[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 26, 1995
.0904 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 104(1), 106(1), 106(2) and 116, the first order of business is to elect a Chair.
[English]
I am ready to receive motions to that affect.
Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden (Hamilton - Wentworth): I would be happy to move the name of Paul Zed as chairman of this committee.
The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. Bryden that Mr. Paul Zed take the chair of this committee. Is this agreed?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I declare Mr. Paul Zed duly elected and invite him to take the chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, colleagues, for that overwhelming endorsement.
Mr. White.
.0905
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): May I have the pleasure of nominating Mr. Gilmour as vice-chairman?
The Chairman: Okay, we can receive Mr. Gilmour's nomination for vice-chairman. Are there any further nominations?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare (Carleton - Gloucester): I would like to move the name of Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand, from the Official Opposition, as vice-chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. White, if it's okay with you, we will elect the government vice-chairman first and then we'll deal with the election of the opposition vice-chair. Mr. Bellemare and Mr. White, is that acceptable? We'll just stand that aside for just a moment and deal with the government vice-chair first. Is that all right with you?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Fine.
The Chairman: Great.
Mr. Bellemare, is that okay with you?
Mr. Bellemare: Yes, sir.
The Chairman: Colleagues, can we then receive a nomination for the vice-chairman.... In accordance with Standing Order 106(2), the committee will proceed to elect the two vice-chairmen, and I'm ready to receive motions to elect the vice-chair from the government.
Mr. Murray, please.
Mr. Murray (Lanark - Carleton): I would like to nominate Mr. Eugene Bellemare.
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
Mr. Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Chairman, now that we have elected a vice-chairman for the government, I would like to move the name of Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand, from the Official Opposition, as vice-chairman.
[English]
The Chairman: Actually, we have stood aside two motions, so if it's okay with you, I would like to put those back on the floor. We have Mr. White's nomination and we also haveMr. Bellemare's. One has nominated Mr. Marchand, and the other has nominated.... Who is your nomination?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Gilmour.
The Chairman: Colleagues, how do you wish to proceed on this? We'll take one motion at a time. We will start with Mr. White.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Chairman, it is not without precedent to have an open vote on the matter.
The Chairman: No, that's right.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): It seems reasonable.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Harris (Prince George - Bulkley Valley): Could we have a recorded vote,Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: Yes, we could do that, Mr. Harris.
I would recommend that we deal with Mr. White's motion first, and we'll do that by a recorded vote.
The motion has been moved by Mr. White that Mr. Gilmour be the vice-chair on the opposition side of the House. I would ask the clerk to record the vote, please.
Motion negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Colleagues, the next motion is from Mr. Bellemare, nominatingMr. Marchand as the vice-chairman. Are you ready to receive that? I assume you want a recorded vote as well.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Well, we know the outcome of this exercise, but we would like it recorded, please.
The Chairman: Thank you. I am used to dealing with the other committee, and we ended up going with a recorded vote a fair amount of time.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Congratulations, Mr. Marchand.
Colleagues, basically that concludes the order of business for today. I would like to invite you over the course of the next day or so to direct your minds to the kinds of issues that we are going to be considering over the next weeks.
.0910
I understand a draft report has been prepared on contracting, which is a matter of work that your committee has undergone for a number of months. It would be my suggestion that the report be produced forthwith, and I would ask the vice-chairman to have a look at that and perhaps prepare it for circulation and conclusion. I think it would be inappropriate for me to do that, since I wasn't sitting in on any of the hearings and didn't hear any of the evidence, and we should get that out as soon as possible.
So, Mr. Bellemare, would you be agreeable to taking that on, preparing the report and having it distributed so that colleagues could have a look at it?
Mr. Bellemare: With the assistance of staff? Gladly.
The Chairman: Great.
Colleagues, the other matter is the steering committee. Did you want to remind me who is on the steering committee, or do we need to reconstitute that, Madam Clerk?
The Clerk: I think we may need to reconstitute it. On the Reform side there has been a change. If the other ones want to stay it would be the same, but on the Reform side we had Mr. Epp, and he is no longer with us.
The Chairman: So what we basically have is Mr. Marchand and Mr. Bellemare, and we need....
The Clerk: Mr. Duhamel, you, and we need another Reform member.
Mr. Duhamel (St. Boniface): On a point of clarification, it may be appropriate for the chair to consult each party to see whether or not those members want to continue, whether or not he would like those members to continue, particularly those from his party. I say this sincerely. So perhaps the party could be consulted to see which member they want. For example, Mr. Marchand may or may not want to continue. So I would suggest it be done that way.
The Chairman: Okay, that's acceptable. I intend to call a steering committee meeting either late today or early tomorrow. So over the course of the next 24 hours, perhaps all the parties could advise the clerk as to who the members of the steering committee are going to be, in order for us to consider the kinds of directions we're going to find ourselves in as a committee.
I have had an opportunity, at least, to have a preliminary conversation with many of you. I believe there are some very serious issues we should be addressing over the course of the next three months. I know there is some outstanding work, as I said earlier, which Mr. Bellemare now has agreed to convene. But I do not see that as holding up our business.
I have asked the clerk to prepare for me a few items that we might consider and I'll be meeting with the researcher later. I'd like to have those issues put forward to the steering committee immediately, because there are a number of issues that I believe we would want to address. But it has to be a steering committee decision. I want it to be very much a consensus decision and I want it very much to be a team of parliamentarians who would look at an issue.
I'll give you my own view. As your chair, I don't foresee that we should be involved in long, protracted hearings. I would prefer to see us involved in matters that are quick and efficient and not protracted; in other words, projects that involve two or three weeks. I'll give you my prejudice. It tends to be a sort of SWAT operation, if you will, where we look at an issue and make a recommendation to the government. If there are new members to the committee, like me - I'm a new member obviously. I'm going to take advantage of some of the government operations departments that come under our responsibilities, and over the course of the next few days I will be meeting with assistant deputy ministers or deputy ministers who are involved in these areas. I would be happy to have any colleagues who are interested in getting briefed to come along.
.0915
It's more for a new member like me to become aware. I am not really sure who is and who is not new.
Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden: I wonder if there's an opportunity for each and every one of us to submit suggestions to the steering committee in the next day or two -
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Bryden: - and you might even consider perhaps a brief committee of the whole to discuss the various possible programs we might embark upon and then later the steering committee to meet to make the final decision. There are a number of projects some of us have discussed amongst ourselves that we would at least like to put on the table and that might be of interest to other members here.
The Chairman: Okay. I will consider that after Mr. Duhamel -
Mr. Duhamel: I have just a couple of points. While I have no particular difficulties with your point about protracted and other extensive hearings, I just want to throw in a bit of caution.
Sometimes that which occurs is, as you well know, a product of the questions we're studying. In principal, I guess, I like what you say, but at the same time the question or questions that are under study may necessitate considerable testimony.
The Chairman: I accept that.
Mr. Duhamel: The second point I want to make is that while I accept that there's one outstanding major project, perhaps in a moment the clerk could indicate to us whether or not there's more than that one outstanding. I honestly do not remember, I am sorry.
The other point - and perhaps you could just take it under consideration at this moment - is how often do we meet. This is important to me because I like to plan ahead. Some committees meet once a week. Personally, to put my bias on the table, I think that's a lot.
Finally, if there are any particular rules of operation that are going to be unique or different, we should probably talk about them so we do not get embroiled in some dysfunctional controversy. In other words, do you have any particular biases, and do others have biases, in terms of operations that we should probably sort out? I would appreciate that. I'd rather have the discussions now rather than later if we could avoid them.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Duhamel. I'll share with you my bias. Meetings that last longer than an hour tend not to be productive. I tend to have a lot of meetings - I may as well be candid with you - and the reason we have a lot of meetings is that in industry, which is the committee I was on previously, there was a series of projects under way. Having said that, I view committees as opportunities for the government to engage in certain activities that perhaps government departments aren't able to deal with. I come at it a little bit differently, perhaps, but it would certainly be my intention that if we move into the committee of the whole shortly and discuss some issues...if we have a project, that we have two or three meetings a week to deal with that project.
It's sort of like a two- or three-week project; we deal with the project, and we produce a report, and we make a recommendation. Whether it's involving Treasury Board, the Public Service, Government Services or whatever it is, it's going to be a matter of some interest. I don't see this as being the legend of sleepy hollow committee; I see this as an extremely important committee that's going to be active and proactive.
Mr. Duhamel: I think it was a reasonably effective committee. Every committee, like every member, could be better than it might have been, and we met once a week. So perhaps this is something we need to talk about.
The Chairman: Sure.
Mr. Duhamel: I do have other roles. I'm a parliamentary secretary, I'm a member of Parliament, and my riding is a long, long way away. I go home every weekend.
The Chairman: Sure, so do I, and so do a number of members.
Mr. Duhamel: I feel as strongly about one meeting a week as you do about several meetings a week.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden: I just can't resist adding a little to this debate as well.
I would like to see a bit more flexibility in the meetings than I saw hitherto. I'm not afraid of evening meetings, preferably early evening meetings. I think it's very important sometimes, when on a project, to have a number of meetings fairly close together to get the project off the table rather than having meetings extended over a long period of time.
.0920
So while I have great sympathy with what Mr. Duhamel is saying, on the other hand, I too have pressures. But I'd like to see things get off the table in this committee. I think this is a very important committee, indeed.
The Chairman: Let me say something in response to you, Mr. Duhamel. You asked me to tell you what was my predisposition. I'm giving it to you so it doesn't come as a surprise.
I don't relish long meetings and I don't relish many meetings, but the difficulty is that we are embarking on a new page. I think that, like me or not, you should take advantage of the fact that there is a new chair and there's an opportunity perhaps to take things in a different direction. I guess that's part of my prerogative, but it would be not only my prerogative coming from the top down; I would hope it would come as a consensus. That's why I put a lot of emphasis on the steering committee, and you'll have an opportunity at that time to participate.
Further, Mr. Duhamel, my tendency in running a committee is to keep it pretty flexible and to keep it very collegial. I see us working as a team of MPs, as I'm sure you do, and I tend to be a little less formal in enforcing the rules. But someone will tell you that I will enforce them if I need to. But I'd like to keep it in a free-for-all.
Yes, Mr. Marchand.
Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): I was just going to suggest that maybe we should look at the material that we have to examine in the steering committee, or the suggestions or topics we'll be dealing with, and those that are urgent we might be able to deal with in a certain number of committee meetings. But I think that would be the first item of our agenda.
The Chairman: Sure.
Mr. Marchand: Possibly we could wait a couple of days, in order to see what the subjects might be, to have a steering committee.
The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. White.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I may not agree often with Mr. Duhamel, but once a week is a lot for meetings.
But I just witnessed, Mr. Chairman, the democratic vote in here, and I am concerned about our role on this committee. If we are in fact here to discuss openly issues related to this ministry or this committee, then I do wonder ultimately how much our opinion really matters. I've seen it more than once on committees where basically it's just ``thank you very much for your opinion'' and away we go. If you want a team, if you want a consensus, if you want it from us, then I think we should keep open the fact that if it's going to be a democratic committee we want to be listened to. If we are shoved aside, then don't expect a democratic committee from this group. We're not going to participate in some kind of façade of a committee that is just a one-sided exercise.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. White.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): And I don't mean to be nasty about it.
The Chairman: No, no. Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris: I'm an associate member of this committee and I will be attending officially when numbers are short. I know I can't vote when I'm just visiting; I understand that. But I would like to ask if the minister has provided you with any opinions as to what issues he would like discussed by this committee in the near future. Second, is it possible that we may have the minister appear at this committee in a timely fashion?
The Chairman: It depends on which minister you're referring to. There are several who report to this committee: Marcel Massé, Art Eggleton, David Dingwall, to name a few who I can think of off the top of my head. We have an unusual committee in that we have two parliamentary secretaries. It's the only committee in the House of Commons, I believe.... Mr. Duhamel, you can correct me; you're much more procedurally oriented than I am. I'm just a country lawyer from New Brunswick.
.0925
Mr. Harris: Let me rephrase that, Mr. Chairman. I understand there's a formality that we have to go through in requesting that a minister appear, but my experience in the last committees I served on was that we never could get the ministers to our committees. Do you foresee any problem in getting ministers to this committee in a timely fashion?
The Chairman: No, not at all. I've never had problems getting any ministers to appear before any committee I've been involved with before, and I don't foresee one in this matter at all. In fact, as for Mr. Dingwall, Mr. Eggleton, and Mr. Massé, I've had conversations with all three of them. Their departments have been very forthcoming in terms of trying to bring me, as your chairman, up to speed, and that's why I made my offer at the beginning.
I concede that this is all new to me as well. It has certainly not been the focus of my energy since coming to Ottawa. It was in another direction.
Mr. White, in reply to you, I would rather start with a clean page and a clean committee in the sense that I think we have a responsibility to try at the very least to identify those issues. AsMr. Marchand says, and I agree with him 100%, it's difficult to know how we're all going to work with each other unless we get some of the issues on the table and identify those issues.
Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I was a member of the committee for a short six months - I was late coming to this committee - and I can say to my colleagues opposite that Mr. Epp contributed terrifically to the committee, in my opinion. It wasn't so much his opinions that mattered but the quality of his questions, which were always consistent and excellent.
I'd say further that we had testimony from Treasury Board officials here, for example, in May and June, and the quality of the information and the candidness with which these officials made presentations to this committee make me believe that this committee has the potential to do some of the best work of all the standing committees.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.
I know, Mr. Bryden, you had suggested going into committee of the whole. I think it's probably better in view of the time.... This is the organizing meeting, and I don't think colleagues had expected to be here much longer than a very short meeting, so I'll respect that.
What I would suggest is that over the course of the next day, if the Reform Party, the Bloc, and our own party could get some advice to our researcher, we'd very much appreciate it. I'd like to know who the members of the steering committee are going to be. What I would ask our researcher is...over the course of the next day or so we'll try to identify those issues, put them down on a piece of paper, and call a steering committee meeting.
Is that acceptable, colleagues? Are we agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: We're adjourned.