[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, September 20, 1995
.1700 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: I am ready to receive motions for the position of chair.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): I would like to nominate Dr. Pagtakhan for the position of chairman.
The Clerk: I have received a motion from Mr. Maloney for the chair of the committee. I can receive other motions as notice.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): I've given notice.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): I second the motion.
The Clerk: Of Mr. Maloney? We will first vote on the motion by Mr. Maloney, and then if necessary we'll move to subsequent motions.
It has been moved by Mr. Maloney that Dr. Pagtakhan do take the chair of this committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: Dr. Pagtakhan.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clerk, and thank you, members of the committee, for your trust.
Now we shall call on Mrs. Brown.
Mrs. Brown: Yes, I have a notice of motion on the floor.
The Chair: There's a notice of motion. How do I handle the notice of motion? I call for motions for the vice-chair.
Mrs. Brown: Yes, I'd like to put that notice of motion to you now.
The Chair: Proceed, please.
Mr. Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): On a point of order -
Mrs. Brown: I nominate -
The Chair: Just a second. There's a point of order there. It takes precedence.
Mr. Allmand: I don't know what the notice of motion is, but according to the rules of the House the agenda for the organization meeting is determined in those rules...which is the election of a chair, the election of the two vice-chairs, and other organizational motions. It's your obligation, I think, to follow that agenda. Other motions would have to be dealt with afterwards.
Mrs. Brown: It is a notice of motion for the election process, Mr. Chairman. It's for the vice-chair of the opposition.
The Chair: The clerk advises me that we will elect the vice-chair of the committee for the government side and also from the opposition side. The first order of the business is a vice-chair from the government side.
Is that correct?
The Clerk: Yes.
The Chair: I will then deal with the notice of motion later on, unless it is a notice of motion for the government vice-chair.
Mrs. Brown: It depends on the order in which you want to proceed. In the committee I just left the motion for vice-chair of the opposition was dealt with first of all, and then it was the vice-chair for the government side of the House.
The Chair: What I would like to do is to entertain a motion for the vice-chair from the government side first, with the concurrence of the committee. I am prepared to entertain motions on that point.
Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand: I'd like to nominate Andy Scott as vice-chair representing the government side.
The Chair: The name of Mr. Scott has been put forward. We do not need a seconder. So it is now before the committee.
Are there any other nominations? If not, are we all in concurrence with the nomination ofMr. Scott as vice-chair on the government side?
Mrs. Brown: Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a recorded vote, please.
The Chair: Recorded, please, Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Allmand: We've been doing it so often, but is there only one nominee?
The Chair: I did ask for any other nomination.
Mr. Allmand: Then what are we voting on? There's only one.
Mrs. Brown: I will be putting forward a motion for the vice-chair of the opposition side of the House. That is my motion.
Mr. Allmand: But we're now voting on whether Mr. Scott should or should not be the government vice-chair. There's no opponent.
The Chair: That's right. It's by acclamation.
Mr. Allmand: That's right. I understand the next item of business is the opposition vice-chair.
Mr. McClelland: Ask for a call of hands. There may be someone who wants to abstain.
Mrs. Brown: I don't want to abstain. I vote no.
.1705
The Chair: Okay. Then I think it is a correct procedure to ask for a recorded vote even when there is just one nominee, because a recorded vote is still the prerogative of the committee.
Mr. Allmand: All right.
The Chair: We'll proceed with a recorded vote on the nomination of Mr. Scott as vice-chair for the government side.
Motion agreed to: yeas 8, nays 1
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Chairman, we will now move to the nominations for the second vice-chair, representing the opposition, and it is my pleasure to nominate my honourable colleague, Mr. Réal Ménard, to that position.
[English]
The Chair: The name of Mr. Ménard has been put forward as vice-chair from the opposition. Are there any other nominations?
Mrs. Brown: Yes. I would like to nominate Ian McClelland, please.
The Chair: The name of Mr. McClelland has also been put forward as another nominee for the vice-chair.
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Chair, I think if you check with the clerk you will find the proper procedure is that...there has been a motion that Mr. Ménard be the opposition vice-chair for the committee, and the procedure is to vote on that motion first, and then if the position still is not filled, to accept any further motions to fill that position.
The Clerk: The second motion made by Mrs. Brown is taken only as notice at this stage.
The Chair: I see. So we will first put the motion for Mr. Ménard. We will vote on that.
The Clerk: Yes.
The Chair: I think that is what Beauchesne's tells us: that we will take the motions one at a time and dispose of the other motions later on.
Are the rules clear?
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chair, may we have a recorded vote?
The Chair: Yes, we will proceed with that, as requested.
Mr. Ménard (Hochelaga - Maisonneuve): I am sad about it.
Motion agreed to: yeas 7, nays 2
The Chair: I declare the election of Mr. Ménard as vice-chair from the opposition side.
Do we have any other business?
Mr. Allmand: On a point of order, is it not customary at these organization meetings to adopt the other motions that you require to carry on the business of the committee, such as a quorum for purposes of hearing evidence? Or do those carry on from the last year?
The Clerk: Those carry on from the last year, because this is not a new session. This is a continuation of the earlier session.
Mr. Allmand: I looked at the motions you had adopted last year, and I notice - and maybe you could clarify this for me - you don't have a rule on the presentation of motions out of the blue. In other words, I recall that on the justice committee we adopted a rule that any motion that was presented would have to be given 24 hours' notice before being dealt with. I think it is a very good thing, because otherwise it can be presented at the last minute...to deal with things people aren't prepared for.
You do have a rule that deals with notice for new business, and there you require 24 hours' notice. But I'm not sure whether that includes motions to deal with all matters that are not on the agenda. If it does, then that takes care of it. In other words, if you have an agenda and somebody moves a motion of something that isn't on the agenda, you couldn't take that up for 24 hours.
.1710
Is that in fact what the rule you now have means?
The Clerk: Could you give me the reference?
Mr. Allmand: It's in your book dealing with this committee.
The Clerk: The briefing book.
Mr. Allmand: It's in tab 9 of the book, appendix C, a list of routine motions made by committees during the last Parliament. You have one that is notice for new business, and the motion is:
- That unless there is unanimous consent of the three parties, 24 hours' notice must be given to the
members of the committee before any new item of business is considered by the committee.
That would mean that if you come to the meeting and there's an agenda set for it, then no member could simply pop a motion before the committee and have it dealt with on that day, unless there was unanimous consent, as is pointed out in the motion. You could only take it up 24 hours hence.
The Clerk: I apologize for my confusion. The briefing book that was sent to you was sent to all members of the committee at the beginning of this session. The motion to which you are referring was in fact a motion adopted by this committee in the previous Parliament, but no such motion has been adopted by this committee.
Mr. Allmand: Well, I would like to move such a motion, because I feel that you can have a lot of disorder and a lot of problems if you don't have such a motion.
If I understand correctly, this motion had been adopted by this committee in the last Parliament. It was part of our motions adopted in the justice committee. I know that several other committees in this Parliament have it.
So I move that unless there is unanimous consent of the three parties, 24 hours' notice must be given to the members of the committee before any new item of business is considered by the committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: I would first like to welcome our colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce,Mr. Chairman.
I understand the basis of his motion and I want to tell the member that I look forward to working with him, but isn't there a danger in what he is proposing?
I would like to remind the members of the committee that in the past, when we would be hearing witnesses, for example, on the spur of the moment we would often, on either side, feel the need to change chorus and move motions, possibly dealing with the calling of other witnesses.
I think we need strict rules to avoid, for example, the rather unfortunate incident that occured when the Minister of Justice appeared before us. Some colleagues saw it fit to argue procedural points on that occasion. I didn't think that was very polite to the witness.
There should be a fair compromise between a total ban on spontaneous motions and a situation where anyone could disrupt the proceedings when a witness is appearing. I would want this to be understood.
If I can have the assurance that the proposal will not totally prevent spontaneous motions, I am ready to agree to it. I must be sure, because we sometimes have to react quickly in committee. At least, that was my experience in the past.
I am not suggesting that the Justice Committee was not working as well as the Human Rights Committee, but maybe the fact that the Justice Committee was dealing with legal questions meant that it had to plan everything and be more technical. Maybe the outlook was a bit different at the Human Rights Committee. I am ready to cooperate with the government majority, but I remind the committee that spontaneity is a good thing. Collectively and individually. So, we should not feel limited on either side.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: I will respond very briefly.
It doesn't seem to stop spontaneity. As a matter of fact, if something is obvious, the three parties agree. But what it does prevent is, in the middle of people giving testimony, a member getting the floor and moving a motion right then and there based on the motion and disrupting the business. Then you get a long discussion on the motion while witnesses are before the committee. What it does is put more order into it.
Now, if the committee feels it's not necessary here.... I thought all committees had such a motion. As a matter of fact, when I read this in the briefing book I thought you might have had it, but I was just checking because I find it's very important. Otherwise, you could have continual disruption by motions being introduced in the middle....
.1715
You call a meeting for such-and-such a matter. Sometimes you call witnesses from out of town. They're before your committee and somebody moves a motion and you have to deal with it right away. There's no delay....
Twenty-four hours is only one day. But it's in the hands of the committee.
The Chair: Mr. McClelland.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I obviously see the wisdom of the motion, and at face value I certainly don't have any problem with it. May I suggest that it be moved as a notice of motion and be the first item dealt with at our next meeting? It'll give us a chance to think about it.
Mr. Allmand: That follows the spirit of the motion itself.
Mr. McClelland: Yes.
The Chair: Marlene.
Ms Catterall: I'd just like to clarify it, because I think the intention is not that a motion can't be moved without notice but that it can't be moved on a subject that's not even on the agenda. For instance, if you have a witness and there's an issue that comes up related to the witness, that matter is already on the agenda, so that motion would not require any notice.
Mr. Allmand: I'll give you an example. We had the Assembly of First Nations on the gun control bill. In their brief they were saying this should be done and that should be done. One member of the committee, as soon as they finished, moved that we amend the bill, or we do something immediately. Fortunately we had the rules and we said we would take that up. The motion was put in writing, it was left with the clerk, and it was taken up the next day as the first item of business.
Ms Catterall: So you're suggesting no motion could be moved without notice.
Mr. Allmand: You can move the motion, but it can't be debated. That's according to that motion, which you had in the last Parliament. You can move it but it can't be debated or voted on unless there's unanimous agreement, unless it was on the agenda. If it was on the agenda, of course you can. If the meeting is called to consider a bill clause by clause, you can consider everything about clause-by-clause. If you're meeting to consider a draft report, of course you can deal with anything dealing with the draft report. But if somebody comes in and moves that you call two new witnesses in the middle of the clause-by-clause, then you'd have to take that up....
Or they could take up some new order of business. If you're dealing with, let's say, the Human Rights Act or the disabled and all of a sudden one day somebody moves a motion that we take up the case of Mrs. XYZ, who has a problem with human rights in the Department of the Environment that very day, well, you would receive the motion.
It just means you can't be taken by surprise or disrupt the business. That's all it means.
But I agree with Mr. McClelland. In the spirit of the motion itself, we should -
The Chair: Take it as notice and discuss it at the next meeting.
Mr. Allmand: Yes, and I'd ask the clerk if he would check with how many other committees have similar motions. It's my understanding that nearly all the committees have similar motions.
The Clerk: Yes.
The Chair: And perhaps also to clarify whether the phrase ``new item'' clearly includes motions.
Mr. Allmand: Yes.
Anyway, I've made the motion. In accordance with Mr. McClelland's request, it's tabled till the next meeting and would be discussed or voted on at the next meeting. In the meanwhile, perhaps the clerk could get information to help us on that particular matter.
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Allmand: I presume you have a whole bunch of other motions that are part of your committee directives on all these other matters that are usually dealt with, if I understood correctly: printing, things on quorum; that sort of thing.
The Chair: I think what we should have is a copy of what we had before the recess, or during the last sitting, to have it available to all the members again as we look at this particular new motion by Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand: Yes, because there are many of us who are new on the committee, and this briefing book misled me, because I thought these ones in item 9 were the rules, and it seems they're not.
Ms Catterall: What are they?
Mr. Allmand: I don't know what they are.
Ms Catterall: Just general information.
Mr. Allmand: These are from the last Parliament?
The Clerk: Those are from the last Parliament. As I said, this briefing book was circulated to all members of the committee at the beginning of this session. So it's a year and a half old and it does not include the motions this committee has adopted.
Mr. Allmand: Could you send them to all of us, especially the new members?
The Clerk: Yes.
The Chair: Now another issue, the steering committee membership, which the clerk has just reminded me will consist of the chair, the two vice-chairs, and one member, presumably to get a full representation, in this instance from the Reform Party. Mr. McClelland then would be on the steering committee.
Are we limited to just four members on the steering committee, or would any other member who would like to be there...?
.1720
The Clerk: Members are free to attend, but the members for the purposes of constituting a quorum are the four who are designated in the motion that establishes the subcommittee.
Ms Catterall: At another committee earlier today, a steering committee of five people, not four, was struck. So I wonder whence the clerk came up with the figure of four.
The Chair: If I recall correctly, it is only what it was before. But my interpretation of the rule is that we can add more than four if we so agree.
Isn't that so?
The Clerk: The steering committee is set up by a motion of the committee. It's stipulated in the motion that was adopted in February 1994 at the original organization meeting that the committee will have four members.
The Chair: I see.
The Clerk: In some committees, the fifth member of the committee is the parliamentary secretary representing the department.
Ms Catterall: Yes.
The Clerk: Our committee does not have a parliamentary secretary, because we're not responsible for any specific department.
The Chair: So based on that and the intervention of Ms Catterall, we could have a notice of motion now - again not to be dealt with now, but rather at the next meeting - to increase the membership on the steering committee to five, if one wishes to give that notice of motion.
Ms Catterall: It seems to have worked well under the previous committee. Perhaps there's no need to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Why would you wish it to be increased to five? What purpose is that going to serve? The more we are, the more the consensus is...
[English]
The Chair: It's only because of Marlene's observations.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Is Ms. Catterall suggesting that it be increased to five?
[English]
Ms Catterall: I was just raising the question because in fact the clerk had mentioned four but other steering committees have more than four.
Mr. Allmand: The only reason you would want five is if you've had deadlocks.
Ms Catterall: Yes.
Mr. Allmand: If you've had deadlocks where you got two votes all the time, then you might want five. If you don't get deadlocks, then there's no need for it.
[Translation]
So you have an idea of the number of times you had a deadlock during the last session?
Mr. Ménard: Oh, but we have the progressist branch of the Reform Party in our committee and things will be different.
Mr. Allmand: It would be the only reason for having five members, so that the result of the votes would be three against two.
Mr. Ménard: It would depend on Mr. McCLelland's mood. We do not know...
Mr. Laurin: The Chairman is the one who decides.
Mr. Ménard: He has the casting vote.
[English]
The Chair: On that note, I have a quick announcement. The steering committee would like to meet tomorrow at 11 a.m. Can we meet?
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: It is a bad idea. We need a 24 hour notice, Mr. Chairman. We could meet next week. You need some rest.
[English]
Mr. Scott (Fredericton - York - Sunbury): Next week.
Mr. Ménard: Next week.
The Chair: Can we meet at 9 a.m. on Tuesday?
Mr. Scott: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. The full committee will meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. as our regular hours.
Mr. Allmand: Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr. McClelland: Warren, that's going to be like a vacation for you.
The Chair: The steering committee will meet at 9 a.m. on Tuesday.
Mr. Ménard: Not 9 a.m.; 10 a.m.
Mr. McClelland: I have French lessons at that time.
The Chair: Okay, 10 a.m. then.
Ms Catterall: If Mr. Ménard is going to be such a lazy vice-chair, then I might rescind my support of his nomination.
Mr. Allmand: Is the purpose of the steering committee meeting to consider what the business of the committee might be?
The Chair: Yes, indeed.
Mr. Allmand: How do those of us who aren't on the steering committee make known to it our views on items of business that we think you should consider?
The Chair: We have two mechanisms that I can think of: first, convey that to any member of the steering committee; second, attend the steering committee meeting itself - or third, even by way of memorandum to the chair.
Mr. Allmand: I see. So as the clerk pointed out, those of us who aren't on the steering committee might attend.
The Chair: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Chairman, next Tuesday, the whole committee should discuss what our future business might be. Since the government majority seems to have a lot of energy, particularly its female members, we might want to meet in a plenary session rather than as a subcommittee.
.1725
It might also be interesting for Mr. Allmand to be present since we had already discussed the possibility of dealing later on with the anti-gang legislation and its compatibility with the Canadian Charter of Rights. Since Mr. Allmand has had some experience within the Justice Committee, he might help us decide if it might be more interesting to set up a joint committee.
I propose that we meet next Tuesday at 10 o'clock. I travel by train and I arrive in Ottawa at 9:15, and I hate being late. We could meet at 10:00 in a plenary session in order to hear everyone's comments on the committee's future business.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: It sounds like a good idea.
The Chair: The suggestion is that the steering committee will meet with all the members at 10 a.m.
Mr. McClelland: Yes, a plenary session.
The Chair: Do we have consensus on that?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Ménard: For my information, Mr. Chairman, can our friends from the Reform Party tell us if Ms. Brown will be sitting with us?
[English]
Mr. McClelland: Yes.
The Chair: Are there any other urgent items of business? If not, I adjourn the meeting. Thank you.