Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, December 12, 1995

.1109

[English]

The Chairman: Order. I see a quorum.

We have a fair number of items to go through on the agenda, and in order to speed things up I thought I'd start with some of the less contentious items. If members don't object, could I take some liberties with the agenda in that regard?

I would start with item 5, amendment to the Standing Orders to amend the name of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons. This draft report has been prepared for members - I believe you have it - to comply with the request from the committee itself, and it has changed something. Instead of ``Status of Disabled Persons'', it's ``Status of Persons with Disabilities''. I think this is the second change in this one, at least from the original proposal we had.

.1110

Is there any objection on the part of members? If not, I think Mrs. Parrish moves that the report be concurred on and that the chairman present the report to the House. This will be our 109th report. Is that agreed?

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Thank you.

We will now deal with the report of the subcommittee on the business of supply. Ms Catterall, please.

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): The committee was asked to look at a proposal from Treasury Board to have six departments report the estimates differently on a pilot project basis and to change what we are used to thinking of as part III of the estimates. The effort here is to present information in a way that is more top-down so that people, members of Parliament, are more easily able to understand the broad scope of the department and its priorities and to link the expenditure of funds to those more policy-related considerations.

It's intended to be evaluated and the committee had some concerns that the evaluation process be set up before the pilot project begins. We see it as an opportunity for Parliament to have a more informed overview of the estimates without losing any access to the details by any means. However, we did express our concerns about the evaluation process and asked to be kept informed of how that would be carried out, since it so relates to the work of the subcommittee.

The second primary concern, Mr. Chair, was that the outlook documents in the case of a couple of the departments involved in this pilot project would be incorporated in the estimates. You may recall that last year was the first time outlook documents were prepared. The purpose was to give members of Parliament and the standing committee a perspective on the future directions and spending priorities of the department, with the intention of fulfilling the change to the Standing Orders, which now allow standing committees to look at future spending patterns, to make recommendations on future spending patterns, and to have input into the coming year's budget.

We have some concern that by incorporating the outlook documents into the estimates, they may in fact lose the attention of Parliament and the attention of the standing committees, which they are likely to have if they're tabled at a separate time. We've just flagged that as a matter of concern to be especially considered during the evaluation of this process. We may well be making further recommendations in the more substantive report.

However, our conclusions at this point in time are that this pilot project should go ahead and that it will provide useful information to our subcommittee and to Parliament on possible improvements to all of the estimates. My understanding is that there would be no further pilot project departments until this has been evaluated, and that's likely to be a period of two years. However, we felt it was a useful step forward and we look forward to seeing the results.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion on the report from the subcommittee?

Ms Catterall: Mr. Chair, I think there may still be some uncertainty about the process this report should follow as to whether your committee should report to Parliament for concurrence on the report, since it's a matter of direct concern to parliamentarians, or whether it should simply be reported for information. Our researcher may have some advice on that.

.1115

Mr. James R. Robertson (Committee Researcher): You've had discussions, I believe.

The Chairman: I understand there have been some suggestions that we might present a report and have it concurred in in the House. Obviously if there's no agreement to do that it's going to be difficult.

Do any members have any comments on the contents of the report?

I think, then, Ms Catterall moves that the report be concurred in, and - might I suggest this motion - that after appropriate editorial changes the chairman present the report to the House. Is that a reasonable proposition, Ms Catterall?

Ms Catterall: Yes. I so move.

The Chairman: The editorial changes would be to make it a report of the committee instead of the subcommittee.

Ms Catterall: Yes.

The Chairman: Any comment on the motions? Any discussion? Questions? The officials are here, if there are any questions members wish to ask.

Ms Catterall: Such blind faith.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Thank you, Mrs. Catterall. It's great.

Ms Catterall: It's a pleasure.

The Chairman: Could we turn, then, to the question of broadcasting of committee proceedings.

Mr. Ringma, is Mr. McClelland coming to deal with his bill today?

Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Yes, he is. We are happy to have this subject first.

The Chairman: That's fine. I just didn't want to put his nose out of joint if he was waiting in the wings.

About broadcasting,

[Translation]

the broadcasting of committee proceedings. We have with us today Ms Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Chair of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages and member of the liaison committee. I received a letter from the liaison committee dated December 8, and also June 19, relating to the broadcasting of committee proceedings. The letter was sent to me as Chairman of this committee and has not yet received an answer, which has created a problem for the liaison committee.

Ms Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais is here to represent the members of the liaison committee and is accompanied by the committee clerk, Mr. Corbett. Good morning.

Ms Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais (Madawaska - Victoria, member of Liaison Committee): Good morning.

[English]

The Chairman: Perhaps you would like to introduce the subject for the committee. Then you may get some comments.

[Translation]

Ms Ringuette-Maltais: The liaison committee, observing several weaknesses in the communication of committee and House proceedings, decided to set up a year and a half ago a subcommittee on communications which it is my honour to preside.

Our committee met various representatives of the media and communications specialists working on Parliament Hill. At the beginning of our government's mandate, the prime minister stressed the importance of the work done by committees as compared to previous years. At the outset, it was clear that committees were to play a more important role.

We also observed that it was very important for the people of Canada to be properly informed about the work done by the various committees. As you know there is only one committee room on the Hill which is equipped for the broadcasting of committee proceedings, namely room 253-D. This equipment costs 1 million dollars and I'd like you to remember this figure because it is a very important factor when it comes to our recommendations.

We asked the journalists what possibilities they saw for the broadcasting of committee proceedings since all media, particularly the print media, do have access to what is said in committee and may report on it.

.1120

Broadcasters, on the other hand, although they are a vital part of our communication's network, do not have access. The subcommittee believes that there is an unfair and unequitable treatment in this respect where broadcasting is concerned.

We also know that ours is the fifth report dealing with the matter of the broadcasting of committee proceedings. Three of the four previous reports were favourable to such an initiative and one was not. If you take a close look at our recommendations, you will see there is one relating to the controlled access of television in committee rooms, and such access would be subject to rules your committee could establish.

An important factor for your consideration is that this new formula for the broadcasting of committee proceedings will not involve any additional costs, since there are a sufficient number of cameras on Parliament Hill. It would not be necessary, and this is a point of view shared by journalists, to set up fixed cameras in all committee rooms.

I hope that you will come to the same conclusions as the subcommittee on communications and provide television access to all committees.

The Chairman: Ms Ringuette-Maltais, I was a member of the former Privileges and Elections Committee in the previous legislature and this committee did prepare a long report on the matter under the chairmanship of Mr. Chuck Cook.

[English]

What the committee recommended at the time were a couple of television rooms equipped to do this work, but the government at the time decided that one was sufficient, and that's what we got.

The committee was very concerned that if access was permitted to committees by the media without some fairly stringent controls - which are in place in terms of guidelines, which are published and part of the committee's report, and which were adopted at the time, with possibly a few modifications here and there, but they've remained in place - then the media would run segments of committee meetings and take clips of only the parts they were interested in and the public would see only those parts, not the full committee proceeding, as is the case with the House and as is the case in the committees that are televised in the room.

So what the House did was retain to itself the power to authorize televising of committee proceedings where it feels that it's appropriate and where the committee is not meeting in Room 253-D. This is the report. It was called Watching the House at Work. It dealt with television in the House, but in committees as well.

The approach we have is that committees can apply for permission to televise their proceedings. Indeed, we granted it to one of the committees just last week - I've forgotten which one - because the room was already -

Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): The subcommittee on health.

The Chairman: HIV-AIDS. So they applied, because they couldn't get the room. They got shifted out of the room. They wanted to televise their proceedings, and the House, by motion, allowed that. Arrangements were made for the proceedings to be taped and subsequently broadcast on television on the parliamentary channel. That has been the case from time to time with committees that make the request.

.1125

I must say that in my experience there have been relatively few requests in this Parliament for additional television time. That's in part why the committee has not dealt with the request from the liaison committee more expeditiously. If there is a request for television of committee proceedings, I think you'll find there's a willingness on the part of the House to grant the request. I'm not aware that it has been turned down in any case. But what we've said is that the request must come and it will be granted on terms that there be full coverage of the entire proceeding. In other words, there will be what we used to call gavel-to-gavel coverage. From the moment the meeting starts until the moment it ends, the entire thing will be broadcast. It will not be excerpts, because if it were to be done on that basis, some members might feel that they have been unfairly excised from the proceedings.

Having said that, I invite comment from the floor on what Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais said.

Mr. Boudria: Last week I had a meeting with the people of CPAC - I guess that's what we call these folks - on how often the committee room that is currently equipped for such purposes is being utilized on television. To my tremendous surprise, the room is not used very frequently at all. As a matter of fact, it could accommodate much more in terms of capacity there now. At least so I was told by them.

I wonder if Mr. Corbett would have any numbers in terms of the frequency of the usage to help us assess whether in fact there is need for more capacity or, as I was told by CPAC, the capacity that is there is not used to the extent that it could be.

Mr. Bill Corbett (Clerk of the Liaison Committee): I don't have specific figures with me, but I can indeed to some extent confirm Mr. Boudria's statement, but in the same way as this statement would apply to the use of committee rooms. It has to do with Tuesday to Thursday and the ideal times at which committees want to meet. There's very little use of the room in the Monday and Friday slots, but there's very considered competition for the use of the room in the Tuesday, Wednesday afternoon, and Thursday slots. So there is underused capacity in the room, but not at times when committees want to meet.

Mr. Boudria: For instance, I went into a committee room this morning, 253-D. A committee was sitting there at 9 a.m. Do we know if that particular proceeding was televised?

Mr. Corbett: The way the rules operate, any committee that chooses to sit in that room is automatically videotaped and the signal is provided to CPAC. What CPAC and other broadcasters and members of the press gallery do with that signal is their business, but every committee that sits in Room 253-D is automatically transcribed for future transmission on the CPAC network.

Mr. Boudria: Is it automatic, or can they get it recorded for television for the asking? I thought it was the latter.

The Chairman: Do they have to ask that it not be done?

Mr. Corbett: They would have to ask that it not be done. It is automatic.

In my recollection, since the room was put into use I can recall only one or two instances in which a committee needed and wanted Room 253-D specifically, because it was the only room available, but did not want televising of their proceedings and specifically asked that it not be transcribed and broadcast.

Mr. Boudria: One thing that would assist me is I'd like to see before this committee a little bit of a diagram, I guess, indicating the use of the room for let's say a few weeks so we could look at this and say we have 253-D and it's utilized for television purposes from 9 a.m to 10:30 a.m. on Tuesdays, and nobody uses it from that point until 2 p.m., or whatever it is. It's utilized on Wednesday afternoon, but nobody uses it on Tuesday afternoon, and so on. So we could look at it, and we'll be able to determine whether or not there is a need before deciding to expand this.

.1130

[Translation]

If there is no need to extend the broadcasting facilities, why attempt to do so? Since I have been whip, I can only remember two occasions when I was asked to have proceedings recorded in another committee room because 253-D was taken, once last week and the other time about a week ago. In other words, only twice has there been a conflict that required the recording of proceedings in another room.

I don't know if that would be sufficient to justify extending the service. If the room were available, perhaps other committees would have their proceedings broadcast but in order for us to take a decision, we would need some data on the use of the room.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ringma.

Mr. Ringma: In view of your comments about the previous Parliament and the committees' findings and recommendations being so similar, I'd like to ask the current chairman what the differences were between what your committee has found and what the previous one found. Also, what has changed?

Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: First of all, we find that when we talk about excerpts from the press there is no difference between committee work excerpts in the written press and visual excerpts. That is the freedom of the press. No committee controls what the media will report on the work of committees.

What we do find are two things that are somewhat discriminatory in two areas. Firstly, media should all be treated on the same level playing field, because right now we find the televised media, in regards to the work of the committees.... We all know many committees meet at the same time, and we therefore cannot all be in the one room that has television cameras that cost the taxpayers a million dollars. I also don't think we - and I'm talking about committee members and chairs - should be the ones who decide whether or not the work of the committee should receive proper TV coverage.

The freedom of the press also provides an opportunity for Canadians to find out what all of the work of government involves, Mr. Ringma. As you all well know as members of the many different committees, it is not only the proceedings of the House.

What we're actually saying here is that we should not discriminate against the TV medium. We are in a very modern age of technology and TV is part of that technology. Free access to any committee at any time should be the same and equitable for all the press - not only the written press, but the televised press.

.1135

Also, if the media foresee that the committees are doing important work, the media will be there. For instance, I don't know whether any journalists are here today, but because of the discussion we're having here about televised media, they should be allowed to be here. We're a free and democratic society. I think the added values of the committee work should allow for controlled TV access within a committee deliberation, just as the written press has. We shouldn't choose which committees are allowed to have what kind of access to whichever media.

Mr. Ringma: I can agree with your answer. I guess the point I'm getting at is your answer, it seems to me, would not be very different from that of the previous Parliament's committee, presuming you read that report.

Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: Yes.

Mr. Ringma: Is there a difference in the view?

Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: I guess the major difference is the financial difference, because we are talking about information and an opening that will cost nothing to the Hill - to the taxpayers. We have already spent $1 million to accommodate just one room. Our recommendation will cost absolutely nothing to any committee or affect the Hill budget.

The Chairman: Mr. Arseneault.

Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): First of all, I want to go on record as supporting that all media be able to report on all committees, whatever type of media function they have or tool they use.

I want to stress the fact we're missing a very good educational tool by not allowing television to cover all the committees. We also, in that respect, diminish the role of the MPs, because quite often MPs are trying to communicate their functions here and some of the policy issues. Most of the hard work that goes on in committee is unrecognized in the riding. I think it would go well to support this report.

The second point I want to make is as I sat on a committee and on a steering committee of that committee as the vice-chairman of that committee, I found that since we weren't considered a very significant committee, it was very difficult to book the television room, so to speak - the committee room that had the television cameras.

We've heard different stories here, but I recall one incident where we had it booked at 4 p.m. We were dealing with a very controversial issue - the clear-cutting issue - and we had an environmental side and the industry side. To guarantee fairness, because this was being broadcast across the land supposedly, we wanted to ensure that both sides had an equal opportunity to put their case in the public forum. We adjourned the meeting somewhere around 1:30 a.m. We went from 4 p.m. so we could be guaranteed use of the television room, and both sides would have their story told.

In my experience I have found that some committees seem to have some type of priority over getting that room. I don't know how they do it or whatever. Everyone seems to want it at the same time. If the government is seized with a major issue that's making headlines, such as Canadian unity, and a committee is studying that it would automatically get priority for use of that room, and so be it for the rest of the committees. I think we are doing a disservice to our institution by not allowing full coverage to all the committees.

The Chairman: Mr. McClelland.

Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): I would just echo most of the sentiments that have already been expressed, with one added observation. Much to the amazement of everyone, CPAC apparently has huge numbers of people watching these committee meetings. There should be more of those rooms. It is very worth while. When budget allows we should record more, not less.

.1140

The Chairman: Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I also support it for the reason of education, but also as a counterbalance. The high jinks of the question period have to be offset by showing there is some valuable work done by members of the government and the opposition in the review of bills and studies that have been assigned to committees.

I think we are doing a disservice to the institution if we don't present the positive side, where legislation is carefully thought through, debated and amended, and expert witnesses heard. To show that side of Parliament in action I think is the only way we can present the other side. The high drama and theatrics of question period belittle the institution, and do nothing for the image of the members of Parliament.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Again, to assist honourable members I point out the 23rd report of the House management committee, the predecessor of this committee, tabled in February 1992. It provided

[Translation]

[English]

That is now this committee.

[Translation]

[English]

I believe those rules are all still in place, having been adopted by the House. They are treated as binding until changed, so that's the current regime under which we operate.

If a committee already has special authority to televise it won't normally get priority in that room. It can meet anywhere else and be televised. Committees are free to request the right to televise their proceedings if they wish to do so, and get a House order to that effect, which happened the other day.

Mr. Boudria, you're on my list.

Mr. Boudria: There is either a misunderstanding or a misconception of what would happen, and it's the following.

I heard Mr. McClelland say that a lot of people watch CPAC, so this is a good idea. It's actually not that easy.

We are being asked to allow the major networks that have televisions on the Hill to go into committee rooms. This in no way gives access to CPAC, nor to the cablevision channels in our ridings, nor to the small television companies, or anything like that. This gives access to the guys who are big enough to have television crews on the Hill, in other words.

You may well find the opposite situation occurring, where there will be less demand to use the television facility in Room 253-D because the large networks are covering the so-called ordinary committee rooms anyway, and the people in remote areas who may be served by smaller broadcasters and the people who would normally watch it on CPAC may have less access to it. So there's that part to consider. As Mr. McClelland said, it is not an automatic follow-through of what is being asked. To a degree it in fact could be the opposite. One does not result in the other.

.1145

Before making a decision on this, I'd still want to see about the usage of the room we have now, to see how much it is being used. That would assist this committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Corbett, can you provide that information? Do you have that available? I don't mean today, but could you provide it?

Mr. Corbett: Do you mean figures on the use of Room 253-D, Mr. Chairman? Yes, I certainly could provide that information to the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): There should be some way of ensuring that what is available through private broadcasters is automatically provided to CPAC, otherwise there would be private telecast of the proceedings on the Hill provided by the mayor networks. I think that that could cause a problem.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais.

Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: That issue was raised during our meetings with the press gallery. They have assured us, and it's in their submission, that any community TV or small broadcasters that would want to have their cameras in committees and so on would have full, free access. That's a question we asked.

So the question Mr. Boudria has brought forth is one of the areas we were asking questions about, to make sure every Canadian from coast to coast to coast could have access. Just as we want to make sure the works of the committee are accessible to all media, we want to make sure they are accessible to the entire Canadian population.

Furthermore - and I don't want my comments to be misinterpreted - Room 253 is from gavel to gavel. That is not the thrust of our recommendation. The thrust of our recommendation is that media have access to the works of the committee, especially a very important modern media, TV. This is not a cost measure.

Furthermore, it should not be limited to a few people to decide which committee is doing what important work that should be televised in Room 253. The communications people in the Canadian press gallery we have on the Hill I find are very objective and very knowledgeable of the different works of the committee. Therefore in their media, just as in the written media, if they have the opportunity and find a committee is doing work of national interest, then they will be there, in a controlled manner of course and also cost-free to the committees and to the Hill.

Mr. Chair, I don't want to take too much of your time, although I would like to argue positively and continually on this matter. The bottom line is that committees, in my view, are doing more important work in this government than any before, and there should be full access. We should not discriminate as to which media have access to what committees and what is the importance of each committee's work.

.1150

I think we are an open-minded group of people, and I think the Canadian population has that open mind also and an interest in the work we are doing here, not only the work that is going on in the House of Commons but the work in every committee.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Ms Catterall.

Ms Catterall: May I ask Madame Ringuette-Maltais a question?

In your discussions with the committee chairs, did any of them have any concerns or reluctance about this?

Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: No. There was unanimous approval of the subcommittee recommendation at the liaison committee.

Ms Catterall: And has it been discussed with the vice-chairs as well, who tend to represent the opposition?

Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: I don't know if the chairs of the different committees who gathered at the liaison committee had the opportunity to discuss this with the vice-chairs, but I would say most chairs of committees have a good feeling of how their members feel about the proceedings of their work.

Ms Catterall: Thank you.

The Chairman: So the matter is off until we get the material from the committee on the usage of Room 253. This committee will take the matter up again at a later date.

Thank you very much for your appearance.

Mr. Arseneault: I have a point of order. When is this committee going to deal with this issue? Are we meeting again this week?

The Chairman: We're meeting on Thursday. It's not likely that we'll be able to do it on Thursday, because, as you know, we have another agenda, which I'll be outlining shortly, but we'll deal with it as soon as we're back.

Mr. Arseneault: This is a very opportune time to get this through, because there's a break in January, and then the minor modifications that have to be made would be ready to start the process anew. If we wait until we come back in February and hem and haw again about it.... This has been going on since 1992 and even further back than that.

The Chairman: Mr. Arseneault, as I pointed out, committees can apply to be televised now, if they wish. We haven't any applications. If a committee wants to have its proceedings on television, it can apply and -

Mr. Arseneault: In which room?

The Chairman: In any room.

Mr Boudria: It can be any room. We were granted one last week.

Mr. Arseneault: We were granted one last week because we were forced to apply.

The Chairman: If we wanted to have ours televised in here, we could apply. We could have it televised in here, but no one on this committee has asked to have any of our proceedings televised. The only time we sat in 253-D and got televised was when we sat in July and nobody else was here.

I think we can wait to deal with the matter.

Mr. Arseneault: If all committees can apply at any time, why not just make it a regulation that...?

The Chairman: Many of them don't want to be televised, that's why.

Mr. Arseneault: All of the committee chairs have agreed.

The Chairman: No, they have not. I didn't agree. This committee has never asked to be televised, and I don't think there's any desire to have this committee televised. I've never heard it expressed in this committee.

Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): I feel the library committee should be televised.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: Indeed.

Mr. Arseneault: I think you're delaying things a little too long on this, that's all. I'm not going to stir things up. I know we work on consensus here, and if we want to delay things, that's fine, but we are a committee of action. This is one of the few committees on the Hill that decides things on a weekly basis, practically. We make decisions regularly. I think we're postponing it.

The Chairman: Well, we are, but we're getting information on the usage of the room.

Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: I have a question of clarification here. Are you saying that any and all committees can apply to have their committee work televised?

The Chairman: Yes. That's in the regulations.

Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: And it's open to TV?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: So in reality you are saying that what our recommendation is putting forward to you in regard to TV access to the works of the committee can be achieved in another way; that is, if all of the committees of the House would ask for their committee work to have free accessibility -

The Chairman: No, they can apply to have their proceedings televised. They get a House order authorizing the televising of the proceedings of the committee.

Mr. McWhinney: That's permissive only; it's not mandatory.

The Chairman: No, it's not mandatory.

Mr. McWhinney: That's like King Canute asking the waves to retreat; they may or may not decide to do so.

The Chairman: That's correct.

.1155

Mr. Ringma: Mr. Chairman, perhaps to build on Mr. Arsenault's concern here I can suggest that this committee could issue a very simple statement, saying we've heard the testimony of the committee, we agree with it in principle, we're heading in that direction, we're waiting for data to present, but in the meantime cite the rule you've just cited, that any committee can at any time -

The Chairman: I think we can send a letter to the liaison committee, pointing out the current rules and indicating that committees are free to apply to have their proceedings televised. If they all got televised, they'd never get played. But they can apply.

Mr. Ringma: But also expressing the agreement in principle we've had today with -

The Chairman: I haven't heard that, Mr. Ringma.

Mr. Ringma: I thought I heard it.

The Chairman: I'm quite prepared to send a letter to the chairman of the liaison committee, outlining the current rules. If the committee wishes, I'll do that.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: I think the bottom line is that what we're asking for is non-discrimination for TV in regard to media. I guess also we're asking for less control, for freedom of the press and freedom of the committees.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much.

The next item on the agenda is Bill C-319. Mr. McClelland, are you going to give us a report on what's happened with your bill?

Mr. McClelland: Yes. First of all, I apologize for not being here earlier.

The Chairman: Not at all. It has been no inconvenience.

Mr. McClelland: The amended report I think members have in front of them reflects the consensus agreement of the changes as written by the House legal counsel. I should point out that there remains one issue of some contention. It is that the Bloc made the suggestion at that time that it be 2% of valid votes under (b), not 5%, but the consensus was that 5% would be most appropriate under (b). I would be happy to entertain any questions members may have, but it's fairly straightforward and represents the consensus from the last meeting.

Mr. McWhinney: The only questions I have are related purely to comparative jurisprudence. It's an area in which at certain periods of my life I did some research and some writing.

I wonder about the numbers you choose. The pretty standard break point in comparative constitutional law is usually 5%; 5% is used as a national or province-wide figure. You've made it significantly less.

.1200

The obvious desire is to reconcile opening the processes so you're not stuck with the two or three existing traditional parties. On the other hand, the concept of fragmentation into a lot of small parties, which opening the doors very widely would do, is what developed in reaction to the experience of the Weimar Republic in Europe between the two wars.

So the question I really raise is in making that balance. In comparative terms, you've gone below what I guess we better call the threshold figure that seems to be established in places from past historical experience. I wondered if you had any further thoughts on that. Obviously we're entitled to make our own rules and conditions. We're not the prisoners of previous examples. Do you have any reaction?

Mr. McClelland: Because of political parties that started on a regional basis, 5% is a higher threshold for regional bases, but 2% is national. We had to keep the national level low enough to make it possible. But we also had to keep the regional level low enough to make it possible as well. The idea is that the electoral process benefits by having new ideas that may be seconded by existing parties. But there must be a method by which new ideas can percolate into the political system. So this was a compromise reflecting the very attitudes you expressed.

Mr. McWhinney: Let me give you another example that I think might help. It's been a phenomenon in Canada that national political parties have often developed from a regional base. Let me give you an example.

Under your (b), for example, the 5% could relate to say two or three seats in which a party might choose to run a candidate. How would you react to a concept of accepting the fact there are ten provinces or five regions within Canada? B.C. is the fifth region because of divine intervention.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. McWhinney: We all pray.

But what about a rule that simply established, without a national figure, that in a province or a region the base should be 5%? That's forgetting a national figure. What about that in terms of some of the political regional parties one could envisage? You might have direct experience in that.

Mr. McClelland: No, because, as was pointed out by Elections Canada, the threshold for a national party requires the party to run candidates in a minimum of 50 ridings. So the other thresholds are in place in any event.

The other questions that were brought to the table on October 12, when we first discussed this, concerned the wisdom of having these thresholds in the first place, and that perhaps we should be giving some thought to what is being done in Germany. As a matter of fact, I have another private member's bill in the hopper that will reflect exactly those sentiments.

So if members, at some future date, with the luck of the draw, care to consider that further, that is something that could be done. But for the moment, 2% as a national threshold and 5% as a threshold for regional parties was considered by consensus to be fair. It was a threshold, but it wasn't a threshold that was impossible to meet.

Mr. McWhinney: I thank the honourable member for the thoughtfulness he's given to the report and the way in which he's responded to questions. Thank you very much.

Mr. McClelland: Thank you.

The Chairman: Okay. Are there any further comments?

Mr. Ringma, do you move the amendment to clause 1 that is proposed in Mr. McClelland's letter?

Mr. Ringma: I so move.

The Chairman: Mr. Ringma moves that clause 1 in Bill C-319 be amended by replacing lines 10 to 19 on page 1 with the following.... Shall I dispense?

Some hon. members: Dispense.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Clause 1 as amended agreed to

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill as amended carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

.1205

The Chairman: Shall I report Bill C-319 as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Okay, that dispenses with that item on the agenda. Thank you.

Mr. McClelland: I thank the committee members very much for their assistance and deliberations. I want to thank Elections Canada for their assistance as well.

The Chairman: I want to thank you for your assistance, Mr. McClelland, and for being so reasonable in hearing the suggestions of the members of the committee.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

;