

    The Chair: I'm sure that's the case that would be put. I think we've heard this lately on other bills. But I think it's also felt that this would survive that. At least that's the argument that has been put to me. It's a debatable point.

    Mr. Cadman, on the same subject.

    Mr. Chuck Cadman: I just want to emphasize again that we have to get this done quickly, because this is going to start happening at other committees. I guarantee it. So let's do it.

    The Chair: In terms of how we intend to do this, did I hear someone talk about the fact that we're drafting a letter to the procedure and house affairs committee articulating this? Is that the process you think would be appropriate?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Perfect. We'll do that. I'll bring it back to the next meeting. Also, I'm drafting a letter to outline what happened.

    Mr. O'Brien.

    Mr. Pat O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I've given my written notice of motion to the clerk asking for a press release from the chair on behalf of the committee to clarify the misperception that the committee passed Mr. Robinson's Bill C-250. I can cite two reporters that I'm aware of. I'd encourage other colleagues to do so if they know of any. If these people had a press release from somebody with the wrong information, then I think.... I wasn't aware of that press release. As I said, I can't remember the name of the tall fellow from Reuters, who you've all seen around. He was the first reporter who thought we had passed it. In The London Free Press, I think it was Monday of this week, Rory Leishman misstated that we had passed this bill, probably thinking that his information was correct.

    The Chair: The committee will meet again at 11 o'clock.

    The meeting is adjourned.