STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, April 13, 2000

• 1111

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Colleagues, I see a quorum, so we'll proceed with our consideration of possible changes to the Standing Orders along the lines we discussed at the last meeting.

I have two items to point out before we continue. First, we have again as our witnesses today Mr. Marleau, the Clerk of the House, and Marie-Andrée Lajoie, principal clerk, House proceedings and parliamentary exchanges directorate. Welcome.

Secondly, hopefully at some point we will deal with the private member's bill introduced by member of Parliament Suzanne Tremblay for a riding name change, the matter having been referred to us from the House. Hopefully we can accommodate that within our next hour and a half.

Let's continue with our discussions. I don't think there were any carry-over matters from the last day that Mr. Marleau might want to address. If there are, Mr. Marleau, you can do it now. There aren't. Okay.

On a procedural basis, we'll be asking questions and debating the issues. At some point, colleagues might find it useful to consider going in camera. We certainly don't have to, but in the event that we do, if we get into the kinds of back and forth discussions where an in camera meeting might be more conducive, where we don't need the written record, then we could consider that.

Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I see Madame Tremblay has just joined us, and I wonder if it might be convenient to deal with the matter while she's here. It would only take possibly five minutes in terms of process.

The Chair: If colleagues are agreed to deal with the private member's bill of Suzanne Tremblay, we can do that now.

Please excuse us, witnesses. We'll do a slight musical chairs here.

Bonjour, Madame Tremblay. You have introduced a bill that would change the name of your riding, currently known as Rimouski—Mitis. There have been a number of other riding name changes adopted by the House in the last few days, and we're now going to consider the bill you have put forward. Would you like to enlighten us?

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to summarize the process. Last year, our whip told us that all members of Parliament had until the 20th of March to request a change in the name of the ridings. The government was preparing a bill covering all name changes. We were thus given until March 20 to submit our request.

Let me quote you a news release from my office dated March 4, 1999:

Following comments made by several citizens concerning the name now given to the riding called Rimouski—Mitis, the Member of Parliament Suzanne Tremblay intends to ask Parliament to change the name of the riding.

Here is the new name which is proposed:

To change Rimouski—Mitis for Rimouski-Neigette et Mitis.

In order to meet the deadline imposed, Ms. Tremblay will accept suggestions and comments on the name change until the 20th of March.

Please phone in your comments as quickly as possible...

• 1115

Then I gave my office's phone and fax numbers. Since I don't want you all writing me, I will not give out those numbers.

This news release was published in the regional newspaper on Sunday March 7, 1999 under the title: “The Member of Parliament wants to change the name...”. The newspaper summarized the information contained in the news release. Several phone numbers were mentioned, including a 1-800 number.

On March 14, I opened an office at the regional county municipality of La Mitis headquarters. Several representatives of the municipalities were present, either the mayor, a municipal councillor, or an employee. Several other persons were also present at this event.

On March 15, the RCM of la Mitis met and I was sent a copy of a resolution passed by the municipality:

It is proposed by Sylvain Dupont, seconded by Mr. Henri-Paul Valcourt and unanimously approved, that the board of mayors of the MRC of la Mitis give its approval to the request made to change the name of the riding now called Rimouski—Mitis and replace it by the name La Mitis et Rimouski-Neigette.

I also received a motion of the Sainte-Flavie municipality, located in the RCM of La Mitis, but at the far end of it, where Road 132 meets the beginning of the Gaspé.

On May 6, I received another unanimously passed motion from the RCM requesting that the new name of the riding be “La Mitis et Rimouski-Neigette”. The intent here was to make sure that the article “La” be part of the official name of the riding since this article is part of the official name La Mitis. The RCM was also suggesting that the names be in alphabetical order. That was an amendment made to the original motion.

Finally, my office received six letters of comments. One of those letters was anonymous and four of those letters were against the name change suggestion. Here are some of the comments made: “Changing the name of the riding will only confuse people”; “Changing the name of the riding is stupid”. One person suggested that the name should be “Neigette et Mitis”. One comment didn't make any sense. Those are the only comments I received.

Finally, I received a letter co-signed by the Mayor of Rimouski and Mayor Ghislain Fiola from Mont-Joli, which is part of the RCM. Those two mayors are well-known liberals. I would say that they are liberals with a small “L” for those who know the difference between the two. They wrote to express their opposition to the change suggested. In a nutshell, they say that their two municipalities are the two most important ones, the first in the RCM Rimouski-Neigette and the other in the RCM La Mitis. According to them, the riding should be called “Rimouski—Mont-Joli”, which would mean that no mention would be made of the other municipalities. They are opposed to using the names of the two RCMs because they feel their municipalities are lost among all those other little municipalities with very few residents.

I was convalescing at that time and Stéphane Bergeron told me that the bill had been discussed and stopped for everyone, since Mr. Boudria received a call about the name of my riding.

• 1120

I knew very well where that call came from, because I met Mr. Tremblay and I told him that he did not only write to me but also dared to call Ottawa. He started laughing. I know how he reacts with that kind of half smile when he realizes that someone thwarted his strategy. For me, it was sheer nonsense that two mayors, because of something they don't like, decided on their own to take action to stop a federal bill, even without consulting their municipality. I found it somewhat abusive.

Obviously I started to say that Rimouski and Mont-Joli were strictly opposed to this project and would fight back together. Then I said in the media that it was not up to them to decide whether the name could be changed or not, that it was a decision for the federal government. Then they replied to me. So there was a fairly interesting debate in the newspapers about regional politics.

The main objective was to recognize the people from Neigette and from Rimouski—Neigette Regional County Municipality. Initially, when the electoral map was revised, this city was called Rimouski. Changes were proposed. I asked that the name Mitis be added, because the provincial member is called Member for Rimouski. It could be confusing if both members would represent ridings with identical names.

The area of my riding is somewhat larger. I have 34 municipalities, including 15 in Rimouski—Neigette Regional Municipality. The other 14 felt excluded because of this name, and if you added the name Mitis, which is the name of the regional municipality, every municipality was included.

So initially, the idea behind this name change was only to use the right names, namely “Rimouski—Neigette” and “La Mitis”, either in this order or in the other. I had no problem with that. If it seems preferable to keep “Rimouski—Neigette” because people are used to saying “Rimouski—Mitis” and it would be less complicated for the clerks and the Speaker to learn this new name, I have no objection. But for me, this is a very democratic move. First of all, there was a consultation, and people asked me to add “Neigette” to “Rimouski”.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much for that very forthright and detailed description of the background. Colleagues are grateful for that. On a private member's bill of this nature, you will understand that colleagues would accord you, as the sitting member, a fairly wide berth.

Colleagues may decide that they wish to hear some more on this. I'm sure you'll be available should that be necessary. I don't think there would be too many questions here today. Your explanation was very succinct and clear. But if we did hear additional evidence, it would likely be from citizens who wish to make a point publicly on the bill. We might hear from them in writing, or we might hear from them personally. In any event, that's up to colleagues here to decide.

Again, I thank you.

It looks like there may be a question.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): I have a very short question.

The Chair: All right, there may be one or two very short questions.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Obviously this doesn't impact me directly, other than it affecting the thousands of members I'm sure we have in the honourable member's riding.

I haven't received any great number of complaints, at least into my office, about this proposed name change, but I think what it does highlight is that perhaps the House should be considering a bit more formal process of how we go about changing the name of a riding. And by formal process I mean some avenue whereby the citizens of the riding or the individual municipalities are included in a definitive process where input is sought and there isn't an arbitrary decision by any body, whether it's us or the individual member or whoever, upon the name change for their riding.

• 1125

Some of the problems Madame Tremblay has encountered point to the need for us to consider a slightly more formalized process in the future.

The Chair: We'll take your question as a representation.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, on the same point, I would simply say that generally speaking, I agree. Nevertheless, we started a process and passed three omnibus bills to adopt changes in the names of ridings based on the good faith of the members. They proposed names on which people in the ridings have been consulted. As for Ms. Tremblay's bill, there is, I believe, a limited opposition, and that's why this hearing and this presentation to the committee were required.

My question is very simple. Ms. Tremblay, you said that the mayor of Mont-Joli... First of all, this municipality is part of La Mitis Regional Municipality.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I understand that the mayor of Mont-Joli co-signed a letter with the mayor of Rimouski after a unanimous resolution from La Mitis Regional Municipality approving this change was sent to you.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Before that, on April 1. There was a resolution passed by the RCM on March 15, approving the name change. Then, on April 1, there was the letter co-signed by the two mayors and after that, on May 6, the RCM amended its resolution to have the name “La Mitis” placed before “Rimouski-Neigette”...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Okay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: ... to respect the alphabetical order. It is like KRTB. It might be what inspired people in my riding to ask for the name “Rimouski-Neigette”. My colleague for Rivière-du-Loup used the names of the four regional county municipalities and my colleague for Gaspé did the same. The Matapédia—Matane riding has the name of two RCMs appearing on the map.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So, Ms. Tremblay, to make it perfectly clear for our colleagues, the Mitis municipality...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The RCM.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The Mitis RCM that includes the Mont-Joli municipality has, on two occasions, unanimously passed a motion supporting the proposal we have before us.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Exactly.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Then, as it was passed unanimously, we shall presume that Mont-Joli was also in agreement with the change you are proposing.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I must then consider this proposal co-signed by the mayor of Rimouski as reflecting the personal position of the Mont-Joli mayor.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Kilger.

[Translation]

Mr. Bob Kilger: Following what was just said by my colleague Stéphane Bergeron, I wish to ask Ms. Tremblay if she could table the text of that correspondence. It might be useful.

Then, I would like to know the status of those three municipalities. La Mitis is a regional county municipality; Rimouski and Neigette are...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Rimouski-Neigette with an hyphen.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Is it a RCM?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Bob Kilger: And La Mitis is another one?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Bob Kilger: There are two RCMs in your riding, if I understand correctly.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Very well.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They include 34 municipalities.

Mr. Bob Kilger: With your usual openness, could you tell me what was your constituency reaction to that name change for your riding?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I can tell you... About what change?

Mr. Bob Kilger: When you suggested “La Mitis and Rimouski-Neigette”, where they...

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They know that I shall have to table a private bill. The municipality and its citizens were informed. However, people are not aware of what occurred last Friday or what is happening today unless the two mayors have been informed by the government leader's office.

Mr. Bob Kilger: In a general way, how did people react?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They think that all this fuss has been caused by two people who contacted their political friends to initiate a big debate on an issue that is not all that important.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, but how did people react to the new name that has been proposed?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: They seemed to agree as there were only four or five negative comments.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I was going to ask the same questions, Mr. Chairman. So I have to thank my colleague as I have no more questions.

• 1130

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I'll make photocopies for you. I can table this file. I'll have my assistant bring it to you shortly, if it interests you. I can give you the whole lot. You'll see.

[English]

The Chair: That would be of assistance. Thank you very much.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I'd like to make a short comment. I certainly know the population of Rimouski—Mitis well enough to know that they would be very shocked to find out that such amounts of time, energy and money are being devoted to a private bill of this type and I am the first to denounce this. I'm sure that the population would go along with me. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: If we're going to change the name of the riding, I'm sure we'll do it expeditiously and at very low cost.

Colleagues, perhaps some of you could give some thought on whether or not we would be of a disposition to move ahead with this bill very quickly after we return and/or on whether we might like to have some more input after reading the copies of correspondence that will be distributed.

Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I wonder if we could bring the witnesses who were good enough to stand down for a few minutes so that we can get on with that business. We can perhaps pursue this discussion after their testimony or exchanges.

The Chair: Certainly. I'm just about to leave that file with those words.

We'll move on from that and go back to our first item of agenda, and that is Mr. Marleau and Ms. Lajoie.

We're getting back to a discussion of the proposed mechanism of applying votes in the House without unanimous consent. There are also other potentially related issues that members might like to suggest to have a relationship to that voting mechanism proposal. So I'll open the floor for discussion now. I'll go to Mr. Hill first and then I'll go to Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Jay Hill: Initially, I would just like to know whether we are going to limit our discussion at this stage to motion nine, or are we going to discuss the corresponding plan, if you will, to change the Standing Orders in relation to time allocation?

The Chair: Yes. I understand, colleagues, you want time allocation to be part of the discussion and package.

Mr. Jay Hill: I would defer to Mr. Knutson at this time, and then I'll have something to say about the time allocation.

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): The general proposal, if I can call it that, from the opposition that we have a mini question period is acceptable to the government side. We think the 45 minutes is too long. So we've put forward counter-wording, which I passed out informally yesterday, and we delivered the French version just now. The gist of it is we think 45 minutes is too long. We would prefer it at 15 minutes so there's some flexibility on that. We think our wording is tighter and a little better, but the general concept we're agreeing to.

The Chair: Okay. Back to Mr. Hill.

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

If we're going to get into this, then I assume this isn't in the form of a motion, Mr. Knutson, that—

Mr. Gar Knutson: It's an aid to discussion.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay. That at least gives us something formal in writing we can work from, propose amendments to and make arguments either for or against.

• 1135

I have a couple of concerns, Mr. Chairman. One is the length of the time and the other one is the wording. Mr. Knutson has indicated that he felt the wording he's proposing is cleaning it up or whatever. I'll explain why I'm concerned about that.

First of all, on the length of time, I think it was Mr. Blaikie who revealed, due to his long and I'm sure tremendous and great history in this place, that he was aware that in previous days there had been a two-hour debate that took place when time allocation was brought before the House. When my colleague submitted the suggestion of 45 minutes he was really already dramatically decreasing that debate in respect of the fact that he at least envisioned a true question period. He envisioned question and comment along the lines of the ten-minute and five-minute question and comments we have after an intervention during debate in the House of Commons.

So in light of that, rather than a more formalized debate, he thought 45 minutes would be a compromise already, if you will. Therefore, especially with this situation we have in the House right now, with four recognized opposition parties, I find this 15 minutes would not provide sufficient time for an adequate discussion of why the government and this particular minister would feel it necessary to impose time allocation on a piece of legislation.

I guess that's at least my initial response to the 15 minutes. We can discuss whether it should be an hour or 45, 30, or 15 minutes, or in blocks of 15 minutes or five or ten. We can get into all sorts of lengthy discussion about what would be the most appropriate amount of time. Perhaps the witnesses would have some opinion on that as well, although I don't know that they would.

The second issue is in response to the actual question period itself, whatever we decide the length of time is going to be. I would submit that we come up with the final wording of the standing order change, and I would certainly favour having some reference to Standing Order 43(1) in the actual standing order we're going to be putting forward.

The reason for that is because of a concern that whatever length of time we come up with for the question period, it has at least the potential to be abused by either side, Mr. Chairman. It would solely fall to the chair to try to keep it even and keep it rolling and keep as many people involved as possible.

A reference to Standing Order 43(1)—and I'm referring to the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons—would bring into play the following. I'll just quote from it:

The basic 40-minute rule remained unrevised until November 1982, when the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure recommended in its Third Report major changes to the time limits on debate: first, that limits on speeches be shortened in the majority of cases to 20 minutes in an effort to introduce greater spontaneity and “cut and thrust” into the debate; second, that a 10-minute period be made available following each speech for questions or comments to the Member who had spoken.

• 1140

When I refer directly to the third report of this Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, November 4, 1982, I find the following, Mr. Chair:

Your Committee envisages that exchanges which would take place would be short and sharp. More than one Member should be allowed to take advantage of the 10 minutes available, and the member whose speech is the subject of a question or comment should be given the time within the 10 minutes to reply to the points raised. No specific rules should govern the length of the interventions, this being left to the discretion of the Chair. However, your Committee would not wish to see one member monopolizing this 10-minute period in cases where there are several members who wish to intervene. Furthermore, the Chair should control the interventions to promote a series of exchanges to enliven the debate and add a constructive element lacking in a debate simply consisting of a series of set speeches.

The Chair should give priority during the 10-minute period to members representing parties other than that of the member who has just spoken. Your Committee emphasizes that it sees these 10-minute periods as being used for questions and answers and critical exchanges.

Without going on at any greater length, Mr. Chairman, that's the whole point of why I would like to see a specific reference to Standing Order 43(1) put into this, regardless of what time period we decide upon, so that there's clear direction to the chair that this is the format we would be using for this questioning of the appropriate minister, and that we wouldn't see a situation potentially develop whereby one member of whichever party could get up and make some long dissertation and utilize that period instead of having it perhaps evenly spaced between the parties and individuals who would be seeking some serious clarification of why time allocation was viewed as being necessary by the government and by the specific minister.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I think we have the beginnings of an agreement here, and I think that is good.

I have a number of concerns, first of all, with respect to the time. As Mr. Hill has already indicated, I was referring the other day to the two-hour debate that used to follow on a motion of time allocation. So I saw the 45 minutes being proposed by the Reform Party as already very much in the spirit of compromise with that two hours.

The other day I was arguing for a two-hour question period of some kind, and I can see that it's not on. But I would certainly urge the government to consider some kind of compromise. It's been suggested that 30 minutes might be appropriate. My problem with the 30 minutes is if we institute it in such a way as to suggest that this is going to come in ten-minute chunks, it doesn't provide opportunity for all the opposition parties who may be opposed to the time allocation to have their opportunity to question the minister.

So if we're going to have a short period of time, say 30 minutes, then it seems to me we need to have some description of it that doesn't allocate it in big enough chunks that the smaller parties get left out. And that's my only concern with the Alliance proposal; I think the spirit of what is in that committee report that you read is good. I was on that committee in 1982. But to the extent that it's tied to the question and answer period and has this five-minute, ten-minute implication, that's my only concern.

I'm not sure how we deal with that, but it seems to me we could word it appropriately so that it's clear that these interventions are not ten-minute interventions followed by five-minute answers or whatever, but that they're short and sharp, to use the language of the committee report at that time.

The Chair: Mr. Hill had a point of order of some sort here.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, I was hoping to clarify that. My intent wasn't that it would be divided up ten minutes—whatever we have—for each party, but just that the very nature of what Mr. Blaikie is suggesting would govern.

• 1145

A reference to Standing Order 43(1) would govern the fact that it be allocated to members wishing to question, from whichever party, and that the entire time would be divided up, hopefully, into one- or two-minute segments so that even members of the Liberal Party, if they chose, who might perhaps question why time allocation was necessary, would be allowed a time to stand and raise their question.

Just while I have the floor, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to—

The Chair: Mr. Hill, we all love you dearly—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I appreciate that.

The Chair: I just wanted to say that.

It wasn't a point of order and you really don't have the floor for discussion or debate; however, go ahead.

Mr. Jay Hill: Only because I feel so loved, Mr. Chair, I'll continue.

My understanding is that the clerk does have a revised submission, which I was referring to and which does make a reference to Standing Order 43(1). I believe they have it in both languages. I wonder if that could be distributed as well as the submission from Mr. Knutson, so that at least everybody would have the same information and would be able to compare the two—if that's possible.

The Chair: Colleagues, prior to the meeting, the clerk and research had attempted to generate some things along the lines of what we were speaking of, so there is some printed material here along the lines of what Mr. Hill has mentioned. I was reluctant to distribute it until we had achieved a critical mass of consensus here on anything, but if it's the will of the committee to distribute the drafts, that's acceptable to the chair. They're marked “confidential” because it was the anticipation that we would be in camera by the time we got to discussing them.

If you wish to go in camera now, we can. It might simplify the discussion. Is there any disposition on that here?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I'd like to speak on the record, as others have done, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Okay. We're still on the record.

After Mr. Blaikie, I have Mr. Bergeron and then Ms. Catterall.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to say for the record that in a democracy, closure is always, always inappropriate. The government uses the argument that closure becomes necessary as a tool to thwart the stalling tactics of the opposition. They claim that closure somehow counterbalances the power of the opposition.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to note that this argument is fallacious on at least two scores: on one hand we know full well that in the British parliamentary system, the government has far greater powers to control the parliamentary agenda than the opposition; moreover, experience has shown that the government does not only make use of closure to obstruct the stalling tactics of the opposition since we have seen recent examples of how the government makes use of it when there are no opposition parties resorting to dilatory measures. For political reasons the government wanted to accelerate the passage of a bill and in order to do so resorted to closure, which in no way counterbalances any tactics or power of the opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that the imposition of closure in a democracy is something I consider to be unfortunate and inappropriate.

That being said, in an ideal world the parliamentary system would not allow for closure. We do not live in an ideal world and we certainly do not have an ideal government because it resorts to closure time after time. Thus we can assume that this government will be imposing closure in the future and therefore it is important for the opposition, in view of the government's desire to restrict its powers through motion 9, to attempt to limit this power.

• 1150

In this respect, I am fully in agreement with us being able to question the minister. I also think that 15 minutes would not be enough. I agree with Mr. Blaikie when he says that we must absolutely avoid these set time slots of 10 minutes for comments and five minutes for answers. We should operate with short and precise interventions during this half hour or 45 minutes. In my view, 15 minutes would not be enough.

I also want to say that this question period should by no means be part of the period for government affairs. I also want to add, and I beg my government colleagues to listen and understand my argument, that the government must accept that when closure is imposed, the normal hours of the House should be extended.

Let me explain. There were two quite shocking cases when closure was imposed in third reading on fundamental bills: Bill C-2, the Electoral Act, and Bill C-20 on the actual membership of the provinces in this Federation. Closure was imposed on third reading, in the case of Bill C-2—if you can imagine, the Electoral Act of Canada!—it prevented three out of the five political parties from saying a single word in the House on the Electoral Act in third reading. That is completely unacceptable. It is mind-boggling. How is it possible in a democracy to prevent the majority of the political parties present in a Parliament from expressing their views on an electoral Act?

Mr. Chairman, if closure is to be used, the government must agree to extending the hours of the House so that the debate can at least be concluded with all political parties having a chance to express their views, something that was not possible in the case of C-20 and C-2.

Mr. Chairman, I beseech my government colleagues. I implore them to accept an extension in the sitting hours of the House when closure is imposed so that we can have a reasonable debate and have at least some chance to speak.

It is certainly a very successful gag when you don't have a chance of putting in a single word. It is described as a debate on third reading when only two members of Parliament take the floor, a government member and a member of the Official Opposition, on the Electoral Act of Canada. I don't call that a debate on third reading but rather two monologues on third reading. That's it, it's over. That's how the Canada Electoral Act was passed on third reading.

The hours of debate must be extended, the hours for government orders, whenever closure occurs.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I hope this doesn't become a habit, Mr. Chair, but I think this is the second meeting in a row in which I've agreed that Mr. Hill has put forward a very useful suggestion.

I think it is important. If the purpose of changing the standing order with respect to the imposition of time allocation is to allow questioning of the minister, I think it is very important to make it clear that it's a questioning; it's not a time for anyone to get up and give speeches, except with respect to the normal questions and comments and the way we normally handle that. It's very important that the Speaker understand that the intention here is an exchange.

I did have one question as to whether we might want to consider.... When we're asking a minister to justify time allocation, often the reason isn't only the particular bill but the government's schedule of government business. We've all agreed in the past that the opposition has an important role, but the government is also elected to govern and has to be able to get its business done eventually. It seems to me that often the reason for time allocation has to do with the total package.

• 1155

I wonder, therefore, if perhaps the amendment shouldn't refer to the minister or to the minister who is the House leader of the governing party, because sometimes in fact it is the total load of government business that's the reason for the time allocation.

I've mentioned this briefly to Mr. Knutson. He suggested that we might want to discuss that as an option, rather than it being only the minister responsible for the particular bill.

The other thing I want to say is that, like Stéphane, I agree that the imposition of time allocation, and of closure even more so, is always regrettable and always unfortunate, but I don't always agree that it's inappropriate, because when the government has a clear indication that the opposition—one party or more—intends to prevent it from doing its job of governing the country, then I think its democratic responsibility is to make sure it can carry out its legislative agenda.

As I look over bills for which time allocation has been used, it seems to me that it has been used by and large appropriately, to forestall an attempt to simply obstruct by one or the other opposition party. I wouldn't accuse a particular opposition party of doing that, and I'm not trying to do that, Mr. Chair. I just think that people need to understand as well why the government uses time allocation from time to time, and I don't have a problem with the government having to stand up and justify that, frankly.

I support the recommendation that's made by Mr. Hill. I think we are talking, in the amendment Mr. Knutson tabled, about extending the time of the House to allow for this to happen without cutting into debate on the issue, and I'm not sure if that's not adequate.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: This is in the draft that just...?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In the...?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It's in the draft, Stéphane.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Where?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm not sure—I'm getting so many drafts in front of me. It said “provided that the time of sitting of the House”.

Mr. Jay Hill: Ours is right at the end. In our submission, which is on this page that was just distributed, in the last sentence on the second suggestion, “That Standing Order 78(3) be amended as follows...”, the last sentence in English—I don't know what it says in French—says “any proceedings interrupted pursuant to this section of the Standing Orders shall be....” Oh, no, that's not what we were looking for.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: In the proposal of Mr. Knutson it says “shall put the question...forthwith, provided that the time taken for questions and answers”—i.e., to the minister—“shall be added to the time provided for the consideration of Government Orders that day.”

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It is just a short question. Can you tell me, Mr. Hill, whether the proposal we have before us states that the hours for government orders will be extended, in the case of closure, to allow for a reasonable amount of time for debate? I gave the example of Bill C-2 where only two political parties out of five were able to express their views.

I would like us to be able to bring an amendment, with the collaboration of government members, to this proposal to allow for an extension of hours, should the situation arise. It will not take anything away from what we have. At the end of the day, you will have your bill through the appropriate stage but at least it will have been possible to debate. I would like us to be able to make an amendment to this proposal.

[English]

The Chair: That was introduced to all of us by Mr. Bergeron as a very short question to Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: And the very short answer is no. In reading this, as Ms. Catterall just did, I see that the proposal would only extend the hours to make up for the time that was lost for the questioning of the minister. It wouldn't extend the hours of the day beyond that, so the answer is no.

The Chair: Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: In the spirit of the discussion, I think it might be worth our consideration of the following. And this is without any prior consultation with anyone else, so please understand that I'm thinking out loud here, but—

Mr. Jay Hill: That's okay; your leader is doing it in the Middle East too.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Well, you might have your interpretation of that—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bob Kilger: —but I'm sure it's probably not quite accurate. Anyway, it makes for political fodder.

• 1200

Notwithstanding the intervention from my colleague from the official opposition, whose party name escapes me at the moment....

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bob Kilger: But more seriously, having worked for five years on the other side of the House—I might add I never want to go back, but some day I'm sure it will happen, although maybe not for quite a while yet—I think there's a great deal of merit in considering that at the very least, every official party should have the right to have one spokesperson in the House speak to whatever matter to which time allocation is being applied.

I'd like to hear comments from my own colleagues on that.

The Chair: Just to clarify that, Mr. Kilger, you're suggesting that in the debate that would follow the adoption of a time allocation motion, every recognized party in the House should have at least one opportunity to make an intervention on the matter before the House—not the time allocation, but the matter before the House.

I've had indications from Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Harvey. I'm not too sure which one got to me first. I'm sorry.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, you mentioned me first.

The Chair: We'll go in alphabetical order. Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm just trying to deal with the matter Mr. Bergeron raised. I don't recall in detail what happened on the occasion of Bill C-2. Are you suggesting that not all parties got to speak on the bill, or they didn't get to speak after time allocation had been moved?

It depends on what you're getting at here. If you're saying that after time allocation is moved we want to guarantee that all parties have an opportunity to speak, then we would make one change to the standing order. But if we are suggesting time allocation shouldn't be moved until all parties have had a chance to speak—I can't remember what happened in Bill C-2—that would require a different kind of amendment to the standing order.

Perhaps I could just ask for clarification. Without a long explanation, what happened on Bill C-2? Are you complaining about the fact that not all parties got to speak after time allocation, or that some parties didn't get to speak at all on third reading, either before or after time allocation?

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, in the case of Bill C-2, there was double closure: closure at the report stage and closure on third reading when the bill was passed.

Once the report stage was over on Thursday, I believe, third reading took place on Friday. On the same Friday, during routine proceedings, the Reform Party moved the adoption of a report, resulting in a lot of time being wasted, something that I consider to be perfectly legitimate, but a lot of time was wasted because of the discussion on the motion to adopt the report.

As a result, only Mr. Boudria and Mr. White from the Reform Party were able to speak on Bill C-2 during third reading. No speaker from the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, or the Conservative Party were able to speak on the third reading of the bill on the Canada Elections Act.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It seems to me—

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, we could of course spend a long time discussing the justification for the use of closure during the debate on the last bill. We lived through this experience.

I think that for the time being, we are working fairly constructively to attenuate the negative effects of closure. In my view, 15 minutes is quite insufficient, particularly when all the parties must be given a chance to express their views on the subject.

We must realize that this question period cannot be compared to the usual 45-minute question period. A period devoted to questioning the minister is undertaken in quite a different spirit. Different points of view will be expressed by the opposition parties on that matter. Fifteen minutes is totally inadequate for a substantive debate when the discussion of such matters has already been obstructed by closure.

• 1205

I don't think we should be afraid of allowing sufficient time. It will give us a chance to speak. Even certain members of the government will have an opportunity to speak.

Now, how are we going to manage the time for each party? Should we impose a maximum on each of the parties? Should we decide that each of the parties will be given 10 minutes to present their case or should we follow our normal habit of each taking turns? I do not have a definite opinion on this but I don't think we should be afraid of devoting time to questioning the government on the reasons for closure. At the same time, we could also speak on the substance of the bill.

It would be something quite different from the usual stereotyped pattern of the question period in the House of Commons. We know the style adopted in question period, very short questions followed by short answers. This would be something quite different. We would have to discuss the substance of the bill and express our views on that. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, if I could just make an intervention, I see the concept of this 15-minute or 45-minute question period drifting or mutating a little here. I originally personally conceived of it as being equivalent to question period, where a member would ask the minister a question and get an answer. Now some of you see the question period proposed as a question and comment period.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: From the minister.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey, in his discussion of it, is now looking upon this period more as a debate of the time allocation motion.

I never personally viewed it as a debate of the time allocation motion. The Standing Orders now say there is no debate of the time allocation motion. I thought there was a sense that we wanted an opportunity—and I'm thinking of this as a government member now—where the minister would be invited to justify the moving of the time allocation motion.

The only way they would get a chance to do that would be if they were asked a couple of really good questions. They could stand up and give a one-minute or two-minute explanation, but it would be very useful to have some good questions to clarify and vet the original explanation.

For a question and answer period, I thought 15 minutes was enough. There's no big difference between 15 minutes and 20 minutes, or 25 minutes and 30 minutes, but if you're getting into 45 minutes and we're going to suggest to colleagues that we will have to extend the day, then we'll be getting into substantially more procedure.

I wanted to say that, just in a personal way, to bring us back to the way I conceived of the question period. We will have to turn our minds to that. Will it be questions and comments? We will certainly have to give some direction to the Speaker as to what this will be. We just can't throw it out there and say “Here's a chunk of time to deal with the time allocation issue”.

I see the minister jumping up and down several times, responding to questions. I don't see the need for a five-minute preamble to the question. If we don't give better direction to this, that's what we're going to get, in my view.

Going back to the list, we have Mr. Hill and Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Jay Hill: I want to make a couple of points and perhaps pose a question to the witnesses, who up to this point haven't said anything.

First is in reference to Mrs. Catterall's suggestion that either the minister responsible for the particular bill that will be time-allocated or the government House leader be allowed to field the questions. I can see the rationale she put forward having some validity, but my concern is we could find ourselves in a situation where whenever time allocation was used, the government House leader would get up and say it's necessary, and that's all there is to it. What I think all of us were hoping was that there'd be a more substantive exchange than might come forth from that type of exchange with the government House leader.

• 1210

I would strongly recommend, then, that the proposal we've put forward still stand, that the minister of the crown in whose name the bill appears on the Order Paper is the one who fields the questions.

Second, I think the whole idea of having an exchange a bit different from question period is that all of us recognize that through very recent negotiations we've come up with a way to arguably enhance question period insofar as the opposition has 35 seconds to pose their questions and the minister has 35 seconds to answer.

In an exchange about time allocation and the need for time allocation, in fairness to the minister, I don't think that's appropriate. I would certainly be seeking an answer that would probably take more than 35 seconds to do it justice as to why he or she is taking this very arbitrary form of forcing legislation through the House.

In light of Mrs. Catterall's comments about the government House leader, I envision that, if the time period was sufficient enough, the House leader might himself rise and during this 45-minute period put forward his explanation, be recognized by the chair and be allowed to do that, to say, you know, it's not just this particular bill but also the fact that we have our agenda. They could go into it at some length—perhaps not be allowed to use up ten minutes but be allowed to put forward some explanation that might help all members in the House understand why the government is doing this.

By way of explanation, that's how my thinking has evolved on the issue, but I would ask our witnesses, Mr. Chair, through you, to perhaps offer their thinking on how this might work, in particular our proposal about utilizing or having actually written in a reference to Standing Order 43(1).

Would that constrain us too much, along the lines of Mr. Blaikie's concern about ten-minute intervals, if you will, or more along the lines of just keeping it short and to the point and giving that direction to the chair to ensure that one person doesn't utilize a big block of time?

The Chair: Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Specific to that question, the way it's drafted, I would interpret it—and I think the chair also would read it this way—in the context that you are deeming the minister to have spoken a 20-minute speech. It therefore kicks in the question and comment period.

In this case, it's 45 minutes instead of 10. The Speaker would try to manage it globally rather than in chunks, by party. Within the 10 minutes, as it exists now, if there are several members rising, sometimes on both sides, you will hear the Speaker say “Okay, I have six or seven members rising here, so I'll try to limit it to one minute apiece so that everybody gets on”.

The one submitted by the Alliance, or the hybrid one from last week, describes what I think is a global debate, to a maximum of 45 minutes.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

The Chair: I have Mr. Kilger, Mr. Blaikie, and Ms. Parrish. Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I'm a little confused as to whether we want to use this period of time to debate process in terms of why the government is using time allocation or whether the questions are going to be, in fact, on the substance of the bill. If we want to leave the option for both, if the opposition wants both, then I think it gives a great deal more credence to the intervention by my colleague, Mrs. Catterall.

That's fine. I understand that. But I think our response should be, and would have to be, that we'd have to have the flexibility to answer from both perspectives also, not to expose....

I mean, ministers, in fairness, don't always have the same knowledge and up-to-date information on this. The House leader does have discussions in terms of process, after all, with other House leaders and whips that sometimes do, when they break down, lead to time allocation, as we well know.

So I would submit that the government would want to also have the same flexibility in terms of answering. If the flexibility is going to be offered to those questioning, if it's on process, the government would be able to have the House leader speak to those. If it's on substance, then obviously the minister would have to be there to answer any of those questions.

• 1215

I understand the view, and I accept that it should not be acceptable for the opposition to have only the House leader answer questions on both process and substance. But if we're going to have the flexibility on one side of the House, I think we should also respectfully have it on the other side.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: As long as you have the minister there. You wouldn't want to have the House leader all the time.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I have one last comment. I understand that 15 minutes might appear to be restrictive, or to have certain limitations. I don't know what the magic number is, or whether in fact it's 20 minutes. I don't know. I wait for my colleagues to.... But there seems to be a sense that we're going in the right direction here, that it's a matter of finally arriving at a number that is manageable for both sides of the House.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, Ms. Parrish, and Mr. Harvey.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I thought I would try my hand, Mr. Chairman, at trying to describe what I think there might be a consensus around: that we have something longer than 15 minutes, such as 30 minutes; that we understand that both the government House leader and the minister would be present for this period of questions; and that questions could be directed to either of them, or either of them could respond to comments.

The idea would be very clear in the drafting that the minister is to be there, available to answer questions about the bill, or for that matter about the urgency of the bill itself as opposed to the urgency of time allocation in the context of the government's whole agenda.

Mr. Bergeron's concern, seconded by Mr. Kilger, was that there be something in the Standing Orders that would say that all parties would have to have an opportunity to speak after time allocation had been introduced, at a particular stage. Yes, at least all parties, not just one from each and then that's it, necessarily.

In terms of the timing, I think maybe we could have some kind of general rule.

What is the late show now, three?

The Chair: Two and four.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We could make it something like that, something to give some guidance rather than make it be a stopwatch-type thing. It would just give some guidance to the Speaker. That would give everybody a chance, if everybody wants in. Not everybody's always going to want in on this, I would presume.

So that would give some guidance to the Speaker. But maybe that's a little long. You could look at one and three, or whatever. We could work on this.

I don't know whether one and three would be the kind of package we could work on.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Short and sharp.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: For questions and comments it's pretty good.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's what I mean. But on the questions and comments sometimes people speak for a long time.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: And then the Speaker usually....

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Sometimes. But I think we'd have to be very firm or very articulate in our instructions to the Speaker that we don't want people giving long speeches. They have to be able to give their point of view, but....

The Chair: Okay. We appear to be looking for a formula that would give better direction to the Speaker, possibly, although we're reluctant to make anything too hard and fast. So we're still looking for a formula.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes.

The Chair: I'll go to Ms. Parrish, and then Mr. Harvey and Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Blaikie is moving in the right direction. I am actually very pleased with the way this is going. We seem to be coming up with something that's quite workable.

I think leaving it longer than 30 minutes is undue stress. You have to remember, you're going to have only one minister responding. When you have question period, things flash through many ministers. This time you have one minister on the line, so I think 30 minutes is probably enough.

• 1220

The other thing is that I don't think all the opposition members are going to invent a new concern. I think some of the concerns in the opposition will be shared and some of the questions will be similar. I also like the idea of picking some format that seems to be working now, so you don't develop a whole new pattern. It could be the questions and comments, the timing, or the late-show timing—something that seems to be working already, that's been tested, rather than some new invention on numbers. I think if we come out of here with this ironed out, we'll have done a remarkably good thing.

Unlike Mr. Kilger, I haven't been in opposition. I'm absolutely convinced I would have had a ball there.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: You would have loved it.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I would have loved it. But it may happen to us sometime in the future, so we should all be working here as parliamentarians for a system that's fair to everyone. As I say, I'm very pleased that it's becoming non-partisan and we seem to working together well. I'm sure this does produce good legislation. The fact that it has a death clause at the end of this term forces us all to make sure it works, because then it will come in for the next term as well. I'm really pleased—not that anybody cares if I'm pleased. Mr. Hill doesn't care when I'm vexed, so he doesn't care when I'm pleased.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jay Hill: I care when you're pleased.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay.

The Chair: The insertion of a sunset clause on this, so it would be seen as an interim or trial period, is something that had not actually come up previously. We haven't had much discussion of that, but it's obviously on the table.

Mr. Harvey, then Ms. Catterall, and Mr. Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I realize that we will not be able to come up with a final draft this morning on the way the Speaker is to manage this period and the amount of time to be given to each party. I think it is an exceptional situation where we would be inclined to give a bit more time. It does not happen often and I think that we should consider this period in a constructive way since it allows for a direct exchange for a longer period of time between a minister and members of the House of Commons.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

Mr. André Harvey: I would recommend the procedure followed in the National Assembly. I believe it is every Friday, isn't, Stéphane?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Yes, it is the Friday inquiry.

Mr. André Harvey: I wonder whether this practice resulting from the use of an exceptional measure such as closure will not lead us one day to generalizing this practice and applying it to the study of all bills on Friday. I am convinced that this period would be very different from the oral Question Period where the debate is much livelier. Here the debate would be more on matters of substance. That is why I suggest you should not be too finicky about time, Mr. Chairman, and I would propose from 45 minutes to an hour. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that if we agreed on having this last 15 minutes, as chairman of the committee, your instinct would be to protect the government and you would be inclined to support us. But I don't think that this is how we should see this inquiry. It should be seen as a constructive exchange between the opposition and the minister presenting the bill. I'd even go so far as to say that one day all bills will receive an hour or two of direct exchange in the House of Commons between MPs and the minister sponsoring the bill. So I repeat that 15 minutes would be quite unacceptable and that any period of less than 45 minutes would not be constructive.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Forty-five minutes at the most.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Harvey, you're aware the debate on the bill does continue, it just isn't at the question format yet.

Ms. Catterall, Mr. Hill, and Mr. Blaikie.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think we're getting close to a conclusion here, and I hope we bear in mind that this is an interim thing. I think we should be very clear about that, along with applying votes. It's an interim thing. The committee will be undertaking its full review of the Standing Orders. It's a good opportunity, and that's why I'd like to leave it a little flexible.

I like the model of questions and comments. To me that is the best part of the day in the House to participate in, because there is a back and forth exchange. If we can leave it as flexible as that, if we have a problem with how the Speaker's implementing it, then we can deal with it again. But let's leave it flexible for now.

I raised the issue, and Mr. Hill responded, and I did suggest that we might change the wording of the motion that's before us from the government—or whichever one we want to start with, Mr. Chair—to “shall permit Members to question the Minister or the leader of the government in the House of Commons”. Then it leaves it to the discretion of the person asking the question who they want to answer. I guess it also leaves the minister responsible for the bill to say “Look, that's not really the question. The question to be asked is really more a House leader's question, and it would refer to him.” But it still leaves it in the hands of the person asking the question.

• 1225

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Hill, then Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Jay Hill: The suggestion is that the questions would be directed to the minister responsible for the bill or the leader of the government in the House. I guess I could go along with that as long as the discretion was left in the hands of the member, or if that were the understanding. I don't think you could write it in, but if the understanding were that—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: A member may ask a question to either.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes. And I guess it would work as long as we were under the guideline, under Standing Order 43(1), which was what I was arguing to have inserted there, because then it would be very clear that we're working on the same basis as questions and comments following a speech, which is the way we wanted it worded, rather than question period. We all know that in question period any member of the government can get up and answer, whether it's a parliamentary secretary or whoever. I think we would want it nailed down so that....

I think that could work, as long as it was under that understanding that it was either/or and that it was up to the member putting the question, rather than the government, to decide who they wanted to respond.

I have a few other comments. I disagree with Ms. Parrish—not surprisingly, I guess—that anything longer than 30 minutes would put a minister under too much stress. I think we've seen in this session of Parliament—some might say unfortunately—the minister for HRD under intense questioning throughout the 45 minutes, day after day. What we're talking about here is one period of questioning, potentially, where all the questions would be directed at one minister for a 45-minute period for—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Two ministers.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, now we're debating having it go to two ministers. And then that's it. It's not as if we'd come back the next day and do it, and the days after, in the way poor Ms. Stewart was subjected to. So I think a minister could withstand stress of more than 30 minutes—with all due respect—if that was the decision the committee reached.

I think that rather than.... My concern following Mr. Blaikie's suggestion of looking at potentially building it upon the late show and having it regimented—similar to Mrs. Catterall's—is that perhaps, especially considering this is—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm more with the question and comment thing. I thought that was—

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay, because my concern is that if we make it too regimented—especially in light of the fact that we are, at this point at least, building this thing as temporary, to see how it works out—we potentially would restrict it too much. I would rather see something like I was referring to and that you were involved in, Mr. Blaikie—a report that would be the guideline—rather than actually having to change a whole bunch of standing orders to try to make it airtight, if you will.

The last comment—and I'd ask the witness to refer to it—would be for further clarification if.... And again, I apologize for not speaking or understanding French, so I can't propose the same change to the French text of my proposal, but on the back page, at line 11, where we're saying “at the expiry of time provided for such questions”, we could insert “brief questions” in there just as further clarification and guidance to the Speaker that the questions and comments are to be brief and kept brief, if he thinks that might be appropriate.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Well, it certainly would be more direction to the Speaker, particularly in the context of many members rising to ask questions. When there are only two members on the floor, Speakers have been known to look at the word “brief” with, I suppose, a different eye. But certainly it would be more clarification for the chair.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

Finally, I don't know at what point we're due to break, Mr. Chairman, but I wonder if it would be appropriate to suggest that our clerk, in light of the conversation—and of course he's been privy to it all, he's been here all throughout this discussion—could go away from this meeting and come back with some suggestions that basically encapsulate the consensus we've been working on, perhaps with the sole exception of the time period, because I'm not quite as prepared as Mr. Blaikie seems to be to capitulate to the 30 minutes. I still think that 45—

• 1230

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We're still at 15. What do you mean, capitulate to the 30 minutes?

Mr. Jay Hill: That's the last of my thoughts.

The Chair: All right. We're all thinking out loud here.

Mr. Blaikie and then Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: First of all, I want to set the record straight on who's capitulating here. I was the guy who said two hours when the Reform guy came up with 45 minutes. So these guys gave up on an hour and fifteen minutes before we even started to talk.

The Chair: Okay, your point is made.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Anyway, in terms of the time, I think the suggestion is good that somebody should go away. We should all go away. In fact, we all are going to go away and try to draft something that reflects what we've come up with here, and then of course we can decide, where it has numbers, whether it should say 15, 30, or 45 minutes or two hours. If we weren't worried about stressing out ministers, but we were just worried about time, I wonder whether we couldn't look at a shorter bell for time allocation. There's 30 minutes now...go to a 15-minute bell, get another 15 minutes there. If time is the problem, there are ways around this.

Also, just with respect to the report you referred to, one of the ways to do it is to make a report that then becomes part of this. On the basis of my own experience, I would say that we have to have some kind of compulsory reading of the report by the chair. Mr. Marleau will vouch for me when I say that since that report was reported I've had to get up many times when the chair recognizes someone from the same party as the person who just spoke and when someone from a different party from the person who just spoke is on his feet.

I don't know how many times I've risen on a point of order to say to the chair—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I know which chair.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —“You're not following the recommendations of the report that said you should recognize somebody of the opposite party”. And a couple of times I've been told that it's not in the Standing Orders.

The Chair: By the chair you were told this?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes. So it's not in the Standing Orders, but it's in the report adopted by the House of Commons.

I would just say that when we do this we need to be clear. We need to recommend some compulsory training or something for the chairs so that they—

The Chair: Perhaps we could invite the chairs to this committee, just in case they thought the only rule book was the Standing Orders. We all know differently. In any event, I don't want to be disrespectful to the chairs. They're doing a wonderful job for us 24 hours a day.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I don't mean just in this Parliament. I mean even back in Tory years.

The Chair: Colleagues, we're getting close to the end of this particular meeting period. We're actually quite close to a general consensus on the change. There are some details to be worked out. I don't think it would be helpful to go around the table and simply identify the hard edges; we could probably do that after the meeting informally.

Keep in mind that this particular rule change would be accompanying the other proposed rule change in relation to the application of votes. We haven't had much discussion on that today. Mr. Kilger had—

Mr. Bob Kilger: What was the last subject you just mentioned?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I think the implication was that we can agree on this. Motion nine is—

The Chair: Yes. We're looking at least at two separate rule changes running in tandem here. So it's been suggested that we attempt to generate a wording—we can ask our researcher and our clerk to collaborate on this—and some proposals in accordance with our discussions. It would be very useful if either the House leaders or the whips of the parties had some discussion in some fashion among themselves between now and when we come back. The chair will try to facilitate that.

• 1235

Mr. Gar Knutson: There's one point of order.

The Chair: There are a few points of order still to go. The speaking list included Ms. Parrish and Mr. Knutson. In fairness to them, perhaps they want to briefly get to their points.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I just want to clarify something. I'd like to disagree without being disagreeable. I was not defending the ministers. The longer they're on their feet, I think the better they can get; their train of thought builds. I think the point I was trying to make is that there are just so many questions you can hammer one minister with. I wasn't trying to protect their delicate souls.

The Chair: And Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: On this report, I'm not sure if it's being drafted by Mr. Marleau, but perhaps we could get that the Monday before the Tuesday meeting so it's not....

The Chair: I'd love to have it as an Easter present.

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a point of order.

The Chair: There are still a couple of things to take up.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: My suggestion earlier, and I don't know whether I have the support of other committee members on this, would be to involve Mr. Marleau in the drafting of this. With all due respect, all his experience might come in handy. In light of your comments, Mr. Chair, this confidential document that was circulated did have both proposed changes on it. Whatever the next proposal is, perhaps it would come out with similar, with both...so that we know what we're agreeing or not agreeing to.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: The whole package.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, it's the package that includes the one about buying votes and the changes we've been discussing today.

The Chair: Yes. Certainly the chair would never consider our going public without having run the matter by the Clerk of the House. We would never want to do that, I'm sure.

Mr. Jay Hill: Perfect.

The Chair: So that's fine.

Mr. Knutson, did you...?

Mr. Gar Knutson: No.

The Chair: You're okay.

And Mr. Blaikie was....

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm done.

The Chair: The only other item goes back to Ms. Tremblay's bill. Did we decide what we wanted to do? Should we be looking for some avenue of inviting input from the parties that originally wrote, without their appearing, or should we invite a witness?

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: I don't think it is necessary, Mr. Chairman. It's a matter of trust.

[English]

The Chair: Do you want to leave this in the hands of the chair? I'll consult with the parties.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Just let her do it.

Mr. Jay Hill: I would move that it be reported back to the House unamended.

The Chair: Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Respectfully to my colleagues, there has been of course some communication from other elected officials, as already stated by Suzanne. I'm just wondering if on the first Tuesday we're back we could consider extending the invitation to those two elected officials who dissented. Whether they accept or not.... If they don't accept, then obviously they think the matter is closed.

I would submit respectfully through Mr. Bergeron to Ms. Tremblay that she might have someone she could recommend who might be able to present, I suppose, the other side of that, if that's helpful. I don't see our needing more than one meeting, but certainly we should give the opportunity to....

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Do we not want to deal with the procedural thing....?

The Chair: I did want to get some direction from colleagues on Ms. Tremblay's riding name change bill. I think if you just leave it with the chair we'll find a solution that will suit everybody.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Aside from the fact that Mr. Hill has already officially moved the adoption of the bill without amendments, I'd simply like to suggest an intermediate formula in light of the comments made by Ms. Tremblay, relating to costs among others.

We could invite people who want to communicate to do so in writing during the Easter recess. We could then meet on the following Tuesday, with those documents in hand, and make a decision based on the input of those people, whether they dissent or agree with the bill as drafted. We could come up with a decision on that Tuesday.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, there's a suggestion.

Mr. Kilger.

• 1240

[Translation]

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, when we read those views, we might come to the conclusion that we should invite those people as witnesses.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: We will cross that bridge when we come to it.

Mr. Bob Kilger: If we want to set up Tuesday, May 2, as the final date to close that matter, we could invite them to appear on that same day. We could also make our decision at the end of that meeting. I think there's a chance that we may want to question them after reading their views on the matter. I just wanted to make sure that we can meet the Chief Electoral Officer's deadlines. We would then be in a position to close this file on Tuesday, May 2.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: With all due respect to Mr. Kilger, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that we may end up deciding that we need to have another meeting, but that we may also come to the conclusion that such a meeting would not be necessary. In the latter case, we would not be spending taxpayers' money to call those witnesses to testify before our committee if we are satisfied, after reading the views of those who are in favour of the bill and those who oppose it, that there is no need to bring in any other witnesses. We could close that file on the week after we return. On the Tuesday, based on the statements that we will have read, we will make a decision and if we decide that we need to hear more witnesses, we will hear them on the Thursday and complete our study on that same week.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, I support Stéphane's suggestion. When you want to determine the merits of an objection, you ask the dissenting person to submit his or her views in writing. That person will usually do so if he or she feels that the objection is substantial, and will abstain if it is not. Since the Mont-Joli issue was resolved with a unanimous vote by the RCM, I am quite confident. Let us ask people who object to write to us, which they will probably not do.

[English]

Mr. Bob Kilger: This is just a suggestion. I'll abide by the committee's wishes.

The Chair: Clearly, the chair or the steering committee will have to make a value judgment on this over the next couple of weeks, before we come back. I will attempt to make a decision that will meet everyone's needs. We're not in a position here.... I've heard your views, Mr. Bergeron, and Mr. Harvey's and Mr. Kilger's.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I understand Mr. Kilger is willing to support my suggestion. So let us do it that way, and if there is a need to hear witnesses, we will hear them. I am quite willing to do so, but there is no need to overdo it. I think we are in agreement and we can agree to follow that approach.

[English]

Mr. Bob Kilger: If it helps the committee, I'll accept the wisdom of my colleagues and the testimony in writing of the dissenting witnesses, as we know them today. I'll be ready to proceed with that information on Tuesday, May 2, when we return, if that helps the chair.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine. We have a consensus on how we'll handle it. We'll be taking it up when we come back.

Colleagues, I want your general approval. The staff have also put together a review or recap of some of our deliberations and reports on electronic voting. I'm going to ask them to make that available for the Tuesday when we come back, in the event that colleagues wish to make comment on it or fold it into our final decisions on the rule changes. There may be some progress we can make in that regard. Is that okay?

Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Can I just introduce, in the same vein of the Standing Orders, a completely different subject, and simply ask if the witnesses may be able to provide us with some background information on this?

Over the years I've often asked myself about the necessity, the validity, of 40-minute speeches by anyone from any party. I'd just like to know the history of it. Mr. Hill brought us up to date today on the history of issues going back to the early 1980s. I'd like to know the history of the 40-minute speech. Where did it come from and for what reason? Then it might interesting to discuss whether it's time to review that matter.

• 1245

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Kilger has advertently or inadvertently opened up the door to all the other rule changes we're going to be looking at. One thing may flow into another as we go through them, but we certainly have an agenda for Tuesday when we come back.

There being no further business, we'll adjourn until then. Thank you.