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, September 29, 1998

• 1111

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Members, perhaps we can begin.

I want to welcome you all here for the first meeting of our newly constituted committee. I notice we have a number of new members.

Gurmant Grewal, we welcome you to our committee.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Thank you.

The Chairman: I also welcome Gar Knutson and, when they come, Lynn Myers and Joe Fontana. We appreciate them joining us.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): And Mr. Harris?

The Chairman: No, I wasn't going to mention Dick Harris, but I will if you like. Dick is a substitute. But I mention his name now. He's now in the record.

You can now leave, Dick.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: I welcome the other members.

We have one item of business, essentially, which is listed. It has to do with changes in the membership of the subcommittee on private members' business.

As you know, our committee was reconstituted yesterday. We need to proceed with a reconstitution of the particular subcommittee on private members' business so that private members' business can proceed in a reasonable fashion. That's the main reason we're here today.

The second item is the report on the striking committee. I'll deal with it when we get to it, but it has to do with the date by which we have to submit our report, which is in fact the list of the new committees.

Let's proceed with agenda item A. Would someone care to move a motion? I think you have before you the text.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): I move, Mr. Chairman, that, notwithstanding the motion adopted on Monday, September 29, 1997, the membership of the subcommittee on private members' business be amended as follows: Mr. Lynn Myers and Mr. Joe Jordan.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Agreed.

[English]

Are there some Reform nominations?

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): You want our name now, do you?

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. Randy White: Notwithstanding the motion adopted on Monday, September 29, 1997, I move that the membership of the subcommittee on private members' business be amended as follows: for the Reform Party, Deborah Grey.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

Do you have a nomination for the Bloc, Stéphane?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): For the Bloc Québécois, Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

The Chairman: Yes, I have Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral's name on the list.

[English]

For the NDP, John.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Notwithstanding the motion adopted on Monday, September 29, 1997, I move to amend the membership of the subcommittee on private members' business as follows: Bill Blaikie, New Democratic Party member.

The Chairman: Okay.

[Translation]

And for the Progressive Conservative Party, André Harvey.

[English]

I have the motion as follows:

That, notwithstanding the motion adopted on Monday, September 29, 1997, the membership of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business be amended as follows: Lynn Myers, Joe Jordan, Liberals; Deborah Grey, Reform; Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc; Bill Blaikie, New Democratic Party; and André Harvey, Progressive Conservative Party.

Are you ready for the vote on that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1115

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, if I'm not mistaken, there appears to be more Liberal members here than there should be, and I want to know whether all the votes are being counted.

The Chairman: The clerk will read out the names of the people who are registered in the committee, the voting members of the committee.

The Clerk of the Committee: They are: Peter Adams; Stan Keyes for Mr. Baker; Ms. Catterall; Mr. Charbonneau; Julian Reed for Joe Fontana; Mr. Kilger; Mr. Knutson; Bill Graham for Lynn Myers; and John Richardson.

The Chairman: Those are the voting members.

Would you care to raise your hands, the people who were so named? Thank you.

Dick, is that okay? Right.

Could we proceed, then, with the second part of the first motion? Would someone care to move it?

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I move that Lynn Myers be appointed chair of the subcommittee.

The Chairman: The motion before us now is that Lynn Myers be appointed chair of the subcommittee on private members' business.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Lynn, congratulations, and good luck.

An hon. member: Our sympathies.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Before you came in, Lynn, we listed the committee. We'll give you a list of the names of the people on the committee.

Let's proceed to item B. This has to do with the report of the striking committee. As you all know, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is required to table a report, by this Friday at the latest, listing the members of the committees that will be operating in this session.

You'll see there is a motion there, under B, that deals with receipt of the lists. In fact, if our clerk does not receive these lists by, for example, this Wednesday, it means that at our regular meeting on Thursday our lists would be incomplete. Friday is the very last day that we are required to table a report in the House.

Would someone consider moving the motion before us?

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I so move.

Mr. Bob Kilger: The list is ready from the Liberal Party. We're ready to proceed.

The Chairman: Okay.

Any other comments on this motion?

Randy White, please.

Mr. Randy White: Can you repeat the motion, please?

The Chairman: It reads:

Pursuant to Standing Order 104(1), the committee has until Friday, October 2, 1998, to table the report of the striking committee.

That's us, as the striking committee.

The proposed motion, moved by John Richardson, is:

That all parties provide the Clerk with their respective lists of names and Committee assignments by 6 p.m. Wednesday, September 30, 1998.

and

That the Committee meet at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday,

—which is our regular time—

October 1, 1998 to consider the report of the Striking Committee.

That's the motion before us.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Let's proceed to other business.

Bill Graham.

Mr. Bill Graham (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): May I take it from that motion and the views of the other members of the committee here that in fact the lists will now not be filed in the House until Friday? I ask that because I'm trying to organize a meeting for Thursday.

The Chairman: The earliest would be Thursday, because we could, in theory, table them on Thursday afternoon, because we meet from 11 a.m. until whatever it is.

Mr. Bill Graham: It wouldn't be before Thursday morning.

The Chairman: No. That's correct.

Mr. Bill Graham: Thank you.

The Chairman: Under other business, I've been given a motion by the Reform Party.

Has this been circulated, or should we circulate it?

• 1120

We'll wait until everyone has it.

[Translation]

Does everyone have the motion?

[English]

Gurmant Grewal, would you read this?

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Chairman, I'm presenting the motion.

The Chairman: Oh, excuse me.

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Grewal is seconding the motion, I believe.

The Chairman: That's fine with me.

Dick Harris.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order before Mr. Harris starts. Are we dealing with this today or are we...? I can't remember what our rules are. Usually there's notice of motion before we actually deal with something like that.

The Chairman: In this case, I don't believe there is.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay.

The Chairman: It certainly can be introduced today.

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Chairman, I have the pleasure to put forward this motion to this committee in both official languages. I would like to present this motion and read it as follows:

That the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, pursuant to section 18 of the Constitution Act, section 4 of the Parliament of Canada Act and section 108(1)(a) of the Standing Orders, send for Harold Wilson, the government ethics counsellor, in order to question him on the government's continuing refusal to provide Canadians with the ethics code for ministers.

I would like to speak to that motion, if I may.

The Chairman: By all means.

Mr. Dick Harris: This motion is presented as a result of a motion I put on the Order Paper on June 5, which read as follows:

That a Humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the Prime Minister's ethics code for ministers.

Mr. Chairman, the response I got to that request was as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the information sought by the hon. member is considered a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council and in keeping with Beachesne's 6th edition 446(2)(1) and s.69 of the Access to Information Act, I ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.

I have not withdrawn the motion, Mr. Chairman, and will not.

I'll speak to the motion I've presented today. This is the reason that I consider this response unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, in the eyes of most Canadians, as politicians know, there's a lot of mistrust as to what we are actually doing and why we do things. Indeed, I think if you would do a poll on the streets you would find that Canadians trust politicians less and less. This is unfortunate, most unfortunate.

When I was elected in 1993, one of the things I wanted to do certainly in my riding and in as many other areas of Canada I could was to turn that mistrust of politicians into a trust relationship. One way that trust relationship can be established, I believe, is if the government commits and follows through with a commitment of openness and transparency in the way they run the country and in the decisions they make.

Mr. Speaker, I believe an open and visible process is required so that people of Canada would be able to see clearly what's going on in this city and also what's going on behind closed doors with the people in trusted positions.

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the red book, the infamous red book, said that the integrity in our political institutions must be restored. I'm sure all the government members would agree to that.

That is a very honourable statement, Mr. Chairman, but the proof of that statement must be in the follow-up, in the commitment. How is the integrity of our political institution to be restored? That is the question people ask.

• 1125

It's fine in the heat of an election to make statements and even put them in writing, as the Liberal Party did in its red book, but following through on the statement is the most important thing a government can do and the most important thing the people of Canada are looking for if we're going to change their minds about the mistrust they have of politicians.

We have a situation, Mr. Chairman, where the Prime Minister can appoint an ethics counsellor. We beg to ask the question, well, if he can appoint an ethics counsellor, then certainly, if he believes in the critical role of an ethics counsellor, why would the government refuse to advise Parliament and parliamentarians, who are representing people of Canada, of what the guidelines are that the ethics counsellor has set down, particularly for the ministers?

We in the Reform Party are firmly convinced that the appointment of an ethics counsellor, if integrity in our political institution is to be restored, must be able to present before the House his code of conduct.

There are some examples of where the code of conduct, had parliamentarians been aware of what exactly it was, might have addressed some very serious perceived breaches of an ethical behaviour. I'll quote one example.

In October of 1994, it was revealed that the Minister of Heritage wrote a letter to the CRTC on ministerial letterhead in support of one of his constituent's applications. In our opinion, it was a clear conflict of interest inasmuch as the Minister of Heritage was responsible for the CRTC. The Prime Minister, in his wisdom, called it simply an honest mistake.

We questioned that. We asked how many more examples of perceived conflict of interest can be written off by the Prime Minister as an honest mistake.

The Prime Minister refused to ask for the resignation of the Minister of Heritage, which we demanded, and he refused to tell Canadians, even to this day, what the code of ethics counsellor has advised him to do.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is incumbent upon us, in this committee, to bring the ethics commissioner, Mr. Wilson, before this committee, to clearly explain, for our benefit, for the benefit of all parliamentarians, and for the benefit of all Canadians, exactly what is his code of ethics.

That's the purpose of the motion.

The Chairman: I'm going to comment briefly. As you know, this is a very unusual committee. The way we are convened is very different from the other committees. The way we operate is often quite different from other committees. So I'm going to allow some discussion of this and then comment or rule finally on it a little bit later on.

I've looked at Standing Order 108(1)(a), which is the mandate of this committee, and I have some concerns. Because this is such an unusual committee—it has officers of various parties—I need some further advice on it.

First of all, we deal with the House, and not ministers. That's one. I'm sure there will be some discussion of that.

The other one is, I don't see in Standing Order 108(1)(a) any discussion of ethics in this case, particularly ethics of ministers.

I do know, because I have it—it is publicly available—that there is a code of ethics for ministers and parliamentary secretaries. I understand that is publicly available.

I'd be grateful for comments on what I've just said, because I think there is a serious matter—and as I said, it is an unusual committee—as to whether it's appropriate for this committee, rather than the House itself, to consider this motion.

Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to Mr. Harris, if, following your comments from a procedural perspective, just having received notice of his motion and not having had time to verify... I don't at my fingertips have the answers to the questions and concerns you've raised procedurally, but I certainly don't want to take the committee's time to engage in a debate.

• 1130

While from time to time members from this side won't always agree with the viewpoints of members opposite in debates in the House, I don't see the relevance or the purpose of bringing that to this committee at this time.

As such, I'm prepared for the question and to vote on it.

The Chairman: Again, this is an informal discussion.

Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I guess one of the questions that's going through my mind is, “If not here, then where?” Indeed, I think the response that Mr. Harris had talked about with regard to his original request was quite inadequate, saying that a code of ethics is private to the Privy Council. I find that quite unacceptable myself.

What recourse does a group or anybody in the House have to that, and where does it go from here?

I'm not sure you'll find, Mr. Chairman, that Standing Order 108 precludes that issue from being brought up here. If in your ruling you so decide it does, then I guess I'd then like to hear where it is dealt with.

Ethics codes are standard among groups across this country. In fact, my own professional organization, the CMA association of Canada, has a code of ethics. It's printed and distributed throughout Canada. So I don't see why in fact in the organization that purports to be highly visible and open to the Canadian public it would indeed not disclose its ethics standards.

More often than not, I think, fewer questions would be asked about ethics in the House if the code were even known. I think that's part of the difficulties people have when they do ask questions of government, such as exactly what is the code? There is not much understanding of it.

So I certainly support Mr. Harris in his request. Not only that, if it comes about that the government members wouldn't support this, then I think what should come out here is where is the recourse, and how does this get addressed? Because it's not going to go away.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but I honestly have to wonder about the discussion we are now having.

I readily admit that this committee is somewhat different from the others, but I'd like the clerk to tell me if, from a procedural standpoint, we should be debating at length whether or not a motion that has been duly presented to a committee is in order and advising the Chair on this matter. It was my understanding that if the Chair had received the motion, the committee had a duty to debate it and eventually, to vote on it.

That being said, the motion is very much in order in my view since it is Parliament's responsibility to monitor the activities of government. Accordingly, when we talk about an ethics code for ministers, it is quite useful and relevant for us to question the nature and very existence of such a code.

The government's intention, which I find quite noble, was to reassure Canadians as to the high ethics of ministers. It therefore drafted a code of ethics which was subsequently brought to cabinet's attention.

However, while the intention as such may have been noble, the government is not following through. On the contrary, it is further muddying the perception Canadians have of the ethics of ministers given that on the one hand, it claims to want to impose an ethics code on Cabinet members while on the other hand, it refuses to provide the details of this ethics code to the public.

It would be so much simpler, not only for the opposition, but for the government as well, to disclose to the public the details of this ethics code that ministers supposedly are held to and that governs their activities as Cabinet members.

I join with the Reform Party in stressing the importance of hearing from Mr. Wilson so that he can explain to us the nature of his work and the provisions of the ethics code, which remain a mystery to people.

• 1135

We have no idea what this code looks like or even if it really exists, yet the government persists in trying to reassure Canadians about the ethics of its ministers.

[English]

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall, Gurmant Grewal and then André Harvey.

Marlene.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, as Mr. Harris has pointed out, he has a motion before the House, and in my view, that's where this should be dealt with.

I've just been looking at section 108 of the Standing Orders regarding the mandate of committees. This in no way can fit under the mandate of this committee, but it does certainly properly fit under the mandate of the House, in my view, and I would suggest that we leave it to the House to deal with the motion that is before it.

I would move, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that you put the question so we can deal with it.

The Chairman: Gurmant Grewal and then André Harvey.

Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Chairman, as a new member of this committee, I came with the hope that this committee deal with procedure and House affairs. This motion is very much relevant to the procedure and House affairs committee. I think this is the most relevant place where this motion can be debated. The said individual can be invited to this committee so that he can answer the question, then give his justification for the reason.

I believe we, the members of the House, should know very well what the code of ethics is. Only then can we know whether we comply with the code of ethics. Particularly, a code of ethics is an important thing to restore accountability and credibility to politicians in this country, something we dearly need.

There should be no problem from the government side. A code of ethics should be in their hands. It should be printed and well circulated. I won't even be surprised to have it printed and framed and put on the wall behind the chairs of the ministers, or the responsible persons.

So I think this is an important issue. Politics is about accountability, credibility, and all these things. It's really important that we know, as members of the House, so that we can answer to our constituents what the code of ethics is.

So I think the motion is in order. We need to look into the issues rather than the politics of it.

The Chairman: Thanks, Gurmant. André Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I'm sure no one objects to receiving additional information, but I disagree with our Reform colleagues' contention that public mistrust is tied to ethics issues. In my view, that's not the case at all. The public no longer trusts politicians because it feels we live in our own little world and don't listen to their concerns.

No one in my riding has told me that members of Parliament are thieves who flout a basic code of ethics. The problem stems from their perception that we do not listen to constituents.

Of course we would like to hear from Mr. Wilson and to have him explain to us further this code of ethics for ministers. However, as for the public's mistrust of politicians, I don't believe it has anything to do with ethics.

However, I agree that we should invite Mr. Wilson to come and discuss this matter with us.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you, André. John Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's my sense that there's a lack of transparency in the code of ethics that parliamentary secretaries and ministers adhere to. When you have a lack of transparency, one can only conclude that some mysterious suspicions have to be emanating from that lack of transparency.

I think it's a wise thing for us to have a dialogue with Mr. Wilson and to have him at least explain the basics of the code of ethics. This is normal practice. It's accountable practice and it's responsible practice in other jurisdictions. I'm puzzled as to why it doesn't happen at the federal level.

In that light, I would support having Mr. Wilson appear before our committee. It's less of a hassle, in my view, than having the entire House of Commons rule on this issue. Does the whole House want to participate in questions? I don't know if that's the case. If they do, they can come to the committee. But certainly they would have access to the Hansard from our committee, or they could even appear as members of Parliament and asks questions of Mr. Wilson.

• 1140

So I think it's a good idea.

The Chairman: Okay.

I've listened very carefully to the presentations. It is, of course, our first meeting, and I've had a chance to read the Standing Orders, but only now, because this is the first I've heard of this motion.

It's not my business to debate the importance of the particular issue. Ethics anywhere in our system are clearly an important issue for us all. But for the moment, as far as I'm concerned, our mandate is to deal with the House of Commons and members of the House, and not with the cabinet. I'm going to rule it out of order, but I would ask the Reform Party that if it can in fact produce arguments with respect not to the issue but to the mandate of this committee, as compared with some other committee, or, in my instinct, with the House of Commons itself, I for one, and I'm sure the rest of the committee, would be glad to hear those arguments. Then we could consider the matter again.

So for the moment, I would rule against the committee considering this motion.

Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I thought this committee charged a subcommittee to look at the code of conduct of members at one point, did it not?

The Chairman: I would have no debate about it being to do with members. This is to do with cabinet.

Mr. Randy White: Well, ministers are members.

The Chairman: Randy, the researcher advises me that in the last Parliament there was a joint committee of the Senate and the House that dealt with code of conduct for all members of the House, but it was a joint committee of the House and the Senate.

Randy, if there are arguments like that and if the Reform Party can produce them, I'd be glad to look at them, either before the meeting or during a future meeting.

So I would rule—

Mr. Bob Kilger: Let's start off with transparency. Let's put the question and let's deal with it.

To be perfectly frank, I don't intend to—

The Chairman: Bob, with respect—

Mr. Bob Kilger: Respectfully to my colleagues, on this business about mistrust and whatnot, I remind them that they enjoy individually, as much on their side of the table as on this side of the table... Each and every one of us was entrusted not that long ago with the confidence of our electorate. Somehow, I don't believe for one minute that it has disappeared on any one count of any one of us here or any one of our colleagues on either side of the House.

Now, we may want to make political hay from time to time on issues. This question's been raised in the House at Question Period. I believe that's where it belongs.

I'm quite prepared to vote on the motion right now. I don't want to create any false expectations that I'm even entertaining this motion under any circumstances, and I'm quite prepared to deal with it now if in fact—

The Chairman: Bob, with respect, it deals specifically with the ethics code for ministers. That's my concern. As chair, I think it's my responsibility to consider. It's not the importance of the debate or the importance of the issue that I'm ruling on.

I'm not closing the door. If the arguments are there as to why this committee should be considering an ethics code for ministers, then I'll accept it and I'll rule in favour.

So my ruling at the moment is that pending further information from the Reform Party, it's not going to be received.

Stéphane Bergeron, and then Dick Harris.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, your reasons for ruling this motion out of order have, admittedly, confounded me somewhat. As I see it—I may be wrong and if that's the case, please enlighten me—one of the primary functions of any parliament is to monitor the activities of the executive. If you're telling me today that the code of ethics for ministers has nothing that all to do with the activities of our committee or with the activities of members of Parliament in general, then I have to wonder what we are doing here.

Your decision to rule this motion out of order seems unjustified and, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, irrelevant since I thought that we, as parliamentarians, were here to closely scrutinize the way the government acts and administers the public purse.

• 1145

In order for me to do my job, I must be absolutely certain that individuals appointed to administer public funds act in a highly ethical manner. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I believe this motion clearly falls within the purview of this committee.

Therefore, I must question your decision. Since I see the government agrees with you... I have a feeling that there is a small nuance.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I'd like to add something to what my Bloc Québécois colleague, Mr. Bergeron, said. I wouldn't want to go against the Chair's ruling.

[English]

The Chairman: Dick Harris, and then Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear, as you opened this meeting, that you informed the committee and the new members that you run things a little differently here. You have the power—

The Chairman: It isn't that I do it, Dick, it's that the committee is different. The composition is different, and its nature is different.

Mr. Dick Harris: Yes, the committee is different, and you're here to try to accomplish something.

I would like to argue that in Standing Order 108(2) there are in fact ample provisions for the committee to deal with it, not only in 108(2) itself but also in 108(2)(b), (d) and (e). I'll read those paragraphs for your benefit.

It says that:

(2) The standing committees...pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time

In other words, that paragraph talks about the provision of this committee to deal with all matters of any department, all departments in the government. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, certainly the matter of the code of ethics that the government departments operate under is a matter of those departments, a matter of government.

As well, Standing Order 108(2)(b) states:

(b) the program and policy objectives of the department and its effectiveness

Certainly one of the objectives of any government department is to be open and transparent with the people of Canada.

Indeed, (d) states:

(d) an analysis of the relative success of the department, as measured by the results obtained as compared with its stated objectives

The red book clearly said it was the object of the Liberal Party, if it formed government after that election, to be open and transparent and raise the level of integrity in the eyes of the Canadian public. That is an objective of (d).

In (e) it states:

(e) other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.

Certainly the operation of any government department must include operating in a way that would be acceptable to any code of ethics that was given by an ethics commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, I fail to see how you cannot consider Standing Orders 108(2)(b), (d) and (e) as disqualifying the presentation of this motion.

The Chairman: You and your colleagues have an advantage over me in that you've obviously looked at our terms of reference for some time with respect to this issue. I have not. I had a few minutes. But the estimates of the PCO—and it's the PCO you're dealing with...and if you're talking about departmental mandates here, which is what you are doing—do not come to this committee. The only “department”, if that's the right word, we deal with is Elections Canada.

I've made the point that if arguments can be produced, I'd be glad to consider them.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, this is an interesting debate.

I think you've offered the Reform Party, and Mr. Harris in particular, the opportunity to put forward these points. I remain of the view that Mr. Wilson is not an official of the government. He is, essentially, the Prime Minister's adviser. They have an hour every day to hold the Prime Minister accountable on a variety of issues, and on this one in particular.

There is a motion before the House. If the House chose to refer something to this committee, it would be in our mandate to deal with it. In the meantime, you have ruled this motion out of order—

• 1150

The Chairman: Pending further argument.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: —pending further argument. Therefore, we shouldn't be debating it, and I would move that this chair be sustained in his ruling.

The Chairman: We have a motion from Ms. Catterall. Those in favour?

An hon. member: Can we have a recorded vote?

The Chairman: A recorded vote is fine with me.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 6)

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: On a point of information, Mr. Chairman, you indicated that “pending further argument” this issue will be brought forward again. Are you suggesting at the next meeting? What do you want from us?

The Chairman: As I indicated, I'd be willing to discuss it between meetings or actually at a meeting. If, for example, you had information today, I'd be glad to sit down with you.

Our next meeting, as you know from our previous motions, is Thursday at 11 a.m.

Mr. Randy White: Do you require a notice of motion?

The Chairman: No, we don't.

[Translation]

Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivières-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, what is the status of the report adopted by this committee, namely the report from the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business which proposed new rules for members to follow when they wish to present motions or bills.

As I recall, in the fall of 1997, the Sub-committee that I chaired adopted a whole series of rules. The Sub-committee report was then adopted by this committee. Since it is your job to know these things, could you tell us what the status of this report is? Some people found it so interesting that they believe the new rules are already in force and they are trying to use them. However, we haven't heard anything more about this.

[English]

The Chairman: Yvon, thank you very much for that. I enquired only this morning. My understanding is that it's under active consideration.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Active consideration. So there has not been progress for many months.

The Chairman: No, but I have high hopes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: High hopes.

An hon. member: You and Mary Poppins.

The Chairman: Colleagues, this concludes today's meeting.