[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 12, 1996
.0935 
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.
In conformity with Standing Orders 104(1), 106(1), 106(2) and 116, your first item of business is to elect a Chairperson. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
[English]
Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): I'm substituting for Mr. Bertrand.
I nominate Clifford Lincoln as chair.
The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. O'Brien, seconded by Mr. Bélanger, that Mr. Clifford Lincoln do take the chair of this committee. Is it agreed?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I declare Mr. Clifford Lincoln duly elected. I cannot invite him to take the chair, since unfortunately he's not here.
In his absence, it would be your duty to elect an acting chair. Do I have a motion to that effect?
Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Could we move that we have an acting chair for a few minutes in the absence of the chair?
The Clerk: Absolutely. Are you proposing anybody?
Ms Phinney: Mauril Bélanger.
The Clerk: Is it agreed that Mr. Bélanger be the acting chair?
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bélanger): Thank you for your show of confidence.
The next item of business is the election of the two Vice-Chairs.
[English]
There's a question from the member. Is it Mr. Abbott?
Mr. Hill (Macleod): This is Mr. Hill, filling in.
Congratulations for the temporary position.
I nominate Jim Abbott for the position of vice-chairman.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): We have a motion to nominate Mr. Abbott as vice-chairman.
Mr. Hill: With a recorded vote as well, please.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Is there any debate?
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Chair, it was interesting yesterday. I was in a committee much like this one and entered into something of a dialogue with the Liberal whip, who is attending today. He brought up some interesting points that are probably germane to this meeting in that the function, the vice-chair, is to be elected from the opposition, as opposed to being elected from the official opposition.
I'm very pleased that Mr. Boudria is here today, because he'll be able to clarify this for me. It seems to me that what he was saying yesterday was that it's not up to the government to decide who the official opposition is. He took that position, yet it seemed rather unusual to me that, in spite of that, as the whip for the government he was here, I presume as a whip to see that his members would not vote for the Reform Party, in spite of the fact that the Reform Party is part of the opposition.
On that basis, considering that this is called the Canadian heritage committee and considering that the Reform Party has members of Parliament from five provinces and has aspirations to become the government and is a national party, it would seem quite logical to me that, particularly with this being the Canadian heritage committee, the government whip would be very pleased to either advise his members or free his members to vote for the Reform Party member as a member of the Canadian heritage committee.
.0940
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Are there any further comments?
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I noticed that the member was speaking to the motion to elect him as a vice-chair. I'm almost tempted to say that he was debating his own candidacy, but I shall not do that.
Mr. Abbott: Good.
Mr. Boudria: I don't find his candidacy to be debatable.
More to the point, the Speaker has ruled on who the official opposition is, and that's over and done with. As I indicated yesterday, it's surely not my fault if the Bloc Québécois is the opposition. I campaigned hard enough against them. However, that's the political reality. Just as I believe that the electors who chose me as their member of Parliament, whether they voted for me or not, accept that I am their member of Parliament, the people who chose the official opposition, whether they voted for them or campaigned against them, probably accept that as well, and so on.
I guess that's the long and the short of it.
Mr. Hill: I just request the government whip to find for me in the references any reference to ``official opposition'' as we elect the vice-chairman. That's a very specific request. I would like him to find that reference for me.
Mr. Boudria: May I answer the question?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Certainly, and then we'll proceed.
Mr. Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel as if I'm at question period every time in these things.
The fact of the matter is that since this instrument has existed, there is a vice-chair from the government and one from the official opposition. There was one case in 1991 where the official opposition relinquished one space to the third party at that time. The person in question was Mr. Neil Young. All other vice-chairs elected since then have been from the opposition. There have probably been hundreds of them by now who have been elected in that way. So the precedent is certainly well established.
Furthermore, once the third party negotiates with the official opposition in order to convince the opposition or whatever that it should relinquish a position to them, that is done.
There have been such negotiations. In the last Parliament there were. I'm told that at the beginning of this Parliament the negotiations broke down and that the third party preferred to have no vice-chairs rather than to have other vice-chairs that were offered to them. I wasn't there, because it's a discussion between opposition parties. All I know is that the outcome of the negotiation was not fruitful.
If they ever negotiate again and they arrive at a fruitful outcome, then they can inform all of us as MPs, and I'm sure that we will respect that as we respect other portions of parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Hill: May I make a point?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Is it on the same point?
Mr. Hill: This is a slightly different point. The honourable whip has brought up that this is a precedent and that there have been hundreds of such precedents. Might I correct the record. The first time this standing order was used was during the committee elections of May 1991. Since that time there have been no other elections to vice-chair, and during this Parliament, this section of Parliament, that precedent has been established. So this is not a precedent that has had hundreds of vice-chair elections. That must be corrected, and should be corrected forthwith.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Are we ready for the vote?
We'll take a roll-call vote, Madam Clerk.
Mr. Hill: A recorded vote, please.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): That's what we're asking for, on the motion thatMr. Abbott be vice-chair.
The Clerk: It's moved by Mr. Hill that Mr. Jim Abbott be vice-chair from the opposition.
Motion negatived: yeas 8; nays 2
.0945
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): I now call for the motion for the election of the first vice-chair.
Mr. O'Brien: I nominate Ms Phinney as first vice-chair.
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): I second the nomination.
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bélanger): The next item of business is the election of a second Vice-Chair.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): I move that Mr. Gaston Leroux be elected Vice-Chair.
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bélanger): Any comments?
[English]
Mr. Hill: A recorded vote, please.
[Translation]
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bélanger): A role-call vote has been requested. Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral moves that Mr. Gaston Leroux be elected Vice-Chair of the committee for the Opposition.
Motion carried. Yeas: 8. Nays: 2.
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bélanger): Congratulations, Mr. Leroux.
I would like to draw your attention to a series of routine motions respecting the operations of the committee. You have the list in front of you.
[English]
I have to get away from the habit of translating. Somebody else does that. I apologize.
May we consider first the proposed motion on the printing of the minutes of proceedings. If there's no debate and there are no questions, then perhaps we'll proceed to adopting such, upon a mover and a seconder. There's no seconder here - that's right. Everybody's important enough to move a motion.
Ms Phinney: I move that the committee print its minutes of proceedings as established by the Board of Internal Economy.
Motion agreed to
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): The witnesses and absence of quorum: does someone care to move that?
Mr. O'Brien: I so move.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Are there any questions?
Mr. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur): Would it require both opposition parties to be present, or just one opposition member and one government member? What's the ruling on that?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): It is three members and one opposition member. It doesn't have to be two opposition members. At least one opposition member.
Mr. Arseneault: At least one, or two opposition and one government -
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): It could be two government members and one opposition member.
Mr. Arseneault: As long as there are three.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): It could be two opposition and one government.
Mr. Arseneault: Three and a mix. Thank you.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Mr. Arseneault, does that satisy you?
Mr. Arseneault: Yes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: It is my understanding that when the committee must proceed in the absence of a quorum, after 15 minutes, the three whips are informed of the situation. Is that correct?
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bélanger): The whips of the parties that are absent are informed, as the whips of those represented are certainly aware of the situation.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: I understand. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Has the motion been made?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Yes.
Mr. Abbott: I would like to speak to it and move an amendment.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): By all means.
.0950
Mr. Abbott: In principle, I agree with the motion. However, in the sixth line in the English version it says ``in the absence of either government or opposition members''. I would like to move an amendment to insert the words ``official opposition members''.
My rationale is that it seems to me that if the government has chosen to designate to the Bloc Québécois the position of vice-chair - this, on the argument of the government whip, being because of their status as official opposition and the fact that there is a responsibility on the part of the government - and now I'm suggesting that presumably there should also be a responsibility on the part of the Bloc, as the official opposition, to see that members are present - then this would be part of the responsibility that should accrue from receiving the designation as the vice-chair.
It was argued yesterday that we can't always make sure that we're going to be here, which of course is what our parties whips offices are all about. Our parties whips offices will see that, as in our particular case - or, if I may, Mr. Chair, in your particular case, where you have been designated in place of Mr. Lincoln, and Mr. Hill came in place of Mr. Hanrahan - there is a responsibility on the part of the respective parties and their whips to see that a quorum is present.
When meetings are called, particularly where witnesses are brought in, sometimes from great distances at great inconvenience to themselves and at great expense, it's very important that we all act responsibly. I am absolutely confident that the Bloc would act responsibly in seeing that they fulfilled their responsibility in making sure that there was a quorum.
Mr. O'Brien: First, I take exception to my colleague's comment that the government has designated the Bloc as the vice-chair. The tradition designates that the opposition has a certain allocation of vice-chairs. Tradition prior to this government coming into office dictates that, and this committee, in its mixed composition, elected its chair and vice-chair, not the government members solely. That's my first comment.
My second comment to my colleague is this: I am sure that he will have had situations, as I have had, where witnesses have come a long distance at taxpayers' expense but, through other commitments of various members on all sides of the House, they're not able to start. It would be unfortunate to hold up witnesses, many of whom have a tight schedule. They might have come a distance and might have to catch a plane. If enough members are there, then, in my experience of two years around here, to hang it up on a technicality like that would be unwise.
I think all parties have acted responsibly on the committees I've served on.
If one of the Bloc members isn't actually in the room yet - they've some other commitment, they're on their way - but the witnesses are ready to start, I'd hate to see us hang it up on that technicality.
It would be unwise because I've seen Reform members, myself included, and Bloc members on various committees I've served on in a position where, through no fault of their own, they aren't able to be there as quickly as they had hoped, and they do get there. At least the committee is able to start and proceed and witnesses and staff are not held up.
I understand his point, but I support his comment that probably all parties' members try to act responsibly. I just think it would be a needless tying down that we would regret.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond - Wolfe): I would like to come back to what my colleague stated earlier. I fully agree with him. It is important that the committee show respect for the witnesses, all the more so in that quite often, they have travelled a considerable distance to be here.
I agree with him completely, but I would like to make one brief comment as I have some difficulty understanding the second sentence which reads as follows:
- ...opposition be present, with the provision that,...
- I have a problem with the meaning of the other sentence.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: If the government, the Bloc Québécois or the Reform Party fail to answer...
.0955
Mr. Leroux: I agree completely with my colleague's arguments and I would like to reassure the Reform Party members that we will work to the best of our ability, as we have in the past.
[English]
Mr. Peric: I am really pleased to hear that, but I wouldn't agree with your past presence. None of your members showed up at many meetings right after the referendum. I agree with Mr. Abbott that we should somehow get you here to be part of this committee to work together, not just as the opposition but as a team player. I don't know what the formula is to persuade you to be active, not as in the past but in the future.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: My answer to that, ...
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bélanger): Did someone else ask for the floor?
Mr. Arseneault: We should continue. We have business to conclude. Has someone seconded the motion?
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bélanger): That's not necessary.
The purpose of Mr. Abbott's motion is to amend the second motion by adding the words "Official Opposition".
Mr. Arseneault: We should vote on the amendment. The details have been sufficiently explained to us.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): People who have spoken have spoken once so far. If anyone else wishes to speak who hasn't.... Then I'd like to proceed very quickly with Mr. Leroux and your final comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: I have a comment. We won't argue with you on this, but I would like to remind you that there are two of us and seven of you. I have already taken part in the committee's deliberations and the seven representatives were not always present. The important thing is to make some progress as far as our work is concerned. We agree on that.
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Mr. Abbott, concluding remarks.
Mr. Abbott: I say, with the greatest respect to my Bloc colleagues, that the reality is that in the fall session, out of 13 meetings, one of the Bloc members who was named on the committee did not attend any meetings and the person who was designated as vice-chair attended five meetings. It was with this in mind, with the greatest respect, that I thought that if they were going to be given the designation of vice-chair, as the official opposition, then there should be a commensurate responsibility that they also ensure that there is a quorum. With the 52 members, plus whatever might happen in the by-elections, surely they would be able to get one member here for every committee meeting.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Are we ready to vote on this motion to amend the witnesses and absence of quorum motion by adding the word ``official'' on the sixth line between ``or'' and ``opposition''?
Amendment negatived
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bélanger): We have now come to the heading "Library of Parliament".
[English]
Mr. O'Brien: Maybe we can expedite things. These are routine motions. I move the motions, as printed, for the Library of Parliament, 48 hours' notice, distribution of papers, and time allocation. I think all my colleagues have them in front of them.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Not the last two on the other page?
Mr. O'Brien: Yes. Also the motions on witness expenses and working lunches.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): Is there a difficulty with proceeding in that way?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: We don't have a problem with distributing papers in their original language. However, steps should be taken to have these papers translated as promptly as possible. Witnesses occasionally come before the committee without having had their briefs translated. These kinds of problems arise and we are fairly flexible about this. However, I would like us to be as clear as possible on the time frame for translating these papers.
The Acting Chair (Mr. Bélanger): So noted, Mr. Leroux. We'll see if we can work together in good faith. If not, we will talk about it further.
Mr. Leroux: Great.
.1000
[English]
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): The motions on the Library of Parliament, 48 hours' notice, distribution of papers, time allocation, witness expenses, and working lunches have all been moved en bloc. No pun intended.
Motion agreed to
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Bélanger): This meeting stands adjourned to the call of the chair.