[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 12, 1996
.1536 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum. In accordance with Standing Order 106(1) and 106(2), your first item of business is to elect a chairman. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): I move that Andy Mitchell take the chair of this committee.
The Clerk: It is moved by Mr. Reed that Andy Mitchell take the chair of this committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Most definitely yes.
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I declare Mr. Mitchell chair of the natural resources committee and I'd invite him to take the chair.
The Chairman: First of all, let me thank the members of the committee for that show of support. That was a hard-won election and I do appreciate the support.
The first order of business is the election of two vice-chairs - one, I believe, from the government and one from the opposition.
Mr. Chatters (Athabasca): Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Chuck Strahl for the opposition vice-chair position.
The Chairman: We have a motion on the floor to nominate Mr. Strahl as the non-government vice-chair. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt that?
Some hon. members: No.
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Reed: I'm speaking to the motion, Mr. Chairman. From the limited amount of experience that I have on committees, it seems to me that the opposition is normally the official opposition, and the other opposition party would have a place on the steering committee or something of that nature. I don't know how the other members feel, but that has been the standard procedure to this point.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): If I may please speak to that, Mr. Chairman, as it says in our agenda for the day here, the standing order does say that two members, the chair and one of the vice-chairs, shall be members of the government party, and the third member in opposition to the government. I can assure the members opposite that I am in opposition to the government; there's absolutely no doubt about that.
.1540
Technically, of course, I think the vice-chair can come from either opposition party. Just so the government members are aware, there is no longstanding tradition that this must be from the official opposition. Words to that effect are just hokum. Selection or election of vice-chairs has been going on for just a very few short years. It's not as if this dates back to the Magna Carta. It has been done in the past, actually, where members of the third party have been elected as vice-chairmen of committees. It's not unheard of. I would encourage you to consider that when you're making your vote.
The Chairman: Mr. MacDonald.
Mr. MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased I'm here to see the third party in the House once again try to break with tradition. They know the rules as well as anybody else. They've been around here for about two and a half years. As much as I disagree with the political ideology of the members opposite who form the official opposition, I think the Speaker has ruled on who sits in which chairs on that side.
It's quite clear that the members of the Reform Party, in their determination to have a position as vice-chair on these committees, will do either one of two things. Either they'll ask people to break with practice - and it is the practice - or they'll try to get one or two of the by-elections won. But I can understand why, when you look at those two options, they're preferring to try to break with tradition.
I think it's also incumbent upon everybody here to recognize that there's a bit of mischief here. None of us are above mischief, and I recognize that. I know the last time we went through this, Mr. Chairman, the Reform Party were more interested in distributing the names of who voted in favour of the official opposition candidates than they were in actually getting one of the members of their own party elected as vice-chair.
So I think we should take it for what it is - it's a bit of political mischief - and get on with the vote. If we're all true democrats here and we really believe in democracy, we will adhere to and support the decision of the majority.
The Chairman: Mr. Bernier.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé): For once in this country's history, allow me to agree with Mr. MacDonald. As Official Opposition members, we are prepared to assume our responsibilities. We are also prepared to occasionally experience the pitfalls, but I would like to reassure the public who will reading the minutes of these proceedings that the Liberal party and the Bloc Québécois are nevertheless quite distinct parties and that the members opposite are only keeping with tradition by voting for us.
Are we going to start by voting on the Reform Party's motion or can we nominate another candidate immediately? I have to tell you that the Bloc Québécois has some competent representatives to fill the Vice-Chair's position.
[English]
The Chairman: We're going to vote on a motion that's on the floor and then we'll entertain further motions. Is there any more discussion?
Mr. Strahl: I'd like to comment, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MacDonald is.... Of course in the House, which he was referring to.... He is impugning motives, of course.
Mr. MacDonald: No, I thought I made it clear. It has happened. I haven't impugned anything. I've stated it.
Mr. Strahl: He says the motive here is to circulate how members voted in committee. Certainly that happens. I guess all members keep track of who votes for what, and I suppose in that sense we all keep track of it, and certainly we will be keeping track of this vote as well. I don't think there's any secret about that. That's just part and parcel of Parliament: being recorded when you vote for something. So there's no hassle there.
But what Mr. MacDonald is wrong in is that.... Certainly the Speaker has ruled in the House that the Bloc Québécois is currently the official opposition. That's certainly true. However, that has nothing to do with committees. In committees, as the Standing Orders printed here for us say, you can vote for anybody from an opposition party to be the vice-chair of the committee.
Now, I didn't make up these rules, and you can change them if you want. But the Standing Orders are that you can vote for anybody from an opposition party. I'm not making that up. Those are the rules.
It's not without precedent, either. You're saying we're breaking with tradition, but it's not true. In the past they have elected NDP vice-chairmen, and that's just part of the record. It can be done. It has been done. It's not breaking with tradition. It might not be a common occurrence, but it's certainly not without precedents.
.1545
The Chairman: I ask members to direct their comments through the chair.
Mr. St. Denis (Algoma): Could we call the question?
The Chairman: Does anybody else want to add anything germane to this?
A voice: Call the question.
Mr. Iftody (Provencher): I'm as eager to get on with this as most of the other members are, but before we proceed I should speak to this as well, because a little bit more is going on than is obvious.
With all respect to my colleagues, particularly Chuck across the way, I tend to share the view that a bit of mischief is going on with this. Basically, my name is recorded by one of the staff members here and then circulated and published and so on at later dates. I've seen this in local newspapers, even last year.
Because this is going on, let me state the following for the record.
I recall not too long ago when we returned to the House. I believe it was in the throne speech when Mr. Charest had asked to speak and sought unanimous consent of the House. Mr. Speaker, from the Reform Party, stood in the House and said - and I don't have his actual wording - ``Mr. Speaker, when we came to the House there were certain rules we agreed to, and we will abide by them''. So that was stated clearly by the Reform Party. I would like them to apply that same kind of rule to -
Mr. Strahl: Show us the rule.
Mr. Iftody: - what's been established here.
Mr. Strahl: Whatever the rule is. What is the rule?
The Chairman: Through the chair, gentlemen, and one at a time.
Mr. Iftody: I'd like to conclude my comments by saying this to the hon. member for the Reform Party.
On March 25, sir, if you, through a democratic process, go to the people in that particular riding in Toronto, for example, and you win that riding and you come here with a new seat, then I will be more than pleased to support my colleague from across the way as the vice-chair of this committee. But do not try to usurp that democratic process in this way. If you can win that election, then I will support Chuck.
Mr. Strahl: It's not without precedent. It's been done before.
The Chairman: Not seeing any other comments, I'll ask if it is the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion.
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Chatters: I call for a recorded vote.
Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 2
The Chairman: I'll entertain other motions.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: I will let Mr. Deshaies move the motion.
Mr. Deshaies (Abitibi): It is my pleasure to move, seconded by Mr. Yvan Bernier, that Mr. René Canuel be appointed Vice-Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Is there any discussion on that motion?
Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order for the record, because the record can be used for or against or to misinterpret an actual fact of the intention of a vote, I think I speak for my colleagues in indicating that this particular vote is in keeping with practice and precedent, although precedent has always had an exception, and in no way supports the political agenda of the Parti Québécois in their zeal to have Quebec separate from Canada. It's simply an affirmation by members on our side of the practice that we think is important to keep.
Mr. Strahl: I wouldn't agree with my honourable colleague who was muttering ``Oh, hokum'' and a few other words there, but I would say that there is value, in the make-up of committees and of steering committees and of chairmanships and of other such roles, to consider the make-up even of the country. I think you make a serious error when you don't take that into account. I'd like to go on the record as saying that this is not a personal thing but I think it's a mistake in a committee as important as natural resources to ignore a region of the country.
The Chairman: Thank you.
.1550
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, before we vote on the motion, I have a brief comment. I'm happy to see Mr. MacDonald put some distance between his party and ours. It is unfortunate that we cannot see eye to eye. However, while we will accept his party's eventual support in this matter, we cannot accept his party's position. Our goal is sovereignty and we wish to remind them that decentralization will have to be implemented at some point in time.
Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, the vote on the nomination of a Vice-Chair is the item of business to which we must now attend and the Bloc Québécois has in Mr. Canuel a very competent candidate to fill this position.
[English]
The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Mr. Strahl: Could we have a recorded vote?
Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 2
Mrs. Hickey (St. John's East): Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Mr. Peter Thalheimer for vice-chair for the government side.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Congratulations to the two vice-chairs.
The next item of business is the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Past practice in this committee, from what I understand, is there is a motion that the chair, the two vice-chairs, and two other members appointed by the chair after the usual consultations with the whips of the different parties do compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I understand practice is that one of those members would be from the Reform Party and one would be a government member.
Past committee members, is that generally the practice we've adhered to? Is it going to be acceptable to everybody if we continue that way?
Mr. MacDonald: So everybody is agreeing that past practice is important, past practice in maintaining the way committees are structured. I guess that's what that vote would mean.
Mr. Chatters: We have to check with our whip whether it would be acceptable.
Mr. Strahl: Following the procedure as outlined here, Mr. Chairman, I would think you would have to consult with the whips of the different parties to make sure it is so.
The Chairman: Does the committee want to accept the motion?
Mr. Strahl: Which is?
The Chairman: That the chair, the two vice-chairs, and two other members appointed by the chair after consultations with the whips of the different parties do compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure; and what I'm adding to that is that based on what this committee has done in the past in those consultations, it would be a recommendation that one would come from the Reform Party and one would come from the government side.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Now I want to go through the rest of the agenda you have there. I'm going to make a couple of suggestions, and I'll be guided by the committee. All the suggestions for rules there are the same ones, I'm being told - and not having been here I'm going to work on the advice of the clerk - as were in place with the previous committee. So we can do a couple of things. We can adopt them right now, en masse, in the committee, or we could distinguish which ones we want to deal with as a block and then do others separately, if that's what we wish; or we can refer this to the subcommittee on agenda and have it come back with a recommendation.
.1555
Mr. Chatters: I have no trouble with adopting them en masse, except I would like to propose an amendment to item 10. In keeping with Mr. Reed's comments earlier in the meeting, it would read ``provided that both government and official opposition members are present''.
The Chairman: So you would want to insert the word ``official'' before the word ``opposition''. Would anybody have difficulty with that?
Mr. Chatters: My thinking is that in the past I have been in the position where while the government and the official opposition could not support a Reform member as the second vice-chairman, it was often the case that the Reform Party was required to attend to make up a quorum so the committee could carry on business. I think if you're given the responsibility of being vice-chairman, then you should also have the responsibility to be there to make up a quorum so the committee can carry on business.
The Chairman: Are there any other amendments anybody wants to suggest?
Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion on the distribution of papers, which is item 7. I wonder what the committee would feel about adding ``and that consideration of the submission not begin until the translation is available in both languages''.
An hon. member: Sometimes it takes five days to get translated.
The Chairman: So basically you're suggesting that it be amended to state that if we don't have a translated copy of the document, we won't consider it.
Mr. Reed: In other words, Mr. Chairman, we can hear the submission, we can accept the submission, but in order for us to debate it properly it should be available in both official languages.
Mr. Strahl: The only concern I have about that is that at times - we've had it in other committees - we've had people come from Saskatchewan, make a submission, and they have it in whatever language - maybe in this case English, but if they came from Quebec, in French - and we circulate it and discuss it, with translation, so we can all discuss the issues. But if we can't even discuss it until it's translated, then that person's travelled in vain.
The Chairman: Can I ask Mr. Reed for a clarification on that?
Mr. Reed: Normally what has happened in this committee, as you are probably aware, is we'll receive deputations from maybe four or five different bodies on a given subject without discussion, without debate. So I don't think you're talking about some major change here. It's just that in fairness to those of us who are unilingual, which I am, if a document is presented in French only, then I have difficulty debating it until I can see it in English. My counterparts who are almost unilingual, or unilingual, French probably feel the same kind of inadequacy as I do.
That's all I'm trying to put on the table here. I don't think there's anything -
Mr. Strahl: The only trouble is if you use words such as ``you can't consider the submission'', then you're -
Mr. Reed: Okay, I've worded it awkwardly. I'd be prepared to change the wording.
The Chairman: I'm going to make a suggestion in a minute, but first of all -
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: I would like to know if the Official Opposition is required to be present when witnesses give evidence. Occasionally, some witnesses come from quite some distance away and if, as fate would have it, the Official Opposition is not present, these witnesses should not have to be turned away for no reason. The Official Opposition could be granted a fifteen-minute delay to round someone up for the meeting. It wouldn't look good if the committee turned witnesses away because one of the parties was not represented.
.1600
[English]
The Chairman: We're now discussing two different parts. I want to finish the discussion on Mr. Reed's point first.
Mr. Canuel.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel (Matapédia - Matane): I understand very well. I too would like documents to be submitted in both languages, because this is important if we want to do some serious work. When we invite a person to give evidence, regardless of whether that witness is a Quebecker or an Anglophone, the least we can do is invite him to table his document in both languages. Everyone here knows that we function with two official languages. It seems to me that it would be the kind thing for a witness to do to submit his document in both languages. If that was impossible, at least we should have a little time to have the document translated for subsequent consideration.
[English]
The Chairman: As I understand what Mr. Reed's suggesting - and if I'm wrong, please speak up - it's not that we wouldn't accept the testimony or ask questions of a witness because they have only a unilingual document, but rather that when we sit down to consider a report based on the testimony, which could be anywhere from three or four days to three or four weeks, depending on where we are in the process, at that time you would like to have seen the document translated.
Mr. Reed: Exactly.
The Chairman: The clerk has informed me that it has been the practice of this committee to do just what I suggested: if we receive a unilingual document, then the clerk undertakes to have it translated before we consider it. That has been the practice, and it hasn't been a problem in the past.
I suggest that we should leave that wording there, and if it comes up as a specific problem at some point in the future, then we shall deal with it.
What I'm being told is that in practice we have been doing that and it has not been a problem.
Mr. Crawford (Kent): It's already covered in number 7.
The Chairman: Yes. So we've put that one to bed.
The suggestion on number 10 is that we use the official opposition but that we give them 15 minutes to get somebody over here.
Mr. MacDonald: I think the suggestion is not meritorious to support, and I say this for a couple of reasons.
One is that from time to time in my experience as a chair in the last session we were required to travel, and when we did we usually tried to travel with a smaller number as opposed to the whole committee. We never really formed a subcommittee; we just made the decision among the members of the steering committee.
There came an instance where, through no fault of his own, the official opposition member who was to travel was unable to attend. If the amendment discussed or put previously had actually been in effect, then we would have had members of Parliament who had flown to Campbell River at public expense, with the clerks, with all of the staff, with witnesses, some of whom had come in from the northern part of the island and others from northern British Columbia, who would have shown up, at expense to the committee and the taxpayer, but we would not have been able to hear witnesses.
Indeed, at one point we went up to a place called Island Lake, and the only individual who was there - perhaps he was the only one who had an interest - was from the Reform Party. If this particular motion had been in play at that time, then we would have flown into Island Lake but would not have been able to hear from aboriginal groups that had taken a great deal of their time and effort to get in.
Every member should know that it is their responsibility to be at committees - this is one of their functions as a parliamentarian - but we would adopt that greatly to our peril.
My last point is this. What would happen if the official opposition, for whatever reason, be it their political ideology or a lack of interest in an issue, decided not to show up? Should we be in a position where that would rob other members of this committee, including the Reform Party and any associate members from other parties in the House, from being able to hear witnesses?
.1605
I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that item 10 as it's currently worded ensures that the majority, who represent the government side, do not run roughshod over the rights of the minorities who are represented in Parliament by the opposition, but it ensures that this committee is able to continue with its work. I think if we amend it in the way that was suggested this committee will find itself a victim of its own attempts to have democracy prevail by allowing this committee's agenda to be subverted. So I would hope we would just adopt item 10 as it is.
Mr. Strahl: From whom much is given, much is expected. When you give responsibility in the form of vice-chairmanships, I think it's only right to expect that somebody shows up from that party. There are three members from the official opposition on this committee. If it's not important enough that anybody shows up, and if they arrange for nobody from their caucus to come, then why on earth are you giving them the vice-chairmanship? I mean, if you don't think the official opposition, which is going to be given the role of vice-chairman, has the get up and go to get to the committee meetings, then why do you give it to them?
We've been through this before during the referendum period, of course, when time and time again nobody from the official opposition showed up at different committees. But if you're going to give them some responsibility in the vice-chairmanship role, then ask them to be here. This would force them to be here. My concern is that you will give them something and just say, if you don't want to take it seriously, hopefully the Reform Party will fill the role for you.
Mr. MacDonald: You're champing at the bit.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernier: We could discuss this matter until the cows come home, but I think item 10 is well drafted for the reasons Mr. MacDonald gave earlier. I can tell you that this approach worked very well when I was the Vice-Chair of the former Standing Committee on Natural Resources.
I would even say that because of occasional scheduling conflicts... Some of these conflicts were created, not by the two members present, but by another Reform member. I was unable to attend one meeting in Vancouver. However, given the way item 10 was drafted, that member's constituents were able to present their testimony and he was very pleased with the outcome.
The same thing occurred when the committee travelled to Newfoundland. The Reform member had to be in Vancouver and was very happy to be able to leave without being named in the papers as the person responsible for preventing the committee from doing its work.
The way item 10 is drafted implies that everyone is responsible and that everyone participates in the committee's work. You can rest assured that the Bloc members will do everything in their power to participate and to be present. However, if they want to try and outsmart us, we also have pens and reporters available. I won't reveal the name of the Reform member whom I helped in the past. I hope that he approves of item 10 as it stands. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Chatters: In the last session of this Parliament time and time again I was required to be at a standing committee to make quorum because the Bloc Québécois members were off, busily campaigning for the break-up of this country. I think if you're going to vote, as Liberal members, to give them the vice-chairmanship, then it's reasonable that you would vote that they should have to be at the committee meetings to fill that responsibility to make a quorum. I don't think it's reasonable to expect the Reform Party members to be there to make a quorum under those circumstances, after you've run roughshod over the minority on the committee, as you say.
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: I don't know if my colleagues attended every single committee meeting in the past two years. If you look at the records, you will see that the Bloc Québécois was always represented and that often, two or three of its members were present. Some members may have been remiss in their duties in the case of other committees, but in the case of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, members took their responsibilities to heart. We are satisfied with the manner in which item 10 is drafted.
.1610
We should vote on this motion so that we don't waste too much time on fairly unimportant matters. There are many other issues that warrant our consideration, mining and forestry development to name but two.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, to put in such an amendment could conceivably tie up the work of the committee. It could be a deliberate act to stop the work of the committee any time the official opposition was not present.
I'm prepared to accept the wording in number 10.
The Chairman: Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Crawford: Jack, I hate to speak against you. I agree with Ron. By having that amendment, it would give the Bloc veto power. If they never showed up, you couldn't do anything. So I would certainly support item 10, because I don't give a damn if they ever show up.
Mr. Chatters: But you'd still support them for the vice-chairmanship.
The Chairman: Order, order. Through the chair, please. Could I make a suggestion? I believe - and correct me if I'm wrong - there's a consensus to accept items 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 13. Is that the will of the committee?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: The issue comes down to item 10. What is the will of the committee on number 10?
Some hon. members: Adopt it as is.
Mr. Chatters: Amend it.
The Chairman: There's a majority of the committee who wants to adopt as is. I declare number 10 accepted as well.
Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate we were able to dispose of this business.
We are going to have a subcommittee meeting on agenda and procedure at 10 a.m. on Thursday. We will get back to those individuals as quickly as possible. Otherwise, the committee stands adjourned to the call of the chair.