Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 8th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Colleagues, we'll bring the meeting to order.

Thank you all for coming. It's good to see our witnesses back again this morning for some more discussions on other issues.

Colleagues, I want to go through a few things. This is going to be a paper-heavy meeting, so bear with me. There'll be lots of handouts as we go through. You have what is necessary for the first part of the meeting. As we go along, we will certainly hand out the papers that deal with the next order of business.

I want to remind colleagues that the first part of this meeting is being held in public as we deal with a couple of remaining issues.

There are two things we need to talk about at the end of the meeting. They have to do with the subcommittee's report on private members' business and some items of future business for the committee. I will watch the clock and leave some time to deal with that.

We welcome back the Clerk of the House, Audrey O'Brien, and her team.

Colleagues, this is in regard to our last meeting, where members asked for some information regarding the division bells issues and whether the Standing Orders needed to be changed. The committee agreed that they would, so we're here today to look at some of the wording that's been prepared for us. You have that information in front of you now.

In addition, our research staff here has prepared a paper on the options that are available to us regarding the issue of making in camera proceedings public.

We're going to deal with both of these issues at the same time, of course, since the clerk is here and is therefore available to answer any questions that might arise out of that issue as well.

I would like to remind members that at the end of the discussion we'll review whether there is an intention to adopt the Standing Orders, with the changes as worded, or whether we intend to change them slightly. Whatever the case may be, we will need the necessary motions so that the chair can proceed forward on that.

But you may not want to do that today. You may want to go back and discuss this with your respective parties. We can certainly respect that as well. However, if we're prepared to move forward, then I will put forward the proper motions so that we can in fact report back to the House.

That ends my comments. I will now hand the floor over to the Clerk of the House.

Thank you for coming, Ms. O'Brien. Perhaps you would take a moment to introduce your guests for the record. Then we can start from there.

[Audrey O'Brien, Clerk of the House of Commons, House of Commons]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Today I have with me Marie-Andrée Lajoie--she appeared with me last week as well--

the clerk assistant, Committees Directorate, and Marc Bosc, deputy clerk of the House, in charge of procedural services.

As we had discussed last week, we have returned, first of all, with a document that we're tabling with you on rules and practices in other jurisdictions. This is with regard to dealing with in camera proceedings. We told you that we had sought out additional information, and there might be some slight revisions to the document we left with you that day.

In addition to that, there is a draft standing order, a new Standing Order 115(5), which we suggest would read as follows:

Notwithstanding Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and 113(5), and unless the committee decides to adjourn, the Chair of a standing, special, legislative, or joint committee shall suspend the meeting when the bells are sounded to call in the Members to a recorded division.

We wanted to make this as simple as possible. Reference is made to Standing Order 108(1)(a) which states that standing committees may sit when the House is sitting. Likewise, Standing Order 113(5) stipulates that legislative committees may sit when the House is sitting, and Standing Order 115 deals with committee meetings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Colleagues, we're just going to have a round of questions here. It won't be in any particular order, just whoever raises their hand.

Monsieur Guimond, please.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Clerk, before saying that this does not fully reflect the consensus that this table seemed to have reached, I would like you to clarify the second line of the amendment you are suggesting: "...unless the committee decides to adjourn...".

Would this be a unanimous or a majority decision by committees?

[Audrey O'Brien]

It would be a majority decision, as usual.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I thought we had agreed that this decision should be made unanimously as soon as someone objects to continuing to sit... Consequently, this is not very helpful. One or two parties could conspire together to pass a motion to continue to sit while votes are being held.

I thought that we had been clear and that we had said that if any member of the committee objected to continuing to sit when votes were being held, that committee would not sit. I don't understand.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Perhaps Marie-Andrée can explain what we're thinking.

[Marie-Andrée Lajoie, Clerk Assistant, House of Commons]

We attempted not to force committees to suspend their deliberations, if that was what everyone wanted, by adjourning. If the committee wants to adjourn, say at 5:30, as it habitually does, we didn't want the standing order to state specifically "suspend the meeting". We wanted the committee to still have the choice to simply adjourn in accordance with standard practice.

If the committee does not want to adjourn, the chair would simply suspend the meeting so that committee members can go to vote and then return and conclude the meeting one way or another. We did not want the standing orders to force all committees—I'm repeating myself—to suspend their deliberations, if they just wanted to adjourn. Is that clear?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

I think I submitted a text in writing stating that when the 30-minute bells ring, committees should suspend after the first 15 minutes and the meeting should be resumed 30 minutes after the vote, if the committee—

[Audrey O'Brien]

I don't recall having received such a proposal. However, through you, Mr. Chairman, I know that there had been some suggestions with regard to the circumstances in which committees would resume their deliberations.

One of the factors guiding us in drafting the standing orders is in fact not being specific in order not to prescribe specific circumstances. Our experience has taught us that we cannot predict all the situations that may occur, particularly since this may tie the committee's hands in a way that we may not want to.

That said, naturally, we will respect the committee's recommendations and draft exactly what it wants.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I have three people up: Mr. Preston, Madam Redman, and then Mr. Hill. However, I'm confused, and maybe you could help me as well.

We covered a lot of things in the last meeting, Monsieur Guimond. I don't remember the committee deciding by unanimous vote on this issue.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Yes.

You're wrong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I am wrong? Then it's my mistake.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

It was the NDP's concern. If the member of the NDP wants to go to the House for a vote and there's a vote of the majority, the member of the NDP has the choice to stay here and miss his vote. I think it was clear. Maybe I'm not bilingual enough, but—

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Madam Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

In the effort of cooperation, the whips did meet and this did come up, so I have to be very candid: I can't remember if the wording was decided at this meeting or at the whips' meeting, because we were tasked with several issues.

Could I just suggest something? I don't mean to jump other speakers. The wording that I think reflects what the whips agreed to would be the same wording: “Notwithstanding Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and 113(5)”, and then I would delete that next phrase, “the Chair of a standing committee, special, legislative or joint committee shall suspend the meeting when the bells are sounded to call in the Members to a recorded division, unless there is unanimous consent of the members of the committee to continue to sit.”

Again, I think maybe it's something that we whips talked about.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

It was at the whips' meeting.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I don't know how Michel feels, but that to me clarifies what our agreement was.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

I support you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

And I'm supporting Madam Robillard from here on in.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

In seriousness, it is my recollection that the wording was simply to give and clarify the authority for the chair to suspend a meeting for division bells. As to the conversation on unanimity--which is quite acceptable, because now here we are in the main committee--I don't recall that being applied to this particular wording. However, it's on the floor and it makes sense to me.

The next person up for discussion is Mr. Preston.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I love what Ms. Redman just said. That clears up what my question was going to be about.

As for an option before the fact, I'd rather have the option after the fact, the way you've put it. I'll stop at that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Madam Redman, did you have anything further to say? The floor is yours.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

That's what I was going to say. I'm happy to give the clerk the wording. I would invite any other whips who were at that meeting to speak if that doesn't reflect what they recall.