HAFF 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, March 2, 2000

• 1113

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I see a quorum and we may commence.

We are dealing with two items of business. The first is the study of the 100-signature rule and the possibility of giving advice back to the Speaker on his decision of the motion—if it wasn't a motion, the matter—raised by Mr. Chatters in the House.

Secondly, we're attempting to conclude a report on leftover electoral issues raised during our consideration of Bill C-2.

We'll go first to the 100-signature issue. We had adopted a motion, you will recall, at the last meeting that the study of the technical merits of the 100-signature procedure be referred to our subcommittee on private members' business for their review and report back. The matter of advice to the Speaker, in the interim, is now before us. So the question is, should we provide advice, and if so, what will it be?

As the chair understands it, the advice would essentially be in relation to the current order of precedence and the disposition of Mr. Bryden's bill on that order of precedence.

The staff have prepared a draft that may articulate what they felt the committee members expressed at the last meeting.

• 1115

Normally we would cobble together a report like this in camera. We have not been in camera to date on this issue. That issue is in the hands of members.

The chair will proceed and will take comments on the draft prepared by staff and on issues related to Mr. Bryden's bill on the order of precedence.

Ms. Parrish has indicated a desire to speak, and Mr. Hill. I'll go to Mr. Hill first—we often go to the opposition party first—then we'll go to Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll keep my remarks very brief.

I've reviewed the draft proposal. Unfortunately, I had to leave the last meeting early, but I understand it was made at the end of the last meeting. It was put forward by the Liberals and seemed to have general support to proceed in this manner. I'd just like to put it on the record that I support the draft proposal. I think it's a reasonable solution to get us out of the current impasse.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): As you know, at the end of the meeting on Tuesday I had some serious reservations about the resolution that was going forward.

First of all, I'd like to compliment the staff on laying out the background. It helped me think this through even more clearly.

You'll notice in paragraph 4 it says “While noting that there do not appear to have been any actions carried out other than in good faith...”. So I think Mr. Bryden acted in good faith, and I assume Mr. Chatters also acted in good faith when he gave his original signature. Mr. Bryden subsequently asked for unanimous consent in the House, in good faith as well.

When you get to point 6, it says “...Standing Order 87(6) raises a number of questions, most especially the exact meaning of placing a signature on a list for an item.” A little further down in the paragraph it says “Given the ambiguity and confusion that exists, the committee has decided that the general issue of Standing Order 87(6) should be referred...”.

I think the background paper is excellent, and those spots should be highlighted.

On the specific issue of making Mr. Bryden go back and get another 100 signatures—10 from each of two opposing parties—I think, given that it was done in good faith, there was confusion, and he was functioning under the rules he thought were interpreted correctly, having him go back to get 100 signatures is an unreasonable request, particularly since it's a votable bill, it has been through the committee, and all the people who object to it have a glorious occasion to speak against it and vote against it in the House.

My recommendation would be to give the background with the seven points, leave the seventh point off, and alter it to suggest that Mr. Bryden be allowed to proceed, this one time only, until the subcommittee has an opportunity to look at the rule and verify the interpretation.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I would also like to congratulate the staff for drafting an excellent document. However, contrary to what Ms. Parrish just said, I personally think that the recommendation in point 7, just as Mr. Hill said, seems to reflect exactly the consensus we had reached at our last meeting. We had had some difficulties finding the right words to express that consensus. In my mind, the staff really succeeded in expressing correctly the consensus we had all reached, which seems to be the most reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.

Those who signed the bill also acted in good faith. Those who gave their unanimous consent to Mr. Bryden so that the minor change he wanted to be made to his item also acted in good faith when they gave their unanimous consent, presuming Mr. Bryden was also acting in good faith. I do not want to presume that Mr. Bryden was acting in bad faith, but we unfortunately have to admit that the bill was not amended in a minor way or in a cosmetic way. The bill was substantially amended. I do not want to presume Mr. Bryden was acting in good or bad faith, but it seems to me that it is not on that consideration that he got unanimous consent. A number of members, and not only Mr. Chatters, spoke in the House and said that they did not recognize the document and that they did not want their signature to appear in the document tabled the second time.

• 1120

Therefore, I think the worst thing we could do would be to say that we should proceed as if nothing had happened, bring the bill back where it was and let it proceed.

Mr. Chairman, we had a consensus and it is well reflected in recommendation number 7. I would therefore ask you to put the question on that recommendation as was agreed at our last meeting.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Just for the record, as the chair, I should reflect my recollection. Mr. Bergeron has referred to a consensus that was unanimous at the last meeting. There was no unanimity.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I didn't talk about unanimity; I talked about consensus, which is quite different.

The Chair: Getting back to le mot juste, this is the wording I heard just now from you through the translation. So I, as chair, want to say that the chair did not sense the consensus you have articulated. I appreciate that you did see a consensus, but beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. I just wanted to express that, as chair.

Ms. Parrish again.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like you to call a vote, and if the motion is defeated, I'd like to suggest an amendment or another motion.

The Chair: All right, then let's hear....

Colleagues, just to get the process in play, we don't have a motion just yet, so Ms. Parrish is prepared to move a motion.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to move the motion that the report stand up to the end of section 6, and section 7 be reworded to suggest that it will be allowed to proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. I have a point of order.

[English]

The Chair: Let's just get the motion down. I'll recognize you in just a moment. Are you okay on this?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I move that the report, as it stands to the end of section 6, be approved, and section 7 be altered: “With respect to the specific issue before the Speaker, the Committee wishes to advise the Speaker to allow the bill to continue.”

The Chair: Okay, there is a motion.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We don't seem to have heard the same thing at our last meeting. We could get the minutes and see what kind of consensus we had.

That being said, I don't know if you can still say that you did not hear me a few minutes ago. I did ask, at the end of my intervention, Mr. Chairman, that we put the question on the proposal as a whole. One can pretend that there was no motion on the table, but I did ask that we put the question on the proposal at it stands, in its integrity.

A voice: Was it written in the report, Stéphane?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: I accept that this was your exhortation, but I just don't recall that we received that exhortation as an actual motion. But if members believe there was a motion—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'll amend it; go ahead.

The Chair: Will you stand your motion down to a motion by Mr. Bergeron?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, I would like to go to Mr. Bergeron's motion.

The Chair: All right, so Ms. Parrish will stand her motion down or withdraw it.

• 1125

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'll withdraw it. Mr. Bergeron's motion is on the floor, and I would like to move an amendment to it.

The Chair: Okay. Could we articulate Mr. Bergeron's motion?

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Mr. Bergeron, would you like to move the adoption of motion A as set out in the agenda?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Certainly.

The clerk: All right.

[English]

The Chair: We'll now deal with Mr. Bergeron's motion. Do we now have a debate on Mr. Bergeron's motion? Any interventions?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to amend Mr. Bergeron's motion.

The Chair: Okay. We have a motion to amend Mr. Bergeron's motion.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I would like to leave the motion as is. I would like to amend section 7 to read:

With respect to the specific issue before the Speaker, the committee wishes to advise that the Speaker allow Mr. Bryden's bill to continue.

Mr. Jay Hill: Point of order.

The Chair: A point of order, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I believe we would first have to vote on the draft report as it exists, because that particular amendment completely changes the motion. It's the complete opposite to what the draft report says.

It's not an amendment or a technical change. It actually brings to light the very reason why we're all sitting here today, which is that Mr. Bryden collected the 100 signatures on his bill, said in the House there were only technical changes, and it was found out later there were substantive changes.

With all due respect, Ms. Parrish's amendment is not an amendment. It totally changes the intent of their report.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Then I'll withdraw the amendment and we'll debate Mr. Bergeron's motion.

The Chair: Mr. Hill, in your remarks you described something that went on factually previously in the House. In describing it, you presented as fact a conclusion you had come to, and it purported to ascribe to Mr. Bryden a certain course of action. You're entitled to your view, but I would not want the record to allow a reader to infer that the committee has accepted your interpretation of those events as factual, in particular as they dealt with Mr. Bryden's motives.

I'll leave that as a rather circuitous intervention.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I wasn't referring to Mr. Bryden's motives. I was referring to the facts that came to light in the House. It was found that the changes to Mr. Bryden's bill were not strictly of a small technical nature. That's all. I wasn't referring to any motive, and I resent you implying that I was.

The Chair: I just don't recall—

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Point of order.

The Chair: Just let the chair respond.

I don't recall, Mr. Hill, either the House or this committee coming to that conclusion, in relation to Mr. Bryden's amendments. You have reached that conclusion, and it's within your purview to do that, but until the House or the committee reaches a similar conclusion I just wouldn't want a reader of our transcripts to infer that perhaps the committee had.

Mr. Jay Hill: That's fair. There's no mention of Mr. Bryden's motives by me—only you.

The Chair: I accept all the accordance of all due respect I can get around here.

Mr. Harvey wanted to speak to this, and then Mr. Blaikie.

There was a point of order that the amendment was not in order. If members are asking me to rule on that, I would rule that the amendment is in order. It does not gut the report; it only alters, albeit substantially, one section—section 7 of a report that contains seven sections.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But Madam Parrish withdrew it.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: If it's ruled in order, then it's in order. I thought he was—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, you withdrew it.

• 1130

The Chair: A motion can be withdrawn if there's consent around the table to her withdrawing the motion. Are you asking for your motion to be withdrawn?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No.

The Chair: She's not. The amendment is in order and we will deal with that. We're on debate on the amendment, if anyone wishes to speak to it. I know that Mr. Harvey wishes to speak. Madam Dalphond-Guiral indicated to me earlier, so she can speak after Mr. Harvey. I will pre-empt Mr. Blaikie. Thank you.

Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I've always been told not to beware too much of the loud ones, but rather of the soft-spoken. Just as my colleague from the Bloc, I admit that your attitude is very conciliatory, but that it is a pity that we should invoke the majority to go against the very consensual views we had at our last meetings.

Nobody doubts Mr. Bryden's good faith. Our decision goes beyond personal considerations. Something rather serious has happened and it goes against the said member's good faith.

As indicated by my colleagues, the report we were given reflects exactly what we said at the last meeting. Mr. Chairman, I don't think we should put forward the majority in an excessive way in debates such as this because it ruins the whole atmosphere.

I think that Mr. Bergeron's motion warrants a seconder and I would gladly second it. The document that was sent to us reflects in good faith what was said at that meeting. It would be a pity to let the majority play with the consensus we had previously reached. Even the member involved will not hold it against the committee if it adopts the report in its entirety. We had a technical difficulty and it should not happen again. That's why I think we should implement the report in its entirety. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Madam Dalphond-Guiral and then Mr. Blaikie.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): This is the first meeting of the committee I attend in the year 2000. I was therefore absent when the committee discussed the matter. Although my understanding of the matter is probably very naive, the report we have before us deals with things that happened in the past and I don't see how we could amend it. If we want to change it purporting that it is not true to our decisions, I think we should refer to the blues. It seems crucial to me. I was not there and consequently I cannot say whether it reflects what was decided or not. But since I can read, understand and ask questions for clarification, I will be able to read the blues and say whether the report is true to what happened or not.

There's quite a number of people around the table and I don't know if all those good people were at the last meeting of the committee when the matter was dealt with. Maybe yes, maybe no, but the blues will tell us quite clearly whether everybody was there or not.

If not, could I then infer that by changing the players around the table at a subsequent meeting, one can in the end change anything? This is of great concern to me. Parliamentary business should be highly democratic. I am worried when I see that this committee can decide to turn down the report without comparing it with the blues.

I would go as far as asking another question since we are between us. It so happens that the bill which caused all this debate is a government bill. I wonder if a private member's bill, a bill coming from an opposition member, would have been treated the same way?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: How generous of you!

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman. That's all I had to say.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Besides, this generosity is fairly new.

• 1135

[English]

The Chair: I would note parenthetically that one of the rare opportunities a person would have to see committee members cobbling together a draft report is now happening, not in camera. I suppose that's a useful exercise.

Mr. Blaikie and then Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to speak against the amendment by Madame Parrish. I'm not sure what happened between the last meeting and this meeting, and I think if there's a will among some members to have a different recommendation go forward to the Speaker, then that's something we should discuss and we should try to work on another report. But as it stands, if this amendment were to pass, I don't think we will have done our job for the Speaker. We won't have made a recommendation to him as to what he should do now about Mr. Bryden's bill. Just telling the Speaker that we've referred the whole matter to the subcommittee on private members' business isn't really dealing with the issue.

At the previous meeting, we decided to separate out the two, the question of the process itself and the fact that it needed to be looked at and changed and some of its inadequacies addressed, separating that out from what we were going to do in terms of giving advice to the Speaker, advice he doesn't have to take but just advice to the Speaker as to how to deal with Mr. Bryden's bill.

If I understood correctly, everybody was pretty happy with that, with the possible exception of the chair. Others may have been more unhappy about it than they let on at the time and may have come to think about it since and have come back in order to undermine that decision, and I think that's fair enough, as long as it's gone about in the right way. But amending this, it's really a deletion; it deletes that part of the report that deals with the reason for the report's being in the first place.

So if I were the Speaker, I would read up to number 6, and if we eliminate number 7—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We didn't eliminate; we amended it—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: To do what?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: —to allow Mr. Bryden's bill to continue.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't deal with the issue, and it doesn't reflect what happened at the last committee meeting.

I want to speak against the amendment. Earlier I raised my hand or said I wanted to bring a point of order, but I wasn't recognized by the chair, and that's fair enough. In the course of speaking to this amendment, I'll say now what I would have said then; that is, I find that the chair has been very partisan in this. The chair is not acting as the chair. The chair engages people. The chair has an obvious position in this.

That is not the way this committee should work, particularly from the point of view of what the chair of a committee like this should be, particularly a chair on House affairs and procedure. To have the committee come to a certain conclusion—and some of the members were here before—that's not the way this committee, at least, should work. If all the other committees in the House have to work this way, that's unfortunate enough, but to have this committee work that way.... But then this is consistent with what's happening in the House today and tomorrow.

So I guess we shouldn't kid ourselves any more that we're involved in any kind of collegial enterprise. Do what you will, just don't call it democracy.

Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly.

The Chair: Mr. Bonin, and then Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For members who are suggesting that the blues would reflect anything other than what is proposed in the amendment, the blues will show my position very clearly. The deputy clerk was here at the first meeting we had. I did state that we were dealing with two issues and that Mr. Bryden's bill should continue, and that is what is reflected in the amendment.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Raymond Bonin: He may be under the impression that I was the only one, but a few minutes ago he said everyone was in agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Consensus and unanimity do not mean the same thing.

[English]

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chairman, I respect you as the chair. I don't respect Mr. Bergeron as the chair of this committee.

• 1140

The Chair: Ms. Parrish, Mr. Knutson, and then Mr. Hill.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of points.

First of all, towards the end of that meeting we didn't have a formal resolution, and that's why you asked the staff to come back with their thoughts on what they had heard.

Also, many members of the committee left before that committee was officially over. If you will all recall, at the end I made exactly the same arguments I made at the beginning of this meeting.

I would also like to pull a little rank on everyone, in that I wrote the original report, if you will all recall. And in answer to your question, I would be defending an opposition bill in exactly the same way. The intent when that report was written was that it was a pure seconding; it was not a supportive one.

As an example, I have fought hard and long against Albina Guarnieri's bill on consecutive sentencing. I was one of the 100 signators so that she could have her bill made votable after the 1997 election, not because I'd ever vote for it, but because I believed she qualified to have that bill accelerated because she had worked so hard on it for so many years.

The intent of that report was always to make it a clear seconding, not a support, and I will live up to that and I will demonstrate that. If it were an opposition bill, I'd be fighting the same way.

Toward the end of that meeting last week, the chair actually asked someone to come up with a resolution. At that point, no one could word it, so he asked the staff to go back and put our thoughts down, which they did. Many of the people, as they were filtering out of the room, agreed with the idea of making Mr. Bryden redo those signatures. As far as I'm concerned, it's a miscarriage of justice to have him go through that.

I have not changed my position. I fought for that position at the last meeting. Because people don't stay to the end of the meetings, they sometimes don't get the full conclusion.

But I don't think the rest of this report deviates even slightly from what we talked about. It talks about good faith and about diversity in interpretation. I think having that whole 100-signature rule sent back to the committee is a good thing. But having Mr. Bryden punished when those who object strongly to the change in the wording have an opportunity to vote against it and speak against it in the House is an unreasonable and onerous thing to put on his head.

I have no difficulty with the way we've amended it, and I have no difficulty with the chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Hill, Mr. Knutson, and then Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a few points to make following up primarily on what Mr. Blaikie said.

First, I find it a little bit offensive to have a member of this committee use terms such as she's going to “pull rank”. What does that imply to you as the chair of this committee? I think it's totally irrelevant that Madam Parrish was chair of this committee or brought it forward. It doesn't change a thing from the issue we're dealing with today.

As Mr. Blaikie alluded to, we're supposedly dealing in a non-partisan way with a question of privilege that was raised on the floor of the chamber in a non-partisan way, and we hear a statement that, with all due respect, she's going to pull rank. Let's get serious.

My understanding is there are at least two committee members present today who sit on the government side who were very supportive of the recommendation as exists under clause 7. If we were to vote on this and they were to completely change their position—because no matter whether we want to call it an amendment or not, it totally changes the recommendation 100%—I just can't believe we are going to allow something that is as important and non-partisan as a question of privilege to be dealt with in this manner by a committee that is supposed to operate in a non-partisan way.

If it comes down to a vote where all the members on the opposite side were to side with the government member in question and allow his bill to proceed despite the concerns expressed by members who signed on in good faith, I think that's a travesty of democracy, to be quite blunt about it. I think it will stand us in very poor stead to be able to continue to operate in any semblance of democracy on this committee.

• 1145

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, and then Mr. Knutson.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'd like to make three points, Mr. Chairman. First of all, for Mr. Bonin's personal education, I would simply indicate that in French, unanimity and consensus are two very different things.

Secondly, under the current Standing Order, it seems unfair, Madam Parrish, to say that, contrary to what you said a moment ago, those signatures and unanimous consent were obtained through misrepresentations. This is what appears to me unfair.

Lastly, I would like to say that we are also being very unfair to the staff of this committee insofar as what was written didn't just come out of the blue; the staff did not invent it. Assuming that it does not reflect the consensus is giving the impression that those people who are here, and who work very hard for us in an impartial and professional way, invented it. They did not invent it. They wrote it because it is exactly what we wanted them to write. Assuming that they are not stating the facts, is insulting them.

I would just like to say that I trust them entirely, but not necessarily the chair. I will repeat myself: I think they are doing a very professional job.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, and then Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to make a couple of points.

First, I think you're doing a fine job, since that issue has been raised.

The other thing is that I'm not sure why it has gotten so personal. On this issue, reasonable people can differ as to whether Mr. Bryden's change was a significant change or whether it was a minor change, and whether the bill should go forward. For reasons I don't particularly understand, though, it has gotten personal, and I'm not sure that augurs well for the future in terms of the committee's work.

People have talked about the words that other members are using. The opposition has used the word “consensus”. To me, the word “consensus” means what it means in a Quaker meeting hall, which is virtual unanimity, with all but the most minor of objections. The dictionary defines “consensus” as a majority. It's a vague term, and it seems to mean different things to different people.

On the issue of democracy, if you want to go through a democratic exercise, let's have a vote. People want to know whether I changed my mind from the last meeting to this meeting. I probably did. Why? Because I have a different understanding of the issue. I'm not ashamed of that. I'm not embarrassed. If you want to call me partisan or undemocratic because I've changed my mind and I'm now ready to vote that Mr. Bryden's bill go forward regardless of the fact that one person who signed it is objecting, then I'm prepared to do that. I'm prepared to live with that, and I suggest that we call the question.

The Chair: All right, Mr. Knutson has asked us to call the question. Prior to that, I had also indicated that I would recognize Mr. Harvey, so I would ask that colleagues bear with the chair. Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I think that we should come back to a more down-to-earth debate. It should be emphasized that our committee has an important role to play for preserving the rights and privileges of the members of Parliament. Out of respect for the 100 signatories of Mr. Bryden's Bill, we should accept the report in its entirety. Technically speaking, we would be hard pressed to find a report that reflects more the discussions we had. The majority does not apply here on a matter of principles since it is a very technical matter. One must admit that there were technical inadequacies in that bill and that the initial signature was not respected. The majority is here to vote as a majority on important matters of principles, but we are strictly dealing here with the acceptance of a report that reflects our debate. With due respect for our colleague and in that spirit, we should be very careful in that exercise. One cannot do anything when representing the majority. The spirit and the work of the committee are very important and I would ask my colleagues of the majority to accept the report in its entirety. Such a gesture will greatly help our future debates.

• 1150

One should also admit that our clerk did a very comprehensive work. One should be very careful when using the majority.

[English]

The Chair: We're coming around nicely to see through the fog here with reference to the issue of majority and minority. There are 15 members sitting around this table, which outnumbers substantially the one member sitting at the table in relation to whose business we are about to make a decision and from whom we have not heard.

Your chair had raised this at the last meeting, apparently without response from members. If 15 members on this committee believe it is appropriate to make a disposition in connection with the business of a colleague and in a manner that we could see as having a negative impact on the business and without hearing from the member, then let the record show that. I want to make sure it's clear that the chair is of the view that if we were to take a step that had a negative impact on any of our members from either side of the House on any issue, we should hear from the member.

Having said that, I'll see what members want to do. Two members have called for the question to be put.

Is this a point of order, Mr. Hill?

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, it is.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a couple of points.

First, I have been given a copy of the blues of the last meeting, and I want to quote from Ms. Parrish. She says: “I think we should suggest to him”—him being the Speaker—“that given our interpretation of the report that we believe asking Mr. Bryden to reconfirm those signatures would make everybody's life easier.” That's what you said according to the blues, if you want to dispute that. I put that forward in defence of the staff. I think they were trying to put forward their view of what was actually being agreed upon.

Secondly, Ms. Catterall said shortly thereafter:

I'm not sure that I agree that we need to hear from Mr. Bryden, but if the chair feels we do, then I feel we also need to hear from Mr. Chatters, because it's Mr. Chatters who feels his privileges have been violated.

I agree with both of those statements, by the way.

Mr. Chairman, you just finished saying that if a decision taken by this group were to negatively impact upon a member, perhaps in our wisdom as a group we should hear from that member, if it's going to negatively impact on his rights or privileges as a sitting member of Parliament. I concur with that.

I would also like to point out, as Ms. Catterall said at the end of the last meeting, that if we're going to do that.... Obviously if we're going to rule that we forget the point of privilege and Mr. Bryden's bill and just proceed as though nothing happened, which is the amendment we're debating, then that does negatively impact upon the rights and privileges of another member, namely Mr. Chatters. He wasn't aware that we were going to call Mr. Bryden and he hasn't been given the same opportunity to appear today and state his case.

While I'm not adverse to hearing from Mr. Bryden and I never have been, I'm quite frankly not sure what point it can serve. I do agree with the chair that if a decision is going to negatively impact upon a member, perhaps we should give them the right to be heard. We should also give Mr. Chatters the same right at the same time so that he can hear firsthand Mr. Bryden's testimony and then make his own.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I have a point of order.

The Chair: That was some kind of a point of order, and that's okay.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you for your indulgence.

• 1155

The Chair: Okay. Clearly we're not really going to put the question just now. We have a number of interventions. First Ms. Parrish, then Mr. Kilger.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that on careful and more extensive reading of the blues, you would also note that I said we shouldn't be demanding that he get more signatures. In fact, it could be requested, as you read, that he get more signatures. I think if you read it all very carefully, you would see that my position was clearly stated there. If not, I would question the blues, because that was the context in which I said that. I assume your nodding acknowledges that.

I would like to call the question, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: When members call the question and I've already indicated I'm going to recognize other members, it puts the chair in a difficult position. I think I have to follow through.

Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, following the interventions I've heard from my colleagues on both sides of the table, I would chiefly reflect on the last one of Mr. Hill. Not having seen the blues, I could be one of those finding himself in a somewhat awkward position. That may be the case.

I have reflected on this during the last two days. I've taken the time to speak to members of all parties. What continues to eat away at me is that not for one minute do I think anyone acted in anything but good faith, from the sponsor of the bill to those who signed on and everything else that has occurred. I want to include in that, above all, the people who assist us at the table in drafting the report we have before us.

I regret that I left before the meeting came to its final conclusion. If it was naïveté that allowed me to think that maybe it was possible for a private member sponsor of a bill to reaffirm 100 signatures, I've had that dispelled in the last few days. I would welcome the opportunity, if the committee would allow it and would see fit, to follow down the path suggested by Mr. Hill. Private members' business and the workings of this committee are integral because they affect every member of the House.

Following on Mr. Hill's suggestion, I think it would be appropriate to take a little additional time at a future meeting to hear both Mr. Bryden and Mr. Chatters. There might be others the committee feels should be brought forward so that we can make an even more enlightened recommendation for the Speaker.

Private members' business is a very integral part for each and every individual member of Parliament on either side of the House. It's not a matter any of us take lightly. Maybe today's meeting is a bit of a reflection of the mood that prevails right now. Maybe it would be wise to stand back and have more information, get more input from the people directly affected. I leave that with the chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: If people want to have more meetings and discuss this further and hear from Mr. Chatters and Mr. Bryden, I have no objection to that. I think, though, that at the end of the day, rather than treating a report as a motion that's approved by the majority in the same way you approve clause-by-clause, perhaps we need to treat it more as a judgment or an opinion. We can write the Speaker and say the committee was divided, with x number of people favouring this and all the opposition members favouring something else. That way, given that we're not making the decision, we're just giving advice, it might at least make people feel better if what went to the Speaker reflected the reality of the meeting.

• 1200

I'm not sure, if we have more meetings, whether we're going to be as divided as we are now, but if at the end of the process we are divided, eventually we have to say we've given enough time to this issue and we need to move on. If we write a report that indicates how badly the committee was divided, as it is now, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

The Chair: Well, it would certainly be best, I'm sure we'll all agree, that the committee would not divide and the committee would be able to give good advice to the Speaker. The fact that we might not be able to shows the difficulty the Speaker finds himself in from time to time when trying to articulate the will of the House.

I'm in members' hands. We do have a motion.

Mr. Jay Hill: I move to table.

The Chair: Okay. Do we have one motion or...?

The Clerk: We have two. There's an amendment from Mrs. Parrish and the main motion from Mr. Bergeron.

The Chair: Are you moving that we table both motions?

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes.

The Chair: All right. That would be non-debatable.

Mr. Jay Hill: I move to table the motions.

The Chair: We can deal with that, but we're going to have to discuss what we will do next. I put that motion then, moved by Mr. Hill, that we table both of the motions dealing with this.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: So we're still dealing with the amending motion of Ms. Parrish. Without further debate, I'll put the motion of Ms. Parrish. Do members wish to have that reread?

Some hon. members: No.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now we have the main motion, which is the motion set out in the agenda, unamended. That motion was moved by Mr. Bergeron. I'll put that motion, the main motion. There's no need to read it? Everyone knows what it is? That motion would essentially adopt the report as drafted by the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: All right. So we have dealt with that.

Now we can go to our next item of business, which is adoption of another draft report. The clerk has reminded us that normally to adopt these reports we go in camera, but if there is no motion from members to that effect, then we'll continue to deliberate on this without going in camera.

Mr. Robertson, can you outline the background of the current draft?

• 1205

Mr. James R. Robertson (Committee Researcher): A couple of weeks ago an earlier draft of this report was discussed by the committee. This arises out of Bill C-2 and a number of issues that were raised by witnesses and members during the committee's deliberations on Bill C-2, but which for a number of reasons were not or could not be included in the amendments to the bill. The committee wanted these issues put on record as having come up and wanted to indicate they should be raised or discussed or studied at some future point in some particular forum.

A number of changes were suggested at the earlier meeting. Mr. Solomon asked that a bit more detail be given about the number of countries in the world that have a proportional representation type of system. That has been clarified in paragraph 5.

There was also a request that we emphasize the necessity of involving young people in the electoral system. Mrs. Catterall raised the need and desire to get other groups involved. Those have been included under “Enhancing Participation of Other Groups”, paragraphs 14, 15, and 16.

There was also a request by Mr. Ted White that the political financing be brought in to a specific bullet as opposed to under the concluding paragraph. That is in paragraph 20.

There was also a request by Mr. Bergeron and I think Mr. White about election officials, which has been included as a separate paragraph, paragraph 19.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a comment that what just transpired restores in a small way some semblance of democracy in this place, or at least my faith in some semblance of democracy. I appreciate that, to those committee members from the government side who stayed with their point of view that they expressed a week ago, or a few days ago, whatever the case may be. I lose track of time in this place.

As to the current motion, I would move that we accept it as written. As I felt about the last report, I think the staff has done a great job of pulling together the report. Therefore I would move that we accept it as written.

The Chair: That's fine. Would you adopt the wording of the motion drafted by staff? It's on the agenda paper.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes. I would point out though that it's just been brought to my attention that apparently we've lost our quorum, so I'm not sure whether we can actually move anything.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: We need one more.

Mr. Jay Hill: That is unfortunate, if we've actually found something we agree on.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Had you not talked about it, it wouldn't have been recognized and we could have kept going, in the spirit of democracy.

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I know, but I just had to point that out, because I'm a democrat and I believe in the rules.

The Chair: Are you noting the absence of quorum, Mr. Hill?

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you. We're adjourned.