[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, April 25, 1996
.1535 
[Translation]
The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Tonu Onu): Honourable senators and members of Parliament, honorables sénateurs et députés, I see a quorum and, in accordance with rule 88 of the Senate and Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2) of the House of Commons, your first item of business is to elect joint chairs.
I am ready to receive motions to elect the joint chair for the Senate.
[English]
The floor is open to nominations for a co-chair from the Senate side.
Mr. Adams (Peterborough): I nominate Senator Roux.
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Onu): It is proposed by Mr. Adams that Senator Roux
[Translation]
be elected Joint Chairman.
Motion agreed to
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Onu): I declare Senator Roux duly elected Joint Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages. I invite him to take the chair.
The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Marie Louise Paradis): The second item on the agenda is the election of the joint chair for the House of Commons. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Serré (Timiskaming - French River): I move that Mr. Patrick Gagnon be elected joint chair.
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): Mr. Serré moves that Mr. Patrick Gagnon be elected joint chair of this committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): I declare Mr. Patrick Gagnon duly elected.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): A point of order, please. I understand it is the tradition of this committee, and it is a long-held tradition, going back possibly as long as the Official Languages Act has been in effect, that the co-chairs be both anglophone and francophone. I suspect the tradition should be continued, and I would hope that tradition would be continued.
Senator Rivest (Stadacona): The last time it was two francophones. It was Senator Comeau and Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais. I don't know about the tradition.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I understand Senator Ottenheimer was the Senate co-chair.
Senator Rivest: But he was replaced by Senator Comeau, from Nova Scotia, a francophone.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Then there was already a break in tradition there.
Senator Rivest: Sometimes we break tradition.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I certainly don't understand that. This is supposed to be the official languages committee, with both languages being represented. In this country -
Senator Rivest: I agree.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): If it is any solace to the hon. member, my father, despite his last name being ``Gagnon'', is actually an anglophone. I had the opportunity to grow up in both official languages. I figure maybe we could make exceptions to the rules this time.
Mr. Breitkreuz: You represent a francophone riding, though, Mr. Gagnon.
Mr. Gagnon: With a sizeable English-speaking minority as well.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Then I ask the co-chairs to see if the committee will sustain the ruling of the chairs.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I don't think it's a ruling of the chair. The vote was taken and the committee decided. If you wish the committee to go back on its decision, it's up to the committee.
.1540
Mr. Breitkreuz: Then I ask if they agree with the results of this vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Adams: I apologize to the Joint Chairmen.
[English]
I can well see that in modern Canada there are occasions on which perhaps there should be recognition of francophones and anglophones in particular situations. But I think the time has now come when there should be mutual trust between francophones and anglophones.
There may be situations in committees of this type where both chairs are anglophones or there may be situations in which both chairs are francophones - by the way, by first language - or there may be situations in the future in which we will have a francophone and an anglophone again. But I think that at the moment we look for the best people and we have trust in the people whom we elect.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I would like to suggest, Mr. Joint Chair, that this debate be overruled. In my opinion, a decision has been taken and the results are now obvious. We now have two chairs, and this is a non-debatable motion.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I just want to see if every member here sustains the ruling or the vote.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): It's a non-votable item. The hon. members have made a decision. The ruling of the chair is that this is a non-debatable motion, and that's it.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chair, one of the members right across from me stated that at times this committee had two anglophones as the chairs. When did that happen? When was that?
Mr. Adams: I did not say that. I said that there may be situations in which that would arise; I didn't say there had been.
Mr. Rideout (Moncton): This is not open for debate. We had an election, people are elected, and we now must move on to the next item - because it's finito.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I can ask for an agreement.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I'm terribly sorry, but insofar as I'm concerned we're not going to start defining who's an anglophone or who's a francophone at this table. This is a non-debatable motion, and I think we should immediately proceed with the election of the two joint vice-chairs. I am ready to receive motions.
Mr. Breitkreuz: All I'm asking is if the chair is being sustained in this proceeding.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I will say this for the last time: I think the results are quite obvious, that we were both unanimously elected to preside, myself from the House of Commons and the hon. member from the Senate. You did not oppose our election, and therefore we're going ahead. We had a vote, a vote was taken, and I think that at this point you're coming a bit late to make any objections to who will serve as joint chair on this committee.
Mr. Breitkreuz: I wanted to hear it, and I certainly wanted it to be recorded.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Very well. Thank you, sir.
I think we can proceed with item 2.
[Translation]
Ms Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): I move that the member for Quebec-Est, Jean-Paul Marchand, be elected joint vice-chair.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if this member is a member of the committee.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Your point is well taken.
[Translation]
I'm sorry, Ms Dalphond-Guiral. Unless I'm mistaken, you are not a member of this committee.
Ms Dalphond-Guiral: I'm the only woman. Can't you make an exception?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): We will move on to the motion proposed by Mr. Rideout, seconded by Senator Rivest.
In accordance with Standing Order 106, the committee shall proceed to the election of two joint vice-chairs, one of whom must be from the opposition.
We have received a motion. We will now vote on Mr. Marchand's candidacy as one of the two joint vice-chairs.
Mr. Serré: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the member from the Reform Party said at one point that before we vote we should see if there are any other nominations. There was a little confusion.
.1545
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I propose that I put my name forward to be joint vice-chair.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I would now ask you to vote on the candidacy of Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, if I may again, who put forward Mr. Marchand's candidacy?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Rideout, seconded by Mr. Rivest.
We have a vote on the first candidate, for Mr. Marchand.
Motion agreed to
Mr. Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask for a recorded vote on the decision just taken.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I have absolutely no objection.
Mr. Breitkreuz: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Will those who are for...
[English]
Mr. Serré: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we had a nomination, duly seconded. We had another nomination that was not. That's my point. So we have only one candidate; you don't need a vote.
Mr. Breitkreuz: You don't need a seconder.
Mr. Serré: Okay, we'll vote then.
Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I therefore declare Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand duly elected as one of the joint vice-chairs of this committee. Welcome, Mr. Marchand.
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the committee has now to elect another joint vice-chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect and I would like to point out that the second joint vice-chair must be from the government party.
Mr. Marchand (Québec-Est): I move that Mr. Serré be the joint vice-chair of the committee.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Seconded by Mr. Rideout.
It is moved that Mr. Serré be elected joint vice-chair of the committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
[English]
Do you want a recorded vote?
[Translation]
Motion agreed to
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Serré has been unanimously elected as one of the joint vice-chairs. Congratulations, Mr. Serré.
The third item on the agenda deals with the committee's minutes of proceedings and I would ask the Joint Clerk, Ms Paradis, to speak to that matter.
.1550
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): Committees traditionally adopt this kind of motion. It's a routine motion which authorizes the committee to print its minutes of proceedings and to distribute them.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Rideout moves, seconded by Senator Poulin, that the committee print the authorized number of copies of its minutes of proceedings as established by the Board of Internal Economy.
Mr. Serré: I'm sorry for interrupting, but let's start things off on the right foot. May I see a copy of the budget in the other official language?
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): Do you have it in French?
Mr. Serré: I have it in English and I would like to have it in both officials languages, please.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Is everything all right, Mr. Serré?
Mr. Serré: Fine.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): The fourth item on the agenda is the printing of the committee's evidence.
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): As you know, the House of Commons has decided not to print evidence anymore, since it is accessible on PubNet. However, this is a joint committee and the Senate does not have access to PubNet. Therefore, if the Senate so desires, we can adopt a motion to print evidence. This does not only apply to minutes of proceedings, but to all evidence.
If we adopt the motion, we will also have to adopt the budget. I have prepared one. In the past, the House of Commons paid 70% of the cost and the Senate 30 %. But the representation of the Senate has somewhat changed this proportion.
If you want to adopt this budget, I suggest that you adopt the overall figure, and the expenses will be broken down according to the number of senators and members sitting on the committee. That figure is actually 42% for the Senate and 58% for the House of Commons. So, it's not 70-30 any more. Officials of the House will break down the figures.
Would you like to begin by studying the motion to print the committee's evidence? Is the Senate in agreement? Is the committee in agreement?
[English]
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): As a point of information, please, Clerk, on the printing, I heard you say that the House of Commons doesn't need anything printed.
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): No, because we are on PubNet right now.
Mr. Finlay: All right. Do you have some idea of the cost of that compared to printing?
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): That's what I prepared in the budget. The cost we would have is indicated on the second page, item 1, and every detail is there.
Mr. Finlay: Maybe I should explain the point of my question. If most of the cost of printing on the first line of the budget is because the Senate does not have access to this, then is it entirely fair to split that $21,000 cost on the basis of the members of this committee being from the chamber or or the Senate? I'm not sure the chamber's budget should be paying for something the Senate needs. I don't want to be crass and picayune about it, but it's a point I'd like to know.
.1555
Are we being asked to subsidize, in effect, the printing? How necessary is the printing? Is the Senate going to get this other service at some point in time? What are we getting into here? Because if it's 80% or 70%, you can see my point.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): If I may, I think we should vote only on the total. After that, the ad hoc committees of both chambers will look after a proper partage, or distribution. But we're not making any decision on the proportion paid by the other place and the proportion paid by the Senate.
[Translation]
Senator Rivest: But we all agree on the printing.
Mr. Serré: I move that we print copies for the Senate.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): It is moved by Mr. Serré, seconded by Mr. Rideout, that the committee print 225 copies of evidence heard in committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I must leave because I have to catch a plane. It's hard for me to sit on a committee on Thursday afternoon. Perhaps we can find another time during the week, either Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or even Thursday morning. But I can't really make it Thursday afternoon.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): We were told this morning that there were two possibilities. We have already made reservations for Tuesdays and Thursdays. Perhaps we can find a compromise, given the availability...
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I think the committee would like the Joint Vice-Chairman to be in attendance.
Mr. Marchand: I'm sorry, but the situation is really out of my control. Thank you very much.
The Joint Chairman (senator Roux): Very well. Have a good trip.
[English]
Mr. Breitkreuz: I reiterate the concern of my colleague from the Bloc. If that can be changed, that certainly would suit me better as well.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I think we're willing to discuss the days on which we could sit. We're entertaining a possible Tuesday afternoon sitting -
Mr. Breitkreuz: That would be a lot better.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): - on a weekly basis. I think once we address that issue, and in the absence of Mr. Marchand, I think we would proceed with the adoption of such a meeting time on a weekly basis, Tuesday afternoons at 3:30 p.m.
[Translation]
We will now move on to item 5 on the agenda: the committee budget for the fiscal year ending March 31st 1997. The Joint Clerk can perhaps give us a few more details.
[English]
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): You will see there are three main items I could put there to have a budget for the committee. It will be presented to both subcommittees on the budget in both houses.
[Translation]
On page 2, under "printing", "impression", you will find the amount of $21,511.50. I've broken down this figure into various costs. The number is based on 225 copies. That's how much it would cost the House to print that many copies.
The second item concerns expenses for witnesses when they have to travel and want their expenses paid. Witnesses don't always work for government organizations. Officials from such organizations don't get their expenses paid. Some fairly large organizations send witnesses and don't ask that their expenses be reimbursed. However, other witnesses come from far away and do want to be paid.
.1600
We have budgetted $2500, which amounts to 5 witnesses at the cost of $500 each.
The rest falls under "miscellaneous", which includes coffee, juice and other costs like correspondence which is sent by express post. I have initially budgetted $1250. If the committee needs more money later on, we can always make a second request for the budget.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Gagnon): It is moved by Mr. Serré, seconded by Senator Rivest, that the committee approve the budget of $25,261.50 for the period from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997, and that the Chairman be instructed to present the budget to the Liaison Committee for its approval.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Motion agreed to
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): We will now move on to item 6: holding meetings without quorum.
This is a routine motion which reads as follows: That the Joint Chairman be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive evidence and authorize the publication of such evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that x members are present, and both Houses, government and opposition, are represented.
Mr. Serré: I would like a clarification. Can the clerk tell us what the tradition has been regarding quorum?
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): Traditionally, there has always been a member of the opposition and a member from the Senate in attendance.
Mr. Serré: How many members all together?
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): Three or four.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): How many members are there in all?
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): There are 12 members on the committee of which seven are from the House of Commons.
Senator Rivest: As for the Official Opposition...
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): The committee can do whatever it wishes.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): How about four? Agreed?
Senator Poulin (Northern Ontario): Four in addition to the joint chairs?
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): Including the joint chairs.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I'm not too sure about that.
The Joint Clerk (Ms Paradis): Including the joint chairs.
Senator Poulin: Perfect.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Would someone like to move the motion? Would someone like to second Mr. Serré?
[English]
Do you wish to intervene, sir?
Mr. Finlay: Mr. Chair, on a point of information, if I read the motion correctly, would we not have to have four in order to cover both houses, government and opposition, or does it mean you can have a government senator and an opposition deputy - or vice-versa?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): The motion says four members are present and both houses, government and opposition, are represented. I think it's quite clear. It's included in the four members that have to be present.
Mr. Finlay: You could have a senator from the government. You could have a member from the government of the other place and a member from the opposition of the other place, which would be three.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Yes, and one more.
Mr. Finlay: Must it be the two chairs?
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): The two chairs are included.
Senator Poulin: That's where our problem is solved. And the chairs, being such very, very dedicated professional people, will always be here.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): The motion is seconded by Senator Poulin.
Motion is agreed to
.1605
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Item 7 on the agenda concerns the "Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure". The motion reads as follows: That the joint chairs, the two joint vice-chairs and one member from the Reform Party as well as one representative from the Senate, do compose the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure.
It is moved by Senator Rivest, seconded by Senator Poulin, that the motion be adopted. Are there any questions or comments?
Motion agreed to
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): We are now at item 8 on the agenda. The motion reads as follows: That the Committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the Committee in its work, at the discretion of the chair.
Senator Rivest moves the motion.
Motion agreed to
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Item 9 concerns "Distribution of documents". The motion reads as follows: That all documents distributed to the members of the committee be in both official languages.
[English]
Mr. Finlay: I so move.
[Translation]
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Mr. Serré seconds Mr. Finlay.
Motion agreed to
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Item 10 is "Witness Expenditures". The motion reads as follows: That, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and at the discretion of the joint chairs, reasonable travelling and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses invited to appear before the committee, and that for such payment of expenses, a limit of two representatives per organization be established.
It is moved by Senator Rivest, seconded by Senator Poulin, that the motion be adopted.
Motion agreed to
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Item 11 is "Time Allocation". The motion reads as follows: That during the questioning of witnesses at any meeting of this committee, a period of x minutes be allocated to the first questioner of each party and that thereafter, y minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner.
So we have to decide how much time there will be for witnesses' statements and how much time for questions. Is that right? Fine, it's basically the period for questions.
Senator Rivest.
Senator Rivest: I would like to say something on that subject. When it came to questioning witnesses, the former Joint Chair of the committee included the answer of the witness in the five-minute allotted time, as is proposed in the motion and which seems fair to me. She was, however, quite strict. When a committee member was interested in a specific aspect of a relatively complicated issue, he or she just had enough time to ask a question and get an answer. Then another committee member would raise another issue and the debate was scattered because a given issue wasn't examined in-depth, and a member would ask another question about it an hour or two later.
Bearing in mind the rules and under the guidance of the Chair, I suggest that it would be appropriate in our proceedings that Chair consider such situations and extend the allotted time as required if five minutes are not enough to examine an issue. This will be helpful not only for committee members but also for witnesses. It might be a good idea, at the discretion of the Chair, to examine an issue thoroughly. The Chair may ask another member to pursue a question raised previously on the same subject. It's in the interest of the witnesses.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): I've had a similar experience on another committee and I'd like to hear what Mr. Serré thinks about the matter.
.1610
Mr. Serré: I agree with Senator Rivest, but I still think it's important to have guidelines, although the Joint Chairmen should use their own judgment.
I have the opposite experience on other committees, where one member monopolized a meeting for half an hour. We can't go from one extreme to the other. We should have guidelines so that the opposition cannot find itself in a position to say: "Listen, I have 15 minutes; I have the right...".
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): We could allot 10 minutes to the first questioner and...
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): ... five minutes to the others, but of course it would be at the discretion of the Chair.
Senator Rivest: It cannot be...
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I myself am not a military type.
Senator Rivest: You are very liberal.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Mr. Serré.
Mr. Serré: I move that each questioner be given 10 minutes for the first round and five minutes in subsequent rounds.
Motion agreed to
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Item 12 concerns the 48 hours' notice. This motion was already adopted at a previous meeting of the committee and, in my opinion, it is a wise move. In any case, you can judge for yourselves. The motion reads: Unless there is unanimous consent of the chief representatives of the three parties, 48 hours' notice must be given to the members of the Committee before any new item of business is considered by the Committee.
The motion is moved by Mr. Finlay, seconded by Mr. Serré.
Motion agreed to
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): We don't have to move the motion under item 13 because the same kind of motion has already been made and adopted by the Senate yesterday, authorizing the committee to hold meetings while the Senate is sitting and while it stands adjourned.
So we can move on to item 14 which deals with future business.
Mr. Serré: Mr. Chairman, you just said that the Senate had adopted a motion. However, this does not mean that the committee must abide by the decision made by the Senate.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): No.
Mr. Serré: This committee has representatives from both houses, and I wonder why you don't think it's necessary to adopt this motion. In theory the Senate could tell the committee that members don't have a choice and must sit because the Senate has adopted the motion.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Fine. I agree with you. If it makes you feel better, we will put the motion to the committee.
Mr. Serré: It's a matter of principle.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I understand perfectly. Let's blame my inexperience for this misunderstanding.
Senator Poulin moves that the joint chair from the Senate be authorized to request from the Senate that this Committee be empowered to sit during sittings of the Senate.
Senator Rivest: Mr. Chairman, the only problem is that every single time you might have to... I agree on the principle mentioned by the member of Parliament, but maybe every single time you will have to ask the Senate for authorization. You'll have problems.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): I don't think so, because the authorization is granted once and it covers all meetings.
Motion agreed to
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Under "Future Business": I am told that the Commissioner for Official Languages will table his annual report next Tuesday and that it will be available on May 7. One of the first duties of our committee is to study this report. May 7 is on a Tuesday. I suppose it will study the report the following Tuesday.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): No. If I'm not mistaken the report will be tabled on April 30, and we could hear the commissioner on the following Tuesday.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Then it would be on May 7. Is that correct?
Senator Rivest: If I understand correctly, the report of the commissioner will be made public on April 30. We will therefore have a week to...
.1615
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Very well, and at a later meeting, we will have, when the commissioner is here, to study the budget. The 9th of May falls on a Thursday, which is not convenient for the honourable member.
Senator Rivest: I thought it was in the morning. That would be convenient for the members of the Bloc. However, there might be other problems.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Shall we plan the meeting for 9:00 a.m.?
Senator Rivest: Will the House be sitting at that time?
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): One of the joint clerks will let us know if a meeting room is available.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Let's suppose that we plan these two meetings, the first one on May 7 at 3:30 to study the report of the commissioner, and the second one on May 9 at 9:00 a.m. to study the budget. If, for any reason, this schedule is not convenient, will you let the joint chairs suggest alternatives? We could consult the members of the committee by phone.
All we have to agree on now is the first meeting of the steering committee.
Senator Rivest: Very well.
The Joint Chairman (Mr. Gagnon): Did I understand correctly? Is there only one joint vice-chair?
Senator Rivest: There are two, Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand and Mr. Serré.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): Very well. Thus, unless there are other topics we want to discuss, I am willing to entertain a motion for adjournment.
Mr. Serré: I so move.
The Joint Chairman (Senator Roux): This meeting is adjourned.