[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 19, 1995
.1100 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. I see a quorum.
I welcome all members this morning. Perhaps we can move through the agenda, as put before us by the clerk, based on the work we did last night in the steering committee.
First is electoral boundaries.
[Translation]
During the meeting last night we discussed the idea of having four sub-committees on electoral boundaries: one for Quebec, one for Ontario, one for the West and one for Eastern Canada.
Is this idea acceptable to all members, and if so, is the draft proposal for a motion in today's order paper acceptable?
Mr. Duceppe.
Mr. Duceppe (Laurier - Sainte-Marie): Will these sub-committees begin their work in the next few days?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Duceppe: They have to submit their report by...
The Chairman: We suggested October 6. We can extend the deadline by one week because the House is not sitting the followiong week.
Mr. Duceppe: I agree.
The Chairman: Perhaps we can do it for October 16.
Mr. Duceppe: I agree. The Bloc québécois will appoint someone for the sub-committee dealing with Quebec.
The Chairman: Yes. Perhaps we can have two Liberal members for the others, and a Reform member for the other three sub-committees. We can arrange that later, because it is not proposed in the present draft motion.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I think there may be a problem here.
The Chairman: What is the problem?
Mr. Boudria: There may be a potential problem which we should look at for a moment. Should we establish the list on a regional basis if the Official Opposition cannot be represented on it? When creating these sub-committees, would it not be preferable to divide a list alphabetically or in some other way?
The Chairman: Yes, but the sub-committees will report to this committee.
Mr. Duceppe: I think we could choose from among the associate members of the Reform, Liberal, New Democratic and Conservative parties.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Duceppe: I imagine that Jean Charest would be interested in being a member of the Sub-Committee on British Columbia.
The Chairman: Yes, we could arrange something, but according to the motion that is the responsibility of the whips.
Mr. Duceppe: I wanted to clarify that.
The Chairman: It is just for information purposes.
Mr. Arseneault (Rastigouche - Chaleur): How many members would there be on each sub-committee?
The Chairman: Three members, that would be acceptable.
Mr. Arseneault: It would be three for the Quebec region?
The Chairman: Yes, three.
Mr. Arseneault: From which parties?
The Chairman: The whips will deal with that.
.1105
Is three an acceptable number?
Mr. Arseneault: And for the Quebec region it would be three?
The Chairman: Three.
Mr. Arseneault: From which parties?
The Chairman: The whips can deal with that. The Reform Party will no doubt want to be represented on this committee. So, there will be a member from each of the three parties. The whips can deal with that.
Is this acceptable?
We must add a number to the third paragraph of the motion: that the whips from the three parties appoint three members to each sub-committee. Is this acceptable?
Is October 16 acceptable? We can examine the reports at our meeting of October 17, but the reports must reach us on the 16.
[English]
The reports will come to us on the 16th. We can study them on the 17th when we meet. Okay?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Then Mr. Boudria moves.... I won't read the entire motion. Paragraph 3 will have in it the number 3, and paragraph 4 will say October 16.
Motion agreed to
[See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: On the second item, I think Mr. Ringma moves that the membership of the Subcommittee on the Business of Supply be modified as follows: John Williams for Jim Silye.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Do members agree to put this new time limit of November 23 on the work of the subcommittee? They're now due to report on October 15 - or rather, there's no time limit at all. The committee has one, to the House, of December 1, but the subcommittee has not.
Are we agreed to put a reporting date of November 23 on the subcommittee?
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Just before we get on with the date, I'd just like to be sure, Mr. Chair, that if there's a minority report from that subcommittee, that minority report will be passed on, by the main committee, to the House. I presume that committee would want -
The Chairman: I'm not sure the committee would want to give that undertaking today, but when it drafts its report, obviously that matter could be considered. There is a provision, as you know, when a committee tables a report, for minority reports to be included.
Mr. Ringma: Yes.
The Chairman: Whether the one from the subcommittee is the one that's included is a matter the committee would determine, I guess, at the time.
Mr. Ringma: Okay. I've raised the issue now. It's hardly a caveat, but it's the one concern I have about going with the date.
Having said that, the date is fine.
The Chairman: I hope you're not suggesting that Mr. Williams is disagreeable.
Mr. Ringma: No, not a bit. He's very cooperative, a typical Reformer.
The Chairman: Then I'm sure we'll get a unanimous report.
Are members happy with the November 23 deadline?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Mr. Arseneault moves that the Subcommittee on the Business of Supply report to the committee no later than November 23, 1995.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Next is the Subcommittee on Members' Travel. Mr. Speaker moves that the Subcommittee on Members' Travel be modified as follows: Jack Frazer for Jim Silye.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Next, the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business has important work to do in deciding which items are votable.
Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: I would like to move, if it's appropriate at the present time, that Liberal members on the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be Mrs. Carolyn Parrish, who hopefully will chair that subcommittee, and Mr. Mauril Bélanger, an associate member of this committee.
The Chairman: This subcommittee normally consists of four members.
Mr. Boudria: Yes. I'd like to move that those two be the Liberal members on the subcommittee.
Motion agreed to
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): You need a motion, Mr. Chairman, relative to a Reform member. Is that what's happening?
The Chairman: Please.
.1110
[Translation]
Who will be the member for...
[English]
Mr. Duceppe moves that Mr. Langlois
[Translation]
be the member for the Bloc québécois on the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business.
[English]
Motion agreed to
Mr. Ringma: We'd like to move that Ken Epp be our member on the private members' subcommittee.
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma moves that Mr. Epp be the Reform member on the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: That subcommittee is now struck.
We're moving through this agenda very quickly. This is good.
Next is membership on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Mr. Ringma, you raised this matter last evening. You have the floor, sir.
Mr. Ringma: The main issue here, Mr. Chairman, is that Beauchesne's and everything else says we should have relative parity in committees between the Bloc and ourselves as opposition people. The percentages on that are: the Liberals have 177 members in the House, which gives you 58%; the Bloc has 53 members, which is 18%; and Reform has 52, which is 18%. Therefore, as the allocation is now, the Bloc has 25% of the members of that committee with their three, whereas we have 17% with our two.
I'm therefore asking for a redress of that, to give three members to Reform, the equivalent to the three members the Bloc Québécois has.
Mr. Boudria: We could perhaps stand down the appointment to that committee for a few days and have someone do the following for us, if it helps us.
Between 1984 and 1988 we had a situation in Parliament that was not totally dissimilar - or at least it had some resemblance. We had the Official Opposition with 40 MPs and the NDP with I think 32. So it was relatively close. At that point, we dealt with that issue - or we had to deal with it. We had to appoint people.
I don't remember what we did, but I suspect it's the following.
Again, we had another situation between 1988 and 1993 with a different composition. ButI suspect it was that they arrived at a ratio of 5:2:2, or 4:2:2, or whatever it was, plus chair so that the opposition party chairing the committee didn't lose out on the membership in the process.
Perhaps if we could ask our research staff to look at the composition of that committee for the last three or four parliaments and its comparison with the ratio, and bring it back to the next committee, we then could look at it. I suspect it's what I described, although I'm not 100% sure.
But we could have that report done, and if you find out that in fact this is the same as was done traditionally, well, maybe that then would satisfy your concern. If it is not, we then could deal with it. But we will at least have numbers and precedents to make perhaps a more reasoned decision.
Mr. Ringma: I don't think we have to go through a complication like that. I think the intent there is fairly clear, that we should have numbers there that are as equal as possible to it, and three equals three. I don't think we have to go through a lot of research into previous parliaments to find out exactly what they did. I think it's up to this committee. We can make that decision right now, if we choose to.
The public accounts committee is meeting on Thursday, is it not?
Mr. Boudria: Let's postpone it until next week and do the research so that we know that what we're doing is proper.
I wasn't there during the original set of negotiations. I believe the only whip who was there when we started this was Mr. Duceppe. I was not the whip. Of course, Mr. Ringma was not either.I don't know how they arrived at the all-party agreement at the time for the structuring of committees. That was done amongst all party whips.
.1115
Now, if that was done inequitably at that time, perhaps it does need redress, but I would say we should look back at what was done in the previous parliaments. Perhaps we also should have consultations with those who held the offices at that time to figure out why it was done that way.If wrong has been committed, wrong can be redressed. Perhaps no wrong has been committed. That's what I'm suggesting. Let's find out.
The Chairman: Maybe Mr. Duceppe has something to say on this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: If we look at the results of the previous election, i.e. 32 New Democrats and 40 Liberals, we see that the percentage in the House was approximately the same. There was the same difference as for the representation on the Public Accounts Committee: three Liberals and two New Democrats, i.e. two, two, plus the Chair.
Now, us, from the Bloc, then have used the same formula as in the past. We have applied the same rules. The three whips had to agree on that. As for the Reform Party, it was opposed to that.
The only change that had been proposed by the Bloc québécois was to give the Vice-Chair to the Reform Party to have a package deal and settle all matters concerning speaking rights, seats in the House, offices and committes. But the Reform Party refused. So we had to go back to the very same traditions of this Parliament, and that is where we are today.
Therefore, I quite agree that we should proceed with the study proposed by Mr. Boudria. I think that it will show exactly what has happened.
The Chairman: Is that urgent, Mr. Ringma, or can we wait until next week to decide?
[English]
Mr. Ringma: I'd like to make a little speech here, putting the cards out on the table. The fact is, Reform wants to get on with the business of government. We would like very much to do that in committee and in the House. But we find that the game that we're playing right here, that we played in the past, and that is going on right here today as to membership in committees and who the vice-chair is going to be, who the chair of the public accounts committee is going to be, seems to be a game being played between the Liberal government and the Bloc Québecois, a game whereby you have some type of an agreement here that says, in effect, leave the Reform out of this, we don't want their interference.
It's against this that we are coming up with these discussions.
It's why, Don, as I said to you this morning, I won't sign off the associate member nominations today until I get this out of the way in this committee. It's motivated...
I don't have many cards to hold, certainly nothing up here, where I can say, ``Hey, we have power''. We are at the bottom end of the power structure around here. I'm trying honestly to say, please, we would like Parliament and its committees to run properly, to allow us to have a bit of a say, a bit of position, a bit of status, in the whole thing. That's what it's all about.
I'm very happy, Don, to sign off all of your nominations for associate members. I have no problem with that. The only problem I have is, please, can we have a reasonable discussion on equality for at least the public accounts committee? We would like a bit of a nod on the vice-chairs for other committees as well.
Mr. Boudria: If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me suggest a possible solution. I don't know whether this would work, but traditionally, negotiations between the whips is not often done in public. I don't ever recall this being done at any other time. If we can have a huddle later and sort out these things, I'm quite willing to do it. Members will know that I even tried two weeks ago to get the three of us together at one time. Eventually we met otherwise - but it doesn't matter.
The issue is that I'm quite prepared to do that. But this, ``Give me a committee chair here or an additional member here and I'll forego doing that over there'' is not a very good way of doing the business that... whips normally have to deal with each other several hours a day.
Maybe this is helpful, maybe not, but I suggest we should put this aside, have that done meanwhile, and let's put the committee aside.
Let's not appoint that committee for a few days. Meanwhile, the whips can meet to see if we can sort out some of this.
.1120
The Chairman: The committee has been appointed; you mean not have an organizational meeting.
Mr. Boudria: That's right.
The Chairman: I see it's scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. So that's the reason for some urgency, unless it's deferred until next Wednesday.
Mr. Boudria: We can delay it. I don't have any objections to delaying it until next week so that the whips can look at this, the three of us together, if that's helpful.
I don't know; this negotiating in public is not a very good way.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: I agree entirely. I have no objection to delaying the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee until next week. We can hold the election then.
I would point out, however, that the Bloc québécois and the Liberals are not playing games. It's simply a direct consequence of this Parliament. If the members of the Reform Party call that playing games, we will draw the obvious conclusions about what they think of Parliament, but it's not the conclusions that I draw.
I would also have you note that for the first time in the history of this Parliament, the Bloc québécois is making a very generous proposal to the Reform Party. It was said that the Bloc québécois was coming to the Canadian Parliament to obstruct the business of the Canadian Parliament. We have never obstructed the business of Parliament. We are the ones who are refusing to sign documents which, usaually, are signed in good faith in the course of the normal parliamentary process. It is the Reform Party that is obstructing business.
I made a very generous proposal two years ago. I am convinced that if Mr. Ringma had been whip at that time - he is the third in two years - we would have resolved the problem that we are confronted with today.
In any negotiation - and God knows there are important ones coming up - , there is always some give and take.
The Reform Party had things to put on the table two years ago and today they don't have any more cards, as Mr. Ringma was saying. In negotiations, why would a negotiator worthy of his salt give up something without getting something in return? There is nothing left on the table: it was swept clean two years ago. That's not our fault, that's your fault. Now we have to live with that.
The Chairman: We are currently in that situation. We have advice indicating that the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee is delayed until next Wednesday. We could deal with this problem next Tuesday if the three whips have not reached an agreement by then.
[English]
Are members agreeable to leaving it on that basis? There will be no committee meeting. There will be no election of chair. We'll leave it to the whips to try to settle it, which is, I agree, where this ought to be settled. If it can't be, we'll deal with it again here next Tuesday. In the meantime, we'll get a report on what has been the practice to make sure we are conforming with at least current practice - or it might give us some good reason to change it. I don't think I've heard, from any member at this stage, an objection to change.
In terms of the numbers, Mr. Ringma, it's just a matter of looking at it and I would suspect allowing some discussion between the striking subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Chairman, we should look at our other committees as well. For example, the finance committee is structured that there are three Reform, three Bloc, and if I remember correctly, nine government members, with the chairman. So there is some precedent for three and three.
The Chairman: This committee is an example of that, I suspect.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: You have to understand why there is one additional member. For the government party, it is easier to maintain the same number, even if the Chair of the Committee is a member of that party, because they have enough people to ensure a majority most of the time.
However, if a member of an opposition party chairs a committee, one of its members is deprived, in a sense, of his right to speak since we ask the Chair to intervene as little as possible in order to give the members of the committee an opportunity to speak. The Chairman must be neutral, which is not always easy, as you will agree. That is why there is one additional member. That is also why our parliamentary ancestors, in their wisdom, established a rule that we are quite capable of living with.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Another item for reflection could be the following, that if in fact you have three each of the opposition on a committee, you might find that if you assigned a number of seats to be proportionate, that would mean adding another two on the government side on the same committee.
Do you see? That's in fact what it would mean.
.1125
The Chairman: But in light of the discussion that's taken place, is everybody happy if we leave it for another week, as long as the committee doesn't meet, and that's the understanding...?
Mr. Boudria: There's nothing before them on the agenda. I checked it out.
The Chairman: Okay. So you will cancel that meeting tomorrow, Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: Yes.
The Chairman: Great.
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: In the meantime, does anyone want to submit a report on associate members? Do we want to deal with that here today? Is that possible?
The only reason I'm asking is that having approached the two non-parties in the House yesterday to get consent for the motions we moved in the House in concurrence on this committee's report and for allowing the committees to start meeting this morning with their new membership,I told them that their appointments as associate members would be done promptly. So I feel personally somewhat on the hook on this. I had done it on the understanding that we would likely get those associates dealt with today.
I guess I'm asking if that matter can be dealt with.... I don't care if you want to sign the report later and bring it to me, and I'll table it in the usual way, but as your chair, I would like to get that resolved.
Mr. Boudria: Perhaps I can speak to that issue a bit. I also was phoned this morning by Mrs. Elsie Wayne, who wanted to know if she could be an associate member. So we have Mrs. Wayne.We have the NDP. We have -
An hon. member: Of this committee?
Mr. Boudria: No, of every committee except this committee. This committee is appointed by motion of the House. It's different.
So there are all these to be appointed. In addition, there are subcommittees that are composed of associate members and that are sitting later today. There are witnesses coming to Ottawa to listen to them.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Chairman, if you have the papers, I'll sign them right now. As I said earlier, at the beginning of my speech, we are here to further the business of Canada and of this Parliament. So we're not here to hold it up. The only reason I did a little hold-up was because it was the only little arrow in my quiver.
Mr. Boudria: I'll get the report.
Mr. Ringma: Bring it on. I'll sign it.
The Chairman: I would appreciate that very much, from a personal point of view, because of what I told the other parties yesterday when I spoke to them about consent.
Mr. Ringma: Indeed, to follow on, we would expect that negotiations, particularly with the government whip, from here on in be done in absolutely good faith, that it's for the good of the country and the good of the Parliament. Because I fully understand Mr. Duceppe's point of view here that, hey, two years under the...and what do I have to gain by giving you anything at all? If I were in his position, I'd feel the same way.
End of speech.
The Chairman: Let's turn to the list of business before the committee. I guess we're looking here for directions from the committee on what you would like to do. We have such a cornucopia of treats to study.
First is the order of reference from the House of Commons relating to electoral boundaries. We've dealt with that today by appointing four subcommittees. That's off our plate, but note that we have to complete this work before November 3. So we're going to be busy once the break is over and we come back.
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): Have you appointed the people to the subcommittee?
The Chairman: The striking subcommittee will appoint those people.
There was one thing following on the matter of the subcommittees. I was asked to produce a draft memo to members of Parliament that would go out to each member, advising them of their right to appear before the subcommittee. We have a draft. I think members have it in front of them.
Are there any comments on the draft? We'll have to add to it, of course, who are the members of the subcommittees once they're in place.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I have a brief comment on the format. It says here:
- ...the Committee created three regional committees on the western provinces, Ontario, Quebec
and the Maritimes.
- To my mind, that is four sub-committees.
.1130
Mr. Arseneault: Don't forget to change ``October 6th'' to ``October 16'', will you?
The Chairman: Yes, we'll change the date. That change has just been made here this morning.
[English]
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, about the state of the legislation, in essence, that this committee fathered or mothered. It's now before the Senate. Are you in a position to report back on the constitutional legislation that stems from this committee?
As I understand it, there are 71 objections made to the reports of the various committees. There's a reporting backdate of ``by October 6''. I would hate to act in vain. I also would wonder whether this job is beyond the physical powers of this committee, in effect acting as a committee on electoral boundaries.
Mr. Boudria: I can tell you the statute.
Mr. McWhinney: I know it's in the statute, but the the time figure raises basic constitutional issues. Frankly, I believe the privileges of the House and its committees are affected by the Senate's non-action on a matter that intimately concerns the privileges of the elected House.
I would like simply to voice the constitutional objection, which I have discussed with the chair, and a very respected constitutionalist, of the Senate committee on the Constitution. I wouldn't like to interpret his views, but I think there's a very serious constitutional objection here.
I'd like simply to record that this is almost a mission impossible, in terms of it being done properly, that's entrusted to these subcommittees. I wonder if the expectations of members of Parliament are not unreasonably raised, even by this very careful and modest memorandum you have drafted.
The Chairman: I think we have sought, in the drafting of the memorandum, to avoid raising expectations. As you know, this committee can only make recommendations to the commissions, who can politely - or rudely - ignore the recommendations. But we're saddled with this in light of the fact that the Senate has failed to pass Bill C-69. I know all members of the committee are shocked and appalled at the Senate's refusal, given the undoubted right of this House to exercise some control over the manner of its election.
But in terms of the Constitution, as you know, Dr. McWhinney, all bills have to be passed in both houses before they can get royal assent. So we're kind of stuck.
Mr. McWhinney: [Inaudible - Editor]...Constitution, and I'm giving you the Constitution. In this sense it is clear that under the conventions that have developed between the non-elected Senate and the elected House there is restraint to be exercised by the Senate in the exercise of its original legal powers. Above all, in a matter that concerns the privileges or constituent power of an elected House, I would submit that constitutionally it is clearly beyond the competence of the Senate to go on delaying.
The explanations given by two senators, as published, if they are correct, are somewhat contemptuous of the rights of this House. I am very disturbed that there have been no corrections of the reports attributed to the two senators.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could send them a copy of your remarks today.
Mr. McWhinney: It doesn't reflect on all senators. There are some very good jurists in the Senate. I know their views. As somebody who has supported the institution of the Senate before committees of this House and of the Senate and joint committees, but have argued for an elected Senate, with the proper responsible role defined, I am very disturbed, and I may have to re-examine my thinking.
Mrs. Parrish: I just want to ask a very concrete question. The Ontario group in here is enormous.
Mr. McWhinney: How many?
Mrs. Parrish: I don't know. It's about 66.
Mr. McWhinney; It must be a record.
Mrs. Parrish: Is this letter only going out to the ones who made it under the wire and got their objections in on time? You're not opening Pandora's box on every single person.
The Chairman: No, but all the members who sent in objections, yes. There were four others who came in late, and the subcommittee last night decided that those four would also be included in that list. So I think there now are about 76 objections altogether.
.1135
Mr. McWhinney: Can I ask you, Carolyn, do you really believe if you have 66 objections -
Mrs. Parrish: Eighty-one.
Mr. McWhinney: - you can examine them without considering the totality of the matter here?
Mrs. Parrish: I would love to go on record as saying that what we have here is almost impossible. I agree with you. It's like dominoes. If you touch one, everything else is going to go down. That's why our bill was so wonderful. But we can't whine over that.
The question is whether this letter is just going to go out to the people who have objected. Otherwise you'll have everybody having second thoughts, and they'll all be in here.
Thank you.
Mr. Boudria: I'm just wondering here about the following proposition. There are some objections. I also have examined them. Of course they're not all the same; that's a given. But some of them have, for instance, the boundary going through the middle of a building, or something like that. Those are probably the easy ones for the committee to say, well, shift it over a hundred feet.
Mr. McWhinney: Or divide the building in two - Bosnian style.
Mr. Boudria: As for others, perhaps there's not a solution to them. For instance, someone says notwithstanding redistribution, their riding shouldn't be redistributed. Well, some of these things may have to be said, but there's just no way for the committee to fix it, given the act under which the subcommittees will be operating.
With the last redistribution, I had this case in my own riding. Yes, I made a general statement of how I thought it was unfortunate to lose all those nice constituents I represented prior to the redistricting. But there was a tangible thing in there as well. I used the case of going through the middle of a building. Well, there was in fact a situation where you couldn't tell whether, according to the map, one building was in one riding or the other, according to the way they had it redistricted. They shifted it to the next concession where there was a clear line, and so on.
Mrs. Parrish: So a lot of them will be categorized that way. You'll be able to lump them into....
Mr. Boudria: You won't be able to fix all of them. For some of them, no fixing is applicable. But in some cases, I think this committee...if I judge from the work of that kind of a committee, last time was able to correct what perhaps is known in municipal law as ``minor variances''.
Mrs. Parrish: Yes. Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I agree with what Mr. McWhinney just said about the Senate's systematic opposition to Bill C-69. I voted against that Bill for the reasons you all know, that is that the representation framework wasn't guaranteed in Quebec. However, concerning the redistribution, some modifications were desirable, desired and passed.
I wonder is we shouldn't request a conference under paragraph 743 and following of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms - I have the English version here - to clearly state to the Senate the House's intent and to reaffirm the House's desire to procede with this bill. It's an exceptional procedure, but I think we are faced with the exceptional situation where a non-elected House is telling the elected House how it should be elected.
There is something really wrong here and I think we obviously have to make it publicly known.
As far as the election of senators is concerned, we can talk about it after the 30th of October if need be.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: I'm almost tempted to say, ``Senators, elect thyselves''.
Mr. Arseneault: Mr. Chairman, I'm in agreement with Mr. Langlois and Mr. McWhinney.I think it's about time we step up the pressure on the Senate and make our point here. We can't allow an unelected body to start dabbling with what the elected body wants to do, especially for the elections for the House of Commons. I remember the last time, when the proposals, the commissions, were being held for elections. Bill C-69 appeared in the House, and half the people in New Brunswick didn't make any proposals whatsoever; they thought Bill C-69 would replace it.
So now Bill C-69 is stuck in the Senate. I think we're going to start studying subcommittees and this text, and I think it's a waste of time. We have a Bill C-69 that has passed the House. I think there should be action by this committee, whatever Mr. Langlois has suggested, if that's the proper action. Something should be done to straighten out this mess the way it should be, not necessarily to go to subcommittees and waste our time.
The Chairman: Mr. Solomon.
.1140
Mr. Solomon (Regina - Lumsden): Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I apologize for not being here for the start of the committee. I was speaking in the House on Bill C-71.
I share the member's concern with the Senate holding up this bill. I believe what they are doing is another example of why Canadians are saying this body should be abolished. It underlines that feeling in the country. I would favour the committee or some other body, but certainly the House of Commons, making representation to the Senate and requesting the speedy passage of this bill.
The second point I want to make relates to an agenda item that refers to appointing members of the House of Commons to subcommittees. I wanted to put in a pitch on behalf of the New Democratic Party, of which I am the whip, to have New Democrats represented on the subcommittees.
If you recall, there was a decision that although we're not full members of committees, as associate members of committees we do have the opportunity to serve on subcommittees as full members. If this procedure is actually going to take place, I would ask that New Democrat members of Parliament be allowed to serve - at least on the western Canadian delegation and perhaps others - on the basis that this is not a party thing; it's an independent operation with respect to boundaries. All parties and members of Parliament who sit in this House of Commons, even independents, should have some standing on the committee.
So I ask the committee to consider this in the event that the subcommittees proceed with hearing the representations by other members.
I might add that Mr. Langlois' position is the same as ours. We assumed that Bill C-69 was going to proceed through the Senate; therefore, New Democrat members of Parliament did not undertake to register with the committee to make representation on the boundaries.
Mr. Boudria: Agreed. We said so before you came.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could send a copy of today's transcript to the Senate.
Mr. Ringma: No problem with that at all....
Mr. McWhinney: I think it should be raised as an issue of the privileges of the House and the constitutional relationships between the elected House and the non-elected House. What concerns the constituent powers of the House, its processes of election, if anything, then...is the reserve powers now constitutionally of an unelected Senate to control.... It doesn't go to the electoral processes of the House.
The Chairman: I've been to the Senate committee twice on this bill, the last time with the government House leader. We both indicated our very strong view that the Senate had no business interfering on this bill. Indeed, there was a quotation from a previous government leader in the Senate who happened to be a Conservative government leader on a previous redistribution bill, who said the Senate had no business meddling in the matter since it concerned the election to the lower House, and it was therefore not in the Senate's purview to meddle in it. This time they've meddled fearsomely and are continuing to do so.
I understand that the committee studying this bill is off on the gun control bill now and is spending a month on that and doesn't intend to deal with this bill until it completes that. Things move very deliberately when you have little to do, and that appears to be what the Senate is doing - at least the Conservative majority.
Mr. Boudria: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if it would be useful - perhaps it's redundant, but I'll try it anyway - for the Senate to know what we're saying this morning. In fact, what we have here is an all-party consensus. I've heard remarks from Reform members, Bloc, Liberals, New Democrats. The only party we haven't heard from is the Conservative Party. I suppose the representation to the Senate is that the Liberals, Reformers, New Democrats and Bloc Québécois don't think the Senate should be holding this legislation. Surely that says something. I don't know whether we've said that in the past along those lines.
I recognize there's a difference between that and the bill, when it was before the House...each party takes a position on the bill. But as Mr. Langlois said this morning, that's done now. The bill has passed the House. Now that it's passed it's our bill, our bill even if we voted against it, sort of. It should now be the Senate's duty to adopt it and to proceed with the legislation.
.1145
If there was a way for us to say that as a committee, either by way of a motion we could all carry and somehow record - that not only the members of the committee make that statement, but even a member who is not a full member of the committee but an associate member, but who more importantly represents another party - it adds to the consensus that's here. It's a powerful message.
Mr. McWhinney: I would like to go beyond that and, in the spirit in which Mr. Langlois spoke, suggest that we set in motion a recommendation to the House that the House take notice that the privileges of the House are infringed by the Senate in ways that depart from the constitutional comity the Senate is required to accord to the House as the elected parliamentary institution coordinate with it.
There are procedures, and I think at least we should go through the formal invocation of them, some formal message from the House, whether through Mr. Speaker or through a resolution of the House. Mr. Speaker would be appropriate, but there may be other ways. But Mr. Langlois, I think, is right in suggesting going beyond simply communicating this debate. Something formal should be set in motion. It may eventually lead to an elected, effective...and the other E-thing.
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): I think we have two recommendations before the committee. They're not mutually exclusive, but let me suggest we deal with the first one first: that this committee, through its chair, write directly to the Senate committee making them aware of the concerns of this committee and the unanimous opinion of this committee, including the representatives of four different parties in the House, concerning this matter.
Mr. Boudria: Perhaps we could append a copy of today's Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of this committee.
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): All right. I'll take it as a motion to take that action. Is there any dissenting opinion?
Motion agreed to
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): Do we want to proceed with Mr. McWhinney's proposal that there be a more formal report to the House...?
Mr. McWhinney: And requests for the House to initiate appropriate action. I could in a certain sense leave that open, but one appropriate action would be to have Mr. Speaker, as the president of the House, communicate with the president of the Senate his concern with the delays and the issue of the constitutional prerogatives of the House. Another way might be by resolution of the House.I think either way is open, but the thrust of Mr. Langlois' suggestion and mine is that a formalized procedure should be set in place, a communication to the House from the committee.
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): Does anybody wish to comment on that? OtherwiseI might turn to Mr. Boudria and ask for his comments on how that might play out in having the desired effect.
Mr. Speaker: In our rules there's a section that allows for a consultative approach, for a conference to be established. Am I to understand that Mr. Milliken's approach up to this point has used the mechanism of the conference?
Mr. Boudria: No. If I could explain that briefly -
Mr. Speaker: His approach was informal.
Mr. Boudria: No, it's not that either. What Mr. Milliken did was testify before the Senate committee as a witness, and so did Mr. Gray. As you know, when House bills go to the Senate, the minister presenting them often defends these bills before the Senate itself or before the respective Senate committee. That's in fact what was done.
The procedure known as conference is something that is utilized frequently in other jurisdictions. In fact, it exists in virtually all jurisdictions, but the most noted one is the one in the United States. It's called Congress. It's a union of both houses. I believe that's what is being referred to this morning.
Perhaps this committee might want to prepare a report that it would table in the House, which would recommend that if the Senate fails to adopt this bill promptly, the government should do such a thing as to initiate measures to have the conference. If that's what this committee wants to do,I suppose it could do that.
.1150
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): I suggest we ask our clerk for some information on the process. My understanding was that the conference was possible once the Senate had dealt with the matter.
Mr. Boudria: It's not finished yet.
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): Since the Senate is not dealing with the matter and that's the issue the committee is addressing, then the conference process, as I understand it, is not an option here.
Mr. McWhinney: They're dealing with a colourable delay, and the remarks attributed to senators confirm the colourability of the delay. If the conference procedure is not available, I think it is competent for us to raise the privilege of the House. This is why I suggested Mr. Speaker. He is the appropriate officer to vindicate the privileges of the House and can do so by opening discussions himself. If it were felt that this was not enough, the alternative would be simply a resolution of the House, which I think would require all-party support, wouldn't it, Don?
Mr. Boudria: It preferably would, but it depends on what the point is. We've had cases in the past where the Speaker has determined that there is a case of privilege. Then a motion is passed by the House. It's not necessarily unanimous. We've had cases where it wasn't in the past, motions of censure and that kind of thing. I'm not saying this is exactly the equivalent.
I am wondering one thing, though. Shouldn't we wait a week until we get a response to that letter from the chairman, who is going to write to the Senate committee chair expressing the disappointment of this committee? Maybe next week at the same time we can revisit this issue. It will have advanced one week and we can see where we are.
Meanwhile, though, I think we have to continue with the contingency, and the contingency is to start work on this committee process. Whether we like it or not, it's in the statute that we have to hear those objections. It's in the law at the present time. Until that law is replaced with another law, it's still valid. We have no choice about it.
Mr. Arseneault: Madam Chair, I'm of like mind with you. I think the conference can occur only after the case has been dealt with or defeated in the Senate or an amendment is returned to the House and then returned to the Senate again. It's a fairly long process.
I'm of the mind of Mr. McWhinney that we should initiate some definite process through the Speaker's office. I don't know what it should be; maybe Professor McWhinney would know. ButI think our privileges are being breached. Maybe we have to wait a week until they answer our letter or whatever, but in the meantime our research people and clerk should review and prepare a case for a case of privileges to be presented in the House and a motion and everything, prepare all the documentation to be presented on behalf of this committee. Then it will be ready to move very quickly into the House.
To me, what we're discussing today is very serious, more serious than people realize. We're talking not only about tradition but about the privileges of an elected House. They are being breached very severely by a non-elected Senate and they are being breached publicly. They are just sitting back and laughing. It's very serious.
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): If I can confirm what Mr. Arseneault said, while a bill or other matter is pending, it is irregular to demand a conference on it. It doesn't say ``illegal'', but ``irregular''. Obviously we don't want to be irregular.
We have Mr. Ringma on the list.
Mr. Boudria: We don't have a -
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): Our researcher has just proposed that he could prepare for us some background on how this situation could be dealt with, perhaps a draft of something the committee might want to approve as a report. We could potentially deal with that as early as Thursday morning if we wanted to have a meeting then to deal with the issue.
Mr. McWhinney: Is that possible for the researchers?
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): Yes.
Mr. McWhinney: I'd be very happy, then, to suggest that we go ahead with the communication to the chairman of the Senate committee, including the memoranda...the avowal of this meeting that we defer until Thursday morning further action in vindication of the privileges of the House. The understanding would be that if we get a favourable report, we would go ahead with that. I think that would probably work.
.1155
Mr. Ringma: While that is going, in the meantime I'd like to support Mr. Boudria's initiative that we must get on with the subcommittees' hearing. We are very short of time on it, and we have to move on it.
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): Does anybody disagree with that? We can't take a chance.
Mr. Arseneault: What happens if the subcommittees don't meet? What happens to all the objections and all the proposals? What happens to the proposals from the original commissions if there are outstanding objections and no one decides to deal with them? What happens? Is everything thrown out?
Mr. Boudria: I suspect there are two things. First of all, I think each member of this committee, individually and severally, would be breaching the law of the land that we ourselves have passed. That is the first thing. Second, I suspect the bill would probably proceed. If no objections have been heard, then there are no objections on which the commissions can produce a rectification.
Mr. McWhinney: That is correct. Would you object if, as a member of the committee, I take a broad view of the mandate and if I find it impossible to consider one or two seats in isolation from the whole...? To be honest, I would be inclined to recommend to the regional commission, of whichI might be a member, if we examine the whole.... We may have no choice. Otherwise this falling dominoes principle leaves -
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): We still have a fair bit of business here. I think we've decided on two concrete actions. The third is proceeding with the committees, that it should put an end to this discussion so we can get on with the business of the committee and get our work going.
Mr. Solomon: I have a short comment, Madam Chair. With respect to the Senate's action, there may be an irregular process for us to follow, but what they've done, I remind members, is highly irregular. This is unacceptable. It's anti-democratic. I have no reservation or hesitation whatsoever in taking the most dramatic action with the Senate to underline our disgust for what they're doing in terms of anti-democratic action. I want to underline that, if I might.
Secondly, with respect to strategy that will be developed next week, I'll be unavailable to the committee next week; I'll be out of Ottawa. The New Democrats will support the most dramatic, strong message you can send.
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): Mr. Solomon, I think we've already agreed that our researcher will lay out our options for us, the potential draft report. We'll deal with it this Thursday at our regular meeting time of 11 a.m.
Next is the future business of the committee. You have on your agenda sheet outstanding issues that the committee has discussed but has not resolved. We want to try to decide what the committee wants to deal with as a priority. There seem to be a number of issues we've been through several times, some more or less, and we have to decide which of those we want to start scheduling for committee business.
Mr. Boudria: There are two issues that are important to us, one of them being the issue of report stage of bills. I'll be the first to admit that dealing with this issue is probably more advantageous to the government than to the opposition. That said, there is a parallel issue that is probably more interesting for the opposition than for the government, and that's the issue of the disposition of estimates. Is that on this? We passed a motion of the House saying we would deal with this issue.Mr. Ringma's predecessor brought that to our attention.
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): Mr. Boudria, I think we've already agreed to the establishment of a subcommittee, chaired by myself, to deal with that issue.
Mr. Boudria: Oh, so there is a subcommittee on this?
The Vice-Chairman (Ms Catterall): Yes.
Mr. Boudria: Well, all right. But both involve the amendments to the rules. In dealing with one and not the other, there's going to be something missing. The issue of the report stage of bills, then, perhaps could be delegated to the same group to deal with.
.1200
We have this very unusual instrument in our House, the report stage of bills, which effectively means we have, you could argue, two third readings of the bill. It's most unusual. It doesn't exist anywhere else.
I see Mr. Speaker across the way; he's very familiar with how that was dealt with in another jurisdiction. I'm not sure how it was done there, but I'm sure it's not that process. There's a much more rapid process in the Ontario legislature. In the British House of Commons the Speaker will just tell the opposition party, all right, you want 183 amendments? You get 4. Which ones do you want? That's the way report stage is dealt with. It's to include exceptions that weren't dealt with in committee, not to redo everything over again.
I suggest, Madam Chair, that the committee charged with reviewing the rules with regard to estimates should look at this at the same time. They are both rules that should be addressed.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could not ask a sub-committee to deal with both the estimates and the report stage. If members committee are willing to refer the two issues to the same sub-committee, I will so move.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Would you be kind enough to repeat, Mr. Boudria?I was turning on the interpretation.
Mr. Boudria: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think that the sub-committee responsible for reviewing the Standing Order with regard to the estimates should also look at some amendments to item 7(d) on the report stage of bills. These two issues impact on the balance between the political parties in the House of Commons and are governed by somewhat archaic rules. I think that the same group could address those two issues at the same time. I am talking about 7(d).
[English]
Mr. Solomon: My question is perhaps directed to the government whip. Will the New Democratic Party caucus have membership on the subcommittee? I would again put forward the argument, as we discussed earlier, that there is a provision for associate members of standing committees to serve as full members of subcommittees.
Mr. Boudria: But we're not appointing that subcommittee today. It was already appointed a long time ago. I'm just saying that at the same time as it's doing that which it is doing, it should also be doing item 7(d), because it's reflected. The committee was appointed last June, I think.
Mr. Solomon: Well, I put the argument forward again, Mr. Chief Government Whip, for representation by the New Democratic Party caucus on the basis that it is a subcommittee, that there is provision for New Democrat associate members of standing committees to be full members of subcommittees. I ask if the chief government whip would be prepared to do that.
Mr. Boudria: I have no objections per se. Here are the members: Catterall, Malhi, Gaston Leroux and John Williams. If we add another opposition member we'd obviously have to add another government member. Otherwise -
Mr. Solomon: That's fine. Add two government members.
Mr. Boudria: Would Mr. Arseneault be interested in that?
Could we perhaps move, then, Mr. Chairman -
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Mr. Boudria, I will accept your motion but I am somewhat reluctant to appoint Mr. Solomon associate member of the committee.
.1205
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Arseneault and Mr. Solomon would then have to be appointed to the Sub-Committee on the Business of Supply. They would be in addition to the current members of the sub-committee. I would also add to the motion,
- ...and that the same sub-committee be also responsible the report stage of the bills.
[English]
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Chair, does that mean I'm a full member of the committee as it stands, or just to deal with this one particular topic?
Mr. Boudria: It's a subcommittee.
Mr. Solomon: Okay, so I'll be on the subcommittee as a full member regardless of what the topics are. That's acceptable. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Is it the pleasure of the committee to carry the motion?
Motion carried
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): We are still on item 7. I don't know if the Government whip has a suggestion to make regarding item 7 in the order of priorities. I will give the floor toMr. Ringma since he already expressed his intention to comment.
Mr. Ringma: To get back to the preceeding item, Mr. Chairman, are we in agreement to keep November 23 as the deadline for the Supply Committee? We discussed that earlier and we agreed on November 23. But if we add more commitments, more tasks, I wonder if we should not extend that deadline.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): We do not seek advice on that. I'm told that we have an order from the House requiring us to report early December. The November 23 deadline could be maintained for the first part of the mandate...
Mr. Ringma: For now.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): ...and for the second part, the members of the committee would be free to set another date.
Mr. Ringma: Alright. This leaves the door open for...
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): As of today, it is sine die as for the second part, at the pleasure of the sub-committee.
Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: I am told that Mr. Milliken would have liked to deal with the CPAC issue this morning before we adjourn. I don't know what the chairman had in mind on that subject, but the fact is that it is urgent that we deal with this matter.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could tell us where the matter stands.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): If I am to tell you what I understood, my explanation won't be very long, Mr. Boudria. It may be better to wait for the return of Mr. Milliken who seems to have a full grasp of the issue. Thursday?
Mr. Boudria: Thursday.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Thursday is fine.
Item 2: Letter from Martha Wilson, General Manager of CPAC, regarding the rebroadcast of Question Period.
I don't know if my colleagues have read Mrs. Wilson's letter.
Some hon. members: No.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Neither have I.
Mr. Boudria: Thursday.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Okay, Thursday.
Mr. Boudria: We could perhaps get some more copies on Thursday.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Copies already available will be circulated.
.1210
That will be an item for discussion on Thursday. As a matter of fact, we could ask ourselves if we want to discuss anything else today or put off till Thursday any discussion on other matters.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Are there any other items members of the committee would like to discuss, although I don't see any, since we are done with the agenda?
Mr. Ringma: There are two other matters.
[English]
Yesterday evening we talked about Bill C-319, Mr. McClelland, in regard to reimbursement of election expenses. That was on page 5 of yesterday's agenda. I don't see it on today's.
Mr. Arseneault: It's number 4.
Mr. Ringma: Right.
The question was asked whether we can defer it or whatever, and we would like to go ahead with that if it pleases the committee. We'd like to have that checked out in the month of September if that's possible.
Mr. McWhinney: September?
Mr. Ringma: That's our intention.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Mr. Boudria, can I ask you if the government intends to discuss this bill at a specific time? It is a private member's bill that has gove through second reading and been referred to our committee?
Mr. Boudria: The government has no position on this. As for private members' bills, parliamentary committees deal with them whenever they feel like it. I see nothing to prevent us from studying this bill in the next few days.
What we have to know now is whether we have the time to deal with this in the next few days, since our agenda is already quite full. If we do, I see no objection. By the way, I find this matter very interesting.
Mr. Ringma: Within a couple of weeks or so, if possible...
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): To me, the most important part of your comment,Mr. Ringma, is the «if possible», and I think that there is a consensus on that subject. You don't want either a motion requiring us to deal with this by September 30.
Mr. Ringma: No, no. I would like to put this on our agenda, if possible.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Mr. Laurin, for the Bloc québécois, do you see any objection to that?
Mr. Solomon, is this agreeable to you? So, it seems that we have a consensus to move as quickly as possible, without skipping over equally important other issues, to the review of Bill C-319. The committee will certainly take that into consideration in the preparation of its agendas.
You have another point, Mr. Ringma.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: My error at last evening's meeting or our first yesterday - whenever it was; I had so many meetings yesterday - was that I put my name forward as the member for this committee, believing that it was because it was so involved with the committees. That is my job as whip, to staff the committees. But I found in discussion that really it was Elwin Hermanson, our House leader, who was the standing member, the principal member on this committee. I would like to return it to that so that Ray Speaker's name be substituted for my own.
Mr. Boudria: That's a motion of the House, Mr. Ringma. All we need is a motion of the House. That is not done by this committee. This is the only committee where it can't be done that way. It has to be a motion of the House.
Just tell me what you'd like in your motion and we will table the motion in the House. We could even do both. We could revert to that after Question Period today...no, I guess we can't. We'd have to put it on the order paper. Just prepare your motion and we'll table it.
Mr. Ringma: That's fine. You have all the technical...we don't have to take up the business of the committee. I'll do it directly through you. Thank you.
Mr. Boudria: Your assistant could deal with Richard in my office and we'll get it done.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): On a point of information, Mr. Chairman.
Will the order of business of the committee be what is suggested here or will it be set by the steering committee? These issues will not necessarily be addressed in the order given here.
.1215
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): No.
Mr. Laurin: How is that order drawn up?
The Clerk of the Committee: It was drawn up by the Clerk.
Mr. Laurin: But how will the order of future business be determined?
The Clerk: Many issues have been referred to the Sub-Committee.
Mr. Laurin: Yes, but are we going to know at some point that one particular subject will be studied before another?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Laurin: Who decides on that? Is it the Commitee?
The Clerk: Generally it is the Chair in cooperation with the other two parties.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): Yes, I agree. I am a pro tempore Chairman to some small extent, since I have the gavel and can recognize members, but in this regard Mr. Milliken has a far clearer leadership role than I do. Normally, the agenda for future meetings is determined in coordination with the Official Opposition an the third party.
Mr. Laurin: I am not talking about the agenda of a particular meeting.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): For all meetings.
Mr. Laurin: All of that has to be examined. Clearly, it will not all be done in one single meeting. When or how will we know the order in which subjects are to be studied? There are seven items here. Is an order determined at some point, or will we learn at the last minute the particular subject will be dealt with at the next meeting, in two weeks or in three weeks? How do you normally proceed.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): As we did the spade work, I might suggest to the Chairman, Mr. Milliken, that there should be a meeting of the Steering Committee to draw up an agenda, so that all Committee members might know where we are going and the subjects to be dealt with at a particular point in time. Thus, they can be present at the meetings they wish to attend.
Mr. Laurin: Yes, that's right. It would be helpful to know that.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): The message will be transmitted.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: A little earlier Mr. Ringma was asking about having Mr. Speaker replace him as a member of the committee. I think what he really meant was as a member of the steering committee.
Mr. Ringma: That's right.
Mr. Boudria: Of course, that doesn't require a motion of the House. We can do that right now. Mr. Frazer can move that his other colleague replace Mr. Ringma. Presumably we could do it in a moment.
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): I so move.
[Translation]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): It is moved by Mr. Frazer that Mr. Speaker be a member of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker replaces Mr. Ringma as a member of the Steering Committee; that's all.
The motion is carried.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): If there is nothing else, as a member of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business, I would personally like to thank three people who have done a wonderful job. Since January 1994, I have had the opportunity of working with these people. They are: Mr. Derek Lee, member of Scarborough - Rouge River, who was Chairman of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business, Mr. Bernard Patry, the member of Pierrefonds - Dollard and Mr. Randy White, the member for Fraser Valley West. Within the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business, we worked with complete openness, learning to get to know one another and to overcome our differences. I believe that as a result we were able to do a very effective job.
Now we are faced with a new challenge, Ms Parrish and Ms Catterall. Mr. Ringma, are you going to be the Reform member on the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business?
Mr. Ringma: No, that will be Ken Epp.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Langlois): So it will be Mr. Epp. There is a new challenge awaiting us, and I just wanted to point that out. I hope there will continuity.
The meeting is adjourned.