[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 12, 1996
.1105 
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.
In conformity with Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), your first item of business is to elect a Chairperson. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
[English]
Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): I'll make a motion that Shaughnessy Cohen take the position of chair in this committee.
[Translation]
The Clerk: Mr. Kirkby moves that Mrs. Shaughnessy Cohen do take the Chair of this committee.
Motion agreed to
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): I move that Mrs. Pierrette Venne be elected Vice-Chair of the committee.
[English]
The Chairman: Let me first say thank you to everyone for your support. I appreciate it.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton - Melville): I wish to congratulate you as well on your new position as chairman of this committee.
I would also like to nominate my colleague, Jack Ramsay, to the position of vice-chair.
The Chairman: My understanding is that the procedure in the past has been - Mr. Ramsay and I talked about this a little bit beforehand - that we would vote on one at a time. Was there to be a point of order or some discussion on that?
Mr. Ramsay (Crowfoot): If I could, Madam Chair, I would like to know the ruling on that. Is this is the procedure you're choosing to follow, or would the procedure accommodate the second nomination at the same time?
The Chairman: So that everyone knows, we discussed that. I know it is the preference of the Reform Party that there be two names for vice-chair on the floor and that the committee vote on one or the other in the normal course. However, I took a moment to check Beauchesne's, and section 782 indicates that the committee can only entertain one motion at a time, which has been interpreted to mean consistently - not just in this government but in other governments - that only one name can go forward at a time. Under those circumstances, unless there's some further discussion, I would rule in accordance with Beauchesne's.
Did you have further argument on that point of order?
Mr. Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, just another point. If the committee would agree, you could have two names forward, because it also says ``committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure''. Simply put, if the committee wants to put both names forward and decide on them, the committee is able to do that.
The Chairman: I'm just checking with the clerk, as I will be doing frequently, at least in the near future.
Beauchesne's, the rules we follow, take precedence over that. They define how we govern ourselves. In my view, we're bound by Beauchesne's and we must proceed with one name at a time.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Madam Chair, no disrespect -
The Chairman: No, that's fine.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I am quoting from Beauchesne's, section 760(3): ``Committees are and must remain masters of their own procedure.''
If we, as a committee, decide we will have two names on the table and choose between them, we are able to do that.
The Chairman: On this point of order?
Mr. Gallaway (Sarnia - Lambton): Yes. Since you have declared that you've ruled on it, perhaps we could call the vote.
The Chairman: It is my ruling that we follow Beauchesne's, and I thank you for your submissions. I think you can take from that in any event you would not have unanimous consent.
With respect to the election of vice-chair, it has been moved by Mr. de Savoye that Madame Venne.... I'm sorry -
Mr. Breitkreuz: May I call for a recorded vote?
The Chairman: Yes, you may. We will have a recorded vote.
It has been moved by Monsieur de Savoye that Madame Venne be elected vice-chair of the committee.
.1110
Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 3
The Chairman: I declare that Madame Venne is the first vice-chair of the committee. Congratulations, Madame Venne.
Mr. Gallaway: I nominate Ms Torsney as vice-chair.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Congratulations, Ms Torsney.
I just have to notice that there are now three women in charge, so if the rest of you want to leave we'll just finish this up. History in the making in our own little way.
The next item on the agenda is the election of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, more informally known as the steering committee. If I could just venture a comment before we start - again, this is something I discussed briefly with Mr. Ramsay, but I didn't have a chance, Mrs. Venne, to discuss it with you.
We are an unusual committee in that we are fed legislation by two different departments, the Solicitor General and the justice department. As a result, we have two parliamentary secretaries sitting on the committee. Perhaps we may consider having both parliamentary secretaries serve on the steering committee, in addition to someone from the Bloc, someone from the Reform, and the vice-chair, who is the usual other steering committee member with the chair.
I think it will allow us to run our agenda more smoothly if both ministers are included - so we don't inadvertently have a competition going between the two ministries. Both will keep informed and we'll be able to control our agenda much better.
If you agree, I would ask that we proceed and someone make a motion.
Ms Torsney (Burlington): I'll make a motion that on the steering committee there are the two parliamentary secretaries, Gordon Kirkby and Nick Discepola.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne (Saint-Hubert): I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but how many people will there be on the subcommittee?
The Clerk: Six.
Mrs. Venne: Including the two parliamentary secretaries?
[English]
The Chairman: There would be one more than we're accustomed to. Everything has to be ratified by the committee in any event. I wasn't really thinking in terms of numbers or ganging up. I would like it to go smoothly when the steering committee is considering agenda matters, which it frequently does.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: As a rule, what is the quorum for a subcommittee? How many people must be present before it can begin sitting?
The Clerk: If the membership of the subcommittee is set at five, the quorum is three members.
Mrs. Venne: And if there are six members?
The Clerk: Then the quorum is four members.
Mrs. Venne: I see. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: To put the motion in perspective, it would read moved by Ms Torsney that the chair, the two vice-chairs, the two parliamentary secretaries, and Mr. Ramsay compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Is that agreeable?
.1115
Mr. Ramsay: Inasmuch as the steering committee's decisions have to be ratified by the committee as a whole, I have no reason to object to it.
The Chairman: Sure.
Mr. Ramsay: My objection wouldn't make any difference anyway, Madam Chair.
The Chairman: Well, I won't comment on the last half, but thank you for your cooperation.
I think we've got the consent of all parties, do we not?
Next are the routine motions, on appendix A of your agenda. These are the same motions that were passed the last time this committee was constituted. If there are no problems with these motions as a group, we could pass them as a group - except for number (xi), which we would have to do separately.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: I think there's a sentence missing in point iv) and I would like to know what follows, at least in the French version, as I haven't looked at the English text.
[English]
The Chairman: Sometimes when something is sent by electronic mail....
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: Can we find out what comes after this?
The Clerk: It should read "l'inscription de tout nouvel item".
Mrs. Venne: Any new items submitted for consideration by the committee?
The Clerk: Yes.
[English]
The Chairman: This would be appendix A, items (i) through (x).
Mr. Ramsay: I would like to understand the rationale behind (iv), the 48-hour notice. During the sitting of this committee in the last session motions were passed and we had to wait the 48 hours. Could someone please tell me what is the rationale behind the 48-hour requirement that this motion would provide for?
The Chairman: I'll jump in and give it a try. I believe the rationale for motion notices is so that we can consider them and have a moment to think about them before they're simply sprung on the committee - on the government's side or on the opposition's side. It's a common device used in meetings, courts and quasi-judicial proceedings to allow fairness, so that people can contemplate, consider and reflect on a motion before they take a position on it - so that it's not done heatedly.
Mr. Ramsay: And that's all.
The Chairman: There may be other reasons, but that's what I think is the reason.
Mr. Ramsay: If there's anyone - if the clerk has anything to add to that....
The Clerk: I would agree with you.
The Chairman: What do you know, I was right.
Mr. Ramsay: That's it. Why do we need the 48 hours? Why not 24 hours?
The Chairman: Again, my guess is that 48 hours allows people who may be away or out of their offices time to catch it. For instance, if a notice were given on Monday morning for a Tuesday morning meeting, then a member might be out of town and might not actually see the notice. The member might be travelling on Monday and might not see it until Tuesday morning. It allows them another 24 hours to reflect. I think that's the theory.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms Torsney: I imagine therefore that the 48 hours would be particularly important to members from the west.
The Chairman: Yes, that's a good point.
Mr. Ramsay: You understand my concern?
The Chairman: Sure.
.1120
Mr. Ramsay: There were issues that came up during the last sitting of this committee that I thought should have been dealt with at the moment. Although I think a quorum has the authority to deal with the issues that come before it on a day-to-day basis, this number (iv) requirement precluded that from occurring. I'm wondering if it is in the best interests of the committee.
The Chairman: I think in the circumstances you have been describing you probably have a point - there are things that come up quickly and probably should be dealt with quickly. As in anything, a rule is a broad gesture that's meant to catch these other problems. Any rule can be used or misused to someone's advantage. If for instance the government side were to make a motion you thought was unfair or shouldn't be dealt with quickly, you could use this to your advantage as well.
I agree there's a problem, but I think there's going to be with any rule we make.
Mr. Ramsay: You see, Madam Chair, any motion made can be handled by the committee. It can be set over in abeyance of this. Any motion could be dealt with on its merits by the committee. If we required the 48 hours, a simple decision by this committee could set it over for 48 hours. That would allow room for motions that should be dealt with immediately in the best interests of the committee. I just wanted to make that -
The Chairman: Yes, I get your point. If you look at the way (iv) is done, it does say that we can get around this with unanimous consent.
Mr. Kirkby, did you -
Mr. Regan (Halifax West): A point of order, Madam Chair. Did we check on how long it is for the vote? Oh, it's been going on the whole time? I didn't realize the bell went.
The Chairman: Yes, there was a recess so the chair could render a decision.
Mr. Regan: Okay, sorry.
The Chairman: Mr. Kirkby.
Mr. Kirkby: If there are motions brought forward by anybody that the whole committee feels should be dealt with, there is provision to waive the 48 hours notice by unanimous consent. If things need to be dealt with we can certainly do it.
The Chairman: Is there any other discussion then on the motions? No.
Do we have agreement to pass, in appendix A, motions (i) through (x) inclusive? Can that go on consent?
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: On a lighter note, I have a motion concerning lunches. I would like us to try and dispense with the sandwiches for the sake of my waistline. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: I can assure you that I do have some concerns in that regard and will be careful.
Mr. Kirkby: Lettuce and carrot sticks only.
The Chairman: Actually, Mr. Breitkreuz and I served together on human resources and I think he offered to make lunches at that one, so maybe we can bring him onto the committee and he can cook.
Mr. Breitkreuz: But nobody wanted to eat them.
The Chairman: Nobody eats his food, so you lose a lot of weight.
So, (i) through (x), on consent. Is that agreeable? Is there a mover? Mr. Gallaway.
Mr. Gallaway: I so move.
The Chairman: A moving experience. Is this unanimous then? Thanks.
Motions (i) through (x) agreed to
[See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Motion (xi) is a motion that evidence taken by the committee in relation to the review of the YOA from the last session be deemed adduced by the committee in the current session - meaning we don't want to waste the work done on the Young Offenders Act in the first session.
[Translation]
Mrs. Venne: From whom have we heard regarding this matter? Have there been many witnesses? I admit that I have no clear recollection, as that was some time ago.
[English]
The Chairman: There were about ten witnesses, I'm informed.
Mrs. Venne: The major groups?
The Chairman: The major groups, yes.
Mrs. Venne: Okay.
The Chairman: If we could adopt that it would save us money and time. Then we could move on, because I think that's an important part of our agenda.
.1125
Mr. Ramsay: As we discussed very briefly, Madam Chair, before the meeting, I would like to know where we're going with the subcommittee on CSIS. I understand a report is forthcoming. Will the committee be dealing with that this morning?
The Chairman: When we finish motion (xi) we can go to that next.
Mr. Ramsay: Okay.
The Chairman: Gordon.
Mr. Kirkby: There are probably a considerable number of other matters we need to deal with. It would probably be a good idea to refer all other matters to the steering committee. We're going to have to hash out when and where we do a lot of things.
The Chairman: Okay. Could we just deal with motion (xi)? Do I have a mover on that?
Ms Torsney: I'll move it.
The Chairman: It's moved by Ms Torsney that pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a), the evidence taken by the committee in relation to the comprehensive review of the Young Offenders Act, phase two, during the first session of the present Parliament be deemed adduced by the committee in the current session.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: All right. Under other business, maybe we could list what those things are. The national security subcommittee is one. Are there any other items members want to raise? The Young Offenders Act. I think we all realize there are several items we're going to have to raise and deal with. One is the national security subcommittee, which with prorogation is gone, but which is very near the end of a report. We're going to want to deal with that.
Main estimates are coming up now and we have until June 21 to complete them. I'm going to ask that all parties get their minds around who they'd like to hear from and how they would like to deal with estimates, because we also have the young offenders issue.
I understand the last committee had obtained funding to travel to the Maritimes, but it was blocked by the proroguing of Parliament. We have to somehow come to grips with how we as a committee want to handle that consultation - whether we want to ask that we all travel, or form a subcommittee to do that, or split in two, or whatever.
Bill 16 and Bill 17.... There's quite a bit on our agenda. I'm going to suggest that we let these things go to the steering committee. That smaller group can thrash out the priorities and bring it back to the committee next week sometime.
Mr. Ramsay: We also have the private members' bills that are coming back.
The Chairman: Yes. We have quite a bit. It's a heavy agenda.
I know some members have suggested to me that perhaps we might want to send just five or six members out on the YOA consultation and divide that work up a bit - so that we all get a taste of it - and compile the information after. That would save a substantial amount of money and allow us to carry on with the agenda back at home.
I was going to propose that the national security subcommittee and the working issues we have to prioritize go to the steering committee early next week. The steering committee could then report to the main committee in a meeting next week. Does that sound all right?
If there's no other business, we stand adjourned. Thanks.