TRAN Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT

LE COMITÉ PERMANENT DES TRANSPORTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 7,1997

• 1531

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee, I see a quorum. In conformity with Standing Order 106(1) and (2), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, before we proceed with the business of nominating the chair, I would like to place a motion before the committee that elections for the chair and the vice-chairs be by polled secret ballot.

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): I have a point of order.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'd be prepared to speak to that, and I hope we could have a discussion on the matter.

The Clerk: I'm sorry, the clerk cannot entertain any motions other than the election of the chair, and I cannot entertain points of order.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: That is my point.

Mr. Lee Morrison: It depends on the will of the committee, Mr. Chairman. If the committee wishes to do this, then you would be obliged to honour it.

The Clerk: I'm ready to receive motions for the election of the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): I move that Mr. Raymond Bonin be elected Chair of the Standing Committee on Transport.

The Clerk: Mr. Guimond moves that Mr. Bonin become chairman of the committee.

[English]

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?

Motion agreed to

[Translation]

The Clerk: I declare the motion carried. Mr. Bonin is duly elected chairman of the committee. I invite him to take the chair.

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin, Nickel Belt, Lib.): Thank you very much. Merci, Monsieur Guimond.

I can see that this is going to be a fun committee. It can be a fun committee and we can do an awful lot of work anyway. I'll reserve my comments for later, after the election of a vice-chair.

Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I put forward the name of Mr. Roy Cohen, MP for Etobicoke North, as vice-chair.

The Chair: Is that for first vice-chair?

Mr. Lee Morrison: There is no first or second vice-chair. Read the Standing Orders, sir.

The Chair: “Election of first vice-chair”. That's what it says.

Are there any other nominations for first vice-chair?

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put forward the name of Lee Morrison as vice-chair.

The Chair: Is that as first vice-chair or as opposition vice-chair?

Mr. Roy Bailey: As vice-chair.

• 1535

The Chair: Any other nominations?

Does the committee wish to vote on both nominations in one vote? There's no problem with that.

On the first motion for vice-chair, Mr. Cullen.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: On the election of the second vice-chair, Mr. Morrison.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Correct me if I'm wrong, but not voting does not constitute an abstention. It would be appreciated when we call votes that we see one hand for each person around. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first motion, let the record show that I was in favour of it. I was distracted, thinking about something else, and I did not have time to vote for my colleague Mr. Cullen. I would like to have voted for Mr. Cullen.

[English]

The Chair: I would like to suggest to you, with your agreement...and you will get to know me. This is your committee. I am the chair, but this is your committee. Decisions will be made by committee members. I try to work with consensus. If we can work with consensus, it means doing more work and having our meetings in possibly an hour or an hour and a half, whereas without consensus we've seen committees go overnight.

All this is to say that this is a different structure of committees, with all the participants. It should be very interesting. I don't see it as a negative; I see it as a positive. If we can reach consensus, we will be able to produce more work.

At this point I will ask you if you wish to deal with routine motions.

An hon. member: Agreed.

The Chair: Agreed. Therefore let's get to work.

The first routine motion is attached to page two. There are occasions where we receive witnesses, and historically it has been preferable to both sides not to require a quorum. There are different suggestions. I know other committees have addressed this issue. One suggestion is that we have three members or four members. But it's important that both sides be represented.

We'll deal with that first motion at this point. If we can find consensus on this and deal with it today, we will. If it becomes a problem I will invite you to postpone it until the next meeting; but you will make the choice. We're talking about receiving information that will be recorded and made available to all members before we make the decision on that information. Are there any suggestions?

Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'll put forward the suggestion, then. The quorum would constitute three members: two government, one opposition.

The Chair: We'll go from there. The discussion is open. Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, as long as it's clear that the quorum is solely for the purpose of hearing witnesses.

The Chair: Absolutely. At that time the chair will not entertain any motions or any votes, nor any consensus on behalf of the full group.

Ms Desjarlais.

Ms Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): I just want to make sure all members would be notified that the meeting would be taking place.

The Chair: Yes, absolutely.

An hon. member: That's the clerk's job. You can blame him.

The Chair: You will find that chairs of committees don't play games, but I will tell you publicly, and I'll put it on record, I don't play games. I give information and I share information with everybody on all sides.

Do we agree with the recommendation that there be a minimum of three members, a minimum of two government and a minimum of one opposition?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Opening statements and questioning of witnesses. If you agree, I will ask you to deal with that last, because it will take a bit longer. Do you agree?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 1540

The Chair: Thank you very much. I mean at the end, but today.

On research staff, you see the recommendation in front of you that we retain their services. Is there any problem there? Agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Witnesses' expenses: it makes reference to witnesses who are invited. “Invited” means invited by this committee. No problem?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

Mr. Lee Morrison: On a point of order, shouldn't we put a cap on the number of representatives that any one organization can send?

The Chair: Yes. Do you have a recommendation?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Two.

The Chair: Are there any other suggestions? It's standard at two?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Morrison.

Transcript of in camera meetings: that one copy of the transcript of all in camera meetings be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Working lunches: I think this motion is required so that we can pay for the lunches if we order them.

Is that the issue here?

The Clerk: That's right, working lunches.

The Chair: If we don't pass this motion and we order lunch, I will end up having to pay for it. I need your support.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chair: Do we agree with this provision?

A voice: We move that you pay.

The Chair: Well, you may not like what you eat.

Going back to working lunches, does everybody agree?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Distribution of documents.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: The French version of this routine motion contains totally subjective information at the end of it. I'll explain what I mean. The motion reads as follows:

Que le greffier ait l'autorisation de distribuer les mémoires et documents reçus dans la langue d'origine, et que la traduction suive dans les plus brefs délais.

With regard to the expression "plus brefs délais", what is brief for me might be long for someone else. This is a totally subjective point. I know that some of my colleagues have stated that witnesses would not be heard until briefs were received in both official languages.

When they sat with me on the Standing Committee on Transport, my colleagues Mr. Fontana and Mr. Keyes will remember that I rendered a few garments on that account. When we heard briefs in Quebec, they were not always tabled in both of Canada's official languages.

I don't want to make this a matter of principle and demand that briefs be tabled in both official languages, but perhaps we should try and see... Perhaps the clerk could give us some information as to how fast the translation service can work. How many days does it need to provide us with the documents? I'm asking the question.

The Chairman: Before giving Mr. Keyes and Mr. Morrison the floor, I want to make a commitment. I give you my word that if the period referred to seems long, I will wage a campaign with you to have the problem corrected. As chairman of the committee, I will join you in your request about the Translation Bureau. That does not solve the problem, but that is the best I can do for the time being.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Guimond is absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, where we run into instances where organizations have come forward with their presentation in only one of the official languages. What we started to adopt at the end of the process was a request that, when the witnesses requested to appear before the committee, they produce in both official languages the presentation that they're going to give. Let's face it, most of the organizations that come before us are national organizations with funding capabilities making their presentation available in both official languages.

So I'd like to see added to the distribution of documents a statement, or a strong understanding, that, aside from messaging to the witness how long we expect them to address us for—which you will deal with later—the clerk also instruct them to provide for us their message in both official languages.

• 1545

Insofar as we run into a witness we have requested to come forward who may not have the resources to provide their statement in both official languages, we will expedite the translation of that particular document as soon as possible. In most cases, Michel, I think you'll agree, we know two weeks in advance that the individual who might not have the resources to produce those two official language documents can forward it to the court two weeks in advance, so the preparation can be made for the translation, so when they appear two weeks down the road we will have that translation available to us.

The Chair: Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I just would remind the committee that the Official Languages Act clearly states that citizens may deal with the Government of Canada, which would include this committee, in the language of their choice.

A little anecdotal information. When I was in Quebec with the HRD committee, we were dealing mainly with very small organizations without much funding or capability. We took some 70 submissions in our travels, of which approximately 60 were in French only. To the best of my knowledge, we never did receive or ask for or care if we got those in English. These were Canadians dealing with the government in the language of their choice. I think we should honour that type of approach.

We do get people coming here for whom the translation would be an inconvenience. Not everybody is a big national organization.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Just as a response, Mr. Chair, I agree with Mr. Morrison to a point. We're just trying to accommodate those who would like to have their presentation received in the language of their choice.

With some planning ahead of time, if we are going to have witnesses, let's ask that particular witness, who may not have the resources to produce their presentation in both official languages, to be put down on the list in two weeks' time, so their presentation can be translated for use by all the members of this committee.

Mr. Lee Morrison: It's putting small organizations to expense and trouble. I thought I had quoted an example where, if there's such a thing as precedent, we just didn't worry about that.

The Chair: As chair, and with the clerk, we are committing to sending a letter to our future witnesses, advising them of our procedure, the time allocated, and the need to forward it in both official languages, even if it's forwarded to us so we can have it translated. By being put in, the clause may contradict with Mr. Morrison's point.

Mr. Lee Morrison: It contradicts the Official Languages Act.

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Morrison, with all due respect, I note that you have not understood my comment. The question is not whether citizens can express themselves in the language of their choice before the committee. That was not the issue.

The best proof is that our motion states that the clerk be given the authorization to distribute briefs and documents received in their original language. That means that the witness who comes from Baie Comeau will present his brief in French to the committee and that the witness who comes from Saskatoon will most probably present his brief in English.

As you can see, that is not the issue, Mr. Morrison. You did not understand. We would simply like the translation to follow as quickly as possible. The chairman understood this comment very well—and I appreciate his support on that—as did the clerk and several other people present. The purpose of my comment was to ask that the translation services provide us with translated documents in good time, so that we have what we need to be able to question the witnesses reasonably well. That is the meaning of my request. Mr. Keyes did not understand my comment.

Of course, small organizations don't have the means to submit translated documents to us. Of course, they don't have the budgets. But it is up to the House of Commons translation service to provide them to us, as quickly as possible.

The Chairman: Before giving Mr. Calder the floor, I want to tell you that I would appreciate it very much if the members of the committee would not refer to the other members by name. I would appreciate it, rather, if you would refer to "our colleagues".

[English]

Today is our first meeting. There's not going to be any problem. In the heat of debate, I would appreciate it if we would refer to each other as colleagues and not by name. If the committee has a problem with that, you can reverse this decision very easily by consensus.

• 1550

For future good committee administration, I think we're going to get along a lot better.

Mr. Murray Calder: In the last four years I also sat on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and it was our practice on that committee that, seeing that we have translation available to us verbally at all times, for any presentations that were written that were not in both official languages the verbal presentation was allowed to proceed. As soon as copy was available in both official languages, it was handed out to the committee members. I can't see any reason why that practice shouldn't be carried on here.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question, as well as raise a point on the distribution of documents.

My concern is in what number the documents produced by this committee are produced so that the public will have access to them.

The Chair: At this point we're discussing distributing to members of the committee.

There are occasions when a witness will have come here, will have presented a brief in both official languages, but will have another document. As chair, I'll say, “Can you share this document with the members of this committee?” It may be in one language, and what we're asking is that the translation bring it back soon, not in three months. That's really what we're talking about here.

[Translation]

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): I listened to what my colleague and Mr. Guimond said and I wonder whether they could let the committee know how many days they feel would be considered reasonable to provide translation. We could set a standard or something similar.

The Chairman: The purpose of committees is not to let two members hold a debate between themselves and ask each other questions. The members must contribute to the ongoing debate.

Mr. Keyes.

[English]

Mr. Stan Keyes: I think it's the goodwill of this committee to express through you, to Mr. Guimond and to Mr. Mercier and to any of us who are receiving documents in French, the understanding that we will be as accommodating to each other as we can be. With that, if this line, which has not as much to do with the Official Languages Act as it does with the instruction of the clerk to distribute translated documents, just said that the clerk of the committee would be authorized to distribute submissions in both languages whenever possible... In other words, we're asking the clerk, when he's calling witnesses, to give us those presentations in both official languages. So submissions would be in both official languages whenever possible, with translated documents to follow as soon as possible.

That sort of tells the clerk, “Look, try to get them in both official languages and get them out to us right away”, and whenever possible, when a person can't afford or doesn't have the resources to have it translated and come to this committee, that we're going to make every attempt to get those documents translated and into the hands of the other members, in the other official language, as soon as possible.

I think you can't demand anything more than that of your witness.

The Chair: That's right.

Before I go on to Mr. Guimond, Mr. Morrison, we can debate this for five weeks, but I think the outcome... We'll have to test it and we will establish what “reasonable” is.

Mr. Stan Keyes: May I move that motion, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: If you wish to move that, you can move a motion at any time. Do you want to do that, or do you want your colleagues to add and then go on? Do whatever you choose. You have the right to move a motion.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We can debate on the motion.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I move that this distribution of documents statement read:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute submissions in both official languages whenever possible,

—and then pick it up again—

with translated documents to follow as soon as possible.

The Chair: You have heard the motion. The debate is on that motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I did not want to stir up a tempest in a teapot. I may vote in favour of this motion in any case, but the issue is not really, as my colleague is asking, that we indicate a number of days to obtain a translation. That was not it.

• 1555

For instance, I don't have a problem with being given a brief from a Manitoban group on the spot, in the language the witnesses speak to us. The issue is that I would like to know how long I have to wait before I receive the French translation in order to prepare my questions for the witnesses. I should at least receive the French version when the hearing begins in order to be able to question the witnesses effectively. I have had trouble in that regard here at the Standing Committee on Transport, where I have sat for two and a half years.

Unfortunately, in the past, it happened too often that we received copies of briefs without translations. I would arrive at the beginning of the hearing and when I asked the clerk for a copy of briefs in my mother tongue she would reply, and this was with no ill will whatsoever, that she had received the briefs too late to be able to have them translated before the meeting.

The Chairman: There is a desire to be reasonable on both sides and I don't see why the debate should continue any longer. It seems clear that there's good will on both sides.

[English]

Mr. Morrison, you asked for the floor.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Chairman, for expediency I would suggest that you get the translations very quickly, if we could as a committee agree to use the translations of proceedings that are made during the hearings.

I would therefore move an amendment to Mr. Keyes' motion that after the final words of his motion “as soon as possible”, we add the words “and that the translation of committee proceedings be deemed adequate for this purpose”. That way, you could get them the next day.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Could I get the last few words again?

Mr. Lee Morrison: That the simultaneous translation of committee proceedings be deemed adequate for our purposes.

The Chair: I will note that it will be the only place that it is accepted at face value as a legitimate translation. The translators, many times, have difficulty hearing. There are technical problems.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I understand that.

The Chair: It's an amendment. We're going to debate that amendment now. The subamendment recommends that the transcript of the simultaneous translation be acceptable for our purposes.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Right.

The Chair: On the subamendment, Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I'll make it known to Mr. Morrison now, through you, that I couldn't vote for that. In my experience on this committee since 1988 there have been many times where facts and figures... Especially in transport you're inundated with numbers—millions and thousands and hundreds of thousands and the rest of it. They sometimes, and it is not the fault of the translator...because of the speed of the delivery of the presenter, these numbers are flying all over the place, and sometimes that translated document, Lee, is just... You couldn't possibly use it as de facto...

I'd have to vote against it just for that reason. I understand what you're attempting to do, but what you are requesting just isn't strong enough to hold on its own.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I'll withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Morrison.

The Chair: It could be misleading and we could make our decisions based on wrong information.

The mover has asked that the subamendment be withdrawn. It can be done with the majority of your vote.

Subamendment withdrawn

The Chair: We go back to the amendment. Are you ready for the question?

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Distribution of documents is done.

The steering committee, for new members, is a committee whose function is to set the agenda for committee meetings. Choice of witnesses, decisions made—the chair doesn't make those decisions alone. They are made by a steering committee.

• 1600

I know some committees have asked for seven members. When I was chair of the aboriginal affairs committee, most of our steering committee meetings lasted about five minutes and we did it in the lobby of the House, because as I told you, I don't play games. You'll get to know me and with what I put in front of you I hope we'll have that mutual trust.

Now you decide how many members you want on the steering committee. There will be a majority from the government, naturally, as a reflection of the House. Can I hear suggestions for how many members we should assign to meet to prepare an agenda, which needs to be ratified by the main committee?

Mr. Calder.

Mr. Murray Calder: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put forward this suggestion. Seeing that we have five recognized parties in the House of Commons now, and every one of them has to be recognized and should be part of the steering committee, my recommendation would be that we put together a steering committee comprised of nine people, five from the government side and four from the opposition. There would be a representative from the Reform, from the Bloc, from the NDP, and from the Conservatives.

The Chair: This is a recommendation for debate?

Mr. Murray Calder: Yes.

The Chair: Mr. Morrison.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I think that's too cumbersome, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that the steering committee be comprised of the chair and the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and one representative from each of the Bloc, the NDP, and the Conservatives.

The Chair: That's five, right?

An hon. member: Seven.

The Chair: Let's go through it again. The chair and the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and...?

Mr. Lee Morrison: One member at large from each of the other three opposition parties. That short-changes us, but it's a steering committee.

The Chair: I'm open for more comments, but we're getting closer.

Our concern at this point is to do justice to the opposition, because no matter what we decide here the government side will be in the majority. We want to do justice to the opposition. So you have a big say in this matter.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I would like to go along with Lee on this one, because I think even seven is a large number. It's really too large. At the same time, if you make it smaller, you're obviously going to leave out one of the other parties. I think we should go with seven, because then nobody can say they weren't part of the agenda or part of the committee itself.

Mr. Murray Calder: Bear in mind too, Mr. Chairman, that this would be the maximum size of the steering committee and that everybody has the opportunity to represent their party on the steering committee in the direction of this committee, but it doesn't mean to say nine people have to be present.

Mr. Stan Keyes: But they could be.

The Chair: The chair, vice-chairs, and a member of each party: I think the government side should do their math.

Mr. Stan Keyes: If I look at the list, it's the chairman, the parliamentary secretary, and the vice-chair—that's three—and the vice-chair and one from each, or four, for the opposition.

It doesn't really short-change you, Lee. It actually short-changes the government. It's four-three on the numbers, so it's the government that's short-changed, not the opposition.

The Chair: Keep in mind that all recommendations made by the steering committee must be ratified by the main committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: That's right. Even though this is becoming redundant, I will repeat this for the pleasure of doing so. I had understood from the first moment that this subcommittee examines among other things the agenda and that any report it is to submit must be ratified by the committee as a whole. Thus, the government is well served by the majority within the committee. So this should not pose any problem.

• 1605

Mr. Chairman, even though we don't have to thoughtlessly copy what has been done elsewhere, I would add that the vast majority of other committees have passed motions creating subcommittees composed of seven members, including the parliamentary secretary, or six members when the parliamentary secretary is not included. That should not pose any problem.

[English]

Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Guimond made my point, that anything has to be ratified.

Also, in response to Mr. Keyes, he says he'll have only three and we'll have four. But who are “we”? There are four parties over here and we're not having a love-in among the four of us. I would rather doubt that we're going to gang up on the government in a steering committee or anywhere else.

The Chair: To be completely upfront, you might gang up on me. I'm the chair and it's my responsibility to initiate articles for the agenda. I like to try to work with consensus, but if I'm outnumbered, of course that gives the power to the opposition to make recommendations to the committee. If the committee chooses to go that way, that's what will happen. But I want to make it clear, because I have a responsibility but I will be outnumbered.

Mr. Roy Cullen: I believe that, for the smooth functioning of this committee, the steering committee should really reflect the composition of the House. I'd be concerned that, given an imbalance in the steering committee, issues and priorities would come forward that could end up going back to the steering committee and the committee might not be very functional.

So while I accept the fact that a larger number is a bit cumbersome, the reality is that members of this committee will have the option of attending the steering committee meetings or not. If they want to, they can and they will. But in reality, I think that in practical terms you won't see nine people at the steering committee meetings, or all of them, unless there's a very keen interest. So at a practical level I'm not sure that it will be that cumbersome.

Mr. Murray Calder: In the interest of saving time then, seeing that we're discussing routine motions, I'm going to put a motion forward. It is that the steering committee be comprised of the chairman, the first vice-chairman, the parliamentary secretary, two Liberal members, and one representative from the Reform Party, from the Bloc, from the NDP and from the Conservatives, comprising a total of nine members.

The Chair: That is a motion that's been received.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Could you go through that again, please?

The Chair: The motion is that the steering committee be composed of the chair, the first vice-chair, the parliamentary secretary, two Liberal members, and one from all opposition parties—one Reform, one Bloc, one NDP and one PC.

Mr. Murray Calder: Of course the second vice-chair being the Reform representative.

The Chair: Add it to this list?

Mr. Murray Calder: It's either or.

The Chair: No, I'm not clear on it, because when you said it before you said the first vice-chair.

Mr. Murray Calder: The first vice-chair, but the representative from the Reform Party could be the second vice-chair. That is the point I'm making.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Lee Morrison: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We keep talking about the first and second vice-chairs. If I can refer you to section 106(2) of the Standing Orders, there are no first vice-chairs or second vice-chairs; they're just vice-chairs.

The Chair: I have no problem with that.

[Translation]

Are there any comments on Mr. Calder's proposal?

Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes. Do we have to have a quorum at the steering committee? Should we cancel the meeting if the nine members are not present? That is just a figure, but I think that the other committees have probably been much wiser in setting the number of members of their subcommittee on agenda and procedure at six or seven.

We like large committees, but we have to think of the consequences and act accordingly. Let's keep this matter of a quorum in mind. If a party is not represented at a meeting of the steering committee, can the committee meet anyway? Let's think about that.

The Chairman: Let's decide on the number of members who will make up the subcommittee right now. The committee as a whole will determine the procedures at a subsequent meeting.

• 1610

[English]

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to make a comment to alleviate your fears about being ganged up on by the honourable colleagues here.

As you know—I don't need to reiterate this—the agenda has to be approved by the main body. Whatever is on the agenda can be accommodated or approved. I think there are unfounded fears.

I still believe, Mr. Chair, that the smaller the numbers, the easier it is to work with. I would still promote the idea of smaller numbers for the steering committee.

The Chair: The question has been called for. The motion is on nine in number. If it doesn't pass, we'll start over with another number. It is Mr. Calder's motion.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Now we will go back up to opening statements and questioning of witnesses.

Mr. Michel Guimond: What is the quorum of the...?

The Chair: If you want to deal with that now, that's fine.

We'll deal with the quorum on the steering committee. Mr. Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chair, I have a suggestion. I don't know what other committees have suggested or done, but in lieu of a quorum, I suggest we have a notice requirement. I don't know what a reasonable notice would be, one or two days or a number of hours. I'm not sure how quickly these things develop. I would suggest a very clear notice that there will be a steering committee meeting and then members of this committee would have the option to attend or not.

The Chair: I can tell you that I will be the one calling these meetings and I have no intention of surprising anyone. I would normally make a number of phone calls to see if the time would be suitable. If I have a week or five days, I just call the meeting. If it is a matter of two days, or even three, I would ask every one of you on the committee to see if it causes any problems.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): On the steering committee, would associate members be permitted to attend instead of the full-time member?

The Chair: I see no problem with that. Do any members see a problem?

Mr. Stan Keyes: If the associate member is replacing the member.

Mr. Bill Casey: Right; not in addition to.

Mr. Stan Keyes: To relieve your fears, Mr. Chairman, in the last four years on this committee I don't think we had four steering committee meetings. I wouldn't be too worried about it.

The Chair: I'm told that the practice in the past—and it's the practice I used in my other committee—is that at the end of every meeting we go in camera, and we usually do it as a group. We plan the next meeting. We'll try to keep you a couple of meetings ahead. I agree, I don't think we'll have many steering committee meetings, unless you want them. I try to do them before Question Period and they usually last five minutes.

I think you'll be pleased with preparing your own agendas at the end of every meeting—for the next one.

Mr. Casey.

Mr. Bill Casey: I have a couple of questions. Do motions have to be seconded for this committee?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Bill Casey: What role does the honourable parliamentary secretary play in the committee?

The Chair: He is a member of the committee.

Mr. Bill Casey: He is just a member of the committee.

Mr. Stan Keyes: He is the member for Hamilton West on the transport committee.

• 1615

The Chair: This having been said, do you wish to choose a number for a quorum? We haven't resolved that. You've asked that we deal with this now.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: If I was going to take what Mr. Keyes said, that you often go with four...to put a higher number on might be an embarrassment to the steering committee. So perhaps four would be enough.

The Chair: Four members for a quorum? Do you want to do this on consensus, or do you want to make other suggestions?

Mr. Lee Morrison: May I suggest that we go with Beauschesne's: a simple majority of the members, which would be five?

The Chair: Are you happy with five?

Mr. Lee Morrison: How about one, the parliamentary secretary?

The Chair: Shall we go with Beauschesne's, at five?

Mr. Keyes has a recommendation.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's just in addition to the Beauschene's suggestion: provided that three of the five are government members.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Guimond: I have a question about how the parties will be reresented by those five members. Should we ask that each party be represented by one of those members?

The Chairman: I could reply to that. We're talking about a majority...

[English]

Mrs. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: A simple majority... If you're calling the meeting as chair, you're not going to call the meeting unless you have your parliamentary secretary and your vice-chair. It almost becomes petty to specify that. So let's just say it's a simple majority of five and count on your good sense.

The Chair: We're still at the consensus-building stage.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I could not have said it better. If we can't turn out three out of nine we deserve to be outvoted.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's right.

The Chair: Have we built towards a consensus of five members for a quorum? It has to be five members of this committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Now we go back to opening statements, the second item on the routine motions. You may want some time to think about this or you may want to deal with it now. It refers to the amount of time we want to give witnesses and how we split the time after. I'll just give a forewarning of the way I like to chair meetings.

If you decide three minutes per party or per member or whatever—I'm throwing out three minutes just because it's not a reasonable number—I will stick to it. One thing I do is I stick almost to the second. If you have work to do at 12.30 p.m. and our meeting ends at 12.30 p.m., you'll know you're going to be there. So whatever time you choose you'll know I'm going to stick to it. If we have a witness and the time is three minutes and someone moves that we allow more time, I will put it to the committee. Any exception won't be made by me, it will be made by the committee.

Do you wish more time to deal with this, or do you want to deal with it now? Does anyone want to throw out a figure for the total time we allow for a witness, presentation and questions?

Mr. Stan Keyes: I'll go back into the past again. I've found that sometimes witnesses come before us and spend 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 45 minutes. Remember, Michel, through you, Mr. Chairman, we would have people with slide shows and the whole thing. We would be here for 45 minutes listening to the whole thing, having received their document two days before anyway and zipped through it. I think if witnesses are encouraged to attend and the clerk notifies them that they're invited to appear before the committee they will advance a copy of their presentation to each committee member at least a couple of days before and they will provide this committee with a summary of their presentation of no longer than 15 minutes.

The Chair: We haven't discussed a total time. Do you want to discuss that?

Mr. Stan Keyes: No, just the witness.

The Chair: Just the witness's time?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Just the witness for now.

The Chair: The recommendation is 15 minutes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: We can take this in bites.

The Chair: I will tell you that I will cut off witnesses also, unless someone else here wants me to give them more time. I'll stick to it.

The suggestion is 15 minutes.

• 1620

Ms Bev Desjarlais: Based on the experiences I've had in the last couple of weeks in how fast we have to ramble through in the House to get things across in 10 or 20 minutes, I would suggest that maybe witnesses won't have that same kind of ability. Based on just the experiences I've had, to me 30 minutes seems more reasonable for listening to someone make a presentation. But I don't know.

The Chair: It's a good point. My response to that is that whatever other time is left is for you to ask questions. When you ask a question, they don't have to answer it all the time. They can finish their presentation.

Ms Bev Desjarlais: I've just usually found that if you listen, there are usually fewer questions.

The Chair: Yes. There is a suggestion. We're building a consensus. We'll try that.

Is there a recommendation for 15 minutes? And one for 30? I saw hands.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I would go with the 15. I think even that could turn out to be a bit overly generous with some witnesses. Ten is the figure I had in my mind when we started here, but I think 15 should be fair to everybody. With this mob of parties here, we have to allow time for questions. I think 15 should be absolutely the top.

The Chair: Keep in mind that you can change this at any time. If you have a witness that you want to give more time, you just do it.

Mr. Ivan Grose: This might be splitting hairs, but it seems to me we authorize two witnesses of each presentation and now we're talking about witness, in the singular. Do they get 20 minutes each, or the whole thing?

The Chair: We're talking about per presentation. If we group them, it's the amount of time you're going to decide. If there are five of them, they will have three minutes each.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Good.

Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): We sometimes, at the most, get 20 minutes in the House to do a complete presentation. If we're talking about two, then you can look at the 10 and 10 split. So maybe there is a compromise to look at 20 minutes, as opposed to 15, although...

The Chair: We have recommendations of 15, 20 and 30.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Given the number of parties on this committee and the need for different parties to ask questions, I would agree to 15 minutes, maximum. This is because if you allow witnesses or a group of witnesses half an hour or 40 minutes, then by the time you get into questioning... If a person has a hard copy of their presentation, then in 15 minutes it can be given to the committee and they will basically take the committee through the highlights. Otherwise, they are going to be reading from their main document and everyone starts falling asleep. So I would support 15 minutes and then questions.

Mr. Bill Casey: I think the 15 minutes is appropriate if you consider the documentation we'll get plus the presentation and the question period. I think that's going to be enough.

The Chair: I didn't respond to your asking for the question because I don't have a motion.

Do I have a motion?

Mr. Stan Keyes: I move that we allow 15 minutes for witness presentations.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Carried unanimously. What a team.

How much time for questions?

An hon. member: Now we get into the thick of it.

The Chair: I guess we can debate both issues at the same time: the total amount of time and the way we split it. If it's a problem, then you'll take time to think about it and we'll do it later. But you decide.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I've a proposal, again because of the unusual make-up of this committee, that rather than rotating with a speaker from Reform, a speaker from the Bloc, a speaker from the Liberals, etc., you rotate by party and give each party a block of time. If they have only one member present, then that member takes the whole block. If all three of them are there, then they can whisper among themselves, decide how to divide it up, five minutes apiece or whatever. It makes it simpler for the chair.

If that approach sounds reasonable, then the math becomes fairly simple. I would suggest Reform, 15; Bloc, 10; NDP and PC, 5 apiece; Liberals, 35. It would be five minutes times the number of people you have.

The Chair: Mr. Mark and Mr. Morrison seem to agree on that issue of block times.

Are you the member for the Reform Party?

• 1625

Mr. Lee Morrison: They'll have to speak for themselves.

The Chair: The Reform Party and the Liberal Party, the government party, are the only two parties that have more than one. If you both agree, I will ask the government side if they agree. The others aren't affected by it.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Thirty-five minutes.

The Chair: As chair, I give a block of time to a party and you divide it the way you want.

An hon. member: Sure.

The Chair: How about on the government side? As chair, if it's 35 minutes for the government side, I give the floor to the government side for 35 minutes and you get a quarterback and you decide who gets the floor and how you share it.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Can we discuss that?

The Chair: We'll let the ones affected respond first. That is the recommendation.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: We will discuss it. Don't ask them to answer right away. I would have some things to say that might enlighten them if you give me the floor.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: We could always do what my colleague from the Reform Party mentioned earlier. When we began with a block of time, we could share it, depending on how much time was left on our first ten minutes. I don't think we need to be formal.

If we agree on a given period of time, we don't have to say that the rest of the time can be used by the two or three others. The first one goes to the end of the process on the first round and asks questions during the whole period.

As Mr. Keyes can confirm, each party would begin with a first round of ten minutes. I'm talking about the period when there were only three officially recognized parties.

I'm fully aware that we may have to keep an eye on the clock, but the principle could be the same. First, each party had ten minutes, and afterward, it had five more minutes. If there was time remaining, it was shared according to what members had asked the Chair to do. We could use that procedure readily enough.

I might add that what our colleague from the Reform Party is proposing is not very respectful of our colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP, who will also be active members of this committee. There are no second-class members. There are only members, and everyone has the right to take an active part in the debate.

How the seats are assigned among the parties will no doubt have consequences. That is why the government is in the majority, but if the government begins with 35 minutes and others come along at the very end... We have to think of colleagues in the fourth and fifth parties if they are to be active participants on this committee.

[English]

The Chair: Keep in mind that the recommendation is fifteen minutes, ten minutes, five, and five. If we're talking about second rounds, that means splitting five minutes. I'm not speaking one way or the other, but the issue is there.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chair, I wonder if at some point the Reform colleague could go over his proposal again; but in principle, personally, I would support allocating a block of time to the various parties and then rotating the question so there's an opportunity, when you come around again, to rebut or to comment further. About the total block of time, it seems to me the numbers... There was a lot of time for questioning. Perhaps you could repeat those numbers.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I had suggested five minutes per member, which would work out to 15, 10, 5, 5, and 35.

The Chair: That's an hour and 25 minutes per witness.

Mr. Lee Morrison: Well, per presentation.

Mr. Stan Keyes: At maximum.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I do accept Mr. Cullen's comment that the whole block should not necessarily be taken in one gulp.

• 1630

The Chair: Now you're debating.

Mr. Lee Morrison: No, I'm explaining.

The Chair: He was asked to give his numbers.

I want to recognize the other member. Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Mr. Chair, that is exactly the point I want to make in regard to the allocation of time. The Conservatives, if given five minutes, may want to use only one or two minutes at a time, but they would finally use the total five minutes. They just wouldn't have to use it all at once. For example, if the Reform Party used 15 minutes that would silence any other cross-examination by us.

This is a guideline. It does not have to be exact as long as you share the time. This is just a rough outline. The time does not have to be used all at once. It is the same for the government members with their 35 minutes. They may use five minutes and then two and then one and use their time up roughly that way. That's what we mean by the allotment.

The Chair: If members want it that way I can control it from this end. We'll all end up with the maximum as indicated if that is what you choose.

Mr. Keyes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: I have to agree with what has been said. It's only fair. We cannot have the Conservatives asking the last question for every witness who comes forward. It just doesn't work. It isn't fair. I think Mr. Bailey is absolutely right. If we have 35 minutes on this side—and of course I don't think we should take it as a block—we should find a formula that allows a rotation. On many occasions in the past we've reversed the rotation.

Usually when the presentations are made the Reform Party starts, followed by the Bloc, the NDP, the Tories and then the government. Then we reverse it so that it is the government, the Tories, the NDP, the Bloc and the Reform. It just keeps a healthy to and fro going throughout the debate.

I have just one question. When you say five minutes, does that include the answer of the witness?

Mr. Lee Morrison: Yes.

Mr. Stan Keyes: That's very—

The Chair: That creates a bit of a problem, but I can handle it. But if—

Mr. Lee Morrison: The witness could kill the—

The Chair: That's right. You could—

Mr. Stan Keyes: Again, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to note that if Mr. Casey is on a good point with a witness and the witness is starting to fry, if the witness is starting to have his feet placed in the fire, when the chairman asks if the rest of the committee members want Mr. Casey to have five more minutes and everyone says to keep on going I think it's up to this committee to decide—whenever it wants—to let whatever happens happen, through you.

The Chair: At the five-minute point, I'll direct the witness to conclude. At that point, if anyone is asking for more time I will just call for consensus.

Mr. Stan Keyes: To be fair about this, if a member asks a four-minute question the witness has only one minute to answer. Will you cut that witness off?

The Chair: That's right. And if you don't like that, give me ten minutes. I don't want to be the judge of who gets cut and who doesn't when there is only one minute left. I know very well that you're all going to have five-minute questions because you're all politicians.

For example, if Mr. Casey asks a four-minute question so that there is one minute left and the committee wants more information, all members have to do is ask if they could hear more from the witness. I would then call for numbers, and if I have them I will let the witness go on. Otherwise the witness will be cut off.

Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Roy Bailey: That's not as satisfactory, but I agree with Mr. Keyes in regard to the allotment of time. It's much better for everyone if we can go around the table as need be. If not, we could go with the question rotation, and that makes it cumbersome for everybody because we would be tied down to something specific and we might totally miss a point.

I would rather go with the time limit for questions and let the chair use his prerogative for having one more question. The chair can say something to that effect. It's a guideline. I don't think everybody is going to have to jump up and down according to stopwatches.

• 1635

The Chair: For the maximum time we'll be there with the stopwatch. We're not going to cut him off abruptly, but we're going to intervene.

Mr. Casey, I think you had asked for the floor.

Mr. Bill Casey: I'm just not sure of the question flow. I don't know how you could break up five-minute pieces so that we could come back several times as individual members. If it starts with a Liberal member and a Reform member and back to Liberal and then went Bloc, Liberal, NDP, Liberal, Tory, in that way our questions would not be at the end. We'd have our one question or our one five-minute thing. It would be in the minute, and after that take us out of the rotation.

The Chair: Is there a recommendation? Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr. Keyes a question?

I've sat on this committee, but only occasionally. Do I remember having more than one witness group in the same meeting? Three shipping lines would come in one meeting.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Absolutely.

Mr. Ivan Grose: Then we're into horrendously long meetings.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Absolutely. Bring your wake-up pills.

The Chair: Committee members, we have a recommendation of an hour and 25 minutes for a witness. You haven't decided on that yet. Are there other recommendations?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's been my experience that a camel is a racehorse designed by a committee. I would suggest that the steering committee meet and come back with a proposal, because we'll be here for the next 43 hours. I doubt if we'll ever decide anything, and for sure it will look like a camel, not a racehorse.

To me, an hour and 25 minutes is intolerable. So may I move that the steering committee put this under advisement and come back with a solution for it, or a recommendation.

Motion agreed to

The Chair: I invite all members to make recommendations through your representatives on the steering committee.

A voice: Let's see what other committees are doing. Maybe they've already gone around this.

The Chair: Before we adjourn, next week we will not be here. I don't like to have a day in a week where we're not going to do anything and then the next week have three meetings.

I sense that at some time you will want to meet with the minister. I'm suggesting that if you want to, would you like to invite the minister to appear before us? I've been told that you used to sit on Tuesday mornings. Would you like us to invite the minister on Tuesday two weeks from today at our morning meeting? Otherwise, we'll do nothing in that week.

On that issue, quickly, yes or no. Mr. Keyes? Yes? Consensus?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We will invite the minister to appear on no specific issue. He'll make a presentation and you'll see how I can control time.

Mr. Stan Keyes: To be fair, we've got a piece of legislation, as the opposition knows, that's coming to us this week. It's the Canada Marine Act. That being the case, your invitation to the minister, two weeks from today at 9.30 a.m., is terrific. But we could probably start dealing with that piece of legislation.

I don't want to supersede any decisions the steering committee is going to make, but, at the same time, if you've got the bill in front of you, he's ready to go on that, and of course on any other subject you care to bring up—104 and all the rest of it, Bill.

The Chair: I would like all members to receive as much information as possible on that bill, seeing as it's that close. Would you be the one asking the department to provide that information, or would it be the parliamentary secretary? Could you ask them to provide as much information as possible on everything, but not to overload us, to give us information on issues that are forthcoming.

The Clerk: Okay.

Mr. Lee Morrison: I have one more routine motion that I would like to introduce before we leave routine motions. It's one that has been passed by some of the other committees already, and it is in line with a practice that I observed on committees in the last Parliament. The motion is that whenever order in council appointments are referred to this committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of said appointments. In other words, no surprises.

• 1640

The Chair: First you'll decide if you want to accept that this motion be dealt with at this time. Otherwise we won't even debate it today.

Reform moves a routine motion that whenever order in council appointments are referred to this committee the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of said appointments. Do you wish to deal with this now; and I'd like to know whether we need fifty plus one, or two-thirds, with a motion without warning.

An hon. member: Fifty plus one.

The Chair: Fifty plus one.

Do you wish to deal with this now or later?

Mr. Stan Keyes: Can I have a report from the clerk first, Mr. Chairman? Isn't this already the practice?

The Clerk: When we receive the order in council I will make sure each member gets a copy of it.

Mr. Lee Morrison: There have been instances, though, when it wasn't done, which is why I wanted to put it into a formal part of our marching orders here.

The Chair: Would you agree that if we have a problem with this we can reintroduce it?

Mr. Lee Morrison: What is the problem with just voting on it?

An hon. member: It's already before the committee.

Mr. Lee Morrison: No notice is required. You have it before you. If the committee in its wisdom doesn't want to do it, although I don't know why they wouldn't, well, then, vote it down. But it's pretty innocuous.

The Chair: I don't want to debate the issue. I want to debate whether we're going to deal with this now or deal with it at all.

Mr. Stan Keyes: Can we deal with it at the next meeting? I would like to see the motion. I want to make sure it's worded correctly, so we can all benefit.

Mr. Michel Guimond: We would appreciate receiving a copy of the motion.

An hon. member: That's right, in both official languages.

The Chair: I'll clarify the issue from my point of view. I sense that you are choosing not to deal with this today.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: That means I will take the motion and I will make a decision on whether it's a motion or not. If it's something that is done all the time, it's not a motion. You don't put in a motion to say we'll call the meeting to order at the beginning. We're going to verify that. If it's a practice that we do what it says, I will not accept it as a motion, because there is no need for it. At this point it's a notice of motion to the chair.

Mr. Stan Keyes: To be fair, it should be in both official languages.

The Chair: Yes, we will have it translated.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have comments on another subject.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Yes, when the...

Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate my support, in an informal way. In any case, I proposed your nomination, and you can rest assured that you will have my co- operation. Concerning the election of an opposition vice-chair, I hope that everyone around the table will also appreciate the co- operation of the Bloc Québécois.

Quebec has a beautiful moto: Je me souviens; I remember. I remember that day in February 1994, after our election. We were members of the Official Opposition then, and the members of the third party at the time, the Reform Party, tried through various machinations and tactics to have members from their party elected as vice-chairs.

We of the Bloc Québécois are democrats and it is in that spirit that I have not approached certain persons to have them submit my candidacy for the position of vice-chair, even though I feel I am very well prepared and would have made and excellent vice-chair, I am convinced of that. My mother tells me so on a regular basis. Allow me to congratulate you, again.

[English]

The Chair: Before we close, you have seen an example of my letting you get things on record. I understand that as members of Parliament you need to get things on record, and the opposition members maybe more so. I will exercise some latitude when this occurs. I hope we'll not take advantage of it.

Any other comments?

The meeting is adjourned.