Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 8, 1996

.1102

[English]

The Chairman: Order, please.

Good morning, colleagues. It's my pleasure to welcome our colleague Mr. Milliken, specifically with Bill C-270, the order of reference that we received from the House on June 19.

Before asking our colleague to present the bill, Mrs. Parrish has a point of information in regard to her subcommittee.

Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): I have a request, if it's all right with you, Mr. Chairman. Two members of my committee are here.

The task of reviewing private member's business - making items votable, etc. - that we were assigned has really made it mandatory for us to send a letter to all our colleagues asking if they would like to participate, either as witnesses or by writing to us. We cannot meet the October 29 date you gave us. This is due a full consultation with all three parties and with all members. We'd like an extension to no later than December 12, but we'll probably be finished before then. Is that all right with the committee?

The Chairman: I don't know. It's a matter of what time the committee had been given. Mr. Frazer and Mr. Langlois are members of your committee. I don't think the government has a position on it. Do we, Madam Catterall?

Do we agree to the extension?

Okay, we all agree to the extension.

Mrs. Parrish: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Milliken.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): There was a motion to extend the period. Is it in the Minutes?

[English]

The Chairman: Do you want to put a motion to that effect?

Mrs. Parrish: Yes. I move that the date set for the subcommittee reviewing private member's business be extended to no later than December 12.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: The clerk is gently reminding me that we're without a quorum. I'm sorry, I wasn't -

Mrs. Parrish: We can do it again.

Mr. Langlois: I have a point of order, sir.

The Chairman: Yes. Can we ratify it afterward?

Mr. Langlois: No. I respectfully submit that no member present at the table drew to your attention the fact that we have no quorum. We are not -

The Chairman: Oh, sorry. Our clerk's advising us that we cannot have a motion without them. Well, we'll ratify that. We'll begin with Mr. Milliken. We can hear some evidence and then hopefully by the time....

Mr. Milliken, the floor is yours, sir.

Mr. Peter Milliken, MP (Kingston and the Islands): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

.1105

The subject matter for the committee is Bill C-270, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act. It arises out of a gross abuse of this act that occurred in 1989. It was the subject of a lot of comment at the time. The bill has been sitting around for quite awhile, and I finally have it drawn and now have the opportunity to present it to the committee.

The provision in the Financial Administration Act that has been causing the problem is subsection 30(1) of that act, which states:

This is a procedure for the government to help itself to money when it doesn't have supply voted by Parliament.

You'll note that there are certain restrictions. The payment must be urgently required for the public good and Parliament must not be in session, and there are various other provisions that determine when Parliament is or is not in session.

The facts leading up to this bill that I've presented arose following the election of November 21, 1988. Parliament was reconvened on December 12 in that year and sat for about two weeks, but no supply was granted or voted during the time. In fact supplementary estimates (B) were tabled in the House of Commons during the short two-week session.

The House adjourned on December 30, to be recalled on March 6, 1989. In January the government ran out of funds required to defray expenses in the public service and a special warrant was approved in the amount of $80 million. In February additional funds were authorized by another special warrant in the amount of $507 million.

Following that date, on February 28, I believe it was, the session was prorogued and recall of the new session was slated for April 3, 1989. I believe another special warrant was issued in March, but, in any event, on April 1 another special warrant was issued, in effect giving the government interim supply in the amount of $6.2 billion to carry the government up to the middle of May. It was anticipated that interim supply would then be voted in the new session of Parliament to cover the remainder of the period to June or beyond when the main estimates would normally pass.

We had a case here where the government decided that money was ``urgently required'', in the words of the statute, simply because it hadn't bothered to call Parliament to vote the money.

In my view it was a flagrant abuse of the section. It was improper. It was badly advised. It was wrongly advised. The government sought to defend this abuse despite objection in the House of Commons and despite objection in the Senate. The Senate even proposed an amendment to the Appropriation Act in an effort to express its distaste for this abuse of the statute, but the amendment was rejected in the House of Commons.

The argument was put by my friend, Senator Stewart, in the Senate on May 9, 1989, in a speech on the appropriation bill that subsequently came forward to authorize or rubber-stamp, as it were, the use or abuse of these special warrants. Having reviewed all of the facts, he suggested that not only was this use of these special warrants unprecedented, but it was in effect a constitutional change. It went far beyond the point of section 30 of the Financial Administration Act because the government created the urgent requirement by failing to call Parliament and deal with the issue, and then those same ministers were saying this payment was in fact urgently required.

As he pointed out in his speech, and I quote from page 162 of the Senate debates at the time, on May 9, 1989:

.1110

Then another hon. senator interjected, ``Even the Prime Minister said it was stupid.''

Senator Stewart then said, ``Yes, that, honourable senators will remember, is a survey described by no less a person than the Prime Minister as stupid.''

Senator Frith said, ``Stupidity can sometimes be urgently required.''

Another senator said, ``Is that why there is so much of it around?''

Senator Stewart said, ``I thought we had an ample supply. That survey, as I say, is the survey which the Minister of Finance said had been stopped. Nevertheless, the payment was made.'' And it was paid based on these special warrants.

So I think the fact that the warrants were abused in 1989 indicates there's a need to restrict access to these warrants in an urgent way, perhaps more urgently than the words in the act were interpreted. If the officials and the ministers interpreting the act are going to abuse the act and interpret it in ways it was not intended, I suggest the way to stop it is to close off access.

The intent of my bill is to prevent the use of warrants except in a time when Parliament has been dissolved for a general election or in the time between the date of the election and the recall of the new Parliament. It is intended that it be restricted to a time that is fixed when Parliament is in fact dissolved so that you cannot extend the date for the calling of the new Parliament and then use warrants during that extended period.

Normally when a proclamation for dissolution is made, there is a date put in the proclamation when Parliament will be recalled. That is the date, in my view, that should be the limit a government can use as a means of allowing itself the use of warrants.

In other words, warrants should be available to the government up to that date, but no later. So it can't extend the date on its own by deciding not to recall the House and thereby create an urgent requirement for money. It's a self-created requirement. In my view, it should be forced to recall Parliament and deal with the House of Commons.

I want to say also, from the limited knowledge I have of the British experience, that supply must be voted before dissolution occurs. So these special warrants are not available in the U.K. This is a matter of administrative convenience in this country. It has been abused, and the abuse should be ended. If we restrict the use of the warrants the way I've suggested, I think it's one that would be acceptable as a reasonable restriction and prevent the use between sessions of Parliament, which is what happened in 1989 and in my view should never have happened. Parliament should have been recalled and supply should have been voted on. Had that happened, I wouldn't have been presenting this bill.

There's a problem with the bill, as pointed out in Mr. Robertson's summary. The draft I have appears to simply amend a deeming provision as to when Parliament is not in session. The intent, I think, is there, but there may be a fault in the wording. I'd be happy to meet with counsel to discuss changes if the committee finds the principle acceptable, as the House has found. It's a matter of a technical change in the wording, which I think we can accommodate with an amendment in this committee.

I'd be more than happy to have the amendment moved, because I think my intent is clear.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Milliken, for that succinct presentation.

We'll go to the opposition first. Does anybody wish to comment on the bill?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I have only two questions for Mr. Milliken. First, are not the constitutional provisions on the calling of a Parliament at least once a year, section 20 of the 1867 Constitution, already sufficient to ensure that the members will be able to raise that question?

My second question is perhaps in another area, but I'll put it right away. Could the provision of your bill lead us to a situation similar to the one they had in the U.S.A. at one point, in other words that the State winds up without any money for civil service salaries and other public services and so must suspend them for several days or even weeks.

.1115

Mr. Milliken: The answer to your first question is yes. The section in the Constitution provides that the House of Commons shall sit at least once a year. However, it does not specify that supply must be tabled and passed by the House of Commons.

If we do not specify this, the government may call the House to sit at a given date after which it could adjourn and keep on governing with the Governor General's special warrants. That is not the intent of this bill, I am sure, nor of this House in passing this bill, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act. In my opinion, we must amend it to avoid any such possibility.

Could you remind me what your second question was?

Mr. Langlois: I wanted to know whether technically, at certain periods, because of financial overlap, we could not find ourselves in a situation similar to the one in the U.S. where the civil service was paralyzed because Congress had not voted supplies.

Mr. Milliken: We have had this problem here, in Canada, before the amendment to the Standing Orders of the House requiring that supply bills be passed before December 10, March 26 and June 23. Standing Order 81 provides for those three dates during the year to vote on supply bills.

We often had problems passing such bills before. If the Opposition put too many questions or kept the debate going too long, the bill wasn't passed on time and there were delays in mailing out cheques to civil servants and the unemployed. But thanks to the changes in the Standing Order, there are no problems as long as the House is sitting. If it is not sitting, it is difficult to pass any kind of bill and that's why we are having problems.

After an election, it is possible that the opening date of a new Parliament is too close to the date of the disposition of the bill in clause 8. However, even with that kind of problem, a motion can be passed in the House to change these Standing Orders as we did last June to put the passage of a bill back to September. You'll remember that's what we did in September. It is possible that we could have that kind of problem but, in my opinion, the way to prevent that kind of situation is not by allowing the government to use special warrants.

Mr. Langlois: Am I properly summarizing your thoughts, Mr. Milliken, if I say that in passing your bill, together with an amendment to a Standing Order, a situation where there would be a lack of public funds could not happen for the public service?

Mr. Milliken: I am not proposing a guarantee; all depends on the cooperation of the parties in the House.

Mr. Langlois: Thank you.

.1120

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to just indicate to Mr. Milliken my support for the bill. It seems that governments over the years have used this for their own whims and their own pet projects in between terms or sessions of Parliament, and also those of legislatures.

I note from the library research that this clause is unique to Canada. The United Kingdom and Australia do not have this clause, so they don't have access to the same facility. My one question would be this. Have those two governments ever been confronted with a situation that has made it very awkward to govern because they couldn't have supply at their fingertips?

The Financial Administration Act of the Province of Alberta has this clause in it as well. That concerned me very much, and I did take it to court when the Premier of Alberta decided to fix a new office facility for himself in Calgary at a cost of $20 million and he called it unforeseen and an emergency situation. That's as bad as the bush that you were talking about.

So I took it to court, and we had a decision made in the court. The court said it was a matter of the legislature, and government can decide based on whatever the political whims of the day are because the legislation allows for it. We lost the matter in court at that point, even on the question of what the definition of ``emergency'' really is. I think we face that here. Whether it's the Conservative government, or Liberal government or Reform government, it will be the whims of the politicians at a point and time that misuse this facility.

I certainly want to say that based on my past experience, I highly support you in removing that access by cabinet in terms of a special warrant for what they call unforeseen and emergency situations. Parliaments today sit long enough to take care of those kinds of things. That's the one thing.

Secondly, the new rule on the way in which we handle things with closure also adds a facility to government that we didn't have five to eight years ago. Today it's a commonplace thing that can take care of the circumstances that were raised a few moments ago.

An hon. member: Very commonplace.

An hon. member: Daily.

Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your support. When I raised this issue in 1989, somebody sent me an article or paper from Alberta that they had prepared on the use of special warrants in that province, or I read something somewhere. I remember the case quite well, and I remember seeing this document and reading it, although I don't know what's happened to it now - it's probably buried in my files somewhere. But now that you have mentioned it, I remember becoming aware of that situation.

I think this does constitute something that we don't need any more, and, as you say, we can get rid of it for various reasons. The abuse of the warrants is something that isn't new. As you say, it has gone on under different governments. Of course, as you point out, closure and time allocation are available to limit a vote. I know that members on either side of you agree that it's used frequently; if they had been here in the last Parliament, I think they would realize how very frequently it was used.

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): More so in this Parliament.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Frazer: I have a short question, Mr. Chair. Mr. Speaker asked if this has caused problems in Australia and the U.K., where it wasn't available.

Mr. Milliken: I'm sorry, I'm not aware of whether it has or not. I don't believe so, though. My understanding is that before an election is called in the U.K., the normal practice is for Parliament to vote supply throughout the period, and I'm sure that there, as here, there is a contingency vote in the estimates.

There is already a very fat contingency vote in our estimates. It is there for the President of the Treasury Board, or the Treasury Board itself, to authorize expenditures that are not otherwise authorized in the estimates, or to supplement estimates that are already voted and so on, and it is used for that purpose. So it is when the contingency vote runs out that the government would need to go to some other place for money. But that contingency vote is there, it's available, we vote it every year in our estimates, and it's a big, fat sum of money.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Strahl, and then Monsieur Laurin.

Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): I have a couple of questions.

The first one, Mr. Milliken, concerns what you mentioned a couple of times about how there is an interim period between when Parliament is dissolved and subsequently comes back. Are there any other consequential amendments that are necessary to make this really effective? Do we need to have some change to the Canada Elections Act to force a date when Parliament would be called back? You say it's routinely done, but is it necessary to set a date? It could otherwise go on for a year before somebody's called back.

.1125

Mr. Milliken: Mr. Strahl, I'm fairly flexible on this thing. If it said something like ``within thirty days'' or ``within sixty days of the date of the return of the writ'' or something like that, I'd be more than happy to put it in the bill and avoid any necessity.

I'm not a legal expert on what goes into these royal proclamations with respect to elections, but my observation is that they contain a clause saying that the House of Commons will meet on a certain day, or that Parliament will meet on a certain day - I'm sorry, I should include the Senate in this one. But I suppose that with the exercise of royal prerogative, there would be no need to specify the date in the writ.

So although there may not be a legal requirement to do so, I'd be happy to have it say something that aims for sixty or ninety days after the election, or something like that, so that there is an absolute limit on when they can be used.

Mr. Strahl: I think it's something we could consider anyway, but, as Mr. Speaker was saying, I think it's a good bill.

You may remember that years ago out in British Columbia, in the Bill Bennett days - actually it was Dave Barrett's days; Bill Bennett made it quite a campaign issue - he went around the province saying ``Not a dime without debate''. That was the rallying cry, and it became a huge election issue. I'm sure you wouldn't want that to happen to the Liberal Party, Mr. Milliken, and it would be in everyone's best interest to ensure that your bill makes sure it doesn't happen. We don't want those dimes spent without debate.

Mr. Milliken: Absolutely, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Strahl: I'm glad to hear that ``absolutely''.

The Chairman: Good. By watching your time, colleagues, I'll be careful that we don't spend too many dimes.

Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask Mr. Milliken if the effect of his bill would be to prevent committing to certain expenditures in case of certain extraordinary events. Remember the 1993 elections, when over 200 new members were elected. That was a rather exceptional circumstance. A considerable number of offices had to be refurbished all at once, and that is something that is rarely seen. For example, could the effect of that kind of bill be to prevent the administration from going ahead with refurbishing the members' offices? Would those votes be authorized anyway, even if Parliament weren't sitting, or could they be blocked or delayed?

Mr. Milliken: I can't really spell out each and every method the government might use to correct such a situation. But as I indicated, there's a $600,000 per year emergency fund for the president of Treasury Board in supply.

Generally speaking, supply for the House of Commons is passed before the elections, depending on the date they're held, of course. Supply is usually voted for the House and some of those funds are available, as in general, the House does not spend all the money it is allocated. Thus, funds would be available for that purpose. Supplementary estimates can be prepared and submitted to the House later to get these extra funds after the calling of Parliament. Those are only two ideas. I'm sure that the Governor General's special warrants were not required to complete that work before Parliament was called after the 1993 elections.

Mr. Laurin: Thank you.

.1130

[English]

The Chairman: I hear a general consensus about the principle of the bill. As your chairman, am I reading that correctly? If that's the case, we should take note of some of the comments that have been made in terms of the issues that were raised by Jamie in the note from the research branch.

Mr. Milliken, I heard you say there may be some amendments that you'd be prepared to entertain.

So, colleagues, in trying to expedite this how do you wish to proceed?

Mr. Milliken: I don't know whether you have other witnesses that you intend to hear, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Milliken and colleagues, I should inform you that there are two officials from Treasury Board present who are available to answer technical questions, but I brought them here to be available only if we needed them. I don't see anyone who requires any further information, so in that case I'm prepared to do a clause-by-clause review and entertain an amendment if you wish to propose it at this time.

Mr. Milliken: I'm not ready to put it into technical words, so perhaps we could postpone the clause-by-clause to another date and I'll come back with an amendment at that time.

The Chairman: That would be fine. Would this Thursday be convenient for you?

Mr. Milliken: Yes, I think so, if we can get the draftsmen on it.

The Chairman: Mr. Frazer, do you wish to comment?

Mr. Frazer: Mr. Chairman I'm inclined to support Mr. Robertson's suggestion at the bottom of page 6 in his study where he says:

I am inclined to say that is where we should go with this.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I think Mr. Milliken has acknowledged that there are some improvements or some changes necessary before we report back to the House, and if it's agreeable we could move this matter to our Thursday time slot to do the clause-by-clause, at which timeMr. Milliken, together with our researcher, would be given an opportunity to make changes to take recognition of matters that have been raised. At that time we'll do clause-by-clause and report it, and then we're ready to go to other business.

Is that agreeable to you, Mr. Milliken?

Mr. Milliken: That's fine with me, if members are agreed. I should also indicate that I'm informed that the contingency vote in this year's estimates is not $600 million, it's $450 million, just so I get the record clear on that.

The Chairman: Okay. Is that agreed, then?

Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I'd like Mr. Neville to share any of his thoughts with us today to help us during our future deliberations. Perhaps we could take a few minutes, or whatever time is required for this.

[English]

The Chairman: Sure. Mr. Neville, do you have anything you wish to add?

Mr. Rick Neville (Acting Deputy Comptroller General, Treasury Board Secretariat): No.

The Chairman: Okay, colleagues, it's agreed. We'll hear from Mr. Milliken on clause-by-clause on Thursday.

As for other business, colleagues, you have in front of you a letter that I've received from the chairman of the liaison committee requesting a change in the Standing Order, from ten to seven. The reason is obvious. There have been very large problems with attendance. As I understand the request, the quorum number is too high, and we have been asked to approve a motion that the Standing Order be amended by deleting the word ``ten'' and substituting the word ``seven''. Does anybody wish to comment on that issue?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: How many members sit on the liaison committee in total?

[English]

The Chairman: It's 22.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: And you're suggesting a quorum of seven members to make decisions? Isn't that a little low?

[English]

The Chairman: The problem is, colleague, I've attended three, and I really wonder what decisions are taken at the liaison committee. In terms of substantive decisions, there isn't....

Perhaps Mr. Milliken might have something further to add. Peter, do you want to comment?

Mr. Milliken: Based on my experience, I don't think there are a lot of substantive decisions.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Milliken: It's usually budget matters.

.1135

The Chairman: There's a subcommittee for budget matters anyway. The liaison subcommittee's main focus is the budget. Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: It is moved that Standing Order 107(4) be amended by deleting the word ``ten'' and substituting the word ``seven'', and that the chairman present a report to the House.

Is there a question on the question?

Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, when I'm having a private conversation, I'd like my microphone to be shut.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, could this absence of quorum be indicative that there's perhaps not much interest in the liaison committee? If people are not interested, shouldn't we question the very existence of this committee?

[English]

The Chairman: I won't argue that point with you, Mr. Laurin, but as your chairman of this committee, I have attended faithfully.

Are we agreed on the change?

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Colleagues, the next matter on the order of business for today is a matter that was brought to us some time previously: that our committee recommend to the Board of Internal Economy the elimination of ``the reprinting of written questions in the order paper and the monthly supplement to the order paper'' after their appearance in the notice paper and ``that unanswered questions be updated on a daily basis and made available on PubNet''. Jamie or the clerk, do you want to report on that?

Mr. James R. Robertson (Committee Researcher): I believe the letter requesting this, dated February 8, 1996, from Mr. Marleau to this committee, was circulated to you by the clerk. A one-page submission that outlines the reasoning is attached to that, which I presume was originally prepared for the Board of Internal Economy. It's part of the ongoing attempt by the House to streamline, to keep costs down, to avoid duplication and to be environmentally sensitive.

The Chairman: The clerk has advised me that they've done wide consultation on this and that there's virtually no opposition to this change. Nonetheless, they still need the approval of this committee.

Mr. Milliken: I want to voice some opposition, Mr. Chairman. I'll agree to the motion, but I want it to be amended. One of the things we used to get when we agreed to this switch in the order papers, so they only had to print the private members' items that were drawn along the order of precedence, was that....

First of all, it used to be printed every day, so you got a complete list of all the private members' business that was available, whether it was drawn or not. Then they said we'd save a lot of money if we eliminated this wasteful printing and only printed the items in the order of precedence. They said we would publish the full list in the notice papers once a week, on Wednesdays.

We got that for a period of time and then they decided once a week was too often. It was cut out and they said it would only be printed on days when there was to be a draw - like today - so that when you went to the draw you had the whole list there and you could see what items were available. Now they've taken it out, so it isn't even printed on days of the draw. All we get is the status of House business, which lists the items there by summary and not in full text, as I recall.

I can only say that I really object to the fact that we aren't seeing this list at least once in a while. The list should include the questions. I've always been in favour of - and I've made the suggestion to the clerk - getting rid of the monthly supplement, but I've also suggested that once a month we publish the whole order paper with everything that used to be on it so members would have it as a reference tool on a monthly basis. You could look back -

The Chairman: So I understand you support this motion -

Mr. Milliken: Yes.

The Chairman: - but you have a comment regarding something other than this particular motion.

Mr. Milliken: It's part of the motion. If they're going to get rid of one of our publications they should improve the other so we have the material. It's great to have it on PubNet, but I think we should be able to have it in written form without having to print it ourselves. As I understand it, printing from PubNet is not the easiest....

The Chairman: I'll bring that to the clerk's attention when I report the wish of this committee.

.1140

Mr. Milliken: Why don't I move an amendment to the motion, that the order paper be published in full on a monthly basis.

I hope the words are clear, and that the intent is clear. I want everything published, not just the order of precedence items. That would include questions. It's a notice of motion for the production of papers and all that stuff.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Milliken.

On the question first, Mr. Langlois.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: On the amendment?

[English]

The Chairman: Fine.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I shall support the amendment. I think that getting it on paper once a month is not too much. If that support were to be found superfluous and unnecessary, then we could advise. It's useful to have a reference document, all the more so since we seem to be going towards a merger of PubNet and Internet. We'll be able to consult from our riding offices as to what's going on with the business of the House. So I support the amendment.

[English]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Frazer, please.

Mr. Frazer: With Mr. Milliken's approval, I would like to see his amendments require the printing of the document just after the latest draw so that the most recent information is available. Rather than saying once a month, let's go to the draws that are coming up so that after each private member's draw, there is then a reflection of what bills are in abeyance.

Mr. Milliken: Could I suggest that it be just before the draw? Because after it you get a change in the order paper anyway with the list of the items drawn.

Mr. Frazer: But before the draw, the ones that are in the draw are not incorporated. You have to wait until next time. What I would suggest is that if you do it after the draw, you'd be right up to date.

The Chairman: Mr. Frazer, the table's advising me that there is a problem.

Do you want to share your comments? I think that would be helpful.

The Clerk of the Committee: The draw is not necessarily done once a month.

Mr. Frazer: Exactly. I know.

Mr. Milliken: This includes the questions and everything. I think we should have it once a month.

The Chairman: I think monthly is helpful.

Mr. Frazer: Okay, I surrender.

The Chairman: Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I'm not familiar with all this technology, but PubNet is there, every day, updated. Is there any reason why I as a member can't get someone to say, look, give me a list out of that PubNet that's right up to date? Do I need somebody else to publish it for me monthly? I never use this thing anyway.

The Chairman: You just do this all by memory. I'm with you, Ray.

Mr. Speaker: I don't need all the paper. We're going to circulate it to 294 members; maybe 4 are going to use it, 1 for sure, and the other 290 go into the garbage.

My question is, can I go upstairs right now and ask someone who knows how to run that machine to give me a list off PubNet, and I can get it?

The Chairman: I'm pretty sure that's what the principle of PubNet is. Obviously it's on there and available to any member, and to a much wider group than just the members.

I think what we're attempting to eliminate is the supplement to the order paper questions. That's what the principle is. Mr. Milliken's amendment addition is for the order paper on a monthly basis.

Mr. Speaker: I usually agree with my good friend, but today I don't.

The Chairman: All right.

Colleagues, can I get your view on the amendment first? The amendment is that the order paper be published in full monthly.

Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Motion as amended agreed to

The Chairman: Mr. Milliken.

Mr. Milliken: Can I raise another matter in the same area? It's not on the agenda.

The Chairman: Can we go through the agenda, please? There are a couple of quick things we have to get to. Then we'll come back.

.1145

Mrs. Parrish, before we had a full quorum, had a matter we were agreeing to. The clerk advises me that before we agree to the extension we need unanimous consent to amend the motion we as a committee adopted on September 19. The unanimous motion we need approved is to delete the words ``not later than 45 days from the passage of the order'' to ``no later than December 12, 1996''. Could I have somebody move that, or do we all agree on that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: So we have unanimous agreement.

Secondly, we need a motion that the date for the report of the subcommittee reviewing private member's bills be extended from October 29 to a date not later than December 12.

An hon. member: I so move.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Finally, colleagues, we've received a letter from Mr. Langlois. I have a comment on the letter that may answer the concern he has raised or drawn to the attention of the committee.

Mr. Langlois, do you wish me to make that comment?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: Yes, because you'll be able to clarify something for me and everybody else at the same time. Last Thursday, I was listening to Mrs. Geneviève Rossier reporting on French CBC television, and on that occasion, the chief electoral officer, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, mentioned he had convinced the government to bring the length of the election campaign back from 47 to 36 days.

At first sight, this seems to be a change in direction for Elections Canada. As you know, during their representations to this committee, whose responsibility it is to look into election matters, his officials have always maintained, as far as I can personally remember, that decreasing the duration of the election campaign could only practically be done together with the drawing up of a permanent electoral list. Now, the Government Leader in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Mr. Herb Gray, is very clear: we do not have the time. We already knew that last spring.I was very surprised to hear Mr. Kingsley.

That's why before getting into anything else or before the legal people start writing up bills,I would like to hear Mr. Kingsley and the members of his team, Mr. Girard and Mr. Lesage on this matter. How come, all of a sudden, when we thought this proposal was being delayed until the next Parliament, Mr. Kingsley comes up with this new proposal like a Jack in the Box? That's why I'd like us to invite these people, maybe on Thursday, after we've dealt with Mr. Milliken's bill.

[English]

The Chairman: What I'm aware of is that like you, colleagues, I was surprised to read a newspaper report about Mr. Kingsley's visit. Only Mr. Kingsley can speak to a visit he claims he had with government officials. What I know is what I've read in the newspaper, that the government is considering a bill that would make changes in the electoral law. If the government does proceed with a bill, I believe it would be their intention to come to this committee after first reading. If a bill is drafted and if it does come to our committee, and if it comes after first reading, it would be their intention that the first witness would be Mr. Kingsley, because I think everyone accepts that it's a non-partisan issue. There was a commission, the Lortie commission of 1991, and Mr. Kingsley himself is an independent member, beyond partisanship.

I'm not defending Mr. Kingsley. I assume he had something he wished to say. Perhaps he jumped the gun himself. I don't know. I don't wish to comment. Mr. Kingsley will have to defend himself.

But as your chairman, I also am the parliamentary secretary to Mr. Gray, and what I've just said to you is what I believe to be the case. If there is a change in the electoral law, it would come to this committee, and it would be his intention to have the committee look at it after first reading. If cabinet makes that decision and Mr. Kingsley has other information, you may wish to call him yourself directly. But I don't think it would be appropriate at this time to call Mr. Kingsley before this committee if we have no matter to discuss with him.

.1150

Your suggestion is based on the CBC report, is it?

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I'm going by the words I heard and listened to three times before. I even copied down what Mr. Kingsley said about going to convince certain members of the government. In any case, according to the tradition of the 35th Parliament, Mr. Kingsley should have come back before this committee. That's what I'd personally like to hear him on.

Wasn't he telling us that we could not shorten the duration of the campaign without having a permanent list? He now seems to be dissociating those two things. What actually happened on his road to Damascus. I'd like us to be able to share this with him.

Secondly, one concern I have about a bill, even if you're telling me it should be sent back after first reading, is that in matters of legislation - and my colleague from Kingston and the Islands will correct me if I'm wrong - Parliamentary tradition or custom at the federal level are to the effect that Opposition parties are to be consulted before the writing starts. As critic from the Official Opposition, I was not consulted about any kind of re-writing of the Elections Act. I don't know if my colleagues from the Reform Party and their caucus coordinator, Mr. Strahl, were consulted but it seems to me there is something missing there which could be made right very easily within the context of an informal meeting.

I would suggest a meeting on Thursday because, as is commonly said, whatever you leave lying around just gets dirtier. I wouldn't want it to last too long. There seems to be a slight mix up that could be quickly corrected, with Elections Canada.

[English]

The Chairman: Mrs. Catterall, please.

Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): At our meeting when we discussed future business of the committee in the same context, Mr. Chair, we talked about the importance of doing a review of the outstanding recommendations from the Lortie commission. I don't know what work has been done to develop a work plan so we could get to that and the other things on our agenda, but it certainly seems to me that if we may be seized with legislation - and like both of you, I know what I've read in the papers - I would like to deal with that legislation in the context of outstanding recommendations from the Lortie commission and the work of the last Parliament on this issue. So I would urge that this committee fairly quickly proceed to meeting with Mr. Kingsley, not waiting for the legislation, to review his report to Parliament on that matter and to have that fairly well in hand before we receive any legislation.

The Chairman: Okay. From what I'm hearing, I think you're both saying the same thing.

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I would support that. We did have a presentation in the spring. As a committee, we should deal with those recommendations and make recommendations through to the House. We should do that very quickly. Our time line, as I would see it, is December 15, 1996 for any legislative changes. So I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that you put this on the agenda as quickly as possible and have Mr. Kingsley appear before us, with the idea in mind of this committee making recommendations - not just hearing and discussing but making a specific set of one, two, three, maybe five recommendations - through to Parliament, and that the legislation be dealt with this fall.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Strahl, please.

Mr. Strahl: I would agree with all that's been said. The only point I would make is that, for instance, I have a meeting with Mr. Kingsley on Friday because of this. I just said, what's going on; ideas are being floated in the press; that's the wrong way to go about changing your elections act. SoI have scheduled a meeting with him on Friday. If I know he's coming before the committee I'll cancel that. I don't have any particular bee in my bonnet over it, but we just can't let that go.

The Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Strahl: So I think Mr. Kingsley should come.

The other thing is if we look back to his testimony from last year, he said October was the deadline if we're going to get some changes in place for the next election. We may have until December, but we may not. We had better get some sense of panic on this if we want to change something for the next election.

The Chairman: Then, colleagues, as your chairman I will invite Mr. Kingsley for Thursday at 11 a.m.

.1155

If it's agreeable, I'd like to do clause-by-clause of Mr. Milliken's bill first, which would take us four or five minutes, presuming the amendment gets drafted and circulated to everyone in advance.

I don't know, Mr. Milliken. Is that going to be possible, or not?

Mr. Milliken: I don't know how long the circulation is going to be. I'm assuming we'll meet this afternoon, but if I don't get the draft until Thursday morning, it's not going to be ready.

The Chairman: Okay, but I don't want there to be more than one item that morning if it's not going to be fast.

Jamie, if you do some consultation prior to the meeting and everybody agrees on Bill C-270, we could then have a quick clause-by-clause at the very beginning. If not, the only item of business for Thursday's meeting will be Mr. Kingsley. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Dr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): I just want to be sure. Suggestions have been made about making recommendations after hearing Mr. Kingsley. Ms Catterall alluded to the review and examination of the Lortie commission recommendations. Can the chair clarify for the committee, or for me at least, what the exact focus of the appearance of Mr. Kingsley will be? Will he be the only witness on this particular examination of this particular subject?

The Chairman: Yes, and on a number of subjects that he has raised. He has spoken about it in the media, and I think the point Ms Catterall, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Langlois are trying to make, asI understand it, is, what's he talking about?

Is that right?

Mr. Speaker: Just to facilitate that meeting, could we maybe accommodate the comment here that you, Jack and a representative from each one of our groups get together and list what we think are the important items to be discussed from that report? Could you put together an agenda of the top three priorities, the next three priorities, and the next three priorities, with a total of about nine items on the list?

The Chairman: The chair has such a list anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Okay, good.

The Chairman: From previous meetings, there is a sort of hit list of issues that the Chief Electoral Officer had raised. I'll get Jamie to dig that out and circulate it to you in advance of the meeting.

Mr. Speaker: If you had agreement from us as to the order of importance, I think that might facilitate the meeting on Thursday.

The Chairman: Okay.

Are we adjourned?

Mr. Milliken: I had another matter that I wanted to bring up.

The Chairman: I'm sorry. We have other business.

Mr. Milliken: Mr. Chairman, I'm told that bound copies of Hansard will no longer be made available to members. After a hundred years it has been decided that it's too expensive to continue to do that. Starting with this Parliament we will no longer get a bound copy of the debates of the House. In addition, the debates of 1995 that are currently available on PubNet - and therefore, I believe, on the Internet, although I don't understand the interaction between those two because I don't pretend to be a computer expert - are about to be taken off.

The Chairman: They're just going to be wiped out or something.

Mr. Milliken: Yes, but I guess they'll be made available to people who want them in CD-ROM format. So if you can afford to buy a CD-ROM with the debates on it and a CD-ROM attachment for your computer and all of that stuff, then I guess you can look at the debates. Otherwise, these are going to be unavailable to us after they're erased, a move that is imminent.

I'd ask if the committee really thinks this is in the best interests of efficient use of our resources. The material has already been entered and is sitting there. Why is it not being kept there so that we will continue to have access to it, particularly for the life of this Parliament? I find it useful to go and look at some of the speeches my friends opposite have made from time to time in order to pick out follies - and there are lots of them - that I can quote in other speeches, but they won't be available if PubNet is wiped out.

An hon. member: Some of yours aren't to dazzling either.

Mr. Milliken: Yes, I know that members opposite like to go and look up my speeches for the same purpose.

To be fair, I think the reasonable thing here is to leave this material on, and I would suggest that we adopt a motion and send it to the clerk to tell him that he should leave it on, unless he wants to come in to defend the policy of removal.

The Chairman: As your chairman, could I make an inquiry into what the status of that is in order to find out if they are in fact operating under a decision made by the Board of Internal Economy or some other body more august than ours? I'll get you some information and ask the clerk, and then report back. Is that agreeable to everyone?

[Translation]

Mr. Bellehumeur (Berthier - Montcalm): What's the problem? I don't understand his problem.

.1200

[English]

The Chairman: It's the matter Mr. Milliken has just raised on the bound Hansard, the hard copies.

[Translation]

Mr. Langlois: I get a copy every morning. Are they going to stop printing it?

Mr. Bellehumeur: Why would you stop printing the bound copy of Hansard?

Mr. Milliken: To save money.

Mr. Bellehumeur: But there has been no decision.

Mr. Milliken: Yes, it was made by the board of internal economy.

Mr. Bellehumeur: Was that question examined here, in this committee?

[English]

The Chairman: We don't know. No. Look, Mr. Milliken has raised an issue. I'm going to check it out, and I'll advise you at the next meeting.

Mr. Milliken, have you a motion you wish to put, or is that satisfactory?

Mr. Milliken: I guess so, but I stress urgency. I don't know whether other members got it, but I received an e-mail from somebody - I have a name, but I don't know who he is - who says this is about to be wiped out. He wrote me that I shouldn't count on it being available after mid-October. So there's some urgency in this.

The Chairman: We'll get the information today and report back to you Thursday. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page

;