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]

Thursday, February 12, 1998

• 1120

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, let's begin. You have the proposed agenda before you.

A principal item of business is consideration of the proposed standing orders for joint committees. I would point out, however, that there's a proposed motion with respect to our meeting with the delegation from the British Parliament. Under other business, when we get there, I would like to discuss the calendar of meetings and related business you have before you. That was proposed at our last meeting. We can discuss that item briefly, I hope, and in particular with respect to our plans for consideration of our review of the Canada Elections Act.

Is that agenda okay?

[Translation]

Is everything all right, colleagues?

[English]

We welcome once again Mr. Marleau, our clerk—we greatly appreciate it—and M. Montpetit. It's good of you to be here.

Colleagues, I believe you have the proposed standing rules and orders on joint committees. This was circulated previously. I thought the most appropriate thing would be if Mr. Marleau could give us a brief overview.

Colleagues, we had a good debate on this the last time. There were two or three items that were in contention.

Mr. Marleau, before you begin, our equivalent committee in the Senate was supposed to have considered this matter on Tuesday, but that same committee, as you know, has been dealing with the situation with respect to Senator Thompson, so they were unable to meet on that day to deal with this matter. I understand they likely will not be able to for one or two weeks or whatever.

While we're going through our presentation, please give some thought to what we should do at the end. It seems to me there are two scenarios. I have my preference. One scenario, assuming we're in agreement at the end of the meeting, is that we would approve these changes and table a report in the House of Commons. Then when the Senate committee meets it essentially is faced with a fait accompli. That's one scenario.

The other scenario is that we agree in principle—let's assume that we do agree—and then we wait to see what happens when the Senate considers these changes. If there are any changes, it would come back to us and we would have to do something. If there are no changes, and we have been having discussions with the Senate, we would simply need a motion in one of our regular meetings and then we would proceed to report.

So we have option A and option B. Please think about that.

Mr. Marleau, could you take us through?

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always a pleasure to be here.

If I may, I'd like to give you a few brief, general remarks. I don't propose to take you through each standing order, but I would certainly be happy, with M. Montpetit, to take any questions you have on the text we have proposed to you.

This matter has been around for some time. While preparing for this meeting last night I recalled that my first event in the context of a conflict between two Houses over the rules of joint committees goes back to 1983 and the famous bell-ringing crisis. The official languages joint committee was attempting to meet with the chair of the Commons, claiming he was being called to a vote—even though the bells had been ringing for 15 or 16 days and therefore he couldn't come to a meeting—while the Senate didn't want the crisis in the Commons to block the activity of the committee.

• 1125

It's not a new situation, and certainly I think any effort at harmonizing the rules between the two Houses for these joint committees is a worthwhile one. I think the initiative you have taken, following on the work that had been done in 1996, is a worthwhile one.

The key, however, and fundamental to these harmonized rules working, is that both Houses have to adopt the same text. Otherwise you're just setting it up for even more controversy and potential conflict than we have now under the no-rules context.

I would say at the outset that what we have proposed to you does not resolve the ultimate conflict.

[Translation]

Conflicts over procedure that arise between the two Houses in the case of joint committees usually result from a political as opposed to a procedural problem. We will use the absence or the interpretation of a Standing Order to deal with a political problem. This proposal does not contain the final solution, simply because any attempt to find a perfect way of resolving conflicts would not take into account the fundamental differences that exist between the role of the two Speakers, the one from the House of Commons and the one from the Senate.

We can imagine a formula.

[English]

For instance, if a committee can't resolve within its joint rules the conflict, they could appeal to the two speakers, who could give a ruling directly to the committee, but the status of our two speakers is very different. The rulings of the Speaker of the House of Commons are not appealable; they are final in the House of Commons. The Senate speaker doesn't have the same authority as our speaker has: he intervenes only when invited to intervene, and his rulings are subject to appeal to the whole body. So in the hierarchical set of rules, if you kick it all the way up there, you've got a difference in status that I think makes it difficult to find the ultimate solution.

In any case I would submit to you that if it got to that level, you've got a political problem and not a procedural problem, and quite often it has to be resolved politically before people accept the rule. We therefore did not attempt to craft the ultimate resolution of the conflict, other than to say that if you have the same text, you have minimized the vast majority of potential conflicts in the two Houses.

On the mandates of the three joint committees that are identified in the very first standing order, I will digress from the procedural side and ask you, Mr. Chairman, to put on your House affairs hat, as opposed to your procedural hat.

The Standing Joint Committee on Parliament hasn't met in a long time. We used to have the Standing Joint Committee on the Restaurant, and we used to have the Standing Joint Committee on Printing. I think the re-creation of this committee with the mandate given—and you might want to consider security and discuss it further with your colleagues in the Senate. It's a sensitive subject, the issue of a joint security service, but it makes imminent sense if you're a security person. The issue of printing: why is it that on the Hill we have two parliamentary papers production units? I understand the Senate is about to let a contract for another recording centre, when we have excess capacity in our own recording centre. We often have excess capacity in the printing area.

Although the Senate legitimately from time to time claims its constitutional independence, if these services were under the supervision or droit de regard of a joint committee, I think we could attenuate this competition, this fear of one being bigger than the other. By having input from a joint committee for the management issues, we could harmonize security, harmonize printing, and look seriously at the food services issues in terms of the restaurant, with Senate input.

I think there may be an opportunity here to open an element of discussion with your colleagues in the Senate. I think that might satisfy them as well, because I've heard from some senators that they're not happy about not being consulted. Right now we do not have a formal mechanism of consultation, so I think there's a House affairs dimension to this, which I'd like to commend to your study.

• 1130

There is a similar situation in Australia with a joint service department under the supervision of a joint committee of the two Houses, so it's workable. It has worked elsewhere.

My final comment is that this has been drafted so that it is an appendix to our standing orders. There is a risk in merging, to use the word processing term, these standing orders within our own. So that they don't come into conflict with our own standing committee rules, they would stand better as a standalone, as an appendix, instead of standing orders.

We have incorporated the same concepts, such as minority reports, that our standing committees have. These were part of the issue that came up in 1994 with the special committee on foreign affairs. In essence, they transgressed our rules of standing committees.

I would leave it at that. If you wish, I can answer any questions you have on specific standing orders.

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau, thank you very much. This is laid out. We have two proposed changes to the standing orders. The section “Standing Rules and Orders on Joint Committees” is in fact the appendix.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's right. I would recognize it to be an appendix to the standing orders.

The Chairman: We've discussed that, and it was agreed from the very beginning that this was the best approach to take.

Colleagues, what we're looking at here are the appendix, which we discussed and we proposed to keep the rules for joint committees separate and clean, and, as I understand it, two changes that are necessary to set up the appendix.

Does anyone have any comments or questions on this for Mr. Marleau?

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): We should just move it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): On what particular...?

The Chairman: Stéphane, we went through this clause by clause at our last meeting.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, I remember.

The Chairman: We have incorporated in here the changes that were agreed to or voted on. That debate is the basis of what's here. Now, I'm quite willing to pick up individual points if that's your wish, but I think we did it last time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But you will recall, Mr. Chairman, that we had in fact asked our legal experts to draft certain articles that we did not want to rule on at that time. We asked the House personnel to look after the amendments. I'm trying to see exactly which ones we had asked them to draft.

[English]

The Chairman: I can give you, Stéphane, some examples, because I did compare the two. For example, we had some discussion of A3(2) in the new version. It was on page 3 of the other document. We deleted reference, for example, to secret ballot, which was in the last time. I think that's one example.

If you wish, I think I can identify most of the points on which we had serious discussion the last time, Stéphane. A3(2) was one. We changed A3(3) to mention five members; previously it mentioned a quorum. It was also on page 3 of the original document of the charts you have.

• 1135

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Is that page 3 in the English or in the French?

The Chairman: It's this one, A3(2). A3(3) is convening meetings at the request of members. That's Standing Order 106(3). It is at the bottom of page 3, Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What does that correspond to?

[English]

The Chairman: That is A3(3) in the new document. Can I proceed?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: To adopt the document as a whole or...?

The Chairman: No, I can go through the items if you wish. I could take you through the table to the items we discussed. Do you want me to do that?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's what I would prefer, if at all possible.

The Chairman: Yes, certainly.

[English]

The next one on which there was considerable discussion was A6(2) in the new document. That would be in English on page 8, standing orders applied generally. We actually had a vote on that the last time and that's the form it's now in.

[Translation]

It's on the same page in the French version, on page A8.

[English]

This was to do with the role of the chair and how the chair is operated.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On page 8?

[English]

The Chairman: It's right at the bottom of that page.

On A6(2) and A7, which immediately follow, it's the same. We had some discussion and there are changes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This isn't possible. We have so many notes.

The Chairman: Stéphane, I believe that we have already examined most of the changes that are here, however, we have to review them to make sure that they are correct. In my opinion, they correspond to the discussions we had during the last meeting.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I apologize. You said that A6(2) is on the bottom of page 8, but that isn't it at all. Perhaps we don't have the same page 8.

[English]

The Chairman: Which number is that, Stéphane, in the new document?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's A6(2).

The Chairman: A6(2) is decorum in committee, power of the chair. It would be just above the other one on page 8.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think it's at the top of page 9.

The Chairman: Yes, I apologize.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Good, we can finally follow along.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll try to keep up with this.

I have A12 marked here and it's on page 7. The discussion there was that we should come up with a single paragraph that would capture the wording used in the two Houses, and this paragraph as far as I can see does that.

[Translation]

Yes, that's right. All right? Marlene?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Yes, it's fine.

• 1140

[English]

The Chairman: The last one, Stéphane, is A17(1), which as I recall is specifically at your request. There's the mention of both official languages and the discussion of that. That was page 11 in the English. That was a new clause added as a result of your intervention, Stéphane.

Rey, are you okay with this now?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Yes. I have a few...just for clarification.

The Chairman: Okay.

Stéphane.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't know whether Mr. Pagtakhan wants to ask his questions. I would certainly like to intervene; I have some questions and some comments about the document.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to see, in the future, some compatibility with respect to the page numbers of the French and English text so that it will be easier for us to follow. Otherwise, it's just about...

The Chairman: This table limits the space.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: There are only two languages. That was my first comment.

My second comment pertains to A4, which is found on page 3 in the French version.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): We don't know where it is in the English text.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It reads:

A4. (1) Standing Joint committees shall be severally empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters as may be referred to them, to report from time to time and to print an appendix to any report, after the signatures of the Chairmen, containing such opinions or recommendations, dissenting from the report or supplementary to it, as may be proposed by committee members [...]

And then it gets sticky.

[...] provided that, in the opinion of the joint Chairmen, it is both brief and relevant to the report [...]

With all due respect to the joint Chairmen, I do not feel that either one of them should be able to comment on or decide on the relevance of dissenting opinions that are to be appended to the report, especially in the case of the joint Chairman from the Senate, with all due respect for the other place.

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like to delete "provided that it is both brief and relevant to the report" from the clause. I do not think that the chairmen have the authority to make any judgement whatsoever about the relevance and length of dissenting opinions. The clause would end with the word "members", period. The rest of the sentence would be deleted.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau, do you have a comment on that? If you don't, I'll go to Jamie Robertson.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I was just trying to check the wording of that standing order for standing committees. My recollection is that those words—and that's why we didn't change them—were included when the first informal committee between the Senate and the House of Commons met and discussed it. You'll remember that Senator Gauthier, who was the co-chair of the joint committee on foreign affairs—the issue of the minority report was what brought this to a head. The minority report was before the signature, not after the signature, and as a result our speaker ruled the report in bad form.

[Translation]

During informal meetings, Mr. Gauthier, Mr. Milliken and some officials who had been asked to work with them in order to try to make some headway had added these words to give the chairmen some discretion because of the deadlines. Often a minority report is presented at a very late stage in the adoption process.

• 1145

We wanted to give the joint chairmen some discretion by enabling them to say that yes, the dissenting report represents what was in fact discussed. We had specified that this report should be relevant and quite brief because we didn't want a dissenting report to be twice as long as the main report.

But the decision is yours to make.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, if I may, having been a member of the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy, I can testify to the fact that this committee debated the length and relevance of the dissenting opinions submitted by the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois. That is a fact.

However, In the final analysis, I feel that the committee members were very conscientious, cooperated with the members of the Opposition, and allowed two dissenting reports which, in my opinion, proved to be complementary and, to some extent, added to the report itself.

The problem arose because the report and the dissenting opinions were printed in two separate publications. This was essentially the basis for the questions raised in the House by the parliamentary leader of the Official Opposition at that time. We feel that the two parts of the report should have been included in the same publication, in the same book.

In reading the House of Commons Standing Orders with respect to this provision, I see that they end the sentence with "by committee members". It says:

[...] supplementary or dissenting opinions or recommendations [...] a committee member [...] may also rise to give a succinct explanation thereof.

In my opinion, we have aggravated the problem by adding wording that gives the joint chairmen much greater flexibility and which, in turn, could result in arbitrariness. For instance, the chairmen could decide whether or not they were going to allow a dissenting opinion and they could want to know, in advance, the length and content of such a dissenting opinion. This makes it possible for the House and Senate joint chairmen to operate in a very arbitrary fashion.

I am therefore completely opposed to this wording appearing. Out of basic respect of the rights of the opposition in Parliament, we should comply with the House Standing Orders and not leave it up to the discretion of the joint chairmen to decide whether or not the opinion of an independent member or of a political party is brief or relevant.

[English]

The Chairman: The only discussion I can recall on this section the last time was to do with the very last phrase, “to sit jointly with other committees”. We decided to leave it in.

Stéphane, I don't recall a discussion of this point the last time.

Mr. Marleau, do you have another comment? Does anyone have any comments on this—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Of course, Mr. Chairman, for the simple reason that we agreed with the current wording in the House Standing Orders. We now have an amended version of the House Standing Orders which does not reflect, and I agree with you, the discussion that we had.

Consequently, I'm asking that we go back to the wording used in the House Standing Orders that ends with the word "members".

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Marleau, do you have any comments? By the way, do any other colleagues have any comments to make? This is not with respect to the list; this is with respect to this item.

I'll go briefly with Mac Harb, Rey Pagtakhan, and then Marlene Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Mac Harb: A brief comment, Stéphane. If I were a member of the opposition, I would certainly not want to be associated with a committee report that I did not support. I would certainly want to present my own report. This is how things work at the House of Commons. The same thing applies to a government member. If I were not in agreement, I would have an opportunity, as a member of the opposition, to distribute my report without having to associate myself with a report that I did not support.

I don't know, but if I put myself in the shoes of...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That's another debate, Mac, that I will get into later on.

Mr. Mac Harb: I see.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Right now I'm simply talking about the wording that would enable a joint chairman to say, in advance, without even having seen the text or the details, that an opinion must be brief and relevant in order to be appended to the report.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Pagtakhan, you have a comment on this issue.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're in a dilemma. If we allow no potential control or discipline within the committee—it doesn't have to be by the chairman; it could be by the whole committee—it is conceivable in the future that a dissenting opinion may be as long or longer than the actual majority opinion.

• 1150

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It happened in the past when the Liberals were—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Will the committee then allow such a thing to happen? I disagree, particularly because, in the past, dissenting opinions had been presented without examination by the committee members. At the same time, the majority report had been examined even by the dissenters. So there is a non-equal, unlevel playing field in the production of the dissenting report. In other words, you could put forth a—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No report...

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: —rebuttal for every point the majority has undertaken, but if there is a factual error, the majority could not then rebut thereafter. There therefore has to be a discipline now. I may not want it to be by the chair, but at least by the committee at large.

That would be my submission on this point.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I don't have anything on this point.

[Translation]

The Chairman: André, your name is on the list, but I had not foreseen that you would be intervening on this issue.

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): With respect to this issue, Mr. Chairman, I tend to have confidence in the members expressing their dissent. I think that we have to have confidence in the intelligence of the dissenting members. They are certainly not going to publish a 2,500-page report. They are very aware of the fact that the words used to express clear ideas usually come quite easily and that you don't need a lot of words to do this. I would tend to support the opinion expressed by my colleague, Mr. Bergeron on this amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Ken Epp, on the same subject.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I guess what we are talking about here is basically freedom of speech. The fear is that these joint chairmen—it's interesting that we should use “chairmen” here—would then have really the right to censure.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Not for long, Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: No, I'm sure we'll have to change the wording there. I notice that the word “chairmen” is used throughout this report, and it's inappropriate.

Anyway, they should not have the right to censure a minority report. The purpose of the minority report is to draw attention to a perceived shortcoming of the main report, and I don't think it should be up to the people who are chairing the committee to decide this. Perhaps a compromise would be to just say, “in the opinion of the committee”. I think we might go along with that, or we might just even take that part out and say, “provided that it is brief and relevant”. At least there is then a position there for the committee to be able to challenge the report if it is too long.

The Chairman: I think we should try to solve this now.

Stéphane, would you care to propose a motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: I hope you've given thought to the various suggestions. One possibility is that it be phrased so that the committee has some say. That's Mr. Pagtakhan's point of view, and there are some others.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to comment on what was said by Mr. Pagtakhan, for whom I have a great deal of respect. I feel that it is not up to the committee to comment on dissenting opinions, because the people who express dissenting opinions do so because they disagree with the other members of the committee. They are not going to submit their disapproval for committee approval. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Take the example of the report submitted by the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy. What you have to understand is that we were, on the whole, in agreement with the report in general, but that we had dissenting opinions with respect to certain specific points. We simply expressed our dissenting opinions on the points where we were not in agreement. However, on the whole, we agreed with the various provisions contained in the report. I would never agree to give the committee the authority to rule on the relevance of my dissenting opinion. If I am a dissenting member, I do not want to submit my opinion to the committee members for approval. It's precisely because I am not in agreement that I am presenting this opinion.

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I move...

[English]

The Chairman: Could I just ask Mr. Marleau one question before you do that, Stéphane?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, by all means.

[English]

The Chairman: I'm assuming that the motion is going to be that we delete in A4(1) everything from, “provided that in the opinion of the joint” to the word “report”. Mr. Marleau, would you care to comment on that? It seems to me that it brings it in line with the standing orders for the committees in the House.

• 1155

Mr. Robert Marleau: Well, yes, it would. As I said, in terms of the first proposal, those words were added by the informal committee, and we didn't want to debate that or pull it out. But if you do that you'll bring it in line with Standing Order 108(1)(a) of the House.

[Translation]

I'm going to make a comment, because it is not my place to debate the matter with Mr. Bergeron. The sentence begins with: "Standing Joint Committees shall be severally empowered to", just as we suggest in clause A4(1).

Essentially, the committee decides whether or not to append a dissenting opinion to the report. It is the committee as a whole that controls the document.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If I may, I would like to comment on this comment. It is true that it is up to the committee to decide whether or not to authorize appending a report or a dissenting opinion. However, according to my interpretation—and seeing as I am not a legal expert, I may be completely wrong—the committee is not authorized to give an opinion on the opinion. The committee is simply authorized to decide whether or not we are going to be appending this opinion.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau, do you want to comment on the comment on your comment?

Mr. Mac Harb: That's a very good comment, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's a minority report on a minority report on a majority report.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Marleau: I will respond briefly by saying that this is part of the committee's debate.

[English]

The Chairman: My sense is to ask for a motion.

Stéphane.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'll move it.

The Chairman: I don't mind who moves it.

Mr. Ken Epp: I don't either, but since he's not doing it, I'll move that we delete—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I was going to do it.

The Chairman: He was going to do it.

Mr. Ken Epp: If he wants to move it, he can do it. Go ahead.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I was ready to do it, but the chairman did it instead, and that was fine by me.

The Chairman: No, I didn't. I simply—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So moved by the chairman and then moved by me, I would like to put an end to “members” and delete the rest of the sentence.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron moves that the—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We will delete the rest of the sentence, which states: "in the opinion of the joint Chairmen, it is both brief and relevant to the report". And we will continue, stating: "Except when..." and so on and so forth.

[English]

The Chairman: In my sense, the deletion begins with “provided that” and ends with “report”. Would someone read that carefully without that? Otherwise, I wonder whether “committee members...and, except when the House” still works.

[Translation]

Is that all right, Stéphane?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm not sure that I've really grasped this properly, but after all...

[English]

The Chairman: You had something on the motion, Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I would like to move an amendment—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We will begin with...

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: —to restore the phrase, in a sense, but to change the words “joint chairmen” to “by committee”.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I move that we deal with my motion and then we can determine whether or not Mr. Pagtakhan's motion is relevant, if need be. Right now it seems to me that we have a motion on the floor and that we have to deal with it. We can see what happens after that.

[English]

The Chairman: Rey, my thought is that we would proceed with the vote here and then return to you.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I am sympathetic to part of the amendment as introduced by the Bloc, Mr. Chair, but I'm not completely sympathetic to the whole idea. That is therefore the very basis for an amendment to the motion. In other words, I may want the relevancy not determined by the joint chairmen, but I may want the brevity and relevancy determined by the committee. I am even prepared to delete “relevancy”, Mr. Chair. I'm persuaded by your argument that it is very difficult for a committee to decide on the relevancy of a dissenting opinion—and that follows on the expression of Mr. Epp as well. But this concerns “brevity”. I would like “brevity” to be there, to be disciplined or under the control of the committee. Otherwise, it can be a report that is completely too much in length, and it could be a political pamphlet that will then be copied and published in two official languages. So I disagree....

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall and then Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: On the motion, I'm inclined to agree with where I think Dr. Pagtakhan is heading.

• 1200

To me the problem is saying that the co-chairs can decide whether there will be a report or not. We don't even have to say the committee has to decide. But I think it's appropriate for the standing orders to say a minority report should be both brief and relevant. If we just take out the words “in the opinion of the joint chairmen”, then the standing order simply says that a minority report may be included provided it is both brief and relevant to the report. I think that is just defining what a minority report is.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Dalphond-Guiral.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I would like to ask a question. Do the Standing Orders describe, at some point, the criteria to be followed when drafting a report? It seems to me that a majority report should be drafted according to the same rules that apply to a minority report, be they rules applying to clarity, succinctness or whatever.

If indeed there are some rules describing how the reports have to be drafted, I think that the same rules should apply to a minority report. If there aren't any, let's strike a committee to establish the rules!

[English]

The Chairman: Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp: I think we're dealing with two different things here. One is the whole question of what the dissenting report should be like. The second one is who it is who decides whether the dissenting report meets those criteria.

I have no problem with a dissenting report needing to be brief and relevant to the report. That seems reasonable to me. It should not be a quorum or a venue for a dissenter to talk about a whole bunch of things that are not relevant to the report itself. So for us to include those words would not be objectionable to me.

However, under the general practice around here, that is done. That is followed.

I think just to delete that line and a few words in the original motion is sufficient. But to compromise and get this show on the road, I would certainly go along with it, provided that it's both brief and relevant to the report.

The Chairman: John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr. Chair, I'm not sure why this was inserted, but perhaps the clerk could elucidate the issue by informing us about the average length of a dissenting report in his experience in the House of Commons and in the Senate. On average, have they been brief and relevant, or have they not?

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I would say on average they are brief. The question of relevance is a hard one for anyone to comment on, because you can have a comment that is totally irrelevant to the content of the report but it may have been relevant to issues discussed by the committee.

However, I just want to make a point of clarification. The standing order is very specific. It goes back to the McGrath committee, which brought in this recommendation. I know it's a common misconception.

These are not minority reports. They are dissenting opinions and dissenting recommendations in the context of a majority committee report. That is why the speaker, in the case of the foreign affairs committee, ruled that they had to be in one volume; that they were not standalone provisions, which could lead to the dissenting opinion never being seen if they are printed separately and stand alone as a minority report.

I don't do this to correct you, Mr. Solomon, or any of the members who use that, because it's a common misnomer. You read it in the media. It's a perception that it's a minority position, but it's a minority opinion. It may even be a dissenting opinion, and maybe an excluded opinion. But it forms part of a whole, which is the majority committee report, in which the committee has authorized the publication of the dissenting opinions after the signature of the chair.

Why after the signature of the chair? So there will be no confusion in the minds of people once the report is concurred in by the House that indeed what has been adopted is the majority portion of that document and not the dissenting opinions.

I just wanted to make that point of clarification.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Chair, I've not personally written my dissenting report. I know some of my caucus colleagues have. Normally they are written by the individual member of the committee, perhaps with the assistance of that member's staff person. Most of them are handwritten and fleshed out afterwards by the staffer.

• 1205

In my recollection, those dissenting reports have been very brief. If you have a 1,000-page report, what is brief? I guess less than 1,000 pages. But if you have a 100-page report, obviously a dissenting report would be a fraction of that.

I do agree with Stéphane's unhappiness with “in the opinion of the joint chairmen”, but certainly that it's brief and relevant I would find acceptable, maybe as a standalone in there. But I do think we should delete the reference to “chairpersons”.

The Chairman: Stéphane, briefly.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, briefly, Mr. Chairman. What is meant by brief, exactly?

You know, I am a little bit stymied by the current debate because I don't understand my colleagues' opposition to my motion.

The House Standing Orders does not make any mention of a decision made by I don't know whom about a report being brief and relevant, and yet no one feels any the worse for it. No one wants to raise this issue and say that we should put some provision in the House Standing Orders that will allow us to rule on the relevance and on the succinctness of a report. No, no one is making such a request. It appears that the House Standing Orders suit everybody.

However, in the case of a joint committee, we have to include something about brevity and relevance. Is it essential that we include, in the case of joint committees, a provision pertaining to brevity and relevance because we have such a poor opinion of our senators? If we hold our senators in high esteem, there is no reason for including a provision pertaining to brevity and relevance in a standing order on joint committees. Consequently, I am in favour of deleting this provision which, in my opinion, is quite superfluous and refers to the judgment of unknown parties. If the joint chairmen don't decide on brevity and relevance, somebody else certainly will.

If I have a dissenting opinion, I don't want anybody else to be able to give an opinion on this opinion, because it is dissenting. I am certainly not going to submit it to the majority.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, Stéphane makes the point, and rightfully so, that in the House of Commons right now there are standing committees, as I understand from the clerk and Mr. Montpetit, where in fact this wording does not exist.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Marleau: Mr. Bergeron is half right, since it stipulates "a brief statement", but does not talk about relevance. In answer to Mr. Solomon's question, I pointed out that the issue of relevance became contentious when debating a dissenting opinion. It's up to you to decide the matter.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Do the Senate Standing Orders talk about this?

[English]

Does the Senate comment anywhere on...?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Marleau: I am no expert when it comes to the Senate Standing Orders, but I think that the concept of a dissenting opinion to a majority report does not exist in the Senate.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I am therefore in complete agreement that we should delete this part of the wording. It would not be acceptable to place this in the hands of vice chairmen. Who will rule on our relevance? So let's stop at the word "brief". Should we start debating this word as well? I am quite prepared to set all of this aside and to support Mr. Bergeron's motion. If we have to come back to this at another time, if we get burned, as we say,

[English]

if we get burnt, we'll come back and.... But I think I would rather start in a spirit of generosity and openness and transparency and give ourselves a chance, in working with our colleagues from the other chamber, with the broadest terms possible.

I would support Mr. Bergeron's motion.

The Chairman: Colleagues, the motion that is proposed returns us more or less to the rules for standing committees in the House, but I do sense some interest in the brevity part. One possibility would be to delete the item that is here and insert—this is in English, Stéphane, I'm afraid—the word “brief” before “appendix” in the third line. So it would read “to print a brief”—it wouldn't be “an”, it would be “a”—“brief appendix in any report”. Then it would proceed as Stéphane has indicated.

• 1210

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I will not get into a long debate about brevity. I don't even know when the word "brief" was added to the House Standing Orders. I do recall, however, Mr. Chairman, that this word did exist in the precedents that we wanted to use at the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy. In our arsenal of arguments, we had the example of a House of Commons report where the dissenting opinion, produced by the Liberal opposition of the day, was far superior.

So let's talk about being brief, Mr. Chairman. When was the concept or notion of being brief incorporated into the standing orders of the House? I haven't a clue. But I consider that, in the spirit of our work to date—both in this still-young Parliament and in the preceding one—there are few instances where parliamentarians, regardless of political stripe, genuinely exaggerated.

I will defer to the very wise remarks made by my colleague, the chief government whip, and keep strictly to the motion I have put before you.

[English]

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Stéphane.

Mr. Ken Epp: May I say something before we start? I'm just wondering about the process here. We're talking about all of his problems with it, then all of his.... We keep going back and forth. Couldn't we go through the thing methodically from—

The Chairman: Ken, what I tried to do was to go through the problem paragraphs, the problems that were identified in our debate the last time. We were doing that, and I think Stéphane was responding to that. But I'm quite willing—

Mr. Ken Epp: But we started in the middle of the report.

The Chairman: That's because with most of these paragraphs from our chart, the chart on which we had the debate the last time, there was no change. There was no discussion.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay. But if since then we have identified areas we would just like bring to the attention of the committee, wouldn't it make more sense just to go through it methodically?

The Chairman: It might. I had thought if we could deal with the paragraphs we had had some discussion about the last time, Ken, it would help us. That was all.

Mr. Mac Harb: I have a point of order. I hope to God we don't again go one point at a time in our report, because we did that the last time—

The Chairman: The strategy I'm on now is to deal with things—

Mr. Mac Harb: I just want to point out that individual members have various concerns.

The second thing, Mr. Chair, is that I hope today we will put a motion in order to send it wherever it's going to go, because it's going to come back to us after the Senate has had a chance to look at it. We can then have another opportunity to kick the can. But if we don't move it out of this place today, it isn't going to move for quite some time.

The Chairman: I hope and pray we will move it out of this place today.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My comment is about the need for clarification on the first paragraph, 104, at the end, in light of what Mr. Marleau indicated, that when we consider a joint committee, for example on parliamentary services, security, etc., the Senate sometimes has difficulty in trying to assert its independence on the issue of the membership of the joint committee. One suggestion I would make is instead of the House constituting twice as much as the Senate in membership, if one were to safeguard the so-called independence of each House, an equal membership might be one solution. I propose it to you.

On A1(3), I just wanted to be sure the rule is clear that following transmission of an amendment made by the House or by the Senate...is that the end of the process? When will the effectivity of that amendment take place? Is it following reconciliation with the House or the Senate, or is it pending, or is it immediately effective unless rescinded by the House or the Senate following transmittal?

• 1215

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau, could you respond?

It seems to me the first point deals with 104(3)(a)—right? You heard the last two.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The first point, on membership, is something that has been around for a long time, that the Senate has asked in previous messages to the House for equal membership on joint committees. That is a political decision; that is yours to make. You might consider it for one, the one on Parliament, and not for the others. That's an option you might consider.

On the latter point, a resolution would come forward from one of the two Houses, sending a message to the other House, acquainting them with the desire to join them in this venture. That being adopted, say, in the House of Commons and the message going back to the Senate, saying that, yes, we agree, at that moment would make the new rules simultaneously effective in both Houses.

The Chairman: Your very first point, Jamie, on services.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): Currently the Standing Committee on the Library of Parliament exists, as well as official languages and scrutiny of regulations. Under this proposal, there would be the Standing Committee on Parliament, which would incorporate the Library of Parliament committee, as well as the other issues raised by Mr. Marleau—security, printing, restaurant, food services, and so forth. So this has been prepared on the basis that there would be a joint committee on Parliament.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Two more points.

You used the word “voices”. Is that precisely a replacement for votes?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay.

The last point is on A14. Is it really the intent that it has to be either/or of the Houses, or should it be both?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I pondered that point last night and wondered why our drafters might have said “or” and not “and”.

I've come to the conclusion that if the witness is a member of the House of Commons, it should be the sole purview of the House of Commons to deal with that disorder, or the summons, as it would be if the witness was a senator. It should be that House that disciplines its own members.

So I think the “or” is safer. It does not exclude that both Houses could act simultaneously, but it does allow, if a witness is Senate-dependent, to have that House deal with it, as it would be for the House of Commons.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Could it be the other way around?

Mr. Robert Marleau: The Senate has no authority to deal with the discipline of a member of the House of Commons, and vice versa. The wording as expressed might imply that. Our long-standing practice, traditions, and conventions are that we let each House deal with their own membership.

The same applies, for instance, in another question of order. Let's say that a senator at a joint meeting will cause a grave disorder and disregard the chair. It would be for the joint committee to report to the Senate to discipline that senator, rather than have a debate on the floor of the House of Commons about the conduct of a senator, and vice versa.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Is A14 about refusal to attend a meeting?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes. The witness could be a senator.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The witness could be a member.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I have no problem with what you have explained as convention. Because it is subject to an alternative interpretation, is there any way to make that convention clear in the provision?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I think what it does is allow one House to act by itself, without the bicameral agreement.

It could be that a witness is on the staff of one House. It could be that the witness before the committee is being requested by the House of Commons and in matters only to the House of Commons side and the Senate wants to take a sort of standby role and not be implicated. It would still allow one of the Houses to go ahead and deal with that matter.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm satisfied, Mr. Chair.

• 1220

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I just wanted to verify something. In A2 you have “both Houses may, from time to time, refer any matter to...”. Did you mean both, or either, and why? Is there any reason that's not “either House”?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Generally the orders of reference to joint committees are agreed to by both Houses, and we followed that practice. It would be difficult, I think, to allow one House to refer certain matters and not the other. Then senators would be seized of matters the Senate hasn't sanctioned, or vice versa.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, okay.

Finally, Mr. Chair, on the eve of the new millennium, I can't believe I get a report before me that refers to “chairmen”. I will give you a motion if necessary, but I trust there is a consensus to change “chairman” to “chair”—

The Chairman: Do we have unanimous consent on that?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: —wherever it appears, and—

An hon. member: “Chairperson.”

The Chairman: “Chair”.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: In the French version, we would replace the word "le président" by the term "la présidence".

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau, I'm advised the standing orders still use the word “chairman”. Does this—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We'll deal with that later.

The Chairman: Okay.

Do we have unanimous consent for Marlene's suggestion? We do.

Colleagues, at Ken Epp's request, I would like to go through the items we have before us. I would like to say to you all, though, we've had a thorough debate. The table and our debate on it were very detailed. There has been discussion between ourselves and the Senate. I think we've gone through these things well.

But Ken, I'm not going to call rounds, I'm going to call these items. Is that okay with you?

Mr. Ken Epp: Yes, that's fine.

The Chairman: We're starting from the first page, 104(3).

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, before we go ahead with our clause-by clause review, I would like to know when we will have an opportunity to put forward questions or comments that go beyond the Standing Orders before us. For example, if I have some concern that does not appear in the Standing Orders here, when should I put them forward?

An hon. member: At the end.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: At the end?

The Chairman: Yes, it would be better that you put them forward at the end.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. It's 104(3).

Mr. Ken Epp: This is interesting. We had a comment that there should be equal representation from the Senate and from the House of Commons. My comment is on the other end of this. Instead of having twice as many members from the House, based on the proportion of members in those Houses, we should have three times as many.

I don't know whether there's any willingness on the part of this committee to revise that, but I think as a bargaining position with the Senate we should go into the bargaining with three times as many. Then maybe they will accept.... When the Senate sees this report, they might push for twice as many. Then we'll get what we want. Otherwise, if we start with twice as many, we're going to land up with one. It's a negotiating tactic.

The Chairman: Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Rather than take a negotiating tactic, as suggested by my colleague Mr. Epp....

Ken, I would respectfully submit a differing view, one moving in the other direction. I think many times there has been a long-standing...I won't say feud, but lack of cooperation and trust between the two chambers. I wonder if an opportunity isn't presenting itself here whereby, particularly in the group under “(a) Parliament”, particularly if we are serious and committed to engaging in meaningful discussions with our colleagues from the other chamber in the area of food services, printing, security, and so on, we should in fact consider for just that group, the Parliament group, being on an equal footing with them.

The Chairman: As chair, Ken, I would only say we're not beginning negotiations, we're well on the way, and people have been on this route before and didn't get anywhere.

Mr. Ken Epp: But I'm contending that when this report from our House goes to the Senate, they are going to come back with “these are things we want to change”. I would rather have them change from three times as many to two than from two to one, until those suckers—oops, I take it back—until they are elected.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Senators, you meant.

Mr. Ken Epp: Really, there's a large public sentiment against the unelected Senate, and I think we ought to respect that.

• 1225

The Chairman: Ken, the Senate committee, our equivalents, have discussed this table in exactly the same way as we have. They are not seeing this for the first time.

Mr. Ken Epp: I then give notice here that I'm not going to sit very quietly if it comes back with anything less than twice.

The Chairman: That is your prerogative.

Mr. Ken Epp: The other question I have is that apparently this was not indicated in the time of the building of the big chart. Where does the number twice come from?

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I sat on a joint committee for two years and the practice was there. How we set it up was from the practice before. It was all past practice.

Mr. Ken Epp: I thought it was three times.

Mr. John Richardson: No, it wasn't. On the joint committee on defence when we reviewed the armed forces we had 2:1.

Mr. Ken Epp: It seems to me on the joint committee on ethics we had 3:1. We didn't?

Mr. James Robertson: No.

Mr. Ken Epp: I rest on that one.

The Chairman: Okay, A1; A2.... This is for comments.

Mr. Ken Epp: On A2(b), I think it would be appropriate for us there to consider very carefully including the word “estimates”:

...review and report on official languages policies, estimates, programs, including Reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages....

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The referral of estimates is a House of Commons prerogative. If you put it in a joint set of rules you are—

The Chairman: You give it up.

Mr. Ken Epp: The problem is this is a joint committee. If Parliament gives the consent for them to spend the money...and we don't have the prerogative to determine Senate spending.

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, but they don't have the prerogative to determine House spending.

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The referral of estimates upon tabling in the House...are referred against the chart of committees we have. We actually adjust them in Journals, because from time to time you modify the committees. But the estimates go to the official languages joint committee.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, but who authorizes it? It's a joint committee. Does the Senate authorize the spending of that committee or does the House of Commons?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No, the House of Commons.

The spending of the committee.... I don't understand what you mean by “the spending of that committee”. The estimates of the Commissioner of Official Languages are referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages on tabling in the House of Commons. We've had no problems on the Senate side. It has never been questioned by practice. They haven't challenged it. They haven't asked for an equal motion to be passed in the Senate, because they can't.

Mr. Ken Epp: Has the estimate ever been reduced by Parliament?

Mr. Robert Marleau: On official languages, I don't think so.

Mr. Ken Epp: I've made my point.

The Chairman: A3, A4, A5, A6, A7—

Mr. Mac Harb: Carried.

Mr. Ken Epp: Hold it. On A6, the chairing of the meetings—

The Chairman: We voted on that the last time, Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: You did vote on that, and we did discuss it.

The Chairman: Yes. We literally voted on it. We didn't vote on everything, but we voted on that one.

Mr. Ken Epp: We'll leave it, then.

The Chairman: A7, A8, A9, A10.

Mr. Mac Harb: Carried.

The Chairman: They are not being carried, Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: No. He can say that if he wants to.

The Chairman: I know he can. It's all right as long as you understand what he is saying.

A10, A11, A12....

Mr. Ken Epp: About A12, on pecuniary interest, the question here is how is that determined? Our code of ethics never did finish its work. If you have a joint committee and you can't have a direct pecuniary interest, how do you find out about it? Should we have in here a clause that says the member must declare his pecuniary interest in advance?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Now we are back to the whole code of ethics thing again. Let's deal with it in the code of ethics—

The Chairman: In my understanding, Ken, this is exactly the same as the current standing order. In the discussion we had the last time, because the Senate thing was more verbose, we wanted it to be reduced to a single paragraph, and the single paragraph it's reduced to is the paragraph in our own standing orders. Is that right?

• 1230

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, sir.

Mr. Ken Epp: Okay, but what you're saying is that a member of this joint committee can have a direct pecuniary interest but that if he keeps it a secret he's okay.

The Chairman: That's the way we operate now.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, I will disagree with that interpretation. It says it challenges us to a code of honour, written or unwritten. If it is discovered in the future that you participated before the committee in a matter in which you had a pecuniary interest, you're held before the court of public opinion. This is a call to ethics, in your own sense, without your having to declare it. I believe in the honourableness of members of Parliament, so I can live with this provision.

Mr. Ken Epp: Well, good for you. A lot of people wouldn't.

The Chairman: Next are A13, A14, A15, A16, A17.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Would someone care to move the proposed motion?

Mr. Mac Harb: I move that the draft report as amended as our standing orders for joint committees be adopted as the committee's 22nd report—

[Translation]

The Chairman: One moment please. Forgive me.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have some questions on considerations that do not come up in the Standing Orders.

On the subject of dissenting opinions, standing order A4 states that: "Standing Joint Committees shall be severally empowered..." and so on. Does this provision also apply to special joint committee reports? Is there a provision here providing for dissenting opinions in special joint committees?

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Let's take a look at standing order A1:

A1. (1) Standing Rules and Orders A1 to A17 shall apply to all standing and special joint committees, unless otherwise ordered by the Senate and the House of Commons.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excellent.

Mr. Robert Marleau: This means that, when you establish a special joint committee, you can remove some of the provisions in the specific order of reference. If no such removal is specified in the order of reference, the entire standing order will apply.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It applies. Good. That was my first question.

Here is my second question: Is there any provision in this document—I have read it, and I can't find it—stipulating that the Standing Orders of the House take precedence in the event of a conflict?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No. In my opening remarks, I pointed out that this document could not be used to resolve a conflict satisfactorily, if there was no agreement within the committee.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, is it too late to suggest something? Unless I am mistaken, I think that in the grid we have here, there is a provision specifying that the Standing Orders of the House will apply in the event there is no... Is that provision in the grid, or is it among the motions put forward by Mr. Robertson? I think there was some provision stipulating that, in the event of conflict or lack or regulation, the Standing Orders of the House would take precedence. Is this my imagination, Mr. Robertson, or was there a provision to that effect?

The Chairman: James Robertson.

Mr. James Robertson: One moment, please.

[English]

I can't find it here offhand. The original proposal was that if there was a problem in a joint committee, the rules of the House that initiated the joint committee would apply. That is satisfactory for special committees, which are initiated by one chamber. It is not appropriate for a standing committee, which is initiated at the same time by both chambers in their standing orders or rules. I think in the drafting it was felt that a generic clause such as is found in A1(2) would be the best way of dealing with it.

In the case of a special committee, the order of reference establishing it could make an alternative provision that in the event of a disagreement the rules of the House of Commons would apply.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I know that the question was not put to you, Mr. Marleau, but if you wish to put forward an opinion, I would be very happy to hear it. Could the committee move that the Standing Orders of the House would apply in cases that have not been provided for?

• 1235

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: I want to go back to a question Mr. Epp raised.

When we talk about the membership, already two-thirds of the members are members of the House of Commons. I presume that when there's a question before the committee there's going to be a vote on it. So whatever the committee vote on, if they vote in one way or another, there's always going to be a decision made by the committee.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Sometimes it's too late. This is what happened in 1994

[Translation]

when the issue of printing the report in two volumes was raised. The Speaker of the House ruled that this was not in line with the spirit of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. But when the same issue was raised in the Senate, the Speaker of the Senate felt that it was not really a problem. Frequently, the problem arises after the report has been tabled and the committee dissolved. So a vote by two thirds of committee members is no longer applicable.

I would therefore like to see some provision stipulating that, in the event of conflict or unprovided cases, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons will apply. Those are the rules that should apply, because they are the rules of the elected chamber of Parliament.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau, a comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Marleau: But then the issue becomes a political one: would the Senate agree to be subject to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons? I don't think you can solve the problem this way.

If this is how you formulate your provision, we can presume that the Speaker of the Senate will also have discretion to decide whether the Standing Orders of the House of Commons will apply or not apply. If the Senate Speaker decides they do not apply, while our Speaker decides that they do apply, we will be back at square one.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But we are not giving that discretion, Mr. Marleau. In assuming that the Senate will accept what we send, I would move that, in the event of a conflict or unprovided cases, the Standing Orders of the House take precedence. And if that were so, if the Standing Orders of the House had to be accepted by both chambers, the Senate Speaker could not issue another opinion or rule that...

Mr. Robert Marleau: If you have to rule on a conflict, someone will have to interpret the Standing Order provision you have just referred to, regardless of its actual wording. I presume the Senate Speaker will interpret it, and if his interpretation of its wording is not the same as ours, we will be back at square one.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So how do we solve the problem?

Mr. Robert Marleau: This is what I was saying earlier: as long as the two Speakers do not have the same authority... We could talk about a rule stipulating that the sort of situation you are concerned about will be submitted to both Speakers, who will rule on the issue jointly. In other words, there would be a joint ruling. That's what you end up with.

But since a ruling by the Senate Speaker can be appealed by the entire Senate, both Speakers are not on a level playing field, at least in terms of procedure. This is why I have been unable to come up with a formula that can be used to settle future conflicts in a way everyone is happy with.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So we can't say that a decision by the Speaker of the House of Commons will take precedence over a decision by the Speaker of the Senate.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That will take you into a constitutional conflict. You would need to amend the Constitution.

[English]

The Chairman: My instinct is to call the question. Let me say again that the paragraph we have here in A12 is the result of discussion, negotiation, the debate we had the last time. It incorporates as well as we can, in the basis of negotiation with the Senate, the powers of the House of Commons.

Mr. Mac Harb: Put the motion.

The Chairman: Would you read the motion?

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, Mr. Chair.

We put a motion to put the question, so I presume you can still raise, under other business, all of those points you want.

The motion reads:

That, the draft report (as amended) on Standing Orders for Joint Committees be adopted as the Committee's 22nd report to the House and that the Chair present the report to the House [of Commons].

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have another question on the problem we experienced in 1994. Is there any provision in the Standing Orders that could be used to settle an issue like the one that came up in 1994? The whole point of this exercise—which we have been carrying out for some days now and which is taking up a great deal of time, so much time that some of us are extremely hungry right now, so much time that we have spent a great many hours discussing nothing else—was to deal with the problem that arose in 1994.

• 1240

If I understand correctly, there is nothing in here that would prevent us from finding ourselves in exactly the same situation that arose in 1994. So this exercise is...

Mr. Robert Marleau: There is nothing that would make it possible to settle a conflict perfectly. Paragraph A1(2) is a small step forward, giving the committee the opportunity to choose the procedures and practices of either house. In other words, if a provision in the rules of the Senate suits the committee, the committee can choose to apply it. If the committee feels that a provision of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons will best solve a procedural conflict, it can apply that. The committee can apply the rules of either chamber, without being bound by both.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'll come back to what I was saying to Mr. Harb a few moments ago. The problem we had in 1994 came up after the committee had been dissolved. The committee no longer existed; it had tabled its report, and we were simply faced with an accomplished fact decided by the two joint Chairs.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So the committee could not chose between one set of rules and the other. All committee members— senators and members of the House of Commons—were faced with an accomplished fact.

Mr. Robert Marleau: But paragraph A1(2) provides guidance for the committee while it exists. Anything that happens after the committee is dissolved must be interpreted by the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Speaker of the Senate. And that is where the conflict cannot be settled without amending the Constitution.

[English]

The Chairman: We have the motion.

Mr. Ken Epp: Just a minute. Which motion are we talking about?

The Chairman: This is the motion that Mac Harb put, the one that's before you.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The motion is to go and have lunch.

Mr. Ken Epp: So you are reporting it to the House?

The Chairman: We're going to report it to the House.

Mr. Ken Epp: Is that preferable to giving it to the Senate first?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: There was a suggestion from the clerk, I think, that we adopt it in principle.

The Chairman: No, it wasn't from the clerk; it was from me. I think we should adopt it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

The Chairman: Then, by the way, Ken, to address the point, I think I would write a letter to the chair of the Senate committee and explain that, as they had not been able to meet on Tuesday, we have passed it and that....

You see, if they don't accept it, we'll simply bring it back and we'll have to do an amended report.

Mr. André Harvey: I'll have to make an amendment.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Will someone move the proposed motion on the chair, that the chair be authorized to pay for the reception that we discussed?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The motion with regard to the clerk of the committee being authorized to distribute submissions.

(Motion agreed to)

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Subsequent to that meeting, though, can we discuss? We're so late now that I don't want to do it right now. I'd like to come back to this. I agree to adopt it, because I think reports shouldn't be held up, but I want to be sure that we also provide—if it's not already provided—that before a submission is dealt with by the committee it has to be in both official languages.

The Chairman: I'll be glad to discuss it. We discussed it in the steering committee meeting.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can we deal with that in a subsequent—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: During that meeting of the Steering Committee, I had left the room for a few moments, but I remember that in another committee, in a previous life, we adopted a motion that was exactly the opposite of this one, Mr. Chairman. It stipulated that no document could be distributed to committee members unless it was drafted in both official languages, so that all committee members would know exactly what was being discussed at any given time.

[English]

The Chairman: My understanding is that for this committee that is the procedure that's followed. This is just in case there's something that's very urgent.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but consider this, a situation I have experienced. We often assume that all members are capable of functioning at least to some extent in the other official language. That might be true for most francophones, but is less true for some anglophones. But in some cases, members are absolutely incapable of reading the other official language. For them, reading French or English is like trying to read Chinese or German.

So when you are unable to read anything in the other official language, and you are asked to see, say, article 2 on page 4, you may have no problem finding article 2 but you have no idea what it says.

[English]

The Chairman: I understand.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think we should have this discussion. I looked at it again this morning and said, yes, but we've got to have a provision that the committee can deal with the report only when it has it in both official languages. So I'd suggest that we just defer it and come back to it.

The Chairman: I think we should. We don't have enough here. We'll defer that item.

I'd like to thank Mr. Marleau and Mr. Montpetit for appearing before us today. We really appreciate it.

On behalf of the committee, I would also like to thank Jamie Robertson and Gary O'Brien for their work on this material.

• 1245

The committee meets next Thursday, February 19, in this room at 11 a.m. The main agenda item is electronic voting and the witness will once again be Robert Marleau, Clerk of the House.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.