[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, February 29, 1996
.1109 
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, your next item of business is the election of a chairman.
[English]
The first item of business is to elect a chair.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Madam Clerk, I move that Paul Zed be elected chair of this committee.
[English]
Mr. Harb (Ottawa Centre): I'll second that.
The Clerk: Any other motions?
It has been moved by Mr. Boudria that Mr. Zed do take the chair of this committee as the chairman. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Madam Clerk, I would like to speak to the motion.
The Clerk: Mr. Langlois.
Mr. Langlois: Before I agree to the motion, so that it is a matter of public record, I would like to pay tribute to the outgoing Chairman, Mr. Peter Milliken, who from the very start of the 35th Parliament, has served with impartiality - that goes without saying for all chairmen in general - as chair of this committee. He has given this committee a soul and, with the help of all of his colleagues, of course, a nonpartisan way of working.
Very often, our committee has been able to work by consensus rather than by resorting to votes. Votes have been the exception. I believe that the leadership displayed by Chairman Milliken has been largely responsible for this.
This committee has worked in the interest of the House and on those rare occasions when we have had to take a vote, they have been bipartisan occasions, where Bloc members have voted with the Liberals, or where Reform members have voted with the Bloc members or with the Liberals. We will stay the course laid down by Mr. Milliken; indeed, he has left such a visible mark that it will be difficult to erase it.
Of course, Mr. Zed has his own style and personality and, given his vision, we will undoubtedly be taking a different approach to our work. His personality will also leave a mark on this committee.
Today, we are not turning a page; we are closing a book, a very lovely book handwritten by Chairman Milliken who, during our sittings, openly took extensive notes on the workings of the committee. I would appreciate receiving one of the first copies of his memoirs, when he publishes them.
It was an honour for me to serve on this committee with him. Now, it is my pleasure to second, on behalf of the Official Opposition, the nomination of Mr. Zed to the position of chair of this committee.
[English]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Madam Clerk, on behalf of my Reform colleagues, I would also like to say welcome to Mr. Zed in terms of the chairmanship, but I'd also like to express our thanks and appreciation to Mr. Milliken for the guidance and leadership he's provided here in the committee. We appreciated the fact that he has been a person very informed and knowledgeable about the process of the House - that is a sort of abstraction in itself - but also the academic background contained in our House orders and our Beauchesne's. We were impressed with that and felt it gave us in this committee a certain confidence that all the rights and privileges a member is to be provided with while we operate in a committee were there. So on behalf of my colleagues, we'd certainly like to welcome Mr. Zed and we'd like to say a good, hearty thank you to Mr. Milliken for his contribution.
.1110
The Clerk: Mr. Boudria.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Madam Clerk, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Milliken for his admirable work.
You will note that when I put forward a list of members from our party in the House yesterday, Mr. Milliken's name still appeared on the list. The reason for that is quite simple. We all recognize his great expertise in parliamentary procedural matters. If I can be partisan for a moment - which I rarely am, as everyone knows - , in 1988, I was the guest speaker that evening when Mr. Milliken was formally selected to run for our political party.
Notwithstanding these hierarchical changes, I too hope that I can count on his support since his expertise goes beyond the kind of partisanship that I spoke of earlier. Everyone can benefit from his skills.
Secondly, I would also like to praise the nominee, Mr. Paul Zed, who was just appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House. Traditionally, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House is the chair of this committee. Tradition will be well served since Mr. Zed is also an expert in legal matters and the law. In French, do we say "maître de la loi" or "des lois"?
Mr. Langlois: I believe we say "des lois". It is fortunate for you that I'm here, wouldn't you say?
Mr. Boudria: I hope that Mr. Zed, whom we will be electing in a few minutes, will assist and enlighten us a great deal. I'm confident that he will take under advisement any suggestions that we will make and seek the consensus of all members of this committee. He too will see to it that we benefit from his expertise.
Therefore, it is my pleasure to thank Mr. Milliken. Furthermore, I hope that we will continue to benefit from his services and I would also hope that we move very shortly to elect MP Paul Zed chair of this committee.
The Clerk: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I therefore call upon Mr. Zed to take the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Milliken.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken (Kingston and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, congratulations on your appointment to the chairmanship. I would also like to thank my colleagues for their gracious words.
[English]
I very much enjoyed working as chairman of this committee, but we would not have been a successful committee without the extraordinary cooperation that was extended by all members on every side in assisting and doing the work of the committee. We were very productive, I think. No other committee filed as many reports as ours did, by a long shot, although that's not just because we worked so hard. We also had an unusual degree of cooperation in the committee, I think on virtually every item. There were only a few where we had serious disagreement, and even there we seemed to smooth it over reasonably well: we had our votes and lost them or won them, as the case may be.
.1115
I want to thank all the members for the hard work they've done, the ones who are here today and the ones who were here on the committee at various other times and are no longer on the committee, many of whom have come and spoken with me and said nice things to me. I appreciate it very much and thank you.
I look forward to working with this committee as a member for a while and I will continue to work with each one of you in that regard...and with you, Mr. Chairman; and I wish you every success in your role as our new chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, colleagues, for your confidence in electing me as your chair. I look forward, obviously, to working with all of you in attempting to continue to achieve the consensus that becomes very important for Canadians and that must come from this committee, as in many ways being a model of our House of Commons.
I agree with all of you that I do have big shoes to fill in replacing Mr. Milliken in the chair. I'm happy he's agreed to stay on the committee, because I think we'll all greatly benefit from his academic and practical experience in meting out the justice he so ably demonstrated as our chair and in the House. I want to thank him for agreeing to stay on the committee.
I thank all of you and look forward to cooperating with you as we move into these last eighteen months or two years of our mandate.
With that over with, the electioneering for the next two positions is appropriate. I believe pursuant to Standing Order 106.(2) the committee has to elect two vice-chairmen. I'm ready to receive a motion to elect a first vice-chairman from the government party. Mr. Government Whip.
Mr. Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to elect as vice-chair.... You'll notice the emphasis on "chair" as opposed to "chairman", for two reasons. One may be obvious. The second one is that the candidate I'm proposing could not be "chairman", because I'm proposing Mrs. Marlene Catterall to be the vice-chair for the government.
Mr. Harb: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: I declare the motion carried and Mrs. Catterall duly elected vice-chairman.
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): I'd just like to give notice of motion, Mr. Chairman, that I will be making a nomination for the vice-chair of the opposition, with consent.
The Chairman: Pursuant to 106.(2) I'm ready to elect the opposition vice-chairman. I'm ready to receive a motion to that effect.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): I move that the Member for Bellechasse,Mr. François Langlois, be elected vice-chairman of the committee.
[English]
The Chairman: Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral has proposed the name of Mr. François Langlois as the vice-chair. Are there any further nominations?
Mr. Ringma: I would like to nominate Jack Frazer for the position of opposition vice-chair.
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma is moving Mr. Frazer as a nomination for that position. Are there any further nominations?
Mr. Ringma: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that my nomination should take precedence, since I gave notice of the motion.
The Chairman: There'll be an election anyway, so I don't see that as an issue.
Are there any further nominations?
Mr. Ringma: We'll have a recorded vote on this.
The Chairman: A recorded vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully submit that the motion of the honourable Whip of the Official Opposition has been moved and that we should deal with it first. If it were rejected, we would then consider the motion of the Member for Nanaïmo - Cowichan.
[English]
The Chairman: I'm in your hands. In previous committees if there was a recorded vote we just put the nominations on the floor. But if that's your preference.... Under 106.(2) we're receiving a motion, and Mr. Ringma is suggesting he gave notice of his motion, but....
Mrs. Catterall.
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): I think in fact we should ask the clerk for an opinion on this. First, does notice of a motion.... That motion is not moved until it's moved at the committee. Does notice of motion give that motion precedence over one that was previously moved on the same subject? Secondly, I'm not sure if there is a procedure. My understanding is that one disposes of one motion and then disposes of the other.
.1120
The Clerk: As you know, there is always one motion before the House or before a committee. So the committee has to deal with one motion, and then the second motion that has been put forward.
As to whether or not Mr. Ringma gave notice of motion, I think the interpretation is -
The Chairman: To be blunt, when you said "notice of motion" I didn't know whether you were intending to move tomorrow or at some future point or whether in fact you were giving a motion. I apologize, but I didn't recognize your notice of motion as being something that was in fact a motion, because you said that it was a notice of motion.
Mr. Ringma: It was a notice of motion, Mr. Chair, and I specified that it concerned the nomination for the opposition vice-chair. I did it because I've seen in a number of committees during the election of vice-chairs that the recognition may give precedence to one party over the other. That's precisely why I moved the notice of motion, to make sure we would be recognized by the chairman first.
Mr. Boudria: There are several notices of motion in the House; it doesn't mean they are taken in any order. That is relevant when the motion is moved. That's the rule we use in the House.
For instance, a dozen notices of motions for private members' bills are on the Order Paper this morning. I would venture to guess that the order in which they're on the Order Paper this morning and the order in which they were moved by various people have very little resemblance to one another. It has to do with when the actual motion was moved, as opposed to when it was placed on the Order Paper. Of course we have no Order Paper here, but it's the closest equivalent thereof, and the logic of one would have to apply in the other.
Not that it would make much difference, but I think the chair is perfectly correct in saying that the order in which the motion was moved, as opposed to the notice, is what's relevant and what's applicable in this case.
Mr. Harb: Why don't we cut through the cheese, Mr. Chair, and deal with them as they are before you?
Mr. Speaker: The question I was going to raise was on the sequence here. My colleague raised a notice of motion and implied that he wanted to put a motion on the floor. The agenda that's before us is proposed as such.
I know that this is your first time as chairman, so I'm not going to hold that -
The Chairman: I'm just a country lawyer; I'm not a Kingston lawyer.
Mr. Speaker: When we started our meeting, we didn't adopt this as the agenda and ask if anyone else had something to add.
The Chairman: That's true.
Mr. Speaker: In a sense, number 3 that is here was certainly there, but it was not necessarily accepted in our earlier stages that this was to be the sequence. On that basis, Mr. Ringma's interjection could be considered to be a priority motion.
The Chairman: I acknowledge that I interpreted it as a notice that he was giving for something.
Mr. Ringma, you might have said, in fact, not "a notice of motion", but that you had a motion. That I might have interpreted a bit differently. Right or wrong, that was my interpretation, and that is the reason I entertained another motion.
Mr. Milliken: May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that whether these are motions or nominations is a moot point. If the first was voted on and defeated, then the second would really be out of order, because the position would be filled.
Isn't the logical thing here to have an election and treat this as two nominations and then ask in favour of one person and in favour of the other and have an election and solve it?
The Chairman: That is in fact what my predisposition was, to ask if there were any further nominations. In fact, the motion encompassed the nomination. For that reason I asked if there were other nominations.
Rather than considering your motion and having to rule on it in one way or another, it would strike me as being the consensus that, if we could, we have a nomination of Mr. Langlois....
Are there any further nominations pursuant to the motion that has been moved by our colleague? Mr. Ringma.
.1125
Mr. Ringma: We do have my nomination still on the floor and it will be dealt with.
The Chairman: So in fact there are two nominations pursuant to the motion. I'm prepared to entertain a call for that question.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I think under our Standing Orders and under Beauchesne's there can be only one motion before us, and we cannot.... In fact, what we are having is not an election in the conventional sense, with two people on the ballot. We can only have before us a motion, and we have to accept or reject a candidate based on the motion and then proceed with the next motion to elect or not elect another person. We cannot have a motion that deals with two people and in which we say we should vote for one as opposed to the other. The clerk of the House made clear, I believe, in a meeting of all the committee clerks at the beginning of the session that that is not correct. Unless the instructions as they have been relayed to me were inaccurate, I was led to believe we have to deal with a motion and any other procedure would be out of order.
The Chairman: Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: The motions have to be put one after the other, because the comittee or the House, as I said before, can deal with only one question at a time.
The Chairman: Mr. Ringma.
Mr. Ringma: If we follow Mr. Boudria's counsel, if it is to be dealt with in that way, then at that point I would insist my motion -
The Chairman: That your notice be converted to a motion.
Mr. Ringma: That's right; and that Mr. Frazer's nomination be the first one dealt with. I see in Mr. Boudria's argument -
Mr. Harb: I'll support that: the Bloc motion to go first. Vote on it, then we'll move on to vote for the second one.
The Chairman: By "the Bloc", you mean "Reform"?
Mr. Harb: "Reform". Otherwise we're going to spend the whole day trying to find out.... Let's get going.
The Chairman: All right, fine. Mr. Ringma, I'm going to go back to you. Rather than having a notice of motion, do you have a motion to put on the floor?
Mr. Ringma: Yes.
The Chairman: Madam Dalphond-Guiral has withdrawn her motion.
Mr. Ringma: Then I would nominate Jack Frazer for the position of opposition vice-chair and ask that it be a recorded vote.
The Chairman: Colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order 106, the committee is now ready to receive a motion. We have a motion on the floor. It's been moved and seconded.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Can we debate the motion?
[English]
The Chairman: If you want to speak on the motion, fine.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Has the motion been deemed admissible and is now the right time to debate it?
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Laurin: We know that there will be no further motions and that it is difficult, given the procedure followed, to go ahead and choose, rather than reject one candidate in favour of another. We are somewhat loyal to this procedure. While this is not the sentiment that we wish to express, I would ask that you call upon those who are entitled to vote to reject this motion, because, if it is defeated, we would be prepared to put forward another one proposing another Bloc candidate, namely Mr. Langlois.
Therefore, I would like to nominate this person, even though a motion to this effect cannot be moved at this time. However, since another motion will be moved, I ask members of the committee now present to oppose the nomination of the Reform Party's candidate and to support the Bloc's candidate.
[English]
Mr. Harb: Okay, let's go, Mr. Chair. We're ready.
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois, did you...?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: This is similar in some respect to the events that enfolded earlier this week in the House. It is a question of principle. I have absolutely nothing against the person nominated by my colleague, Mr. Ringma. On the contrary, this is a qualified candidate who undoubtedly would carry out the duties of his office in a dignified fashion. That is not the issue.
.1130
Parliamentary tradition dictates that in a British-style system such as ours, the vice-chairmen are members of the Official Opposition and, further to the ruling by Speaker Parent, I will bow to tradition.
However, since I have been nominated, when the question is put, I will vote accordingly. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, thank you.
Miss Grey.
Miss Grey (Beaver River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly will refer to "Madam Chairman" when she is sitting in the chair.
I want to draw your attention to the proceedings from the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons for May 29, 1991. When my colleague here talks about tradition, that it would go to the official opposition, of course we've never seen anything like this in Canadian history and the Speaker did make his ruling. We'll see what happens with that after the by-elections. We'll see what comes after that.
The point is, whether it's the official opposition or the third party, we really need to look at that carefully, because there is precedent for this. It's not just the tradition of the official opposition party.
In that issue of the proceedings from May 29, 1991, the chairman of that committee, Dr. Bruce Halliday, said this:
- The first duty we have is to elect two vice-chairmen. I believe the new Standing Orders call for
two vice-chairmen, one of whom shall be from an opposition party.
The chairman went on further to say:
- We need a second vice-chairman, who should be somebody from one of the opposition parties.
The point is we need a federalist situation here that we have to look at, someone who is going to talk about federalism versus separatism. We need somebody sitting as a vice-chairman there who is going to be looking after the concerns of a group that is not going to be gone the day after tomorrow if in fact they ever get their yes vote.
I think that's the issue here, Mr. Chairman. We have to say sure, it's the official opposition - who cares what the title is -
The Chairman: Miss Grey, we've heard your views.
Mr. Langlois, before I entertain your question of privilege, may I just urge colleagues that we want to get on with this vote so we can get on with -
Ms Catterall: Let the question be put.
The Chairman: I'm sorry, you can't put a question in a discussion. I'm just urging, colleagues, that if we can get on with the job of what this committee's about....
Thank you, Miss Grey.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: My honourable colleague from Beaver River is imputing motives to the persons who will be holding office. We have all been democratically elected in our ridings on the strength of platforms embraced by our constituents; we are all equal.
When Miss Grey and Mr. Ringma point out that they are eligible for this position, no one is contesting this fact. Therefore, we will vote on the motion. However, now is not the time for sovereignists and federalists to get into a debate. The option favoured by committee members is of little importance. If there was a Communist sitting at this table, he would be as eligible as any other member. However, this is not the case. The far right and the far left are not so very far apart after all.
[English]
The Chairman: Are you ready, more or less? Then there will be a call for the question. Pursuant to Standing Order -
Mr. Speaker: I'd like to put just one thing on the record, in a couple of sentences. Yes, the reference is an "opposition member" to fill this position. In voting here, as long as we're not setting a precedent that "opposition member" means a member of the official opposition...I'm satisfied that then was a fair vote. I would hate to see that as the interpretation that's here and that we have to bind ourselves into this narrow definition, that the only person who can be a vice-chair is someone from the party designated as official opposition. That would be unfortunate.
.1135
The Chairman: If you will look at your proposed agenda, the word "official" is not there. It says "opposition".
Mr. Speaker: Exactly.
The Chairman: Pursuant to Standing Order 106, I'm ready to receive a motion. We have a motion. It has been moved by Bob Ringma that Jack Frazer be elected the vice-chairman of this committee. The question I would like to call is this: is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Mr. Speaker: I have a point of order on a matter of definition. By that vote, in the way the Liberals are voting they are trying to set a precedent and they are trying to say that the definition -
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker, they are not trying to do anything. There's a motion on the floor and it is being voted on. There will be an interpretation, I suppose, by anybody as to how that motion has been ruled on.
There has been a request for a recorded vote. I'll ask the clerk to record the vote.
Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 3
The Chairman: Are there any other motions?
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: I move that Mr. François Langlois, MP for Bellechasse, be elected vice-chairman of this committee.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on the motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I wish to advise you that once again, as is customary in the U.S. Congress, I wish to vote «present», which signifies that the member is present, but does not wish for his vote to be recorded. What it does in fact amount to is an abstention.
Mr. Ringma: What a fine thing for a vice-chairman to do, Mr. Chairman! That is certainly why I voted for the vice-chairman.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): I would like to state clearly that I'm voting for Mr. Langlois out of my ultimate respect for him. He has done an amazing job on the subcommittees I've been on. This is not a Bloc vote; it's a vote of respect.
A voice: I request another recorded vote.
Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 3
The Chairman: I welcome Mr. Langlois as our vice-chairman.
Mr. Speaker: [Inaudible - Editor]...again indicating that this seems to be what is being said here. The definition of opposition vice-chairman does not mean that it is only a person from the official opposition. The vote has just taken place, and again we've seen a love-in by the Liberals for the separatists. The whip has again confirmed that around this table.
The Chairman: With the greatest respect, I don't think that's a point of order.
Routine motions: we're now at the appointment of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
[Translation]
Mr. Harb: I move that a sub-committee on agenda and procedure consisting of the chairman, the vice-chairmen and a representative of the Reform Party be struck.
.1140
[English]
The Chairman: Who would be the representative of the Reform Party?
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Frazer. We're continuing with what we've done before.
The Chairman: So you're proposing Mr. Frazer?
Mr. Ringma: No, in this case there's the whip, so it's myself.
I stand corrected. It's Jack Frazer.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Striking committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Harb: I move that, pursuant to Standing Orders 104, 113 and 114, the three whips be appointed to act as a striking committee and that, providing there is unanimity and that a copy of the report has been signed by the three whips or by their representatives, their recommendation be submitted directly to the committee Chair who will then present it to the House on behalf of the committee.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the motion? Just to assist some members who may perhaps not be familiar with this procedure, what this procedure means is that the whips mutually agree...they sign a document, and that permits changes of committees, if all three of them agree. If not all three of them agree, it has to come to the full committee here. If all three whips agree, then in the House we can automatically table changes to committees. It's the form that has been used for a long, long time.
The Chairman: To add to what our colleague said, this is exactly the identical motion we had adopted previously.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Private members' business subcommittee - Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: I'd like to propose that a subcommittee on private members' business be composed of Ms Parrish and Mr. Bélanger for the government - and I think there's a member of the opposition there, if someone can assist me on who they would like - and that the chair of the subcommittee be Ms Parrish.
The Chairman: I understand it's Mr. Langlois
[Translation]
and also a member of...
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Darrel Stinson is ours.
The Chairman: Do you want to insert their names in the resolution?
Mr. Boudria: Yes, you could insert those names in my motion.
The Chairman: So the motion is for Mr. Langlois, Ms Parrish, Mr. Bélanger, and Mr. Stinson.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin: Does the motion also provide for the appointment of a chairman or is this the duty of the sub-committee?
Mr. Boudria: Earlier I proposed the name of Ms Parrish.
Mr. Laurin: As chair?
Mr. Boudria: Yes. She is the outgoing chair.
Mr. Harb: I have a motion regarding the quorum.
[English]
The Chairman: A quorum to hear evidence.
[Translation]
Mr. Harb: I move that the chair be authorized to hold sittings for the purpose of hearing evidence and to authorize the printing of such evidence in the absence of a quorum, provided at least three members are present, including a member of each political party.
Mr. Langlois: To ensure that both the English and French versions of the motion are perfectly balanced, I move that the word "recognized" be added before the word "party", which is the same as adding the word "reconnu" in French. Otherwise, it would be hard to get a quorum, given the Speaker's ruling.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Milliken.
[Translation]
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Chairman, this Standing Order caused some problems for the committee during the last session.
[English]
I wonder if the committee.... We've considered changing this before; now's an opportunity to do so. Having a representative from each party here creates difficulty, sometimes. Three members to hear evidence when no motions can be presented I think is a reasonable rule. Adding the qualification that a representative of every party be present makes it difficult.
I wonder if the opposition parties - and this is a gift from them, I recognize - would agree that having one opposition member present would be enough. Sometimes we're left sitting and waiting, especially on some matter where everybody isn't coming, where we're only hearing evidence, until a representative of one of the other parties appears. It might be the government party that's missing, but it does create problems.
.1145
I wonder if it's worth continuing that rule or if we could have agreement to take it out so that it will say "at least three members, including one member from the opposition".
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: To my knowledge, we encountered one 35-minute delay. That is not excessive, given the number of sittings that we had.
We could compromise and perhaps follow the same procedure. However, if we encounter the same situation again, perhaps we should take this as a sign that we should review the issue.
[English]
The Chairman: All right. So we don't need to deal with it, unless you want to comment.
Mr. Speaker: I am completely open to that, because for each of these meetings due notice given. Is that not correct? As long as due notice is given and the parties know that the meeting is going to be held, a bit of flexibility is not a bad idea.
The Chairman: Thank you. We've noted those suggestions.
So we have a motion on the floor on the quorum, moved by Mr. Harb. You've heard the motion.
Mr. Harb: Carried with the amendment.
The Chairman: Carried with an amendment.
Mr. Milliken: There was no amendment.
The Chairman: There was an amendment in French.
Mr. Harb: There was an amendment to say that if at the first meeting one of the -
The Chairman: No. We just recognized that.
Was there not a problem with the French version or something?
Mr. Langlois: [Inaudible - Editor].
The Chairman: That has been resolved.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Now we shall move to the printing of issues.
Mr. Harb: Mr. Chairman, while the whip was introducing his motion on the private members' business subcommittee, one section of the motion was left out. If it is possible, I would like to include it as part of the motion.
The Chairman: We can do that by unanimous consent. Are we all agreed?
Mr. Harb: Would that be okay?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Agreed.
Mr. Harb: That is that the subcommittee be charged with carrying out the responsibility of the committee under Standing Order 108(3)(a) insofar as private members' business and the business related to private bills is concerned, and that the subcommittee be granted the same powers as the committee has and enjoys pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), except the power to report directly to the House.
Motion agreed to
Mr. Harb: We have spoken about the quorum.
On printing of issues, I'd like to move that the committee print the number of copies of its minutes of proceedings and evidence as established by the Board of Internal Economy for all public meetings when there is a witness present, unless otherwise ordered by the chair.
Motion agreed to
Ms Catterall: On a point of order, can we dispense with the reading of the motions, since we all have them in front of us?
The Chairman: Do we agree to do that? Mr. Ringma, is that acceptable?
Mr. Ringma: Agreed.
The Chairman: Fine.
So Mrs. Catterall is proposing that we agree, for motion 9, on submissions distribution as presented.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Number 10 is about the research officer.
Mr. Harb: I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Number 11, witness expenses.
Mr. Harb: I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Item 12 is other business. I understand that the last time this item was dealt with was in camera, because the information has not yet been released to members individually.
Is that correct, Mr. Boudria?
.1150
Mr. Boudria: Not just that, but I'm just wondering.... Given that we're doing it by way of the striking committee as opposed to the full committee, the list need not be discussed at all. It's only the three whips who signed it, is it not?
Mr. Milliken: The practice on the first report, where the whole list is being done, is that it is distributed to the committee and the whole committee meets on it.
While it can be done under the procedure we have adopted, where the three whips can sign and agree, the normal practice has been to submit the entire list of the committee the first time around. I think we should follow that practice.
The Chairman: The clerk advises me that she has copies of those lists.
Mr. Ringma: We are prepared. We have our list here.
The Chairman: Mr. Boudria, how do you wish to proceed?
Mr. Boudria: May I see the copy our clerk has? I ask this because there were some last-minute changes. I want to ensure that she has the proper version.
The Chairman: Could we suspend for one minute? Or do you want to go into in camera?
Mr. Boudria: Okay, do that.
The Chairman: Do both. Do what? What's your preference?
A voice: I move that we go into in camera.
Motion agreed to
[Proceedings continue in camera]