[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 20, 1995
.1105 
[English]
The Chairman: Order, please. I see a quorum.
If we turn to the agenda for today's meeting, we have a series of items we could discuss. We have witnesses here today, and we want to take full advantage of the time afforded by having them here and not waste their precious time.
I want to turn to item 1, which is the order of reference from the House of Commons regarding the review of the regulations proposed under the Referendum Act.
Mr. Hermanson and I met with Mr. Robertson last week. We reviewed his comments and the letter received from the Chief Electoral Officer, and I think it's safe to say that having been delegated this responsibility by the committee, we found no reason to carry on further correspondence with the Chief Electoral Officer. We were satisfied that the response he had sent addressed Mr. Robertson's concerns. The committee had to raise no other concerns, and Mr. Hermanson and I expressed no other concerns that weren't satisfied. The matter has been disposed of, and I thought I should inform the committee - unless Mr. Hermanson had something to say on the subject.
Perhaps before we do item 2, we can turn to item 3, because I anticipate it will be very brief. We've had a request that certain rooms be granted to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on two specific dates.
.1110
[Translation]
It is moved that we give the Standing Committee on Public Accounts priority to use certain rooms on certain days. Does the committee agree with the request of the Standing Committee of Public Accounts?
Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): You will have to explain to me why they want two lock-ups within four or five weeks.
The Chairman: It is because the Auditor General of Canada will table two reports.
Mr. Boudria: Two reports within five weeks?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): As well as a progress report under the new provisions of Bill C-206?
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Langlois: Is that so? Well then why doesn't he table both reports at the same time? It's none of my business, but it does concern me.
Mr. Boudria: I'm sure it concerns you!
Mr. Langlois: So, can anyone tell me why the Auditor General wants to table two reports within four weeks when he could table them together? I would like an explanation. Can anyone enlighten me?
The Chairman: I haven't the vaguest idea.
Mr. Langlois: I'm not complaining, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the Honourable Government Whip can shed some light on the matter.
Mr. Boudria: No, but don't forget that the Auditor General is not an employee of the government.
Mr. Langlois: He's an employee of the House.
Mr. Boudria: That's right, he is an employee of the House. Perhaps the Clerk can help us.
The Chairman: The Clerk informs me that the Auditor wants to table a progress report as well as an annual report. The annual report will probably be tabled last.
Mr. Langlois: It would not make sense to table them the other way around.
The Chairman: So the Public Accounts will be tabled in the House, as usual, in the Fall.
Mr. Hermanson.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Does this have anything to do withMr. Gauthier's private member's bill to have interim reports or the annual report, or is the Auditor General just concurring with legislation that is passed by the House because he has no choice?
The Chairman: He has choice.
Mr. Hermanson: I guess he has the option not to, but he's using the option in the legislation that was passed by this House, so I suggest we extend the use of those rooms on the dates requested.
The Chairman: Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): Does this mean all three rooms will be used in those timeframes for a lock-up?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Lee: Is it normal to have three separate committee rooms used for lock-up purposes?
The Chairman: It is usual; they normally do that. They have one where members can go to be briefed, one for the media for briefing, and one where I think they have their staff and keep their books and release them from, I think. They used to take this room. I see they've not asked for it this time.
Mr. Lee: Thank you.
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): Mr. Chairman, in this process - and this question may not be quite as relevant - I have found that lock-ups for the media go before and last after.... They were released sooner than members of Parliament. Members of Parliament haven't had the same privileged information at times, and I would hope that with the Auditor General's reports, the budgets, and other activities that have to do with releasing public information at specific times, members of Parliament would get treated equally with the press and others from this point forward. I hope that's a recommendation of this committee.
The Chairman: I think that from my own experience the briefing for MPs is a full one. Members can go in and come out. My understanding is that the media cannot come out until after the tabling. But your words are on the record. I'm sure the Auditor General is listening to today's proceedings.
Mr. Pickard: I was also bringing in the budget at the same time, because that was not the case in the last budget. I and many other members of Parliament could not get into a briefing session. Our staff could get into a briefing session, but members could not at the same time.
The Chairman: I think, with great respect, you'd want to raise that matter with the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Pickard: But I'll just put it on record here.
Mr. Boudria: Can we get back to the issue of room allocation?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Boudria: So what he is requiring -
The Chairman: This is not ``he''; it is the Committee on Public Accounts that has made this request.
.1115
Mr. Boudria: What it is requiring, then, is three committee rooms for two half days, one in October and one in November, for lock-ups. One of them is an interim report, but the interim report will no sooner be released than the final report - is that right? -
A voice: Yes.
Mr. Boudria: - is going to be printed. I must say that it's the oddest thing. I always thought an interim report was for something that couldn't wait until the final report. When you're saying from the start that you're going to release them almost at the same time, you wonder what the purpose of the exercise is. But maybe that's not for -
The Chairman: Mr. Boudria, with great respect, I think the issue before us isn't the wisdom of the reports being issued; it's strictly one of room allocation. If we want to turn down room allocation, we can do that and leave it until September. But the matter of when reports are released surely is one for the Auditor General and the public accounts committee to decide on, not this committee. I don't think we want to be involved in telling the public accounts committee how it must run its affairs, unless there is some very compelling reason we should do so.
So with great respect, I think it would be better if we decide on the room allocation or not.
Mr. Boudria: I think I've made my point.
The Chairman: Yes, it's a point that should be made, but -
Mr. Pickard: I agree, Mr. Chairman. If we were to go on to vote at this time, I would think that a good recommendation. Can we go to the question?
The Chairman: Yes. Are we ready to deal with this? Are we prepared to allocate the rooms?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I respect your point of view, but I agree with Mr. Boudria. I don't want to get involved in the business of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which is requesting the use of certain rooms, but I wonder whether it is wise to reserve these rooms for two separate events taking place within such short time of one another.
But given your explanation, I'm willing to give them the rooms, but I think it may have been interesting to get part of the information Mr. Boudria was asking for and which seems relevant. However, I respect your decision that that information is not relevant.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it agreed, then, that we allocate the rooms?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Now, back to Standing Orders. We have various documents prepared for us by Mr. Robertson that have been distributed to members concerning a series of items. Perhaps we could deal with them in the order listed on the agenda.
We have a letter from Mr. Yalden on the subject of reports in non-traditional format. Sorry, it's not a document in this case.
[Translation]
It's a letter from Mr. Max Yalden, the president of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Mr. Langlois: Can I have an explanation? In the French version of Mr. Yalden's letter, the chairman is addressed as «M. le député», but in the English version it says: «Dear Peter». That does not seem to be a very good translation.
The Chairman: I did not translate the letter. Are there any comments on Mr. Yalden's suggestions?
[English]
Is the committee in a position to consider making committee reports more accessible to all Canadians? I guess a question that could be asked of the clerk is, now that it's on Internet - is that what it's called?
The Clerk of the Committee: PubNet.
The Chairman: PubNet, yes. But it's going on the Internet very shortly, if it isn't already. Will that make it more accessible? Can people on the Internet use it to have words read out to them from the Internet, or can it be enlarged in a way that makes it more easily readable by those with problems with eyes or whatever?
.1120
Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Well, if they have the right equipment, seeing-impaired or hearing-impaired persons would probably access that kind of service. They would have to have their own equipment, or have a service provide it.
Thus far, alternate formats have occasionally been adopted, particularly by the Human Rights Committee. By alternate forms we mean, for example, an audio-cassette format. This is where the report is read onto a cassette by a service. It can also be produced in Braille for the blind.
Those are the only two alternate formats we've looked at traditionally. If you're pulling it off the Internet, quite a bit of equipment - and expensive equipment - is required for work to be read off and digitized into speech, although that technology is getting cheaper and cheaper and more accessible.
But in the past cost has been the main issue in relation to alternative formats for committee reports. An average report of 100 pages in one language would cost about $10,000 to produce in Braille and audio-cassette form.
The other impediment, if I can put it that way, has been the production time.
[Translation]
Traditionally committees are very eager to table their reports in the House. Our production timetable is usually very short either because of deadlines set by the House or because of the parliamentary political context. To produce a report simultaneously in braille, on audio-cassette and in print would considerably delay the production and often keep us from meeting the committee's deadlines, unless other deadlines were considered for certain formats, which would lead to another type of problem. In some cases, tabling in the House would have to be delayed.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Are the transcripts of committees available on audio-cassette?
Mr. Marleau: As a matter of practice, no.
Mr. Boudria: Let me reword that. If someone asked an MP if they could have an audio of the absolutely interesting discussion of the procedure and house affairs committee meeting this morning, would that be available?
Mr. Marleau: No. The audio of committees for transcription is taken in roughly 10-minute takes. They are then transcribed and -
Mr. Boudria: Let me ask it another way. What we're saying right now is heard or can be heard on radio sets in each of our offices on Parliament Hill and for a limited distance around the Hill, right?
[Translation]
Mr. Marleau: That's right.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: This is transmitted on low frequency?
Mr. Marleau: Yes, on FM.
Mr. Boudria: So then if a constituent, for instance, wanted to hear the transcript of a committee, any MP on the Hill could record it directly from the radio in his office and send it to him or her?
Mr. Marleau: Yes, that's quite possible.
Mr. Boudria: Could that not be a possible alternate method - upon request, mind you? MPs would know from a constituent ahead of time that they would like to hear what goes on in committee without routinely going through all kinds of expenditures in order to obtain this kind of information.
I think a possible answer for us, through the commissioner, would be that members of Parliament or even the House administration, when asked in advance, could record the deliberations of a committee and send these to anyone who would wish to obtain that in audio form. We don't do it and we don't archive it, but if someone wanted it for a meeting.... I know I would do it in my office if a constituent asked me.
Is that not a possible answer to satisfy, at least in part, what Mr. Yalden is seeking very legitimately?
.1125
Mr. Marleau: I think he's seeking something different in response to complaints he's received. His suggestion is narrowly addressed to reports of committees, the substantive reports - not the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence but reports such as the one the environment committee tabled today, a rather thick, 300-page report in both languages. That's what the letter is about, as compared to general access to proceedings.
The Chairman: Is there any desire on the part of committee members to make any recommendations to other committees on publication of their reports in alternative formats?
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just ask a question. We're playing one area, economics, against another, communication, and certainly there's an area of concern when we start to look at finances. The information you've given us indicates that it basically costs $100 per page for communications. That is extremely high.
The means by which most communication goes through hearing-impaired, visually-impaired and other types of organizations follows a national theme. There are umbrella organizations that have a great deal to do with that type of communication to all their members. It really is a service to all members of those organizations.
Is it the role of the Canadian government to try to provide those services, or would we do better by possibly looking at an alternate solution? That would be to attempt in some way to contact umbrella organizations that may have the service available. If we could provide all information to them at a minimal cost, they should be able to provide that service to all their members.
If our whole idea is communication, maybe we should branch out from facilities we don't have and look at other organizations that may have the facilities for that type of communication. In the end that may provide an economical solution as well as the communication we desire. The speed may be slowed down because in going to another organization we're using another step to transmit that information, but at the risk of getting into higher and higher costs....
We all know that while it might start at $100 per page, if we continue on down the line, it will be $500 per page somewhere in the future. According to what I'm hearing, that is not economically feasible, so alternate methods are going to have to be found that would be sustainable. Doing that through other organizations could work here.
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Pickard posed a question on whether it is the role of government. I think that decision has already been made, and it was made some years ago. Departments are in fact instructed to make sure that important reports and information are available in alternate formats.
I don't know how far this goes and whether it applies to all publications from government departments. Clearly the costs are being borne through government department budgets. It seems a little contradictory to have all the departments operating on a principle like that and not have the government itself or Parliament operating on that principle.
Mr. Marleau, do we know anything about the additional costs to government department budgets to do this?
Mr. Marleau: I assume the costs would be roughly the same in government departments, that is, about $100 per page for the alternate formats, which include audio and Braille.
To respond to Mr. Pickard, in the past we've either contracted it out to a specific service provider, or we've worked with the CNIB as well. They mostly use volunteers to turn it into Braille or audio format. They have volunteer readers and Braille typists.
The problem there is the delay. The committee generally doesn't want to wait for that. It may not have the luxury of time to wait because of an instruction from the House to report by a specific date.
.1130
Second, in the past we've had complaints when we've done that. We've tabled in the English and French print format. Then several weeks or days later the alternate formats come out, and that community complains that they're being discriminated against.
So even if we did do it, the delay factor is an issue that has to be resolved if you're going to do it at all.
As to the costs, I know the AG, for instance, has done it in Braille. For years now the Public Service Commission has been tabling its annual report in Braille format. It would be roughly the same kinds of costs.
I suppose if there was a service provider to all government departments in terms of volume, if somehow one could capture all that activity under one umbrella and contract it out to a service provider, there mights be some dimension of savings because of the scale and volume of work. I don't think it has reached that kind of situation in the government at this point.
Mr. Hermanson: How many requests from disabled persons are received for committee reports in alternate formats per year?
Mr. Marleau: I don't have that information with me, Mr. Hermanson. I can only go from memory. Depending on the issue before committee, it can range to many requests. For a general issue, a dozen to two dozen a year would be about average, but I'd have to confirm those figures for you.
There's more interest in the human rights committee, particularly when it's reviewing issues relating to the disabled and handicapped. For instance, we had National Access Awareness Week just recently and so there's always more interest in certain issues. However, by and large there's a fairly low demand.
Mr. Hermanson: So it's fewer than 100 requests a year, maybe fewer than 50. Are these individual requests, or are they requests by groups for hundreds of copies?
Mr. Marleau: They come from individuals and they come from associations that are either working on behalf of or with the interested communities.
Mr. Hermanson: And how many complaints on average would be received from disabled persons per year concerning the fact that they can't receive these reports immediately, or as soon as they're tabled?
Mr. Marleau: I would say that the level of complaints amounts to roughly a couple per year to the Speaker or the House. Someone writes in to say they couldn't get this in alternate format.
I don't know how many complaints a year the Commissioner of Human Rights might get in relation to our publications. We don't have access to that documentation. I think he's pursuing a matter of policy rather than an issue of specific complaints he's trying to resolve.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the situation warrants our attention, perhaps without some investigation as to how significant a problem this is and whether or not it can be handled in a manner other than having to provide all reports in alternate formats. Maybe there are other instances of equally pressing need for better service from the House and more significant demand for those requests.
I'm certainly considerate of the needs of disabled persons, but in light of the Clerk's response to those questions, I'm just wondering whether the situation warrants immediate attention without a little more investigation on our part.
The Chairman: That's why I started off by asking what the move to the Internet would do in terms of access. Is it possible to have reading off the Internet via voice medium? Is there a way of reading a screen to a viewer? I presume that with special equipment there is, but I don't know that. I'm just not that familiar with it.
Mr. Marleau: It requires special equipment that digitizes the data coming off the computer through the equivalent of your printer. Rather than transform it into printed characters, it transforms it into voice. That exists now. There are sound cards and sound blasters, as they're known, that do that.
.1135
So far it is still fairly slow generally unless it has been specifically programmed for random reading off any database, Internet or whatever, but it's improving. The quality of sound is improving and costs are going down. As costs go down, access is going up, but it requires very specialized equipment.
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we were talking about sound, audio feeds, taping and that type of thing. You suggested there aren't that many organizations. Surely we could negotiate with that organization so that we reached a solution something like this: we will immediately and directly fax you those transcripts, and in turn you could have somebody sit and read them onto a tape and make that tape available to people.
That's certainly not going to be a high cost, and it could be done immediately. That would stop this time gap and also expedite information to them as quickly as possible.
Are we dealing with organizations that would not help their members out to a small degree? On the other hand, if we were, to mail or fax the transcripts - give it to them in hand immediately - it seems to me that problem could be solved through a minor negotiation without a major issue of $100 a page being arranged at government cost.
Mr. Marleau: As it is now, we do that for any interested party, whether they're part of the handicapped community or not. Anyone who would like this can phone a committee clerk and obtain quick access to information by fax or phone. The issue the commissioner is raising is more a question of equal access and timely access rather than just access.
In the past we have collaborated with the CNIB. I remember when I was head of the committees branch in the early 1980s, we had a group of committee clerks who as volunteers on their own time did some reading for the CNIB for some audio tapes of specific reports. Some of our staff volunteered to do that, for example, for one on visible minorities in 1982 or thereabouts.
In terms of collaborating with agencies or organizations out there who serve a handicapped community, we'll do our utmost to give them preferential treatment, if I can put it that way, in terms of facilitating the service they will provide to their community.
Because the volume is not all that great we can do that, but the actual manipulation of the data into Braille and audio-cassette requires post-final-report treatment. A report has to be completed and approved by the committee - and not a comma to be changed - for it to be put into Braille or audio-cassette form.
That represents a delay. The committee has to plan for that in drawing up its project time line leading to a reporting date, and also has to plan for the costs within its budget.
Right now there is the sum of $2.2 million voted by the board. The report printing costs form part of the budget of each individual committee. So each committee that decides to go to an alternate format also bears that cost. In an average year that represents between $300,000 to $500,000 in the $2.2 million envelope.
Mr. Pickard: Are you suggesting then that the blues, the transcripts as they occur, have to be finalized before they can go out? Is there any way we can...?
Mr. Marleau: I'm simply talking about committee reports. That is the final report tabled in the House, such as today's environment committee report, which is a substantive report, chapter by chapter, the committee's analysis of the order of reference and its recommendations to the House. This is not the evidence accrued before the committee such as this meeting today.
On average, 130 to 140 of these reports a year - a little higher this year, and I don't have the exact figures with me - are tabled in the House. These are substantive reports. These do not include all the reports that are tabled in the House on legislation in preparation for report stage, the bills amended by the committees. These would have a separate set of difficulties because of the turnaround time there as well. The government can call the bill for report stage only 48 hours after tabling.
.1140
We're having a hard enough time as it is now delivering the report of the committee to the House on time and providing members with the legal drafting services they require for report stage motions. If you add to that the fact that at the same time those reports would be considered for printing or distribution in alternate formats, we just do not have the capacity. If we're also to treat reports on legislation, resolving those kinds of delays would demand quite an increase in financial and human resources.
Mr. Pickard: I'm totally in agreement with you. That's why I think we have to have a vehicle for supplying the information and working with organizations. It seems to me that most organizations are willing to work together in order to resolve the problem. If it were pointed out that we'll do everything we can if your organization will help in these ways....
It seems to be a problem that may be out of proportion to the actual capacity to do it in a reasonable way. People may take a very extreme line and say the only way they would see equality is by having that tape in front of them at the same time as the transcript is there, but we can't meet all the extreme situations.
Mr. Marleau: No, but that's a policy decision. It can be done. Given the resources and the money, it can be done.
Mr. Pickard: Given the money, I say we can't meet all extreme situations. We don't have unlimited money.
Mrs. Catterall: When you provide an audio tape, do you also have to provide Braille? Would you need people?
Mr. Marleau: To do both?
Mrs. Catterall: Yes.
Mr. Marleau: You'll get the argument from the seeing-impaired community that some of their interested parties like to use Braille for research purposes. If you're doing research and listening to a 300-page report on audio, flipping back and forth - unless it's been flagged with special types of markers for you to go back and forth and absorb what is being said - doesn't provide the same access as Braille, where you can flip pages, go back and forth, skip a paragraph and re-scan the way -
Mrs. Catterall: On the other hand, not everybody who could hear it on audio tape reads Braille.
Mr. Marleau: That's right. That's the argument within that community.
Mrs. Catterall: It seems to me, Mr. Chair, that either we believe in accommodating disabilities or we don't. My other question relates to how long a delay it takes for a committee report to be translated into the other official languages. Does the committee build that into the time line? Obviously they have to.
Mr. Marleau: Committees don't always build it into their time line. On behalf of my staff and the Secretary of State I can say that when we go for translation we pull off miracles on a regular basis. This is reflected in the quality of the reports that are tabled in the House at the behest and urging of committees to meet certain deadlines.
Some of those exercises are quite expensive when it comes to overtime. I'm not passing a value judgment on the necessity; committees have their own priorities. But by and large, every major committee report is a test of translation, printing, editing, and logistics. That is beyond anything seen in the printing industry.
Mrs. Catterall: Just for context, what does it cost to produce, table and distribute the report the environment committee put out today?
Mr. Marleau: I have no idea. I didn't look at the cost of that one when coming to this meeting. But from the looks of it, it's about 1.25 inches thick. I'm told it has special paper because of the environmental consciousness of that committee. That costs a little bit more.
I would say it would be in the range of $12,000 to $15,000 for both. I'd be in the ball park with a margin of $1,000 or $2,000.
To add an alternative format would roughly increase the cost by another $10,000 for a 100-page production. So if it's 300 pages, you're looking at $30,000 for that report.
Mrs. Catterall: I guess I'm just disturbed, Mr. Chair, that we put these kinds of constraints on ourselves. Yet various government departments, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Human Rights Commissioner, and the Auditor General seem to have access to all kinds of money to make their reports available in whatever format they want, be it CD-ROM or whatever. I think it's time to sort out some of these things and ask what is the minimum level of service from government, including Parliament, that people with disabilities can expect?
.1145
Standards should be set. In fact, we should be looking at what is being done in government and whether it is reasonable. Maybe this committee should not be doing that; maybe it should in fact be the human rights and status of disabled persons committee. But I just cannot accept that a government department or a commissioner can meet the needs of the disabled community and the Parliament of Canada cannot.
The Chairman: I think the human rights committee certainly has jurisdiction with respect to its own reports. It could make recommendations to us or to the Board of Internal Economy with respect to reports of other committees. On the other hand, we're in a position to make a recommendation directly to the Board of Internal Economy and recommendations to other committees.
Mr. Robertson has made the suggestion that perhaps over the summer work could be done by him in conjunction with the Clerk. If members feel that would be useful, they could prepare estimates of the costs of preparing reports of committees and House proceedings in various formats. Obviously cost is going to be a significant factor in all of this.
It's also fair to say that while we look at the Auditor General's report or the report of the human rights commissioner, that's an annual thing and it's a relatively modest document compared to the volume of paper that is churned out here with committee proceedings, committee reports and House proceedings.
But if members are keen on the idea, perhaps having this research undertaken over the summer, with some work brought back to the committee in the autumn, would be the way to handle this.
Mrs. Catterall: If I could pursue that, I would also like to know what in fact is the official policy for the government and for government agencies. Has a costing been done on what that policy is costing so that we are dealing with this on a comparable basis?
Mr. Pickard: If you provided sound-tracking for the visually impaired, would that eliminate some of the visually impaired...? I realize the cross-referencing question you brought up before in regard to Braille.... Would the sound-tracking suffice to communicate most of that information to the majority of those who would be in that...?
Mr. Marleau: I can't answer that, Mr. Pickard; I think I'd have to ask the CNIB, which deals and interacts with that community of disabled persons. I'm not in a position to judge whether it would satisfy a majority, less or more.
The general answer was that if it were all done in audio, I would think that would give them more access than they have now, but to what degree that would satisfy the demand I don't know.
Mr. Pickard: If it were all done in audio - and I guess I'm at a loss as to why it would cost $100 a page - we could have a reader or readers reading pages onto audio and/or we could introduce a process in the committee system and automatically have them taped. If requests were made, it would be a matter of using those tape libraries to send out the committee reports.
I know it's a process. Eventually you're talking about storage, indexing, and all the processes that would be put in place in order to do the audio. But it seems to me it could be done at somewhat less than $100 a page, unless there's very little demand for most of that work. Then I think we'd have to target the demands and look back over it.
Mr. Marleau: Straight audio is relatively inexpensive; it's about $12 a page. So for a 100-page document, you're looking at $1,250. The Braille is more expensive and runs about $9,300. So when I gave you that $10,000 figure, it was for a combination of audio and Braille that you would make available simultaneously.
.1150
Mr. Pickard: So while doing those studies in the summertime, you and Mr. Robertson may also be able to come up with some alternative costing that might be practical for us to put into the process.
We should also very much look at the demand from organizations or individuals. Are all proceedings requested, or very specific ones? If particular ones are requested, we should try to target those.
Mr. Marleau: As I said to Mr. Hermanson, we can check. The demand made directly on us is only a small portion of the demand out there. If you're hearing-impaired or blind, you go to a university library and you want to obtain a report of this committee, let's say...there's a diffused demand out there that is probably unquantifiable. That's why the Human Rights Commission is raising it as a matter of policy rather than as a matter of quantifiable demands.
The Chairman: I don't think we've had any requests from any groups - correct me if I'm wrong - to make available our material in any particular format so they can transcribe it or change it into some other formats.
Mr. Marleau: Not directly. no, except for the closed captioning issue, which is before you as well.
The Chairman: Are members agreeable to the suggestion I made that the Clerk and our researcher work on this over the summer and come up with the data for the committee in the autumn? Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could reverse the next items on the agenda. Since we started a debate on emergency debates before, let's turn to that one. We now have a working document from Mr. Robertson on this matter.
Mr. Hermanson, this was your idea. Is there anything in the document that is of assistance to you or that you want to draw to the attention of members for further discussion on this matter today?
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did read through the report Mr. Robertson has prepared. I think it fairly accurately represents the suggestions I made to the committee.
The primary suggestions were to change the format of emergency debates to make the debate take on a new dimension, including a period of questions and comments following the speeches, rather than the current practice of no interaction between members after speeches are made.
My recommendation is that the committee ask our clerks and legal people to draw up some potential changes to the Standing Orders along the lines suggested in Mr. Robertson's report, so we could review these recommendations when we come back in the fall.
The Chairman: Are there any comments from other members on this issue?
Mrs. Catterall: I have one comment for Mr. Hermanson.
I'm reviewing these. These are largely his suggestions that came forward at the last meeting. One thing I find problematic with them is to have the whole thing based on the positions of parties. For some time now I've been hearing from the Reform Party that individual members should be allowed to speak their minds, speak on behalf of their constituents and speak to their conscience. I frankly find this far too restrictive.
The Chairman: I'm sure Mr. Hermanson's intent was not to eliminate the views of members, no.
Mrs. Catterall: I can't imagine it.
Mr. Hermanson: The other night what we saw in emergency debate was the fact that after the leaders of the parties had spoken, there was more or less a lack of interest. The major statements had been made, and my view is that many members were speaking to an empty House.
The thought behind changing the format was to actually have some key speakers - critics, more than likely - lead off the debate. Then we'd have other members who had strong feelings - and it certainly doesn't have to be along party lines - have an opportunity to speak to the issue.
We'd then have the summation period where the leaders would speak, with the final summation made by either the Prime Minister or the minister of the Crown responsible for that portfolio.
.1155
The Chairman: I'd comment that just because members are speaking to an empty house doesn't mean there's disinterest, because with our wonderful television system -
As you know. Mr. Hermanson, many members watch the proceedings with enthusiasm from the peace and quiet of their own offices or from the lobbies and sometimes have been known to yell at the TV screens.
Mr. Hermanson: The other point we're trying to make is that an emergency debate has been requested because members are concerned with an issue they feel is very significant. The current process is for the leaders, either the minister, the leaders of the party or the key spokesperson, to lead off the debate. Basically, the final word has been said first, which doesn't encourage what all members from all parties would like to see in an emergency debate.
We're encouraging a process where all the positions are put on the table. The leaders would then be able to digest the contents of the debate, actually acknowledge they've heard what members have said on both sides of the issue, or on both sides of the House depending on how the lines are drawn. Maybe there aren't even lines; maybe there's consensus.
So they summarize a consensus, and in the case of the government they can say it is our intention to - or in light of this debate we're going to reconsider. I mean, it's some kind of conclusion rather than leading off and saying we're going to do this, or we don't know what we're going to do, and then a meaningless debate follows.
Perhaps this isn't the be-all and end-all, but I certainly think it warrants a trial either in a take-note debate or an emergency debate. It would really add a much more constructive dimension to the debates in the House.
The Chairman: Certainly, Mr. Hermanson, your idea of putting some of the - if I can use the expression in a non-derogatory way - bigwigs at the end of the debate would add an additional stimulus to the evening's proceedings that is currently lacking.
Mr. Pickard.
Mr. Hermanson: I'd just like to make one more comment and then I'll be quiet and listen.
Currently, say, if it's on Bosnia and the Minister of Defence gives his opening statement, he's more or less expected to sit there and listen to everybody else. He has no chance to interact. There are no questions or comments. He just has to sit there and listen. He can't sum up at the end. It seems rather unfair.
The Chairman: Mr. Pickard.
Mr. Pickard: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. When Mr. Hermanson spoke on this the other day I expressed my concern that members of Parliament would be treated unequally by this form of emergency debate. Maybe I could just elaborate on that a bit.
I believe all debate in the House is meaningful, not meaningless, and I think that should be very clear. Members who take time to prepare speeches and present information are presenting them from different points of view. As a member from rural Ontario, I do have a different point of view from possibly a member from Toronto, Vancouver or elsewhere. We have to recognize the differences in this country and different types of areas we represent. That's important in the debate process in this country, no matter what bill we consider.
Second, if we frame it on party lines, as we're talking about in Mr. Hermanson's presentation, I believe it negates the fact that one party such as the government party today is sitting with170 members while other parties may be sitting with 50. Of that 170-member group in the government party, how many of them would get an opportunity to speak in the format being suggested here?
I believe we limit the number of government speakers dramatically and therefore say the voice of everybody in that 170 isn't fair, equal or heard. In other words, I as a backbencher in the government party would never get an opportunity to debate. If I did, it would be so limited that it wouldn't be fair and wouldn't allow my constituents fair representation.
I do believe that if you have small numbers in the party, then that would possibly be an acceptable solution. That is not, however, the way our government is structured. Therefore, as a member of the House of Commons and not just a member of a party, I feel my rights would be very much restricted if it could only be debated on party lines with the leaders, key speakers and then a summation.
Mrs. Catterall: And your constituents' rights.
.1200
Mr. Pickard: That's right. I very strongly think there may be some compromise, discussion, and extension of what we're doing in emergency debates.
I think back on the debate we had during the Gulf War, and almost every member of Parliament felt it important enough to get into the House and speak. Several of them came thousands of miles back to the House to participate in an emergency debate.
That is the other side of the coin. It's not a very narrow gap, but that was the expression of a broad spectrum that went on for a very long time. There are times when those emergency debates do require the viewpoint of every member of Parliament - all their issues - because it affects many people within their ridings.
I think limiting that is a dangerous pursuit. In particular, I would strongly object because of the type of format that would limit my ability to speak when I wish to speak in the House.
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): I notice we don't have an objective definition of an emergency. There's no provision for court reviews as happens with ordinary statutes. It's subject to determination by Parliament within certain procedural rules, and the procedures control it.
I'm interested in hearing about your experience, Mr. Chairman, based on your considerable parliamentary knowledge and interest. Has the request to hold emergency debates been raised frivolously? Is there a feeling about that? On the other side of the coin, has it been arbitrarily rejected? Is there any particular House feeling on this?
The Chairman: The Clerk might be in a better position to answer than I am; he has far more experience. One would say that on occasion there have been frivolous requests for emergency debates, but there have been very few requests of that kind in this Parliament. I don't know that we could label any of them as frivolous in this Parliament, but certainly in the last one there may have been a few.
Mr. McWhinney: Does Mr. Hermanson feel that permission has been refused arbitrarily?
Mr. Hermanson: The current Standing Orders give the Speaker the right to decide whether or not something qualifies as an emergency debate. We are not calling for any change in that procedure.
Mr. McWhinney: You're perfectly happy with that?
Mr. Hermanson: Yes, I've only seen one. I've seen a couple of requests refused; for example, the debate on the fishery situation. That's another issue, which I wasn't trying to address in this paper, namely how -
Mr. McWhinney: But I think it's rather important in terms of what we're dealing with. Simply things that people consider important rather than, say, an emergency - The Gulf War was an obvious emergency and financial crises are too, but if this becomes a more regularized procedure -
Mr. Hermanson: The less-than-emergency situations are usually handled through opposition supply days or government take-note debates.
Mr. McWhinney: The Tuesday, Thursday -
Mr. Hermanson: This procedure actually may work well in a take-note debate too. As far as the format is concerned, we might look at something like what we've suggested here for the emergency debate.
I can see some value in that as well - and even on the opposition day. I think it would certainly add a new dimension.
In response to Mr. Pickard, I might just add that the debate is now structured along party lines because the rotation is followed. You go government, opposition, government, opposition, or the other way - opposition, government - So what we've suggested really doesn't change the allocation of speaking time among the parties any differently from what is now allocated.
Mr. McWhinney: How old is this concept of opposition day, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: How old? It began in 1968 or 1969, something like that.
Mr. McWhinney: It's relatively recent. As Mr. Hermanson was suggesting, in a certain sense it has taken care of a good deal of the demand for emergency debates, because it occurs irregularly and there's no way of controlling it. It's the opposition party's own judgment of what's important.
The Chairman: And everyone knows those are never frivolous.
Mr. Boudria.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Boudria: We certainly weren't frivolous when you and I were in opposition, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Oh, no, never.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Mr. Boudria: I like some of the ideas Mr. Hermanson is advancing, but not all of them.
First of all, I think that objectives should be to make as many members as possible participate; that I like. I also like the idea of having the so-called bigwigs speak at the end rather than at the beginning. I think those concepts are good.
.1205
There are problems elsewhere, however. A fifteen-minute speech or fifteen-minute questions mean a half-hour per speaker plus a twenty-minute summation per leader. There I meetMr. Pickard's comment. If you have that, in any three-hour debate you in fact have two ordinary mortals from the government speaking. That is two, that is pretty bad; maybe there are three if you're very lucky.
The McGrath committee report - underlined here on the third page - talked of amending the emergency debate mechanism so that everyone could speak for ten minutes. I think I like that a lot. Ten minutes, five minutes, questions and answers -
Mr. Hermanson: I'm not opposed to that.
Mr. Boudria: Good. It would enable many more members to participate.
If we had that for three hours, Mr. Chairman, it would be a little like some of the report stage debates. Many people participate. You could have a dozen MPs, possibly more, if there are not too many questions and answers, and so on. If people want questions and answers, there can be questions and answers. We would have a large number of MPs participating.
So let's say we do that and allow the last three speakers.... In other words, it would be a little like the system right now when we start debates with the first three speakers for twenty minutes; we would have the process in reverse. We would have everyone for ten minutes, except for the last hour where you revert to twenty minutes with the understanding that that would be the keynote speech in each case at the end.
Mr. McWhinney: Or the minister.
Mr. Boudria: Dr. McWhinney suggests that it would be done by the minister. That's possible, or it could be done by his parliamentary secretary or whoever.
Mr. Hermanson: It could very well be the Prime Minister.
Mr. Boudria: It could very well be. But that would be the general sense. In other words, the most important speeches, the summations, would be at the end and would be done almost in the reverse order of what we do now. In other words, we would start off with the third-party keynote speaker, then the opposition and end up with the government's position on what we've just discussed.
If we did it that way, you cut it off an hour before the end and then you have the keynote speakers in reverse, for 20 minutes each. Then I would like that.
Anyway, it's a suggestion I make to the group. It's incorporating some of Mr. Hermanson's ideas and I believe some of Mr. Pickard's comments as well. More of us would participate and we would reverse the order to accomplish what Mr. Hermanson was concerned about.
Anyway, it's an idea. Test it.
Mr. Pickard: I have one point, and it has to do with speeches and then questions. I think questions are good, but it seems to me that we have gone to the questions.... If we have a 20-minute speech and a 10-minute question period, it becomes a mini-speech from someone else. In other words, in my opinion, it is not really and hasn't been used as a question period, trying to elicit information. It's been used as a mini-speech platform.
The Chairman: It was questions and comments.
Mr. Pickard: I realize that. So when we get into this structure, my caution here is that if we eat up too much time with the questions and comments, if we eat up 50% or 30% of the time, which is being proposed here, we do end up with major speeches, mini-speeches, and that's the direction we go. Whether that is a legitimate way to get everybody to speak and have equal opportunity or not is questionable, in my mind.
I would think I wouldn't like to see an expansion of this. It's not interplay in a way; it's mini-speech versus major speech. Somehow I think we should look at that aspect too, because in a way it eats up a lot of time and a process.
.1210
Now, if we want to go that route, if that's the route we go, fine. Then to get your mini-speech in depends on how you get recognized by the chair.
The Chairman: We can always change this so it's questions and not questions and comments. The naming of questions and comments encourages members to make mini-speeches rather than ask questions.
Mr. Pickard: Exactly, and that's where I'm bringing up process. If somebody were to ask a question, have a minute to ask the question and a couple of minutes to respond, that's fine, but we find four minutes for questions and comment and almost no time to respond...that is not putting things in proper perspective.
Mrs. Catterall: I think we're talking about two different things here. We are talking about an emergency debate. By definition, an emergency debate needs to happen immediately, not two or three days hence.
The second thing is the subject of our earlier report, special debates. We're talking about that more here. I like what Mr. Boudria suggested. We should have the speeches shorter, have the summing-up, the basically yes-I-was-listening speeches, at the end.
I don't think any expectations should be created that at the end of a three- or four-hour debate a minister or someone speaking on a minister's behalf is going to....
I do think three hours is not necessarily long enough, but that could depend on how much we shorten the questions. I don't think anybody is going to expect that at the end of a debate someone officially is going to say this is what our position is going to be. Nonetheless, I do think that's an important concept.
Maybe we should revisit that earlier report and look at how we can set up special, as opposed to emergency, debates. It almost gives the opposition an opportunity to request a take-note debate, much as the government can now do. It allows for issues to be brought to the floor of the House in a way that gives some real time for discussion.
On the question and comment issue, frankly I find that one of the most valuable uses of House time and it should not be confined to questions. Perhaps we might want to look at whether the Speaker should be given some direction to ensure that those are kept much more brief than they are now. In other words, they shouldn't turn into mini-speeches where somebody can in fact take a whole ten minutes to make a comment.
In looking at the concept of a special debate, I wonder if two people are splitting their time - in other words, doing 10 and 10 - wouldn't it be worth while to encourage that exchange, which I think is a very dynamic part of Parliament? Couldn't we group question and comment periods after three or four speakers and have a bit of an exchange across the House, rather than the little five-minute chunks, which tend to stifle that just a little?
Those are just some suggestions, but I think we are talking about a different kind of debate. I like what we talked about earlier with respect to a special debate. I think we should pursue it.
Mr. Hermanson: There has been a lot of good discussion here, and I appreciate that. I agree with Mr. Pickard that if you have questions and comments, particularly when they are ten-minute questions and comments and someone goes on and on and makes a speech, and the person who is being asked a question at the end has one minute to respond, that is very unfair. We need to encourage the speakers to exercise some judgment and fairness.
It is difficult to get anything that really amounts to much when you have a ten-minute speech and five minutes for questions and comments. Sometimes you get two people if they're brief with their questions or comments.
You may get two people in a position where they can interact with the person who gave the ten-minute speech, but it is rather tight. If the first person goes on for two or three minutes, then the member only has a couple of minutes to respond, the matter is done and it is just the luck of the draw. Who asked the question? Was it a reasonable or a good question or comment? Who knows? Then it's over with; you've had your roles to play in the debate and you're finished once and for all.
I think we did discuss special debates. We really need to determine whether we need special debates or whether the government take-note debates and the opposition supply days fill that need or not.
.1215
If we're going to look at some change in the debating process, I would suggest that perhaps we stay with the emergency debate for now, at least. I do think the summing up at the end is probably more relevant, if something qualifies for an emergency debate, than any other topic. If it works well, I would suggest that we look at the same format for a take-note debate or even for a supply day sponsored by an opposition party.
I don't know if we want to jump into this with all four feet and try to do it in special debates, take-notes, opposition days and emergency debates. I'm not sure that's wise.
The Chairman: While the committee members may want to make more general comments in respect to questions and comments and those periods allocated to members in the House, there's one other alternative. We could change it to question period instead of question and comment period and deliberately try to excise comments from the ten minutes, or five, as the case may be.
But I remind members of the practice that existed, and technically it's still permitted under our rules, though it's fallen into desuetude at the moment. Members can rise to ask a question of the member speaking and the member speaking can yield the floor to another member for the purpose of allowing a question to be asked. It doesn't involve intervention on the part of the chair if the speaker sits down and allows a member to ask a question.
Members used to stand and say ``I'd like to ask the hon. member a question''. By rising, they indicated their desire to do that. The member speaking could say he'd take a question, then allow it to be asked and give an answer as part of his speaking time.
This was particularly common in the days when the speaking time was limited to forty minutes. When they cut it back to twenty, it started to go out of fashion, because members found they were pressed to get their speeches into the twenty-minute period. I'm sure it's even worse with a ten-minute speech; it's really difficult to get in all you want to say sometimes.
Mr. McWhinney: When did the practice switch?
The Chairman: I can't remember when they changed from forty to twenty, but I think it was in the 1960s, was it not?
Mr. McWhinney: It was certainly part of the English House of Commons practice, but then of course there were no time limits on speeches.
The Chairman: There weren't here originally either. As I say, I can remember seeing it happen in the 1960s, when there were forty-minute time limits. That's my earliest recollection.
Mr. Marleau: The change was made in 1983, under the Lefebvre committee. It went from most speeches being forty minutes to them being twenty minutes.
It was common practice here when it was unlimited time, but it fell very quickly into disuse even with the forty-minute speeches in the 1960s and 1970s. There was very little use of the practice, essentially because it interrupted the time available to a member to make a full speech.
Mr. McWhinney: The member yielded gracefully, which was part of the original thinking. There was sometimes almost an understanding that it would be done.
The Chairman: And that it would be a very short question. You didn't make a comment; you asked a question.
I can remember seeing how often the request was made in the 1960s but was refused because of the limited time. Still, the requests were frequently made. Now they're never made and indeed the chair actively discourages members from even asking a member who has the floor if he will permit a question.
Mr. McWhinney: Could the chairs be encouraged, in this question and comment thing, to exercise the same control of question lengths, for example, that they do during the formal question period? Some of the questions are substitutes for speeches too. They're not succinct and they're not always very relevant.
The Chairman: That is what I was saying. I think we could make recommendations in respect to the conduct of it to the House, and the House might want to consider them in a report.
Most members who have indicated a desire have spoken.
Mr. Marleau, you've been very patient, and I think you want to make some comment.
Mr. Marleau: I'm careful not to join your debate, sir. The Clerk is mute in debate. But there is one point in Mr. Robertson's paper that I think is slightly overlooked, although I suppose it's caught, in a sense, where it says ``the committee recommended, among other things''.
One of the things the McGrath committee recommended is very pertinent for the Speaker in making a decision on whether the House is faced with a request that relates to a genuine emergency - une urgence véritable - as it is termed in the rule. That's a real difficulty for the Speaker. That's the key phrase that allows the Speaker to make a decision.
The McGrath committee recommended - among other things, says Mr. Robertson - the deletion of the word ``genuine'' so that the matter would relate to an emergency calling for immediate and urgent consideration. The report was tabled with that recommendation, but the Standing Orders that were inspired by the report did not have that change, and that was a deliberate decision at the time.
.1220
It goes back to the early 1960s, when there was a committee such as yours struck to look at the issue. They made recommendations to tighten up the definition of ``genuine emergency debates'', but the report died on the Order Paper with the dissolution for the 1968 election.
The important issue here, as Mr. McWhinney said, is if you look at the history, they are infrequent. One a year is generally the average, because the Speaker has to consider that it's a genuine emergency that falls within the administrative responsibility of the government.
The shooting down over Russian territory of the Korean aircraft that had Canadians on board was an easy call. A drought in the west may or may not be a genuine emergency, depending on the extent of the drought. It's certainly an emergency for the people who are going through it. So the margin is either you leave it in the hands of the Speaker to say it is a genuine emergency -
The spirit of the McGrath report was to have more of these. That's why it was moved into the evening so it didn't eat into government orders.
The other recommendation they made was that the Speaker not give his or her reasons for allowing or disallowing a debate. That's because from 1968 through to 1985, Speakers had built a series of statements that became jurisprudence in itself as to why this would be allowed and this would be disallowed.
I just wanted to underline that a Speaker is still caught in the same narrow framework of the definition of a ``genuine emergency'', and now doesn't state why it's not or why it is. That can be a source of frustration to members as well.
Mr. Hermanson: So, Mr. Marleau, you're suggesting that perhaps the definition of ``emergency debate'' is a little bit too restrictive, and you would be, without debating, suggesting that the committee look at what qualifies as an emergency debate and how we could somehow relax it or make the call a little easier for the Speaker.
Mr. Marleau: No, I wasn't suggesting either/or. I was reinforcing, if you like, the pointMr. McWhinney was making: it's all in the definition. I was simply saying if you wish them to be
[Translation]
genuine emergency debates, the emergency has to be well established. It could no longer deal with a the chronic problem. Such a distinction should be made.
[English]
Let's say the dollar drops to 60¢ for the first time in history. That may be a financial crisis and a chronic problem if the slide is going the other way -
Mr. Hermanson: We heard it here first.
Mr. Marleau: But it wouldn't necessarily be a genuine emergency.
All I'm saying is you have to make the decision on whether you want it relaxed so there are more of these kinds of debates, which leans towards what Ms Catterall was saying about the special debate concept, as compared to reserving it for genuine emergency. That is a decision you have to make.
I wouldn't recommend either way, but I wanted to point that out, because the Speaker feels, and Speakers have felt, very bound by the word ``genuine''. It's a key one in the Standing Order.
The Chairman: What suggestions do committee members have for proceeding with this? There seems to be some consensus on a few possible changes here. Is there a suggestion that we do some drafting and look at a Standing Order? What's the feeling of the committee on this?
Mr. Lee: I think there's a consensus that we can make some improvements, even if they're just technical improvements, that would enhance the business of the House and assist the Speaker. So I think we ought to send it up the pike and see what our research can come back with in terms of potential drafting and some refinements. We'll probably get to it in the fall.
The Chairman: We may not want to change the Standing Orders, although in terms of speech length as well as questions instead of questions and comments, those insertions obviously are a different kettle of fish. The speaking order is something we would probably have to do in a report without specifying.
.1225
Mr. McWhinney: There have been some very fruitful suggestions that are for the most part complementary; they're not opposing. Could the researcher make a brief, one-page résumé of the key ideas put forward? I think it would take us a long way, because I sense there's a large degree of consensus, as some of those ideas emerge, that they're very good.
The Chairman: It strikes me the consensus is on ten-minute speeches with five minutes of questions -
Mr. McWhinney: That's right.
The Chairman: - with longer speeches in the final hour of debate.
Mrs. Catterall: There's certainly no consensus on that. I think the question and comment period is the liveliest interchange that I see happening in the House of Commons, and I would not want to get rid of questions and comments.
Mr. McWhinney: But you might agree about the time limit.
Mrs. Catterall: I certainly agree, whether it's through the Standing Orders or just through the advice of this committee to the Speaker, that the amount of time an individual member takes should be cut back substantially.
The Chairman: I'm talking about emergency debates only, where there are no questions or comments permitted at the moment.
Mrs. Catterall: Oh, okay.
The Chairman: I think there's a consensus that there be ten-minute speeches with five minutes of questions.
Mrs. Catterall: And comments. That's what I'd prefer.
The Chairman: You wanted comments as well?
Mrs. Catterall: Yes.
The Chairman: I thought we wanted to just have questions in there to cut back on the four-minute statements. Then we'd move to longer speeches for the last hour, which would encourage the bigwigs to participate in the last hour so they could maximize time.
We can leave that with Mr. Robertson in that case. Maybe we'll have a little document to work on by Thursday.
I think we've had a very fruitful discussion today on these topics.
[Translation]
There are two more topics on our agenda for Thursday: the naming of members and costs of closed captioning and CPAC.
I received a letter from Martha Wilson, General Manager of CPAC. She wanted to ask us some questions regarding the broadcasting of our debates. We might look at that later also on Thursday. The letter hasn't yet been distributed to committee members.
[English]
Might I suggest we meet at 11 o'clock and spend an hour on the items I've outlined, since it's our last meeting and we have to plan for the autumn. We have numerous references, and I think you're going to find we have more.
As you know from the motion we adopted in the House last night, the members of this committee constitute the Commons members of the Special Joint Committee on Ethics. The Referendum Act, I believe, will be referred to us for consideration and review as well as various other problems.
Might I suggest that we have a working lunch to discuss our future business following the meeting. We'll meet for one hour, from 11 o'clock until noon, and then go upstairs and have lunch as a group. We haven't done anything together aside from sit here.
I'm not calling this frivolous, because we do have to plan our fall agenda. I'd like to do it in at least broad outline and agree on the priorities and how we're going to approach the problems, whether we have subcommittees to deal with some of these issues or what have you. This is not intended to be frivolous, but it will be a working lunch.
Mr. McWhinney: Did you say this committee would be the House component of the Standing Joint Committee on Ethics?
The Chairman: Yes. That's already in the House orders.
Mr. McWhinney: We certainly to need a lunch on that.
The Chairman: Probably more than a lunch.
Is that satisfactory, then? I'll send the appropriate notices to everyone. I hope you'll all be able to attend for the duration.
Mr. Lee: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to get on the record for colleagues. October 1 is going to come very quickly.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Lee: Of course we all know there will almost certainly be a referendum in the province of Quebec, which I take it will culminate in some kind of vote on some question near November 9. That is what is being discussed on the street.
.1230
I don't have any particular special knowledge, but I just want to put that out so we will begin to, in a concrete way, take account of a potential hiatus in the work of the House. The committee may be able to continue with its work, but I just want to get that on the record.
The Chairman: I'm sure Mr. Langlois will be here and keen.
Mrs. Catterall: I have just a minor technical point on this report we have on the naming of a member. In the copy I have of the report from the special advisory committee to the Speaker on this issue, I'm finding it hard to determine which sections are bold and therefore represent changes. I wonder if it's possible to get a clearer copy.
Mr. Hermanson: If we're going to have a lunch, I just want to make sure that if it's on ethics, Mr. Dupuy is not buying our lunch.
The Chairman: I hadn't counted on that, Mr. Hermanson, but you're very kind.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: We're adjourned.