STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 9, 2000

• 1111

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. I see a quorum.

Colleagues, we're continuing our discussion on reviewing the Standing Orders, two items in particular. Our staff members have produced a draft. There's also an amended part of a draft circulating.

Before we get into that—and hopefully we can sink our teeth into it and dispose of it reasonably quickly, one way or the other—I want to bring to your attention the report of our steering committee. That report is in front of you.

I would love to have one of our members move that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure report....

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): I so move.

The Chair: Is there any discussion?

The report basically fleshes out our May calendar and leaves June open for continuing review of the Standing Orders, with the exception of June 13, which would be set aside for supply.

Okay. We've had our brief discussion.

(Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings)

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we'll go right to the issue of the changes to the Standing Orders.

Just to put it in context, we have spent, I think, three meetings on this. There have been other discussions in various parts of the parliamentary precinct, and there seems to be a sense that both items on the list would be innovative and improve the operations of the House, and that, I guess, is our goal.

I don't have to remind members that most of what we deal with here will rarely, if ever, come to the attention of our constituents, it being a matter of simple procedures in the House, which most of our constituents don't worry about. But we do want to make sure that our House runs effectively and in the best interests of all of the parties in the House.

These two amendments, on an expedited basis, are presented in that spirit. There's reasonable focus now on the black and white wording.

As I understand it, none of this drafting has been moved for adoption. Someone might wish to move it, and we can formally bring it to discussion on that basis.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'll move it.

The Chair: All right. What are you moving?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I am moving the confidential draft report you see before you.

The Chair: As printed?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: As printed.

• 1115

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On being recognized for debate, I'd like to move this single-page item, en français on one side and in English on the other, as an amendment to the three-page report.

The Chair: It would appear that this page would replace paragraph 2 of the draft report. Is that correct?

Mr. Gar Knutson: It would replace part of paragraph 2.

The Chair: Are you able to tell us which part?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I am. It's on the second page, starting on line 6 and going to the bottom of that paragraph.

The Chair: All right. Is that true also en français?

Mr. Gar Knutson: You have to ask me hard questions.

The Chair: Just so that everyone's on the same script, in the French version of the draft report, beginning at line 14 of page 2, Mr. Knutson's amendment would replace the entire remaining portion of paragraph 2 from line 14, beginning with the words la motion, right down to the end.

Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Before we achieved quorum, I received the text of the proposed amendment and had an opportunity to read it. I have a number of questions for you. We had a fairly lengthy discussion last week about the meaning of the words "minister responsible for the bill" and about who was authorized to speak on behalf of the minister. If my memory serves me correctly, we agreed that this could include an acting minister, a minister with a direct role to play. In the proposed amendment, we note the following:

... including a Member of each officially recognized party in the House, to ask questions of the Ministers responsible for the conduct of the Bill...

By “Ministers”, I take this to mean the entire Cabinet. If we are to get pointed, concise and correct answers that will enlighten the member asking the question and all members who are listening, this seems pretty broad to me. I'd like either yourself, Mr. Chairman, or someone else seated at this table to share with me his interpretation of “Ministers responsible for the conduct of a Bill” and tell me whether this is specific enough.

[English]

The Chair: Who's in a good position to answer that excellent question—Mr. Knutson, Mr. Corbett, or both?

Mr. Gar Knutson: I defer to him.

The Chair: Let's go to Mr. Corbett first, then, and then to Mr. Knutson if he has any infill.

Mr. William Corbett (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I presume we are referring to the text of the amendment to the report—

The Chair: That's correct.

Mr. William Corbett: —where the text is, “to ask questions of the Ministers responsible for the conduct of the bill in the House”. This would be in conformity with our normal practice now, which is that any minister may speak for cabinet.

• 1120

So that wording would be in conformity with the current practice.

The Chair: Okay.

Would you like to say something?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: May I respond to that, Mr. Chairman? I'm certain you'll let me.

The Chair: By all means.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Judging from Mr. Corbett's response, I think I read the text of the amendment correctly. I think we are taking a step backward from what we had last week, and even then, the opposition wasn't the least bit happy.

Therefore, I have to wonder if we are here to agree on a process that is respectful of democracy and give the government the means with which to act. It already has many such tools at its disposal. We're here to engage in an intelligent, respectful debate.

Personally, I think we're heading toward a scenario where any Cabinet minister can in fact answer questions when time allocation has been moved. This is not a minor matter. As a rule, the government gives notice of time allocation in the case of bills that it considers very important, and by this I mean important to the welfare of the population. Time allocation should not be invoked on a whim.

Therefore, in the case of important legislation, it's critical, in deference to the elected representatives of the people, that the acting minister—I think that's how we referred to him—the person assisting the minister, be there to answer questions.

We're talking about a period of 30 minutes. As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, the opposition was pressing for 45 minutes, with 15 minutes for the bill to ring, which would mean in total one hour to ask questions about the time allocation motion.

As I see it, not only has the government party failed to hear us or listen to us, as it usually does, but worse still, it is bringing it even tighter restrictions. Now we'll be completely gagged, Mr. Chairman, so much so that we're going to turn blue.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On the last point, the “willy-nilly”, I don't think there is any reason to believe that under these new rules time allocation will be brought in any more or less than it is currently. It would be the government's position that we've met the opposition half-way. The opposition members have indicated that they don't want this half-hour to be a mere late show, so we've agreed that while parliamentary secretaries have the opportunity to answer questions in question period, we've eliminated parliamentary secretaries from this proposal. We think that's meeting the opposition half-way. However, we're not prepared to agree to the wording originally proposed by Mr. Strahl.

I think there may be times when particular ministers aren't available for whatever reason, and I just want to assure the opposition that it's not in our interest to put up a minister who doesn't know anything about the subject matter or the content of the bill. It's going to be on public record. It's going to be on television. It's going to be reported on by the media. We will have an interest in sending forward a minister who can answer questions intelligently—

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Good luck.

Mr. Gar Knutson: —and participate in the debate as foreseen under the rules outlined in paragraph 3.

While I appreciate that this is not what the opposition originally proposed, from our point of view this is the best we can do, and I would ask all members on the committee to support this as a reasonable compromise.

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): I disagree, of course. I still think “acting minister” should be the wording there, but it's obvious that the government doesn't want that.

• 1125

I do wonder if there could be a friendly amendment to this proposal, which is what we talked about briefly last week. It's in the explanatory notes, but it's not in the actual standing order proposal. That is, after the phrase “and to comment briefly on the motion”, to add the words “and the bill”. This is the way we have explained it in our explanatory notes. In other words, it's not just restricted to the motion, but it can also refer to the bill. It's a little broader and I think it would be necessary for the debate. Otherwise, you'd have points of order all over the place. So as a friendly amendment, if I could make it “the motion and the bill”, I think it would make it better.

As you know, I think this is a far weaker motion overall than what we would like, but then we'd probably put in a minority report if this is what goes ahead. But it is a chance to get at the minister, which is at least a step in the right direction.

The Chair: All right. Mr. Strahl is proposing that Mr. Knutson's proposed amendment be amended by inserting on line 6 in the English version, after the word “motion”, the words “and the bill”.

Is there any discussion on that or other elements of this? Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I wasn't here last Thursday. I was out representing the minister somewhere. But I must say this has gone on a very long time, and at some point the dog is getting wagged by its tail rather than the other way around.

This thing is very restrictive—and I listened to Madame Dalphond-Guiral—very restrictive on the government. If we're going to have a very highfalutin discussion with expert answers when we've already been told there's to be a minority report on this, after we've bent over triple backwards to do this, why are there no restrictions on the opposition side to have only their critics ask the questions?

If you want a really meaningful discussion, no pinch-hitting, you've got to have your critics ask the questions if we can't decide as a government who answers questions on our side. This will be the first time any time in the House that the opposition dictates who answers the questions on the government side. I think this is getting ridiculous.

I will support whatever Mr. Knutson has put forward, because I want this over, but we are absolutely—and I'd like to be on the record on this—bending over triple backwards and doing back flips just so Mr. Strahl could then, in a very pleasant way, suggest he's going to do a minority report anyway. So I'm really stretching it to vote for this now, because they should have to put up only their critics. If they happen to be travelling, haul them back from Europe. Only critics should ask questions if they're telling us who can answer them.

That's just my little tantrum of the day. I'm getting sick of it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's called accountable government, Carolyn. There's a difference. The minister is accountable. The opposition party has to—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: That's exactly the point! And you're not.

The Chair: We're getting into—

An hon. member: Excellent point, Carolyn, excellent point.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: We're putting that on the record.

The Chair: Order!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You have a minister—

The Chair: Order. We're on the record here—

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Yes, we are.

The Chair: —and this is not going to get on the record unless we each take our turn.

Mr. Robertson asked me to draw members' attention to two items in Mr. Knutson's amendment, where there had been previous discussions but where the amendment hadn't been changed at all.

In the first line, we had discussed changing the word “except”—en anglais, in English—to the word “however”. I don't know whether there's a material difference in the two and whether there's a difference in the French version, but that's something we had not nailed down with precision.

Secondly, the length of time that the bells would ring in Mr. Knutson's version is set at 15 minutes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I thought it was longer than that.

The Chair: No, I'm not talking about the length of the question period, I'm talking about the length of the bells at 15 minutes.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Sorry, I apologize.

The Chair: So right now we're continuing with the word “except” and the number 15. I'll just draw that to your attention. I'm going to suggest now that we change “except” to “however” and that we go with the 15-minute bell. If there are no objections, then that's how we'll go with it. We all know that once we start talking about maybes, we can be at it for an hour.

• 1130

I'll recognize Madame Dalphond-Guiral, then Mr. Hill.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I understand full well what the government is trying to do. Clearly, it wants complete latitude so that any minister can answer questions.

When time allocation is moved, I have to imagine that the minister responsible for informing the House came to this decision in a responsible manner. If that's the case, then I would assume the government knows which minister or ministers will be able to account to Parliament for this decision. Even though this has never happened and could reduce the government's powers, it is conceivable that when time allocation is moved, the minister could say: now then, the ministers of Health and Heritage will be taking your questions. Could that happen? Could he even designate three ministers to field questions?

To respond to what Carolyn said, I think that if she were to review the debates that have taken place in the House, she will see that in the case of the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties, the responsible critics are always the first to speak up and to oversee the discussion. That's just part of their job.

Therefore, when time allocation is moved, naturally our critics will be there, or barring that, the second member of the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, that's a suggestion.

Mr. Hill and Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to Ms. Parrish, I don't know where to begin. First of all, she says she's willing to support Mr. Knutson's proposal. Well, surprise, surprise! That's supporting the government House leader. You know, that's a real shock.

Secondly, in response to this nonsense where she says the government is bending over triple backwards—I think was that the comment she used—in reality the proposal.... Let's very briefly go back to how this all began.

This is because the government wants to restrict the opposition's tools they use at report stage to force all-night voting. That's what this is all about. So when anybody suggests that the government is somehow bending over backwards to accommodate the opposition, that's complete nonsense. The reality is that the government members—and she herself said this at previous meetings—felt it was so stressful on them to have to go through voting for 24 or 48 or 72 hours, whatever the number is, that they needed to do something to prevent that from happening in the future. That's what this is all about, and that's why the horse trading started.

To my knowledge, we haven't put forward amendments to the government's applied voting motion, which is to change or add new Standing Order 45(9). We've accepted that, and what we've instead been embroiled in is a very lengthy debate about what we will get in return for that. I don't call that bending over triple backwards by any stretch of the imagination, so let's be very clear about that.

I think on this whole issue we have indicated there's a number of hang-ups from the opposition, not only from us but from the other opposition parties as well. We've been debating about who or which minister would be called upon to respond, we've been talking about the amount of time that would be allocated to this process, and we've been talking about the ability of the Speaker to exercise some discretion in imposing time allocation. I think all of those are valid points, and in the end we have said—at least, the Canadian Alliance has now said—we are willing to try this out.

It is the government's intention to try this for the remainder of the calendar year, but we feel it's incumbent upon us, as good opposition, to put forward a dissenting opinion laying out our concerns. Now, if that's not acceptable and if that's not trying to be accommodating, I don't know what is.

• 1135

We're saying we will support Mr. Knutson—thereby saying we're going to support the government House leader—to try this out for a while. They get to accomplish what they want to do, which is what Standing Order 45(9) is for, to speed up the voting process so that not everyone can be forced to stand and the whips can apply the vote, and we get to try out this very frequently amended process of cross-examining, if you will, a minister—now it's “a” minister, not “the” minister—about the use of time allocation.

I think that's reasonable, and I don't see why you—directing this through Mr. Chairman to Ms. Parrish—would be so upset that we would want to be on the record with the points I've just outlined.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Call the vote, Mr. Chairman. Call the vote, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hill has me convinced with his superior logic.

The Chair: We may be coming to a conclusion very quickly here, so perhaps colleagues could focus on the conclusion rather than the continuing debate.

Mr. Strahl, then Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I must say to Ms. Parrish that it is occasional outbursts like hers that keep the debate going, because of course she lobs one back into our field, and we can't let that go unchallenged, can we? So as you said earlier, it's all on the record.

I'd simply like to say that when we move time allocation we'll have our critic there to answer for what we've done, just as the government should have their minister there when they move time allocation, because that's what this is all about. Accountable governments answer for their actions to the opposition, to Canadians. When we move time allocation, you can bet—as a matter of fact, we'll even have our leader there, because we don't anticipate this is going to happen—we'll have our critic there for sure.

The other thing—and Jay has already mentioned it—a minority report isn't the end of the world for the government; it's done all the time on things. It shows that while we'll support the government in this interim measure to try it out, a minority report just details what we in our perfect world would actually want to see occur. Not everyone is going to agree; that's why it's a minority report. You guys won't agree with it. We'll put it forward, and when people ask why we supported it, we'll say it's the best we could get at the time and let's move ahead. So I agree, let's move ahead with it.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Take me off the list.

The Chair: Good. Mr. Knutson is withdrawing his name from the list.

For the record, I want to point out that because this is seen as a pilot or a test measure for the rest of the calendar year, if there are flaws in it of any nature I'm sure colleagues will spot them immediately and we'll have a chance to reconsider it in this Parliament, hopefully. Perhaps the opposition will be able to make some good constructive suggestions if there are some flaws.

I'm now going to call the question on the draft report. I'm just going to articulate for the record so everybody understands what we've done. The document known as the draft report is amended by Mr. Knutson's amendment, with Mr. Knutson's amendment itself amended by changing the word “except” in the first line to the word “however” and inserting words on the English version, sixth line, after the word “motion”—

The Clerk of the Committee: By Mr. Strahl.

The Chair: —“and the bill.”

I don't know if we have actually formalized that, but that is what we are voting on now.

Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: I have a point of order. Don't we vote on the amendment first?

The Clerk: No, you have to move the subamendment first.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay.

The Clerk: Then the amendment.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Okay, whatever.

The Chair: I wasn't sure. We had the thing on the floor, didn't we?

Mr. Gar Knutson: We did.

The Chair: Then the subamendment to Mr. Knutson's documentation. Those are the two items I've just mentioned, the word “however” and the words “and the bill”.

Mr. Gar Knutson: Right. So let's vote on that on division.

The Chair: All right, if it is the will of members to vote on that....

• 1140

The clerk is suggesting we do a subamendment. I'm going to ask Mr. Strahl to take ownership of the word “however”.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, I don't agree with that. I think “except” is the right word.

The Chair: Oh, my God.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But I don't care. I don't want to make a fuss over it.

The Chair: Good. Then please take ownership of it and move it.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I so move.

The Chair: We're voting on those two amendments I've just mentioned.

Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Before we proceed to vote, could I simply say something? I am usually not this loquacious, but I guess it's my day to be.

We have here three versions of the proposed amendment. I believe the first version was drafted by knowledgeable, competent individuals. We didn't ask the first person who came around to take on this task. The drafters were familiar with the subject matter, they knew what the stakes were and they knew very well how honest members were likely to react.

The first version of the proposed amendment stipulated that a member asking a question could designate which minister could respond to it. Mr. Chairman, when I read that, I must admit I nearly fell off my chair, but I didn't. I thought that surely, there must be some misunderstanding, that surely the English version must read differently. But no. I checked the English version and it corresponded to what I had read.

Therefore, I'm not the least bit surprised to see a new version. It was to be expected. The government isn't naive.

The second version was a little more restrictive:

...minister in whose name the Bill stands on the Order Paper, or any Minister acting...

As Mr. Marleau explained to us last week, the latter would be a kind of acting minister. Do you understand? It would not be some minister whose name was pulled out a hat. Nor would the government be proceeding in alphabetical order and therefore the first up would be Mr. Axworthy. That's not what was meant. In the latest version we have, it's very simple. Any minister can respond.

Mr. Chairman, we can go ahead and vote, but as you can well imagine, the Bloc Québécois members will be voting "nay". This flies in the face of Parliament. As a rule, I have a good sense of humour, but quite frankly, this is a classic case of a government that wields considerable power - and no one is questioning that - completing disregarding the wishes of the opposition.

I understand that you merely tolerate the opposition, but let me tell you one thing: opposition is essential in a democratic system. When there is no articulate, intelligent opposition, democracy is jeopardized.

I'd like my colleagues to respond, Mr. Chairman. If I'm the only one to see things this way, then I will say no more. It won't be easy, but I will refrain from any further comments.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, I want to call the question. I'm sure government members wouldn't want to adopt a change to the Standing Orders without at least some consensus around the House. I understand there is at least some consensus on this, even if all the bells and whistles aren't attached to the amendment.

Anyway, members have called for the question and I think we'll do that. We had got through the first part of the question. The second part is to amend the draft Standing Order changes with Mr. Knutson's amended document.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't know if Mr. Kilger was in the room when we discussed this idea of the bells sounding for not more than 15 minutes. I'm not sure why he would want that. I know it's an effort to speed it up and get back to the debate, which is wise, but I just ask him to consider whether 15 minutes is long enough or whether we want a 30-minute bell. Although we'll know it's coming, the bell itself will only be 15 minutes. If people aren't ready to come to the House or are out on Bank Street at their offices or something, then I'm not sure if 15 minutes is the right answer.

• 1145

The Chair: Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can respond to Mr. Strahl's intervention.

I think the 15-minute bell should be adequate. We all recognize that Mr. Strahl and I endeavour to go to the back of the House to begin the vote procedure. In most instances, if not all, there are always a few extra minutes, if not five or ten, that get added on. This is a pilot project, and we do want to add time at the end of the day to assure ourselves that all parties have an opportunity to speak and so on and so forth. I think the 15-minute bell is a reasonable option as a pilot project.

The Chair: Thank you.

Therefore, the question we're dealing with now is the amendment of the draft Standing Order changes by inserting Mr. Knutson's amended amendment. I'm going to call the question on that.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Finally, I will put the question on the draft Standing Order changes as amended.

Mr. Jay Hill: Can we have a recorded vote on this?

The Chair: Mr. Robertson has indicated a slight alteration in the ordering of the draft, in that the directions to the Speaker will be moved up above paragraph 3 of the draft. So they will follow the Standing Order change dealing with the time allocation procedure.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a point of order. I'd like a recorded vote, and I serve notice that we will be submitting a dissenting opinion on this.

The Chair: All right. We'll have a recorded division. Did you want to indicate now when you might have that amendment ready?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There's a dissenting opinion, then?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Am I to report by tomorrow?

Mr. Bob Kilger: Or by Thursday for Thursday's meeting, or whatever.

Mr. Jay Hill: By Thursday's meeting. I'll have it translated and I'll submit it in both official languages.

The Chair: All right. I'm going to put the question then.

Yes, Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Maybe the researcher has some information that would cause us to reflect on it. If it's possible to have it by 5 o'clock tomorrow, then the report could be tabled on Thursday, if that's acceptable.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, yes, all right.

The Chair: My clerk has made a suggestion.

The Clerk: It's the same thing as Mr. Kilger has suggested. We'd like to have it by tomorrow.

Mr. Bob Kilger: By 5 o'clock tomorrow.

The Chair: That's fine. You will attempt to get that into the system.

Mr. Jay Hill: Let the record show that we will submit it to the clerk by 5 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

The Chair: That's great. Thank you, Mr. Hill.

I'll put the question on the whole bundle of these landmark changes to the Standing Orders. This is going to be a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We've completed our business. That's the first tranche of Standing Orders review, and the best is yet to come.

Thank you, colleagues, for all your cooperation. Hopefully our colleagues in the House will be pleased with our efforts so far.

If there is no other business, we can adjourn until Thursday at ll o'clock.