HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 23, 2001

• 1109

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, let us could begin.

The order of the day is the order of reference from the House of Commons of June 12, 2001, instructing the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to draft changes to the Standing Orders in order to improve procedures for the consideration of private members' business.

• 1110

You've received a briefing note called “Reform of Private Members' Business: Issues and Options”, and that contains the text of the original motion from the House. You've also received the summary document “Survey of Private Members' Business: Summary of Replies”. We've also received, not from the committee, but directly from John Reynolds, a note dated October 17, “Proposal for Private Members' Business: Votables”.

I'd point out to you that according to the draft schedule we have, we've assigned today's meeting and Thursday's meeting to this topic, in light of the fact that the motion from the House of Commons gives a deadline of November 1 to report back to it.

You will notice that we have two witnesses with us, Marie-Andrée Lajoie—we are very pleased that she is here—and Bill Corbett, the clerk of the House. I want to point out to you, colleagues, that they're here as resource people. I guess that will develop as it goes along, but they're not here to make a presentation to us and for us to ask them questions. I didn't ask them to prepare anything before they came. They simply agreed that they would be here in case at any point during the discussion we needed technical or operational advice on suggestions that are being made. They're not here to engage in the political side of the debate, naturally, nor are they here, I think, to become a target for questions, although they'd be glad to answer questions as things proceed.

Do people understand that, because it's very kind of them to come under these circumstances? They're here as resource people to give us, fairly rapidly, advice on the practicability of our discussions.

I'm in your hands as to how we proceed, but given the fact that John Reynolds circulated this note, which I saw for the first time yesterday—I don't know when other people saw it—it might be appropriate, if you are in agreement, that we begin with it.

Would one of the Alliance members care to address John Reynolds' note?

Garry Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to briefly outline what we're proposing here. Our basic proposal, of course, is that all items be made votable automatically when they are drawn. If members so wish, of course, they could submit non-votable items for debate. We're not excluding that, but if they wished to have it votable, it would automatically be so.

So the subcommittee then would assume a new role. They would manage private members' business in the way House leaders manage government business. They could decide how many hours each item would be debated, depending on what kind of item it is. We could begin, our suggestion is, by having every item debated for two hours, and if the subcommittee wished to extend that for four hours or reduce it to one hour, that would be an option.

In the event that a backlog develops, items returning from committee, getting on order of precedence, and so on, the subcommittee could recommend to the House or House leaders additional sitting time to consider private members' business outside the normal hours allotted to private members' business and government business, very much as it is done today with government business.

We could identify a time of year to allow extension of this time, very much as the government does towards the end of June. We could have certain times of the year—it doesn't have to be then—when we may extend the time that normally is allotted to private members' business. In relation to the draw establishing the order of precedence, priority should be given to those members who have never submitted an item before in Parliament, and when the order of precedence gets low, another name will be drawn.

We would, of course, welcome your discussion on this. We feel it is a viable alternative to the present practice. So I look forward to the discussion here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

• 1115

The Chair: Colleagues?

Paul Macklin, and then Jay Hill.

Mr. Paul Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I'd like to ask you, Mr. Breitkreuz, if you could give us some indication as to your intent in trying to have all private members' bills heard in a particular Parliament. There's nothing mentioned here in that regard. In other words, would it be your intention that this workable solution would hear all bills and motions that were put forward in a Parliament, or would there always be some left over at the end of the day?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think, realistically speaking, there would be some left over at the end of the day. According to this proposal, every private member would have at least one opportunity in the life of that Parliament to bring forward some bill or motion that they felt to be imperative. I think it would put the onus on these private members to pick an issue they feel is the most important issue they would like to bring forward.

Remember that we did a survey, in which the question was asked:

Do you think that all items of private members' business that are drawn and placed on the order of precedence should be votable?

Almost two-thirds of MPs said, yes, unequivocally. And if you break that down, you see that there was no difference between the political parties in the response. So this is not really a partisan issue. I think this is an issue that all MPs are concerned with, some more than others, of course, because some just naturally have issues they would like to see debated.

In conclusion, I would say that this strikes at the very heart of what we do in this place. In a democracy everybody should have an opportunity to be heard and bring their issues forward. So I feel it is essential that we move in this direction. We had this survey done because there was a need to revitalize Parliament. There was an attitude out there that so much of what was happening here was a certain agenda by the government, and private members didn't have an opportunity for meaningful input. So I think it's absolutely essential that we move in this direction. I think it'll revitalize Parliament.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Another area that isn't mentioned is whether there would still have to be some review process to make certain the material that was being brought forward in those bills, for example, taxation issues and so forth, did qualify to be private members' bills.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That's already in place.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Yes, but in here I think the implication was that all private members' business would be votable. I'm saying that surely, there has to be a process where there's still some review.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Legislative counsel reviews all these things, and I would say that review should continue.

Mr. Paul Macklin: So not all private members' bills would be votable. There would be a process, a review, and selection.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

What happens right now is that they come to the committee, and we have our criteria. It used to be 11 points, now it's 5. Members have to indicate whether an item meets all those 5 criteria. That really has never been a factor in the decisions that are made. One of those points is that it not be contrary to the constitution or any other laws that we have in place. If that's the case, it could become votable. But that's not the criterion on which it's decided at this point.

The Chair: Briefly, Paul.

Mr. Paul Macklin: The last point is, with respect to the number of hours that would be allocated for private members' business throughout a session, are there any suggestions you're bringing forward in that regard? Because theoretically, here you're proposing that we could even extend a sitting of Parliament to deal with private members' business. How would you determine a limit to the amount of time that would be spent?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think that's something for this committee to decide. I have done a bit of mathematics on this, and if we had ten hours per week, we could probably provide, in the life of a Parliament, every member with one opportunity to have one bill brought forward that's made votable. Okay?

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: It's Jay Hill, Derek Lee, Yvon Godin, Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of comments first, and then a suggestion.

• 1120

Up until this last time I'd never personally sat on the subcommittee that decides which bills and motions are votable. Having had that experience, quite frankly, I was appalled at the process. Obviously, it's deeply flawed, and I would hope there are people on both sides of the room today who would agree that it's deeply flawed. As Mr. Breitkreuz said, that's why we're in this position, where not only we, but our colleagues in the House from both sides have indicated we want something done about it.

One of the arguments against making everything votable—and I've heard this from a number of individuals—is that somehow that's going to degrade the quality of the votable items or it's going to detract from their importance. I want to say on the record that I think that's absolute nonsense, because having gone through the process, having been involved in the capacity of a House officer previously, talking with individuals who were involved in that process before me—and there are quite a number, of course, from all parties who have participated in those subcommittees to make items votable over the years—I can say that this whole business of needing to have unanimity at that subcommittee, in and of itself, means that bills I think the vast majority of MPs from all parties might say are important enough to make votable don't become votable. I think, in and of itself, that process ends up denigrating the work of MPs.

So I think Mr. Reynolds' proposal, if it's workable, is certainly supportable. We could try it, and we could always make changes later. That's what this place is supposed to be about, not getting so mired in tradition that we never try anything new. So I want to say that if it's workable, I would certainly support it, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to hearing points of view from all my colleagues on both sides on this issue.

I would direct that question to the clerk—I'm assuming he has a copy of Mr. Reynolds' suggestion in front of him—and get his response as to whether he believes it's a workable solution.

The Chair: If I could, I'd rather leave that for a few minutes until we've heard a little more discussion from both sides, and then Mr. Corbett, we'd be grateful if you would respond.

It's Derek Lee, Yvon Godin, Cheryl Gallant, and Joe Jordan.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'll confirm that there's nothing partisan about any of this, that there isn't a partisan oar in the water here at all. We're all members of the House, and we all want a system that works for us, so I don't want to hear the word partisan. It's not here in the room and it's not part of the program—at least, that's the way I see it.

I don't have a problem with every member getting a conceptual hour of House time. It almost sounds like a good idea. Whether or not there are 250 hours in a session or 250 hours in a whole Parliament I don't know, but it might work. I don't know whether we would let the member own the hour and pass it on to somebody else, or whether you either use it or you don't use it, so if you don't use it, you lose it. But I like the sound of that, because everybody's treated equally then, with the exception of ministers, who are unequal from the beginning, and perhaps PSs.

One of the things that hasn't happened in the discussion, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Breitkreuz don't appear to have distinguished between bills and motions. I think that's a huge distinction to be made. Up to now we're just talking about private members' business, but a bill is a statute, a motion is an expression of the will of the House, if it's adopted. An hour for debate of a motion is great, and to make them all votable, I don't see a problem with that. It either flies on its own, or it doesn't. But a bill is entirely different.

• 1125

I don't whether the mathematics you've done, Garry, include the fact that a bill doesn't just have a second reading debate and a vote, but it's got a report stage, a committee stage, and a third reading. And then it's got to go to the Senate. There's a whole lot of time and voting involved in a bill. A motion is simpler, and for another reason, it's an excellent vehicle, because a lot of the private members' bills that go through here are not really ready for prime time. They're well intended, but drafting is a very complex art these days.

So I'd like to see different cases for motions and bills. We could have different systems for them.

The Chair: Just very briefly, Garry, do you have a point in response to that?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think you make a good point. The mathematics included bills and motions.

Mr. Derek Lee: Did they include the fact that it's got to have time for a report stage and time for a third reading?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, but I had the feeling there would be a lot of bills that wouldn't get past second reading. People would take a close look at that. And if some bills did get past second reading, we'd have to somehow make extra time for them. But your point is an excellent one, that there should be a distinction between bills and motions.

The Chair: Yvon Godin, and then Carolyn Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions.

First, in his letter, Mr. Reynolds says:

Members are given the option to submit non-votable items.

I think this only opens the door for that one. How could we justify a one or two-hour debate in the House of Commons without a vote being taken?

Now, when we go before a committee, the committee says if it is a votable item or not, but if everyone knew that nothing was votable anymore, I think that nobody would exercise this right. Members will rather choose a votable motion or bill. I don't know if Mr. Reynolds thought of that when he wrote that it could be left to the member's discretion.

There is another concern that I already raised some time ago, Mr. Chairman. People refer to a number of hours for the debate. During the first hour, we make a presentation on our bill or motion. Then, we work on convincing members to be on our side. Should we put a one-hour limit to the debate, I think we would have problems. I already expressed my concern about this and I want to express it again to the committee.

Third, Mr. Chairman, you always tell me that I don't remain within the scope of a discussion, but I worry about private members' bills and motions.

I always thought that it was a private matter for members. One reason we vote in the House of Commons in the back bench is to ensure that members cannot see which way the ministers vote, to give more freedom to each member. We recently saw members presenting motions in the House of Commons. People say it is not supposed to be a partisan vote. Very well. My colleague Derek Lee says there is nothing partisan in that, but he himself has a partisan attitude. When my colleague Bergeron presented a motion asking the British Crown to apologize to Acadians, the Liberal Party issued orders to its members. Some Liberal MPs came to see me and told me that they would like to vote in favour of this motion, but that the government ordered them to vote against it. It's terrible. They are ordered to vote against such or such a motion, and it turned into a big deal.

I don't know if you can shed some light on that matter, Mr. Chairman. We can give an opinion, but we hear speeches and we can see that they have practically been written by the government to go against MPs. Some members are called separatists and they say that they can't support separatists. A war is on now in the House of Commons. Minister Stéphane Dion himself said so in his speech. I find it terrible and unacceptable that people behave in such a manner.

• 1130

I heard the speeches given in the House of Commons and the answers to some questions. It has really become political and partisan. It's incredible and unacceptable. As I said at the beginning, you can tell me that I am raising this issue in the wrong committee, but I am concerned about the road we are following with private members' motions or bills.

We have a big problem, and this problem is growing larger and larger. People say that a member should be respected by his colleagues and be able to raise a question in the House of Commons. We want to go further. We want all the issues to be votable. We are now witnessing a war between the government and the opposition, where members are told how to vote. The way things are going, I don't know if we will even be able to study this question.

[English]

The Chair: I would remind colleagues that the direction we have is to produce a workable proposal by November 1. I think we have to discuss all sorts of dimensions.

Carolyn Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Indulge me for a second. I've spent five years of my life on that committee, and I'm sorry Jay found it appalling. I just hope your opinion of it wasn't coloured by the fact that you didn't get a bill made votable that was on the agenda that day.

Mr. Jay Hill: That had nothing to do with it.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Okay. As long as that—

Mr. Jay Hill: My opinion was that it was appalling before I served on it.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: All right.

One of the things is that there's just too much here. First, I think the referral from the House is unworkable. You had a very small number of people in the House when it was debated. The issue was sent back here by about 15 people sitting in the House on a very poorly attended afternoon. I don't think what they've asked us to do is possible, given my tons of experience on this.

I also find it rather amazing that the official opposition is presenting something that we're debating back and forth as though it's a fait accompli. This is not an open process, if they've got criteria and we're reacting to them.

Remember, we've changed the way this works. We vote from the back rows now. Everybody likes that. The people in the front rows on both sides of the House are watching the way things go. There is an obligation for a committee to report back within six months. You can no longer deep-six these bills at committee, have them disappear. Having all these bills votable and going through committee is going to shanghai the entire business of all the standing committees in the House—no one's thought of that possibility.

The other thing that's interesting is that 109 people out of 301 people responded to this survey, and only with battering. The opposition went through with a list and tried to get everybody to respond. We were trying on our side. Everybody was forcing people to respond. You got 109, so only 25% of the members of the House want to make all bills votable.

The committee itself is dominated by the opposition—try to remember this. There are four opposition members on that committee, two government members. You cannot get the tail wagging the dog more than you've already got. Three-quarters of the bills that come into that committee are reruns of government bills that have failed. There are gun control bills. We had one last week saying that people of the same sex should be allowed to marry. We've had that in the House, we've debated in the House, we've voted on that in the House. Fifty per cent of the bills that come to that committee are reruns of government legislation.

So with this whole thing that we're sitting here debating, a referral from the House that had 15 people in there voting, and now the opposition giving us lines that we're reacting to, I am here to tell you it is not workable. Last session we saw 54 bills go through. One-third of the bills became votable, 54 went through as votable. If you change that, you can do 104 in the same time. In three and a half to four years you can do 104 bills. If you take all the leaders of the opposition, people in positions of responsibility, all the cabinet ministers, all the parliamentary secretaries, all the committee chairs, all the committee vice-chairs out of the mix, you've got, let's say, 200 people. You can only put 104 through in four years indiscriminately. If you go much under two hours on a very important issue, you're going to be accused of voting on something with a frivolous, minor debate.

This is not workable. I believe that if you really want this to be seriously considered, we should draft a report that goes back to the House and says every single person in that House has to vote on this. You need to have a three-hour debate on the concept of making it all votable, so we can all state our points and everybody can understand what it means. Then everybody in that House can stand up on a roll-call vote and vote for this.

• 1135

You cannot come up with a workable plan, it's impossible. I have devoted five years of my life to this, and I resent being told that committee is not workable and not doing a good job. That committee has been so streamlined, dominated by the opposition, and there have been a lot of bills go through there and made law. We do a good job in there, Jay. It's an impossible task to please disaffected backbenchers in the government and opposition members. And it's impossible to make this workable, I'm sorry. I'm not going to sit here and react to a piece of paper presented by the opposition and allow the debate to go back and forth. I don't know why you're doing that, Mr. Chair. I seriously object to that.

The Chair: I did ask the committee if it was appropriate procedure, and there was no response. It struck me as a way of starting the debate. It was a document they circulated beforehand.

Colleagues, at some point I think we should ask for technical advice. Because there are people yet to speak, I'd like to get to the end of the people who want to speak, and then I'll go to our resource people.

So it's Cheryl Gallant, Joe Jordan, Michel Guimond, and Geoff Regan, and then we'll got to the resource people.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The question seems to be the workability of the proposal. I see that James has gone to great lengths to prepare a thorough document. I was wondering whether or not Mr. Corbett or Ms. Lajoie have had a chance to read through it and whether or not they felt any elements of the suggestions were workable, in conjunction with the presentation by Mr. Breitkreuz.

The Chair: I'm sure we'll get to their comments on that, but that would be, to my mind, the equivalent of their producing a paper and making a presentation, which is what they're not doing at the moment. The question is there, it's hanging, so they'll respond to it. Is that okay?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yes.

The Chair: Joe Jordan, then Michel Guimond.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before I start, I just want to correct something I said last meeting in response to a question from the Bloc. I said there had been three since 1994, it's three since 1984. I had that date wrong, and I apologize.

The Chair: Do you want to repeat the whole thing again?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Prior to 1984 there had only been three private members' bills that became law in this country. After 1984 there have been 14. I'm just pointing that out.

To speak a little to Jay's comments, I went to that committee too, and I was very confused initially by how it works. One of the things that struck me and I had trouble with was that there's a lot of subjectivity in the decision-making. When I first got on that committee, there were 11 criteria—I think Garry alluded to that—which made it, I thought, more objective. For whatever reason, the committee then decided to chop that list down, I think in a back-door attempt to make more things potentially votable. Then what you got into was a subjectivity process, consensus-based.

But I do agree with Carolyn. I think that committee was one of the most non-partisan committees I've ever been on. But I think they are put in a pretty impossible situation, because at the end of the day, the problem we have here is that we have more bills than we have time for. We need some mechanism for reducing them and selecting.

We're at a crossroads right now. One of the things we can do—and John Reynolds' motion alludes to this—is increase the number of hours available for private members' business, keeping in mind that for an hour of debate, if a second-reading vote is an agreement in principle—I think we've got to figure out what that means as well—then it goes to committee, and how long does the committee spend on it? We're talking about significant accumulation of costs here. We either have to increase the number of hours or have some mechanism to select. A random draw, even though it's not perfect—you could have an absolutely beautiful bill and never get your name drawn—was seen as the least of a number of evils. We explored different ways of doing it. But unless we can address the number of hours it takes to satisfy the demand, we must have some process there.

• 1140

What about making every bill votable? What that's going to do, if we don't adjust the hours, is ensure we're going to draw fewer, because we don't have time. Now a typical draw would be 12 to 15, maybe sometimes upwards of 20. We look at the House schedule and decide how much time is available; maybe the committee can allow five or six. I was on a committee one time where we didn't pick the maximum number, and boy, did we hear about it from the House, from individual members. So the mechanism that's used, although it may look rather unstructured, I thought worked rather well.

The issue we're talking about here today, I guess, is the fact that there's a growing frustration from people who put things into the front end of the system that never see the light of day. So how do we address that, or is that something that needs to be addressed? I guess that's where we are with this.

We've got to get a handle on how we increase hours before we can go ahead. But assuming that we can figure out how to do it without too much pain, I think the criteria, Garry, have to be at the front end, before an item goes into the draw or whatever it is. Somewhere there's got to be a filter. Somewhere along the line you've got to have some criteria, and someone has to determine whether the bill meets them or not. The sooner something gets kicked off the assembly line, the better, because it's taking up a spot. I don't know whether the clerks would have to do that. That's got to be sorted out. We can't just arrive at arguing about the constitutionality of something three-quarters of the way through the process.

I've done the numbers and the math too. Conceptually, I don't necessarily disagree with Derek on the idea that every member have an opportunity to put an issue they feel is important either to their constituents or the country before the House for intelligent debate. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's a matter of how we do it.

A lot of areas of House operations would be affected by any decision we make. I think we've got to be very careful that we don't cause more problems, as with the 100 signature experience. With the best intentions, it was felt that you could make something votable if you got 100 signatures. Even the survey demonstrates very clearly how much of a disaster that was. So I think we've got to be careful that we go at this in a very logical way.

I'm of the view that with the order from the House, we need to respond, but I think at this point it's probably best if we ask for an extension. I don't think we're going to be able to come up with a workable solution by November 1, in light of the issue we took up last week here. Clearly, there's some feeling that we need to move on this, but I'm a little nervous that if we're forced into a November 1 deadline, it's going to be problematic and we won't get a result that's going to be good for the House.

The Chair: Garry, do you want to respond very quickly before we go to Michel? I have two more speakers, then we're going to go to the clerks.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. Some of this was directed at me, and you've raised so many issues, I wish I could have interrupted.

The Chair: Don't try to deal with them all, just with some you can do.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: One of the key ones is that this isn't a workable solution. That's why we're meeting here today. I think we can come up with a workable solution. I agree with the last point. Let's make sure this workable solution is something we're doing right, and if we need an extra week or two, there must be some mechanism to get an extension on this until November 15, in order to get this right. But I've thought this through, I think we can come up with a workable solution. Some of the points raised have been good. Maybe there has to be some kind of filter. We would still have the draw.

The Chair: Jay.

Mr. Jay Hill: As a point of order on this, it seems the process we're using here is a bit unfair. With all due deference to my colleague Mr. Breitkreuz, Mr. Chairman, if we wanted to get into personal attacks, and there were several comments made about my intervention, am I going to be able to defend myself? Then pretty soon it's people on the other side saying, well, no, somebody made some reference to what I said or what I proposed. I think we should move on, and everybody should have equal air time here.

• 1145

The Chair: Colleagues, my purpose today is to get some discussion engaged, so that individual members can participate. Garry, I gave you an opportunity to respond technically, and if you've got one more point, you can make it, and then we'll go to Michel.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It's our proposal that's on the table, so I mean, I don't have the right to—

The Chair: I'm doing my best for you, okay.

Michel, then Geoff, and then the clerks.

[Translation]

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

I will say at the outset that I concur with most of what Mrs. Parrish said about the consensual and nonpartisan nature of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business.

I have only been a member of this subcommittee since the November 2000 election, which means that I am sitting on the subcommittee since it was formed at the end of January 2001. I found out that it had very powerful rules to reach a consensus.

The best proof as I already said—and it sounds as if I am repeating myself—is that the Liberal Party could have had a majority like it has in all other committees and decide on the agenda, but this is not the case. Mrs. Parrish is the Chair but anyone else can direct the proceedings. This is not to say that Mrs. Parrish is just anybody, but any member can do it and Mr. Proulx... Second, the opposition parties hold the majority. We therefore try to reach a consensus.

I have met colleagues in the hallways. I want to preserve to a certain point the confidentiality of what they said but some colleagues said in the survey that they wanted all items to be votable. One of them even said right here, in committee, that his name was never drawn.

Many people buy lottery tickets but not all of them win. The draw may be of another era. We may have inherited it from the British Parliament, but it is a system that allows us to choose which items, among the 50 in a box, will be dealt with by a subcommittee of members or peers.

When someone says we need a change because he or she was never lucky enough to be chosen, it's not right. This is sheer luck. I said to the member to keep on presenting bills and one day his name will be drawn.

Second, while discussing other matters with colleagues from a party I will not name, members of the subcommittee were being blamed because of the lack of private members' bills in the law and order category. We do not have enough bills on law and order, firearm control and other subjects. Once again, members are the ones who decide on what is going to be considered. I don't think this argument is valid.

If our committee decided to change the procedure and go along with Mr. Reynolds or Mr. Breitkreuz, whom we know quite well, I maintain that we should reconsider the issue of the time allotted to this business and seriously think of Fridays, when members speak to almost empty benches. I am talking about all parties, because I don't want to be partisan. We ask questions of well-intentioned but not always well-informed parliamentary secretaries. Now it's a member of the opposition who is speaking.

• 1150

If we want to vote on more private members' bills, then we should seriously consider doing it on Fridays, even if we have to extend hours for Government business on other weekdays. So we should think again about the time allotted to private members' bills. This is an interrelated issue because in the present system, if we have one hour every day, it will take two or three elections to get to the bottom of the list.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Geoffrey.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, it strikes me that while Pierre Brien is a young member and, of course, ages us all, I know Mr. Guimond is not much older—but I know that he's not Pierre Brien. And so on a minor point, he has a sign in front of him that—he's changed the sign now, appropriately—suggested he was Pierre Brien. That's a very minor point, of course.

We clearly have here today a fair amount of disagreement about what the committee should do on the question of private members' business and about whether it's possible to have a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable. It's also clear that we have other work coming before us in the next little while, for instance, the questions surrounding Bill C-36, and I think Mr. Jordan is right in suggesting that we do need an extension. I would propose that we ask you to seek an extension of 90 sitting days to the order of the House, to allow the committee to study this further and see if it can come up with a workable solution.

I would also like to ask our research staff what happens if we do not come up with what we feel is a workable proposal, if we—I'm not saying this is going go be the case—were to say we have not found what we feel is a workable solution. Is that not an available option?

An hon. member: We're all fired.

Mr. Geoff Regan: We're all fired.

Finally, one of the things I'd be concerned about guarding, as I'm sure would all members, but particularly those on our side, is the free vote that we have had on private members' business since 1993.

An hon. member: A free vote?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, they're free votes. I voted against the government numerous times on matters of private members' business, and I know members on our side would like to have the freedom to do that. And if in fact all private members' business was made votable, my concern is that this system might be put in jeopardy. I think members on our side would be very anxious to hold on to that system.

The Chair: Okay.

I wonder if we could proceed to our resource people, then. Mr. Corbett, would you care to comment? I would be grateful if you could leave to the very end the matter of what we need to reply to the House of Commons in such a case, and just deal with some of the points that have been made here.

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's with some trepidation that I throw myself into this. Clearly, there are strongly held views here, and they aren't all on the same side of the discussion.

• 1155

Basically, we, as proceduralists, don't feel we ought to be getting into some of the political issues that are on the table, whether they be large p or small p political issues. We certainly are prepared, when the committee seems to be tending in a particular direction, to give technical advice as to what the fallout is procedurally in respect of the road down which the committee seems to be headed. Today there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus.

As to the proposal that has been discussed, there are a number of procedural consequences and consequential changes that would have to be examined. There are questions right up front regarding all items being automatically votable, but members can make a determination at the front end that their item would not be votable. Would there be another track created that doesn't get into the track of the subcommittee managing the time? The subcommittee, in managing the time, will probably need a set of criteria to decide whether this gets the straight-line two hours, or gets the added four hours, or gets the lesser one hour. The criteria would probably look much the same—this is purely my speculation—as the criteria currently used to determine votability. It would be something along those lines.

There's no procedural problem. There may be procedural complexities with the notion of creating a period of extended hours, where that could be fitted into the annual cycle of Parliament and the whole estimates process, where extended hours could be written into the Standing Orders and into the calendar of the House. It's only a technical problem, it isn't a major procedural problem.

With the whole business of the draw and the never-drawns, once again that's just a technical matter. You simply hold the first draw for 5 items, 10 items, and the only names that go into that are the never-drawns or the haven't-been-drawn-to-dates.

There's a series of procedural complexities. We would be more than happy, when the proposal gets kicked around a bit more, to look at it in a serious way, with all the consequential amendments necessary to the Standing Orders, and put options to the committee. My sense of it is that the committee hasn't really come to a consensus yet that would make that an easy task.

The Chair: Cheryl posed a question about the notes, and I think my interpretation was right: to respond to all the suggestions that are in these notes is, in fact, a research project in itself, isn't it? For example, the committee could say, look, take everything that's suggested in there and give us some numbers and so on. Was I right in my interpretation?

Mr. William Corbett: Marie-Andrée is responsible for the table research branch that would be called upon to do this sort of work.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie (Principal Clerk, House Proceedings, House of Commons): Are you referring to Mr. Reynold's proposal or to Jamie's—

The Chair: She was referring to the notes that Jamie Robertson prepared.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: In the notes prepared by Jamie there are many options as well. We could go back and come up with a few scenarios that would take into account the points we've heard and are covered in Jamie's document. Jamie's document doesn't necessarily come up with one scenario per se, so there are still options there that have to be decided upon by the committee. We're talking about the draw itself, the committee criteria, the length of debate, the time, the scheduling of the debates themselves.

[Translation]

Returning to the point raised by Mr. Guimond, there was a time when we had private members' business on Wednesday afternoon. That lasted for some time. We may consider going back to this.

• 1200

Right now, many options remain open. We can suggest a few ourselves but it is difficult at this time to see where that may lead us.

[English]

The Chair: I have one more question, but Cheryl, do you want to be back on the list, or do you want to make a response very briefly?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I wasn't looking for an in-depth analysis of Jamie's proposal. More or less, was there anything you read that struck you as particularly good or just out of the question?

Mr. Joe Jordan: Enjoy the fact that he's sitting right here.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Well, everything Jamie does is very good, if I may say so.

Again, I would tread carefully here, because I think there are still too many options on the table. Obviously, the question of time comes to mind. Mr. Jordan talked about the consequential repercussions of the time, how much time in committees, and so on. This is something you would have to look at very carefully to see if the proposal is indeed workable. If you want to go to a full-day debate on private members' business, what are the consequences on the other days of the House? So it's very multifaceted.

One comment I would make on the historical front is that the procedure for private members' business we have now is the product—and that is my personal view as well—of 15 years of compromise and evolution since the McGrath committee. So what is good in there, what deserves to be kept, and what needs to be adapted as a compromise for a new time is the discussion I think is necessary at this point.

We can basically make it work with the rules, but it's difficult for us at this point to tell you, well, this would work and this wouldn't work, because I think the debate has to happen first on those questions.

The Chair: I do have a list here folks, but if it's a technical thing, if it's precisely to do with this, could we deal with it now?

Mr. Paul Macklin: Simply put, could you tell us what the history of private members' business has been in Parliament.

The Chair: It's chapter 21 of Marleau and Montpetit.

Mr. Paul Macklin: For the sake of what we're dealing with here today, I think it's important that we don't lose track of what the philosophical reason was for this institution. Would you care to try this?

The Chair: Is it possible, very briefly?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Jamie, please jump in if you can help me here, but basically, I think the same frustrations were present in the mid-eighties, when the procedure was revamped and we went from a draw where every name was drawn. We moved away from that with the McGrath committee, so as to have a long list and a shorter list of items drawn. Over the years we drew items, then we put a cap on the number of bills and the number of motions. Now we don't draw items any more, we draw names.

An hon. member: There have been many changes.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Many changes.

Mr. Paul Macklin: I wasn't really driving at the changes, but rather at the purpose of a private member's bill. Isn't that the essence of where we want it to be and where we're coming from? Was it to give backbenchers a purpose?

The Chair: Okay, Paul—I do have a list.

Bill.

Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, through you, indeed, if you go back historically to 1867, when government was considerably smaller than it is now, a lot of House time was given to private members' initiatives, in respect of both motions and private members' bills. As government grew, through various amendments, the creation of special orders that became sessional orders that became standing orders, the government took more and more of the time of the House to manage its affairs.

Successively, starting in about 1955, there was considerable distress on the part of members who were not on the government benches that they were not getting their messages onto the public agenda. At that point there started to be a considerable amount of experimentation as to how to do this, how to slice the bread this way, that way, the number of hours, whether we should we do it all in a day or do it a little bit each day. We've tried it both ways, and we've moved back to the sort of equilibrium we have now of one hour a day, which has probably lasted the longest since 1955.

• 1205

As to the whole business of how items get put on the agenda, the basic structure for this was created, indeed, by the McGrath committee. Probably the best person—he's not here today—would be Bill Blaikie, who was a member of that committee and would remember how they came to this process that basically we've been fiddling with every since, adjusting it, trying to tweak it, refine it. We drew items, now we draw names. We had twenty items in the order of precedence, now we have thirty. We had them undistinguished as to bills and motions, then we did a neat division between bills and motions, 15 each. So it's basically been playing with a structure that more or less was created by the McGrath committee about 1986, fifteen years ago.

The Chair: Those of you who read the debate of June 12 in Hansard will have seen Bill Blaikie's views on this there.

I assume there's no problem with seeking an extension. Having read this motion that we face, including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable, I would assume there's no reason why the committee should be unable to say we can't find a workable solution. Technically there's no reason. That's still an option. That's not an instruction to us to develop one, even though we think it's not really workable.

Mr. William Corbett: One of the great procedural traditions is that committees are masters of their own order of reference and how they choose to interpret it. So I would think that if the committee, as a matter of consensus, came to the agreement that the proposition they've been asked to work upon just couldn't be done, they could report that back to the House. It might be subject to debate in the House, but committees are masters of their own orders of reference and the interpretation thereof.

The Chair: I just wanted to clarify that.

Colleagues, I know it's not easy, and people have been very patient. I have a list now. It's Jay, Derek, Garry, Carolyn, and Michel. Can we keep it moving in that order?

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of points I'd like to make, some in rebuttal of what was said earlier.

I didn't use the word partisan for a specific reason when I was referring to the work of the subcommittee. So I want to be very clear on that.

The single biggest problem I have with the way the subcommittee operates—and I had this problem long before I had the opportunity to sit on it a couple of weeks ago—is this idea that consensus means unanimity. That's what it's come to mean at least, the way it operates. You can say it doesn't, but by and large, it does, and it was very clear to me when I was sitting there that's basically what it means, that if one person...

Ms. Parrish is correct, there are more opposition members on the subcommittee than government members, and that's good, because it does take the whole issue of whether something is partisan or not out of it, or what a particular minister may or may not want in regard to whether a bill becomes votable. It takes that completely out of the equation.

• 1210

But I am really concerned that consensus seems to mean unanimity. Perhaps, if we don't go as far as making everything votable, we can at least look at that issue, changing it so that it should be majority or something. I guess it goes into what the clerk was referring to as tweaking the present system, at a minimum.

I think the present system is unfair. We should make some changes at least, even if we can't go to making it totally votable. I've already said that's my position, that's what I support. What I'm referring to there is the whole business of the draw. I went through my entire first Parliament—this is my third Parliament as a member—despite having quite a number of bills and motions, without being lucky enough to win the lottery, to have a bill or motion drawn. In this Parliament, which is only 11 months old, I've already had two bills and one motion drawn, none of which was made votable, so I guess none of them was worthy of being votable.

Most recently, there were seven slots for votable items, and because of what I believe is a flawed process, only two were chosen to be votable. I think there's something wrong there. It has nothing to do with the fact that one of the motions was mine, it has to do with the fact that if there are seven slots open, and we're talking about making everything votable, we're not even using the available slots we already have. If the consensus of a lot of members—and I'm using the word consensus, not unanimous—is that there should be more private members' business votable, and we're not even using the available slots now, to me that would point out that there's a real problem here.

The other issue I want to throw on the table as a problem, because it happened to me and I know it has happened to a number of others, is this. We've made changes now so that government legislation that dies on the order paper when Parliament is prorogued part way through or dissolved because of an election can come back at the same stage.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: So can private members' business—we changed that.

Mr. Jay Hill: Who makes the decision?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: There is no decision; it comes back.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mine didn't.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, no one makes the decision. It does come back. We passed that.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'll have to check into that, Mr. Chairman, because I had a bill that through a lot of work... I commend any member that gets anything passed in this place.

The Chair: Thanks very much, Jay.

It's Derek Lee, Garry Breitkreuz, Carolyn Parrish, Michel Guimond.

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Chairman, really quickly, this is a bit off the wall, but it is a suggestion. If the clerk thinks it warrants testing mathematically, then I would ask him to do it. On the assumption that the House was serious when it sent this business to us and resolved that we had to develop a system that allowed every private members' business item to be votable, and that's what the face of it says—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: That was unanimous.

Mr. Derek Lee: On the assumption that this is what we're working with, and on the assumption that there are a whole lot of frustrated members who don't get any item in front of the House, then my suggestion is as follows. It's not written in stone or anything.

I would suggest that every member should get one item of private members' business in a Parliament. The ordering could be done by lottery or at random, computers—it doesn't matter. Every member gets one item of private members' business. If that item of business that the member puts forward is a motion, it gets one hour of debate and a vote, if the member requests it. So if it's a motion, it gets a vote.

I think bills need greater scrutiny, better screening. A bill, then, would be referred to the appropriate standing committee for 10 or 20 days, where it would need to have some mathematical proportion of support. It doesn't have to be majority, but it needs a minimum amount of support from both sides of the table. If it gets the support, it comes back, it's debated for three hours, then it gets a vote. That bill could also, as an alternative, continue to be referred to the private members' business subcommittee, which would continue to do the screening the way it does now. Those are two alternative procedures.

• 1215

Any bill that does not get the votability tag, any bill that is found not suitable for a vote, is deemed to become a motion, and it will be referred back to the House for debate for one hour and a vote. But it will be deemed to be a motion, something like, “the government should consider the following as legislation”. It will be treated as a motion, and it will be voted on as a motion, not as a bill. But it will get a vote. The subject matter, which will be set out in the motion or an annex to it, will get a vote.

I'll just leave it like that and see where we go from here.

The Chair: Okay.

Thank you very much.

Garry Breitkreuz.

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

I have a little aside on the question of whether the House was serious or not. Everybody spoke, everybody had an opportunity. That's the way things work in the House. You could argue for anything.

The Chair: Let me say, the committee is taking it very seriously. So let's get on with it.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Right.

Derek has come up with some suggestions. I would like us to see this committee start working on the details of what we've been mandated to do. The question was asked, why are we discussing this, why is it important? I want to underscore the fact that it is the purpose of this committee and the Standing Orders of the House to protect the minority rights of all private members, one person, 50 people, 200 people. We have the duty here to make sure they are all heard and their issues can come forward. That's the purpose. For one committee to be able to kibosh this or for us to not see that as the big picture is a miss.

So I think what we need to do is decide on what elements should be part of a workable solution. Derek has brought some excellent suggestions forward. We've brought this suggestion forward. We're not really dealing with the nuts and bolts of it, but I think we should decide what the elements of that workable solution are, what time should be allotted to these things, what are going to be the criteria. Or perhaps we should have somebody mandated to put together what criteria should be part of this workable proposal, what the mechanism for selection would be, how to give each member an item. I think Derek has come forward with some excellent suggestions on that.

The House leaders—and Derek is aware of this—decide on how to manage things in the House. So if we bring forth a workable solution, they will figure out how to manage these things. So I don't see why that should be a big hang-up. I think we should decide who draws up this proposal. Is it our experts over here? Come forward with a workable proposal. If we need an extension of a week or two, let's do that. Maybe it has to be 20 working days—I don't know, is that a month? What would it take to come forward with this? Get some timelines in place here that will see this thing move forward.

We've been given a job to do, but I listened to all the debate, and it's as if we're back in the House debating the original proposal, on which everybody had their opportunity to have input. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that's almost a point of order. Let's get on with it now and decide who's going to do the workable proposal, what the criteria are going to be, and how we move forward. We've heard suggestions from all over.

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish, and then Michel Guimond.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Very quickly, I want to address Jay's point, which was valid.

We had a unique situation. It was a very unusual committee meeting. Normally, we have four members of the opposition and two Liberals there, and we all debate the choices—and unanimous and consensus are not the same. But we had one member leave because he disagreed with the process. We had a second member leave his votes in writing for us, because he had something pressing to go to. The meeting shrank from six people to four at the very end. The wishes of one person were, everything should be votable, therefore I'm not playing any more. The second person left us written instructions we could not consult with.

So it became, unfortunately, unanimous, though we normally work on consensus. Sometimes four out of six people agree to it, and we choose it. But that was a unique meeting, and I'm sorry that was your first meeting, because that's not how it works. It's not always unanimous. I just wanted to make that clear before I make my points.

• 1220

I listened to Derek's proposition, and I don't find it any easier to deal with his proposition than I do with Mr. Reynold's, being shepherded through by Mr. Breitkreuz. My proposition would be that if you do anything like this and you have screening, there have to be at least 50% plus one members of the screening committee from the government. So if you want to discuss that, we're going to sit here for months.

We have two proposals that I think we can vote on. One was clearly stated by the clerk, which is that we can send a report saying we need more time, but that's based on the fact that everybody in this room believes everything should be votable, because then it's worth working on. Second, you ask for an extension, and that's based on everybody at this table, or most of us, believing it's a workable thing, and we're going to spend months of our lives on this, because it's not going to be easy.

The third proposal is to send back the report that says, we can't come up with a workable solution right now, it's too huge, and have the House debate it for three hours. If it passes at the end of three hours, we have the clerks give us the essence of the debate, which will contain all the little nuances we should be looking at. If it fails in the House, that's the end of this job. But at least it's democratically arrived at, as all 301 members of the House, depending on who's there, will get to vote on it.

Before we invest six months in this task, I plead with you, you've got to go back to the House when there are more than 15 people in it, when there are 301 people in it. If there's a three-hour full debate in the House, or however many hours the government allows for this—because it's a very serious issue, I'm not trying to undermine it—then we will have the full Hansard, we will see where people seem to be going, where the nuggets to build this thing are coming from. I've heard Derek's, I can give you one, everybody at this table can come up with a plan.

I've been through this—again I'll say to you—for five years. We've made modifications that make those bills not die, that have the vote from the back rows. We were in a position at one time where if you had space for three motions and four bills, you had great motions, lousy bills, and some of them couldn't be voted on, so we blended the list. We have refined this thing over and over again. I'm not saying it can't be refined more, but if everybody around this table right now believes it's worth spending six months of our lives pulling all these plans out of the air, then let's just ask for an extension. I think what you need to ask everybody, honestly, around this table is, would you like to see it debated in the House democratically, 301 people voting at the end of three hours, and then take the Hansard, pick out the grains—experts will do it—of what people seem to want, and then bring it back here, so we've got something to work on? Otherwise, we can pull 16 pie-in-the-sky ideas out, and we'll get nowhere. I will put a motion to that effect, if you would like me to.

The Chair: I wouldn't like you to at the moment, but bear it in mind.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I didn't think you would.

The Chair: Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: My comments are for our two witnesses. Since they were asked to testify, we want to get the most out of their expertise.

I want to say that I have mixed feelings about what you said, although I do not totally disagree. Let me first say that I'm a little disappointed though not surprised, and I will explain why.

I understand that you, as Clerk of the House, and you, Mrs. Lajoie, are the guardians of the procedure and that you are responsible for harmony and fairness in House proceedings. As such, you will accept any procedures agreed upon by the committee.

In other word, you suggested to us without really saying it—at least, this is what I thought I understood—that we could agree on any procedure and that you would live with it. That means let the parliamentarians, the elected members make their bed and you will adapt.

• 1225

Did I get it right? Does that mean you're not able to enlighten us or to make suggestions? That you consider this is not your job? Perhaps I misunderstood you.

But if this is the subliminal message you're sending us, we may take a wrong turn, thinking in good faith it would be workable, and then produce a unanimous or majority report. Mind you, I don't think we're even close. Everyone here agrees that we're in disagreement.

Anyhow, did I understand what you meant? I'm asking because I think we need someone to tell us in good faith that such or such things are not workable in case we do agree on a given procedure. That would be better than learning it the hard way, after the House agrees to our report.

[English]

The Chair: Can I comment on that before the clerk does? I thought of two possibilities with respect to the clerks' being here. One was that we would have this first meeting on our own, and that they would then have the transcript—they already have Jamie's notes. And then on Thursday they would appear and make some sort of an initial statement based on what they'd heard from this meeting. I thought they might be able to get us some figures and say, this would take this much time, this would take this, and so on. That was one side.

The other side was, how do we get started in this discussion? So the second scenario was that they would be here to give us advice when called on, not to rule things out or anything like that, but just to give us advice during this discussion. So that's why they're here.

Bill, do you want to respond.

[Translation]

Mr. William Corbett: In response to Mr. Guimond, I wish to say that we never thought of letting you get into a dead end. If this is the message that my words conveyed to you, I apologize. I only wanted to stress that some matters that will be debated, and specifically the essentially political issue of whether or not an item should be votable, will have to be settled by the members around this table.

We are here to help you with the implementation of what you will agree upon and to alert you if, in our opinion, the debate gets to a point where we think it may affect other House rules or the orderly conduct of House business. We're always ready to give that kind of advice. We would never let you get into a dead end. Never.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Michel?

Colleagues, at this point it's evident that there's no consensus. We're nowhere near consensus on this, not even on routes to go. But I think we do have to take this motion from the House of Commons very seriously. So what I would like to suggest is this. First, we ask Jamie to do some notes now on the John Reynolds suggestion and on the Derek Lee suggestion, to give us something that's factual. Second, I'd like to ask you now, because in this document here we have other scenarios in respect of the criteria, the draw, and the hours involved, is there anything in here you would like more detail on?

• 1230

Can I say one more thing? It does seem to me that whatever the outcome, at the very least, we're going to be asking for an extension. I hear that from both sides. But I would like to suggest that when we reconvene on Thursday, we have these two notes, so we have some more information on where we've got so far. Bill, I realize you have all sorts of other business, but if someone from the clerk's office, on the same basis, could be here again on Thursday, I would be grateful. So we'll look at those two things on Thursday, look at the notes that Jamie has provided. I could give you a few hours to think about what I asked with respect to the scenarios that are in here and whether you want some more details. You can get that to me—I'll be in the House for question period, for example—and I can ask Jamie if he can provide some more information. But I don't think we should leave it much longer, for his sake. We'll reconvene on Thursday, we'll start with those new notes, and we'll then consider the matter of an extension or of other possibilities that the committee can follow up.

I realize it has not been easy for any of you. And I'd like to say, Garry, I, for one... Jay was drawn for the first time this year. It was a non-votable item, and I was glad it was non-votable, but it took this long for me to be drawn. We all have an interest in this matter.

So, colleagues, are you comfortable with that? We're going to adjourn at this point. Bill, is that okay with you, that someone, not necessarily you, could be here?

Mr. William Corbett: I'll certainly try to arrange my schedule so that I can be here, Mr. Chairman, but one of the things that goes without saying is that we and the officials working in the table research branch have always worked closely with Jamie, and we will continue to do so, to try to structure any proposal that he would be bringing to the table.

The Chair: Very briefly, Garry.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: You've answered my question, but can it be clear? Who would take all of this and bring forth one or two workable proposals, maybe on our model and maybe on Derek's model? Would we have some choices? Do you work together to bring this forward?

The Chair: It's the research branch of the Library of Parliament. That's the answer, that Jamie would work with the Library of Parliament, and it's Marie-Andrée Lajoie and her colleagues.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: To make it clear, we've been asked to come forward with a workable proposal.

The Chair: Yes, I understand that, Garry. That's what we're going to do.

What this means is that I am going to confirm Mr. Kingsley for next Tuesday, and I'm going to continue to deal with the Privy Council Office with respect to a week Thursday on the point of privilege. I want you to know that.

This meeting is adjourned. We resume on this same topic, along the lines I've suggested, on Thursday, same place, 11 o'clock. Thank you.