PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 15, 1999

• 1115

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, before we proceed to the Order of the Day before us, which is the consideration of the draft report concerning the leak of committee reports prior to tabling in the House, if we could proceed to the second and third reports of our Sub-committee on Private Members' Business, I would ask the chair, Lynn Myers, to lead us through those items.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the second and third reports are being handed out now.

If everyone could first turn to the second report, that was, as you recall, tabled on May 26, 1998.

Mr. Chairman, you recall that a few meetings ago I raised this as something the subcommittee wanted us to bring here and get action on. Really, the gist of it is that in 1986 there was a list of criteria for private members' bills, business and motions. There were 11 items, and that's what you're having handed out to you now. The purpose here was really to streamline that to a list of five criteria relative to private members' business, and those are, as you can see, on the executive summary. In fairness, I think it makes sense, and it would give the committee a better focus in terms of where we're going here. I would hope that we could act on this, move it, and proceed accordingly.

The Chair: Colleagues.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I would so move if that's appropriate.

The Chair: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): The essence of the report is that the criteria are shortened up. There is always going to be some subjectivity to it, naturally, but it's still the intent to go in camera and then move to a consensus rather than unanimity. Is that the idea?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Absolutely.

Mr. Chairman, we listen to the presenters. For example, last time we had 15 people come in to argue their motions and their bills, very eloquently and very solidly. At the end of that process, then, as a committee, we move in camera and we reach a consensus. It's not unanimous in all cases, but it is a consensus. We've had very good meetings, I think, and Madam Dalphond-Guiral will also subscribe to that.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): [Editor's note: inaudible]

[English]

Mr. Lynn Myers: I think we've done what we had to do in the best interests of Parliament and of Canadians.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I see that one of the recommendations is that the subcommittee intends to canvass members on the issue of whether we should make all private members' business votable.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, through you, let me say to Mr. Strahl that it's an ongoing process. You will recall that we had a survey about a year ago. We followed that with a round-table discussion. That was an excellent meeting. In light of the changes, especially the 100-signature rule and other things that we've implemented, we are in a process of ongoing monitoring of this whole process of private members' business. That will come in the course of time, within the next few months, recognizing how important this whole area is to individual members in terms of getting their views to the Parliament of Canada on behalf of their constituents.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. Here's my last point, Mr. Chairman.

I do think that's important. For example, the 100-signature thing and so on has been adopted. We've already had it in place for a few months and we really do need an analysis of that somewhere along the way. It has to go on for a while—I understand that—before anyone can really see whether it's going to be effective or whether it needs to be adjusted or not. I'm glad to see you're monitoring that and so on.

I do hope that somewhere—I don't even know what the date should be—you're going to monitor and make recommendations. I do think that parliamentarians in this committee should address it, because it does seem to me that there may need to be some fine tuning on that. So if the chair is doing that—somebody should do it—I'm happy to leave it to Lynn, and I know that it's going to come back to us, likely with recommendations. I think that's probably the best way for us to handle it.

The Chair: Lynn, briefly.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. The committee members keep me on my toes, as well they should. Two of them are here today. We will be doing precisely what you say.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Good. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. Anyone else?

Colleagues, we have this motion. Lynn's motion is that the second report of the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business be agreed to, but I would suggest that we add to that the following phrase: “and be reported to the House as a report of this committee”. That is the motion.

• 1120

Those in favour? Against? I see none against.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The third report, please.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, as you recall, I tabled the third report on March 9 of this year. There are two motions that come out of that. Again, it was the unanimous agreement of the subcommittee that these two motions proceed.

The first is with respect to restriction on exchanges. Now, the committee wants to keep some flexibility in this process, but at the same time, we don't want to see people bringing in, at the last minute, a lot of exchanges; we don't want things happening at the last minute which then derail the process.

If you really think about it and think it through, it actually ends up affecting other MPs who then are pushed back. Other things happen to them, then, and their items can't come forward as quickly. We see that as a bit of an administration problem. Certainly it makes life difficult for our clerk. Not that this is impossible, but I think the process here is such that it really is a fine tuning of the situation and is really a housekeeping matter.

Item 1, then, is the restriction on exchanges, and item 2 is the amendment so that if an exchange is requested, the Speaker is permitted on behalf of members to arrange an exchange of the second or third hour of debate on a votable item.

This is nothing earth-shattering. It is really housekeeping, but it tries to facilitate this whole process in a more efficient manner. That's really the bottom line.

The Chair: Colleagues?

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just a question on recommendation 1: unless part of that Standing Order—

The Chair: Can you just give us chapter and verse there?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's page 3, recommendation 1, in the middle of that, where it reads that members would have

no more than one request for an exchange in respect of each item standing in their name in the order of precedence, unless events in the House have resulted in a change within five....

Could you just explain what that “unless” section is about, where it says, “have resulted in a change”? What change?

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, there really are only two times that might be effected: that is, through a budget debate or an emergency debate where, as a result, the schedule is thrown off. We need that fail-safe in there to ensure that the process would move back accordingly.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I see what you mean: the change has come about because of those emergency debates or because the budget came down or something.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Yes. Those would be the kinds of examples. In fact, they are the examples that allow us and make it important for us to include that rider.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, are we dealing with just recommendation 1 at this time?

The Chair: I'm in your hands.

John, if it's okay...?

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): I have a question.

The Chair: Is it on number one or do you want Chuck to finish first?

Mr. John Solomon: He can finish.

The Chair: Go ahead, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The other question I had is on recommendation 2:

that the Standing Orders be amended so that when an exchange is requested, the Speaker be permitted on behalf of members to arrange an exchange....

Is that more desirable than what currently happens? Right now, there is a negotiation, usually with the House leaders.

Pardon me: this is page 4, recommendation 2.

Usually the parties work it out, because it's usually a scheduling problem. Either the member can't be here or there is something.... The whips or the House leaders usually work it out because we're always in contact with one another asking if there is a problem with something. Usually, if we say that there is and...it seems to me that this has worked well. I don't know that we need the Speaker in the mix—

The Chair: I'm sorry, Chuck. There's a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I'm sorry to interrupt Chuck, because I believe what he has to say is very important. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with our discussing these two reports, that is the sub-committee's second and third reports. We are having a very interesting discussion, but it appears to be based on a comprehensive analysis of these reports. Unlike Chuck, I didn't receive copies of them in advance, and that appears to be the case for Madeleine as well. Since we only got our first look at these reports this morning, it's rather difficult for us to participate in the discussion as fully and as eloquently as Mr. Myers and Mr. Strahl. I didn't lay eyes on these reports until this morning. I don't exactly know what happened.

[English]

The Chair: They went out on Monday.

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman—

The Chair: Lynn Myers, on the same subject.

• 1125

Mr. Lynn Myers: Well, Monsieur Bergeron, in addition, I tabled both of these reports and spoke to them on March 9. One had been tabled in 1998, of course, but at that meeting I spoke to both of them, and they were handed out in advance. We have had time to look at them. This really is housekeeping in a lot of ways.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: [Editor's note: inaudible]

[English]

The Chair: Stéphane, both of those—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Did you get yours? [Inaudible—Editor]...get them now.

The Chair: I can understand. They were dealt with at the committee, relatively briefly then, but they've been circulated since. We did actually see them two or three weeks ago.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I won't deny that I'm embarrassed, Mr. Chairman, but Roy tells me he didn't receive his copy either. At least I'm not the only person in this situation.

[English]

The Chair: Well, I—

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Maybe, Mr. Chairman—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Solomon hasn't seen it either.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It isn't on the agenda.

[English]

Mr. Bob Kilger: —it would be helpful.... The subject matter is quite important, and I think for the sake of our colleagues maybe we should defer this matter until the next meeting of the committee in order to give everyone an opportunity to review this.

The Chair: I'm comfortable with that. So for the third report, we will deal with it in a similar fashion, if that's okay, at our next meeting. If it goes on a long time, I'll cut it off, because our next meeting is on the estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer.

We'll spend some time on it, Lynn, immediately before that presentation.

If that's okay with you, Madeleine and Stéphane?

John Solomon, briefly on this.

Mr. John Solomon: I have a question for Mr. Myers. I just quickly read over the third report. Can you tell us whether illness is still an option in terms of exchanging your precedence? If the member is ill and he can't be there, is that still an option? We don't want to exclude that, because that's a fairly important flexible point, I think.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I think illness would be dealt with in a different manner, so—

Mr. John Solomon: Okay. So it shouldn't preclude that.

The Chair: If we can leave that, we'll deal with it—

Mr. Lynn Myers: Mr. Chairman, just before that, just to—

The Chair: Yes, Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: —Mr. Strahl, I just want to report that the language we're using here actually is technical language. It's part of what already exists—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right.

Mr. Lynn Myers: —by bringing the Speaker's position into it.

The Chair: Chuck, next time we'll pick up exactly where you were.

Colleagues, I appreciate it, but I will ask that someone move this: that the clerk and the researcher, in consultation with the chair, be authorized to make editorial changes to the second report of the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business prior to tabling it in the House.

The reason for that is that it has to be changed into a report of this committee.

Would someone care to move that?

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

The Chair: John Richardson, thank you.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I don't wish to belabour the point, but my problem is that I didn't receive the second report until this morning and now I'm told that we've already discussed it. Although these reports were supposed to have been circulated to members, I received neither the second nor the third report. That also seems to be the case for Madeleine, Mr. Bailey and John. I understand that we only just adopted it. Perhaps then we—

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: We had these yesterday.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yesterday?

[Translation]

You received them yesterday?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We'll try to find out what happened, but—

[English]

Mr. John Solomon: I had them yesterday morning, I'm told.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Fine, we'll look into it.

[English]

The Chair: Stéphane, the difficulty I have is that the committee did pass that.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, absolutely.

[English]

The Chair: John Richardson moves the motion I just mentioned, which is to convert the report to the report of this committee.

Those in favour? I see none against.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: If we could close the door, we now proceed in camera—so now leaks become possible.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Proceedings continue in camera]