[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 24, 1996
.0950 
[English]
The Chairman: Thank you very much, colleagues, for coming here this morning and agreeing to serve on this subcommittee.
As you know, we'll be dealing with two areas. First, there will be Bill C-25, the Regulations Act, on which we hope to begin hearings next week. The other concerns the regulations under the Firearms Act, which will follow.
[Translation]
I'd like to thank you, Mr. Lebel, for being here at our subcommittee. I hope you'll find your experience here agreeable. Thank you for your contribution.
[English]
Also, I would like any suggestions that any member may have with respect to witnesses we could call under Bill C-25. I would appreciate receiving them, or I would like to perhaps have them referred to the clerk.
I'd like to introduce the clerk, Mr. Bill Farrell. He will not be with us next week, but Paulette Nadeau will be with us next week.
I'd also like to introduce Daniel Dupras, who will be the research person. Philip Rosen, of course, is with the justice committee. He will be going with Bill next week to Whitehorse, Prince Rupert and Vancouver.
We have some basic resolutions and proceedings that we have to look after. We have this room until 10:30 a.m. Unfortunately, it's a little earlier than I would have liked, but the human rights committee is doing teleconferencing so they have to set things up.
[Translation]
Yes, sir.
Mr. Lebel (Chambly): Did I actually understand that our committee is going to travel and hold hearings outside of Ottawa?
The Chairman: No, it won't be our subcommittee but rather the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Lebel: Fine.
[English]
The Chairman: I would like to start by dealing with the printing of the minutes of proceedings. As you know, we have to authorize that a certain number of copies of the proceedings will be printed. In this case, we're suggesting that the number be established by the Board of Internal Economy, which I think is fair.
Mr. Maloney (Erie): I move that the subcommittee print the number of copies of its minutes of proceedings as established by the Board of Internal Economy.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: It's also suggested, with respect to questioning witnesses, that the first round of questions be ten minutes for each party for the first questioner, and that subsequent rounds will be at the discretion of the chair and be five minutes for each questioner alternately between government and opposition members.
That's pretty much standard procedure. It's my hope that all members of the committee will be able to ask all the questions they want in order to clarify what the witnesses are suggesting.
Could I have a motion?
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The third motion is that the clerk of the subcommittee be authorized to distribute, in the original language, the documents received from the public, and that the clerk of the subcommittee ensure that such documents are translated, and that the translations are distributed as promptly as possible. I think that's quite important.
.0955
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: I so move.
[English]
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: With respect to witnesses, it is moved that we suggest that at the discretion of the chair, reasonable travelling expenses as per the regulation established by the Board of Internal Economy be paid to witnesses invited to appear before the subcommittee, and that in such payment of expenses, a limit of two representatives per organization be established.
I think that's reasonable. If we don't have that, we then need some ballpark figure. We feel that while there may be one point of view in an organization that may not be typical of the organization, two would be a reasonable number from which to expect a reflection of what the organization wishes to say. But with more than that, we get into costs that I think are unnecessary.
Yet we have to have this so that when we're talking to witnesses we can say that this has been adopted by the committee in the interests of efficiency and economic prudence.
Mr. Maloney: I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: It is also suggested that each subcommittee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings, unless there is a decision for a particular meeting to exclude all staff.
I think if you have a member of your staff who is working on this subcommittee, it's important for the staff member to be present to get the full flavour of what transpires. I think it's easier. It's a lot more effective for members if this is the procedure. I would like to have someone move this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: I so move.
[English]
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The final suggested motion is that when the chair of the subcommittee is unable to act in this capacity at or during a meeting of the subcommittee, he shall designate a member of the subcommittee to act as chair at or during the said meeting. That's just in the interest of carrying on if I have to leave for a few minutes.
Mr. Kirkby (Prince Albert - Churchill River): I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: That looks after the regular business. There is some particular business I would like to discuss with you.
It has been suggested to me that Bill C-25 is a very straightforward bill; however, it is detailed and complicated, and I think we need to get a reasonable explanation of the bill. I think we have to examine it fairly carefully.
That's not to say there will be endless numbers of witnesses, but I suggest that we should have a few.
We have a couple of witnesses who suggest that they would be prepared to appear and would like to do so. I would ask the clerk to read those names.
The Clerk of the Committee: We have tentatively booked some officials from the Department of Justice for Tuesday, October 29 at 9:30 a.m. We received three other requests so far. One is from the Canadian Labour Congress. One is from the Indian Taxation Advisory Board. There's a Professor Hudson Janisch from the University of Toronto.
Attached to your agenda today you'll see that we received a brief from the Canadian Bar Association. They don't wish to appear. They just put their points down in their brief and letter.
.1000
Mr. Maloney: Who are these persons who have not as yet expressed an interest?
The Chairman: They were suggested by the Department of Justice as people who are working in a general capacity on regulations. They deal with regulations and have had experience with government and the drafting of regulations. They are from academe, NGOs and the private sector.
There are five names there. I would suggest that we ask the clerk to contact each of them, just to see if they are interested. They may not be interested. If they are, then fine. We'd certainly be glad to hear from them. If they want to submit written submissions, then that would be fine, too.
I was just going to suggest, Mr. Lebel, that if you think there is a need for somebody else from the province of Quebec to express a particular point of view, then we would welcome any suggestions you may have.
Yes, sir, you wanted to ask a question.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: I would like to draw to the attention of this committee that we have with us experts in administrative law who are probably among the best in Canada. You are suggesting a list although the legal advisors of the Standing Joint Committee on the scrutiny of regulations are just across the street.
I find it curious that their names don't appear on our list and I'd like to see them there. François Bernier and Peter Bernard are probably the best people Canada has to offer in the area of administrative law. With all due respect I have for the list you are putting forth, I suggest that their names be added and I believe my colleague from the Reform Party who has just walked in,Mr. Ringma, will agree with me. I do hope our clerk will communicate with them and ask them to come and explain this matter to us.
Do you agree, Mr. Ringma?
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): Generally speaking, I agree with you.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any other comments?
I certainly would be prepared to suggest that to the clerk. These people are capable, there's no question, and we'd be glad to have their presentations.
We really won't know how many we're going to have in total. My suggestion would be, however, that because we are faced, in another two weeks, with another week away from Ottawa, we should try to hear witnesses in the next two weeks.
That's just a suggestion. I would appreciate any comment that anyone may have. If that suits the timetables of all members, then perhaps we can aim for that.
Ms Whelan: I just wanted you to be aware of all the travelling with the finance committee in the week of November 4 to 9.
The Chairman: We'll try to aim for dealing with the witnesses in that two-week period.
I know you all have other responsibilities, so I think it's important to try to set a framework if possible. We will contact the witnesses. We will be meeting at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, if that's agreeable, to hear from officials of the Department of Justice. At that time, we'll have a better idea of a tentative schedule for witnesses.
Mr. Lebel.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if our time is well chosen because the House will begin sitting at 10 a.m. and there is the risk we may be called in for a vote. Shouldn't we establish immediately that our committee will meet, no matter how many times a week, at a time when it is practically assured it will be able to keep its members and work efficiently?
I remember that we had established that kind of schedule during our examination of Bill C-84 and, 10 minutes later, the bells started ringing to call us to a vote in the House. We had called in almost a dozen Justice department officials who then wasted their time because our timing was wrong.
.1005
Experience seems to indicate that it would perhaps be best to set our meetings for after the afternoon question period. We could more easily hear our witnesses then. We wouldn't be as rushed and we'd have a better chance of not being interrupted.
[English]
The Chairman: The problem is, of course, that we have to go in a timeframe that is set for us, because the committee times are organized and 9:30 a.m. is considered to be our time to hear witnesses.
It's important, I think, to start off with the Department of Justice to get their feeling on how they see this legislation before we hear other witnesses. That's why we took the liberty to ask them to come on Tuesday as the first witness. I'll ask the clerk, though, to tell us exactly what timeframes we do have for this subcommittee.
The Clerk: Indirectly, I guess a committee with legislation does have priority over standing committees when they meet. Usually, votes are deferred on Thursday or Friday to Tuesday evening at 5:30 p.m. most of the time. So I don't think we'd run into a conflict on Tuesday mornings at9:30 a.m. with a deferred vote in the House.
So I would say that if we could come up with 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday -
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: I would like to point out to our clerk that the main duty of members is to be in the House at 10 o'clock a.m. when it opens. If you throw meetings at us at 9:30 in the morning, we hardly have time to show up and find out who is who before the bells start ringing. The member must show up in the House. That's his first duty, here, in Ottawa.
I don't want to start hearing a witness just to have to tell him at 10 o'clock "Thank you, goodbye, I'm going to do my work over there."
You must also take that into account.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Chairman, can we perhaps have a little compromise here? This is along the lines of what Mr. Lebel is proposing. Could have the meeting at 9 a.m.? As for the afternoon, if there's going to be a vote, it's going to be likely 5:30 p.m. or 5:45 p.m.
In deference to the very good point that Mr. Lebel makes, why not 9 a.m.? That would give you at least 45 minutes to get things off. We would see a bit more justice done.
Mr. Kirkby: First, with respect to the suggestion that we change committee times, as was pointed out by the chair, this is the time allotted for the committee.
Second, votes happen all the time to every committee, and usually they are deferred. This is not an unusual situation that would specifically impact on this committee. I don't understand what the difference is between this committee and all of the other committees.
It's been a rare occurrence, in my view, that we've been hauled out of committee and asked to go back to the House. Usually votes are deferred. I would simply suggest that we stick with the schedule.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, all your Liberals together have come to friendly agreement. We can only follow. We were not consulted concerning this schedule for meetings starting at 9:30 a.m..
[English]
The Chairman: No, the 9:30 -
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: If that's how you want to proceed, it's not going to be very pleasant around here.
The Chairman: No, it's not true. The schedule is being suggested by the clerk. As Mr. Kirkby was saying, the committee usually starts sitting at 9:30 a.m. and never at 9:00 a.m. which would be quite unusual. However, it is possible. Everything is possible if the members of the committee are in agreement.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Lebel, would you be agreeable to us starting at 9:00 a.m.?
Mr. Lebel: I'm in agreement. He's the one being obstinate.
[English]
The Chairman: Is 9 a.m. fine? The reason I wanted to check with the members, Mr. Lebel, is that some people don't come in until Tuesday morning, and that thirty minutes between planes to get here from the airport makes a difference.
I think that in the spirit of what we want to do here, we'll start at 9 a.m. on Tuesday. We'll go from 9 a.m until 11 a.m., and we'll hear the witnesses. If there's a bell, we'll then have to decide on the situation accordingly. But as Mr. Ringma said, if we start at 9 a.m., the chance of getting a full hearing of a witness is much greater than by starting at 9:30 a.m.
.1010
Do you want to suggest that we start all morning meetings at 9 a.m. rather than 9:30 a.m. if that is what we have to do to meet in the morning?
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Chairman, I thought we had agreed that our committee would meet at 9:00 a.m. next Tuesday to hear the department officials. I was quite in agreement with Mr. Ringma's suggestion. Do you now intend that all the meetings of our committee are to be held Tuesday mornings at 9:00 a.m.?
[English]
The Chairman: No, we're going to do as the clerk suggested. The clerk is going to look into what times are available. If there is another time in the afternoon that's available, he will report back to the committee on Tuesday morning to tell us. So we're going to look at all the possibilities beforehand. In the interest of trying to accommodate as many members of the committee as possible, we'll talk about that on Tuesday.
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a point that most of us do have other committee responsibilities. I can tell you that I will be busy every afternoon next week. If you pick an afternoon time, I'm sorry, but I won't be able to attend.
The Chairman: That's what I wanted to know. I was going to suggest that I would get the opinion of all committee members as to when they would be available, because this is the committee, and we're going to accommodate the committee as best we can.
Ms Whelan, you can't meet in the afternoon at all? You have other committees on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday?
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, the finance committee is holding pre-budget consultation sessions right now, and they're meeting morning, afternoon and evening. You schedule your meeting, and if I can attend, I will do my best to attend. I just want to make you aware that we have a very heavy load for the next three weeks.
The Chairman: Mr. Lebel, are you available?
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: No problem for me.
The Chairman: Fine. Mr. Ringma.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: The timing is not critical for me, but I'd like to enter another point perhaps as part of the opposition. Whether it's official or not, it doesn't matter. This is one thing we do share here.
Perhaps, if this subcommittee runs into a problem whereby bells go off or something like that, then some members could stay here. Maybe we could reach an agreement that witnesses can continue to be questioned as long as there is one member of the opposition present. Or is it integral to committee rules that there should always be an opposition member present? What are the rules?
The Chairman: We'd like to have an opposition member here.
Mr. Ringma: I think it's desirable. Maybe we could have an intent, at least, that we would go for always having one member of the opposition here.
Ms Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I have a definite problem with having to be told to miss a vote in light of the fact that there are a number of parties that have chosen to use voting records against members during election campaigns. I take voting very seriously, and I wouldn't want to sit through a vote.
The Chairman: All members have the right to vote. If you're going to miss a vote, you need unanimous consent for that right. We'd have to clear this with the various whips of all parties, as well. We can't just make that statement here.
The next meeting is Tuesday at 9 a.m., at which time we'll hear officials from the Department of Justice. Following that, we will have a short meeting among members to determine other times and the scheduling of further witnesses.
The meeting is adjourned.