Skip to main content
EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 19, 1996

.1535

[Translation]

The Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Hello, everybody.

Has everyone received a copy of the agenda? There are four items: the Report of the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure; the Motion to Receive Evidence, which was reserved at the last meeting, and to which an amendment and a sub-amendment were made; the Draft Report on matters relating to Household Goods Removal Services, and lastly,

[English]

a draft report on chapter 12 on the October 1995 report of the Auditor General of Canada, ``Systems''.

[Translation]

We will begin with the first item. Shall it be read or...

[English]

Everybody has read the report?

Mr. Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Chairman, I'll just move that the report be attached to the minutes of this particular meeting.

The Chairman: Okay. You suggest the adoption, Mr. Williams?

Mr. Williams: Yes, and I move adoption of the report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, as presented.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Does anyone want to say anything? Would someone like to ask for a vote on the adoption of the report?

The report is adopted [See Votes and Proceedings]

[English]

The Chairman: The second item is the motion to receive evidence.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin has proposed an amendment which reads as follows:

[English]

Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I would like to register my strong opposition to changing the motion to allow only one of the opposition parties to be present and constitute a quorum to hear evidence.

We have had a very amicable relationship in this committee since the last election. It has worked very well. It has never caused any problems where all three parties have to be represented. I see no reason whatsoever to change the methodology of this particular committee, which has worked so well and so harmoniously for the last two years or more.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Brien.

.1540

Mr. Brien (Témiscamingue): We proposed an amendment because last week there was a debate regarding a motion which would have called for each opposition party to be present. But we did not yet have Mr. Paradis' motion. Amendments were proposed, including the one put forward by Mr. Paradis, which asked that only one opposition party be present.

At the time, Mr. Paradis spoke eloquently to elicit support for his motion. Indeed, as the member for the Reform Party just said, Mr. Paradis stated that this was a cordial working atmosphere, and that he was not targeting any party in particular. Therefore, it would also make sense that three government members be present. So, if you eliminate "one of the opposition parties", and replace it with "three members", without specifying which party they belong to, the meaning of the motion stays the same.

In that case, you will have to reject both motions, the one put forward by Mr. Laurin as well as the one put forward by Mr. Paradis, and retain the original motion, which reads as follows: "that a member of the government be present as well as a member of each opposition party". I think that would satisfy everyone. This rule worked well in the last two years, and there's no reason why that should change in the future. But we will not support any proposal which will allow the committee to sit without us, because it would weaken the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any other comments?

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): There is no question that the committee's work has been harmonious, except when we take a vote and some members of the committee take off because they're not happy about the outcome.

Basically, we're talking about hearing delegations and facilitating this as much as possible. We don't have to have a quorum to hear delegations, but we have to have some members there. And then, for whatever reason, if somebody can't be present, we can still hear the delegations before the committee. I'm sure that if you're writing it up in your report... If we had somebody coming out from the west and we were unable to hear him, we'd have to bring him back at another time.

Essentially, that was the basis of the discussions. We were trying to keep in the spirit of being efficient.

The Chairman: Mr. Paradis.

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis (Brome - Missisquoi): Don't forget that we are dealing with a situation where there is no quorum, as stated in the section. What do we do if there is no quorum? I suggested, in the interest of efficiency, an amendment stating that the committee can sit, hear evidence and authorize its printing if there is no quorum. I want the committee to get on with its work even if there is no quorum.

There is no point in trying to simplify things, on the one hand, while complicating them, on the other, by saying at the end of the motion that everyone must be represented. If, for a given reason, a party could not be present, the committee should still be able to sit, hear evidence and authorize its printing. We simply have to state clearly what powers the committee has if there is no quorum.

The Chairman: Mr. Brien.

Mr. Brien: Mr. Paradis, I agree with you. To clarify the situation, I will read the entire motion to which you refer:

.1545

If, like your colleague, you feel it is important to allow witnesses to testify, you should not impose conditions and say that a government member must be included in the three members or that one of the two opposition parties may be absent. May I remind you that the original motion, which you want to amend, stated that each opposition party should be represented. Everyone would be there, since at least one member from each party would be present.

That's how it would have worked. But your amendment would make it necessary for you to be present, but not necessarily both opposition parties - you are potentially excluding one of them. That would be the result of your amendment.

You said that your amendment would replace the word "government" with "three members". That would make sense in light of what you said, and a committee could sit with three members regardless of their political affiliation.

I don't agree with the amendment and I ask again that it be changed as we have suggested or that we keep the original motion which stated that each party should be represented. That system worked for two years, and I don't see why it wouldn't work in the next two.

The Chairman: I don't want to interfere, but...

[English]

Mr. Williams will speak, then Mr. Paradis and Mr. Telegdi.

[Translation]

At that point, we should be able to put the motion to a vote. I don't want to interfere or prevent anyone from speaking, but it is time we came up with a constructive proposal.

[English]

Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I have to thank my colleague from the Bloc for pointing out that this is obviously an attempt by the government to override the basic intent of the public accounts committee as a committee of opposition that holds the government accountable.

Here we find, through this motion put forward by a member of the government, that they want to go ahead without one of the two parties in opposition. They feel they can proceed.

Let us remember also, Mr. Chairman, that the motion put forward is to allow this committee to conduct business when it has no quorum. A committee that has no quorum really is not properly constituted. We have acknowledged that without a quorum it can hear witnesses without making decisions, and this has been acknowledged all the way through.

I mentioned earlier that this committee has worked harmoniously for between two and two and a half years since the election. But now we find the government is trying to test this harmonious relationship by playing one party in opposition against the other, while protecting their right to always be at the table or the committee can't even listen to witnesses.

I find it quite reprehensible, Mr. Chairman, that this type of motion should be presented in the middle of a parliament. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would certainly hope the members of the government present here and members of this committee would see the public accounts committee as the committee of opposition. As such, they should respect the right of the Bloc and Reform to be at these meetings. If for one reason or another we cannot both be here, the government should defer hearings in this committee until we can be present.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Williams.

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis.

Mr. Paradis: First, I would like to remind Mr. Williams that the motion which is before us today would allow the committee to hear witnesses and hold a meeting when a quorum is not present.

Second, in response to what our colleague from the Bloc said, I would like to add that this committee respects the tradition of having an opposition member chair the committee. So, the opposition plays an important role on this committee.

All we are saying is that if a political party is not represented at a meeting, we do not want to send witnesses home again, some of whom come from far away, and waste their time. We're trying to avoid that kind of situation.

.1550

I think it's important that the government be present. The Official Opposition is present anyhow because it chairs the committee, and the Reform Party is also generally there. But if one of the parties should not be represented, do we want to tell five or seven people who came from Halifax or Vancouver that we are sorry but they have to go home? We are all convened to receive evidence. Everyone is invited, and the onus is on the members who can't come to a meeting to find a substitute.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Paradis. Mr. Telegdi.

[English]

Mr. Telegdi: Strictly on the practicalities of the numbers, we have seven members from the government side and five members from the opposition side, and I don't really expect this to be any kind of problem. I'm sure for yourself, Mr. Williams, for whatever reason you're going to be here...if we have some delegations in from Vancouver at great cost to the government, to the taxpayers of Canada, I'm sure you would want that meeting to proceed.

You can always get a substitute for yourself and read the reports prior to dealing with the business at hand. It isn't meant to undermine your status or your party's status; it's meant to accommodate the people who come in as witnesses to give evidence in front of members of this committee.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Barnes (London West): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to just put it on the record that I do not intend to go over the same arguments as I did at the last meeting. I also want to point out to the member from the third party that in courtesy to the third-party membership, all of us around this table decided to defer this motion until today because the third party's members weren't there. That was part of why we put this over - so you could be here for this vote. I want it on the record because I think we were more than fair by doing so.

That's all I have to say.

The Chairman: Mr. Hopkins.

Mr. Hopkins (Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke): Mr. Chairman, we've heard this argument many times. You can have harmony in the committee and you can have the committee in a position where it can operate.

The argument that has been put forward about people coming in from ``out of town'' and not being able to be heard is a very valid one. I've seen it happen and it's not a very nice scene.

We are not excluding anyone, because by being absent entirely a party is excluding itself. If a party has an obligation to serve on a committee, then it is normally there. I don't think this has anything to do with disrupting the harmony of a committee.

For example, suppose there wasn't harmony in the committee and we adopted this motion. What's going to happen if a party decides to boycott this committee? You're dead in the water. Is that harmony? Is that fair to the operations of the public accounts committee, which is here for very important reasons?

Certainly, I'm not pitting one party against the other. I heard those words - and I think that was you, Mr. Williams. You're not pitting one party against the other here, because both parties have members on this committee to come in and take their place. It's not we who decide that they don't come.

This motion facilitates the operation of the committee. I think it's an act of courtesy to hear evidence without a working quorum, because it gets you off this business of people coming in and sitting here and not being able to be heard.

.1555

This is common rationale that's been argued over and over again, and we hear the same arguments against it. I think harmony is going to exist in this committee if we ourselves decide it's going to be harmonious and that we do our homework.

I would just say those few words to refute what's being said. Indeed, there may be a time when one of the parties can't have members here; this happens. We understand that, and it's not the end of the world. Life goes on. I myself wasn't here at the last meeting, but I had a valid reason for not being here. If something happened at the last meeting that I disagreed with, then maybe I've got myself to blame because of the priorities I took. That's what we have to live with around here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Brien.

Mr. Brien: I would also like to make a point. A little earlier, a member said that the reason no decision was made last week was because Reform was not there. I was at that meeting, and the reason no decision was made was because the government was confused on the issue and wanted to wait and probably consult members of its own party before reaching a decision.

That's my assessment of the situation, and I stand by it. I wanted to say this for the record.

Let's take a step back, Mr. Chairman. There was an original motion which would have allowed the committee to sit even if there was no quorum. This is what the member from Brome-Missisquoi wants. There was also a motion on the same subject in the routine motions that are adopted to establish how a committee works. That motion said that when a quorum is not present, the committee can still hold meetings provided that at least three members are present and that a member from government and a member from each opposition party are present.

He proposed an amendment authorizing the committee to sit provided that at least three members are present and that a member from the government and one of the opposition parties are present. Why put forth an amendment of that nature if not to take away a certain power or a kind of veto which the Official Opposition, as well as the other opposition party had?

His amendment only makes sense when viewed from that angle, because there was already a motion authorizing the committee to sit, when a quorum is not present, with three members, provided that each political party was represented.

When he spoke a little earlier, he even said that it was important that the government be present. Well, it is just as important for the Official Opposition and for the other opposition party to be there.

His amendment is not consistent with his own logic; I don't see why we should support it.

Several members have talked about the fact that witnesses may be present. If there are seven witnesses from Nova Scotia, seven from British Columbia, seven from Brome - Missisquoi or from Témiscamingue, and if a political party does not show up, thus preventing the witnesses from giving evidence, that party will have to live with the political consequences of its decision. If, for any given reason, a party did not show up and prevented the committee from doing its work...

Don't forget that this is the Public Accounts Committee. It is mainly a tool for the opposition parties, and it would not make sense to prevent the committee from sitting without a valid reason. We will have to justify our actions if ever our absence prevents the committee from sitting. And as usual, the public will judge for itself.

You have the majority and you are changing the rules, changing your stripes. Put yourself in the shoes of the Bloc or Reform. Your amendment dilutes the powers we have under the original motion. Our position would be weakened. The only party which would be completely protected is the government. We would lose, and so would they.

Don't try to convince me that our party would be better off and that you simply want to make sure that witnesses from across the country will be able to give evidence. There was another point to your motion, which was to bypass one of the two opposition parties. That doesn't make sense, since voters democratically elected Liberals, Bloc members and Reformers. By respecting tradition, this committee has worked well in the last two years. I did not sit on the committee during that time, but I have the impression it worked. To my knowledge, there were never any official complaints because Reform or the Bloc did not show up.

.1600

I don't understand why the member for Brome - Missisquoi is proposing an amendment which would do nothing but increase or maintain his party's powers and privileges and weaken the opposition. It's an abuse of power on the part of the government. It's almost arrogant, Mr. Chairman.

I hope you change your mind and withdraw your amendment, because this debate could last a long time. You know what the rules of committee procedure are. I have enough stamina and I am ready to discuss the matter as long as reason does not prevail.

I don't know if my Reform colleague has anything to say, but I would like us to go by the old rules. They worked for everyone. Show some good faith. Your colleagues who sat on the committee went along, and no one died from having supported the original motion. Let's withdraw both amendments. If the government said it would vote against its own amendment or withdraw it, we could immediately move on to the rest of the agenda.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, I'm grateful for the support I get from the member of the Bloc Québécois. I was listening to the comment by Mr. Hopkins about the fact that this is only to hear witnesses and to facilitate the efficient working of the committee. As the member from the Bloc points out, a very definite double standard is being proposed here. On the one hand the government members are guaranteed to be here, and if they are not here then nothing shall happen. On the other, if one of the other parties is not here then it may proceed. They are two entirely and fundamentally different standards, Mr. Chairman, one for them, one for the parties in opposition; and this is the committee of opposition.

I cannot and will not support this motion. I would hope the members of the government would recognize that again they are trampling on democracy here.

I said earlier that if there's no proper quorum of this committee, the committee is not properly constituted. Therefore, in conclusion, I only have to say, Mr. Chairman, that if this motion is approved today, then I will take whatever steps are necessary at the time a committee on public accounts is held, not properly constituted, without representation of all three parties...I will do what I can to have that meeting struck from the record.

The Chairman: Mr. Crawford.

Mr. Crawford (Kent): I understand the one by Denis is an amendment to the original motion. It states here ``moved'', but it is an amendment to the original motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. This is the main motion. We were given a sheet with a proposed motion. We are establishing our rules of procedure. Instead of using the suggested text, I proposed another main motion.

[English]

The Chairman: This is a main motion.

Mr. Crawford: A main motion for clarification.

John, very seldom do I ever disagree with you, but today I will have to disagree with you, because I feel Denis' motion is a good one.

There are seven of us here. The government is always going to be here, John. We're told to be here. We're told how to vote. We will be here. So don't worry about the government.

I would support this motion; and Mr. Chairman, I would move that the question be put.

The Chairman: Apparently we cannot do that.

Mr. Crawford: That's parliamentary procedure. We could discuss this for days. Let's have a vote.

.1605

The Chairman: I will try to find the rule.

Mrs. Barnes: Are you saying that you want to vote on the amendment first?

Mr. Crawford: We'll vote on the amendment and then on the main motion, yes.

Mrs. Barnes: He's just asking for a vote.

Mr. Crawford: I am just asking for a vote on the amendment and then the motion.

The Chairman: But some members want to speak again. This is the reason why we cannot -

Mr. Hopkins: You've got a motion on the floor.

Mr. Crawford: That put closure on it.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Telegdi: He wants us to call the question. If the question is called, then we vote on it.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: We have to finish the debate first.

The Chairman: These are votable motions.

Mr. Brien: Yes, they are votable, but we have to wait for the end of the debate. We could go on for 24 hours.

[English]

The Chairman: Rule 525 of Beauchesne says:

[Translation]

He wants to put the motion to the vote. But as long as someone wants to debate the issue, the debate will continue. You cannot do that to put an end to the debate and ask for the question to be put immediately.

Mr. Paradis: Pursuant to what rule?

The Chairman: Rule 525 in Beauchesne:

The previous question puts an end to...

[English]

Mr. Hopkins: This is the previous question.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mrs. Barnes: How many more people do you have on your speakers list?

The Chairman: I have Mr. Crawford.

Mr. Crawford: I'm done.

The Chairman: Okay. Mr. Telegdi.

Mrs. Barnes: Are you done?

Mr. Telegdi: Who else do you have on the list?

The Chairman: Nobody.

Mr. Telegdi: Okay, well, I'm done.

Mrs. Barnes: Then you can call the question.

Mr. Hopkins: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Would you have that rule read out again, because I believe I heard ``on a previous motion'' and you can't bring up -

The Chairman: Previous questions. It says:

This procedure is for the House of Commons. In committee, we go to rule 525:

[Translation]

Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, if I'm right, the previous question is put to prevent an amendment from being put forward.

The Chairman: No, not necessarily.

Mr. Paradis: That's what I understood based on what you read.

The Chairman: It can also end the debate, if that's your intent.

Mr. Paradis: But you said previously: "to prevent an amendment or a sub-amendment from being put forward".

The Chairman: Yes.

.1610

Mr. Paradis: I don't believe anyone wants to prevent an amendment or a sub-amendment from being put forward, Mr. Chairman. If you asked any member of this committee whether they wanted to propose an amendment or a sub-amendment... In fact, that's what you asked of one member, René Laurin, at the last meeting. If there were any other amendments or sub-amendments, the committee could certainly deal with them.

I don't want to make a motion for the previous question in order to stop debate through an amendment or a sub-amendment.

The Chairman: If we agree to that, it will be easy to end the debate. But a motion to put the previous question puts an end to the debate. So if we want to give everyone the opportunity... However, we could show some discipline. I think we'll stop debating at one point or another.

Mr. Paradis: On another point of order, Mr. Chairman. For your information, the Standing Orders of the House stipulate that in a certain situation, a member has 10 minutes, another... Do those rules apply here? I'm asking for an opinion, Mr. Chairman. Normally the rules of the House apply to committees. There is a Standing Order - I forget which one - which governs this matter. If that's the case, can you tell us whether there is a time limit in committees?

The Chairman: Standing Order 116 stipulates that:

116. In a standing, special or legislative committee...

This applies to us, since we are a standing committee.

You are testing my knowledge of procedure. That's quite...

Mr. Paradis: You must know what is being referred to, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brien: Are we discussing Mr. Paradis' proposed amendment? Are we debating Mr. Laurin's amendment? Is this about the amendment?

The Chairman: We are debating Mr. Laurin's amendment:

[English]

Mr. Crawford, do you have your answer?

Mr. Crawford: I guess I do.

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Telegdi: Let me just say that when I come to these committees no one sits me down and tells me how to vote for the various issues. I think that's important. That has not happened yet.

Mr. Williams, I wonder if you were proposing to have struck down everything that happened in this committee last week after you and your colleague decided you didn't like what happened and you walked out. Then you propose that will be a common occurrence. This was the impression I was left with from what you were saying.

The fact of the matter is that we have twelve members on this committee. Seven of them are government members. So in all practicality, if you're going to have any representation, it means the government is going to have to be present.

There's no question that we are the government. This is why we have the most members on the committee. I see absolutely no problem in terms of what you were saying about our trying to discriminate against opposition parties. What we are responsible for is the carrying on of the business of the nation. If you choose not to attend and your colleague chooses not to attend meetings because you're upset about some decision that was taken by the committee, the obligation is still there for the government to carry on. I think it's an important point to put forth.

.1615

Unfortunately, by your actions at the last meeting, you probably underlined the need for the amendment that was put in by my colleague.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Agreed.

[English]

Mr. Williams.

Mr. Williams: I'd like to respond to Mr. Telegdi's point, Mr. Chairman.

I said that if this motion were approved I would, if necessary, take whatever steps I could to have meetings of the public accounts committee that were not properly constituted struck down. If the motion were approved as presented, I would take what necessary steps were available to me to strike down improperly constituted meetings of the public accounts committee where all three parties were not represented.

I didn't say, by an stretch of the imagination, that it would be retroactive. I said this only based on the actions of the members of the government.

On the other points raised by Mr. Telegdi, he seems to have a concept that we govern by practicalities rather than by rule of law. He seems to think that because they have seven and we have five they will always be here. He seems to think perhaps we may not always be here and therefore, because it is convenient and expedient, let us ride roughshod over the rights of the opposition parties and carry on regardless - the rule of law be damned.

This, Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with. This type of attitude has gotten many governments around the world into a great deal of trouble. It is the arrogance shown by people who have no appreciation that the rule of law is vitally important to any democracy or civilized world. It can be trampled on - and sometimes is - but should only be approached with great trepidation.

The third point Mr. Telegdi raised was that the government must proceed with its business. Let me again remind the members of the government, Mr. Chairman, that the business of this committee, as the committee of opposition, is to keep an eye - to be a watchdog - on government.

This committee is not part of the operation of government; this committee is the committee of opposition watching over government. It is our responsibility as opposition parties - parties in the plural, meaning two of us - to do our job as elected members in the opposition. It is our responsibility to supervise, test, examine, and keep the government accountable to the electorate. This committee has nothing to do with the business of government.

Therefore, Mr. Telegdi is wrong on all three counts, Mr. Chairman. This is why I said at the beginning that if this government wishes to trample on the rule of law and wishes to have absolutely no respect for the people of Canada, there are two parties in opposition in our system of parliamentary democracy keeping an eye on government. They are charged with the responsibility of a watchdog. If they want to deny us this responsibility, and if this committee acts when it is improperly constituted without all three parties present, I will take whatever steps are necessary to have the record struck down.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien: Mr. Chairman, it seems the member for Brome - Missisquoi allowed paranoia to overcome him when he proposed his motion and that he is afraid that the Bloc or Reform will not show up, thus impeding the work of the committee, whereas this has never happened in the past.

This committee does not necessarily study legislation. We hear evidence, we study the Auditor General's reports, we question various ministers. In short, we monitor the way the government manages taxpayers' money.

.1620

The main safeguard in our democratic system is of course open government monitored by the media and the opposition. If we passed a motion which diluted the power of the opposition parties under the rules of this committee, it would go against the purpose of the committee and our current democratic system, which exists to protect citizens as much as possible against government or bureaucratic abuse.

Incidentally, a Liberal member said something somewhat disquieting about this. He said that he was even told how to vote in committee. I guess that means that it would not make much of a difference if you were all replaced by flowerpots. That might change the look of the committee for the better, but I don't want to get into that.

I would like to remind all committee members...

Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, there is no basis for what the member has just said, and he is putting words into the mouth of our colleague. I didn't hear him say that. I ask that you call him to order... This is the Public Accounts Committee, and as in the House of Commons, you cannot just ascribe motives to members or to the way they vote, or say that they can be replaced by flowerpots. I ask that you call our colleague from the Bloc Québécois to order.

The Chairman: How do you respond to that?

Mr. Brien: I would invite him to read the record. His colleague, who is sitting at the end of the table, but whose name I forget, and even the colleague sitting next to him stated clearly that they were not told what to do. They wanted to clarify what their colleague said earlier, when he told the Reform Party members that they should not worry because he would always show up, that he was told to show up, that he had shown up and that he was even told how to vote. One of his colleagues said that. It's not my problem if he was not listening, but that's what was said. I have never put words into the mouth of a government member unless that member actually said them. So I don't see why I should be called to order.

The Chairman: We have to foster a culture of harmonious work and mutual respect. We don't have to love one another. The person you love is usually the one you share your life and bed with. You should love your partner a little more than your colleagues. However, we must respect each other. Calling the member to order would put me in an awkward position.

I simply want to tell my colleague, the Member for Témiscamingue, that we are allowed to use allegories or metaphors, but perhaps we should not compare other members to flowerpots. It's not an insult, but... We are here to represent taxpayers, who want their money to be well spent. I hope we can at least agree on that.

I will now go to Ms Barnes.

[English]

Mrs. Barnes: I came to this committee for the first time last week. I was told that it was harmonious, that it was to deal with public accounts. We have an agenda today and I came prepared to talk to that agenda. I'd like to get on with it.

.1625

I raised last week - for the information of Mr. Williams, who wasn't there - the point that this rule is the rule that has been in effect in the justice committee, where I've spent the last two and a half years doing extremely hard work with all members around the table from all parties, and at various times the Reform Party was not present to hear all the evidence, nor the Bloc party. Government always has to be there, and will be there, as long as we have this rule; and it has operated to good effect, because of the cost of bringing witnesses in.

I don't know if people realize that goes on, but it does. I can tell you if we didn't have that rule... There were many occasions when party members opposite could not be there. They had the blues to go back. They had the ability to come or to send substitutes. But there was never an occasion when our committee was shut down at the expense of the government because the witnesses were there but neither set of opposition was there. We found that rule worked very practically and allowed great flexibility for us to continue a very heavy workload.

I presume the workload here must continue, and I'd like to get on with it today. What I've heard more resembles party rhetoric than it does real business. The real business is on our agenda today.

I'd like to have this vote. I can assure you, for my part...and I know the member who raised the point about the third party not being present is here again today, and we did defer this to today so all parties would be at the table. But it was not done for political purposes. It was done to make sure no one party could endanger our hearing the witnesses before us.

I'm prepared to vote on it and support this amendment in that manner. I really wish we would get down to our agenda items today. This is the second day we've had prolonged debate on one item.

The Chairman: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): Mr. Chairman, like Mrs. Barnes, I'm rather surprised by the amount of distrust. The committee is called by the chairman, who is a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition. As chairperson, you determine when the meetings are held. If Mr. Williams feels his party is being left out, I would suggest that with some planning, since there are fifty members in his caucus - I know today he's by himself - certainly he could come up with two people. If the chairman were notified a few days in advance that the Reform Party or the Bloc Québécois could not come up with their members, I think it would be the place of the chairman to defer the meeting until a later date.

But simply to say one party can shut down the whole committee process is not... You speak about deleting such meetings from the record. You talk about not being democratic. We also have to think about democracy requiring responsibility. If a meeting is called in advance and you or your party can't be responsible enough to come, I think then too we have to look at democracy in terms of those responsibilities.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we proceed with this vote and clear the air so the committee can proceed.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin (Joliette): I think there is a mistake. This discussion is confused.

The purpose of the motion before us is to regulate committee meetings when there is no quorum. That's the issue. The arguments raised by the two members who just spoke are not relevant.

Under its rules - the clerk may correct me if I'm mistaken - the Standing Committee on Public Accounts may hold meetings when there is a quorum without the presence of all opposition parties. In other words, as we speak, the Bloc could be absent but, since there is a quorum, the meeting could continue. The same principle applies to the Reform Party. If there were no Reform members at this meeting, we could still sit because there is a quorum and because all opposition parties need not be represented. So the committee would have the right to sit, as stipulated by the rules. We don't want to change that. The issue was raised last week, and I don't understand why members new to the committee would bring this up when there never was a problem in the past.

.1630

Why do you want to change the rules we worked with last year? In the past, when there was no quorum, we decided there should be at least three members. Less than three would not be enough, but if there were three members, each party should be represented. That is the rule we lived by.

It is important to hear from a witness if he cannot make it another time. We would need three members to hear him. If a member from one party cannot make it, he can always send a substitute. A member from the Bloc can choose from 53 Bloc members to replace him, and a member from the Reform Party can choose from 53 members of its party. This way, each party is represented on the committee. That's the way we did it in the past and it did not create any problems. No party tried to boycott three-member meetings. In any case, no decisions are made at such meetings.

It is in our mutual interest to make sure that when there is no quorum and three members are present, a meeting can go ahead. I don't see why we should put an end to that system today by depriving the opposition of the right to be represented. That is patently undemocratic. It means that tomorrow three members would not have to be present, but only two. The amendment calls for three members to be present, but that's even worse, because if there were three members, there would have to be at least two from the government.

The government wants to tighten its control on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, despite the fact that this is the committee where it should have the least amount of control. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts is the forum in which the government is accountable for what it does. It seems that by proposing this amendment, the government wants to be less accountable to the public. It is making the job of the opposition more difficult. I just don't understand.

This debate got off to a bad start last week. Now we are stuck with this problem because no side wants to lose face. If that's the case, let's come back to what was originally on the table. Otherwise, I suggest we go into the main committee, and I would propose one or two solutions to solve this problem. If we sat in committee of the whole, members could propose different solutions and advocate to the ones they prefer.

The Chairman: What do you mean by "the committee of the whole"? This is the full committee.

Mr. Laurin: No. This is an official meeting. It's up to us. The committee of the whole is a meeting where opinions are exchanged but where there are no votes and where members may agree on the following: "If you propose that at the official meeting, we will support you". This is what happens in a committee of the whole. The House of Commons sometimes meets in a committee of the whole, which means that each member has the right to speak as often as he wishes. Members may speak to the same subject three, four or five times. A member may make a recommendation which would then be adopted at a general meeting.

At any rate, if that complicates things more, we will forget about it. All I want is for us to save time, and above all, that we safeguard the democratic procedure of this committee.

The Chairman: Mr. Laurin, you seem to be saying that you would be willing to withdraw your motion if Mr. Paradis withdrew his, if we reverted to the status quo and if we examined other more efficient ways of proceeding.

Mr. Laurin: I would be willing to withdraw mine if they are willing to withdraw theirs. That would be an acceptable compromise. We are neither better off nor worse off than last year, and the Liberals who were there before never complained.

At any rate, if ever our proceedings were to be boycotted by a party, as they seem to fear, they could come back with a similar motion and impose it because they have the majority. But for the time being, for heaven's sake, Mr. Chairman, to save time, let's at least go back to the status quo. We will withdraw our motion, they will withdraw theirs, and let's get down to work.

The Chairman: Mr. Paradis.

.1635

Mr. Paradis: Before Mr. Laurin arrived, we set out all of the reasons for our motion. The main ones do not concern members of the committee specifically, but more so people from elsewhere.

I listened to Mr. Laurin say that we are a properly constituted assembly. If one of the parties were absent we could nevertheless be properly constituted in committee as we speak. So if we can sit without one of the parties being present, we should not complicate things by saying that all parties must be present to hold meetings. We can sit without all parties being represented around the table, can we not, Mr. Clerk?

The Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Paradis: So, we could sit without Mr. williams or the members of the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Laurin: That would be unfortunate.

Mr. Paradis: That would be very unfortunate, you are right. It is important for everyone to be here, but technically speaking, we could sit without one of the political parties being present. I would just like to say that we're talking about exceptional measures. If we impose an additional condition by requiring that the three parties be present, we are complicating things. If we want to be logical...

Mr. Laurin: That condition already exists.

Mr. Paradis: Moreover, I would like to remind you that my motion is a main motion. We are starting over. The motion that you see under "Denis Paradis" is a main motion and what you submit after that is an amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Brien.

Mr. Brien: I would at least like Mr. Paradis to correct what he said. His argument is based on a concern with regard to witnesses. He wants to insure that we won't send people home without allowing them to give evidence. He claims that our procedural rules are too restrictive. I would simply like to remind him that there are 177 MPs in the Liberal Party - I think that number is correct - and that if ever there were hearings with important witnesses, or witnesses, at any rate, all they would have to do is to fill up all the spots they hold on the committee, all be present or send a replacement. There would be no problem then. They could hear evidence and they would automatically have a quorum. You can make up a quorum by yourselves.

Mr. Laurin: Is a quorum seven or eight?

The Chairman: Seven.

Mr. Laurin: They can't do it on their own.

Mr. Brien: With the chairman, you can have a quorum. So you will be able to hear witnesses, and there will be no problem. You will not have to worry about people coming before the committee and there being problems. So your argument with respect to witnesses does not hold water. Ultimately, it's your responsibility. Only you can take it on.

Mr. Paradis, you said that we did not have restrictive rules before. There were restrictive rules for smaller committees sitting without a quorum. The rules were such that each of the parties had to be represented, the government and each of the opposition parties. Your motion is clearly more restrictive than before for opposition parties. We are creating a dangerous precedent.

Imagine the day when we no longer have the same Parliament, a day when, for example, there are only 15 members representing the entire opposition. Theoretically, it could happen that some day there would only be 15 opposition members. In that case, there would be more committees than MPs. It would get very difficult if the opposition parties were not protected by procedural rules.

.1640

So we are not going to adopt something today, under any pretext, designed to reduce not the powers, but the means at the disposal of opposition parties to perform their duties. It is very dangerous to start tinkering with procedural rules.

I am new to this Parliament and so is Mr. Paradis, but I am sure that we could revert to the old rules and that they would satisfy us and the Reform. The more we talk about it, the more I'm convinced that that would satisfy a number of the government members.

My colleagues seem to be discussing something amongst themselves and may see another way of proceeding. If that's the case, we could discuss it. But we will not withdraw our amendment without the guarantee that Mr. Paradis' motion will also be withdrawn. Until then, if the Member for Brome - Missisquoi wants to pay for lunch, we could send out for something for everyone and we could discuss this for a long, long time.

Mr. Paradis: Mr. Chairman, citation 760 in Beauchesne states:

760 (1) Committees are regarded as creatures of the House.

And at the end of the same paragraph, it says:

[English]

[Translation]

Regarding what we were discussing earlier, some people claimed that we could go on indefinitely. What I'm reading here seems to indicate that we can establish procedural rules to...

The Chairman: Citation 760 applies in such cases. However, it must be introduced by a motion which also becomes debatable, with no time limit. Well, if you want to introduce that, we will debate the time limit motion. It would have been easier...

Any other comments?

Mr. Laurin: I asked for the floor earlier. I thought my name was on your list, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Paradis said that the motion before us was a main motion.

The Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Laurin: I had understood that the text we received last week was a motion.

The Chairman: No. Initially, these motions were introduced for information purposes only. This is what has been in effect since Tuesday, February 22, 1994, and it was in order to receive motions to that effect. Some were amended and this one could be amended by the main motion of the Member for Brome - Missisquoi.

You received some of them for information purposes only. That is what existed during the previous session. With the end of the session, we have to readopt them, and that is why the Member for Brome - Missisquoi introduced that motion.

Mr. Laurin: That would mean that no one moved it last week. But no one said they rejected this text and wanted to propose something else.

The Chairman: Check the minutes. That is precisely the purpose of the motion put forward by the Member for Brome - Missisquoi. We adopted some of them in full, which had not been amended. But that one was not retained and it was replaced by the motion that is before you, and you are bringing an amendment to it.

Mr. Laurin: Okay. So, Mr. Chairman...

Mr. Paradis: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Mr. Laurin: It is clear, he answered my question.

.1645

Mr. Paradis: I understand that a new session begins with a Throne Speech, etc., that committees are reconstituted and that rules of procedure are recreated.

Mr. Laurin: I understood that. When things are explained clearly, I understand everything. Mr. Chairman, technically speaking, can we introduce other amendments or do we have to limit ourselves to considering one at a time? Can I move another amendment to the main motion which is before us?

The Chairman: By moving a sub-amendment, you can modify your amendment, and if it's rejected, you can move another one.

Mr. Laurin: In order to get out of the dead end we are in, I am going to try...

The Chairman: Could you wait until the member for Brome - Missisquoi...

Mr. Laurin: It doesn't matter, because he seems to be controlling the vote on the other side.

Mr. Brien: Yes, he tells the others how to vote.

The Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Laurin.

Mr. Laurin: I'm sure that my motion will enable other members to convince their leader to support me.

Mr. Chairman, the main motion could read as follows: "That the Chair alone be authorized to hold meetings...". I would just add an adjective to Mr. Paradis's motion: "That the Chair alone..." or "That only the Chair...", or "That alone, the Chair...". The best formulation would be: "That only the Chair...". That is what would best indicate a spirit of openness, of transparency. It is not a trick.

So, I would accept a motion that reads as follows:

The Chairman: In other words, only the chair could call...

Mr. Laurin: Yes.

The Chairman: So, according to your amendment, if the chair weren't there, he would be replaced under another section by the vice-chair, but if the chair attended a meeting where only three people were present, the chair would decide if the meeting was to be held. It would be solely up to the chair.

Mr. Laurin: But the vice-chair could not make a decision on that. Only the chair could do so.

The Chairman: According to procedure, you were to ask for consent to withdraw your amendment.

Mr. Laurin: I will withdraw it, but if the one I am moving is defeated, I would like to be able to reinstate this one.

The Chairman: So we will know with the vote; it will be a surprise.

Mr. Laurin: We don't want to play head games. That is why I suggested earlier that we discuss this in full committee to resolve the problem more quickly. I wanted to say to my colleagues: "Look, I have solutions in my hat. Which one do you like best?" We're open to that.

What we want to do is protect democracy, and our friends opposite are saying: "We're going to squeeze you a little bit. We're going to remove some of your powers". We don't accept that. If necessary, we'll take this to the Speaker of the House. We will report to the House and tell the Speaker: "The Standing Committee on Public Accounts wants to take powers away from the opposition". The Speaker of the House will have to decide. We can report to the House and that's what we will do.

We're not asking for miracles. At most, we're asking for the same thing as last year. Nothing has happened since then to make us change our minds. Nothing has happened to justify our changing our attitude, our behaviour, or our rules. If something has happened, it's just on the other side, and we don't know about it. Enough is enough! If that's how they intend to obtain our cooperation, by stepping on our toes, putting a hand over our mouth and saying: "Don't say ouch!", I promise you we will have some fun over the next few weeks at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

There is some concern because the members of the Reform Party left during a meeting. We could, in good faith, ask the Reform members if they plan to regularly leave the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in order to boycott its work.

.1650

If that was their intention, I would immediately vote for Mr. Paradis' motion. But if that is not the case, I am ready to trust them and to sit in good faith. When all three parties are there, we can all sit together. This is so childish.

[English]

Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, before we get on with a very full agenda, to say the least it's regrettable that essentially we've wasted this meeting. I just want the record to show that one of the reasons why this whole issue arose was that at the last meeting of the public accounts committee the Reform Party lost a motion, picked up its marbles, and went home. That's what alerted us to the precarious situation we're putting ourselves into when we're trying to eliminate waste, to save taxpayers' money in this country, to stop people from having to travel long distances...and to put up with the shenanigans that were exhibited by the Reform Party at the last meeting. I think it's important to show that. We can sit here and we can debate this thing for the rest of the evening and get absolutely nothing done.

Given that's the area we're headed into, I propose we adjourn this meeting. Perhaps the steering committee can come up with something so we can reconvene tomorrow. I move we adjourn.

Mr. Williams: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Telegdi: It's not debatable, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Williams: I said ``point of order'', Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Telegdi: Not debatable - no points of order.

The Chairman: Technically, after this demand we cannot speak. We must vote right now. If it's adopted, we adjourn until tomorrow.

Mr. Williams: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: I repeat, we cannot accept a point of order when this suggestion is made.

Mr. Williams: Does the clerk give that ruling, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Telegdi: The chair gives that ruling.

The Chairman: The chair decides.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, two motions are now on the floor.

The Chairman: Mr. Williams, I cannot recognize you. We will vote -

Mr. Williams: Which motion, Mr. Chairman? There are two motions on the floor.

Mr. Telegdi: A motion to adjourn takes precedence, and it's voted on immediately.

Mr. Williams: What about the motion that -

The Chairman: There will be a discussion tomorrow. They will continue to be on the table.

Mr. Williams: So we table this motion to the steering committee and refer it, then we have a motion to adjourn.

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Telegdi: No, no. It's a motion to adjourn.

The Chairman: We will adjourn and we will try to have a steering committee meeting after that.

[Translation]

All those in favour of the adjournment motion moved by Mr. Telegdi please raise their hand.

The motion is carried

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 3:30 p.m.

Return to Committee Home Page

;