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, April 21, 1998

• 1118

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): I once again apologize for the slight delay. As I mentioned earlier, the previous committee finished somewhat late.

As you can see, we're here to consider two draft reports. I would suggest we proceed in the order in which they're presented. The first one has to do with the committee's mandate pursuant to Standing Orders 92 and 108(3)(a)(iv) in relation to private members' business. I think all members have before them a draft report, and I will ask Carolyn Parrish to speak to that report.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): In accordance with this mandate under Standing Order 92(1) the committee has selected from among the items for which an order of precedence was established Tuesday, March 17, 1998, the following as votable items under bills. It's Bill C-251, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act on cumulative sentences.

This is somewhat of a miracle bill, in that it was drawn twice in the last House and wasn't made votable each time, and this time it was drawn and made votable. So Ms. Guarnieri has shamrocks hanging from each ear. To get it drawn three times, it was quite amazing.

There was a different composition of the committee and different conditions on review of sentencing, so this one was made votable.

Under motion M-132, the government shall reverse the privatization of Canada student loans, reject proposals for income-contingent loan repayment, and should instead implement a federal student grant program and establish accessibility as a new national standard for post-secondary education. This one was also made votable.

• 1120

We had the opportunity of selecting three of each, and we selected only one of each. We present them today for your acceptance.

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): I was aware that the subcommittee had the opportuntiy to select three and came back with one. A number of times we've seen this subcommittee bring back votable motions and bills fewer than the current allotment provided for. We've gone from a request to have all private members' motions and bills votable to some form of selection process by the subcommittee.

The subcommittee is somehow prejudging the House of Commons when it comes back with less than the full allotment of votables. The exercise, to me, is to fill those maximum spots and let the House make its decision on whether or not these are genuinely good bills to vote for. Why are these slots not being filled, and what criteria are being used?

The Chairman: Before I go back to the chair of the subcommittee, we'll hear Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Just to continue along the same vein, I'm concerned that we have a different chair of the committee now, but with the same end result. We now have another report to table in the House with one of each.

It may be providential that Ms. Guarnieri had hers drawn three times, but it shouldn't take that. It shouldn't take an act of God to get these into the House and get them votable. Unless there's a darn good reason otherwise, we should start to move toward a full slate of these things. Otherwise, you get seven or eight motions drawn and everybody thinks “Oh goody, goody”, and then it comes back to say “Yeah, but only one of them we're going to vote on”. There are slots for three.

This will start to feed the feeling in the back benches—I guess our entire caucus could be called back bench—in the opposition and in the back bench of the government, “There's a group of people that is somehow deliberately not allowing my motions to be voted. And it's not just mine, it hardly lets anybody's be voted unless it fits some unknown criteria to this group of people. These people continue to give me the shaft.”

That's the feeling that will start to manifest itself, and I think it's already out there. Now it's no longer good enough to get drawn; there's no way of knowing why you didn't even get selected. You just go in there. It's a crap shoot, and it's not good enough. I think we have to send the message back that if you get drawn and the House doesn't like it, it can defeat it.

What we're saying now is it's not enough to get drawn; you can't get past the next post. The next post is an almost impossible job of getting a votable. I don't think that's good. We're sending a very bad message, because it wasn't just one set of bad bills or something harum-scarum about something. This is a consistent message now that it's okay to just select one, and the committee for some reason—the make-up of the committee or whatever it is—cannot get past that. That's a bad precedent and a worrisome one. I don't like what's happening.

The Chairman: There are three other speakers. Would you care to respond, or should we accumulate them?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, I'd like to respond.

I somewhat resent it being called a crap shoot, Chuck, because there are criteria. It's just like when we reviewed the whole process of how to select bills and avoid the lottery, and that's going before the House today.

Private members' business has been reviewed on an ongoing basis in a very consistent way and there are very gentle changes being taken at each review. When the bills come forward, it says you can select up to three motions, but it doesn't say you must select three.

It operates on consensus and has a set of guidelines we follow, and those are being discussed and reviewed again. As a matter of fact, we are scheduling a meeting for this Thursday morning to look at the ten criteria and see if we can loosen up and change them a little. But right now we're functioning under a set of rules that has been established for many years. Each party has a member sitting on that committee, and we operate on consensus.

If this isn't working and we want to go back to a vote system, then we have to sit down and decide as a group to change the way we do business, bring it to this committee, give our reasons for doing that, and get this committee's approval.

• 1125

We don't function like a hooded crowd in a back room making these decisions. We have criteria. We operate on consensus. Every party is represented. If you don't get consensus on the bills what happens is at any given moment five bills can be votable and five motions. Another draw will take place soon, and better bills may be drawn from that, just as a month and a half ago, when there was an excellent bill brought forward and there was no space for it and we recommended to this committee that it was votable if a space became available. We played with the rules a little bit there.

The committee itself works within a certain set of guidelines and we all cooperate rather well. But it can always be subject to review, and that is what we are doing this Thursday.

The Chairman: I have Ken Epp, Stéphane Bergeron, and Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Randy White: I asked a question and still didn't get an answer. She answered his.

The Chairman: We will come back to Carolyn Parrish. We have Ken Epp, Stéphane Bergeron, and then Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I would like to express some deep concerns I have about the committee.

It is true that we have criteria. The ones that are given to us are eleven in number. But the difficulty with them is that they do not discriminate. They don't have a scale of values. They are pretty well all gate shut or gate open. For example, if there is a private member's bill on electoral issues then it is automatically said that we cannot have that as votable, and that is one of the criteria. So if it is not on electoral issues then it is acceptable and it gets through that gate. So really what you have is a series of ten gates, and if none of them are closed then all of these motions and bills come through the other end. What criteria do we use to finally decide which of the five or seven we should select? There we have no criteria.

I taught math and computing for 31 years. I could have given my students at college an exam with the first question being what is two plus two, the second question what is three plus three, and the third question being derive the theory of relativity. All of my students would have got the first two questions and none of them would have got the third one and I wouldn't have known a thing about the relative abilities of my students. That's how I feel when we evaluate these different items as to their votability. We have a bunch of these no-go things, which basically allows most of these motions and bills to be considered because none of them are cut off on that because the people who submit private members' business are careful to make sure those criteria are met.

When we come to the other ones I added two for myself, and I ask the people when they submit these things how much interest is there among their constituents, among people across Canada, and how much interest is there among fellow parliamentarians. That is not a criterion that is given to us. But out of exasperation I finally said I want to have something I can use to evaluate whether that member's bill is valid to be made votable without just saying I agree with the content or not.

I really hate to accuse my fellow subcommittee members, but I do need to inform this committee that it is my honest evaluation based on the questions asked of members who come forward to present their case. Based on that, a lot of the members of the subcommittee are basing their decision on whether they agree with the content of the bill. I know they will vehemently deny that, but my observation, based on the questioning, is that this is what is happening. I don't think that ought to be. So I would strongly propose that we come up with a new set of criteria and a new way of voting so that members' bills and motions can be judged in a more objective fashion.

I would also like to say with respect to this—and I don't know how confidential our subcommittee work is—we have one motion selected. On my grand scheme of things, Mr. Chairman, that particular motion had the very lowest rating of all of the motions that were presented. The only reason I gave consensus to it—because as the chairperson said, we do operate on consensus—was because I would not embarrass this committee by coming back with nothing that's votable. We should have had at least three and we had only one. If I had not bent on that we would have had none, and that would have been too embarrassing.

• 1130

I think this really is a serious problem, which needs to be looked at. I would like to urge this committee to give direction to either the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business or perhaps even strike a new subcommittee that is different from that group to establish a set of criteria that will arrange these things on a spectrum of objective evaluations, or as objective as possible, as in terms of the avoidability, and to take away from this approach that I feel good about this bill or I agree with the content, so we'll vote on this and we won't on the others.

The Chairman: Next is Mr. Stéphane Bergeron, and then Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I've no intention of blaming any members of the subcommittee, in that under the current rules, I realize that subcommittee members are doing a very commendable job.

Having said this, I do have a concern which I've already raised before. Of course, situations do arise when it is impossible to fill all available spots for votable motions and bills, but this is occurring with greater frequency. Let me state my concerns briefly once again.

When our colleagues draft a bill or a motion, they do so in good faith. They devote many hours to this task and they put their heart and soul into it, convinced that their motion is an excellent motion or that their bill is an excellent bill, one which deserves not only to be considered by the House, but also to be voted on.

It is terribly demoralizing for members to draft motions and bills when they have the feeling that their colleagues, their peers, are making a value judgment by deeming that only those motions or bills likely to result in an interesting debate in the House of Commons, as was mentioned earlier, will be selected, under the current rules.

When only two motions and a bill, or a motion and two bills are selected, and when only three spots are available and my bill is not selected, the message that I am getting is that my bill is not interesting enough or does not generate enough interest to be selected as a votable item. Therefore, why should I bother working so hard when my colleagues, my peers, believe my work is not relevant? In my opinion, subcommittee members often unwittingly send out a depressing or demoralizing message to those who draft motions and bills when they select only two of three items and a particular item is not selected. In some respects, these members feel they are being told that their bill is not important enough to be selected as a votable bill or motion. This can have a demoralizing effect on members who wish to take part in the debate process by moving motions or bills.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll go to Rey Pagtakhan first, then briefly to Randy White, and then back to Carolyn Parrish, if that's okay.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Regrettably, it was only recently that we looked into this process. Guidelines were set, if not during the last days of the last Parliament, in the early days of this new Parliament. There was an agreement passed by this committee. All members here were on that committee, and now there is again a claim for a review of the process.

I am not necessarily against a review of the process, but let us remember that no process is perfect. The more criteria we adopt, by the nature of this place, the more debate there will be, because then each criterion will be debatable in terms of value. That is the reality we are facing in this place.

So when you look back in the history of private members' bills, the question of what ought to be there, to me statistically one of the best means of giving equal chances to all would be by lottery, unless there is any piece of paper that is weighted more than others. If you go by luck of the draw, then really, statistically, it is based on the principle of equal chances for all. In that case, we assume that each one has a value on its own.

So if we ever go again for a review of the process, let us shy away from making many criteria, because each of the criteria becomes debatable in terms of volume.

The Chairman: Randy White, and then Carolyn Parrish.

• 1135

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chair, as I did before, to explain perhaps to this committee. I'm looking at the motions aspect with private members. Could we turn to that, please?

I perhaps could see a bit of a difference if it were legislation, a bill, that could affect—I know the criteria, as I was on the committee myself—certain legislation. But if you look at these motions here, I cannot for the life of me see why a subcommittee cannot agree with a motion that says that the government shall withdraw all funding from the federal court challenges program. Like it or not, leave it to the members of the House to determine whether that's a good idea.

Look at the one by Mr. MacKay:

The last Sunday of September should be formally recognized from this year forth as “The Police and Peace Officer National Memorial Day”....

We may not agree with that, but it's a motion. Why can't that be votable? Why can't we take this to the House and let our members decide on it? What's with the subcommittee that it can't decide out of all these motions here that three of them should be votable? These are really not earth-shattering motions, but there's some decent material in there to debate. So what are we waiting for?

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: As I said, on Thursday we're sitting down again. We've reviewed one process. Both the 35th and 36th Parliaments have endorsed it.

The argument we seem to be fighting about again here is that we should make everything votable. That was one of the proposals that went to the committee in the last Parliament. It was looked at again in this Parliament—

A voice: No, that's not the case.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: —and the committee decided not to do that.

Now if you want that revisited, we'll look at it again. As far as the criteria are concerned, we've already decided it needs to be looked at again, and the process of consensus needs to be looked at again.

When the committee was expanded to five parties, the whole tenor of the committee changed. I sat on the committee through both sessions. In the last session we had very little disagreement. We used to come through with our recommendations, and there were no discussions at that point. It worked well because there were only three parties represented. We expanded to five, four of which are in opposition. So we're having, I think, a little bit more difficulty arriving at a consensus.

So the two subjects for discussion at this Thursday's meeting—we're chairing it for a couple of hours over lunch—is to look at the criteria, look at the concept of consensus, and if you want, we'll look again at the concept of giving every single bill votability. This will cut down the number of bills going through the House considerably. It will make my job a lot easier.

If you want us to rehash this for a third time, we'll do it. I'm very open to anything that will make the committee work better.

I would also like to put on the agenda for Thursday morning the concept of having six sitting members on the committee. My personal opinion, after sitting on it for four years, is that it's not working. I think we need to look at having three core members, with the third one rotating.

I would like to add all this to the agenda for Thursday morning. We'll have a look at it and report back to this committee as to what we're coming up with.

This has been a stumbling block since we had four opposition members on the committee and two Liberals. It's hitting a roadblock every time we do it. It worked well last time; it's not working this time. I would do anything to make the job easier and to make everybody feel as though they're getting a fair shake.

As far as the criteria are concerned, they have nothing to do with whether we do or don't like a bill or whether we are or aren't going to vote for a bill. I don't remember anybody ever saying that during those deliberations.

What happens is this. For example, I'll use Ms. Guarnieri's bill. The last two times it came forward in the last Parliament, the whole system of sentencing was being reviewed by the justice committee at the time. One of the criteria is that while it's being reviewed by government legislation, a private member's bill does not fit the criteria. It is not being reviewed at this time; therefore, that roadblock is removed from it.

It's a very mechanical process. But in the very end, there are five or six people in that room—I don't vote as chairman—who select their choices. We debate those choices, and we come to a consensus.

Now if you want us to change the way we operate the committee, I would be more than pleased to look at that. We already have a three-hour meeting scheduled for Thursday morning. We'll come back with our recommendations. Then this committee will look at our deliberations again, just as they did with the last report that came through.

The Chairman: In the light of those comments and the discussion, and the fact that we're in the middle of a full-day debate on the standing orders, I'd like to bring this to a conclusion.

Randy White, very briefly, if you could.

• 1140

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, we all want this to work. There's no question about that. To my mind, it's not a matter of looking to have all of the bills and motions votable, but we certainly do expect the number of vacant slots for votability to be filled—and there is a difference. I'll just leave it at that.

The Chairman: Okay.

Colleagues, we have a motion before us, moved by Carolyn Parrish, that the report from the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be adopted as the committee's 27th report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: If we could proceed to the second item on our agenda, it is the order of reference from the House of Commons of March 10, 1998, on certain statements attributed to members of the House in the March 8, 1998, edition of the Ottawa Sun.

The draft report, which was produced following recommendations of this committee at its last meeting, has been circulated. I believe members had it in their hands before the meeting. Do all members have it?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. Colleagues, if we could proceed with consideration of this report, I'd welcome comments or suggestions on it.

Rey Pagtakhan and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, perhaps just a minor use of words: on page 2, the fourth paragraph, the second sentence, “Each responded that the quotes appeared to be correct...” I thought that if we had an element of hesitancy, the word “appeared” would be okay. But if we are definitive in our determination, I suggest that we would use the simple verb “were”.

The Chairman: Okay.

Stéphane Bergeron and then Chuck Strahl.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, some corrections to the French version of the text are in order. The text seems to have been initially drafted in English and then translated into French. Syntactic and spelling errors need to be corrected.

I would like to comment on the substance of the text, something far more important. On page 4 of the report, we note the following in line seven of the final paragraph:

The members who appeared before the committee, however, reiterated their respect for the institution of Parliament, for the House of Commons, and for the Office of Speaker. Each of them categorically denied that they intended any threat or disrespect to the Speaker or to the House of Commons. As Beauchesne states, it has been formally ruled by speakers that statements by members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted.

So far, so good, but there is something fundamentally important lacking in this statement, Mr. Chairman. Citation 93 in Beauchesne reads as follows:

93. It is generally accepted that any threat [of a member]...

Clearly, the report indicates that no threat was made and that there was never any intention to utter a threat. That settles that.

... or attempt to influence the vote of, or actions of a member, is a breach of privilege.

Nowhere is it mentioned in this report or in colleagues' statements that their intent was not to influence the ruling or actions of the Speaker. Since the report does not find one way or another that there was an attempt to influence the Speaker's actions, I can only conclude, Mr. Chairman, that there was an apparent breach of parliamentary privilege. Therefore, we cannot conclude, as this draft report or committee peremptorily does, that nothing untoward took place and that everything is copacetic.

• 1145

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, there is still an appearance that privilege was breached, since this report does not find or indicate in any way that the behavior of members did not influence the actions of the Speaker.

[English]

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: First of all, Mr. Chairman, on Mr. Pagtakhan's comments about changing “Each responded that the quotes appeared to be correct” to “Each responded that the quotes were correct”, I don't recall, and I don't have the testimony in front of me, but some of them certainly said.... I said something like that. I don't have it recorded. So I think this is exactly how it was translated to me, which was: “Each responded that the quotes appeared to be correct, although none of them had recorded the interview themselves.”

That's not fuzzy at all. That's exactly what was said by the people. They didn't say they had it correct, that they had it recorded or dictated back to them. They just said it appeared to be correct, and they couldn't deny it and didn't try to. I think we should leave it as written.

The second point, Mr. Chairman, is that there are a few paragraphs you could take out of here, I think, and it wouldn't affect the thing, but overall, I think the gist of it accurately reflects the testimony.

The only comment I would have in the end is with regard to Mr. Bergeron's comment about influencing the Speaker. Our conclusion, I think, will be as cited here, which is that it was not contemptuous. They have said they didn't intend any threat or disrespect, that it was not intended to be contemptuous, that it didn't bring into question the integrity of the House or of the Speaker, and all of those are things, I think, that the members said. I think that is the conclusion.

If we get down to “were you trying to influence somebody?”, then if it's just a matter of every time I stand up on a point of order or a point of privilege, I try to influence the Speaker. I try to do that. I argue and urge and I do all that I can. And even the other comments in the article about how we didn't go over.... But even the comments by Mr. Gauthier, saying that he will not tolerate MPs singing the anthem, are those intimidating the Speaker? Is that influencing the Speaker?

And Mr. Bergeron, when you yourself were saying that you wanted to make sure Mr. Parent takes strong action to make sure that such a troublesome incident never happens again, you're trying to influence the Speaker with that comment too.

I think we all try to influence the Speaker. The important thing, as our report says, is that no one tried to threaten or coerce the Speaker in an unfair way. I think that's the point we have to go solidly on. Otherwise, we get into.... If it's just a matter of everybody trying to influence or put their position on the record, then even in the article that we have before us, we'd have to get right back at it and start interviewing more people, because other people were certainly talking about the shabby and foul treatment of Canada in Quebec or whatever. I think those comments were intended to give their opinions on it.

An opinion is certainly allowed. Contemptuous activity is not. And that's what we've decided: this is not contemptuous. I could get into sentences here and there, but I think you have the gist of the testimony and certainly the flavour of it, and rather than argue about a sentence or two, I'd like to just go with it as is.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron, André Harvey, and then Rey Pagtakhan.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: With all due respect to Mr. Strahl and Mr. Epp, I don't believe the words contained in Beauchesne are devoid of meaning; they have been weighed, and weighed again. Citation 93 reads as follows:

93. It is generally accepted that any threat [of a member],...

This issue has been resolved since members have indicated that it was not their intention to threaten the Speaker. We must take them at their word. Beauchesne goes on to say:

... or attempt to influence the vote of, or actions of a member,...

It does not say "or that which may be construed as an attempt to influence".

... is a breach of privilege.

The meaning is clear as can be.

Mr. Chairman, I totally agree with Mr. Strahl when he says that each time a member rises in the house, he attempts to influence his colleagues' viewpoint. That goes without saying, but there is a proper way of going about that.

• 1150

I wouldn't want to generalize about my colleagues' actions, as this report unfairly does, in my opinion. They are all treated the same way, with no distinctions whatsoever made. Mr. Epp was quoted as follows in the Ottawa Sun:

[English]

If he rules any other way I am most offended and I think we will have to call for the election of a new Speaker.

[Translation]

This is not an innocent statement, Mr. Chairman. It is a deliberate attempt to put pressure on the Speaker to rule as the member wishes. In my view, by invoking citation 93 in Beauchesne, an attempt is being made to influence his vote and his actions. Therefore, we cannot find that there was no breach of privilege. I think this committee was wrong to come to this conclusion when Beauchesne cannot be any clearer on the subject.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll recognize André Harvey, Rey Pagtakhan, and then Randy White.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I would like to say something, Mr. Chairman.

We are indeed all aware of our colleagues' statements and we know full well that politicians are not known for their indulgence.

As far as I'm concerned, I would have liked to see this as an opportunity to reach some more general conclusions. However, we agreed that we would confine ourselves to this specific issue.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to close the book on this and move on to something else. Overall, the report is acceptable. I have no problem agreeing with its findings. We cannot go on like this indefinitely.

Each one of our colleagues appeared in turn before the committee. Beauchesne also says that we must believe that are colleagues are acting in good faith. If we continue discussing the matter, we will never see the end of it. They came and gave testimony, and from what I saw and judging from what the report states very clearly, none of our colleagues had these objectives in mind. Therefore, I'm prepared to give them to benefit of the doubt and to vote in favor of the report.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Pagtakhan and Mr. White.

[English]

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, on page 5 there is a clause I have a problem with. In the second to last paragraph, in the concluding paragraph, it says “were not intended to be contemptuous of the House of Commons or the Speaker”.

My suggestion at this point would be to delete that phrase, including the words “it concludes that they”, and continue the sentence from “did not bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant, the Speaker.”

The reason for my suggestion is this: When you look at the terms of reference, we were not asked to make a ruling on whether it was contemptuous of the Speaker or not. We were only asked to make a simple ruling on whether we feel the statement brings into question the integrity of the House.

I would like to make a distinction about the determination and the determination of contempt. I feel that the determination of contempt of the House and the Speaker may only be properly made by the Speaker himself. I really feel the determination of contempt may not be done by any committee. Secondly, it is not in the reference anyway. Thirdly, the finding of “not intended to be contemptuous” is a piece of evidence, and that evidence was already available on page 3 when the witnesses said “did not intend”. In other words, having accepted the statement of the witnesses that there was no intention to hold in contempt the Speaker and the House, we therefore concluded that the statement did not bring into question the integrity of the House.

My suggestion, in fact, is to propose the amendment to delete those phrases.

The Chairman: Rey, we made a note of that. I would point out to you, although you are right that it wasn't in the original reference, it was in fact in the motion Chuck Strahl moved at our last meeting, which was direction in the writing of the report. I would mention that, and we have made a note of it.

I'll now go to Randy White, then Stéphane Bergeron and Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Randy White: Further to that, Mr. Chairman, the question of contempt was in this room at these meetings. In fact, the question of contempt was asked of each and every witness we had here. So I don't think you could exclude that.

• 1155

Mr. Chairman, we didn't get around to discussing any of the other comments. They were briefly mentioned from time to time by two Bloc members. I don't think we want to get into them. Nor do I think we need to have any further debate on these issues. If we are to discuss at all, I think we should stick to the relevance of the report findings. We can argue and debate all day long about what should have been and what could have been, but I would suggest that it is time to put this to bed.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, that there is no desire to hear our viewpoint or to take into account what is written clear as day in Beauchesne, compared to what is contained in the report. Nowhere is it stated that our colleagues had no intention of influencing the Speaker's actions. Accordingly, it still appears that there was a breach of parliamentary privilege, but again, no one seems to want to admit this.

I don't understand, Mr. Chairman, how this committee can come to this conclusion. The hearings we had did not fully shed the light on this issue and some matters remain unresolved. We don't know, and we will likely never know, whether or not our colleagues intended to influence the Speaker's actions. We were not given the opportunity to ask questions; we were muzzled.

Mr. Chairman, there is another question that we must deal with, aside from this very delicate subject. This committee received a very clear mandate from the House and its order of reference calls for it to hear from witnesses and to consider this matter thoroughly.

I must say that we were somewhat dismayed by the cavalier, high-brow attitude of some of our colleagues when they answered questions.

On page 189 of his text, Maingot states the following:

...the chairman of a committee may entertain a motion that certain events that occurred in the committee may constitute a breach of privilege or contempt and that the matter be reported to the House.

Mr. Chairman, I submit, and I could draft a motion if you like, that this committee should express its deep disappointment with the petty attitude of the member, Mr. Breitkreuz—should I mention his name?—toward the members of this committee when he testified before us.

[English]

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Are we debating a motion now, or an amendment or something?

The Chairman: You're on the speaking list. I would like to proceed to a situation in which we go through this paragraph by paragraph, including suggestions that relate to various parts. We would simply get some sense of whether we agree, paragraph by paragraph, and then get to a motion.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Maybe we should do that. I'd like to make a couple of points in general, though.

One point relates to Mr. Maingot's comments from the testimony. In talking to the committee, he said:

Now your job is to look at those remarks that were said and determine...in the sphere of thinking of members of Parliament, does that really constitute contempt?

It's our job to determine that. If Maingot said that he can't determine it, it's the committee's job to do so. So I think, Mr. Pagtakhan, that we are right to leave that phrase in there. I would actually change it. When we get to that paragraph, I will propose an amendment to take the word “intended” out of there, because I think it is then definitive in terms of whether it was contemptuous or not.

I think it's up to the committee to decide. It's not a matter of whether it's intended or not, it's just that we have to decide if it is or not. Mr. Maingot is quite clear on that.

As for the other stuff, I just won't get into that. I think we should go to clause-by-clause.

The Chairman: Okay, colleagues, you have the draft report before you. If we could look at the first paragraph, it is actually the reference.

For the second paragraph, and we're now on page one, “The Committee held several meetings”, and so on. That refers to the preliminary discussions we had.

• 1200

The third paragraph describes those people we invited and when we invited them.

I'm now at the first paragraph on page 2, which explains what we were dealing with and so on. The second paragraph, which is the small introductory sentence and the rest, including statements and questions, reflects the situation.

The third paragraph is the case in which, in the discussion, there was a suggestion. I'll read it:

Each of the Members was asked whether the statements attributed to them had in fact been made by him. Each responded that the quotes appeared to be correct, although none of them had recorded the interview themselves.

It goes on from there, and there was a suggestion about that.

Now, is there any consensus? Do we make any changes in the second sentence there? I see no consensus.

We proceed then to the paragraph that, in English and French, begins at the bottom of page two, “Each of the Members was also asked about the intent” and they were each “adamant that he did not intend to intimidate or threaten”.

We then go back to what we'll call paragraph two, beginning with Monsieur Maingot and his explanation of contempt.

Chuck Strahl, go ahead, please.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I agree with all that. Do we need a statement in there that it is the committee's job to determine contempt? I'm not sure if we do, but....

The Chairman: I think there's a point in here where that's mentioned, isn't there?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject, in a subsequent paragraph that I missed, there is a definition of “contempt”.

The Chairman: Yes, I thought it was dealt with somewhere else in the report, Chuck. Listen, can we hold that in our minds and find out where it is, colleagues? If we hold the paragraph on Monsieur Maingot, I think the next one says that, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you. I just wasn't reading ahead.

The Chairman: I'm going to call the next one, the third on page 3, if that's not too complicated.

[Translation]

"In his text on Parliamentary Privilege in Canada..."

[English]

Okay? You can see the point of that paragraph there. We can then proceed to the last paragraph on page 3, the importance of the Speaker and the significance of the Speaker in the parliamentary system. That paragraph concludes on page 4.

The first one that actually begins on page 4 begins with

[Translation]

"In commenting on matters before the House...".

[English]

Are there any comments on that? Again, I think it gives the context of our discussions.

The last paragraph beginning on page 4—and there were now.... Stéphane, you commented on this paragraph, I think.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Apparently, my comments didn't change anything.

[English]

The Chairman: We'll proceed to the first full paragraph on page 5. Again, as I recall, there was discussion of a part of this paragraph, and that's reflected in the phrase in the middle of the paragraph, “were not intended to be contemptuous of the House of Commons or the Speaker.”

Is there any consensus here? Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I'm just a little concerned that if we leave the phrases “not intended to be” or “intended to be” in there, they could be interpreted that the members might not have intended them to be, but they were. This is not a definitive statement by the committee.

If this is decision time and these are really the two statements of conclusion, and if we are in agreement on it, I believe that we should say that these statements were not contemptuous of the House of Commons or the Speaker. If we say they were not intended to be, we may be inferring that they were, but they weren't intended to be. I think that's a fuzzy phrase in there.

• 1205

Given the tenor of the rest of the comments, observations, and the statements by the members that they adamantly said they did not mean to be contemptuous and so on, we need to say they were not contemptuous of the House of Commons. If we leave the words “intended to be” in there, it could be.... That's just something I picked up now. Maybe we need to change that.

The Chairman: Sorry, Rey. I know you're next on the list.

Chuck, this fuzzy statement—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Was mine.

The Chairman: —arose from the motion. The expression you had in there was that we are convinced there was no intention to bring the House and the Speaker into contempt. So I think the “intended” came from the phrasing you used.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right.

The Chairman: Again, if I can do the same thing there.... Chuck has made this point. Is there any consensus here that we change this phrase? The phrase is “were not intended to be contemptuous”. We can proceed in another way if we wish, but a consensus might be reachable on this point.

Rey, is yours the same point?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Yes.

The Chairman: Excuse me then, if I might. Rey Pagtakhan and then Randy White.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excuse me, but what kind of change is being proposed here?

[English]

The Chairman: Chuck suggests that it be rephrased to say in the article that they were not contemptous. In other words, we take out the “intended” part of it and we put “they were not”, definitely that “they were not”.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay.

[Translation]

Must we put that to a vote or come to some kind of consensus?

[English]

The Chairman: For the moment we're still discussing it and then we'll see. Is that okay?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, I wish to speak to this.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Rey Pagtakhan, Randy White, and Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I think the drafter of the report was very intuitive indeed. He was very careful in his use of the word, the committee has “determined”. He did not use the word “concluded”. I think it is correct. In other words, we cannot make a conclusion of intent. Intent is accepting something that somebody said. He did not intend to do it.

Therefore the conclusion is only one. The conclusion is only the last sentence, and that is in fact with reference to the very specific reference to the committee by the House. So I withdraw my earlier suggestion of deleting the phrase, because on rereading the whole paragraph, now the first part, determination, is a finding of evidence again. But the conclusion is only one sentence. It concludes that very last sentence. So I would not like to remove the words “not intended”.

The Chairman: I think soon we may have to move to a motion on this and actually deal with it that way. But I have Randy White and then Stéphane Bergeron.

Mr. Randy White: The word “intended” actually leaves it open to future question. I think those members who were in front of us really deserve the privilege of this committee to give closure to the issue. I think closure would properly be “were not contemptuous”. I would like to ask colleagues at this table to consider that. We don't want to leave this open-ended. We want to put closure to it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm simply trying to re-work the motion because the French version does not hold together.

The report finds that the statements attributed to members in the Ottawa Sun article " were not intended to be contemptuous of the House of Commons or the Speaker."

Based on what I said a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, and based on citation 93 in Beauchesne, it is eminently clear that the committee cannot find that these statements were not contemptuous of the House of Commons or of the Speaker. In light of what Beauchesne says on the subject, we cannot find without a doubt that these members' statements were not contemptuous of the House of Commons or of the Speaker. We can only take them at their word and find that it was not their intention to show contempt for the House of Commons or for the Speaker. I would encourage my colleagues to stick with the wording proposed by the committee.

• 1210

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, first of all, we have a written amendment that is before you. We'll come back to that in a moment. But at this time I sense some division here about any possible change to this main paragraph on page 5.

If someone cares to move a motion, perhaps we could consider it that way. Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): I would move that we leave the text in the form in which it's presently written.

With the greatest respect to Randy's point of view, I think the members implicated should maintain a certain responsibility for their words and their actions. I would not go any further than what is written, and that is, “not intended to be contemptuous”.

I could certainly not say they weren't contemptuous. They were or they weren't. But certainly I take them at their word, from their testimony, that it was not their intention to be, and I think it's accurately reflected in the text we have presently in the draft report.

So I would make a motion that we accept the report as drafted.

The Chairman: Okay, members of the committee have heard the motion. Are there any further comments or discussion of it? Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed to adopt the overall report, I would like to point out that I have already submitted for the committee's consideration—and the chair and the clerk have duly noted this—a motion to be appended to the report, if the latter is adopted.

[English]

The Chairman: We're simply dealing with one phrase in the last main paragraph, Stéphane, okay?

On this point, Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear here, from Bob's point of view, this is on the clear understanding that there was no contempt, if you left that in there, right?

Mr. Bob Kilger: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Randy White: Okay, I just want that recorded.

The Chairman: Okay, you've heard the motion. The motion is a very specific one, which is that we leave as it is the wording of the main paragraph on page 5, specifically the part that in English reads, “were not intended to be contemptuous of the House of Commons or the Speaker”.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I understand that Stéphane Bergeron has circulated an amendment. Does everyone have it, in both languages or in a language they can...?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, since the motion was drafted in French, I will read it slowly so that colleagues can understand the gist of it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron:

That the committee express its strong disapproval of the irreverent attitude displayed by Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz toward certain members of this committee during his appearance on March 31, 1998.

You may recall that on this occasion, Mr. Chairman, you had to intervene several times to ask the witness to answer the questions put to him. I have to admit that several members, myself included, had to exercise considerable restraint so as not to voice their disgust and disapproval of Mr. Breitkreuz's behavior.

[English]

The Chairman: Before I go to the list—and I have Randy White on it—have you a suggestion as to where this goes?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If we adopt this motion and support its underlying spirit, we could rework it into the text. It could be added to the first paragraph on page 5.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, it's ironic, isn't it, that this motion hits the table. We sat here and we watched the disrespect of Bloc members as they walked out of this meeting; we sat here and we listened as the Bloc members badgered witnesses.

• 1215

I'm really not prepared to even entertain such a motion, other than to suggest to Stéphane that he might well have worded this motion to mention himself and his colleague in it. So it would be wise and proper of him to withdraw the motion.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Obviously I'm not prepared to entertain this motion either. I think of the members who stomped out of the meeting, calling the chair a dictator. If that wasn't disrespectful, I don't know what was. So I am not prepared to entertain this motion.

If Cliff Breitkreuz didn't answer the questions the way somebody liked, that's the way she goes, I guess, but that is not respectful, not like the comments that were made to the chair in this room as people were stomping out.

Unless you want to open up another thing, and we can expand this and have a real humdinger of a debate, I suggest that this should be withdrawn.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron has moved:

[Translation]

That the committee express its strong disapproval of the irreverent attitude displayed by Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz toward certain members of this committee during his appearance on March 31

[English]

of this year.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

An hon. member: Truly bilingual.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We're trying!

[English]

Very briefly, Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Stéphane, I have some problems with the motion. One, you're finding a determination of guilt of behaviour, and yet we did not give him an opportunity to explain. We didn't ask him whether he had intended to be disrespectful or not to the committee.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We didn't have time.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Excuse me. If we had given him the opportunity to explain, as we had the other witnesses on the original motion we had, and he had claimed that he did not intend to show disrespect to the committee, our conclusion would have been the same based on the precedent we have just created. Therefore, it will be very difficult for me to pass judgment on your motion based on that analysis alone.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: We'll vote on Mr. Bergeron's motion.

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: Colleagues, perhaps we can proceed to the main motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman?

The Chairman: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Before we adopt the main motion—or rather before you adopt the main motion since we oppose it—, I would simply like to propose that the Bloc Québécois be authorized to append to this report, after the Chairman's signature, one or more dissenting opinions.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Several opinions.

[English]

The Chairman: Is it one dissenting opinion?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, several opinions.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: A few pages or...?

The Chairman: I think we'll proceed with the main motion. I have a proposed motion here dealing with dissenting opinions, but apparently the question of how many of these dissenting opinions there are is significant.

Before we vote on the main motion, there's a standard motion for dissenting opinions. We'll circulate it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I move that the Committee authorize the printing of a dissenting opinion from the Bloc Québécois as an appendix to this report, that this dissenting opinion be printed after the Chairman's signature, that the dissenting opinion be drafted in one or in both official languages and that it be provided to the Clerk of the Committee by 5 p.m. on Friday April 24.

• 1220

The Chairman: By 5 p.m. on April 24.

[English]

Okay, that sounds right. So that motion will be put following the main motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't know how long it will be since we have not yet drafted the opinion.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues, just with regard to the number of pages, I know we could consider this when we get to it, but let's think of it now. Normally, the dissenting opinion has to be shorter than the report itself. Normally, by the way, it's considerably shorter.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, since the previous examples that we have come most notably from the Liberal opposition at the time, we can see that this rule is not absolute since the Liberals have on occasion submitted dissenting opinions that were much longer than the committee's main report.

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Therefore, it will of course be longer.

[English]

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: May I suggest three pages maximum?

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we want the record to show that we have no intention of limiting ourselves to a set number of pages.

[English]

The Chairman: I suggest we proceed to the main motion and then proceed to the motion on the dissenting report.

Would someone care to move the motion that's before us that the draft motion be adopted?

Mr. Bob Kilger: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Could we proceed to the motion? I hope all members have a copy of the material before them. We've heard a date and a time. It's April 24 at 1700 hours. We could insert that. We can insert the Bloc party in the first paragraph.

Now we're down to the matter of pages. Would someone care to move a motion indicating a number of pages?

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, we all respect one another and I find it rather disgraceful that our colleagues are proposing that we limit the length of our dissenting opinion. We will be submitting an intelligent, clear and comprehensive dissenting opinion. What difference does it make if it is four and a quarter, or four and a half pages long? One thing is certain: it will be a reasonable dissenting opinion, one that will shed some light on this report which is going to serve as a legal precedent.

[English]

The Chairman: We don't specify the number of pages; we simply say it should be no longer than the committee's report.

[Translation]

Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That seems reasonable to me, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: Colleagues?

I think I have Chuck Strahl, Randy White, then Bob Kilger.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I've sat on I don't know how many committees, but I can think of our own party's efforts even on the Young Offenders Act in trying to append a dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion was too long, so they just didn't allow it. It didn't get appended at all, because it was considered too long. I've done the same in foreign affairs when I was on that committee. I've done it through many committees.

I think we should just say this is a short report and the dissenting opinion should be shorter than the majority report. That is the custom, and if you don't like it.... We didn't like that in the justice committee, so Jack Ramsay didn't get it appended. Too bad, so sad. He had his own opinion, but it wasn't appended. That was his decision.

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I seem to recall we wanted a dissenting report to this committee on private members' business and it was refused. It's a fact.

The Chairman: That was before my time.

Mr. Randy White: No, it was during your time and you were the problem. See, you're bad.

• 1225

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You're not a dictator, but you are bad.

Mr. Randy White: Mr. Chairman, I will move that it does not exceed three pages. You yourself indicated that normally these types of dissenting opinions are less lengthy than the main report, so I will move that it not exceed three pages.

The Chairman: I have a motion now. I'm going to keep the same speaking order. Bob Kilger and then Guy St-Julien.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I'd be prepared to allow the Bloc Québécois to write a report that would be no longer than the report that we have adopted, and in the same form. In other words, I wouldn't want them to take up a different format. I don't think that's the way they do things, but I just want to be very clear and specific: following the same format that we have in our report, their minority report should be less than ours.

The Chairman: We are considering a motion that we have the three pages, and it's Guy St-Julien now.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): When our colleague says three pages, is he talking about the equivalent of three pages in La Presse?

[English]

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Randy White: No, Mr. Chairman—in the same format.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I see.

[English]

The Chairman: The motion of Mr. Randy White is that the dissenting report does not exceed three pages. We're voting specifically on that before we move to the main motion. Okay?

Mr. Randy White: Eight and a half by three—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

(Motion negatived)

The Chairman: Could we proceed?

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, can we make a motion now to make the minority report less than the—

A voice: Not less—not more than.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Not greater than—

The Chairman: The dissenting opinion will not exceed the length of the main report.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Right.

A voice: And in the same form.

Mr. Bob Kilger: In the same format.

Mr. Randy White: Sometimes I wish you'd bend over for us as much as you bend over for these guys.

The Chairman: Same as the report and in the same form. Okay, I'm going to try this. The motion from Mr. Kilger is that the committee authorize the printing of a dissenting opinion from the Bloc party as an appendix to the report; that the dissenting opinion be printed after the chair's signature; that the dissenting opinion not exceed the length of the main report and be in the same format; and that the dissenting opinion be provided to the clerk of the committee in one official language or in both official languages by 1700 hours on April 24.

A voice: I think Mr. Bergeron moved “in one official language”.

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron, I understand, moved “in one official language”. So it's in one official language by 1700 hours on April 24.

Discussion of the motion, Mac Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): If you have four pages or five, or three pages like my colleague is saying, and you use the font or the letters—say, for example, size three—I bet you can put a whole book into three pages.

A voice: No. That's why we said “in the same format”.

The Chairman: I've agreed. The same format is in now. I have it as “in the same format”.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you, colleagues.

At the moment there is no meeting on Thursday. Our next scheduled meeting is next Tuesday at 11 a.m. to consider the main estimates and plans and priorities of the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer.

The meeting is adjourned.