CLAR Committee Meeting

LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON BILL C-20, AN ACT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR CLARITY AS SET OUT IN THE OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA IN THE QUEBEC SECESSION REFERENCE

COMITÉ LÉGISLATIF CHARGÉ D'ÉTUDIER LE PROJET DE LOI C-20, LOI DONNANT EFFET À L'EXIGENCE DE CLARTÉ FORMULÉE PAR LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA DANS SON AVIS SUR LE RENVOI SUR LA SÉCESSION DU QUÉBEC

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, February 14, 2000

• 1634

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.)): Order.

[English]

It's my duty to advise the committee that I received the following communication from Mr. Speaker, addressed to me:

Pursuant to Standing Order 113, this is to confirm your appointment as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-20, An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference.

• 1635

[Translation]

I must also advise the committee that our order of reference appears in the Journals of the House of Commons, Wednesday February 10, 2000, and I quote:

The House resumes the consideration of the motion by Mr. Dion (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs), seconded by Mr. Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government Services),—That Bill C-20, an Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference, be now read a second time and referred to a legislative committee;

And the amendment by Mr. Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie), seconded by Mr. Gauthier (Roberval).

The debate continues.

At 5:15 p.m., pursuant to the order adopted earlier this day under Standing Order 78(3), the Speaker interrupts the proceedings.

Amendment negatived: nays, 179; yeas, 42.

[English]

The question was put on the main motion and it was agreed to on the following division: yeas 168; nays 55. The bill was read a second time and referred to a legislative committee. Accordingly, we were charged with the study of Bill C-20, and I look forward to working will all members of the committee.

The committee is now duly constituted and everyone is here, so we're prepared to deal with the business at hand.

I advise the committee that we have as clerk Mr. Marc Toupin, and he will be assisted by Madame Suzanne Verville.

The question is, what business would the committee like to do as part of its organizing today?

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): There's a camera here...we're not televised at this time?

The Chair: We're not televised, no.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Then what is that behind you?

The Chair: Oh, I didn't see that, I'm sorry. Thank you.

Okay, perhaps the first question I can ask the committee is whether there's a desire to establish a steering committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Chairman, we are in favour of establishing a steering committee.

The Chairman: Are there any comments?

Mr. Alcock.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, and congratulations, Mr. Chairman.

I guess the question that comes to mind on that, given the size of this committee, would be whether or not we would just go into committee of the whole to deal with business arising from the committee. We don't have a lot of motions to deal with, but rather than have the steering committee meet, come back and have a report made to the committee, and have another debate on it, maybe it makes sense just to constitute the committee of the whole as the steering committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: The size of the committee is not an issue. We feel that there are a large number of similar-sized committees that have a steering committee. I think we should have a steering committee, especially to examine the witness list that will be fairly long.

The Chairman: I agree. Maybe we can come back to this a little later.

[English]

If, after we've met for a while, we've made some agreement on a number of items, it may not be necessary, and we can make that decision a little later. Is that agreeable to everybody in light of the comments?

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): There's a lot of feedback, and not political either.

I don't quite understand the suggestion of putting off this decision, but that's fine. I think I would like to make it known at this point that I think there is a good argument to be made for a steering committee, particularly with respect to determining who witnesses will be and a number of other things that I think a steering committee could do better. This is a fairly large committee, and I think we might be better off to have a steering committee.

I just want to indicate at this point that I support that particular notion.

• 1640

The Chair: The chair is not taking any stand on the issue. I'm just suggesting that if we see what other items we decide on, the importance or relevance of the steering committee may become more or less apparent as we make decisions.

Is it the desire to have a reduced quorum for the hearing of witnesses?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes.

The Chair: Do you care to move a motion in that regard, Mr. Alcock?

Mr. Reg Alcock: I'm just noting the routine motions. This is to allow the committee to sit and continue to hear witnesses, as I understand it. So I would move that the chairman be authorized to hold meetings and to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least five members are present, including one member of the opposition.

The Chair: Has the committee heard the terms of the motion by Mr. Alcock? Is there any debate?

[Translation]

Mr. Alcock suggested that the Chairman be authorized to hold meetings and to hear evidence in the absence of a quorum, provided that at least five members are present, including one member of the opposition.

[English]

Two? He said one.

Mr. Reg Alcock: One.

The Chair: Is that agreed?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: No problem.

The Chairman: Agreed?

[English]

Are all agreed?

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Chairman, that's rather low. In any case, the committee is so relaxed that we're having trouble following.

A voice: It's because of the lights.

Mr. André Bachand: Yes, it's smooth.

A voice: It's even dull.

Mr. André Bachand: I think the government is going to give itself some leeway by agreeing to have an opposition member while intending to accept more than one. I think the government could immediately agree to having more than one opposition member and not try to negotiate by saying that a government member will be enough while agreeing that the opposition must have two. The government could be much more open and agree immediately to have two or three opposition members.

I could see that the parliamentary secretary was surprised by the opposition's silence. That means he was ready to negotiate. I have just one thing to say: there won't be much of a debate on that, but there should be more generosity. But if there isn't, it's no big deal.

The Chairman: Do you have an amendment, Mr. Bachand?

Mr. André Bachand: I have no amendment. If the parliamentary secretary has one, in a gesture of great generosity, then he can introduce it. If he doesn't, and the opposition seems to agree on that, then we will make do.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Bachand, and other members of the committee, in response to the comment about whether or not this was a strategy as opposed to just a thought, what I was attempting to do.... I guess there is a certain amount of unease as we come into this, just given some of the statements that have been made outside the committee and some of the tensions that have arisen around this particular bill. What I would very much like to do is try to separate the procedural items from some of the debates that are going to take place.

If you would feel comfortable with two.... We tried to follow the kinds of practices that have existed in other committees. As you know, at times we've gotten into situations where we have a lot of witnesses, and if a quorum breaks, all of a sudden the committee can't function. So if you would feel comforted by having two, that wouldn't cause me any trouble at all. I would be prepared to amend my motion to say a quorum would be six, with a minimum of two members of the opposition.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Five and two.

The Chair: What's the wish of the committee? Six and two? Five and two?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Six and two, please.

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. André Bachand: Seven and one.

The Chair: Is everybody happy with six and two?

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Five and two.

Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Five and two.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I'll move another amendment.

The Chair: We had better have a proper amendment, because I don't think Mr. Alcock can amend his motion. So somebody can move an amendment.

• 1645

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I move that it be five from the government side and two from the opposition.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): I thought it was five altogether.

Mr. Reg Alcock: It's five in total.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Okay, then it would be that two of the five would be from the opposition.

The Chair: Okay, we have an amendment that instead of being five and one, it will be five and two to fill in the blanks on the motion.

[Translation]

Does everyone agree with this amendment?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

[English]

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: Turning to research officers, would someone like to move a motion in this regard, or not?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Patry.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I move, if the committee feels it would be useful, and subject to the chairman's discretion, that we retain the services of one or more research affairs from the Library of Parliament to assist us in our work.

The Chairman: Discussion or debate? All in favour? Agreed?

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will now move to witnesses' expenses. Mr. Drouin.

Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I move that, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the committee up to a maximum of two representatives from any one organization.

The Chairman: Would anyone like to address the motion? Yes?

[English]

Mr. Hill?

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Well, Mr. Chair, it looks to me that there's no spot in these proposals to provide for any travel outside Ottawa. I'd like to know where that discussion would take place.

The Chair: That would be whenever you choose to raise it, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Then I would choose to raise it now.

The Chair: Okay, but can we deal with this motion first—

Mr. Reg Alcock: Put the motion first.

The Chair: —on the expenses of witnesses that we provide for, and then raise your issue?

Mr. Grant Hill: That would be fine.

The Chair: Is there any discussion on this motion about witness expenses?

[Translation]

Is everyone in agreement?

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: If I might have the opportunity, I would express the position of the official opposition that the committee travel and hold public meetings, including with representatives of each provincial and territorial legislature in Canada in each of their respective provinces or territories. I'd like to put that in the form of a motion.

The Chair: Are you going to write it down for us?

Mr. Grant Hill: It is so written.

The Chair: Is it? Splendid.

An hon. member: In both languages?

The Chair: Discussion? Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to agree with that motion. We have already raised the issue several times in the House, we have exchanged letters with the government leaders and we are not satisfied with the answers we were given. If holding international trade negotiations on fishing or other policies justifies travel by a parliamentary committee away from the Hill and sometimes even abroad, surely a bill as controversial and as important as this one would also call for a parliamentary committee to travel abroad. In Quebec and in the rest of Canada, we have remained open to the possibility that this committee travel within or without Canada, be it through Quebec or through the other provinces, since, as my Reform colleague said and as the Prime Minister repeated several times in the House, the bill we are dealing with would, at first glance, affect every province. Therefore, a strong case can be made to call on this committee to travel and I believe that every opposition party supports this. I hope that the government party will respect the opinion of all the opposition parties and agree with the request made by our Reform Party colleague. In any case, we support it.

• 1650

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would to speak in favour of the motion, and I would just say that I think this is the first occasion that we're going to have, and it probably won't be the last occasion—assuming that the government is not going to agree to this motion, although I might be pleasantly surprised—on which we're going to contend with what I think is an emerging quick-and-dirty attitude on the part of the government in regard to the process for this particular bill. We already saw that in the House.

This is a major piece of legislation having to do with the possible secession of provinces and the break-up of the country. We go to time allocation within a couple of days. And now presumably there's resistance to travel, when what we have before us is....

If we were to be in keeping with the spirit of the legislation itself, the legislation itself says that in the event of a referendum, the provinces would be consulted and their views would be taken into account, yet on the bill itself we're not going to do that. We're not going to go to all the provinces that the bill itself says need to be consulted in the event of such a significant event.

This bill in itself is a significant event in the political life of the country. It seems to me that a very good argument could be made for travelling, and not just in terms of the provinces. I'm sure the Cree in northern Quebec might want to have their say about the way in which they are virtually left out of the process that the bill outlines. There are lots of people we should be listening to. We can't expect them all to come to Ottawa, and I don't think the symbolism of expecting them all to come to Ottawa is very good symbolism in any event.

I would certainly want to speak in favour of the motion to travel, and I hope the government might see its way. It's not as if there's a referendum going to be happening in Quebec in March or something. I don't understand this unholy haste on the part of the government to get this thing over and done with. Why they wouldn't seek to do it well and do it thoroughly is becoming a bit of a mystery to me.

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I'd just like to make a couple of comments in response.

This is a three-clause bill that has been public and before the House for quite some time now. This is not a complicated or detailed piece of legislation. We're not deciding policy here. We're dealing with a three-clause bill that binds the federal government to a certain course of action that is consistent with the decisions of the Supreme Court.

I certainly agree with the point made by the member from Winnipeg—Transcona that we want to consult. The obligation that is imposed upon the federal government by the court and now by this piece of legislation does affect all provinces, and we want to hear from all provinces. But consultation does not necessarily mean travel. There are many ways to do that, and we have been increasingly doing that, as Mr. Blaikie knows. We have made the offer to video-conference with persons who are having difficulty getting to Ottawa. We will facilitate the travel of others to Ottawa to ensure a broad range of opinion. In fact, I believe our House leader has written to the House leaders in other parties and has indicated that although this is a special legislative committee that has very narrow requirements on witnesses, we won't interpret that too narrowly. We will allow a range of opinions to be brought before the House, which is as it should be. But that doesn't mean we have to travel.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That is not a very convincing argument, especially since it is based on the fact that the bill only has three sections which are neither complex nor complicated.

It is true that the bill only has three sections, but there are many subsections dealing with very complex matters which need to be carefully studied by people who may make it to Ottawa or groups who can afford to travel to Ottawa to be heard. However, not everyone is in a position to do so.

• 1655

Furthermore, if, as we see it, the government wants to quickly pass the bill, there will be serious repercussions: those groups who would want to be heard at home, who would want to testify before the committee on their home turf instead of travelling to Ottawa, will be denied the opportunity to speak to a very complex bill, which contains far more than the three short sections you talked about.

For this reason, I believe, in a spirit of openness and transparency, in a spirit of democracy, we should vote for the committee to travel. I think we should go to the people and listen to what they have to say rather than have them come here, on very short notice, over the next two weeks.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand: First, Mr. Chairman, when a committee consults Canadians, there are always public officials on site to advise groups or individuals that a committee will sit. These individuals or groups are only given a few weeks or days to prepare themselves.

For instance, when the Foreign Affairs Committee decided to travel to Quebec to hold consultations on the WTO, some officials spent weeks notifying groups which would be interested in testifying. Not everyone listens to CPAC, Mr. Chairman. Not everyone reads the Globe and Mail or the National Post.

How do you want people to prepare given the constraints of the schedule the government will impose on us? No one in the regions right now knows when the committee will sit. We don't even know.

Two things: either the government considers this an important bill or not. If it is the latter, let's order pizza, grab a beer and party. That's a joke, but there is a serious undertone, Mr. Chairman. If this is an important bill, if it is really serious, despite the fact that the parliamentary secretary seems to want to play down its form and substance, you have to admit that he deeply insulted all Canadians given their reaction. This evening or tomorrow morning, Canadians will officially find out that the committee will spend two weeks on the bill, that is, five days a week in Ottawa and nothing more. You have two weeks to convince people to come to Ottawa. But we live in a huge country. Mr. Chairman, we are the ones who should go out and meet with the people.

The parliamentary secretary said that this bill is not detailed. That's basically the same as saying that it is not clear, but let's move on. That notwithstanding, I will support the motion, since I know full well that the members sitting around the table, for whom I have great respect and am fond of, cannot say a thing since the answer was already given in the House. However, they have more power than they think, since they could side with the opposition and choose to travel. They have the choice to set aside their identical binders with prepared documents and to state that they want the committee to go on the road. Of course, I understand that they would want to talk about a specific period.

This is an important bill. It deals with the break-up of the country, Mr. Chairman. The least we can do is go out and meet Canadians in their part of the country.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's a good test for a new member. It's a good test for Mr. Cotler.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, I'm obviously speaking in favour of the motion, and there are a couple of points that I wish to make.

One is that the government itself, and the House of Commons on a number of occasions, has said this does apply to all the provinces. I therefore think it's important that all the provinces do have a say in it. I totally disagree with my honourable colleague across the way that there are other means by which we can let them have their say other than by travelling to the provinces and extending an open-door policy.

The second point I would make is that I really want to caution the government on this particular subject and issue. Speaking on behalf of western Canadians, for the last few years we've been getting increasingly tired of this issue, but we do recognize that it's an extremely important issue. If we view the way in which the provinces have viewed a lot of the so-called solutions that have come out of Ottawa over the last number of years, rightly or wrongly there has been the optics or the image that it's a made-in-Ottawa solution, a made-in-Ottawa approach to solving the issue of national unity. I think it would be extremely dangerous for this committee, and specifically for the government members on this committee, to decide that we're going to decide this problem just in Ottawa here, that we're just going to have witnesses come to us here in Ottawa and Ottawa will ultimately make the decision.

• 1700

I think it would be a dangerous thing as far as optics go, as far as image goes, to send that message across this nation. As a couple of my colleagues in opposition here have said, that basically would exclude those who couldn't travel to Ottawa or didn't have the time but might be able to attend a committee meeting if it was held somewhere closer. I think it's definitely the wrong thing to do.

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me pick up on a couple of things that have been said. It would be comforting at one point if we were in fact into the kind of process that was referred to by Mr. Bachand, but the reality is that this bill has been before the House, before the people of Canada, for more than two months. It is not a huge bill, it is not the 100-plus clauses of the Nisga'a.

The other thing, in response to Mr. Blaikie's comments about the speed with which this has moved, is that the very first thing we did when we came back to the House was that we made this the very first bill we put on the Order Paper. The first day back in the House, we started off with this bill, and what happened? We spent the entire day in procedural motions and the tabling of silly documents, so that the Bloc never even spoke to the bill. So it's difficult to take some of these protestations at face value.

The reality is that the opportunities will be there to hear from Canadians from all parts of the country. Arrangements will be made. Somebody mentioned their expenses. Their expenses will be covered; that's what this motion we just passed is all about. We will facilitate other ways for them to make their case known before the committee also. But given the statements that have been made over the last month or six weeks, it's a little difficult to see this bonhomie emerging from this committee.

Finally, to Mr. Hill, on western Canadians, I too am a western Canadian. I have discussed this bill at length and I've certainly looked at the opinions of western Canadians, and I see them as being very strongly in favour of this bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: It does not mean they don't want to talk about it.

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur.

[English]

Mr. André Bachand: Come to Quebec City.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I've been listening to what my Liberal colleague opposite has been saying and I believe his argument is based on a false premise; he does not have a monopoly on democracy. In fact, neither do I or does anyone else here. I feel it is up to Canadians to speak to a bill as important as this one. Why are you afraid of meeting people on their own turf, people who, as you know from experience, will not come to Ottawa to testify before the committee?

I have been a member of the justice committee since 1993, where we studied extremely important bills. I have called people to testify on certain issues, including the Young Offenders Act. They realize that it is important to do so, but they did not want to come to Ottawa for all kinds of reasons.

Why don't you want to hear from these people? Why don't you want to hear from people who may want to speak to this bill, but who do not want to come to Ottawa? What are you afraid of hearing?

I hear the member say that we have been discussing this bill for the last two months. I would invite him to read the Debates. The matter was discussed for only three days: December 14, February 7 and February 10. What's more, ultimately there was a gap order. Was that a democratic move given that this bill is supposed to respect democracy, obtain clarity and so on and so forth? Do you want the process to take place in the darkest possible cubicle in Ottawa with as few witnesses as possible? If this is what the Liberal Party means by democracy, Mr. Chairman, it gives me great concern.

• 1705

It's true that this bill only has three sections with sub- sections and so on. However, I hope you realize what all the implications of this bill are. I hope that you, who are at the forefront, are not just puppets whose strings are being pulled and that you realize what is going on. Mr. Chairman, this doesn't make any sense.

You've just heard what is happening in Quebec! We also have to take into consideration the fact that Western Canada or the Maritimes are interested in this bill for vastly different reasons than Quebec. Yes, it is true that, taken literally, the bill targets every province. However, the bill came to be as a result of the referral on Quebec's right to secession. Can we agree to tell things as they are?

Mr. Chairman, Western Canada and Quebec are affected differently by this bill. Perhaps some provinces don't even want to hear about it. But in Quebec, there are at least people in the two major cities, Montreal and Quebec City, who wish to be heard, and I'm not only talking about big experts with PHDs under their belts, but who never actually have lived in the real world to see what's what.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that this committee will see the light and that government members will be enlightened. I sure hope that you understand what is going on. This is democracy. You are dealing with the most fundamental principle of our parliamentary system, in our democracy, which is the 50% plus one principle. However, you are not interested in hearing what people have to say about this. Get real!

Afterwards, once the bill is passed in Ottawa, as far as possible from the people, you will wag your finger at Quebec and tell us that your law is the clearest and that the bad people from Quebec do not want to act in an enlightened manner. But you don't want to hear from them and you want to keep things as quiet as possible. I'm sure that in the back of your minds, you want to put this whole thing behind you as soon as possible. That's disgusting, Mr. Chairman!

I sure hope you are not as spineless as that. There are members from Quebec on this committee and even a former minister, Mr. Scott. It doesn't make sense that you would just sit back and do nothing. Stand up! Do something!

We're not asking for the impossible, Mr. Chairman, by calling for the committee to travel and to meet with Canadians. If we exaggerate, you have enough of a majority to tell us that we, in Quebec, are really over doing it and that we are asking for too many people to be heard, and that their testimonies will only be repetitive. We'll see, we'll see. If the shoe fits, wear it, Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Chairman, it is often said that sovereigntists have their minds made up and that they will never change their views. But look at what happened in Quebec during the last referendum. We were not afraid to travel throughout the province and to hear from federalists. We were not afraid, despite the fact that we knew that people from the Privy Council and the Council for Canadian Unity were following us and taking notes. But that's democracy. We were not afraid to face the music. We were not afraid to hear from organizations and people who were paid by the federalists to testify and to tell us all kinds of things. We were not afraid; we held firm and listened. We changed certain things in our approach in view of the 1995 referendum.

Of course you don't like to hear it, Mr. Alcock, but in Quebec, we did the responsible thing, and we listened to people. They came to testify and things were much clearer for them when they went to vote. You refuse to speak clearly to journalists and to the public generally. In Quebec, we listened to people.

We, the elected representatives in the House of Commons, are going to do this in the dark, with nobody watching if possible, and we are going to put a lid on this as quickly as possible. Is that it? I hope that you in the front are stronger than that, that you have at least some semblance of pride as members of Parliament and that you intend to represent your constituents properly.

You and I have been together on other committees, Mr. Mills. You did not always agree with the government and you stood up for what you thought. Why should you now give in to this? Is it because the Prime Minister does not want to hear from anyone and because Stéphane Dion has brainwashed you?

• 1710

I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman, that in studying this issue, which has a direct impact on democracy, we will at least be able to travel, and we will be suggesting that. We will find out how interested people are in this bill and we will go to hear from them where they live. We have to make it easier for people to tell us what they think. I am not afraid of work, and I'm not afraid of meeting with people. I hope you are not afraid either.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't spend my time making personal attacks or causing squabbles among committee members. We are going to be discussing the bill, because that is the job we have been given. I am surprised to see that some members who generally refuse to travel—I've chaired two committees and I know what they think about travelling—are so insistent on it at this time.

Personally, I see no need to travel. The bill contains only three clauses and it is very technical. Let us look at the summary of the bill.

[English]

We will look at what this bill is trying to do:

The enactment provides for the House of Commons to determine the clarity of a referendum question on the secession of a province and sets out some of the factors to be considered in making its determination. It prohibits the government of Canada from entering into negotiations on the terms on which a province might....

Then we go to the next paragraph,

[Translation]

and the same points are repeated. What is the objective of this bill? It attempts to set out the rights of the government and to ensure that the House of Commons has some control over the rights given to the government.

The next paragraph reads as follows:

The enactment also provides for the House of Commons to determine, following a referendum on secession in a province, if a clear majority of the population of the province has clearly expressed a will to cease to be a part of Canada [...] It prohibits the Government of Canada from entering into negotiations with the province...

In my view, these provisions provide very good protection for all parties—both the government and the opposition parties. If ever we had to implement the provisions of this bill, do we know which party would be in power? This bill would protect the rights of all Canadians and would control the steps taken by the government. It is a technical bill made up of only three clauses. Although it is not complicated, it is important that we invite some individuals to come and testify.

The Bloc Québécois will laugh at us and will be attacking us personally for two weeks. But we will not stoop to that, Mr. Chairman. We will debate the bill and we will discuss it with all the witnesses that appear before us.

It is somewhat regrettable that our colleague, Mr. Hill, moved this motion at this time, although this is not a serious problem. I think it would have been more logical to discuss the number, type and place of origin of the witness before deciding whether or not it is necessary to travel.

Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that I have not consulted my colleagues, I am willing to consider a motion on the number of witnesses the government and all the other parties would have the right to choose. I think it would be a more logical way to proceed.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Grant Hill, on a point of order.

Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Chair, I would ask that we put the question.

The Chair: I have two other speakers on my list: Ms. Meredith and Mr. Turp.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): I withdraw.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I'm not willing to withdraw, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say something.

[English]

The Chair: You wish to speak?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, some people say this is a simple bill, that it is not complex since it only has three clauses and that that is reason enough for the committee not to travel. Well, I think it is important to challenge that argument immediately. I hope that you will never repeat it. This is, in fact, a very complex bill, which has constitutional or quasi- constitutional implications.

• 1715

My colleague Irwin Cotler, who is a constitutional expert, knows that very well. He clearly understands the complexity of the constitutional implications. The objective of this bill is to implement the obligation of clarity as stated in the Supreme Court ruling, which is one of the most complex ruling the Supreme Court has ever handed down.

If we want citizens to understand, if we want those people who will one day be called upon to vote in referenda in Quebec or elsewhere to understand, let us give them the opportunity to do so. If they are to understand, they need to be heard and they also need to hear what other people from their area have to say regarding this bill and have the opportunity to voice their opinions on it.

Otherwise, if they are not given this opportunity, this bill, which, incidentally—and we'll address this issue later when we speak to the substance of the bill—is, in many ways, an affront to democracy, despite the fact that it purports to protect it, and despite the fact that it will be passed by undemocratic means, by not allowing citizens to voice their views on the matter despite their wishes to do so.

In my opinion, if Canadian democracy, which you cherish and defend, won't let the committee travel through Quebec and elsewhere in Canada to study the matter, it means we live in a sick democracy. Our democracy is very sick if it refuses to hear from its citizens. I hope my friend, who is a constitutional expert and a new member of Parliament, will find the strength to disentangle himself from his government on this issue of democratic rights, namely the democratic right of citizens to be heard on this bill.

Since the objective of this bill is to give provinces the opportunity to speak with their own voices, why can't we hear from these provinces? The Supreme Court has said that the provinces are political actors. Why should they not be heard from in Parliament or elsewhere in the other provinces?

The bill states that the federal government has the unilateral right to define clarity. It does not call for input from the provinces. It has not even asked the provinces what they think of the bill. Therefore, it would make perfect sense for the committee to travel, otherwise we will just have to conclude that our democracy is ill, very ill.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. Just to make it very quick, I'm going to speak in favour of the motion.

Having travelled with the B.C. unity panel during the discussion of the Calgary declaration, we travelled to all the different regions of the province of British Columbia. I must say it was a very positive process, both for those of us who had to make decisions and for the communities that did want to speak but couldn't make it into Vancouver, where we would have taken it otherwise.

I have to raise some concern that the government members feel travelling shouldn't happen here. During the 36th Parliament, the government has proposed more travel for committees than in any other Parliament. They're proposing a two-week travel for the fisheries committee, planning a trip to the former Soviet Union for $250,000. The foreign affairs committee and the pre-budget committee are travelling to the tune of $500,000.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that this committee probably is more important to Canadians. This is the first opportunity Canadians have had to even discuss this issue through a committee in the six or seven years I've been here. There has never been a committee of Parliament dealing with unity issues, with secession, with the issues Canadians are concerned about. I think the government would be remiss. It certainly can't be because of cost, because they've shown with other committees that cost is not a factor.

I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that this committee seriously support this motion. Canadians would appreciate having Ottawa come to them on this very important issue to all Canadians. I urge the government members to support this motion to look at travelling to all the provinces and territories.

Mr. Grant Hill: Call the question.

• 1720

The Chair: Are we ready for the question? The question is as follows. Mr. Hill moved that the committee travel and hold public meetings, including representatives of each provincial and territorial legislature in Canada in each of their respective provinces or territories.

Mr. Grant Hill: I'd like a recorded vote as well, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce another motion.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Hill first, and then Mr. Turp.

Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Chair, the issue of the provincial and territorial legislatures in this point is profoundly important. The bill does talk about consulting with the provinces. As an “or” for that last motion, I would like to propose that the committee hear from representatives of each provincial and territorial government prior to the bill being reported back to the House. Since we cannot travel, since the decision has been made not to travel, I want to stress how important it is for us to have at least heard from those other elected representatives in this country before this bill goes back to the House. They are other players on this issue—that's been acknowledged in the bill—and I would strongly suggest that we at least hear from them if the decision has been made not to travel to them.

The Chair: We have another motion on the floor. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Would you read the motion, please.

The Chair: The motion reads:

That the committee hear from representatives of each provincial and territorial government prior to the bill being reported back to the House.

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I'm not certain...it's more the wording. The intent of the bill...I mean, all provincial governments are quite welcome and encouraged to speak before the committee if they wish to. They have been in discussion with the minister on this bill. They are aware of its existence; they've been consulted on it. To this point, none of them have expressed an interest in appearing before the committee on it. They seem satisfied with the content and the direction of it.

So I am not prepared—yes, I don't mean to speak for any government, for that matter, and in particular the Government of Quebec. I'm not certain that I can accept a motion that would seem to tie the conclusion of these hearings to the appearance of individuals who have not indicated a desire to be here. So if the intent of the motion is to raise the question of whether we are willing to hear from them, the answer is yes. But I don't know how we could accept a motion that said prior to the committee hearings coming to an end, they have to have appeared—unless I'm misreading the motion.

Mr. Grant Hill: It simply says “hear from”, not “appear”.

The Chair: Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I think the Reform Party has made a very reasonable proposal. I don't understand why you don't want to hear from the provinces, which the bill would allow to speak with their own voice at a later time. In my view, it is crucial that we hear from them. I hope the committee and its chairman write to every provincial government asking them to testify and that the committee not disband before we hear from them.

Mr. Reg Alcock: No.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Otherwise, it would seem that the federal big brother is the most important political actor, whereas the other political actors are less important. The government wants their opinion or only wants to hear from them if they wish to speak out. It does not even want to stimulate the provinces' interest in coming before the committee. They are only consulted if it pleases the government. If not, it doesn't matter, since the federal government is the most important political actor. After all, it will ultimately decide. That attitude is not very respectful of the federal principle. It does not respect a federal democracy, whatever one may think about federalism.

• 1725

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chair, it may be a point of information. Are we at this point attempting to do the work of whatever steering committee this committee may decide to have? My experience on committee work is that the steering committee, whether it be a small committee or a committee of the whole, should address issues like this, and I feel we're trying to pre-empt their responsibility.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Bonin, should we take it that you are in favour of the creation of a Subcommittee on program and procedure?

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I don't have to answer such direct questions.

[English]

The Chair: Well, we're having motions brought by members before the committee. The chair is trying to be flexible in allowing members to move motions they feel are important.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I would like to move an amendment to this procedure. The objective of the amendment is that we not only hear from provincial governments, which would be a good thing, but also from provincial political parties. As you realize, the bill says that the government shall, upon assessing whether the question was clear or not, solicit not only the opinion of the majority of governments or legislative assemblies, but also that of political parties. It may be interesting to know what the provincial parties throughout Canada think of this bill.

I therefore move this amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, if I understand the motion correctly, it stipulates that we couldn't conclude this until such time as we did hear from all the people listed in the motion. It seems to me, even though I support the idea that we should hear from as many of these provincial governments, provincial political parties, or whoever wants to come forward as possible, we don't want to be held potentially hostage to.... What if there's a particular government or a particular political party opposed to the bill and says they won't have anything to say about it, and because we haven't heard from them, we can't proceed?

So it seems to me that the wording of the motion is a bit inadequate in that respect. If the motion could be amended to be understood to mean that we invite all these people to appear before the committee, I think that would be more acceptable.

The Chair: Ms. Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: I think the concern that the official opposition has is that the timeframe of trying to get this bill through the House would not allow all provincial governments to put together something, and we just want there to be an understanding that there's enough time to hear representation from the provinces and the territories, that it's not quickly put through the House to prevent that from happening. Mr. Chairman, I think the question here is that there's enough time to allow these people to make proper representation if they so desire.

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm trying to think about two things here. It strikes me, particularly with the amendment that Mr. Turp has suggested, that we are attempting by these motions to determine in a sense the eligibility of people who are already eligible.

Mr. Turp's party, along with all parties, will be asked to put forward witness lists. If Mr. Turp's party wishes to have a particular political party come forward and speak to the bill, they are free to propose them. There's no limit on their ability to put forward who they choose. The whip has said he'd be flexible on this issue of technicalities, which is one of the issues that's in the Standing Orders before this committee. So I'm just a little unclear as to why that issue would come forward in this way.

• 1730

In reference to what Mr. Bonin said, it is in fact one of the first things we have. If we ever get through this list of motions, one of the first things for the steering committee is the list of witnesses. It strikes me that this would be more appropriately placed there for discussion.

With the issue of other provincial governments, I can inform the members that they have been consulted on this. They are welcome to come forward and make their presentations before the committee, but—and there was a “but” or an “until”, if I may use Mr. Turp's word—that would somehow place a limit on the committee's ability to function or to conclude its hearings or whatever. I can't support that. I can't support being held hostage to somebody else's timetable. So I'm afraid I can't support either the motion or the amendment.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: May I ask a question?

[English]

The Chair: Could I make a suggestion, having heard all the arguments on both sides here? Could we at least leave the motion and the amendment on the floor, simply defer them until we get to the list of witnesses? We're going to come to that. This could be considered as part of that. When we address ourselves to that list of witnesses, perhaps this would come up. Can I suggest we simply leave it for now, table it and come back to it? We have an amendment and a motion on the floor and we can have a discussion of this when we get to the witnesses. It may solve the problem.

Is that agreeable?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: May I ask a question of the parliamentary secretary?

The Chairman: Certainly, Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, you say you have consulted the provinces. Have you also consulted the provincial political parties, which are mentioned in the bill? Has the federal government consulted every single provincial party which may one day be called upon to voice their opinion?

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Let me be as precise as I can about that, but give me a moment to consult. I cannot, of my own knowledge, say all the political parties in all the provinces have been consulted. Certainly all Canadians are aware of the content of the bill, but let me ask that specific question. I'll come back to you with an answer on that.

The Chair: Now or later?

Mr. Reg Alcock: We'll discuss it if you want, but—

The Chair: I think we're going to defer the question on the motion until later.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise an important point. Parliamentary tradition forbids the use of cellular phones. But there is a cellular phone in constant use by some people behind the government side. They are probably in constant contact with someone else. I want to know if this is allowed.

An Hon. Member: It's not a red phone, but a black one.

Mr. André Bachand: Why is this cellular phone in use? Is it to listen to messages or is it to stay in direct contact with someone from the minister's office? What's going on back there?

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's a private phone as in “Privy Council”.

Mr. André Bachand: I'm just asking this question, which I had already asked the clerks. Is this black phone directly connected to the minister's office or what?

Mr. Daniel Turp: I don't know.

Mr. André Bachand: Usually we're not supposed to use cell phones.

The Chairman: Order, please. If the committee wishes to adopt a rule forbidding the use of cellular phones, it may do so. As we all know, there's always a telephone which is available to members in committee meeting rooms.

Mr. André Bachand: I would like us to check whether the cell phone is still in operation. If someone wants to send another person Valentine's Day greetings, that's one thing. But if it's used for something else, I want it to stop.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We've turned off our phones. Mine is off.

Mr. André Bachand: There are seven government members, and not eight, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Order, please. We're not in the House, but in committee. If the committee wishes to pass a rule forbidding the use of cell phones, it may do so. A member may table a motion to that effect. However, we have before us a motion by Mr. Hill and an amendment by Mr. Turp.

• 1735

[English]

I thought there was agreement a moment ago that we simply defer that until we come to the question of witnesses. There's no agreement?

Ms. Val Meredith: No.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I move that we defer.

Mr. Jay Hill: It's our motion. Call the question.

The Chair: All right. Is the committee ready for the question?

Yes, Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Can you read the motion as amended?

[Translation]

An Hon. Member: This is relevant to the debate, André.

The Chairman: The motion reads as follows:

That the Committee hear from representatives of Provincial and Territorial governments prior to the bill being reported back to the House.

The amendment adds the words “and provincial political parties”.

If the amendment is passed, the motion shall read as follows:

That the Committee hear from representatives of provincial and territorial governments and from provincial political parties prior to the bill being reported back to the House.

Agreed?

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's right.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: We haven't voted on the amendment.

The Chair: No, we have not. The question is on the amendment. Is the committee ready for the question?

Ms. Val Meredith: Agreed.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: No. I'd like a recorded vote.

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Will we vote on this motion even before we get the answers to the questions and before the secretary looks into those issues?

[English]

The Chair: That's why I suggested that perhaps we should defer it.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Are you sure you want to vote before even hearing the answers?

[English]

The Chair: The question is on the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Perhaps the Subcommittee on Program and Procedure could discuss the matter with a minimum number of members, get the answers to the questions and then...

It seems that we are being rushed along in order to put an end to the discussion as soon as possible. I don't think that's very serious. The opposition raised some legitimate issues regarding information which the secretary provided us with. We then asked him to look into these issues—I think the gentleman in the back called Stéphane Dion or whoever—and we still have not received any answers to our questions. And now we're supposed to vote on this motion. Is that the way you work?

Mr. Bernard Patry: We were asked to stand the matter.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Really, Mr. Chairman, I think...

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Mr. Hill, on a point of order.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, whether it's the honourable members from the Bloc Québécois or any other party that makes up the committee, as I understand the rules the committee is operating under, they are free to put forward their own motion. We put forward this motion and we would like to call the question and be done with this.

It's obvious from the discussion that's been taking place that the government has no intention of supporting it anyway, whether it's now or at subcommittee or a steering committee or whatever other committee you want to call it. We might as well vote on it and be done with it. Let's get something done.

The Chair: Are we ready to deal with the motion then?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: All right. All those in favour of the amendment please raise your hand.

Mr. Grant Hill: Recorded vote, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I'd like a recorded vote.

The Chairman: All right.

[English]

(Amendment negatived: nays 13; yeas 2)

The Chair: The question is on the main motion.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: I listened to the intervention of Mr. Blaikie and found his comments to be fairly pertinent. It could hold up the activity of the committee if in fact you just ask to hear from them. If somebody chose not to respond.... That's not the idea here; it's to give the opportunity to all the legislatures to respond.

• 1740

In that regard, I would like to then propose that we amend my motion by putting in the following, so that we cannot, just by having someone refuse to respond, have them shut us down, because that was not the intent: that the committee invite the representatives of each provincial and territorial government to respond prior to the bill being reported.

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: There's no expectation. There's no establishment of a right to a timeframe to respond. We're simply inviting them to make comment before the committee. Is this the intent?

Mr. Grant Hill: That is the intent.

Mr. Reg Alcock: It's interesting, you know. In one sense, Mr. Hill, the motion is somewhat redundant in that nothing prevents them from doing that right now. But if you'd like an action where we specifically seek a response, I see no problem with that at all.

Also, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make two quick comments further to Mr. Bellehumeur's question. In fact, all of the opposition parties in the provincial legislatures were consulted; they were spoken to about the bill at the time of its release. Simply because you see a young man on a cellphone on Valentine's Day, you should not always assume he's calling Stéphane Dion.

An hon. member: Was he ordering flowers for you?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur.

I'm sorry, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I don't have a copy of the motion. Does it say, as does the bill, that we should include provincial assemblies, as well as opposition parties, yes or no?

The Chairman: I'm waiting for the amendment. Without the amendment, the motion reads as follows:

That the Committee hear from representatives of Provincial and Territorial Governments prior to the Bill being reported back to the House.

The amendment will follow.

Mr. André Bachand: If Mr. Hill does not object, perhaps we can say “provincial legislatures”, which is used in Bill C-20, the one we are now studying, as this would allow us to include political parties democratically elected and officially represented in every provincial legislature?

I respect the sovereigntists from Quebec, but the reason I am raising this issue, speaking as a federalist Quebecker, is that I want the federalists in the National Assembly to be heard as well.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That is also our wish.

[English]

The Chair: I have received the amendment. It is written out as though it were a new motion. I'll read it to the committee and then we may be able to do a procedural thing to get this cleared up:

That the committee invite representatives of each provincial and territorial government and recognized political parties represented in the legislatures of each province and territory prior to the bill being reported back to the House.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Who invited them?

[English]

The Chair: It says:

That the committee invite representatives of each provincial and territorial government and recognized political parties represented in the legislatures of each province and territory prior to the bill being reported back to the House.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Invite them to do what...?

Mr. André Bachand: It's an invitation. It's a sign of respect.

Mr. Reg Alcock: To do what...?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: To appear before the committee.

[English]

The Chair: It doesn't say. “Invite them” means to appear.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Invite them to

[Translation]

to come and read a brief.

Mr. Daniel Turp: In a few moments, we will have a motion regarding briefs.

[English]

Mr. André Bachand: There is no veto for a province. There's no veto, so....

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's a very good idea.

• 1745

[English]

An hon. member: Wow!

Mr. Bill Blaikie: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just think this points out better than anything why we should have formed a steering committee right off the bat instead of trying to do all this stuff in a great big room with 15 people sitting around the table. It's stupid.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's just stupid. Every other committee has a steering committee, and you don't need to have all the theatrics around stuff that should be decided by a couple of people sitting down and figuring out what to do. If this is the way this committee is going to work, it's going to be a disaster.

The Chair: Val.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I think it would go faster if we did not have a Subcommittee on Program and Procedure.

[English]

The Chair: Well, that's why I've tried to suggest that we leave the question of who we have as witnesses until later and deal with it either in a steering committee or as a committee. If we're going to have motions moved repeatedly, we're going to face difficulties.

Monsieur Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, how else can you do it?

Mr. Raymond Bonin: —that we defer this motion to the steering committee.

An hon. member: We don't have a steering committee.

The Chair: Well, we don't have a steering committee yet.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: There has to be one.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Are you moving that there has to be a steering committee? Why don't you move that now?

The Chair: Well, look—

Mr. Raymond Bonin: It's understood. It's in the procedures.

The Chair: Is it agreed...?

Mr. Raymond Bonin: It's in the procedures.

The Chair: In light of the discussion we've had, can I suggest that we defer this motion until we've done some of the other things that we have to agree to, including the possibility of agreeing to a steering committee? I think we're seeing the difficulty we're getting into if we start saying we're going to have this witness and that witness. I know we could have a lot of motions on different witnesses.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I move that we defer to the call of the chair.

The Chair: Let me just see if there's agreement to do this. Can we agree to defer this for the time being?

(Motion allowed to stand)

Mr. Jay Hill: I just wish all this was televised.

The Chair: All right. We'll put that in abeyance for the time being. I have doubts whether the motion we have is really an amendment to the previous one. It strikes me as being a different motion, and I don't want to have to settle all that right now if we don't have to. We'll put that off.

Can I suggest we go back to the list of things we've provided the committee with and see if we can agree on those first? They're the normal things to agree on. There are a few other things that are perhaps less normal, and we'll try to get to them later.

[Translation]

Let's move on to the distribution of documents.

Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, we really don't want documents to be distributed unless they are available in both official languages. This is the rule with 11 of the 20 parliamentary committees currently sitting. I think it would be respectful of every committee member, anglophone or francophone, that only documents available in both languages be distributed.

The Chairman: Would you like to make a motion to that effect?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes. I propose the first one.

Some Hon. Members: No, no.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I meant the second one.

The Chairman: So you are moving that the committee clerk be authorized to distribute documents on the condition that they have been translated and are available in both official languages.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes.

The Chairman: Is that right?

An Hon. Member: Yes.

The Chairman: Debate. Is everyone agreed?

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Let's move on to opening statements and questionning of witnesses.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, on that matter, I propose that witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statements and that five minutes during the questionny of witnesses, there be allocated to each of the following parties in this order: the Reform Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. Following that, five minutes should be given to each questioner alternating between the opposition parties and the government party, at the discretion of the chair. Most committees work this way. Since there is a lot at stake in this bill, opposition members should have the same privileges as members of other important committees, such as the Foreign Affairs Committee.

• 1750

The Chairman: Anyone else?

[English]

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I think, Mr. Chair, that we can agree with a portion of this. However, the normal motion that governs the appearance of witnesses would have an overall time limit, for example, as it is stated in (f) on your agenda: “that witnesses be given ten (10) minutes”—10 minutes is a pretty standard practice—“for their opening statement” and that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated 20 minutes, normally, for a total of half an hour per witness for questioning.

Now, if we adopt a motion of that nature, which is quite commonly done—if you were to check the motions before most committees—then it becomes the responsibility of the chair to sort out the allocation of questioning to ensure that there is fairness in the questioning. That would be one option.

But the way this motion is written, there is no limit on the amount of time that each witness would have. Normally it would be 10 minutes out of half an hour. It would be half an hour per witness.

You know, Michel, on the justice committee, right...?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Mr. Chairman, the chair of the Justice Committee, which I am a member of, is here. We passed this motion as worded and it's working well for us. However, I must admit that the chair has had to use his judgment in some situations during the course of the last few meetings. Before witnesses begin answering questions, the chair tells them that they will not have half-an- hour to answer and instructs them to be as brief as possible. I sit on many committees, including the Justice Committee, where we hear from a great number of witnesses, and this system works very well. I don't understand why the member is concerned. Witnesses are given 10 minutes to make their opening statements, and then each member gets five minutes for questions. If a member asks a very complex question and the witness needs five minutes to answer, the member will only get his one question. You have to set a limit. Once members from all the opposition parties have asked their questions, a member from the government may have his turn. Then we alternate until we're done with the witness.

The Justice Committee is not the only one which does things this way. As Daniel said, most committees work like this. Nine committees out of 20 follow this same system, whereas others function basically the same way when they hear witnesses. It works well.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Daniel Turp: We didn't quite understand the objection of the parliamentary secretary. I'm not quite sure I understood.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand, you may go first.

Mr. André Bachand: The parliamentary secretary is suggesting we give witnesses 10 minutes for their opening statement and to spend the rest of the half-hour, that is 20 minutes, on questions. Each political party would only have five minutes to question a witness, which is not a lot. If all five political parties are present, question period will last at least 25 minutes. So you can't say that we will spend 30 minutes questioning each witness. This may imperil the openness which the committee will have to show when hearing from witnesses who have agreed to appear.

There is also the issue of politeness. Are we to tell a witness he only has half-an-hour, that's all, despite the fact that the committee may decide that this particular witness should be given much more time? Of course, the chair always has the right to instruct the committee to move on when an issue has already been covered in depth. The meetings of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade are going very well and everyone is satisfied.

• 1755

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Let me hear from Mr. Turp first.

The Chair: Monsieur Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: We would like to understand what you are proposing. According to the practice adopted by the Foreign Affairs Committee, we give each witness about 45 minutes, which allows a ten-minute presentation and five minutes for each party. That gives 35 minutes with 10 minutes remaining for the government members and opposition members to each ask questions in turn. If I understand correctly, you would like to limit the appearances to 30 minutes per witness. Did I understand correctly?

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: That has certainly been the practice on a great many committees.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: No, not the committees that we sit on. Mathematically, that would mean that the Liberal Party would not intervene and would not ask questions. Is that really what you want?

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: I think it's true, certainly, if we were to pass your motion, but I would suggest there might be further amendments to this.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Would you please explain something to me? Does it mean 30 or 45 minutes? Let's be clear. We are studying a clarity bill.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We definitely want clarity on this. The question I was raising concerned the outer boundary of this. The allocation internally is something we don't have a particular problem with.

You know, there is something of a concern, when we do represent half the members of the House, to suggest that we would have only one-fifth of the questions. I'd like to see whether the members are prepared to live with that.

But I think we might be a little bit flexible on this one. We could offer the five-five-five and extend the overall time to 35 minutes. That wouldn't be a big difference, I suspect.

A voice: Or 10 and 25?

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Are you telling us that it's 45?

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: No, 35.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Thirty-five? Come on now, that makes no sense.

The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: We are negotiating the amount of time we will be granting witnesses. He is right in using his telephone because it makes no sense. Have that man in the back of the room get some instructions, because this makes no sense.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Mr. Bellehumeur has the floor.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: I would like to speak. Would the fellow at the back of the room who is using a cell phone be kind enough to move into the hallway? Since 1993, in all committees, Mr. Chairman, it has been common courtesy to refrain from that type of behaviour, such as using a telephone. I would ask the government to show courtesy and have the man with the cell phone leave the room.

The Chairman: Yes, Ms. Meredith.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: That's provocation.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Chair, as one of the vice-chairs of the transportation committee, I am not aware that we have any definite time established in our procedures through our motions. It is an internal thing. When you have a number of witnesses you're trying to fit in during a period of time, you calculate how you're going to do that.

So I don't think there should be any fixed time. If we have one person showing up one afternoon and they want to take an hour, or an hour and a half, I think that flexibility should be there. If we have two or three witnesses showing up in an afternoon, then we may want to limit it, but I think it is asinine to try to limit it in a motion that we can't change.

I think what we should do is just leave it at 10 minutes for the witnesses and five minutes for questions in the rotation as outlined here and not worry about a total time for each witness. I don't think you can do that, realistically.

The Chair: Well, the motion before the committee has no time limit in it at the moment.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Correct. Call the question.

The Chair: As I understand it, it's 10 minutes for a presentation by the witness and then five minutes for each of the parties in the specified order—Reform, Bloc, NDP, PC, and Liberal—and thereafter there will be five minutes in rotation between the government and the opposition at the discretion of the chair.

At the moment, then, there is no time limit in the motion before the committee.

• 1800

I'll call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I demand a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: Yeas 7, Nays 8)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I assume this is the bell for the vote now.

The Chair: This is a motion to adjourn the House. There's a 30-minute bell. I believe that's the situation.

Is there going to be another motion, then, about opening statements and witnesses, or are we going to leave that to the steering committee too?

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: The motion is that the witnesses be given 10 minutes for their opening statements and that during the questioning of witnesses there be allocated 20 minutes for questioning at the discretion of the chair.

The Chair: Discussion?

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the committees on which we sit, respect is shown for the opposition parties that are represented. Even if we clearly should have more time, we don't get it. Moreover, we should at least ensure that the four opposition parties have enough time to put questions to the witnesses. We have to put an end to this affront.

The Chairman: Discussion or debate?

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Chair, the restriction that's being placed on the committee by this motion seems to me to give those who would want to break this committee up another platform on which to do that. We've had time allocation. We have a very rushed process here, and because I support this committee going through this favourably, I don't understand why this would be so restrictive. This literally means that the normal committee process is not being followed. There's a good reason to follow that, and that's to give every single individual here an opportunity to speak, at least every single party. This will end up in nothing but a fight. It's unnecessary and it gives—

Ms. Val Meredith: The wrong message.

Mr. Grant Hill: —a platform, the wrong message.

The Chair: Monsieur Turp.

Mr. Blaikie.

I'll go to Mr. Blaikie, and I'll come back.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to speak to the motion, which I now understand has been moved.... I'll continue when I really have the floor.

[Translation]

A Member: Mr. Bonin, can't you see the difference between an advisor who whispers in your hear—

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Blaikie has the floor. Order please. Order.

[English]

Mr. Blaikie has the floor.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand the motion has been moved by Mr. Alcock, and I want to say that I don't think we should have a motion that leaves open the possibility, with all due respect to the chair, that not all parties would be able to question witnesses. It will put a tremendous burden on the chair to make sure that this happens if it's not provided for, and I don't see any reason why we couldn't have come to some kind of arrangement. It would seem to me, to make my point again.... I don't understand the resistance to setting up a steering committee so that we could refer some of these things to something that actually exists rather than just refer them to some later point in the meeting. We could work this kind of thing out in a steering committee presumably, but we don't have one. What is the resistance to having a steering committee? I don't get it.

• 1805

The Chair: On this particular motion, Mr. Blaikie, because it usually is agreed to in committee, we didn't think it was necessary. I put it on the list for this meeting assuming we would be able to agree, but it appears there may be disagreement.

I'm quite happy to leave it to a steering committee if that's the wish of the committee, but that's entirely up to the committee. Of course, the steering committee report would come back to the committee.

Is it your desire to defer this one to the steering committee?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes.

The Chair: Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Monsieur Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I would like to put a new motion. I move that the legislative committee publish a notice calling for briefs and that the persons or groups wishing to produce a brief be given until February 28, 2000, to submit it to the clerk of the legislative committee.

I have copies, in French and English, that can be distributed.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Is this in order?

The Chair: Yes, I believe so.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]... we can introduce motions or whatever amendment we want to while the committee is in session?

I would like to ask the clerk if this is in order.

[English]

The Chair: I don't see a problem with it.

[Translation]

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, I see no problem with the resolution as drafted. However, we said that we would finish with the agenda and that we would then debate the resolutions if there were any. But we can't introduce resolutions between points A, B, C and D. I think we should first take care of the agenda. We were at point G. If we manage to agree to have televised meetings, then we can come back to these resolutions.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, other resolutions or motions have been introduced during the discussion on the agenda. I am doing what my Reform colleague did earlier. It's perfectly in order.

[English]

The Chair: The committee is master of its own procedure. I'm not here to tell the committee how to work. I thought we had agreed to go back to this and deal with these motions, but obviously we've deferred (f) already.

[Translation]

We can take into consideration the motion put by Mr. Turp or, if we wish to do so, we can also postpone it and deal with motion G if we are prepared to adopt it.

[English]

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, this particular motion by Mr. Turp seems to be—and I'm surprised to say this—very, very reasonable. I can't imagine anybody on the committee arguing with it. Why don't we just deal with this motion he's put forward, pass it, and then go back and do whatever?

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Might I make a slightly different suggestion? I'm conscious of the fact that we're going to be leaving the room shortly and we have a number of items. This one would fall under the same category that perhaps should be dealt with by the steering committee. Why don't we strike the steering committee and then reconvene the steering committee immediately after the vote?

We will need some guidance from you, Mr. Clerk, as to whether or not the full committee will meet at the conclusion of the meeting of the steering committee.

The Chair: Is there agreement, first of all, to proceed in this fashion—that is, to strike a steering committee that would meet after the votes in the House this evening?

Some hon. members: No.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: There doesn't appear to be full agreement.

Mr. Jay Hill: The Reform Party is very agreeable.

The Chair: So we're back on—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: He must have gone out with his girlfriend because it is Valentine's Day.

[English]

The Chair: Then we're dealing with the motion put forward by Monsieur Turp.

Discussion, Monsieur Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, you know that when we deal with such an important issue, when it involves a bill that the government considers as important as this one and when the opposition parties want to debate it under the best conditions possible, it is essential that we give citizens and groups, as is the case with most committees that take their work seriously, the time that they need to prepare briefs, which, as you know, will have to be distributed in both languages.

• 1810

Therefore, I don't find it unreasonable to give notice, which, I imagine, will take at least a week to appear in newspapers or elsewhere, which will leave barely seven days for the groups and citizens to draft a brief and send it on to the committee.

This is how we operated in the Foreign Affairs Committee and this is what most other committees do. Unless we want to rush this bill through the committee for the sole purpose of having it quickly adopted, I don't see why such a reasonable request should be refused.

Moreover, last week in the House I spoke about a certain referendum notice involving matters of interest to the Montagnais nation in Pointe-Bleue. In this notice of referendum, it was clearly stipulated that briefs could be sent to the people who would be affected by that referendum.

Therefore, in order to be consistent, the government should allow briefs to be submitted with a reasonable time limit, that is, barely 14 days after today's meeting.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: It does strike me that this again is another question that would be best referred to the steering committee. We'll deal with it in the steering committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Will the decisions or recommendations made by the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure be examined by the full committee?

The Chairman: Of course.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Absolutely.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: They're coming back. Why don't we vote on that right away?

The Chairman: Did we not agree to postpone this matter until the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure makes a decision?

Mr. Daniel Turp: We agree to send it to the sub-committee.

Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: Will the sub-committee vote, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Daniel Turp: We'll let Mr. Bonin put the motion.

The Chairman: We haven't agreed on how many members will sit on the sub-committee.

[English]

Mr. Jay Hill: I think they should be all opposition members.

The Chair: Do you want to deal with (g), or do you want to deal with the steering committee?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Deal with the steering committee.

The Chair: All right. Back to (a), then. Do we have a motion?

[Translation]

We have eight minutes before the vote.

[English]

Mr. André Bachand: Can we refer that to the steering committee?

The Chair: The vote?

Is there a motion for a steering committee?

Mr. Blaikie is ready to move a motion.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I would move that we set up a steering committee that would consist of a representative from each of the five parties, plus the chair. If I have a seconder....

I'll speak to the motion.

The Chair: Certainly, Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It seems to me the purpose of the steering committee is really to arrive at unanimous consent as to how we will deal with things. I say this for the benefit of the government members, because if the steering committee can't agree, then we come back to the larger committee and we have this kind of routine that we've been going through here now. We'll find out in the steering committee whether people, all of us, are committed to working together or not.

So I say to the government members that it seems to me to make sense to have as few people on the committee as possible. If the thing breaks down and we can't come back with a unanimous recommendation, then we can start to play silly buggers again. But the idea of a steering committee is to not have to play silly buggers on the floor of the committee, and if we can avoid that, I think we should try.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie, may I please have your motion in writing.

We'll go to Mr. Hill for debate.

• 1815

Mr. Jay Hill: There's no debate on my part because I think once again it's a completely reasonable motion. I think we should just move to the question.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Do any other members wish to speak to the motion?

[English]

Is the committee ready for the question on the motion?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Would you read it again, please.

The Chair: I'm just waiting to receive it in writing. It'll be here in a jiffy, and I'll read it to you. I don't want to get it wrong, Jay. You know me, I'm a stickler for rectitude.

The motion is as follows: that a steering committee be established consisting of representatives of all five parties plus the chair.

I assume that's one representative of each of the five parties plus the chair. Maybe I can just fix it, since that's what I think he said originally, “consisting of one representative of each of the five parties”. Is the motion agreeable?

[Translation]

A Voice: A recorded vote.

The Chairman: A recorded vote?

Mr. Daniel Turp: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: If everybody agrees, it's carried unanimously.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: We'll see if you all agree.

[English]

The Chair: Everybody agrees.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: Do you all agree?

A Voice: Yes.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It's carried unanimously.

[Translation]

We are moving to point G, the televised meetings.

[English]

Do you want to refer that to the steering committee or deal with it here today?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Mr. Chair, may I suggest that given the bells and the fact that we've established a steering committee that is designed in such a way as to promote some discussion of how we are going to proceed, we move it to the steering committee and give it a chance to see what agreements it can come to, and then come back to deal with any additional motion or motions that will flow from that.

The Chair: When does the steering committee meet? Is it right after the vote?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Right after the vote.

Mr. Jay Hill: There will be additional votes.

The Chair: Yes, there are.

Is the plan to have the full committee meet again later tonight?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: No. André wants to take his girlfriend to dinner.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Chairman, that's it, that's all.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Valentine's Day is important.

[English]

The Chair: We have to get our organizational meeting completed. Order. I think we should complete our organizational meeting tonight. We've started it, and I think we ought to finish it. We have to decide when we're going to meet next, for example, and things like that, which will have to be settled in the steering committee if we're not going to do them here now. If everybody wants to come back, that's fine, but I think we should continue with our committee after the vote. The steering committee meets first, but everybody is going to have to make decisions, and I think we ought to make those tonight.

Mr. Reg Alcock: May I suggest or move that immediately after the vote the steering committee reconvene in camera here, and then at your discretion, Mr. Chair, you call the full committee back when you feel it's appropriate.

The Chair: How are members going to be notified when the steering committee is finished and ready to have everybody come in?

Mr. Jay Hill: Why don't we set a time, such as midnight?

The Chair: Why don't we all come back after the vote. We'll set up a time for the steering committee, and everyone then can leave. The steering committee will continue to meet, and at that point we'll fix a time for later. How's that?

Ms. Val Meredith: The steering committee members will track the rest of us down.

The Chair: Yes, I would think they can, or the whips. But we'll all meet first and try to set a time, and then go from there.

• 1819

• 2025

The Chair: The proposal is that the steering committee now meet. Is it the wish of the committee to proceed in that way? If so, when will the full committee meet again? Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: My understanding is that the steering committee would meet now. I would suggest that we ask the full committee to reconvene at 10 o'clock.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: May I put an amendment? Because we are all very tired, I would suggest that we ensure that the committee meet tomorrow, but that we take a break now because tonight is Valentine's Day.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: I sense that we are making some progress. There's a feeling of cooperation and conciliation in this room that we should capitalize on.

The Chair: So what's the plan, to meet again at 10 o'clock and have the steering committee meet now?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Yes, and report back to the main committee as to whether or not we can resolve some of these issues. If we can resolve this, we can wind up fairly soon, I suspect, but we have a lot of things to talk about. It would be a shame to waste the opportunity.

The Chair: It that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay. The committee will reconvene at 10 o'clock, and the steering committee will meet now in camera.

• 2027

• 2216

[Translation]

The Chairman: Order, please.

[English]

We're ready to start again, the full committee.

The steering committee met and considered a number of items. Perhaps I could report on the items that have been agreed. We'll see if the committee is agreeable to these.

First, for each witness, it was agreed that we would have the witness appear for 45 minutes. There would be 10 minutes for presentation by the witness and five-minute questions by each party, in order: Reform, Bloc, NDP, Conservative, Liberal. Following that 25-minute period, the remaining time would be allocated by the chair in five-minute segments among the various parties.

That rule would not apply to the minister, and perhaps I can combine these two together. The minister will appear on Wednesday at 3:30 for two hours: 30 minutes of presentation, five 10-minute question periods by each of the five parties in the order I've indicated, and then the remaining time in five-minute segments to be allocated among the parties at the discretion of the chair.

Is all that agreeable to the committee? Are there any questions?

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Can someone explain to me why we decided to limit the number of witnesses to 45?

The Chairman: That's not what I said. I said that each witness will have 45 minutes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It seems to me that that's what we're talking about.

The Chairman: The Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure has not managed to agree on the number of witnesses. I did not mention it in my report. I only spoke about what was unanimously agreed to. Do we agree on the items I raised?

Some Voices: Agreed.

[English]

The Chair: Also, we've agreed that the proceedings of the committee, including the clause-by-clause, will be televised. In fact, the motion that is here before us in (g) would be accepted and adopted.

Is that agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Next we propose that any motion proposed by a member of the committee will be deemed out of order unless notice of that motion was provided on the sitting day prior to the presentation of the motion. This section does not apply where a member of the committee seeks and receives unanimous consent to put a motion to the committee, and every motion so presented may be moved and debated only at the conclusion of a witness's presentation. Agreed?

• 2220

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Finally, there will be no cellphones used in the committee room while the committee is sitting. Agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: There's one final understanding. The chair, in calling committee meetings for the hearing of witnesses, will call at the following times: Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays from 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.; Wednesdays from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m.; and Fridays from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.

If you think it's fun for you, think of me. You can substitute. If you want more, well, that's all that was agreed in the committee.

Do you have a question?

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Yes. Would the committee not consider Friday from 8 o'clock to noon? Everyone has to drive home to do a little bit of work. That's the last priority for me right now.

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I guess the committee doesn't agree. Thank you.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Actually, I have two additional motions, and one item we did not talk about that was just raised, which I think is minor, but I just want to make sure. We had talked about allowing witnesses to appear by video-conference if they so chose. Can I assume that is acceptable to the committee?

The Chair: There's also the possibility of some flexibility in witnesses' appearances. We might do more than one at one time and have a discussion. If we can arrange that, then I presume we'd lump the times together or make some compromise on that.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: We haven't dealt with that point, Mr. Chairman, and if it's true, we will still have to respect the time allocated for each witness. This must not be a way to reduce the amount of time granted each witness.

[English]

The Chair: It would only be done if there were agreement.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: If there are two witnesses, that's 90 minutes.

The Chairman: Yes, and if we agree to hear several witnesses together, then we will have to agree on the time to allow for that. If we don't need as much time, we may be able to make changes accordingly. But we will have to agree because nothing has been decided yet.

Mr. Daniel Turp: That's what I understood. Be careful.

The Chairman: Yes, I will be. Moreover, when the committee meets, the clerk and myself will have an opportunity to work with everyone so as to establish a witness list. If we can find something that everyone will agree with and that will save us some time, then couldn't we proceed in that way?

[English]

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I have a couple of additional motions.

First, I move that the number of witnesses invited to appear before the legislative committee be no more than 45 and distributed as follows among the parties: no more than 15 for the government, no more than 12 for the Reform Party, no more than 10 for the Bloc Québécois, no more than 4 for the NDP, no more than 4 for the Conservative Party.

The Chair: Is there any debate? Shall we vote?

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: Is there a vote?

The Chairman: There will be a recorded vote.

• 2225

[English]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 6)

The Chair: Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I have a second motion: that during clause-by-clause review of Bill C-20, a maximum of one hour be allocated to each clause and its respective subclauses, and one hour be allocated for consideration of the preamble.

Mr. Daniel Turp: [Editor's Note: Inaudible] ...cut off the debate?

The Chair: Is there any discussion? Is the committee ready for the question?

Mr. Grant Hill: Can we just have that read back again, please?

The Chair: Mr. Alcock, could you read it?

Mr. Reg Alcock: I move that during clause-by-clause review of Bill C-20, a maximum of one hour be allocated to each clause and its respective subclauses, and one hour be allocated for consideration of the preamble.

The Chair: Okay, is everyone clear on the motion?

[Translation]

Is the committee ready to decide? You aren't ready?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, the truth is, I've only just arrived. I'm learning, as I go along, what the government intends to do with this committee and I am outraged by what is happening here.

I have been a member of the House of Commons for almost seven years now, and I've never seen the government act with such contempt for the opposition. How can we say that only 45 witnesses will be interested in the future of Quebec and Canada? It is despicable to want to limit the length of the clause-by-clause consideration and the time given to witnesses, as well as the number of witnesses that opposition parties can introduce. I have no word for it, Mr. Chairman. There is no word. This practice is simply despicable. There is no other way to describe the attitude of the government on this issue.

I sat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where we studied matters related to the circumpolar region. It took us almost a year, Mr. Chairman. And now, they would like us to believe that the study on the future of Quebec within Canada or outside Canada or of any other province that might want to separate from this country, only warrants two weeks of study and that only 45 witnesses will be interested in this issue. Who are they trying to kid? It makes no sense. It's truly disgusting.

I imagine that members who are new to this committee, like Mr. Cotler, are not very proud to see how their government is behaving with the members who sit on this committee, with members in general and Canadian democracy in general, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: It's true that Mr. Cotler has arrived here in Parliament at a very bad time. Here he is, a great civil libertarian, witnessing as one of his first experiences sitting on a committee, what the government is doing to democracy and democratic rights.

But I also think, like my colleague Mr. Bergeron, that we have to say, so that people will know, that a number of people in Quebec and Canada—Canadian intellectuals came to say that last week here, on Parliament Hill—feared that there was something undemocratic about this bill.

You might imagine what one could think about a bill that, in many ways, will undermine with democracy, once it has been adopted according to a process that does not respect basic democratic rules. It is a mock consultation. People will not have been properly consulted. I think we must state this and repeat it, and we will repeat it often. I don't think there will be popular support for this initiative because you will have shown no respect for the citizens of Quebec and of Canada.

• 2230

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I would like to personally apologize to the Honourable Whip for the Bloc Québécois. When something is stated point blank and when we see dictatorial decisions being suggested and endorsed by the government, then it gives one pause I agree and I apologize.

Maybe we were wrong in leaving this to the steering committee. We should have perhaps discussed it ourselves in order to ensure that the whole country would have heard the discussion and the arguments. It's a little early for us to have come to a dead end.

However, I would like to tell my colleague, the Bloc Québécois Whip, that it's the first time that witnesses will be excluded from a committee if they are not sponsored by a political party. The opposition was very much against that in camera, at the steering committee meeting. The Liberals will have to live with this decision. It's the first time that no leeway will be given for a citizen or an organization to appear before a committee. The number of hours have been limited in a way that has never, absolutely never, been done before.

I missed part of the steering committee meeting because it was Valentine's Day, a day to celebrate love, but I must tell you, as I said at the steering committee, that this dictatorial element in the procedure sometimes makes me want to throw up, not because of something I might have eaten, but because of tonight's procedure.

But it has become a reality. Maybe that is why I seem so weary, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize once again to the members who weren't there. I think we have to get beyond this; the government will have to live with its decision over the coming days and hours.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, because I know we want to get out of here, I just want for the record to say that I find this way of going about the selection of witnesses to be unacceptable. I don't agree with my colleague Mr. Turp about the alleged anti-democratic nature of the bill itself, but I urge the government members to consider that the way they are going about this lends an air of anti-democracy for the whole exercise that will reinforce the claims being made by the bill's critics.

If you had wanted to create a context in which what I think are not valid claims would nevertheless be validated by the appearance of the process that we're going through, you couldn't have done better, guys—a really good job.

The Chair: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: To finally put on the record the official opposition's position on this bill, we have supported the bill, we've supported the principles behind the bill, but we are vigorously opposed to the mechanism that is being used to hasten its progress. This does not give fair time to anyone to appear, and it does not give fair time to the official opposition to prepare.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 6)

The Chair: Is there any other business to come before the committee tonight?

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would simply like to make a closing remark, Mr. Chairman.

Since the end of the 1960s, the federal government, especially the Liberal governments, have stated that they had eliminated what they call separatism in Quebec by taking a hard line. Since then, the sovereigntist movement has never stopped growing. I think that, for Canadian federalism and for the Liberal Party of Canada, a new mistake has just been made. I'm already delighted for the Quebec sovereigntist movement.

• 2235

Mr. Daniel Turp: But it isn't good for democracy.

[English]

The Chair: We'll meet on Wednesday as a full committee. However, could I suggest that tomorrow the parties provide lists of witnesses to the clerk, at least, so that we could make some arrangement for an orderly presentation of these witnesses? I think there's some desire to ensure that witnesses be put at times that are reasonable for everybody and that are fair among the parties. There may be some overlap in lists, and we'd be more than happy to work with the parties as best we can in the timeframe that has been adopted to make the committee process as meaningful as possible, but we'd appreciate cooperation in that regard if tomorrow we could have that information from you.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Could we ask if there be some sharing of suggested witnesses between the larger parties and the smaller parties? If the Liberals are going to be able to put up fifteen and twelve witnesses and we have four, we don't want to list four who are already on these other lists.

The Chair: That's why we're so anxious to do this.

Mr. Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: Can I suggest that we all submit our lists to the clerk by noon tomorrow? Then you can look at the list and sort out.... Just because you've submitted—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I've already made my suggestion.

Mr. Reg Alcock: But, Bill, at that point you could see what's there, what the whole list is, and if there is a duplication, then you would have additional time to make—

The Chair: As soon as the lists are submitted, they're shared. Is that agreed?

Mr. Reg Alcock: Look, nobody's happy with this process overall. Now it's there.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Does that mean you're not happy either? Good.

Mr. Reg Alcock: No, hang on.

Mr. Daniel Turp: What does that mean?

Mr. Reg Alcock: I don't like sitting in the House for three hours at night voting. We can both go down this road, but we're in this process.

Bill, we will do what we can to accommodate it as it is, Okay?

The Chair: The chair and the clerk will work to do what they can to assist in this.

I declare the meeting adjourned.