[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, May 18, 1995
.1110 
[Translation]
The Chairman: I see we have a quorum.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): A point of order, Mr. Chairman. As you are well aware, there were problems in the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons last night. My colleague, who is with us here today, Chuck Strahl from Fraser Valley East, felt his privileges were abridged and brought that concern to the Speaker. The Speaker mentioned in a lay ruling that perhaps this matter should be brought up in our committee.
I would like to raise the matter. As you know, there were discussions shortly after this committee was structured about changing the Standing Orders to allow bills to go to committee prior to second reading. As you are very aware, the purpose for that was to give greater powers to the committees, to amend bills, to have input into bills, and, in lieu of the greater time spent in committee, we would forgo a second reading debate.
In good faith, I think there was all-party agreement that we needed to strengthen the role of committees, that this is perhaps a way to allow the committee to have more input in the bill so they can actually get their fingers on these bills before they are approved in principle at second reading.
That was very clearly enunciated not only around this table but it was clearly communicated by everyone involved to anyone who would listen. All Canadians, if they were interested, were aware that was the purpose of the change to the Standing Orders.
Last night Standing Orders were suspended; democratically perhaps but certainly not in the spirit of the way these Standing Orders were put forward; democratically in that the majority of the members moved to suspend the Standing Orders.
.1115
I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if this change of the Standing Orders is a route to fast-track controversial bills like Bill C-64 through the House without proper debate.... We're limited to 180 minutes to deal with the motion to refer to committee. We have no second reading debate. If you only have a five-minute debate - all parties, per clause - that is absolute abuse of the Standing Orders. Somebody has read this terribly wrong. It's incumbent upon us to rectify the problem.
We're appealing to the Speaker. We're going to continue to appeal. We're going to take what action is necessary in committee to rectify this problem. But I would much rather do it in a cooperative spirit with your support and assistance than to fight over this matter with you kicking and screaming and delaying cooperation.
What I'm saying to you, Peter, is we want to see this thing fixed, and we'll work together if you are willing to cooperate and see it fixed. But if you're going to pooh-pooh this whole issue and say that just because we didn't get our way last night, etc., we're going to make life difficult for you because we have to in order to respect the process of the House, to have honest and forthcoming debate on the issues. We can't just ram bills through clause by clause in five minutes when we refer these bills to committee. We shouldn't do that even if the committee deals with bills after second reading. You know that very well, Peter. Certainly, to do that when the bills go to committee before second reading is abusive, it's immoral, and I think it's incumbent upon this committee to rectify the problem.
I'm very serious about this, as you can tell, and I expect some cooperation from the government side.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Mr. Chairman, first of all, this morning the Speaker did say that this issue, if it is to be dealt with again by the House, would only be dealt with once a report is made to the House.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, as you know, when this committee deals with privilege, it does so after the Speaker has ruled that there was a prima facie case of privilege. That's the first test. The second is after a motion by a member of the House, duly carried by a majority of the members of the House, has referred this issue to this committee.
If we were to study an issue that has now been invoked before the Speaker, before the Speaker has ruled on it, we are usurping the Speaker's role. It would be clearly wrong, and I am sure the people who advise our colleagues across the way know this. It's a long-established principle.
The Speaker hasn't ruled that there is a case of privilege. He has even said that if he does rule that, it would only be later. The other tests have to be applied and there are two of them. One, the member invoking a case of privilege has to say that if the Speaker rules that there is a prima facie case, he is prepared to move the requisite motion. If the Speaker does rule that, the person moves the motion, the House carries it, and it is then referred to this committee.
The members can check all the jurisprudence they like. They will find that there is no other case in which this kind of thing is brought to this committee other than the one I've just described.
Mr. Lee (Scarborough - Rouge River): I've very sensitive to the issue raised by Mr. Hermanson. If I thought there was a material defect in the process carried on at that particular committee, either in letter or spirit, I would want to see some segment of the House leadership take steps to redress the problem at that particular committee and also to make sure it didn't happen again.
The procedure using a privilege motion is one tool available to an individual MP in addressing material problems that affect his or her ability to do their work. But it is only one tool. I gather the matter has been put into the hands of the Speaker for a ruling.
.1120
If that's the case, I don't think this particular committee should do something that would prejudge the ruling of the Speaker. Having said that, that doesn't mean I don't think it's a very serious issue. I'm not even sure that privilege is the vehicle that should be used, but having embarked on that road -
The Chairman: I think I can clarify things here, a little. The position is that a question of privilege was raised in the House this morning and the Speaker ruled that there was no question of privilege at that time. He said it was possible that one could be raised when the committee in question reports to the House but not before, and that's the Speaker's ruling.
I think Mr. Boudria's argument that this committee cannot deal with a question of privilege until it has come here is correct. We have no authority to go into investigations of our own on questions of privilege.
Mr. Hermanson is suggesting possibly some other remedy, and there is another available, and that is for this committee to consider recommending to the House changes in the rules of the House. I don't think this is the moment to embark on that study. It's not on our agenda today. I'll be happy to hear future suggestions for such changes. We're always open to those ideas, and we're in a position to make such recommendations to the House should that be necessary.
I don't know whether this committee has or has not finished its work on all of the facts in this case - having just heard about it this morning at 10 o'clock, because I wasn't here at midnight last night - and I think the sensible thing for us to do here is to note the objections that Mr. Hermanson has raised.
I'm sure the whip will work with Mr. Hermanson and that the House leader's office will work to try to resolve the matter in that committee. But this committee cannot interfere in the work of another committee; we have no authority to do that. So I think the sensible thing to do today is to note the objection and move on to the order of business we have before us.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I would like a chance to respond. I guess that's all well and good if proper procedure is being undertaken in committee, but the rules are not being followed in the committee, so what meaning does the report have? Sure, this thing will be reported back, but the Speaker doesn't have the evidence from the report to rule properly on this case. There are clauses being passed without votes. This is an immediate and very serious problem.
The Chairman: But we can't interfere in the work of another committee; we have no power to do that. This committee has no more power than any other standing committee of the House.
The point the Speaker was making, I think - and I don't want to put words into his mouth - is that if there is a defect in the proceedings of the committee, the time to raise it is at the time the committee reports to the House.
Mr. Hermanson: But how does he know there's been a defect when the report itself will be defective? The rules were not followed.
The Chairman: The committee tables with its report all its proceedings and so those proceedings then become evidence before the House. The Speaker can look at the proceedings and hear submissions from hon. members, and if he concludes that the proceedings of the committee are irregular or improper then I presume he can make rulings in respect of what may or may not have gone on.
Mr. Hermanson: In the meantime, we've lost all confidence not only in that committee but in the whole referral of bills to committee prior to second reading. In the meantime, we will have to have our guard up and try to block every effort of this government until we have this rectified. That's why I'm appealing to you to work cooperatively with me.
I would like to move that the committee undertake a full and comprehensive review of the procedure of sending bills to committee before second reading; that it review the terms of Standing Order 73; that it draft guidelines outlining specific conditions by which legislation would be eligible for such a procedure; that it draft terms of conditions for the eligibility of moving amendments on such legislation; and that it report back to the House no later than June 16, 1995.
The Chairman: That sounds like a motion for the House, doesn't it?
Mr. Hermanson: That's a motion for the committee. I said ``this committee undertake a full and comprehensive review''.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): All I know is that at our committee last night you couldn't have submitted that because it is only in one language. That's how ridiculous it is in that committee. You couldn't do that.
The Chairman: Order. Mr. Silye.
Mr. Silye (Calgary Centre): Mr. Boudria, you are very familiar with the rules and I respect that. So tell me, through the chair.... The chairmen of standing committees operate differently; it seems as though they all have their own way.
.1125
I thought there was a set of rules.
For instance, today I attended a meeting of the finance committee where we were discussing a very important bill. We have a serious difference of opinion with the government. The chairman allowed the Bloc member and the Reform members to make their points. There was no time limit. The Bloc member spoke for half an hour and I spoke for 15 minutes, until we hashed out that point. There was no ``we're going to go through this clause by clause'', and it was great. I've attended meetings of the official languages committee, which has a different set of rules: five minutes, five minutes, then cut you off. Last night a new set of rules were introduced that allowed five minutes for each clause, including the time it takes to read the clause. If you want full debate and some input, that just doesn't make sense, Mr. Boudria.
Why don't all the chairmen of the standing committees have to follow the same set of rules? Mr. Milliken runs this committee on a more democratic basis, and so does Mr. Peterson. However, some government members who are chairmen don't. They just ram it through with great glee.
I was on the aboriginal affairs committee. We tried to make some points on how that was run. There was a lot of abuse of privileges and rights and just ramming down stuff.
If it's all about debate and expressing a different point of view, why throw these stupid rules at us? This is just a common sense thing. What can we do here to get proper respect for our point of view in a committee?
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): Mr. Chairman, listening to the Speaker this morning, it was very evident he suggested that committees must have the latitude to be responsible for their own direction. I think that is a very important part of our committee work.
Although the chair chairs meetings, he does not dictate the rules to the committee. The committee itself works with the chair on the rules it sees as a democratic means by which the committee can operate.
This committee is democratic. We are members here. We all have the opportunity to voice our opinions, express our ideas, and present points. Each committee has the opportunity to formulate some guidelines by which they operate.
I've sat, as you say, Jim, on many different committees, and each committee does decide most often the direction in which they're going to go. There were very different styles of chairmanship, but in fact the committee does decide by a democratic vote how they proceed through operations.
I'll give an example. An extremely different approach was that of Don Blenkarn in the previous Parliament. He was extremely open and probably the most democratic of democratic chairs. On the other hand, I've seen people be very restricted to the amount of time. The committee members decide that so that everybody has an opportunity to speak.
I think that in fact rules are structured so that committees can operate, and the committee itself has that opportunity. If we start restricting every committee to one set of rules that is not applicable or functional for the process, I think we may be infringing upon the rights of members of Parliament a lot more.
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): I think we're wandering a good deal in the discussion. Therefore, if I could resume the points, it might help establish what we can and cannot do.
The position you took, Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, was that a point of privilege was raised within another committee. However, having been raised in the House as the plenary committee of committees, it is now before the House. It would not be competent for this committee to rule on a point of privilege in another committee that is now before the House as a whole. This committee has obviously inherent rights to rule as to privilege within the committee itself until or unless that is pre-empted by a reference to the House as a whole. The matter being discussed this morning, as I understand it, doesn't relate to privilege within this committee.
.1130
However, the motion as moved by Mr. Hermanson would seem to me as a general motion to be within the competence of this committee, but it should obviously be determined in relation to the agenda and priorities of this committee to be established. I think, Mr. Hermanson, that would resume the situation.
Mr. Hermanson: I agree with you, Mr. McWhinney, if I may just respond to him. I know I'm taking time, but this is my motion and I would like a chance -
The Chairman: You'll get a chance to respond, Mr. Hermanson, in due course.
Mr. Boudria: First of all, I don't want to comment about the point that's before the House.
The Chairman: We're debating Mr. Hermanson's motion.
Mr. Boudria: Precisely. But I just want to preface my remarks by adding that, because I certainly don't want to be in contempt of Mr. Speaker. It's important to ensure that nothing we do refers to the decisions of another committee last night, because that issue is before Mr. Speaker right now. It could come back before Mr. Speaker at the time the report is tabled.
The rules under which we operate right now have allowed much latitude in committee. That wasn't always the case. I remember a period in the past where the committees operated under stricter rules. For instance, a committee could only deal with an issue that was referred to it by the House.
We softened up those rules in the last Parliament. Perhaps it was even the Parliament before that. We did so at the time because it was felt that the committees should be masters of their own business and that we could undertake studies of our own in committee, which we've done.
In the last Parliament we undertook studies of credit card interest rates and all kinds of other things. In the present Parliament a subcommittee of the agriculture committee is studying grain transportation. Other committees are doing studies of their own. The foreign affairs committee has a subcommittee just in the process of being struck that will deal with international human rights and so on.
None of this would have been possible only a few years ago. All of these things are possible because we changed the rules of the House to make committees masters of their own business. Did we go too far in making committees masters of their own business? I don't know the answer.
The House itself could change the rules under which committees of Parliament operate. There's no doubt the House has that authority.
However, what we decide in this committee does not in itself change those rules. Our power, Mr. Chairman, is to propose rule changes to the House and, as all members know, shortly after our reports are tabled in the House we move that a particular report be concurred in. The purpose of that is to give effect to those proposals that we as a committee make to the House.
There are two things that concern me in the motion we have before us this morning. The first one is the date. Assuming we want to do this, and that's debatable, we are to report back to the House no later than June 16.
We have a piece of legislation before us. I don't know how long we want to study this; presumably not too long. I think everything has been said on the bill, but anyway we'll deal with that in a few minutes.
Assuming we don't take too long to deal with Bill C-85, I suppose it would leave some time at the end to deal with other issues. We could draft guidelines and table those in the House. The House could then decide, if it is the House's wish, to circulate those to essentially all members, because except for independent MPs we're all members of committees in one capacity or another.
However, we have to recognize it's a two-edged sword. If we make it such that in every committee the rotation of speakers is going to be five or ten minutes or something like that or some other rules for committees will be hard and fast as they are in the House, we lose some of the flexibility that Mr. Silye was complimenting only a moment ago. So no matter how you do it, it isn't win-win. You win on one side and there is a potential loss on another. So we have to think about that if we undertake the study that is proposed in the motion.
.1135
There's a third condition of the motion, and that is to undertake a full and comprehensive review of the procedure of sending bills to committee before second reading.
Mr. Chairman, with respect, maybe some of these things are a good idea. However, to undertake a full and comprehensive review of the procedure of sending bills to committee before second reading, to review the terms of Standing Order 73, to draft guidelines for the committees that will invoke that procedure under 73 and outline conditions for the eligibility of moving amendments, to do all that plus Bill C-85 and have it returned to the House by June 16 - the people who moved this surely will know that some of this isn't realistic.
Maybe we could undertake to review the procedure by which we move amendments or propose guidelines to the House on how committees are to function. I think that has merit. But to do everything that's in there before June 16 is pie in the sky. It's not going to happen. When would it happen?
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): I just wanted to speak in favour of this motion for a couple of minutes and to make a couple of points.
First of all, in his ruling it's my understanding that the chair did mention that we may wish to bring this matter before this committee on procedure and House affairs, particularly in reference to Mr. Strahl's comments about the problems we're having with those committees where legislation has been sent to them before second reading. That's exactly what the motion is doing.
I would also comment on what Mr. Pickard said about the fact that we have the rules. It's true the rules vary a great deal from committee to committee, and all of us who have been on a number of committees know that. Most of the time that's a welcome thing, because my experience has been that those wide variations in practices, not really in rules, are in fact usually established by consensus of all the parties. That's how those practices come about.
That's very different, I think, from the issue of a committee of the House being able to violate or ignore the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. I think that's really what the concern is here. You and I both know, Mr. Chairman, that in the past this has always been the issue when there have been these cases of abuse. It's not merely the conventions of a committee but a question of the violation of the Standing Orders of the House.
My observation of various Speakers has been that even in the most extreme cases of abuse they have been very reluctant to involve themselves in the affairs of the committee for various reasons, which we understand. In the face of that reluctance by the Speaker, there has always been a complete breakdown of authority when you have serious violations of the Standing Orders within a House committee.
It seems to me that this committee is in fact the one we would properly refer this motion to and that we would examine this particular question and maybe even more generally the question of what we do about this kind of case where you have violations of the Standing Orders of the House within a committee, and there seems to be no effective, immediate authority to deal with that in a way that is objective or satisfactory to all the parties.
Those are my comments.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, do you wish to reply?
Mr. Hermanson: Yes, there are a couple of things I want to say.
I would agree to amend this motion to report back to the House in the fall if you call your dogs off until the end of the session, the end of June.
.1140
We can't function in this environment. This is an immediate problem. How would we say ``let's deal with this in the fall'' and meanwhile you run roughshod over us in the next four weeks? That's absolutely not fair.
The committees are to be masters of their own destiny somewhat, but masters is not the same as taskmasters. You can't take away the freedom of speech and right to speak of fully authorized members. You can't take away the right even to speak to a clause because five minutes has expired and it hasn't come around to your turn yet. Our party couldn't even speak to some of these clauses, and these clauses were a whole page.
This is an immediate problem. Yes, we'll wait for the Speaker to make some ruling when a report comes back. Meanwhile, two or three weeks of this type of abusive action takes place. We can't allow that.
So as I said, we'll throw roadblocks in your way. No more unanimous consent, Peter. I mean business.
The Chairman: I hear what you're saying. However, you have to recognize that this committee cannot take action in respect of another committee. The most we could do, the very most we could do, is do the study that you have suggested and make recommendations to the House.
Mr. Hermanson: But there had better be a change of attitude in the interim or there won't be cooperation.
The Chairman: Yes, but this committee can't force a change of attitude.
Mr. Hermanson: Yes, but the members sitting around this table can force a change of attitude.
The Chairman: You're making your submissions. As I say, they've been heard. I think we should move on to another topic.
Mr. Hermanson: I'd like some kind of a reasonable understanding that we're going to see some change or I'm not prepared to go on.
The Chairman: Fine. I'm not going to sit here and force you to go on. I don't care. We'll deal with the business of the committee, and I will force it on to the business of the committee. This is not the business of the committee on the schedule today. I'm prepared to deal with this motion now, if you wish.
Mr. Strahl: Could I speak to it, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Boudria's reluctance to deal with the question of privilege, although it may or may not be dealt with by the Speaker, of course, depending on -
The Chairman: The Speaker has dealt with it, Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: Yes, right, but the report may or may not deal with it. So in that sense, time will tell.
The concern I have - and I really do think it's a concern for all members - is that although I agree with Mr. Harper that committees need a certain amount of flexibility, depending on the topic, depending on the type of members and so on, they need the freedom to set many of their own parameters.
If the freedom is extended to the point, for example, where members are not allowed to speak to motions, where members are not allowed to make motions - not just amendments, but I'm talking about motions - if you are not allowed to present an amendment in committee, if clauses are passed without votes, as happened last night - just saying I don't care, I'm not even going to vote on it then, next clause and move on - how far do you let it go before somebody must step in and say there is a serious breach of privilege?
I realize we allow freedom, but if the freedom is extended to the extent, for example, where we refuse on this committee to hear anything from any opposition members, all those in favour, the committee is now master of that and they pass that, how far do you extend that, Peter? If you're not allowed to speak, then what is the point of an opposition party? If you have no rights to speak, men and women, what can I do? What can anyone do?
The Chairman: You need to bear in mind that in any parliamentary debate there are rules that allow a majority to put an end to the debate.
Now, having said that, I don't wish to comment on the specifics of this case. I don't know the details, aside from what I've heard, but I think if we want to consider this motion we can consider it, but we should wrap this up.
Mr. Pickard: I too may have some concern about one procedure you raised, but I see it as a reasonable mistake if it did happen. If the chairman passed something without a vote at the table, I think in the heat of the way you describe things going on, he might have been anxious to shut things down and possibly then he didn't realize the vote hadn't been taken. That's a possibility. You've seen that happen in different meetings and they'll come back and hopefully deal with that properly.
The point here though - and I think it is a clear indication of cooperation and work within a committee - is I understand there were some large packages of amendments submitted. Some members of the committee had difficulty reading them, and I think that's quite understandable.
.1145
The Chairman: I think we're going back into the merits of what has happened in this committee. That is not our -
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that there are some things that probably should be looked at, and I think the motion coming forward can look at some of those issues. However, I think the motion being presented to us is extremely restrictive time-wise. I'm not sure of a deadline. I don't know what the agenda of this committee is.
The Chairman: That's what we're here to discuss. But we can -
Mr. Pickard: Right. Secondly, I have some concern about getting too restrictive as well, and I guess that will come in the debate of this committee. I have not heard a complaint by any Reform members, Bloc members or Liberals on the committees that I sat on about procedure and restrictions and so on. I think things have gone very well.
Should we use one instance to change the direction or try to change the direction of everything, or is there some other reason behind it?
The Chairman: I'll read the motion to the committee. Can I suggest we vote on it? The committee can always extend the date in the motion since it's not a House motion. It is a committee motion. So if at a subsequent meeting we can't complete the work by June 16, we can always extend the date.
Mr. Hermanson moves that the committee undertake a full and comprehensive review of the procedure of sending bills to committee before second reading; that it review the terms of Standing Order 73; that it draft guidelines outlining specific conditions by which legislation would be eligible for such a procedure; that it draft terms of conditions for the eligibility of moving amendments on such legislation; and that it report back to the House no later than June 16, 1995.
Is the committee ready for the question?
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I'd move that we amend that to June 22, because this really has to be dealt with in this session.
The Chairman: You can't amend your own motion. But is the committee agreeable to changing the date to June 22?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Hermanson: If we don't see some action on this today, you're going to be -
The Chairman: We're not going to embark on the review today.
Mr. Boudria: We're not going to vote on this based on the amount of idle threats that you make in here. We're going to vote for or against this because it's a good or a dumb idea and for no other reason.
The Chairman: Order, please. Can we deal with this motion now?
Mr. Pickard: Could I move an amendment to that? Mr. Hermanson opened up and said he would be receptive to suggesting the fall. I do think that we have an agenda in this committee, and that's very short order if we look at one month to try to deal with this thing. It may be a major issue to look at if we're looking at it seriously. I would amend that we move it to a fall report back.
The Chairman: Can I ask this? Can we wait and see how things go? We can change this on our own volition. The committee can change it on June 21 if it wants. This isn't a House order. So we don't have to go anywhere else. Can we leave it this way and then see how we're doing? If we're not able to report, we'll defer. Is that satisfactory?
Mr. Pickard: I would still like to leave my amendment on the books. The reason is that we could very well end up in a situation where we as a committee will be accused of prolonging and putting off the direction in which we're going. Quite frankly, I think the fall was suggested by Mr. Hermanson. I think he said it would be acceptable. So I would ask for that.
The Chairman: Let's put the question on the amendment then. The question is on the amendment that it read the fall, à l'automne, 1995.
All those in favour of the amendment?
Mr. Hermanson: At least set a date. The fall is not good enough. How about September 20?
The Chairman: That's the amendment that was moved.
Mr. McWhinney: You're objecting to the vagueness?
Mr. Hermanson: Yes.
Mr. Pickard: December 1.
Mr. McWhinney: September 21? Thanksgiving Day.
Mr. Pickard: We're all debating on dates.
Mr. McWhinney: The referendum date, October 15.
Mr. Pickard: I'll submit October 15.
The Chairman: Are members agreed on October 15?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, it's just that the motion itself is somewhat restrictive, and I invite colleagues to think about it a little bit. We will be drafting guidelines for the conditions by which legislation will be eligible for such a procedure, and the procedure, I gather then, is only the procedure regarding -
Mr. Hermanson: Standing Order 73.
Mr. Boudria: - sending bills to committee before second reading. Whatever we do then does not apply to how committees operate in dealing with legislation sent to committee after second reading. Am I correct? Did you want it that restrictive?
.1150
Mr. Hermanson: You can broaden it if you like, Don.
Mr. Boudria: I'm just trying to get the sense, because if we're going to do this, why don't we do it right? If it isn't quite what we're looking for -
The Chairman: Order, please.
We don't have to adopt a motion to embark on this study. We can do studies on the rules as a permanent reference to the committee. This motion is specific on one item. We can add to it to our heart's desire.
Is there agreement on a date? Is October 15 agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motion as amended agreed to
Mr. Hermanson: I also move a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we strike a subcommittee to look into this matter immediately and that it be an all-party subcommittee with at least four members.
I'm speaking specifically of the case in the committee last night and that type of situation.
The Chairman: Just a second, Mr. Hermanson. This committee cannot investigate the matters of another committee. We can do what you said in your motion. We can review the rules. We cannot look into the matters of another committee. That is not our mandate. I have made that very clear.
Mr. Hermanson: Then I move that we strike a subcommittee to initially launch this study and that all parties be represented.
The Chairman: How many members?
Mr. McWhinney: Four.
The Chairman: Is that agreed? Who are the members to be?
Mr. McWhinney: That's a later issue. I think that's a subsequent issue for the committee. I approve the idea of a subcommittee. We could vote on that then.
Mr. Boudria: I wonder if Mr. Hermanson would consider doing that at the next meeting. We could delegate people within our own party to do it.
The Chairman: Maybe the striking committee should meet and -
Mr. Hermanson: I agree with that because it gives us an opportunity to see whether there's a change of heart.
The Chairman: I think the striking committee could come up with names for the next meeting. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Can I bring in a new topic before you embark on that study? Again, it is about changes to the rules.
It has come to my attention - and I just want to refer this to the committee and circulate a copy of the letter - from the Deputy Principal Clerk that there's a mistake in our Standing Orders. There's a redundant part in our Standing Orders that affects all parties. It's on private members' bills.
If we're doing a private member's bill at report stage or third reading, we can't do it on Fridays or Mondays. There's a specific rule that says you can't do report stage or third reading of a private member's bill on Fridays or Mondays. That's a leftover from the time when we had votes on Fridays and you couldn't defer a vote. Of course, now there's a rule where you can defer a vote until the next day.
There's a second rule where you can even defer private members' votes with the agreement of the three party whips and the proposer of the motion. I think Mr. Silye would recall when we put that rule in place.
There's a third rule, of course, by which we do take votes on Monday, and in any case you could defer it to the next day if you didn't want to do that. So that's a leftover from that period.
I have a letter that was sent to me by the Deputy Principal Clerk. I would like to make a copy for every member of the committee and perhaps ask our staff to prepare whatever draft standing order change is required. We could review that at a future meeting. It's just to refer it. I'm not asking you to pass it today but to get this prepared for the future.
Mr. Hermanson: Does that mean there are some votes that have been taken have been in contravention of the Standing Orders?
Mr. Boudria: There have been no report stage and third reading votes taken on Friday. That would be out of order.
The Chairman: There haven't been any -
Mr. Boudria: What happens is that the clerk of the private members' bills.... For instance, say you, Mr. Hermanson, would have a private member's bill ready for report stage and third reading on a Friday and Mr. Silye couldn't appear that day. He would want to switch. The clerk would tell you that you can't because we can't schedule your bill to be debated on a Friday because it's at third reading stage and it's against the rules.
It's a vestige of an old rule, which had a use at one time. When we amended the Standing Orders we didn't get rid of it. That's the explanation given.
.1155
Mr. Hermanson: What do you want to do with it?
The Chairman: We want to have someone draft it.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, we want to have someone draft the amendment and then we'll consider the amendment at a future meeting. I'm not asking us to vote on it today. You want to think about this and have your staff review it. It applies to all parties.
Mr. Lee: The whips are looking after private members. It's very good. It's commendable.
The Chairman: Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: It's agreed. Mr. Robertson will arrange for the drafting with the clerk.
Mr. Boudria: I'd like every....
Mr. Lee: It's not a trick.
The Chairman: We are now at the business of the committee. We'll get to the agenda items.
The committee has before it Bill C-85, An Act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of certain provisions.
Are there suggested witnesses members of this committee wish to hear on this subject? At a subcommittee steering committee meeting last week, I received a list from Mr. Hermanson. I'm wondering if members have other names to add or views on which of these persons on this list, if any, should be heard. Of course, there is a letter-writing campaign asking us to have cross-country hearings.
Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, does the government have a list of its own to suggest at the moment, other than the minister? I assume the minister would be called.
The Chairman: I'm assuming committee members want to hear from the minister. It's his bill. Yes, he will be our first witness.
Mr. Harper: Other than the list submitted from the Reform Party, is the government submitting its own list of witnesses or not?
Mr. Boudria: Maybe I can throw out an idea for one government witness here. I don't know if it's government, but I am a member who is a supporter of the government. The committee that did the report on members' allowances and benefits in the past - and I understand there have been two such committees....
The Chairman: Yes, there was a formal commission under the Parliament of Canada Act. The report is here and I think we've got copies for members.
Mr. Boudria: That's what we call the Lapointe Commission.
The Chairman: We have the other one too.
Mr. Boudria: The other one is the Sobeco Ernst & Young report. This was the so-called independent study that was done. I shouldn't say so-called. It is an independent study done by a very reputable firm.
This is the report initiated by the previous government to review parliamentarians' compensation. It was submitted to the President of the Treasury Board and then offered to the House. By the time it was offered to the House, our Parliament had changed.
Perhaps those would be two good witnesses to hear. One of them is an all-party group, and the other is an independent accounting firm of some repute. I think those two would be very good. This is a government recommendation, but it's something I would support.
The Chairman: What's the name of the firm that did the report, Mr. Boudria?
Mr. Boudria: The name is Sobeco Ernst & Young.
Mr. Harper: Was that the Montreal branch?
Mr. Boudria: I don't know.
Mr. Harper: I certainly have no objection. Are you recommending someone specific?
Mr. Boudria: I don't know who did the report. Let's look at it and see who the author is. I'm told Mr. Martel and Mr. Pouliot are the co-authors of this document. We could ask either Philippe Martel or Yvan Pouliot, if they're still with that firm. If not, we could ask one of them and whoever else does that kind of work at the firm now.
The Lapointe Commission is the one composed of two former members of Parliament and a professor, I believe. It was done under our rules after every election.
.1200
So we have a gentleman by the name of Professor Franks; Mrs. Jean Pigott, who I believe represented the Conservative Party at that point; and the Hon. Charles Lapointe, who was representing the Liberal Party. So Mr. Lapointe, Mrs. Pigott and Professor Franks - I don't know which of the three possibly are still living.
The Chairman: Maybe all three are still around. The researchers prepared summaries of each of these, which we'll distribute to members of the committee.
Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, you have received the list. I don't know what knowledge the committee has. Do you want me to go through that list?
The Chairman: Okay. Do you want to start? How are we going to do this? Is everyone agreed that we call these two groups as witnesses? So we've got the minister and Sobeco Ernst & Young and the commission on members' salaries, I'll call it; I'm not sure of the full name of the commission. Okay? All right.
Now, are there proposals then for other witnesses? Is that what you're going to put forward?
Mr. Harper: Yes. First of all, let me start with I think the fairly obvious interest groups in this matter. The two that come to mind are: the National Citizens' Coalition - the president, Mr. Somerville, has made a great public issue out of this and may or may not want to attend, but I think he should be considered - and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, based in Edmonton. This is Mr. Jason Kenney's organization, which also does considerable work on this issue.
The Chairman: He hasn't personally written to me, but Mitchel Gray, the national research director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, has written asking to appear.
Mr. Harper: As you say, Mr. Chairman, I'm not cognizant of whether the National Citizens' Coalition wishes to appear, but I think they should be invited.
The Chairman: Are there any views on that issue members wish to make?
Mr. Boudria: I have no great interest in listening to Mr. Somerville. That is not a citizens' coalition. It is not an interest group. It is a business. It is a business owned by one man and he puts ads in the newspapers decrying something or other and asks people to send him money. So if we listen to him, why don't we listen to the guy who owns some other fund-raising scheme someplace else in Canada? What makes his fund-raising scheme more meritorious than anyone else's fund-raising scheme? I don't know whether he wants to appear or not, but I'm not too enamoured at the thought of inviting him. The only thing that does is it gives him a greater opportunity to do more fund-raising on the backs of other people.
Mr. Harper: We'll get to that.
Mr. Boudria: He has no membership, no members.
Mr. Harper: That's not correct at all, Mr. Boudria, because I'm a member, for example, and many people are.
Mr. Boudria: Well, ask him to provide you with a membership list.
Miss Grey (Beaver River): Perhaps you could ask him to the committee here, Don, and then you could ask him those questions.
Mr. Harper: I think it is habitual for committees to invite as witnesses on bills organizations or individuals who are politically active on those matters. I don't think we want to get in here.... If the truth be known, I've agreed to the Sobeco firm. I don't particularly agree with a lot of their recommendations, but I don't think we want to select people just based on whether we do or do not agree with them. We want to have them, to hear what they have to say, and to decide whether what they have to say does or does not have merit. So I would suggest that's the light in which we should look at these witnesses.
Mr. Pickard: If we want to see if they have merit then I think maybe we should and ask what expertise Mr. Somerville has, what studies he's done, outside of being a fund-raiser. I know he has run newspaper ads. I know he has asked people to send in money. That seems to be his method of going, but I have seen no empirical studies or evidence of studies from Mr. Somerville.
.1205
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Plamondon.
Mr. Plamondon (Richelieu): If we are to hear witnesses, they should be credible, that is to say people who will come here to discuss the issue objectively, and who are not involved in campaigns for this or that without knowing exactly the substance of the issue at hand.
For that reason, I think that to hear the minister - we'll see what he has to say, if he is agreeable to amendments - , and that's all right; to hear people who have done a comprehensive study of parliamentarians' compensation, that's all right; to hear people who have done an independent study, that's all right; also to hear those who asked to appear - you say it's a reputable coalition - that's all right; but to hear every complaint on the street, I'm less interested.
I would rather add some more to the list. For instance, in Manitoba, pensions were abolished and replaced by a collective RRSP. What is this exactly and how does it work? So I would like to have someone from Manitoba explain to us how they changed their system.
What is the vision of people from Alberta who also envisaged the abolition of their pension scheme and, for instance, thought of replacing it by another system? It may be better than what we have, it may be not as good. At least, we would have people who have looked into this issue, who could give us reasons, who could provide us with an economic study, in other words, who would help us avoid an irrational debate where members are called sleazy and what not, and examine the issue thoroughly in order to provide members with a pension scheme which is fair and equitable as in the private sector, as in other parliaments across the world, as in other provincial legislatures.
We would then look at what is being done elsewhere in the world, what is being done in the provinces, what is being done here and how we could pick a system other than what the minister is proposing. What the minister is proposing is already a step forward. Perhaps we could change some other things?
In that sense, I would like us to analyze this and not simply say: ``Now, members will no longer have any salary, no more pension, and on top of that, they will have to bring their sandwiches and orange juice when they come to a committee.'' I am tired of hearing things like that. I want people to show me respect when they talk to me.
I am getting this measly $60,000 yearly salary. I was in business; I lost $750,000 to become a member of this House, in the past ten years at least. I own three businesses. I know what an executive salary is all about. If I had remained a teacher, I would be earning $55,000 this year. If I were a grade school principal with seven classes, I would earn $70,000 a year, a position I could have had any time. I turned my back on all that.
I am a politician; I love it. I get this measly $60,000 a year salary, and I get this little pension in compensation. On top of that, I am told that I hit the jackpot. Come on! I want to have a decent salary, a decent pension, without any privileges, but with rights that are comparable to that of any worker in Canada.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson submitted the name of such a witness which is on the list. He is Mr. Robert Fleming from the Robert Fleming International Research Incorporated. He is the author of a book on Canadian legislatures. His book provides all the details on pensions in every province.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I think that is an excellent suggestion. We should call Mr. Fleming. Who submitted his name, Mr. Hermanson?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Boudria: I fully support Mr. Plamondon. These people have expertise. Whoever submitted Mr. Fleming's name as a witness, I think it is a very good idea to have an author, namely Mr. Fleming, who has written a book, a study, a comparison of the various legislatures. I think it would be a very good idea to hear Mr. Fleming.
The Chairman: Do we agree on this?
Mr. Plamondon: Yes.
The Chairman: So we will now have the minister, Sobeco, Ernst & Young, the Commission and Mr. Fleming.
[English]
Mr. Silye: What happened to Mr. Somerville?
The Chairman: Well, we're waiting for agreement on that. There doesn't appear to be agreement, Mr. Silye.
Mr. Silye: May I speak to this?
.1210
The Chairman: Yes, certainly, Mr. Silye.
Mr. Silye: I believe Mr. Plamondon also said he might not necessarily like the fact that the NCC would have somebody here, but he had no objections for him to show up.
I have another concern. Mr. Pickard asked what expertise this gentleman brings.
I think the expertise this gentleman brings is his analysis of the value of MPs' pensions. It would give an opportunity to question him on the value and the size of this pension plan and how he gets to that.
But why are we afraid to talk to him? Why would you not want to put him to the wall and say, the way you evaluate pensions is ridiculous because it gives a wrong message to the Canadian public? This is your opportunity to set his record straight.
This is a man who also has the input of a lot of Canadians. Those are not just his personal points of view that he is putting out there. Notwithstanding what the name of the organization is, he gets input from Canadian citizens. Canadians would tell him what they think on this particular issue. So he does represent not just himself; he represents those people who subscribe to this newsletter, those people who give him input as to what a position may or may not be on pensions. Rather than attacking him for his membership...he has expertise on pensions. He has a point of view on pensions.
I for one, as a member of this committee, want to know why he has that point of view. I want to know if Mr. Boudria is right. I want to know if you're right. I want to know why we are too afraid to have him here to ask him.
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): I am again going to draw on my own experience as chairman of the Peel board.
What often happens when you hold hearings of any kind in a public forum is you have people come who represent only their own thoughts. You have others who come and can represent 10 or 15 people. What you're actually hearing from sometimes is extreme individuals and pressure groups.
First of all, I think you're quite qualified, and Mr. Harper is quite qualified, to bring Mr. Somerville's ideas to this table. If we're going to get into the indignity of being browbeaten by people who represent very extreme views, then I agree with Mr. Plamondon. I would like to hear people who have alternatives to our plan. I think that's an excellent idea. We're not here to hear from people who agree with us.
Why don't we call Perrin Beatty in? I'm sure he can give us a glowing description of what the old pension plan was like and why they had it.
Mr. Silye: Why not?
Mrs. Parrish: No. The reason we're not going to is these views - Mr. Somerville's views - are more than adequately expressed by the people sitting in the Reform part of the House. I think you are quite skilled in translating those thoughts into this room.
I think when you invite someone like him in, you're giving him far too much credibility. He has no proper credentials to bring himself into this room. This is a committee of the House of Commons. I don't want to listen to people with far-out views.
When I was chairman of the Peel board, on occasion, we fell into the bad habit of listening to people like that and it became a three-ring circus. It was very undermining to the whole process. So we began to pre-qualify people who would come to the board and ask, whom do you represent, do you represent a large group of people, and what are your credentials?
I think this is the highest level of government in the land. We cannot subject ourselves to the haranguing of someone like Mr. Somerville, who uses terms like ``pigs'' and ``trough'', which I find personally offensive. His opinions are very clear. We can pick them up and read them anywhere. We don't need to have him sitting here, in glowing color, insulting this astute body. So I wouldn't agree to have him here at all.
Mr. Silye: Mrs. Parrish, you could apply that logic to the author of a book: we don't need him here; we just have to read the book.
Mr. Boudria: You proposed him.
Mrs. Parrish: Fine. Let's do it.
Mr. Silye: I'm just saying that you approved that one.
Mrs. Parrish: If you want to remove the author of that book, I would agree with you too.
Mr. Silye: I'm looking for consistency on how you make decisions, in the same way they do in the Board of Internal Economy. You have to have a set of rules that you always apply, regardless of where it's coming from.
Mr. Harper: Mr. Chairman, I guess this is a fundamental question we have to decide...with Mr. Somerville, and I assume also Mr. Kenney or Mr. Gray from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Mr. Boudria: Who is Mr. Gray?
The Chairman: The same place. He's the man who wrote the letter. He's the national research director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
Mr. Harper: I don't agree with, and I'm kind of perplexed by the sudden demand that people who appear before a parliamentary committee must represent some vague and undefined standard of expertise that the committee would apparently establish.
.1215
It is very common for parliamentary committees to hear people who are simply opinion-makers or opinion-leaders or politically active on a certain issue. We all know this. I'm not telling anybody around the table anything they don't know. There is nothing unusual about this whatsoever.
We spent nearly $1 million going around the country listening to people on the review of social programs. We did the same thing on defence and external affairs. Some of these people were experts; some of them were simply people who have strong opinions in the field and would be difficult to classify. On GST, we did the same thing. We're doing this on gun control right now.
This is an issue that, whether the government likes it or not, is of considerable interest to the population. Perhaps it's of interest out of context with what it should be, but that is the fact of the matter. I think, as the House of Commons, we're obligated to look at it for its value in terms of public interest as well as, as I say, this so-called standard of expertise that I have yet to hear defined.
If that's what we're going to do, let's do it. But I think we have to make that decision.
The Chairman: Make the decision. Is the committee ready to decide whether we're going to have the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the National Citizen's Coalition as witnesses?
Mr. McWhinney: Couldn't we strike another committee to refine the choice within the parameters of the principles that emerge?
Very clearly, there is a category of expert witnesses whose names have emerged, actuaries and accountants, and we'll speak on that.
There is another category, although the names are a little bit harder to establish, who will report objectively, not as partisans, on experience in particular legislatures and others. There might be room for a third group - without being offensive, I use an American sense - interest groups or pressure groups who have opinions. But maybe the best way is to strike a committee or have you, Mr. Chairman, and the opposition agree on a joint list.
I'm not sure much is achieved by debating, particularly as new names come in, their relative expertise. But I think the categories are very clear. We do need experienced accountants and these names have emerged.
The Chairman: Well, we have those.
Mr. McWhinney: We do need a category of those who might be called academic or scientific people. They're not partisans; they're just saying, here's what's done in Quebec and here's what's done elsewhere.
There may be room for a third group, interest groups, but then I think it should be balanced between government and opposition.
Mr. Harper: I certainly would be willing to second that motion. That may be the more appropriate way to get to the solution to this.
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Chairman, in any committee that's working in the House, we're seeking information that will help us make decisions that are, I think, the best decisions we can make.
There's not a person sitting around this table who doesn't know who David Somerville is, what his positions are, and what he has done with that information. It seems to me that there's nothing to be gained by having him here. But for him, there is another political forum he is trying to attain and sell more memberships or whatever. To me, I don't think that's an organization I wish to aid and abet for private capital gain, and that's what we're talking about here.
Mr. Harper: So private citizens shouldn't appear at parliamentary committees? Is that what -
Mr. Pickard: No, that's not what I said, and you know that's not what I said.
Mr. Harper: Well, it amounts to that.
The Chairman: Order. Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: First of all, Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't delay this. We're three-quarters of the way through our list. Let's finish it off.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Boudria: On the government side, we have proposed three groups of witnesses this morning: the minister, the accounting firm, and the panel. Now, through Mr. Plamondon's suggestion, we've taken a name from Mr. Hermanson's list, namely, Mr. Fleming.
[Translation]
So we now have three names on the government side, one which came indirectly, one that was suggested by a party but proposed by another, if I understand correctly Mr. Plamondon's intervention.
.1220
All right. That's where we are. We have three on one side. If we could agree on the names of a few other witnesses, well, let's hear them. If there are others who want to send us briefs, they will do it.
To get back to what Mr. Plamondon said, we are not here to provide a soap box to those who want to do fundraising. They will have to do this on their own time and at home. But if there are other experts...
For instance, we heard the name of M. Fleming who apparently did this kind of work and who is proposed by Mr. Hermanson. I don't know if there are other names on Mr. Hermanson' list which we could look at. There may be others on which we could agree. Why waste time on the names of people who we will obviously not hear? There may be one or two who are good. Let's take these names, and let's go forward.
The Chairman: On the list proposed by Mr. Hermanson, there are also two accounting firms:
[English]
KPMG, Peat Marwick Stevenson & Kellogg management consultants, authors of a report prepared for the Alberta legislature. There are also the co-chairs of the P.E.I. commission of inquiry on the adequacy of indemnities, salaries, and allowances. That's another one that's on the list. Were Eckler Partners Ltd. actuaries? So there are three.
Mr. Boudria: We have two of those three there. One of them is an actuary. That would be the only one appearing before us, unless of course this firm has an actuary.
Mr. McWhinney: Peat Marwick surely have an actuary.
Mr. Boudria: Okay, and Peat Marwick. So if we deal with those two, then we have three witnesses proposed by the opposition side and three proposed by the government side. Surely that's enough. They're all experts. I don't think anyone would say these people are people with an axe to grind. They're all people with expertise. You have actuaries, accountants, people who have prepared reports, apparently someone who has written extensively about this was proposed by Mr. Hermanson, and then the three proposed by the government side.
The Chairman: Is it KPMG, which is number one on Mr. Hermanson's list, then Eckler Partners? Is that the other one?
Mr. Harper: That's right. It's Mr. McCrossan, whom we all know.
The Chairman: I have not met Mr. McCrossan. I've heard of him. Wasn't he an MP?
Mr. Harper: He was an MP, so he brings both experiences.
The Chairman: Okay. Is that agreed? We will have six witnesses? The minister, Sobeco Ernst & Young, the commission on members salaries, Mr. Robert Fleming, KPMG, and Eckler Partners.
Mr. Harper: The one witness that I saw as fitting into that category was Wally Fox-Decent in his capacity as former chairman of the Manitoba legislature's indemnities and allowances commission, because we had included the P.E.I. study and the Alberta study and he was the chairman of the Manitoba study.
Mr. Boudria: May I ask a question on that?
[Translation]
Is it the person that Mr. Plamondon referred to and who prepared a plan which looks like a kind of registered retirement savings plan? Is it that person?
[English]
Mr. Harper: I wasn't listening carefully, but I would suspect that's the same person.
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Harper, this person was president of a university in Vancouver but not a member of the legislature.
Mr. Harper: That's right. I'm sorry, I read that wrong. He was chairman of the commission established by the legislature.
Mr. Boudria: Okay, agreed. I move that we have those people as witnesses.
The Chairman: Who's the other one then? Are we agreeing on Wally Fox-Decent? Is that seven?
Mr. McWhinney: I'm sorry, could you repeat his qualifications?
The Chairman: He was the chairman of the Manitoba legislature's indemnities and allowances commission.
Mr. McWhinney: My colleague was just telling me that he was president of the University of Manitoba.
Miss Grey: This list is well and good. I think it's excellent. I just want to go back briefly to talk about the business that this august group here thinks that only experts should be called in. I think it calls into question the whole fact of other committees that have wanted to talk to regular Canadians about this and have done some travelling and brought people in.
.1225
Let's not forget who's footing the bill for this whole function and for the whole pension problem. I think if you just immediately exclude those kinds of comments that you people have talked about - and the press is here, they'll be writing them down - you do so at your own peril. These are the people who are paying the cheques, folks. If we do not include any of those people on our witness list...you've made your comments about them very public. You don't want to be harangued. That's great, but I think private individuals and individual Canadians who are paying the cheque on this -
Mr. Boudria: There's no such name on the list you've provided. We've used three-quarters of the names you've provided. We've just done this now as a compromise. We took virtually everyone. Three-quarters of the people you asked to be heard are there. The only people we excluded are two fund-raising groups essentially. We accepted everyone else. That doesn't sound to me like we stifled opportunity for debate. Anyway, anyone else can send in a written brief.
Miss Grey: How much time will they have to do this, Don?
The Chairman: All next week, Don; we're not sitting.
We've agreed on a list of seven witnesses. I think there is a reasonable series of points of view on this issue. Can I suggest we sit on the Tuesday we come back?
Mr. Harper: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to continue this discussion. We have two witnesses we've suggested haven't yet been discussed at all.
Mr. Boudria: Who are they?
Mr. Harper: They are Dr. Brian Smith at Sir Wilfred Laurier, who I gather is an expert in this area and would be an excellent academic witness. We also submitted the name of Mr. Dunbar, who is the author of a controversial book about pay and benefits in Saskatchewan. In the view of some committee members, he may fall into the same category as Mr. Somerville and Mr. Kenney, but I would like to discuss this in any case - at least that we formally review this.
Mr. Pickard: What's the name of the book?
Mr. Harper: Gravy Train: How Saskatchewan Taxpayers are Ripped Off by its Cabinet Ministers and MLAs.
Mr. McWhinney: There is nothing to stop the committee from calling for further witnesses. I wonder if some of these people could submit something in writing and we could then decide if it's interesting enough to bring them in.
Mr. Harper: I'm certainly agreeable to that as a back-up position. Maybe we should move a formal motion, Miss Grey and me, that we invite the National Citizen's Coalition and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation to appear as witnesses.
Motion negatived
Mr. Harper: I think it would certainly be an agreeable back-up position to invite anybody in the public to submit briefs, and if, upon reviewing them, the majority felt we should hear the witness, then we should do that.
Mr. McWhinney: Particularly with academic witnesses, I could think of half a dozen. I don't know whether we could afford to bring them in. We might find that we want to bring a lot in and get....
The Chairman: Can I suggest that we sit on the 30th -
Mr. Harper: I have one additional suggestion. This may be inappropriate now that we're restricting ourselves to only those we consider experts. I was going to suggest that we allow MPs to appear as witnesses before the committee. We did this in the case of Bills C-18 and C-69 on the grounds that members of Parliament are the principal, directly affected parties of that legislation and this legislation. It may well be appropriate to hear their views on matters that this legislation modifies.
The Chairman: Well, of course, all the members of the committee are members of Parliament, Mr. Harper, and they're free to express their views in our deliberations, which we'll be doing on clause-by-clause study of this bill.
Mr. Harper: I'm referring to non-members of the committee obviously.
The Chairman: And to substitutes, as we're witnessing today.
.1230
I suspect we have a plateful here. Why don't we hear these if there's a desire on the part of the members of the committee to change this, by allowing members to come with...that's an easy thing to do. We don't have to call anybody in, we don't have to arrange dates well in advance, or anything like that. Members can pop in and out of the committee and express their views.
Mr. Boudria: Can we do this on Monday when we come back?
The Chairman: I'm in the hands of the committee. If you want to meet on Monday instead of Tuesday, that's fine.
Mr. Boudria: Well, Tuesday then.
The Chairman: I was going to suggest we meet Tuesday at 8:30 a.m. and hear the minister. We could have a break at 10 a.m. at the completion of his testimony for routine proceedings because many members of this committee attend there. We could resume at 10:30 a.m. and go on with the other witnesses, take a break at question period, but basically work the day and get the witnesses heard. Is that agreeable to the committee members?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Harper: It's not agreeable to me. I mean, I'm agreeable to that, but I reiterate once again that I think we should be open to a wider list and open to holding our hearings over several days to hear a variety of Canadians, to travel and hear their views.
Mr. Boudria: This committee can't travel, Mr. Chairman. The member knows that. It's a committee of House officers. How can we travel?
Mr. Harper: We can always make a request to do that -
Mr. Boudria: Never mind the junket; let's stay here.
An hon. member: I never thought I'd see the whip of the Liberal Party concerned about junkets.
The Chairman: We'll get on with the thing on Tuesday, May 30, and work through the day and see if we can get through it. Maybe some of the witnesses won't be able to appear that day, I don't know, but I think we should aim to get as many as we can completed on that day, if that's agreeable to members.
Mr. McWhinney: We'll take as long as we need. In other words, it's not limited to one day.
The Chairman: I think the plan normally would be to give, what, an hour and a half to the minister and an hour to each of the other witnesses? They could have short presentations. For the commissions, for example, I don't think we need a presentation. They may want to make a brief opening remark. There are a lot of witnesses on this list. When we say we've invited seven witnesses, some of them are going to come with three and four people, all of equal stature. I think we should face that reality. We're going to have a lot of witnesses and I think we can move through smartly, and members can try to -
[Translation]
Mr. PLamondon: An hour and a half for the minister and an hour each for the witnesses.
The Chairman: Is that okay with you?
Mr. Plamondon: Yes.
Agreed
[English]
The Chairman: We've now completed the business for today. I declare the meeting adjourned.