[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 12, 1996
.1742 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: If you will permit, I will start the meeting by reading the orders of the day.
This committee is meeting pursuant to Standing Order 106 for the election of a chair. Your first item of business is the election of a chair.
Mr. Silye (Calgary Centre): I would like to nominate John Williams as the chair of the committee.
The Clerk: Mr. Silye moves that Mr. John Williams be elected chair of this committee.
Mr. Silye: Do I need a seconder, Mr. Chairman?
The Clerk: You don't.
Are there any more nominations?
Mr. Laurin.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): I would like to point out, Mr. Chair, that I had asked to speak first. I'm sorry that you did not give me the chance to. I would like nonetheless to nominate Mr. Michel Guimond, member for the Bloc Québécois, as Chairman of this committee. Can we then discuss these proposals?
[English]
The Clerk: The way of proceeding is to debate and dispose of the first motion, and then, depending on the results of the first, we go to the second one. So if there's any debate, we should debate the first motion, the motion of Mr. Silye that Mr. Williams take the chair of the committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Silye, for debate on the first motion.
Mr. Silye: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to read a few words
[English]
into the record as support for Mr. Williams as chairman. Also, if it's possible, I would like to have a show of hands, if you would solicit that - that we have a recorded vote on this once the debate is done.
Mr. Chairman, upon examination of the rules of procedure regarding the election of the chair for public accounts, specifically Standing Orders 106(2), 108(3)(d), and Beauchesne's citation 781, and upon the examination of precedents set in the 34th Parliament, third session, it is evident that the chair of the public accounts committee should be assumed by John Williams of the Reform Party.
.1745
I would like to point out procedure and precedent for members of the standing committee. Standing Order 106(2) states that:
- (2) Each standing or special committee shall elect a Chairman and two Vice-Chairman, of
whom two shall be the Members of the government party and the third a Member in opposition
to the government -
Since 1958, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts has, following the British parliamentary tradition, been a member of the opposition. While not explicitly indicated in the Standing Orders, Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms citation 781 says it is customary for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to be chaired by a member sitting in opposition to the government. Again, nothing precludes any opposition party member from chairing the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Procedurally, no party is precluded from assuming the position of the chair in any committee. In fact, the precedent was set during the third session of the 34th Parliament when members of the NDP, the third party in the House of Commons at the time, served as vice-chairs to a standing committee and subcommittee and chaired legislative committees.
Since the mandate for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is as outlined in Standing Order 108(3)(d):
- (d) Public Accounts shall include, among other matters, review of and report on the Public
Accounts of Canada and all reports of the Auditor General of Canada -
- we maintain that the narrow focus of the Bloc Québécois on the division of this country and on
the province of Québec renders it incapable of fulfilling the mandate as established in the
Standing Orders.
Given these facts, nothing prohibits Mr. Williams, as a member of the third party, from chairing the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. To deny him the committee chairmanship based strictly on party affiliation and the narrow interpretation of Standing Orders, not on competence, is an insult to him.
The Bloc Québécois' narrow focus in Parliament renders them somewhat suspect as to examining the affairs of the nation as a whole, thereby disqualifying a member of that party from offering guidance to the committee, as is the responsibility according to the Standing Orders.
The focus of this debate is on the preservation of democracy in a House that should be the bastion of free speech, free votes and democracy in this country. Free speech or free votes in standing committees in the 35th Parliament has been somewhat suspect. Some might say it was a sham and a lot would say it was a disgrace.
Every committee operates differently, but this is an opportunity at this very moment for the government members to remove their whip and allow Liberal members a free vote, as is made possible by citation 760(3) in the sixth edition of Beauchesne's:
- Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.
The Bloc Québécois is a separatist party that came within half an inch of breaking up this country last fall. One of their members has been cited in the - I don't want to put that in.
It will be a black day, Mr. Chairman, for democracy, for Canadians and for an accountable government if the government members sitting in this committee reject their right to control the proceedings and respond to the whip by installing a separatist as chairman of the committee to oversee the public accounts of Canada and the work of the Auditor General of Canada with these comments hanging over his head.
In short, there is important work to be done. Nothing procedurally precludes a member of the third party from chairing the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The official opposition, clouded with the charge of sedition before the House of Commons and espousing a policy of division within this country, should not assume the responsibility of the chair.
Mr. Williams is competent, qualified and prepared to assume responsibility and display his sense of fairness throughout, as he has throughout his tenure as a member of the standing committee in the last year.
Thank you, Mr. Chair
.1750
The Clerk: Thank you, Mr. Silye.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I am not going to go over every single point raised by the Reform Party because we had already heard them a number of times over the past three years. However, I would like to underline the fact that the Quebeckers who decided to send members, who belong mainly to the Bloc Québécois, to Ottawa did not expect to have their representatives treated in such an undemocratic manner simply because their opinions differed from those of the Reform Party or the party in power.
Mr. Chair, the ideas that we defend are completely democratic and we defend them in a democratic manner as well. This is why we, as the Official Opposition, insist that our privileges be respected in the Public Accounts Committee. Traditionally, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee goes to a member of the Official Opposition and therefore I nominate a member of the Bloc Québécois for this position. This is why I ask for support of my colleagues from the government and from other parties. I ask therefore that you reject the -
[English]
An hon. member: I have a point of order.
The Clerk: I cannot entertain points of order, but if Mr. Laurin wants to cede the floor -
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chair, I believe that I have respected the right to speak of my colleagues from the Reform Party and I hope they will do the same for me. First of all, I want to ask my colleagues to vote against the first proposal to appoint a Reform Party representative. I would then ask you to support the second proposal, to appoint Mr. Guimond, member of the Official Opposition, as Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I don't see the need to add anything further unless members of the Reform Party decide to question the basis of our argument and its substance as they have done on serveral occasions here and elsewhere. As far as we're concerned, Mr. Chair, we're ready for the vote. Thank you.
[English]
The Clerk: The next on my list is Mr. Telegdi.
Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Chair, let me say that I have nothing but respect for Mr. Williams and Mr. Silye, and I certainly commend the Reform Party for promoting Mr. Silye to this committee.
The fact of the matter is that by precedent or by convention it is the rule of the official opposition to chair the public accounts committee.
If we're going to talk about narrow focus, I can just remind my friend Mr. Silye of his comments about the narrow focus of the Reform Party regarding whipping and caning, and he doesn't want to campaign on those grounds. As a matter of fact, he said he might not even run again given the narrow focus of the Reform Party.
Let me say that the Speaker has ruled on this question. The Speaker has ruled until the elections are over that the Bloc Québécois is the official opposition. Clearly, it's not for the government to name who is the official opposition party. I'm sure the Reform Party would be the first to object if we had those kinds of powers. The fact of the matter is that the Reform Party had a chance of entering into a coalition, a marriage of convenience, with the Progressive Conservative Party. If they really were serious about what they were saying, they would have done so. They have not.
Let me say that in terms of the tie that exists at the present time, there are six by-elections taking place: one in Labrador; another in Newfoundland; three in Quebec; and one in Etobicoke. I understand that the Reform Party is campaigning hard on the grounds that they want to become the official opposition party, and I understand that on the lawn signs in Etobicoke they have a statement to boot out the BQ as official opposition.
.1755
It is clear that the Reform Party is running candidates in all six by-elections. The BQ is running candidates in three by-elections. The Reform Party has every opportunity to settle this discourse in the place where it should be settled - that is, with the electorate, as is the democratic way - instead of in committee rooms. If they come back as the majority party, obviously there is going to be a different situation with the official opposition. But the campaign is on in the court of public opinion, and that's the democratic process.
I would suggest to the Reform Party that it is unseemly to be lusting after official opposition status until they have won it at the ballot box. Let me say that there is a way to become the official opposition. The way to become the official opposition is to do it the old-fashioned way: go out and earn it at the ballot box.
Thank you.
The Clerk: The next person on my list is Mr. Discepola.
Mr. Discepola (Vaudreuil): Merci beaucoup.
Because the member from Calgary Centre insisted on reading into the record, I would like to bring forth a point that - I excuse myself if I've misheard your statement, Mr. Silye, but you did state that the Solicitor General today, in response to a question, stated that he would give a free vote on section 745. That is not true, Mr. Chair.
I would invite you to read the blues tomorrow morning, and if so, I apologize in advance.
What he did state was that when the private member's bill was introduced, there was a free vote on that bill. That private member's bill has now been reintroduced into the House, so the free vote has already taken place.
Mr. Silye: Not yet.
Mr. Discepola: He did not state that he would entertain a free vote in the event of reintroduction of any changes to section 745. So I ask and encourage you to verify the blues to that effect, Mr. Silye.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
The Clerk: Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): First of all, I'd like to say to Mr. Laurin that I agree with him. As a member of the Bloc Québécois, you want to be treated in a democratic manner and I think you are absolutely right. Personally, I would like to have the same principles applied to the Reform Party and have the member grant us the same democratic rights.
[English]
That's point number one. We are totally with you. Let's have democracy here.
Mr. Chairman, the only other intercession concerns again what Mr. Laurin has said, echoed by Mr. Telegdi, dealing with this concentration on the official opposition. This has nothing to do with the official opposition. If you would only read what's in our procedures here, it says ``the opposition''. It does not specify the official opposition.
So, Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Laurin, company, we're not talking about the official opposition, but simply the opposition. We are part of the opposition; they are the official opposition. It happens; fine.
In this instance we are saying the chair can and should go simply to a member of the opposition, in which case Mr. Williams is truly qualified. Let's get that on the record. We're not talking about official opposition, and we don't need any preaching here about how we're going to achieve it. That's quite a separate matter. Here is a committee of the House. Let's freely, properly and democratically elect a chair.
The Clerk: I have a few other members who have indicated their wish to speak, so it's up to them. I'll recognize that Mr. Williams was next on my list.
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond to Mr. Telegdi, who obviously wasn't listening when we made some remarks earlier.
First of all, he said the Speaker has ruled. The Speaker ruled that committees are masters of their own procedure. The Speaker did not rule that the chairmanship shall be decided in any particular way.
We stated how the Standing Orders are written, and the Standing Orders are quite clear. As my colleague Mr. Ringma has said, they refer to members in opposition. Precedents have been set. The NDP, which has never been larger than the third party in this House, has chaired some committees and has held vice-chairs of standing committees and legislative committees.
.1800
The precedents have been set, and for this government, for these members sitting here, to turn a blind eye to the precedents and to read the rules -
An hon. member: Shame!
Mr. Williams: - according to their own wonderful interpretation reminds me again, if I may use something that happened earlier today in Question Period, where the leader of the Reform Party asked the government whether they were going to live up to their commitment to get rid of and abolish the GST, or was the Deputy Prime Minister going to live up to her commitment and resign. Of course, we have seen neither and no inclination by the government that either will take place.
We are seeing again, Mr. Chairman, right here in this room, another display of the same type of arrogance by a government that thinks it knows how to rule the country, yet six months ago, through their total ineptitude, lack of leadership, and so on, this country came within a hair's breadth of breaking up courtesy of the party sitting on my right.
Mr. Chairman, if these people vote a chair in the public accounts committee, the committee that is charged with the responsibility of examining the public accounts of Canada and the report of the Auditor General of Canada, from a separatist party who have a cloud of charges of sedition hanging over them at this point in time, if the Liberal government votes one of them in as chairman, I think, Mr. Chairman, we will find that the public of Canada will have something to say.
The Clerk: I've had two other members indicate that they wish to speak. Mr. Paradis and Mr. Peric. Mr. Paradis was -
[Translation]
Mr. Paradis (Brome - Missisquoi): I simply want to say that I'm leaving.
The Clerk: There cannot be a vote as long as some people want to speak.
[English]
Mr. Peric, did you wish to speak?
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Yes, Mr. Clerk. I used to sit on this committee. I didn't see members as opposition; I saw them as team members of this committee. I don't like to hear accusations from either side. They are members of this committee and that should be first and foremost. Let's respect the democratic process. Let's have a vote -
An hon. member: A free vote.
Mr. Peric: A free vote, absolutely, a 100% free vote. Then, whatever the results are going to be, we have to respect and obey that. Thank you.
The Clerk: Is the committee ready for the question?
Mr. Williams: A recorded vote.
The Clerk: A recorded vote was requested. I will call the members' names as they appear on my list.
We are voting on the motion of Mr. Silye, that Mr. Williams be elected chair of this committee. That is the question.
Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 2
The Clerk: We will now proceed to the motion of Mr. Laurin, that Mr. Guimond
[Translation]
be elected as Chair of this committee. Is there a debate on the motion?
[English]
There is a quorum. Does anybody wish to speak to that motion before I put it to a vote?
[Translation]
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I now declare Mr. Guimond the duly elected Chair of this committee and ask him to take the Chair.
.1805
The Chair: First of all I would like to thank you for your confidence.
[English]
I must conclude it was not unanimous confidence, but I will try to do my best anyway.
[Translation]
I want to assure you that I intend to cooperate fully with my colleagues from the government party, my other two colleagues who will be elected vice-chairs, my colleagues from the third party here and those from the Bloc Québécois. I also want to assure the clerk as well as the research and technical support staff and also the interpreters of my full cooperation.
I should also like to thank my colleagues who made up the membership of this committee before the Christmas Recess. I do think this committee, under the chairmanship of my colleague from La Prairie, Mr. Richard Belisle, whom I congratulate, did a wonderful job.
However, I would like to suggest to this committee - and I do not intend to impose my ideas in that report because I will discuss them with my two vice-chairs and with you all - that we should try to discharge our duty in a slightly different manner. We might try to go beyond a straightforward review of the Auditor General of Canada's reports, and within the framework of our responsibilities, broaden the scope of that study.
I do not intend to systematically confront ministers, but I believe that those in charge of managing the departments should be accountable to us.
We will discuss this further but I simply wanted to suggest that this committee should not stop at carrying out an exhaustive study of the Auditor General's report, week after week. We should not forget that, despite our ideological differences and different visions of Canada and of Quebec-Canada relations, we in the House of Commons represent taxpayers who would like to pay less taxes.
When we speak of public accounts, we speak of a government structure that spends taxpayers' money and taxpayers are getting weary of the whole thing. I think that we all know what it means and that we can work together in an interesting manner here in this committee.
I also had an opportunity to discuss this issue with my colleague from Brome - Missisquoi, at an informal meeting. Certainly I have my own personality and some people may not care for it, but it is important to listen to the people we represent. We are often blamed for not being close enough to them and for not being aware of their concerns.
This is what I had to say and I would like to discuss my approach with you. Should we only meet public servants in Ottawa or would it be a good idea to travel to the regions and counties that we represent and others to listen to taxpayers and to see how money is spent?
I'm sorry to have spoken for so long, but I wanted to put forward my ideas on our future work together. Thank you.
I ask that a motion be put for the election of a first vice-chair.
.1810
Ms Barnes.
[English]
Mrs. Barnes (London West): I would move that Andrew Telegdi be elected first vice-chair of the committee.
Mr. Peric: Mr. Denis second.
The Chairman: I don't think we need a seconder.
Mr. Peric: No, I'm nominating for second vice-chair.
The Chairman: We'll go with the first vice-chair and do that afterward.
Are there any other -
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: I ask for a vote.
The Chair: So I repeat that Ms Barnes moves that Mr. Telegdi be elected first Vice-Chair of the committee. All those in favour, please raise your hand.
Motion agreed to
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, congratulations.
There is another proposition for the election of the second vice-chair. Mr. Peric.
Mr. Peric: I'm nominating Denis for second vice-chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: It is moved that Mr. Denis Paradis be elected as second Vice-Chair.
[English]
Are there any comments?
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: No. Are we voting for Mr. Denis or Mr. Paradis?
Mr. Paradis: Both.
The Chair: Fine. So, it is moved that Mr. Denis Paradis be elected second Vice-Chair. Will anyone call the vote? Won't anyone call the vote?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Fine. Congratulations Mr. Paradis.
The Clerk has just mentioned to me that you all have a copy of a document entitled "Motions adopted by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on Tuesday, February 22, 1994". There are five routine motions. Do you want to proceed immediately to the adoption of these routine motions?
The Clerk: We should change two words and I have them here. We no longer print the proceedings, we publish them on the Internet. Motion No. 1 can be read and revised by deleting the words "and Evidence".
The Chair: Shouldn't both opposition parties be present in order to have a quorum?
The Clerk: No that is not necessary provided there are at least seven of us. We have the majority.
The Chair: But that is not what is written on this sheet.
The Clerk: That concerns evidence presented without a quorum.
The Chair: Apparently, in the first motion, the word "printing", should be corrected. Given that the proceedings are now published on the Internet, the word "evidence" should be deleted on the first line. Motion No. 1 would then read as follows:
- That the Committee's Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence be printed in accordance with the
policy established by the Board of Internal Economy.
We delete the words ``and evidence''.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin.
.1815
Mr. Laurin: I must admit that I am not very familiar with the Internet, and I just want to make sure that if we do this we will still have access to the record of the evidence. I want to know if, 15 days after a witness testifies before the committee, I can get a copy of his testimony off the Internet.
The Chairman: Yes. The Clerk can explain.
The Clerk: It is not only published on the Internet, but also on PubNet, which is the internal network of the House. The Chair proposed these two changes to the wording of the motions because of changes in the way House documents have been published since the beginning of the session. We will follow the same procedure and documents will still be available, as they have been since last April. Deliberations are not being printed anymore, and that's why you don't receive the issues as you did in the past but they are now published electronically.
Mr. Paradis: But is it possible to get a printed document from the computer?
The Clerk: Yes, no changes have been made in the last year.
The Chairman: Are there any other questions or comments? Can we adopt the motion? Do you want to adopt them one after the other? Does anyone want to move the adoption of the motion entitled "Printing", including the amendment? Do we need to second the motion?
The Clerk: No.
The Chairman: All right. Would anyone like to put the motion? Since I don't see anyone putting the motion, I declare it carried.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Regarding motion No. 2, as the Clerk has just explained, it is not necessary to have a quorum for certain meetings, and so we will replace the word "printing" with the word "publication".
[English]
We replace the word ``printing'' in the third line with the word ``publication''.
[Translation]
I will read the amended motion:
- That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of
evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least three members are present and that
a member from the Government and both opposition parties are present.
Mrs. Barnes.
Mrs. Barnes: I have a concern, and perhaps it's because I've come from another committee. In that other committee there were many times when we wouldn't have been able to follow this rule because we didn't have two opposition parties present, yet we did have a quorum. We have one of those times right here.
I would like to see whether other members of this committee would consider that the quorum be with respect to the numbers, with a government member and one of the opposition parties present. Otherwise, this meeting would collapse right now.
The Chairman: I asked this question, and apparently we can continue today because we have no evidence, no witnesses.
Mrs. Barnes: I will give you one example from the justice committee. During the referendum debate many of the members were absent from the justice committee because they were in their ridings or whatever, and we still didn't withhold or suspend meetings as long as we had a member of the opposition party present. I think there could be many instances where the work of the committee could be held up.
So I'm suggesting this. If other people don't consider it a problem, it's not something that I'm raising to be contentious. I'm trying to raise it to be helpful.
Mr. Grose (Oshawa): I do consider it a problem. I was a member of a committee where a party, which will remain nameless, boycotted the meetings, and we would have been absolutely paralysed if this rule had been in effect in that committee. It would appear that this might be a possibility here as well, and it could simply stall proceedings.
[Translation]
Mr. Paradis: I would like to propose an amendment, Mr. Chairman, which would read as follows: "and that one member of an opposition party is present", instead of "both parties".
The Chairman: Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin: I don't know if I want to support the amendment, because if you include the Official Opposition, there is no doubt we will be present. In the interest of democracy, I think it is important to pass the amendment as is, particularly since we are the Public Accounts committee which, as you already pointed out, Mr. Chairman, is not like a regular committee.
.1820
Indeed, members of this committee study the amounts to be spent by government very closely because they represent the people.
The committee would be paralyzed if two parties were to band together to prevent the other party from hearing testimonies, just because the two first parties don't want to.
If everyone is reasonable, I think we can reach an agreement. I think it's important that the committee get on with its work even if some members are not present when witnesses appear and even if there is no quorum. What party cannot find a substitute? How is this impossible? It's always possible to find a substitute, which means that all three parties are always present. Thus, the flow of information is not interrupted and the committee can get on with its work. So I think it is more democratic not to change the wording of the motion.
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, one of the important parts of this debate is that since we went through the exercise of electing the chair, and as we were electing the vice-chair, the Reform Party took their ball and went home. I think it's important for the record to show that.
Certainly the point being put forward now is being put forward for those reasons, that if somebody wants to be obstructionist then we should not hold up hearing evidence, because we can have people who've come a long way to make a presentation to the committee. That's costing the taxpayers money, and it would be wasteful not to hear the evidence that they have to give. We're not making decisions at this meeting; it's basically for the purpose of hearing evidence. So I very much support the amendment to have one of the opposition parties present.
[Translation]
Mr. Paradis: A little earlier, you said you would like the committee to travel. The committee might chose to travel to Quebec City to review some issues. If everyone went along except for a member of the second opposition party, the trip would be wasted for everyone involved - committee members, staff and on-site witnesses - because the work of the committee would be paralyzed since one party decided not to show up.
I therefore insist on keeping the proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman, which states that only one opposition party has to be present, and not both.
[English]
The Chairman: Mrs. Barnes.
Mrs. Barnes: I just want to make the practical point that anybody who misses a meeting where evidence is called does have the written record to rely upon. It's up to the party to decide whether or not to send a member as a replacement for their existing member so that they can do the questioning at that meeting. That shouldn't constrain us from doing our work.
This happened many times in the former committee I was on, where one of the parties was not represented because either it wasn't interested in a bill or it wasn't a convenient time, and I know that work would be greatly slowed down. I think it's very important that we are not constrained in doing our work and that's why I put this forward, and I think it could happen to any one of the parties at any given point in time. But I think we should be allowed to continue the work of the committee.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Are there any other -
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear the amendment again to make sure I understand what I'm voting on.
.1825
The Chairman: The motion would read as follows:
- That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of
evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least three members are present and that
a member from the government and one of the two opposition parties be present.
- - provided that at least three members be present and that a member of the government and a
member of the Official Opposition be present.
The Chairman: There is a sub-amendment -
The Clerk: We will consider the revised motion put forward by Mr. Paradis.
The Chairman: Unless Mr. Paradis agrees with the amendment.
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, that's not exactly what I was proposing. I proposed that only one member from either opposition party be present. I think that in the past the Bloc Québécois has faithfully attended this committee's meetings. The Bloc was always present, as was Reform most of the time. I don't think the committee can function - When I say "present", it means that people have to be called to a meeting. These are not secret meetings.
Each political party - the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and Reform - has the responsibility of making sure that its members are present. It's asking too much of one party to make sure that both other parties are represented. That's why I'm saying that only one of two opposition parties should be present, or that opposition members should be present, without specifying which party.
The Chairman: Mr. Grose.
[English]
Mr. Grose: As much as I agree with the amendment, I think it's most inappropriate for us to take this action when representatives of the third party are not here. I'm quite sure they would vote against this amendment, but I think it's inappropriate to do it when they're not here.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Let's not forget that the motion concerns meetings to hear witnesses when there is no quorum. Quorum in this committee is seven members. We want to avoid small secret meetings with only three people.
In February 1994, you wanted to prevent secret meetings from being held with members from only two parties. So you decided that the government and both opposition parties should be represented in order to recognize the fact that there are three parties in the House. That's why you wanted members from both opposition parties to be present when there was no quorum, that is, when there were less than seven members present.
Mrs. Barnes.
[English]
Mrs. Barnes: I just want to point out something practical that would likely happen here when we're talking about this issue. The fact is we have a Bloc member chairing and calling the meetings, so presumably there would never be, from the perspective of the Bloc, a meeting where the official opposition, as it currently is, would be absent from the meetings. It would call the meetings, so obviously it would not wish to call one unless one of its members could be present.
My concern is that this happened on numerous occasions in the justice committee. It happened for the Bloc and it happened for the Reform. I don't recall it happening for the government, but it did happen. Again, I state that there is public expense. If we have called witnesses before us and we all show up, and, as right now, there is nothing preventing representatives from the third party from being present at this meeting - they chose to leave - that should not constrain us from day one from not finishing our business. This meeting was called to do this work today.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Brien.
Mr. Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Chairman, I'd like a clarification on what my colleague has just said, that is, is the chairman included in the minimum of three members? Does that include the chairman, or can it mean a vice-chairman.
Mr. Laurin: Yes, it can also be a vice-chairman.
Mr. Brien: In that case, will the vice-chairman do?
Mr. Laurin: The chairman may be sick for a month; he won't lose his position while the vice-chairman takes over. In that case, the Opposition would not be represented. This situation might last two months.
.1830
Mr. Brien: I would like to conclude. The unamended motion calls for one member of the Official Opposition to be present. But the amendment could give rise to a situation where the committee could sit even if no member of the Official Opposition is present, because all you need is a member from the second opposition party. In our opinion, the amended motion does not strengthen our position. We prefer the original rather than the amended version.
My colleague's amendment made a little more sense. He suggested that at least one member from the Official Opposition be present. You are concerned about the ability of the committee to get on with its work. It will since the Chairman will be present and I imagine he will preside most meetings. So the committee will be able to get on with its work. The member missing today is not from the Bloc. We are here and there are three of us. So, if the motion stated that a member of the Government and a member of the Official Opposition Party be present, I would support that.
The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, you asked to speak.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, if I insist on this it is because I don't think the government wants to take away the powers of the Opposition today. Until now, that has never been the intent of our colleagues opposite. If the committee adopts the amendment as drafted, the position of the Official Opposition would be weakened because, the committee would have to have a quorum unless the Official Opposition and the Reform Party are represented. However, speaking as a member of the Official Opposition, I am sure that the committee cannot sit unless at least one of our members is present. As a member of the Official Opposition, I can guarantee this.
But if I support the amendment, I would be weakening my position. It means that the committee could sit with only three members, even if the Bloc is not represented, and I can't agree to that. It would be putting my faith in the hands of others. It would mean that the governing party and the Reform Party could work together without the Bloc, whereas they cannot do so under the current rules. Don't ask me to weaken the Bloc's position on this committee.
I have sat on this committee for three years. The fact that each party has to be represented was never a problem. Despite the Reform Party's absence, we would have everything to lose if we tried to protect it. If they don't want to be here, that's their decision. Period. I won't defend them. If they don't want to come, they won't, but that doesn't mean I will give up the Bloc's powers. If it is to each man his own, the Reform Party will defend itself. For now, I will defend my party. If the opposition is to be represented, I want it to be the Bloc and not Reform. The wording of the original motion guarantees the need for the Bloc's presence. But if it is amended, I want you to guarantee that the Official Opposition has to be represented, and if not, the committee will not be able to sit. That's all I'm asking for - no more, no less.
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to come back to the argument made by my colleague. There is an issue of costs involved. If, at one point, the committee decided to hold meetings in Oshawa, for instance, and our colleagues, Mr. Brien and Mr. Laurin, decided not to come, the committee would be paralyzed. If we learn this at the last minute, the committee could not travel to Oshawa. Why? You would be there. Would this be in line with the criteria put forth? Probably.
Everyone would be invited. This is some kind of a saving clause. What should the committee do if there is no quorum but it wants to get on with its work? That's what we're saying. In the absence of a quorum, what can we do to carry on? As my colleague said a few moments ago, the committee would not be making decisions, but simply hearing testimony, taking the pulse of the situation and making recommendations.
If, for any reason, a member decides not to attend a meeting and not to send a substitute, why should other committee members suffer the consequences? I don't think you have anything to lose by agreeing that a member of the government and a member of the opposition should be present. This is only in anticipation of exceptional circumstances when there is no quorum.
.1835
Mr. Brien: In that case, Mr. Chairman, to be consistent, you would have to remove the words "that a member of the government is represented". Instead of saying "that ( - ) three members are present and that a member from the government ( - ) is represented", you would simply have to replace the word "government" with "three members", period. The argument can be made either way.
Mr. Laurin: Fine.
[English]
The Chairman: Mrs. Barnes.
Mrs. Barnes: I want a point of information. You said there's never been a problem, and I take you at your word now that you have said it. Has this committee travelled in the past, as the new chair has just told us he's contemplating? I think it could become a big issue if we're travelling outside Ottawa. I say again that I really didn't think this was a contentious point. It was not raised to be contentious; it was raised to be practical.
I can only reiterate that it was during one period of time during which the Bloc was not present at the meetings I constantly attended. It was very important that we be allowed to continue with our work at that time. I was very assured - and I know this from conversations with members of the Bloc - that on their return they were up to speed, again because they had read the proceedings and knew what they were missing. They got all the documentation. So I think it's really important that we don't preclude ourselves from having meetings. I don't know whether the member of the third party intends to come to the next meeting.
This is meeting number one of a new committee for me, so I'm just saying this was intended not to be a political point but to be a practical point. I hope you accept it as offered.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Briefly, before I give the floor to Mr. Brien.
[English]
Mrs. Barnes, it's not just a question of travel. They can paralyse the committee here in Ottawa.
Mrs. Barnes: But I'm saying his assurances were given at a point in time before you had ever suggested travel.
The Chairman: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Brien.
Mr. Brien: I would like to come back to what I said a little earlier in response to the argument made by my colleague. If you are looking for practical reasons, if you want to make sure that the committee can sit when there is no quorum, and to hear witnesses, and to give members the opportunity to access deliberations on the Internet or to have them printed, if that is really the purpose of the motion, all you have to do is say that you need a minimum number of members without specifying which party should be represented, be it the government party or an opposition party.
If, however, you want to be more specific, if you want your motion to say that the government has to be represented, in that case, we also demand that the Official Opposition be represented. In fact, we are asking for exactly the same thing you are. The proposed amendment put forth by the member for Brome - Missisquoi, Mr. Paradis, calls for the presence of three members, that is, from the government and from one of the opposition parties. You are the government, you've just protected yourself. You are saying specifically that you have to be there.
You always argued that the committee should be able to sit with a minimum number of members. If this is truly what you want, just say "three members" and drop the word "government". Otherwise, if you insist on saying that a member from the government has to be present, we want you to add "and a member of the Official Opposition". It's that or the original motion.
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I ask that we settle this matter at another meeting to give us more time for discussion.
The Chairman: Does everyone agree?
Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin: This motion would not apply to out-of-town meetings. People are always referring to trips. But that's not at issue here. In the past, the Public Accounts committee held meetings in other provinces and only the Chairman was present. But this did not prevent the committee from getting on with its work.
The sole purpose of this motion is to let the committee hear witnesses in Ottawa when there is no quorum. If the committee is to hear witnesses, I want to be sure that the Bloc is present, same as the government. I don't mind waiting before we make a decision. But don't expect our decision to change even if you bring in three additional members, increasing your numbers from four to seven. You said you respected the presence of the opposition today; which means you will also respect it for the duration of our proceedings and that we enjoy the same privileges as you and get the same treatment.
The Chairman: Does everyone agree that we should resume this discussion at our next meeting? All agreed?
Mr. Laurin: Only as regards to this motion.
.1840
The Chairman: Motion No. 2 should therefore stand.
Let's just recap, for the record, everyone's position: Mr. Paradis proposed adding "one of the opposition parties" to the last part of the sentence; Mr. Laurin also proposed an amendment asking that the Official Opposition be represented; Mr. Brien did not propose an amendment, but simply took part in the discussion. We will therefore revisit the issue from another angle based on these facts.
Mr. Laurin: But it won't prevent other amendments from being introduced.
The Chairman: No.
The motion stands
The Chairman: I will now call motion No. 3.
Mr. Laurin: I move the motion, Mr. Chairman.
The Clerk: Mr. Laurin moves the wording as is.
The Chairman: Agreed.
[English]
Mrs. Barnes: I have a question. Does the chair not consult with the steering committee, or does the committee as a whole never decide if we're going to be - These are the normal research officers who are under regular standing. These are not people coming in on a special contract. Is that the clarification I need?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mrs. Barnes: Okay. This does not involve going out to hire somebody to do extra research.
The Chairman: We must come back, I think, in front of the committee.
Mrs. Barnes: That's fine.
The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, do you - Fine, okay.
[Translation]
Is anyone asking for the vote on motion No. 3?
Motion carried
The Chairman: Who will move motion No. 4?
Mr. Paradis: I have a question, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Yes, a question, Mr. Paradis.
Mr. Paradis: If we ask two representatives from the Department of National Revenue in Montreal to appear before us, am I to understand that, with this motion, we will be paying for their plane tickets?
The Chairman: Your question is very relevant. What do we mean by ``two representatives for any one organization''?
Mr. Paradis: What is that?
The Chairman: How do you qualify as a representative of an organization?
The Clerk: The intent here certainly means private sector organizations. To my knowledge, no committee has ever paid any costs for public servants. First of all, the policy specifies that a person must come from at least 25 miles out of town. Second, never would any public servant ever dare ask to be reimbursed by a committee and I've been around here for 22 years.
So this actually concerns people from the private sector and only if they ask to be reimbursed. The Chairman does have some latitude. If it's a national organization, part of their responsibilities is to appear before committees. So I think the chairman might have some hesitation in reimbursing expenses requested by the Canadian Bar.
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the whys and wheres for motion No. 4 when we invite people to appear before the committee to examine a question. As a committee of the House, we have the power to compel witnesses to appear. Reimbursing the expenses for such witnesses when they're not public servants isn't a problem for me. I agree with that philosophy. However, I don't know if we have a budget to reimburse witness expenses. And if we do have one, what's the amount? Before agreeing to the motion, I'd like to know if we have the money to do it and how much.
Secondly, I wouldn't like the rule to apply to public servants, because they're usually the people who appear before us. And if these witnesses are from the outside, we'd still have to have call them before us.
The Chairman: Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin: It does state that this is "as established by the Board of Internal Economy". The conditions are set out in the Board's policy. Anyone asking to appear before us comes at their own expense if we invite them. They're coming here of their free will.
But if we call upon the Province of Quebec's Grandparents Association to appear before the committee as a witness to get their opinion on whatever problem, then we'll pay the travelling expenses of the grandfather and grandmother delegated here. We'll pay for the travelling expenses of a maximum of two. Besides, their travelling expenses are subject to the standards established by the Board of Internal Economy. If the policy states they're allowed a bus ticket, that's what we'll pay for it. If they travel by plane, they'll make up the difference. That's the rule that's been in effect for goodness knows how long and shouldn't cause any problems.
.1845
The Chairman: Does that answer your question, Mr.Paradis?
Does anyone move motion No. 4? Mr. Brien. Anyone asking for the vote? No?
Motion carried unanimously
The Chairman: Any questions or comments on motion No. 5: "Time allocation for questioning"? Who's moving the motion?
[English]
Mrs. Barnes: Could I ask how it works here? It's ten minutes for the first questioner of each party and then five for each one after that. Is there a back and forth between the parties?
An hon. member: No.
Mrs. Barnes: You're saying there is and he's saying there isn't.
The Chairman: I come from the transport committee and Stan Keyes did a great job with us. Sometimes it was difficult in the majority caucus and he had more problems with some of his Liberal colleagues. Anyway, there was first a ten-minute round for the official opposition, then ten minutes for the third party, followed by ten minutes for the Liberals, and you can split it up. After that we started with a five-minute round for each - official opposition, Reform and Liberals. And after that it was a free-for-all.
Mrs. Barnes: When we got into the five-minute round, it went five minutes to the official opposition, five to the government, five to the third party.
An hon. member: No, we don't want that at all.
Mrs. Barnes: If people don't want that, that's fine. We just worked through it that way, though.
The Chairman: It was my intention -
Mrs. Barnes: What I'm saying is that it doesn't tell us that in this motion. The rule you just referred to with regard to that order talks about ten-minute rounds, with five-minute rounds for each subsequent questioner. It doesn't say ``per party'' or ``per'' -
An hon. member: It's per person.
Mrs. Barnes: Each subsequent questioner, to me, means you could have five government members in a row, or five Bloc members, or five anybodies. It doesn't matter.
An hon. member: No. Don't complicate it.
Mr. Brien: Sometimes it will be - It depends.
Mrs. Barnes: Can it go any way? What I'm asking is whether or not it always has to go around in a circle. This is not clear in telling me what happens. That's my point.
The Chairman: I made the same comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin: I think the wording gives you enough latitude to do things equitably for each party.
I imagine your concern as a chairman will be to give each party the opportunity to be heard equally. If the opposition gets 10 minutes then the government party will be getting 10, alternately.
However, it may happen that we have fewer questions than the governing party. In such case, it might happen that two or three Liberals would speak one after the other. It's your right to grant them that. But if you see that all parties want the floor, then the wording is there to guide you. It also allows you to alternate speakers to share the period so that at the end of the meeting everyone has had just about the same time.
The Chairman: Yes, but I wouldn't want to get into a debate with you at the first opportunity with witnesses present. We'll keep it all in the family and settle it before the guests arrive and while the priest still isn't there. Are you agreeable to the procedure I suggested to you?
Mr. Laurin: I'm not really too much in favour of the free for all.
The Chairman: No, but when we're on to a third five-minute round, those who want to speak respecting -
Mr. Laurin: If the free for all is in my favour, I'm not saying another word.
[English]
Mr. Grose: I think Mr. Laurin will acknowledge that we operated in a very civilized manner in this committee for the last two years. There's never been a problem, and I'm happy to proceed as we have.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Who's moving motion No. 5? Mr. Brien. Anyone asking for the vote?
Motion carried unanimously
.1850
The Chairman: One of the things we're discussing right now with the whips and I spoke about it during the informal meeting I had with my colleague from Brome-Missisquoi - I don't know if I'm telling tales out of school here - is to change the times we meet at. It seems to me that 5:30 p.m. isn't a very good time.
I'd like to suggest we take the time slot following question period on Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 3:30 p.m. If we need more time, we could sit Thursdays. Just between ourselves, let's say that Mondays and Fridays aren't very good days for meetings. When we're travelling outside, of course we'll try to put in intensive weeks, including nights. But when we're in Ottawa, we would prefer Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 3:30 p.m. and Thursdays if need be.
An hon. member: Super.
The Chairman: Agreed. The whips are talking about it right now. We should be getting news on this.
[English]
Mr. Grose.
Mr. Grose: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say personally that if you do as good a job as I expect you will, as our last chairman, although we will have our philosophical differences, we will be well served and I will be very satisfied. Welcome.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
The Clerk: Perhaps we should deal now with the question of the steering committee.
The Chairman: Before we adjourn?
The Clerk: Before we adjourn.
The Chairman: Agreed.
The Clerk: I see that the question was not put on the routine motions list because it was dealt with separately last time and the steering committee was then made up of the chairman, the two vice-chairs and a representative from the Reform Party. That's the motion that was passed last time.
[English]
If the steering committee meets before the next meeting, maybe this would be the appropriate moment to decide on the composition.
Last session it was the chairman, the two vice-chairs and a member of the Reform Party.
The Chairman: But nobody from the Reform is here right now.
Mrs. Barnes: Could the parliamentary secretary not sit on your steering committee?
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Telegdi.
Mr. Telegdi: Perhaps the Reform can get a note that we expect to see them at the next meeting, at the steering committee meeting; otherwise we might decide not to have them there.
[Translation]
The Chairman: They're not even here.
Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I think that, logically, we should defer this item until we discuss the first motion we've already stood. It seems a bit inconsistent to me to make it mandatory to have a member of the Bloc on the steering committee but that an official representative of the Bloc wouldn't be able to put questions to witnesses when we don't have a quorum.
Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, that's totally different. The quorum question was set aside earlier.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Paradis: Still, I think it's essential for the subcommittee on agenda and procedure to start work as soon as possible. In my opinion, that has nothing to do with the matter of the quorum which would normally be seven people or whatever, but I don't want to get the debate going again.
The Chairman: With all due respect, Mr. Laurin, I would frankly say that I have some problem in seeing the link between the two. On the other hand, it might be appropriate -
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, I'll suggest the status quo on that. You'll see what the link is between the two a bit later. For the time being, however, I just suggest we keep the status quo for the subcommittee.
Mr. Paradis: In other words, leave things as they are.
Mr. Laurin: The membership would be the same as before, the chairman, the two vice-chairs and a member from the Reform party.
The Chairman: When you said "you'll see" you looked like you knew something that I don't know.
Mr. Laurin: I told you what I had to say on that. I have nothing further to say. Sometimes, things sort themselves out.
The Chairman: Do we need to vote on this motion?
Motion carried unanimously
.1855
The Chairman: The meeting stands adjourned.