HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

Á

1110

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, CPC)

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Á

1115

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Á

1125

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Á

1135

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Á

1140

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Á

1145

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Thomas Hall)

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 012

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, March 30, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, I think you all have the agenda. There are actually three items. The first one is pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, March 25, 2004, the question of privilege relating to the disclosure of confidential proceedings of an Ontario Liberal caucus meeting.

    Michel, nothing important is ever said at Liberal caucus meetings. That's on the record.

    An hon. member: Is skinned beaver on that?

    The Chair: I wouldn't know about that sort of stuff.

    On this matter, colleagues, you have a sheet of paper. It's headed “Question of privilege, Question de privilège”. My suggestion is that on the first Tuesday we're back, we have a preliminary meeting on this.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Is that in October or September?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: I think, Yvon, you'd know better than I do about that. I'm out of the loop on all of those things.

    So it would be the first Tuesday we are back. Normally, when these things occur, the first thing to do is to call our colleague who has in fact raised the question in the House. In this case, it's John O'Reilly, with Derek Lee—who I understand spoke following John O'Reilly's intervention. So we would have them here and listen to what they have to say.

    Then the suggestion on the sheet is that on the Thursday, which would be our second meeting after we come back, we then invite in some representatives, for example the Law Clerk and the Clerk of the House of Commons, to go through the particular aspects of this question of privilege.

    Is that okay with you?

    Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC): I guess we have to deal with it, because it was referred to us. It does beg the question of why, when there are leaked committee reports and no one knows who did those dirty deeds, the Speaker has consistently ruled that it's not a prima facie case of privilege. He deplores the practice, but such is life. That's from a committee hearing, or a committee report or a secret report of a standing committee of the House of Commons.

    This is a case basically of a political meeting, an Ontario Liberal meeting, that is broadcast and is somehow a more serious breach of privilege than a leaked committee report. As near as I can tell, nobody has been held responsible or accountable for that; they just say that it's deplorable, and it's a question of privilege. I'm just pointing out that others would argue that it's a more egregious crime to have a leaked committee report, a secret report of a standing committee of the House of Commons.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: Okay, I'm quite willing to discuss this.

    I've actually chaired a meeting of this committee about a leaked report of this committee, which is in charge of leaked reports, or whatever they are. I can well understand there may be debate on this matter.

    I'll go back to the very first thing you said. This has been referred to us by the House of Commons. The reason I'm raising it first is that it's very appropriate that when the House of Commons refers something to us, we at least think about it.

    If I could, my strong suggestion is that we have thought about it now. I believe we have to deal with it; we can't just have a little vote now and say we're not going to deal with it. My suggestion is that we proceed in this way.

    Yvon, very briefly, if you would.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, could someone do a thorough check to determine if the equipment was malfunctioning and to see if people didn't notice that the proceedings were in camera? I believe our equipment works properly. To enlighten the committee on such an important matter, I'd like to know if an investigation was done to ascertain if the equipment was malfunctioning on that particular day.

[English]

    The Chair: Absolutely.

    You should know, Yvon, that my understanding is that the House of Commons has looked into the technical aspects of this. I think that's mentioned in the first part of the Speaker's ruling. Again, my suggestion is that we call those people in and they explain it to us.

    By the way, they know that we are concerned and that you are concerned about this, as this is on the record and not in camera. So when they come, they'll know about it.

    Dale Johnston.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, CPC): I guess that was basically the point I wanted to raise too, Peter. My understanding is that there's been an investigation, and the first thing we should hear is the results of that investigation--what was found, and what was recommended as a procedure.

    The Chair: Again, my only comment is that it is normal to invite the MPs first. That's the only thing I will say.

    Judi Longfield, very briefly, if you could.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman. We're not taking up two full committee meetings on this, are we?

    The Chair: We are, yes.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Do you believe Mr. O'Reilly needs a full two hours to put his case? I'm just wondering if we couldn't combine them, and have them both at the same meeting.

    The Chair: All right, colleagues, I'm looking around. I'm quite agreeable to that. They would be separate but at the same meeting. I'm very comfortable with that.

    Marcel Proulx.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Just one meeting.

    The Chair: James is making the point that this is as long as we can get them both here at the same time.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: But if we split the meeting so that we're not.... I mean, I just don't want two hours of--

    The Chair: Yes, we don't need to wrangle on this. I've got it.

    So at the first meeting back, subject to availability, we will call, first of all, our colleagues, and when they have finished we'll invite the clerk and the law clerk. Okay?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: By the way, Jamie is telling me that we could ask the clerk to bring appropriate staff.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just to be clear--

    The Chair: If we're going to have a lot of people, by the way, we should go back to two meetings.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, no, it's just that in the preliminary witness list we have “Representatives of the House of Commons administration to explain usual procedures, and what happened in this case.” That won't be the clerk or the law clerk, that will be either Gus or his representative. They've already done the investigation.

    So we should hear from someone on the administration side, who could come with the clerks, it seems to me.

    The Chair: Okay, I'm looking around, and people are nodding, so that also is on the record now. The House follows this stuff very closely.

    Thank you, colleagues.

    We will proceed to the second item, which is associate membership. You all have a letter to this committee from Joe Clark. He is an independent member. You can see from the letter that he's asking to become an associate member on a number of these committees.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'll move that.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Well, I was going to comment that, first of all, I've been advised, so I can advise you as chair, that we're not creating a precedent here. Secondly, though, he is a former prime minister, so it would be very easy to argue the precedent. But third, as MP, I would strongly support this.

    I have Judi Longfield and Marcel Proulx. It's moved that Joe Clark become an associate member of the committees, as indicated in the letter.

    Dale Johnston.

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Is this the usual practice, Mr. Chairman? I recall just recently signing one of these memos for an independent member. So I think Mr. Clark could actually approach any whip to become an associate member of as many committees as he'd like.

    The Chair: Michel, do you want to speak before Jamie, or should Jamie speak to that?

    Jamie, please.

    Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): I was just going to point out that the associate membership was brought in after the 1993 election to accommodate the NDP, which was not a recognized party caucus at that time.

    I didn't know that the whips had in fact done it for independent members in the past, but there's certainly nothing wrong with this committee, as the parent committee doing it, or being approached in this way. I assume that Mr. Clark did not appreciate or understand that he could approach the whips, and he wrote the chair directly on this matter.

    The Chair: He approached the clerks of these committees.

    It's Michel first, then Chuck Strahl.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Let me quote from Mr. Clark's letter, in particular the second part of the first paragraph:

The Clerks have been very helpful in ensuring that my office receives relevant notices and meeting information by e-mail, and I have been accorded the right to participate in those standing committee meetings I have chosen to attend. However, my name does not appear in public lists that might be consulted by citizens interested in knowing the membership (or associate membership) of the committees in question.

    Was Mr. Clark merely trying to have citizens who consult the lists think that he is an active member of 22 committees? I'm having some problems with this. Of course, he is entitled to participate as an independent, but he argues that since his name does not appear on the lists, citizens have no way of knowing that he is participating as an independent member. Since I know how hard independent Members of the House of Commons work, because we do have some former independent members, I have to say that I have some serious reservations about this.

    If a party only managed to elect 11 members in the next general election, then that party would not have official status. What we'd have is a group of 11 independent members who would have an informal whip. If we accepted this kind of precedent, we would add the names of 11 independent members to the list of members of the 22 committees and the voters would be led to believe that these members are active in all 22 committees.

    I have a problem with that approach. I understand that Mr. Clark is a former Prime Minister and that the Chair wants to give him preferential treatment, a seat close to him and some speaking time, in deference to his title of “Right Honourable”, but in accordance with parliamentary rules, he is still an independent member, despite the fact he is a former Prime Minister.

[English]

    The Chair: Michel, if I can comment, he's asking to be associate member of three committees.

    I am an associate member of three committees, and I do it very consciously. I submit my name to my whip so that I'm on it, so that I receive the information about the committee and I know what's going on, so that I can go and sit occasionally. I do that quite systematically myself--just to advise you of that.

    The other thing is that in order to be on a subcommittee, you have to be at least an associate member of the committee. So that's another aspect of being an associate member.

    Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have just a couple of points.

    One is that I think everyone is naturally predisposed to give a former prime minister pretty free rein on this kind of stuff, because after all, they're the former prime minister. So I have no problem with it, and I think we should rubber-stamp this, in a sense.

    I do bring up, though, that, for example, I have seen another independent member in the House--Jim Pankiw by name--who hasn't received some of these courtesies. Now, he hasn't asked specifically, but there shouldn't be a popularity contest on this stuff. This should be in the rules, if we want to put it in the Standing Orders. This should be part of our Standing Orders review. I suppose it's going to have to wait until after the next election. But it isn't fair to a member of Parliament to be judged on whether or not you like the cut of his jib. An independent member of Parliament is just that, and they should have certain privileges.

    I bet you that if this letter had come from Jim Pankiw, asking for the same thing, he would not have got the same rubber stamp. He would have received probably no consideration, and that's not right. Whatever I may think of Jim Pankiw is not the issue. The issue is that everybody needs to be treated the same.

    So if we want to do this--and I think we should--let's make sure that the next time the letter comes and it's from some guy who just got kicked out of a caucus or is an independent for who knows what reason, they get the same consideration.

    In fact, as Mr. Clark has pointed out, he's kind of saying there are footnotes, and there's sort of tradition, so I'm asking for this. It's not spelled out, and we probably should spell it out, because I don't like these things where somebody says “I don't like this guy's politics, so no, don't give him anything.”

    I've seen that happen with Jim already a couple of times. I don't like Jim's politics, but I respect his right to do what he's doing, and he was elected, and we shouldn't base this on whether we like Joe Clark--which I do--or not like somebody else.

    I think we should approve this. I think we should consider it sort of a precedent, and we should be understanding when next it comes before us--and it may be very soon, who knows?--and just say “And that also is right for every other independent member as well.” Let's just make that a policy.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: I agree in particular with the last part of what you said, Chuck. This committee is going to be looking at the Standing Orders, and I think we should look again at the nature of associate membership. As you know, with regard to the former party here, there was one party that put all its members as associate members of every committee, which was an oddity and which was a use of the existing standing order. So I agree with all of that.

    I'm going to repeat what I said at the beginning, though. First, I've been advised that it's not a precedent. Second, given that he is a former prime minister, that does give us additional protection against it becoming a universal precedent. Third, the committee is going to vote on this now, so the committee is approving this as a particular case.

    I have a motion that Joe Clark become an associate member of the three standing committees indicated in this letter.

    I'm going to go to Yvon, Michel, and Chuck Strahl.

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    As you mentioned, this is a unique case, because we're talking about a member who was formerly Prime Minister of Canada. Any other change should be agreed to in committee, further to recommendations. We need to come to a decision about this today. The precedent mentioned would apply to the NDP. However, it must be remembered that the NDP party has long been around and has already been recognized many times. Therefore, there were valid reasons for this at the time. However, in the case of a member who becomes an independent, I think the matter should be examined by a committee before any decision is made.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I don't know where that is written. The original English version reads as follows:

Nonetheless, I do have a strong interest in the work of the Standing Committees on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, National Heritage, and Justice, Human Rights and...

[English]

    The Chair: It's one committee. It's the standing committee with the world's record of length of name.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: That's true.

[English]

    The Chair: Chuck Strahl, on this motion.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything you said in your summary just before you put the motion except for the part that because he's a former prime minister, we are particularly covered off on this category. I don't think that's the way to approach it. He hasn't mentioned his status as a former prime minister in this letter. He's an independent member of Parliament, and that's how he describes himself.

    I don't want to give special status to Mr. Clark. I'll vote for the motion, but I don't think we should specify that this is because he's a former prime minister, as you did in your remarks. He's just an independent member who has come before us. We should approve this. I don't have a problem with that. But let's not make it exclusive so that former cabinet ministers also get a foot in the door and so on, and poor ordinary independent members are SOL.

    The Chair: Michel.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I'd like to correct an earlier statement. I guess our clerk had no money left in his translation budget, because the last sentence of the letter was not translated into French.

[English]

    “Consequently, I am writing to request that my name be added to the list of 'associate members' of those Standing Committees.”

[Translation]

    That's not in the French version. Most likely the clerk had exhausted his budget. That's why I said earlier that I didn't understand why his name should be added to the membership list of 22 committees. When people read the blues, they're going to think I was in the moon, but I read the version of the text I received. We mustn't blame the translators.

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: I understand, and I apologize once again. However, the motion does refer to three committees.

[English]

    Dale.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I think the proper way to deal with this is to withdraw this motion and to put a motion that turns this over to the striking committee. The normal procedure is that if an independent member wants to become an associate member of a committee, they can approach either the chief government whip or the chief opposition whip. They write up the requisite letter, and they circulate it to all the whips to sign. I have to agree with what Chuck has said, that we're basing our decision totally on who this particular applicant is, and I think that's the wrong way to do it.

    The Chair: Colleagues, I have a motion. We're discussing the motion, but we have this suggestion. On a friendly basis, we can consider this suggestion, if you wish. If not, I'm going to call the motion. If the motion loses, there'll be an opportunity for another motion.

    You've heard the suggestion. The motion, moved by Judi Longfield, or Marcel, is that the Right Honourable Joe Clark be named associate member of the three committees named in his letter. That's the motion we're discussing, but before we do that, we're considering a suggestion here.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Speaking to this, in the way that you read that, it did occur to me that you could put a comma at the end, if you want a friendly amendment, perhaps to say “and that Mr. Clark should be encouraged to approach a member of the striking committee for the House in order to make this possible”. In that way, we say that generally we're in agreement, but we want to go through the usual channels.

    The Chair: I'm advised that we are the striking committee, in effect, and we delegate that responsibility to the whips. I don't accept it as an amendment.

    I'm still considering. I'm looking at the movers of the motion with this suggestion. I'm going to call the motion.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Read the motion as it stands.

    The Chair: I'm going to call the motion as it stands.

    (Motion agreed to)

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues.

    We go to the third item on our agenda. You have a sheet dealing with this. It's the sheet that has, as its subheading, “democratic reform, ethics, responsibility, accountability, and action plan for democratic reform”.

    Essentially, colleagues, what I'd like to do now is seek your direction. This gives us some idea of where we are in the various parts of this plan. I need some direction as to where we go next with any or all of these. My thought was to go through them one by one, as they're indicated here.

    The first one is the technical part. Remember, we had the briefing, and so on. You'll see that we had the overview. It has been indicated, the meeting has been indicated.

    A possibility was raised there with respect to e-consultation. It was suggested in the meeting that we meet with Carolyn Bennett and others about e-consultation. Do you think that's worth it, or do you not?

    Yes, Chuck.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Overall, we're not hamstrung here, but it seems like we're going at this a little half-heartedly, in that everybody wants to get it done in the next sixteen minutes because we're expecting an election call.

    For example, to come to any conclusion on this first item based on the witnesses we have, I don't think it's possible to conclude anything. It was an interesting first discussion about how the wiring program is doing, but it's certainly not conclusive. We haven't had any witnesses to really conclude anything more than that the wiring is going well.

    What you do with that has not really been part of our discussion to date. I don't know how you solve that.

    The Chair: Colleagues, I want you to know that this is a matter for the members to decide. We've summarized this, and we've moved the thing along.

    That's one comment on the suggestion that is there. I would welcome other comments as to what, if anything, we might do with regard to the technical side of this action plan, as well as comments on the Carolyn Bennett proposal. Does anyone have any bright ideas? Can I ask, again, about the Carolyn Bennett thing? It's the only suggestion for further work that came out of the meeting. Would it be useful to you? Are you keen? Are you not keen?

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm keen, Mr. Chairman, but keen means that if you want to do a job about citizen engagement, that's a good discussion and it's a lengthy, weighty one. In fact, that's a whole report by itself. Citizen engagement is on: how do we engage people, how do we make it important, who do we get for witnesses, do we need to travel?

    It's a good subject. I'm interested. I'm keen. But other than being keen, do we want to get into it? Do you want a suggested list of witnesses? Do you want to talk about travelling out to watch the B.C. citizens forum on democratic reform do their work? Do we want to get right into this?

    I'm not sure. I'd love to, but I don't think that it's going to happen.

    The Chair: This is the technical aspect of citizenship and immigration. Now, it's true we could travel to study technical aspects, so I do understand.

    By the way, when you ask what do you want, it's what does the committee want? I don't see any huge enthusiasm here. I'm going to take this under advisement and I'll come back to you on number one.

    Okay, now we get to number two, because we have done a great deal of work on this, Chuck.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I know. It's been going on for years, since I've been here.

    The Chair: On estimates, we circulated the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates of 2003. You all have that. I know you've all studied it, you've read it with great interest.

    The suggestion here is for possible meetings with members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Now you realize that we as a committee--and I know some of the other committees have been doing it--have met on one aspect of our estimates already.

    Chuck Strahl. I'm glad, by the way, Chuck, you're doing this, because there's going to be this great empty silence. I don't ask the ministers. Thank you.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: There has been a lot of work done on this as well. I travelled a year or so ago with Don Boudria down to Australia, for example, where the Senate deals with their estimate process. It's very extensive, very politically charged, and it's a huge deal. The estimates process down under is bigger than the budget, by far. It requires a lot of research, and political careers come and go or wax and wane, depending on how people handle the estimates, both on the opposition and the government side.

    So it's another big deal, but I'm not sure you're going to get the answers even here again, with bringing in the in-house folks to talk about the in-house system, when really the solution on the estimates is bigger than the current government operations committee has under their belt here. It's a big deal. The estimates should be a big deal, but again I don't think you're going to solve it by reviewing the sixth report, I fear. It's a big deal.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Judi Longfield.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Chuck is right. It goes beyond.... It's one of the things the liaison committee is actually trying to tackle.

    For those of you who aren't aware, the liaison committee is the committee that is composed of all the chairs of all the standing committees. As a group, we realize that we don't have the resources, we don't have the expertise. It's one of the things we're struggling with in an attempt to put a proposal forward, perhaps to the Board of Internal Economy, to say that it's great that everyone's encouraging us to further look at and to take some quality time to study estimates. If you don't have the tools to do it, then it's really a lesson in futility.

    As chair of that liaison committee, I am going to ask that perhaps you might want to look at the recommendations that come out of the liaison committee. It has the chair of every standing committee there, and they're struggling with that very thing.

    It's the same with e-consultation: we realize it's a problem, and we're trying to find a way to engage citizens. We don't have the budget for travel. We need to get the input from as many Canadians as we possibly can.

    We're looking at it as well. So both committees are looking at it, and I'm just wondering if you might want to wait until at least the liaison committee has been able to put some thoughts forward.

    The Chair: All right.

    Chuck.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm not sure what the number is, but there was also the Williams-Catterall report on the estimates, completing the circle. We dealt with it here briefly, but it was never adopted or followed through on either. That was at least an attempt, I think, to review. That's back in the 35th Parliament, but it was never followed through on. Parts of it have been adopted, and John had a motion in the House, so we've been picking at it a little. If people are serious about changing the process, it probably has to go back to that report, as one, to see if we want to deal with it.

    They dealt with it quite extensively, and we adopted it, I think, but then it never went there. They just said “I don't think so” and that was the end of it.

    The Chair: I want you to understand I'm very conscious of what's coming out here. People are trying to deal with this. It's a very big issue. I do understand that. It has enormous ramifications. What I have to do is try to get some direction from you as to how we move as a committee.

    I'd like to say to you, apart from the perceived time limits of a possible election, I'm not convinced that this committee, unless it gets itself into the right mode, is the right place for a very extensive, in-depth study of some of these things. It really has to cut itself off or set up a subcommittee or something to do it, because the nature of our membership is such that people just can't do it. They're officials in their parties and so on. That's one of the reasons I'm trying to get direction on what we might most usefully do--we, this committee, as distinct from the others.

    I have the note about the liaison. One possibility here would be that the sort of thing we can do--as we've done before on the members' code of conduct--is sponsor a round table. We could invite the chair of liaison. We could invite the chair of government operations and estimates, and Marlene Catterall and John Williams.

    I'm looking at you because I really....

    Yvon.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, can we do that on May 20?

[English]

    The Chair: Sure.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: We can discuss this, but let's be honest. An election is in the offing, if not now, then when we return. We're wasting time, particularly on something like this. This matter calls for an extensive study that will take a considerable amount of time.

    I know some people think there will not be an election until next year, but I don't share that view. I think we would be wasting our time if we tackle this issue now. We should set it aside and get to it later.

[English]

    The Chair: You realize, again, I'm looking for direction. I hear what you're saying; I understand that. One of the things we can do is report that for the time being, we've done this, this, and this, and that's the end of it. That's one thing we can do. Or we can report and say something like we've requested further information, we're gathering together these various reports, but at the moment we're not doing anything else.

    Do you understand what I'm saying? We have to, I think, say something. We've come this far.

    Is a round table, May 20 or not, a possibility? That's the sort of thing this committee can do. We can gather the other committees and get people together. Is that a useful exercise or not?

    Come on, you cynics over there.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, we're skeptics.

    The Chair: Oh, skeptics; that's a bit different, I know.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Skeptics are positive. Cynics have given up all hope. Hope springs eternal.

    The Chair: That's right. My Greek is excellent, Chuck.

    Okay. Let's leave that one for a moment. Can we go on to number 3?

    We've sent the letters to all members. We've gotten dramatic response--one response.

    I sent a letter to Lorna Milne, and the Senate is thinking about it. I spoke to her about that. You also notice I sent the Senate, through Senator Milne, the summary of the round table. We wrote to the chairs of the standing committees, and we received an astonishing response--none.

    Judi Longfield.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Chair, I'm the chair of one of those standing committees, and this particular item was the subject of an in-camera meeting at HRSDSD and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and it sounded a lot like the discussion we just had on the two items prior: yes, everybody thinks it's a really good idea, but what can we really do; the election is coming; this needs a fuller discussion; we don't know what they want; we don't know where we're about to go. So I am going to send you a report, but I'm not certain it's going to be extremely helpful.

    Quite frankly, as a result of the discussion this morning, nobody really knows where to start. They don't know what the parameters are. They aren't certain whether each committee will be determining what goes on in their committee, under their jurisdiction, whether there's going to be a government-wide response to all of this. So these are some of the questions they were asking.

    The other thing is that right now, if you ask most of the members of the committee, they have their own view on how these people actually get to the appointment process. Is there a list? How does an individual get himself on the list? Is it just you have a friend, so you do this? I think there's just so much, it's so great, and there is no structure.

    There's an old cartoon, and I think you've all seen it, about the kid who wanted the swing. In the kid's mind that was a rope tied to a rubber tire, but we sent it out for consultation and at the end of the day what you got was anything but a swing, and it had been designed by a group of engineers who had consulted widely. At the end of the day, the kid didn't have what he wanted.

    My committee certainly was saying--and I have some pretty active minds on the committee--we're being asked to design something without setting the appropriate parameters and that perhaps a report should have been tabled that we could actually then use as a discussion point. But just simply asking do you want to do this and how are you going to do it was problematic.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The fact that only one member bothered to respond clearly shows how parliamentarians feel about this whole matter. I think we need to take that into account. That's all I wanted to say.

    However, I would like to know the name of the person who responded.

[English]

    The Chair: Guy St-Julien.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: There were a little more than that. There were people at the round table.

    The Chair: I misunderstood--

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes, but there was only one response.

[English]

    The Chair: We have one letter of reply from committee chairs.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I attended the round table, and I can tell you that there were either eight or ten members present.

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair: How many were at the round table?

    The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Thomas Hall): There were about nine people.

    The Chair: The letter of reply, by the way, from Guy St-Julien essentially asked for advice.

    I've been told, Michel, that a number of committees at least have discussed it, and they simply haven't got back to us.

    I was invited to go as witness to one committee, and I refused because they were again looking for advice and I didn't think it was my place to give the advice for something as complex as this.

    I'm only saying to you that from the round table we very quickly understood the ramifications of this review process. We've summarized here what we've done, and I'm looking for what we do next, that's all.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just off the top of my head--like most of the discussions here--there are two things.

    We could report back that we had a round table and found it very interesting, for the House's consideration--just a report on what we did.

    Second, I think you don't get responses because everyone understands this is a big deal and requires a governmental response, almost like a bill. If you have a bill before you, then you can discuss the individual parts of it.

    I appreciate the consultative nature of Mr. Saada's letter, but in a sense maybe the response is: “Now you can see the testimony from the committees, and your officials can read it again.” What we need now from Mr. Saada--and perhaps we should extend it to recognized parties in the House--given what we've seen to date, are his more specific recommendations. Then we could have a couple of reports saying “I recommend that we cut the number of appointments in half and go through a vetting process.” Then we'd have something from the government. I think everyone appreciates that it has to govern, and whichever party is going to run this outfit needs to have some freedom to do that, but what does it see as acceptable parameters?

    For us as individual parliamentarians there's difficulty in saying we'd like to review the appointments to crown corporations, when just that alone is a full-time job. It's almost like we now have to throw the ball back in Mr. Saada's court, and perhaps extend it to the other parties as well. We can say “Given the testimony to date, why don't you give us your best guess as to how this thing should be handled?” Then it won't be some poor guy on a committee who's not even sure what the reference is. Otherwise, we're going to discuss it too broadly.

    We almost need to have something from Mr. Saada specifically, and then we can kick it around afterwards.

    The Chair: That's the sort of thing I'm looking for.

    So on the last two bullets in number three, the suggestion is we send a letter--it could equally be a report to the House--to Jacques Saada summarizing where we are so far. It would include the last item, which is a list of possible options on prior review, and ask for further direction.

    We would do a draft of that by the next meeting and the committee would look at it. That's how we would proceed. Is that okay?

    Chuck.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Strange voices were whispering in my ear right when you said your concluding sentence.

    The Chair: I said what a fine person Chuck Strahl was and....

    I said this letter and attachments summarizing number three, which is review of appointments, would be available for the committee the next time. We'd look at it, and it would be in a letter addressed to the minister.

    Done.

    The fourth item is much more straightforward. It is this committee's response, and we will do that in a quite straightforward way. We have relatively few of these appointments. We'll come up with some sort of draft that will mention which of our appointments we might want to preview. We'll do that next time.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I asked Mr. Kingsley, when he last appeared, if he had a job description or a list of qualifications for the returning officers. Has that...?

    The Chair: We don't have it yet, but that will be part of that when it comes. This is a micro thing that we can deal with.

    Dale.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Under item four, it says the letter from Mr. Saada was received with a list of those appointments referred to the committee.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Yes. It's an attachment to the letter of March 16. It's a much less complex thing for us than for Judi's HRDC committee, or some of the others.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I have it. It's a one-pager.

    The Chair: It's a very particular suggestion that if the committee is going to consider some aspects of the Standing Orders, we could add the associate membership issue to that as well, at some point. This is number five.

    Yes.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: I want to go back. When you are writing the letter to Mr. Saada, perhaps you could ask if someplace in there he or his officials could provide an explanation on how the system currently works. There's always an assumption you have to change things because people don't understand how they are. Sometimes you just need to turn the light on so people actually understand what the process is. If they understand what the process is, they may determine that it works perfectly well, but I think part of the problem is that people don't understand it. These names just suddenly appear, and the assumption is that it's a political prerogative and there's been no vetting. It might make it a lot more constructive if we did that.

    The Chair: We can discuss the draft letter when we produce it, but we've made a note, thank you very much.

    For the fifth one, we'll leave it hanging there.

    I'm going back to the first ones. Can we make some sort of interim report saying where we are, saying where we think we're at a dead end, and giving some indication of the sorts of possibilities we've got to? Is that possible?

    Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Are you just talking about number one, or are you talking about the whole thing except for number four?

    The Chair: That's right. Three and four are taken out, so it's one and two.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: In general, I think we could make an interim report. I think I'm talking myself into the idea that why don't we at the end of the report invite the government minister to review our hearings and what have you and to come forward with specific proposals to address the concerns of the witnesses? Otherwise, it's just general, that we should address the democratic deficit. Then everyone says yes, and that's as far as it goes. We need some specificity or else we have nothing to chew on.

    Mr. Saada has the resources and the wherewithal to do that. If he comes back with proposals to have electronic voting and whatever he wants to say, at least then you can have something to chew on. Otherwise, we're just talking in--

    The Chair: It should be noted there will be a draft report, and we will discuss it.

    Claude Duplain.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I'd like to know why you are skipping over item 5.

[English]

    The Chair: I didn't; I was just sort of accepting it. We are going to consult in some way. The point I made was perhaps we could also consult on the question of associate membership, which we were discussing at the beginning. It's the kind of thing this committee can do quite easily, and we are going to consult. We haven't done anything about that yet.

    Are you okay with that, colleagues?

    Colleagues, this interim report will be a draft with today's discussion somehow captured in it. Does anyone have any other suggestions? I'm serious; that's what I'm looking for. It's for the chair as to this democratic reform agenda.... No, I see none.

    Colleagues, I'm going to adjourn this meeting. We meet on Thursday with the Speaker on the Speaker's estimates.