[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 21, 1995
.1107 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order! As we have a quorum, we may start.
Dear colleagues, in June, I received a letter from Ms Martha Wilson, General Manager of CPAC, and we did not have time to invite her at that time.
[English]
So today I invited Madam Wilson to come to the committee, not to make a presentation but really to inform members about what has transpired in respect to this letter. The change that has been suggested in it has been made. That is that the replay of the House now takes place later in the evening than it did previously. Question Period is replayed at 9 p.m. every day, Eastern Standard Time, and the replay of the rest of the proceedings follows thereafter. I presume on Wednesday, for example, Question Period is played at 9 p.m. and is not replayed. We simply continue with the rest of the proceedings after that, since it's the first item of business on Wednesdays.
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): On a point of order, before you begin, the committee's last meeting, by consensus, gave an instruction to the clerk to prepare a report on constitutional relations between the Senate and the House in relation to Bill C-69. Could I have your advice whether that report has been made?
The Chairman: Not a report, a letter, Mr. McWhinney. There is a draft letter. I expect it will be available shortly.
Mr. McWhinney: It will be able to be discussed this morning, then?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. McWhinney: Good. Thank you.
The Chairman: I wondered if I could ask you, then, Mrs. Wilson, what the situation is. Have you made these changes and how do you think it is going? Has there been a positive reaction, or any reaction from the public, to the change?
Ms Martha Wilson (General Manager, Cable Parliamentary Channel Inc.): First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you for inviting us to present. We're always happy to be here and to advise you about the things we're doing with the channel and the changes we're making now that we are operating under a seven-year full-term broadcasting licence from the CRTC as well as under the authority of a seven-year agreement with the Speaker of the House of Commons on behalf of the members of the House of Commons.
We sent this letter to you last June primarily to advise you that this is something we really intended to do as of the beginning of the House return on September 18. We've had no response so far. I'm not sure people are yet aware of the fact that we are playing Question Period - it actually is members' statements and Question Period - beginning at 9 p.m. each night.
.1110
What I can tell you is just to reinforce what was contained in the letter, that two programming reasons were driving this decision.
The first is that we feel because the programming philosophy of the channel is to provide the stories behind the headlines in the news - we play a very complementary role to the other news and public affairs broadcasters in Canada - it was appropriate to have Question Period playing at a time of day before the evening news comes on, so when people see clips taken out of the House of Commons they've already been provided with the full context of what happened in Question Period that day. It just gives people a better perspective, a wider perspective, on how the comments came up and in what context they were made - which is, as I say, very consistent with the philosophy of the channel in general.
The other is based on our experience over the last three years, the phone calls we've received, some of which I have actually taken myself from people across the country. They were distressed that they couldn't find Question Period at a consistent time. Whether you like it or not, it is the most interesting part of the day for the average Canadian. That's what they like to watch. We felt it was being responsive to the viewers and in the public interest to put it in a consistent time block where people could find it every night.
This is in fact what had been done with Question Period many years ago. The change was made, I think, about five years ago that they did the entire replay. Question Period got buried and was being played at a time when, as I said in the letter, most people were asleep. So we made the change on September 18.
We intend to promote this change with on-air promotion, using the whole line that we're putting the news in context before Prime Time News, or, I guess, The National, as it is now called again, begins at 10 p.m., or the CTV national news at 11 p.m. Members' statements and Question Period will appear every day at 9 p.m. Once we start promoting it, what we're likely to receive is probably happy comments rather than the opposite.
What I would say to you, though, is we do have a viewer services department. If you do receive any complaints or comments of any kind about this format change, we would be very happy if you would pass those on to us directly. We would be happy to deal with those for you.
The Chairman: Are there any questions or comments from members?
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Will there be any differences in cost with this format?
Ms Wilson: No differences whatsoever. CPAC is privately funded by 45 Canadian cable companies. We take your programming feed. The only portion of the channel that is funded publicly by the taxpayers is the production of the House of Commons debates and some standing committees. With other standing committees we actually send our own camera crews in to cover those, and that's done at no cost to the House of Commons and therefore the taxpayers. So there is no cost implication.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe (Laurier - Sainte-Marie): I am in complete agreement with what you are suggesting with respect to the scheduling of Question Period. However, when it comes to your regular programming, I have found that you have been covering an awful lot of symposiums and conferences in Ontario and the rest of the country, and very few in Quebec. You have been covering meetings such as that of the No Committee which was held in the Beauce last Sunday, but you have taken very little account of the other committee in Quebec. You have given Cité Libre quite a lot of coverage, but, unless I'm mistaken, you haven't covered any of the regional commissions in Quebec. I would like an explanation.
Ms Nathalie deMontigny (Director of Programming, CPAC): You will find that, in the coming months, we will indeed be covering events in Quebec. As for the regional commissions, contact has already been made, and we intend to partly cover the next round, with particular attention to the Commission on education. But in covering these commissions, we always have to be careful, because when the House is sitting, we don't have as much time to broadcast them in their entirety.
.1115
Mr. Duceppe: How come you can find the time to broadcast all the City Hall conferences out of the University of Toronto, when you can't find the time to do that in Quebec? I just don't understand. Even when the House is sitting, you find the time to do that, but you can't find the time to do the same thing in Quebec.
Mr. Ringma: Maybe it is a question of demand on the part of the public.
Mr. Duceppe: I would like an answer.
Ms Wilson: I will answer in English because it is easier for me.
[English]
Mr. Duceppe: No problem.
Ms Wilson: In terms of the coverage of the referendum programming, first, until September 1 we were not operating under a full-term licence and we had a very small staff complement. We had only twelve people working for the entire national channel - one person in viewer services, four people in production, five in operations, which is master control, post-production, field production, our own crews - and we relied very heavily on the cable companies who are our shareholders and affiliates to supplement the amount of programming that we were able to do from across the country. So until now there have been some resource limitations.
We've just hired twelve people. We've just moved into a brand-new facility. We constructed it between June and August of this year. The resources have increased dramatically with the commencement of the licence.
I'm just giving you all this by way of background, because it will help you to understand what the actual operational situation is for a channel such as CPAC.
In terms of our coverage of conferences in Quebec, we have been quite active in trying to cull information from there and to cover conferences that are taking place. We haven't been as successful in getting information out of them.
With specific reference to the referendum coverage that we have just started - we started it just last weekend and that ``no'' meeting that took place last weekend was the first event we covered - we have been in contact every day with both committees. Nathalie has spoken personally with the ``yes'' committee, sometimes two or three times a day, trying to get information from them and telling them that we want to cover both sides. We don't take an editorial position. We provide unfiltered coverage of the events that are happening in the country.
Other than a press conference that's taking place this morning that we are covering and that will go on the air tomorrow once we get some interpretation laid down so that it will be accessible to the entire Canadian public, other than that one event, we haven't received any information from them.
So we are pushing. The producers are in constant contact. If you can assist us, then that will be great, because we are looking for a balance of both sides.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: I have been watching CPAC regularly over the last two years. If you were able to go to Toronto to cover conferences out of the University of Toronto with a staff of 12, surely you can do the same for the University of Montreal, for example.
Secondly, if you have agreements with community channels in Toronto, I suppose it would be easy to do the same with Vidéotron in Montreal.
Thirdly, the interpretation argument does not really stand up, because you have no trouble getting the debates which take place in English in Toronto interpreted for Quebec viewers. I suppose it would be just as easy to do the same in the other language. So I am somewhat puzzled. You have been broadcasting Cité libre quite regularly, and you have the resources. There is a problem. You were able to go to Queen's University in Kingston, where the Liberal Party complained...
The Chairman: That was in the House...
Mr. Duceppe: No. There were simulations of Cabinet meetings. This was stopped following Mr. Gagliano's representations to the Board of Internal Economy. It just seems a bit strange. You said that you're not getting information about these events. I would like to know if you subscribe to the Canadian Press wire in order to get that information.
[English]
Ms Wilson: The CP wire?
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Yes.
[English]
Ms Wilson: We have just subscribed.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Do you also subscrible to Telbec?
Ms Wilson: Yes, we do.
Mr. Duceppe: Wonderful. So then you will have everything you need, and you will no longer have any reason not to cover events in Quebec.
.1120
[English]
Ms Wilson: I think if you examined our record over the course of the last three years in the context of... First of all, one of the points I make in a letter I recently wrote to the commission is that events are happening in Quebec and we do cover a lot of the events that happen in Quebec. Events are happening in nine other provinces as well, and many of them happen to originate in English.
We do lay interpretation down in both directions. We have quite a significant budget we spend doing that in both directions.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: You cover a lot of commissions. I am thinking for instance about the contaminated blood inquiry which you covered in its entirety. This is in the public domain, you know about it, and it's easy to do.
You won't have me believe that CPAC didn't know that there were regional commissions sitting across Quebec, because it was in all of the papers. Everybody knew about it. Videotron was broadcasting them live the same day or replaying them later. Why is it that you were not able to? It was public knowledge. Why was this not done?
[English]
Ms Wilson: We did carry some of it. We had trouble getting hold of the tapes. We spent a lot of time on the phone. I'm sure we could go through our records and... I'm not saying I'm going to present you with a letter saying how many phone calls we made, but we spent a lot of time on the phone trying to get hold of that programming. It was covered by Videotron, which is one of our shareholders. Other things were covered by other cable companies that are our shareholders. We made a real effort to get hold of that.
We did get hold of about twenty hours, I think. As soon as it came into the channel, we ran three of those hours on the channel in French only, in order to get something on the air nationally. Then we set about trying to get as much as possible of the rest of it interpreted so it would be accessible to the entire country.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: I have my doubts. I suppose you realize that my questions did not come out of the blue. Last year, I was instrumental in getting the replay of Question Period restored in Montreal, because it had been stopped. They were broadcasting Cité libre almost every night, but not the replay of Question Period. It was a bit strange, and you were able to correct the situation.
[English]
Ms Wilson: We found that strange as well. Once we were made aware of that issue, we intervened with that cable company.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Who is it that decides? If you, as the head of CPAC, find that strange, I suppose -
[English]
Ms Wilson: I don't run those cable companies. I run the channel and the cable companies are my shareholders. The way they operate their business is up to them. I can't go in there and say you can't do this or you can do this. I can call them and say this is not a good thing for you to be doing, and that's exactly what we did. The day I called, I spoke with the vice-president of programming at Videotron. She sent me back a memo saying the change had been made.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Ms Wilson, will the fact that you're broadcasting Question Period at9 p.m. result in any changes to the replay of the entire House of Commons proceedings, including Question Period?
Ms deMontigny: Question Period is not being replayed. I'm not sure I understand your question.
Mr. Laurin: With the new format, house proceedings would be broadcast without Question Period, and Question Period would be broadcast at 9 p.m. every night.
Ms deMontigny: Yes.
Mr. Laurin: We know that people are very interested in Question Period, and it's a good thing that it should be broadcast at 9 p.m. every night, so that people can watch it. But I am concerned now about the popularity of the rest of the House proceedings.
I'm afraid that very few people will watch them now, since the main attraction, which is Question Period, is no longer there. Members of Parliament such as myself rely on the broadcasting of House debate to help their constituents become better informed. I'm afraid that, without Question Period, the rest of the House proceedings will not garner many viewers. Do you not share this view?
.1125
Ms Wilson: I don't share that view. First of all, I think what you have to understand about the audience for this channel is that the audience is made up of really two groups: one-third of élite opinion leaders, people who are intensely interested in public policy... If anyone is going to watch the debates in detail, it would probably be those people. Some of those people will watch during the day.
The other part of the audience is really general public from all walks of life, all age groups. What our audience numbers are telling us is that they tune in in little bits. Very few people will turn on the channel and watch it for four hours. They're not going to turn on the channel and watch for four hours and wait for Question Period. People don't watch channels. They watch programs.
This is one of the problems with Question Period. Because it is the most popular part of your day, people would try to figure out where it was. Your schedule is 10 a.m. starting one day, 11 a.m. starting another day, 2 p.m. starting another day. You are never quite sure where Question Period is going to fall in the middle of the night. They would tune in for Question Period anyway, if that's what they want to see. All we're doing is giving them some consistency, so they don't have to spend four or five hours watching something else while they're waiting for Question Period to come on.
The people who are intensely interested in the debates as they develop will watch regardless. The people who want to watch Question Period will watch Question Period. The fact that it now appears before the news we think really is an important thing for you, because if you feel the news is positioning something you said without giving the whole story, at least on CPAC Question Period is there in its entirety to provide that story before the news interpretation comes on.
Mr. Laurin: So there is no change to the live broadcasting of the debates of the House and of Question Period, if I understand correctly, except that...
Mr. Duceppe: From 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.?
Mr. Laurin: Yes. Question Period will continue to be broadcast live from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m.
The Chairman: All debates are broadcast live.
Mr. Laurin: Yes, but for the rerun, Question Period will be taken out of the debates to be broadcast earlier. I imagine the rest of the debates will follow in the sequential order.
The Chairman: It will be at 10 p.m.
Mr. Laurin: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): I'm pleased you're here.
I have three comments. First, about fairness, even before this issue was presented here today, in past years I have observed a variety of programs you presented, even the partisan conventions of the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, Reform, I think the Bloc as well, and they were put on as is. I thought that was a new step for a medium to the public. You're to be complimented. I thought that was very fair and unbiased. I thought that was a first in our public media process. I really felt good about that. Even though I didn't agree with some of the things being said, I said it's good that people see all the sides; finally we've matured.
Ms Wilson: We trust Canadians to exercise their intelligence and their common sense in making up their own minds.
Mr. Speaker: That's good.
And I appreciate the comments to the House leader of the Bloc. I think what you said was a fair, unbiased approach that is certainly a nice ground rule by which you run your operation. We know that will continue.
Second, I certainly agree with the new format. It sounds like a responsible way to go. I think that will be a good change.
Third, about audience reception, I've been amazed as a member of Parliament - I represent the Lethbridge area, out in Alberta - at the number of people who watch your channel in the evenings. At least twice a year I spend two weeks walking the streets of my constituency, and over and over again people say ``I saw you in the House of Commons; I saw you do this''. So I said to myself, I'd better think a little more about what I'm doing. It creates a certain responsibility for the member. It's a tremendous service to my area, and I'm sure to others. They're very complimentary about what you do. So thank you.
.1130
[English]
Ms Wilson: We're very proud of this channel. It is still in the developmental stage. We know there is a lot more we can do, and we certainly intend to expand the programming and make it as representative of this country as we possibly can. That is our goal.
The issues of balance and fairness are issues that we deal with all the time. Because we are a licensed broadcaster, we are monitored very closely by the CRTC.
Our programming philosophy is to provide a window on the process and it's not in our interests to denigrate that philosophy or that code of ethics for the channel by being unbalanced. We want to show all sides of the issues in different ways from other broadcasters. That's what we're setting out to do.
I think if you watch us as we develop, as we hire more people - we'll hire another twelve people next year - over the next couple of years you'll see how much CPAC can contribute to helping Canadians understand how this country works in terms of its public policy development.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I'm just trying to sort one or two things out. Pursuant to questions that were asked by Mr. Duceppe, do you actually cover events outside of Parliament Hill yourself or do you just take stuff that your members put together and put it on your channel? You did say that you put the material that belongs to your members...the Videotron case involving commissions in Quebec and so on. But do you also have your own cameras and all that stuff? Is it a mix? If it is a mix, what is the ratio? How does that work? I want to understand that a little bit better.
Ms Wilson: The ratio, up until now - these are numbers that we track, how many hours are produced by the cable companies. Obviously if there's something happening in Vancouver, it's more cost effective for us to have one of the cable affiliates in Vancouver cover that rather than sending out a crew. We have our own equipment; we have four cameras. We have field production crew. We have packaging suites, where we monitor the programming for quality, since we don't edit. We do cover events in Ottawa and outside Ottawa, in Quebec, in Ontario. Sometimes we send crews to Toronto. If there's something going on that we feel has to be done and we can't get a cable company there, we'll send a camera crew. We would do the same for any province, especially now that our budgets for programming are higher. If there are things going on in the other provinces that we feel are critical to providing a balanced view of what's going on in the country, we would send crews.
Mr. Boudria: Getting back to percentages, let's say you exclude the House of Commons and you take the rest, what is it? Half yours and half your members or 90% your members and 10% yours? Just roughly.
Ms Wilson: No. I'd say up until the summer it was probably about 65% from the cable companies, 35% CPAC.
Mr. Boudria: So you produce one-third of what you show and the other two-thirds come from your members.
Ms Wilson: It's higher now. We probably produce about half of what we put on the air.
Mr. Boudria: Fine. It helps me to understand. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): I would like to know if there is a way of listening to Question Period or to the debates in the House in the original language, regardless of where we are. It is particularly annoying to listen to the debates and to hear an interpretation of Mr. Manning when we want to hear the floor. Is it possible? I'm told that it is with the SAP, but, frankly, I have to say that I don't understand anything about it. Could you give me some explanations about this system, that I could then explain to my constituents who wish to listen to the floor.
Ms deMontigny: Regarding the House of Commons in particular, we have acquired new machines that we will also use for the other conferences. We will be able to get the English, the French and the floor.
.1135
Martha could explain this to you much better than I could. I am presently following the House of Commons' proceedings on the matter. They are much more interesting.
Mr. Langlois: Ms Wilson could give us more technical information so we get an idea of what has to be done.
[English]
Ms Wilson: What happens is this. We provide the programming. We have one satellite transponder with three audio subcarriers that carry English, French, and floor sound. The House of Commons of course has all three audios available, and a larger proportion of our programming now will have all three audios available.
It's up to the cable company to decide which audio feed is provided to the subscribers, and they make that decision based on the demographics of their licensed area. So if their licensed area is predominantly French, they will provide the French audio feed. If it's predominantly English, they'll provide English.
There are only two or three cable companies in Canada that provide floor sound to their subscribers right now. One of them is CF Cable in Montreal, because I think the demographics are pretty much half and half for their licensed area of 215,000 subscribers.
With SAP, the second audio program, it is possible to provide floor sound as an option to the subscriber if the subscriber has a television set that allows them to choose that option. Not everybody has such a television set. I myself don't have one of those at home. I have one in my office.
We are working with the cable companies right now to encourage them to provide the floor sound as a second audio program option for those subscribers who are able to pick it up, and I imagine that over the next year or two you will see the cable companies being able to do that more and more. But they make the decision.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: What about those who do not subscribe to SAP? What does that acronym exactly mean?
[English]
Ms Wilson: Second audio program.
Mr. Langlois: Second audio program.
[Translation]
That means that it could well be that a French community somewhere in Canada gets the proceedings in English and that an English community in Quebec lost among a francophone majority would get them only in French.
[English]
Ms Wilson: No. An English-language community would get it in English and a French-language community would get it in French. A French cable operator with a French subscriber base is not going to give them English. They're going to give them the complete French audio program, which includes translation. If the person on the floor is speaking English, then they will provide the interpretation.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I understand. Ottawa is a special case that I know very well. We live in the National Capital Region, that is in Hull-Ottawa. Let's take the case of Saint-Boniface, Manitoba, and Lennoxville, Quebec, where anglophones and francophones live together. Do they get the audio feed in the language of their choice?
[English]
Ms Wilson: I'd have to check that. Off the top of my head, I don't know what the audio programs... There are between 150 and 200 cable companies across Canada that carry the channel, but unfortunately I don't know what each one offers in terms of the audio feeds.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Boudria very appropriately commented that it is the cable company that makes that choice. Since CPAC is a cable company consortium, could you not ask those cable companies, which have created you, to give you the list of all the communities in Canada which get CPAC and in what language they get it? You could then give that list to the committee's clerk so that we can consult it.
[English]
Ms Wilson: I can certainly do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
Mr. McWhinney: I'd like to echo Mr. Speaker's comments. I think it's very noticeable how many people watch these broadcasts for hours. I'm always surprised when I meet people who say -
An hon. member: Shocked.
Mr. McWhinney: I'm agreeably surprised.
That's the first comment. So you are rendering a very necessary, and I think much appreciated, public service.
.1140
The other thing here, your proposal to go to 9 p.m., I think recognizes the new reality, but it also confirms prophecies I and others made twenty years ago, when we recommended broadcasting, televising, the debates. We said there were no special constitutional barriers but it would change the nature of Parliament. What is very noticeable is that Question Period is now the dominant aspect of the parliamentary process in the public mind. It wasn't always so. I think it has changed the nature of Question Period somewhat. The informational aspect of it has declined, but new aspects are emerging. It is good theatre. This is what you recognize and people are entitled to.
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): We addressed that.
Mr. McWhinney: You said we addressed that. Some do.
Ms Wilson: My personal opinion is that Question Period... If you look at the political systems in other countries, the U.K. has question time, but in the U.S., for example, they love to watch Question Period, because there really is no opportunity like that in their political system for the President to be questioned in detail on a daily basis about the issues of the day and what's going on.
It's such an important part of the democratic system in Canada, and I think people recognize that. It's not just the theatre of it. The theatre of it is a necessary part of it. You can decide how much theatre it is going to be.
These are just my personal comments, of course. I think the theatre is a necessary part. It's a traditional system, and it's being played out in a chamber in the capital of the country, and people are fascinated by that.
Mr. McWhinney: It's no longer information-gathering, though, in the traditional sense.
By the way, if you want perhaps a better comparison with the American system, you should go the televising of the congressional committees. If you take something like the McCarthy committee, that actually changed the political complexion of the country with the expert examination and cross-examination, supported by expert staff of the committees.
But I compliment you on your work and I recognize that Question Period is the star hour of the House. It's very noticeable, by the way, in House attendance before and after.
The Chairman: Everyone who wanted a first-round question has had one. Ms Wilson, you're under some time constraint this morning.
Ms Wilson: Yes, I have a flight to catch to Prince Edward Island in about forty minutes.
The Chairman: Can we let Ms Wilson go? I know there are two second-round requests here, but -
Ms Wilson: I would be happy to come back. If you could give me more than 24 hours' notice, it would be useful. But I did delay my flight so I could come this morning, because I'm very happy to talk to you about these issues, to keep you informed about what we're doing with the channel, and to get your feedback on what you see happening on the channel. We are always interested in comments.
One thing I would like to say about comments is that I think all of you would recognize that usually the people who speak the loudest are the people who are complaining about something. We've been tracking viewer comments for the last year and three or four months, and 90% of the comments we get are very positive. People are happy that they have the opportunity to see these events going on and to see them without a filter of any kind. They can just tune in and make up their own minds. We're very heartened by that, because most people just get complaints and we get a substantially high number of compliments from our viewers. That makes us feel good. I hope it makes you feel good about what we're doing too.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms Wilson and Ms deMontigny. All the committee members would like to be given another opportunity to ask you questions. Maybe we will call you before the committee once the clerk has received the documents that we have requested.
Mr. Langlois: The present CRTC Act does not require cable companies to broadcast the parliamentary channel. I think it should. The same thing should also apply to the provincial legislatures.
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We'll be in touch with you.
The next item of business on our agenda
[Translation]
concerns the allocation of rooms. The Special Joint Committee on the Code of Conduct has decided to sit on Monday nights and Thursday afternoons and has requested to be given priority for room 237-C.
.1145
As you know, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the power to allocate rooms and I suggest that we adopt the motion prepared by our clerk and which appears on our agenda for today.
Mr. Boudria: In other words, we can boot someone out of a room.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Duceppe: It appears that the committee does not necessarily intend sitting on Mondays and Wednesdays as you have just said, but that it is considering that possibility.
The Chairman: We have already decided that special committees could be given priority for those rooms on Wednesdays. A problem arises on Mondays and Thursdays. This is why we recommend you to pass this motion.
Mr. Duceppe: At 3:30 p.m.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Boudria: But that does not mean we have to sit on those days. We are only requesting the room in case we want to sit. Am I right?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Duceppe: Have the groups change since last year? Are the groups the same? No problem.
The Chairman: Mr. Boudria moves that, pursuant to Standing Order 115(4), priority for room 237-C (Centre Block) be granted to the Special Joint Committee on the Code of Conduct, starting September 25, 1995, on Monday evenings from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and on Thursdays, from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
[English]
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Members have before them a draft letter based on our discussion the other day. I have had this letter drafted and I would appreciate comments. The letter is not public. It is marked ``Confidential'' because I assume it will be made public only after it has been sent, and I would ask members not to release copies of the letter or read extensively from it in the course of our deliberations today. But if there are corrections or suggestions for improvement, then I'm here to hear them.
Mrs. Parrish: I'm going to word this carefully.
For starters, I love the letter, but I would like to see the tone of it changed slightly to be more positive - despite the fact that we would love to wring their necks.
In the fourth line, I think I would like to see ``anger'' changed to ``distress''.
Let me finish, and then you guys can all knock me off my pedestal.
The concept of ``unpardonable delay'' is difficult. Right now we're getting a lot of hassles from the Senate and they're feeling their necks a bit on the Pearson thing and all kinds of other things. If we really want to put them in a position where they will feel embarrassed because they have been petty, then the way to do it is not to tell them we're angry but to express this distress.
I would like to see a sentence added in the first paragraph: ``In the interest of cooperation between the two bodies of government and the ultimate service of both bodies of the government to the Canadian taxpayer, we feel compelled to express our serious concerns on the matter of Bill C-69 and the way it has been handled''. Then the rest is fine.
I think the word ``anger'' sets up a barrier immediately, particularly if it's in the first paragraph. When you get into the last couple of paragraphs, you can be as angry as you want, because I think we are, and I think the minutes of Tuesday's meeting will indicate that there was extensive discussion on it.
When it becomes a public document, I would like to put them in a position that we are ultimately the most reasonable little toads around and we really feel that they're being unreasonable. Rather than telling them that we're angry and we're going to kick their door down, how about giving them one last chance to be dignified? It's just a change in tone and it's a change in the beginning paragraph.
Mr. Boudria: I suppose this should be a point of order. I'm just wondering: we're in fact discussing what arguably is a report of this committee; shouldn't we be in camera when we're doing that?
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Mr. Boudria: I don't know. I'm asking the question. Normally if we're doing that sort of thing, we do that, and once we've completed what we're doing as a report, it becomes public. Anyway, I suggest that to colleagues. I don't know if we've considered that. Perhaps it's unnecessary, but at least it should be brought up as an issue.
.1150
Mrs. Parrish: May I comment on that. I think our debate on Tuesday was public. I think the letter eventually will be public. I don't see the point of going in camera, but I have no objection to it.
The Chairman: Do members have strong feelings one way or the other? No? Then we'll stay in public session.
Mr. McWhinney: Did you put ``Confidential'' on it for any particular reason?
The Chairman: I put it on because it is like a committee report.
Mr. McWhinney: A draft.
The Chairman: It will not be on the final letter when it goes to Senator Beaudoin.
Are there any other comments?
[Translation]
Any other comments? Is the French version acceptable?
Mr. Laurin: I see no objection.
Mr. Langlois: I'm wondering about the continuation of our work. We're going to pass a motion to adopt this, and at the same time, I think it would be appropriate to pass a motion and make a report to the House. We need a debate in order to reiterate the primacy of the House of Commons concerning electoral matters, and we want to set constitutional conventions establishing clearly that the House of Commons is the decision-maker in this field, a fact that has been long recognized in Parliamentary law.
This committee was well advised to act in this matter and to sponsor and study a bill.
Now, a report has to be made for the House in order for the House to sanction the bill and for the Speaker of the House to intervene. It is the best way to exert pressure in the present situation.
The Chairman: Very well. Therefore, we need a draft report to the House concerning this, something prepared by the researchers.
[English]
We don't have that today, so for the moment we'll deal with the letter.
Are members happy with this letter, then, and are they agreeable to the suggestion that we should change ``anger'' to ``distress''? I don't know what the French word for ``distress'' is. I know ``colère'' is ``anger'', but...
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: It's a déception.
The Chairman: A déception.
[English]
Mr. McWhinney: When I read this, I actually had reactions almost identical to those of Mrs. Parrish. It's quite interesting, because I think she was speaking as a good negotiating lawyer on that; that is to say, the use of calculated periphrasis when you really want to hit somebody with a sledge hammer. It's usually done that way.
But I respect the integrity of style. You drafted this, and it has its own integrity. So I suggest that, rather than change particular phrases at this stage as a drafting committee, you could take note of Mrs. Parrish's suggestion.
There is the issue of whether it's best to fling down the gauntlet in terms of whether it's best simply to state the constitutional issue more dully. I must say that the normal advice in diplomatic phrasing and legal negotiation is the dull periphrasis. It's better as long as the heavy artillery is there.
I was authorized by Mr. Arseneault to say on his behalf - and I agree with him - that he liked the letter and suggested that a copy might be sent to the Speaker of the House and the Speaker of the Senate for their information. This would give it slightly more formalization, and I think it makes sense.
He also indicated his own concern that again there should not be an indefinite delay in responding to this and indicated his feeling for perhaps private members' actions in the House at a later stage, if that were appropriate.
But if you could take note of the thrust of Mrs. Parrish's suggestions, there's a good deal to be said. That was my reaction, too.
I'd suggest, though, sending a copy, for information purposes, of whatever the final draft is to the Speaker and to the Speaker of the Senate so that a certain momentum will be maintained.
I'd be loath to correct particular phrases throughout. If you felt the suggestions were good, then I'd rather leave it to you to pick up the general tone and incorporate the tone.
.1155
The Chairman: I suspect we might want to send copies of the letter to everybody, to all the members and the senators. Certainly the Speaker would be included in that.
Mr. McWhinney: But certainly an official letter from you to the Speakers saying ``for your information''.
The Chairman: Yes. No problem.
Mr. Duceppe.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: This is as far as I'm willing to go. I have had some experience of negociations in the past and I believe that the main thing is to be very clear. It's the least you can do. When non-elected people have the gall to come and play on elected members' turf... My position is that the Bloc québécois, and if we did not have a Senate, we would not have any problems.
Mr. Laurin: I have another suggestion. In the last paragraph but one, the last sentence talks about enacting such legislation ``free of improper and unjustified interference''. After ``free of improper and unjustified interference'', I would add ``from non-elected representatives''. Yesterday we said this was one of the reasons why the letter should be sent to the Senate. We would not want to see non-elected people interfering in a legislative process that should be the purview of elected representatives.
So, in closing, I stress the importance of this phrase ``free of improper and unjustified interference from non-elected representatives''.
[English]
The Chairman: Is that agreed? That makes sense to me.
I have one other question on that same paragraph. In ``The standing committee therefore wishes to express'', may I add the word ``unanimously''? Is everyone agreed in that respect?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: You cannot pass a letter with a majority and saying that it's unanimous.
The Chairman: According to the motion, I should send a letter such as this one to the Chairman of the Senate's Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: No, I think we can accept the comments made by Mrs. Parrish and by the Bloc here. If you fine-tune it like that it's fine, I'm sure.
The Chairman: Is ``unanimously'' okay to include?
Mr. Ringma: Yes, that's all right.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, if we pass the motion authorizing you to forward the letter unanimously, it could then be appended to the motion authorizing you to do so.
Mr. Boudria: During Tuesday's meeting, the four parties attending agreed unanimously to send such a letter. For that reason, we might want to mention it in Mr. Milliken's letter.
The Chairman: If we mention in the letter that the committee authorized the letter, it's alright.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish: I have a few points. In addition to what Mr. McWhinney was saying, you might want to note that Mr. Soloman was here and say ``unanimously by all four parties present''.
The Chairman: We've said that already.
Mrs. Parrish: All four parties?
The Chairman: The first paragraph.
Mrs. Parrish: Secondly, in some part on the second page you talk about the delay and the difficulty it's causing committees and the time constraints. Is there some way of working in the expense? I think this is going to be a very expensive process.
The Chairman: I wouldn't bother, because they're going to argue that our committee has already spent it on the existing process. That was one of the arguments put to me on the committee. They're just going to say we're saving money by finishing up what we've already started.
Mrs. Parrish: Wonderful. Let's give them that opportunity.
Thanks. I withdraw the remark.
The Chairman: Is it agreed, then, that we want a motion carried that I send the letter?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois proposes that the letter, as amended, be sent to the Speakers.
[English]
Motion agreed to
Mr. McWhinney: You will send a copy to the Speakers, as guardians of the privileges of the House, or prerogatives.
The Chairman: Absolutely; and we can put it right in the motion, with copies to the two Speakers. Is that okay?
.1200
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Our researcher will prepare the draft report to the House.
[English]
The Chairman: He will prepare it. We'll deal with it next week.
Do the whips wish to deal with another matter?
Mr. Boudria: The matter of the public accounts committee. We have the report.
The Chairman: Do you want to deal with that now?
Mr. Ringma: We're happy to. It depends on the will of the committee.
The Chairman: You're the striking committee. If you want to deal with it, we'll deal with it. We'll hear from you.
Mr. Boudria: The striking committee, Mr. Chairman, has not met over this issue. We just became aware of this information. As a matter of fact, a correction was made to the document even a few moments ago. We're having a meeting of the striking committee tomorrow at noon.
The Chairman: I think the committee's off until Wednesday, so if you want direction from us, we can give it. If you want to wait until Tuesday and come back if you need it... Whatever you wish.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: I would like an information. I see there that during the 33rd Parliament there was an independent in the House and he was member of the committee. Isn't that the same kind of error that has just been corrected in the case of the Bloc québécois? In fact, I believe there were three Liberals and one NDP representative. Is that right? Who was the one and only independent during the 33rd Parliament, the one who ended up in the committee?
Mr. Boudria: The independent member during the 33rd Parliament was the mayor of the city of Markham.
Mr. Duceppe: And he was a member of the Public Accounts Committee?
Mr. Boudria: Anthony Roman asked permission to sit in a committee and I believe that the House unanimously created a spot for him somewhere.
Mr. Duceppe: In the Public Accounts Committee?
Mr. Boudria: I don't remember. He might have been using a government seat. He was independent, but he supported the government. In fact, I believe that he later ran as a Conservative independent.
Mr. Duceppe: Would you check this up?
Mr. Boudria: We could have this checked and report to you tomorrow during our noon meeting, the three of us.
Mr. Duceppe: Yes, that's all right.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Ringma, would you agree?
Mr. Ringma: We're debating whether...the chair said the striking committee was meeting tomorrow -
Mr. Boudria: At noon. The striking committee really means the three whips.
Mr. Ringma: So we're probably as happy to leave it until Tuesday.
Mr. Boudria: And there may be a mistake here in ``the thirty-third'' -
Mr. Ringma: Yes, some of the percentages and that, Don, because it's been a quick change, don't stack up. I think it would be more logical if we went at it...
Mr. Boudria: Let's get it checked out.
The Chairman: I think that completes the business for today. I'd like to have a brief meeting of the steering committee. We just need to decide the business for Tuesday.
I declare this meeting adjourned.