PRHA 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, December 9, 1997

• 1110

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, let's begin the meeting.

I think everyone has the proposed agenda. As you can see, the first item under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii) is consideration of proposed rules for joint committees. The second item is a report from our Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. I'd like to deal with the second one first, but before I do that there are a couple of items.

Yesterday I received a letter from Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, the chief electoral officer, and it concerns his powers to modify the Referendum Act to bring it in line with the changes to the Canada Elections Act. Specifically, in terms of the Referendum Act, it refers to the fact that we now have a list of electors and that enumerations are no longer necessary. My advice is that he has the powers to bring in this regulation, but he consults the committee and perhaps some others before he does so.

As I only recently received the letter and we have yet to see the proposed regulation—apparently it has gone to the Clerk of the House and will eventually come to us—I would suggest that I circulate the proposed regulation to you as soon as I receive it. That might be this week or next week. I would then ask you to indicate if you have any objection to it. If you do, we'll have to see how we arrange that. My sense is that it's a very routine change to the Referendum Act to make it fit in with the fact that we now have a list of electors instead of having to do enumerations—before a referendum in this case.

Is that okay? I would circulate it to you. If it's next week it would go to your constituency offices and I would simply ask you to report back to me saying yes or no.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): So you'll put a yes/no return sheet on the cover? That would be useful.

The Chairman: Is it okay, colleagues?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Keep it simple.

The Chairman: We will turn to our colleague, Yvon Charbonneau. You have before you the 16th report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Yvon Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Our sub-committee decided to make one motion and one bill votable out of all of the motions and bills prioritized on Tuesday, November 25, 1997. Bill C-247 and motion M-261 are votable.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't think so, although I didn't hear a word of it because my microphone is broken. I'm convinced that what we're talking about is that two of them have been made votable and that's the report.

The Chairman: Mr. Charbonneau.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: This bill and this motion will be votable, whereas the others will be listed for debate purposes only.

I would like to make special mention of the cooperation that exists within this sub-committee, which enabled us to arrive at a consensus on these two issues. We agreed that, in February, we would discuss how we could improve the way that our committee operates or makes decisions further to the suggestions made.

Naturally, we are also looking forward to the implementation of the changes that were drafted and adopted by this committee. We hope that these changes will be implemented as soon as they are adopted by the House. Many members are expecting these changes to occur and they are already working under the new procedure, which as yet is not quite official. Consequently, the sooner this is settled, the better off we will be.

• 1115

[English]

The Chairman: Yvon, would you like to move the motion before us?

[Translation]

Would you like to move the motion before us?

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I move that the Private Members Business Sub-Committee report be adopted as the 16th report of the committee to the House and that the Chairman present it to the House.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I want to thank the subcommittee again for its work. I know it's one of the busier committees we have.

Yvon, we thank you and your colleagues for that.

Could we now move to the first agenda item. It's the proposed changes to the rules for the joint committees.

There are two documents. I think it would be very useful for us to work with them. If you don't have them, I'm sure we have spares. One is the long document, which is the table. The other is the proposed modifications research paper of December 3, 1997, produced by Jamie Robertson, our researcher.

Colleagues, if it's okay with you, I think we can proceed with both those documents before us. We would start with the long document, which has a table, “Standing Orders of the House of Commons”, “Rules of the Senate”, and “Proposed by Informal Working Group”.

You will notice in Jamie Robertson's document that at various places there are suggested changes in italics. Those are the key items. I'll try to draw your attention to those as we go through.

Starting with the table and the first page, you can see the comments that are there. As far as we're concerned, there are no changes. Do you see that? It says “Standing Joint Committees”, “Membership”, “Appointment of Members to sit on Joint Committees”. There are no changes.

Page 2 of the table, by the way, takes us also to page 2 of the notes. Again, there are no changes.

We proceed to page 3 of the table. You see the suggestion there under “Organizational Meetings”. By the way, these are things the informal working group felt were not controversial.

With regard to chairs and vice-chairs, you'll see that the notes say to delete “with no secret ballot permitted”. That means that the rule of that secret ballot would be silent; it would be up to each committee to decide on the procedure.

Also, there is another change there. Please remember it. I'll leave it to the end, because at the very end of the notes we have three unresolved questions. One of them relates to chairs and vice-chairs. I'll bring you back to it. Can we leave that?

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: What has been suggested here in italics has been agreed to then?

The Chairman: Yes, from the point of view of the informal working group, it's been agreed to. It was felt not to be controversial, but it is a change. But then at the end, Chuck, we have three items that we think we need to discuss. Okay?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, as a formality, do you want a motion on each of these that have actually been done?

The Chairman: No.

I'm asking for some advice. We don't think so.

• 1120

The clerk tells me it's a draft report. We could adopt it as amended. There still will likely be some discussion, Ken, and then I assume we'll move the report formally. We haven't discussed it over at the Senate yet.

Mr. Ken Epp: As long as we don't get into a situation where some members of the committee agree with some of these changes and some disagree on a different one. If we don't do them as we go along, it could produce a problem later on.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I'm in your hands.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): I always find it useful to dissect any problems one by one, precisely for the reason alluded to by Mr. Epp.

In that case, we should indicate our understanding of the particular modification, show our support or none, and not let the position on a given item determine our position on the other items as a package.

So I would like the indication of support one by one and not as a package.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): As regards the election of the Chair and Vice-Chair, there is, of course, the issue of the secret ballot which we are discussing here.

However, I think that there is also, as Mr. Robertson's brief document points out, a problem or disagreement as to whether or not there should be any co-chairs or whether or not the committee chair should necessarily be an elected official and, if this is the case, whether or not the vice-chair can be a senator.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, that is the item on page 8, the last page of the report. My suggestion was that we go back to that and deal with it at the end. We'll come back to that question. Is that okay?

If members wish, and as Ken has suggested, I'm going to just get some sense of agreement or disagreement on each of these items where there is a change. At the moment we're on page 2 of the notes, page 3 of the table. The suggestion is to delete “with no secret ballot permitted”.

Those in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: To follow through to liaison committee, you see number 6, convening of the committee. We're still on page 2, and it's the bottom of page 3 in the other.... Again, you'll see the proposed change in italics.

The point is that the size of these committees is different from the size of the regular committees. So the suggestion is to go with five members rather than a quorum.

You'll see the note that explains and the standing orders for the House of Commons. It allows four members to request a meeting—let's say, a minority of the committee—but the Senate rules are silent on this issue.

The figure 5 is roughly proportional to 4. In a committee of this size, a committee of 14, it is roughly proportional to 4.

Are you with me? Those in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: We proceed now to page 3 of the notes and page 4 of the table. It's the powers of standing committees. The notes in italics on page 3 read: “Include power to sit jointly with other committees of the...Senate.”

So it would include that power, and the explanation is that:

While rarely needed, circumstances could arise where such a power would be useful—such as when two committees wish to hear the same witness.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Should there ever be a special meeting of a joint committee with other committees, which rules will apply for the management of these committees?

[English]

The Chairman: James Robertson.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Good question.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): That is a good question.

[English]

We will perhaps see if we can deal with that. The problem would be if the joint committee were sitting with a Senate committee or with a Commons committee. Then there would again be the issue of which rules....

• 0925

We'll take that and see if we can come up with a proposal.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I just have a quick comment. As you have both Senate and Commons committees there in whatever proportion, you're still a joint committee. You would hope that the joint committee rules would apply, even if there are two Commons committees and one Senate committee. You're still a joint committee of whatever size.

I don't know what kind of a building you're going to hold this in, but I think it would still be a joint committee.

An hon. member: That makes sense.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): It is an interesting question, however, when that happens, the usual rules may be suspended only for the hearing of witnesses. Consequently, the same procedure would not be followed in the case of a joint meeting.

[English]

The Chairman: With respect to....

Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: In the researcher's notes on page 3, just immediately before the italicized part, he has written, “Delete the reference to sitting jointly with other committees.” Immediately after he says to include the power jointly with other committees. I'd like an explanation.

The Chairman: Jamie Robertson.

Mr. James Robertson: The text that is not italicized is the recommendations that were made in the last Parliament by the informal working group that looked into this issue. That included representatives from the predecessor of this committee and the equivalent committee in the Senate.

The material in italics is the proposals that came this time, that is, in response to those proposals.

So the question was raised, why should that reference to sitting jointly be deleted, because it may be needed. In fact that last sentence of the full text would come out.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay.

The Chairman: Colleagues, again, to explain, the way the informal working group worked is exactly that. We took the report from the last Parliament, we took each item, and then we tried to come to some conclusion, to say yes, it's acceptable, no change required, or some change required.

So we're taking into mind Madeleine's point.

Those in favour of this change?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: That moves us to page 5 of the table. We're still on page 3 of the notes, the power to create subcommittees:

Retain House of Commons provision allowing membership of sub-committees to be drawn from list of associate members.

That's the recommendation. The explanation is:

Issues related [to] membership of joint committees should be solely within powers of each chamber.

Those in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Let us then proceed to changes in membership and substitutions. This is on page 4 of the notes and at the bottom of page 5 of the table.

Again, the recommendation is that in the House of Commons substitutions will continue to be for individual meetings. It's the way it is in the House of Commons at the moment.

Those in favour?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I apologize, however, we just took a vote. Before we go on to the next vote, I would simply like to have some clarification on the vote that was just taken with respect to the authority to create sub-committees.

The Chairman: Allright.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: When we just voted...

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, in the English text this is page 3 of the notes and page 5 of the table.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's simply a matter of clarification. Did we in fact just vote on deleting the reference to associate members in the Standing Order provisions?

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: No, the original proposal in the last Parliament was to delete the reference to associate members for joint committees.

We're now putting it back in. The idea was that for joint committees they will continue to have a list of associate members from which they can appoint members to subcommittees.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't think that Ms. Dalphond-Guiral fully understands what the operation we are involved in is all about. Are we adopting what is proposed on the table before us or are we adopting what is proposed in the sub-paragraphs of each paragraph?

• 1130

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: We're doing both essentially. The third column of the table includes the text from the briefing note. There are changes being proposed to the third column, and those changes are in italics.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Have we just adopted the changes in italics?

The Chairman: Yes, that's right.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would have voted yes if we were adopting the changes in italics. Could I change my vote? These were amendments that had been presented by the opposition parties and this does not appear in the wording. In the third column, on page 5 of the 8 1/2 x 14 inch document, with respect to the power to create sub-committees, I read:

Powers to appoint sub-committees to be consistent in both Chambers. Delete reference to associate members in House Standing Order. Unclear if maximum number of members of sub-committee [Senate Rule 96(5)] required.

This is what I was voting on. You had told me that some subcommittee people had previously said that we should keep the sub-committee members, but this didn't seem obvious to me. I must not be awake, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. James Robertson: It's very complicated.

[English]

The informal working group in the last Parliament made a number of recommendations. Those were circulated to all members of this committee. The chairman met with staff from the Bloc and the Reform Party and went through the list of recommendations that are shown in the third column. A number of proposals were made at that meeting, and they seemed relatively straightforward. They are the ones in italics here.

So I guess the idea today is to approve the notes with the italics, and then those will become the new instructions for drafting the rules.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It wasn't clear. Thank you. So, change my vote.

[English]

The Chairman: This is on the power to create subcommittees.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's right. It will therefore be unanimous.

[English]

The Chairman: So you're opposed, Madam.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I was opposed.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Now she is in favour. She wants to change her vote.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I was voting on the note at the third column.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Now it's clear.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I'm sorry for that.

So are you clear on the procedure now?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would have like it if this had been clearly indicated, because I read my documents.

The Chairman: Fine. Very well.

[English]

So now we proceed again to changes in membership. Did we have to vote on that? Okay.

The next one we should consider is associate members at the bottom of page 6 on the table.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As regards the changes in committee membership, did we in fact just vote what is in italics?

[English]

The Chairman: So we are now at associate members at the bottom of page 6 and on page 4 of the notes. In italics the suggestion is “Associate membership to be retained for joint committees”. So there can be associate members.

Those in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Now we go to pecuniary interest, which is still on page 4 of the notes, and on page 7 of the table. It says:

As the recommendations of the Special Joint Committee on a Code of Conduct have not been implemented, a rule regarding pecuniary interest will be required—it should be a single rule that combines the substance of the current House and Senate provisions.

So that is our recommendation to the drafters on this item. Is that okay?

Yes, Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Really what we're doing here today is just giving direction to draft the actual wording. So we may want to nit-pick about a “whatsoever” and “heretofore” when we get into it, but basically we're just giving direction to you on this.

The Chairman: Yes. And it's a useful procedure because often one feeds into another. So until you've seen the whole document.... We need another document.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Good.

The Chairman: Those in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 1135

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, so in fact we're not voting on anything, because no provision has been submitted to our attention.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm following through on the committee's advice. In some cases it is essentially an item that's draftable, but in the other cases it's a recommendation on how the committee thinks these regulations for joint committees should be drafted. That's what we're dealing with. We're trying as a committee to give direction to the drafters.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: And what about the recommendation?

[English]

The Chairman: This is now pecuniary interest. There should be a single rule that combines the substance of the current House and Senate provisions.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine. Who will be responsible for establishing this single rule?

[English]

The Chairman: This committee. It will be drafted, it will come to this committee, and then we will approve it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It will be drafted by whom?

The Chairman: By drafters of both the House and the Senate.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Pardon me, I must not be awake this morning either.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Good Lord!

[English]

The Chairman: It will be drafted by the professional people in the Senate and the House of Commons who draft such regulations. They will come up with a new set of regulations for us based on these documents, and then we will get a chance to approve or disapprove the new regulations.

[Translation]

Committee Clerk: Right now, I think that it is the process that may be causing confusion. It is an agreement in principle that the committee provide its input to Mr. Robertson's document so that instructions can be given to the House and Senate people who are going to be drafting the Standing Order amendments. Once these amendments have been drafted, they will come back to the committee for approval.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If they are not what we have in mind, we will scrap them.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Let's instruct the drafters to proceed.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, one of the problems is that the Senate committee is doing the same thing. It's two committees giving instructions to the drafters.

We now go to the section about a seconder not being required. This is page 9 of the table, page 5 of the notes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Are we going to come back to page 8?

The Chairman: Yes.

Again, combine the House standing order with the Senate rule. It sounds reasonable.

Those in favour? Reasonable instruction?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The motion on page 5 of the notes and on page 9 of the table.

The Clerk: It's on page 6 in the French version.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If this is a mistake, we will learn from it, but we were trying to follow you in Shakespeare's tongue. Perhaps it would be better to follow the interpretation in Molière's tongue in order to get a better understanding of where you are.

[English]

The Chairman: The French notes, Stéphane, are on page 6 of the table and the English is on page 9.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Page 9 of the table.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes, page 9 of the French table.

• 1140

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Madam Clerk, how is that entitled?

The Clerk:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Perfect. I have just found it.

[English]

The Chairman: All those in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay, that's it.

You'll notice that on page 7 of the English notes, which is page 9 of the French notes, there's the additional provision regarding all documents circulated by the committee, or published by the committee, to be available in both official languages. I think that was something this committee suggested.

If we turn to the last page, which is page 8 of the English and the very last page of the French—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, I believe that it is still on page 6, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Unresolved issue, on page 9.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We've got to an issue that has not been resolved.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Have we voted on the presentation of reports?

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, Stéphane.

No, we didn't. I'm sorry.

Colleagues, presentation of reports, on page 7 of the English and page 11 of the table—I apologize for that. Has provision—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Page 11 of the table

[Translation]

I would imagine, and I am presuming that it is in English. In Molière's tongue, it doesn't correspond.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. We'll get it.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Page 12 of the table.

The Chairman: Okay.

[English]

We're on page 8 of the French notes, which is page 7 of the English notes, “Presentation of Reports”. Page 12 of the table in French is page 11 in English.

“Presentation of Reports” reads:

House provision for Official Opposition to give explanation of supplementary or dissenting opinions to be retained.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I think that this may require some clarification. This is about retaining the House provision for the opposition to give an explanation of supplementary or dissident opinions, not just the Official Opposition. In the past, I think that it has always been acknowledged that all political parties in the House could give their opinions, not just the Official Opposition.

[English]

The Chairman: Stéphane, in the table—it's 35(2)—we're staying with the House regulation, the standing orders, as they exist at present. Jamie just mentioned to me in our review of the standing orders that we might want to debate that standing order, but at the moment we're staying with the standing order as it is in the House of Commons.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, this provision is for giving explanation in the chamber when the report is presented.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Is there any limit on the time that explanation will consume? Was that envisioned? Is it unlimited?

The Chairman: As I read it, Rey, it says “succinct”.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Traditionally, the guideline has been that whatever the presenter of the report takes, the other people would take an equal amount and no more than that taken by the person tabling the original report.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: So it would be that understanding and convention as the guideline—

Mr. Bob Kilger: That's always been the guideline.

The Chairman: We might agree or disagree among ourselves with the standing orders, but at the moment the recommendation here is for this joint committee to stay with the House of Commons. That is subsections 35(1) and 35(2).

Those in favour?

• 1145

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Can we proceed to the last page? It's page 9 in the French text and page 8 in the English text. These are, from the working group's point of view, unresolved matters. The first one has to do with co-chairs, and that refers to page 3 of the table.

It's the item in the table about chairs and vice-chairs. This is where, from one party or another, there was some concern. In particular in this case....

Stéphane, was this a Bloc concern?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As for the first point, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect for the institution of the Senate, although we could spend a great deal of time discussing its relevance or the way that it currently operates, this Parliament is composed of two chambers, one elected and one appointed. Of course, as I was saying, we could debate the relevance of the Senate, the second chamber, to great lengths; we could spend a great deal of time debating the way that it operates, etc., but that is not the purpose of our current discussion.

Right now, we are simply acknowledging that one of these Parliamentary chambers is elected and the other one is not. Accordingly, we would propose that a joint committee chairman be a member and that a senator be elected as vice-chair.

[English]

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I would agree with Stéphane's analysis of the other place.

The other thing, however, is that the make-up of the House and the make-up of the Senate are appreciably different. We now have three recognized parties in the House that have no representation in the Senate. So what happens under this proposal is that the co-chairs are basically from the two parties that feel they've been here since creation, and the other parties, the up-and-coming parties....

I won't get carried away, but there is a real problem when you go to the Senate and say you folks can be the chairs or co-chairs of this when three of the parties from the House aren't even represented in that chamber. It presents a problem about the legitimacy of the operation when you bypass duly elected parties in favour of duly appointed representatives of parties. It detracts from the legitimacy of the chairmanship, I think.

The Chairman: Rey Pagtakhan and then Mac Harb.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: If you look at it not so much from the point of view of the membership of the chamber being elected and appointed, because when you think of it, both offices are legitimate—they are in our law, in our Constitution. We also know that unless we amend that, those institutions will be with us. So in a sense we're trying to reflect the institution as a whole. The membership of the institution could change from time to time, perhaps more as we note the reality in the House. Right now more than three parties are recognized, but that can change again in the future. The standing order must have some permanence, so I would go for an approach that to reflect the institution, setting aside the process by which members go to those chambers at this point....

The Chairman: Mac Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb: On the surface the comments by my colleagues in the Reform Party sound reasonable, but the reality is that the NDP, which has been in the House of Commons for many years, never really had representation in the House of Commons. As such it has been the norm and the standard to do it in the way we have been doing it for years. I don't see the logic for changing it now just because we have another party that is also not represented in the Senate. The NDP never had representation in the Senate and it has been done that way for many years. I think the recommendation we have before us is reasonable and I hope we'll proceed with it.

• 1150

The Chairman: I wonder if I can comment. In the discussion we had in the working group.... This says a senator is to be elected as a vice-chair. I'm not convinced the Senate will accept that. This is something that came up in the informal work group. The Senate exists, joint committees exist, and the question is whether we can come up with rules to run those joint committees in the new Parliament.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't want to get into the mud-slinging over the Senate too much here, except to say that I recommend reading Tony Blair's comments to the House of Lords at the last convention of the Labour Party, where he said to the House of Lords—and you listen up—“We represent the people because we were elected; you represent nobody”. That's increasingly the feeling in this country.

You may be right; the Senate won't accept it. To me that doesn't mean a whole lot because the Senate doesn't represent too much to me except what's wrong with the place, not what's right with it. I'll just leave it at that. They won't accept it, but that's not surprising.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to follow up on the comment made by Chuck.

I don't want to get into this debate, however, I feel that it is important to make one comment. Although there may be some arguments justifying the relevance of a Senate or an Upper Chamber in the United Kingdom or some logical explanation or at least a tradition or an historic heritage resulting in the creation of this Upper Chamber, this tradition or this heritage is not rooted in any reality in Quebec or Canada. There is no nobility in Quebec and Canada, and appointment of these people is certainly not noble because it is done strictly for politically partisan reasons.

I tend to think a little bit like Chuck. I think that if there is one Chamber in this Parliament that should have the last word, then it is the House of Commons, because this is the body that represents all of Canada and Quebec.

Until we hear otherwise, of course, we will acknowledge the existence of the Senate. The purpose of a debate, right now, is not to challenge the existence of the Senate and the way that it operates. Perhaps this debate will take place one day, when a government has the courage to do so. Right now, we have to decide on the membership of joint committees.

I respectfully submit, to the members of this House, who represent the citizens of Canada, that their presence is certainly a great deal more legitimate than that of the senators and that, consequently, in any decision where there may be some opposition between the Senate and the House of Commons—we know that this is a common practice in Canada—that the House of Commons should have the final word. Consequently, let's acknowledge this fact by appointing a chairman from the House of Commons and a vice-chair from the Senate.

[English]

The Chairman: Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): My understanding of the debate is that it's a matter of whether we want to continue the status quo, which is joint co-chairs, one from the House and one from the Senate, or have a different format where the House of Commons would be entrusted with the chair and the Senate with the vice-chair. I think the observation you made was right on in terms of how the Senate would view that.

I'm not here to defend the Senate, but I've looked at the subject matter that these joint committees deal with and at the track record of what these joint committees have done. If we look at the more recent joint committees that deal with the constitutional amendment regarding linguistic school boards in Quebec and Term 17 for Newfoundland, I think we've seen there are some fairly good precedents for good co-operation between both Houses, which in itself I think is a good thing.

We always reflect on the co-operation we've seen within our own chambers since this 36th Parliament, which I think has surprised a lot of people. I don't see any reason to discontinue the practice of joint chairs between the two chambers, particularly on the subject matters they deal with.

• 1155

My view at this time is that the format we presently have has served us well. I don't see any benefit, except if we intend to flex our muscles. I think we all know that everything comes back to this chamber—to the elected chamber. We're not here to discuss the pros and cons of the Senate and so on and so forth, but I think the format right now is one that serves us well.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like to ask a question. We feel that a member should be appointed to chair joint committees. Let's imagine that the Senate, for the sake of continuity, impartiality and noble ideals, decides that there should only be one chair and that it should be a senator. How are we to react to that?

[English]

The Chairman: Anyone else? Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I agree with the whip, not because he's the whip, but because—well, sometimes I agree with him just because he's the whip.

I have experienced legislation that got to the Senate and was turned back. We all did, in the last Parliament—legislation on electoral boundaries and a few other things. It's very disappointing.

I agree with you, Chuck; we'd love to just grab them all and throttle them at times, but unfortunately the way the whole government of this country is set up, this is the way it is. To unnecessarily whack them in the head once or twice and say we're in charge—all that does is set a very bad precedent, so that when stuff goes up there....

Let's go back and re-look one of these days soon at the whole system. That would be more productive. But if you have to function within the system as it's set up and you insult their royal highnesses, they have many ways of getting even with us. I think the system of co-chairs has worked. I've been on a couple of those committees and they've worked. Mostly the senators don't even show up. You have more House of Commons people showing up.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You're not building a strong case for the Senate.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Well, no, but there's no point insulting a system that is very ceremonial. I'm going to stay with co-chairs.

The Chairman: Okay. Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I know that I fly in the face of some of the things that have been said here, but I'm one who in recent months was on one of these joint committees—the one on the code of ethics for MPs and senators. I have to say that Senator Donald Oliver did an admirable job of co-chairing that committee. I think it's a disgrace to him that he was appointed, because he would easily win an election.

I'd like to see these guys themselves come up with the idea that they should be elected. That would give them some legitimacy. In this particular case, Mr. Milliken was the co-chair from the House of Commons. They worked together, and I think our committee worked very well together.

Sure, we want to change it—you'd better believe it, and the faster the better. But given that we have this present system right now, I can see no great gain to be made by marginalizing people who are asked to serve on a legitimate committee to solve a legitimate problem.

As I said, I'm flying in the face of what my colleagues here are saying. I guess I'm trying to be practical. I would like to see the system whereby there are co-chairs, and that whenever possible, or as a matter of rule, the House of Commons co-chair, because he or she is elected, would normally chair the meetings. I think that would solve the problem.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Obviously my co-worker doesn't agree with me because I'm the whip, or for any other reason.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Be that as it may, I take the opposite view, with all respect to Ms. Parrish and to Ken as well, I guess. I like to use every opportunity to send a message to the Senate. I think you send the wrong message when you initiate bills in the Senate and we get them second. That sends a wrong message to the Senate about their legitimacy. It sends the wrong message here in subtle ways. Every day I'd like to send them a little message and a love card and get off their Christmas card list, just to tell them what I think of the system.

I agree with Ken, there are some great people in the Senate. Don't get me wrong. There are some great senators who have more experience than I will ever have and have more technical expertise. It's a shame—their legitimacy to any influence or power around here has been dragged down into the dirt, because the institution itself doesn't change. That's not to take it away from the individual senators, many of whom are decent people, except that they accepted the appointment to begin with, which does call some things into question.

• 1200

The Chairman: I agree with you, Mr. Whip.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'd like to indicate, particularly to Mr. Chuck Strahl, that perhaps what we could achieve through peace we should not achieve through war.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I've interpreted what we're doing as an attempt by this committee to regularize and make the operation of the joint committees in the new Parliament more effective. Could we leave it at this: that we ask the drafters to put an either/or in? Then when it comes back, it will be in there as an either/or and we can revisit it at that point. Okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

The Chairman: When it returns in the drafted form, it will have two alternatives: co-chairs or a vice-chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, that is not going to change anything. Whether we draft it in legislative or legal language, the principle remains the same. Let's vote on the principle and instruct our drafters to draft things the way we would like to see them. Let's decide on the principle now and let's give some instructions to our drafters. Don't make these people do unnecessary work.

[English]

The Chairman: My only comment would be that I am dealing with the chair of the Senate committee, and I have to have some sense of what they're thinking about and what they're doing in this, because this is a joint exercise. We have to return to these regulations.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, and if we have two versions drafted in legal language, what is that going to change, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: By then, I will talk to the Senate again.

Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I move that we give direction to the drafters to follow the status quo, which is that we continue with the system of co-chairs from both chambers.

The Chairman: Colleagues?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Can we go on to chairing of meetings? We're still on page 8, page 9 of the French version of the notes, and this is page 8 also of the table in English. It's concerning decorum in committee and power of the chair.

We have some suggestions. Meetings of joint committees should be chaired by a co-chair from the House of Commons, unless absent. Some other alternatives to the rotation are on page 9 of the table in French.

Mr. Bob Kilger: If we have co-chairs, the practice has been that the co-chairs rotate meeting by meeting, or depending on the presence or absence of either.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It has to make sense. If we have two co-chairs and there's only one who is chairing,...

Mr. Bob Kilger: We rotate.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: ... it's stupid. The majority decided that we would stick to reality. I think that, logically speaking, we cannot say that this is reality. Even if it kills me to say this, logic prevails.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I may, I would like to say that I do not agree with my assistant whip.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's because I am not the whip.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Although we have not received the provisions drafted from a legal point of view, we know full well that the government will ensure that, when it is time to make a decision on the two versions, that we will rule in favour of the version that calls for two co-chairs. So there really isn't any problem.

• 1205

Consequently, the decision has virtually been made, but honour remains intact. We keep the two co-chair positions, but we give greater weight to the role of the House of Commons co-chair. This is why, even though we have virtually decided to maintain the co- chairs, I will support a resolution of the type.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any other comments? Yes, André Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Perhaps we could amend the section by saying that priority should be given to co-chairs from the House of Commons chairing joint committee meetings.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I'm sorry, Mr. Bergeron, but I fully agree with Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral and others. I think that we should continue the practice of rotating co-chairs. If we say that they are co-chairs, then I think that we should continue operating as we have done in the past and we must also respect the spirit of the Standing Order. I think that we should maintain this practice of rotation.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, in the table, where it says “Decorum in committee/Power of chair”, the wording is:

As far as possible, co-chairs to rotate chairing of meetings, unless the co-chairs or the joint committee decides otherwise.

Would someone care to move that wording? Mac Harb. We'll vote now.

Those in favour?

André, I have to say, you're not signed in. That's okay.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I'm against this, because I would have liked to have sent a small message. As representatives of our citizens, we respect their point of view, namely, that the House of Commons carries a great deal more weight than the Upper Chamber. This is all that I had in mind, but I will not belabour the point for three quarters of an hour.

The Chairman: André Harvey is not signed in.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: He is voting, but he is voting against it.

[English]

The Chairman: Those in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: The next one is on the votes of chairs. It's at the bottom of page 8 in the English table and it's the third item on page 9 of the French table.

Neither co-chair should have an original vote. In the case of a tie, both chairs would be allowed to vote if present at the meeting. If the votes are then equal, the decision would be deemed to be in the negative. The idea is that's consistent with the idea that the chairs be neutral and not take sides.

Is there any discussion? Those in favour?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Are there any other comments or discussion for the drafters? The next stage is they will come back, I will discuss it with my colleagues in the Senate, and I will come back and have the version.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Who's going to chair that meeting?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: We'll alternate.

The vote on Bill C-17 is at 12.15, so we should be there. The meeting is adjourned.