SNUD Committee Meeting

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NON-MEDICAL USE OF DRUGS

COMITÉ SPÉCIAL SUR LA CONSOMMATION NON MÉDICALE DE DROGUES OU MÉDICAMENTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 7, 2001

• 1535

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum.

Your first item of business today, pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), is election of a chair.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): I nominate Ms. Paddy Torsney.

[English]

The Clerk: Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): I nominate Derek Lee.

The Clerk: Are there any further nominations?

Mr. Jacques Saada: I move that we close the nominations.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Clerk: Under normal circumstances we would proceed with the first nomination and then move, following its disposition, to the second. Is that the way the committee wishes to proceed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Clerk: On the motion by Mr. Saada that Paddy Torsney do take the chair of this committee, all those in favour, please raise your hand.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: Ms. Torsney, please take the chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chair (Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)): Merci beaucoup, tout le monde, thank you very much.

We now need to move to the election of the vice-chairs. Are there any nominations?

Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): I'd like to propose Madame Allard.

The Chair: Are there any other nominations for vice-chair?

Ms. Carol Skelton (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to nominate Randy White.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I move to close nominations.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): If I understand correctly, there will be two vice-chairs, as for all committees.

The Chair: Yes, I think so.

[English]

It's been moved that we close nominations.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: So it's done. We have our two vice-chairs.

[Translation]

Congratulations, Ms. Allard and Mr. White.

[English]

Is there anything else we need to do?

The clerk tells me we have some routine motions that are common to all of our committees. If we can get these passed, it really helps with the organization, steering committees, and what have you. I think they're all before you.

The first motion is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive evidence when a quorum is not present, providing that at least...what is it, three? It's up to the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I think it might be wise to ensure that there are at least two members of the opposition present at all times.

The Chair: Yes.

[English]

So three, with two opposition members? No. Why don't we do five with at least two opposition members?

[Translation]

Does this work? There will be five members, two of them from the opposition.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Madam Chair, what's the reason for five? Why did we go from three to five?

The Chair: We can have anything you want.

Mr. Derek Lee: If the purpose is to facilitate the hearing of evidence, I would have thought we would be reaching for a lower number rather than a higher, and you jumped two digits.

The Chair: Should we go with four?

Mr. Derek Lee: Yes. If three doesn't fit, let's go to four.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: It is customary to have a majority of members from the government party around the table. I believe this is logical. If we choose to have three members and if two of them are opposition members this would mean that the government is in a minority position, which is not very coherent.

The Chair: That is indeed a problem.

Mr. Jacques Saada: If we choose five members as Mr. Ménard proposes, the government will be in a majority position around the table.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Just for the record, this is a quorum for hearing evidence, not for voting. You don't need a majority to hear evidence. We don't count ears, we only count votes. If there's no vote, it doesn't matter.

• 1540

So I still suggest that four is more appropriate than five. Three would be more appropriate than four, but if the opposition insists on having a multi-faceted presence, that's my suggestion, colleagues.

The Chair: Mr. Lee, perhaps I can just reinforce the point that a quorum for votes would in fact be seven, as you mention, and then we can have the right balance, as we prefer.

But, Mr. Ménard, if we had three—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, there are indeed several committees where three members is the limit, one from the opposition and two from the government. It would be better, if we are to do fruitful work, to have a simple procedure. If the committee wishes to limit itself to three, I am willing to accept that proposal.

Mr. Jacques Saada: So, three...

Mr. Réal Ménard: You certainly can't be in a minority position.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: I like it.

The Chair: All right.

Do we have general agreement—three, one opposition member?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The second motion is that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work.

[Translation]

Is everything all right, sir?

[English]

Ms. Davies?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The third routine motion is that at the discretion of the chair, reasonable travelling expenses, as per the regulations established by the Board of Internal Economy, be paid to witnesses invited to appear before the committee, and that payment of these expenses be limited to two persons per organization.

[Translation]

Is that okay?

[English]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The final routine motion is that the committee authorize the chair from time to time, as the need arises, to take, in conjunction with the clerk of the committee, appropriate measures to provide meals to the committee for working purposes, and that the cost of these meals be charged to the appropriate budget of the committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: We'll try to make sure there's lettuce in the sandwiches.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, I would like us to study two other motions before we broach the issue of witnesses and our terms of reference. Would the members of the committee agree to meet Thursday afternoon? Would that be our usual schedule? This will not be the main committee for most of us; we do sit on other committees. My colleague Bernard, I believe, and myself, sit on committees that meet Tuesday morning and Thursday morning.

What would be our normal schedule? Thursday afternoon would suit us, I dare say.

The Chair: The clerk told me that special committees often meet Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Could you consider something different? Is it really impossible to choose Thursday afternoon?

The Chair: It is up to you.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard (Laval-East, Lib.): I would like some information, Madam Chair.

The committee is being struck just before the end of the session. Does this mean that we will have to submit a report on a specific date? Is there a timetable?

Mr. Réal Ménard: That information is contained in the motion.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: Forgive my ignorance, but I wasn't...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White: Madam Chair, this committee was constituted to provide a report back to the House by November 1, I think, wasn't it?

The Chair: Of 2002.

Mr. Randy White: I hardly think the committee meeting on Wednesdays is going to be appropriate to study such an issue. If members of this committee think this isn't more than a full-time job, I would be very surprised. The issue is big enough, the job is big enough, and there's going to be a fair bit, I would suggest, of travel in it. To think that you would come in here on a Wednesday and deal with it for one sitting of the House of Commons, from practically November to November, would be a serious underestimation of the amount of time involved.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. White.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Perhaps we could begin our work on Wednesday. My colleague Bernard could also accept that proposal. If we realize as we go along that we need other hearings, we could add some. I would not be opposed to sitting in the evening if that proves to be necessary. Tuesday and Thursday we must sit on other committees and our respective whips—we all know how authoritarian all self- respecting whips can be, whatever the party—would not accept that we be absent from regular committees. Perhaps we can begin on Wednesday and if we need other hearings we can find some appropriate slot.

[English]

The Chair: Madame Allard, and then I'll make a couple of comments.

[Translation]

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: I would like to clear something up. I heard a senator say that they had held hearings on the same topic. Is that correct?

• 1545

[English]

The Chair: There is a Senate committee on similar issues.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: There's a Senate committee on similar issues. Are we going to ask the same witnesses to come in front of us?

[Translation]

Will we be duplicating work the Senate has already done?

The Chair: We may hear the same witnesses and we may hear new ones.

Ms. Carole-Marie Allard: May we know exactly what the Senate examined?

The Chair: Marijuana.

Ms. Davies.

[English]

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I think they look to other issues, too, but it seems to me we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Libby Davies: We'd better figure out when we're going to meet before we figure out who the witnesses are.

Wednesday afternoon is a bit difficult for me, because I'm on another special committee, the one on children and youth, which also meets on Wednesday afternoons. So I'm happy with either Thursday or evenings.

The Chair: Okay.

Let me suggest that we work out a work plan. First of all, we need to identify who in fact we're going to have come before the committee; where in fact Mr. White and other members might be interested in having meetings off-site, in Vancouver or elsewhere; and whether it's going to be intensively in certain weeks and at regular meeting times in other weeks. Everyone can certainly give their input as to what works best for them. There in fact could be some changes to people's committee responsibilities by September anyway. I mean, who knows what's going to be happening for you in September?

Mr. Lee and then Monsieur Bigras.

Mr. Derek Lee: I just think we'd better get into a work plan first before we decide when and how often we're going to meet. Let's not put the horse before the cart.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Bigras, you have the floor, and then it will be Mr. Saada's turn.

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, BQ): Madam Chair, I have not spoken until now because I thought I was the only person around this table who had a problem coming on Wednesday. I now understand that Ms. Davies has the same problem.

I would like this situation to be taken into account because it seems that Thursday afternoon suits all of the members. Unless people must sit on specific committees, Thursday could be a good time for us to meet.

The Chair: Mr. Saada, you have the floor.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I wonder if the members of the committee absolutely want to make a decision about this this afternoon. We could meet again when we return to the House, when we resume our work, and make a decision at that time in light of the constraints of the moment. There are a lot of unknown factors right now. There might be some substantial changes between now and the fall. Why not wait until we return to decide, when we are in full swing again?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madam Chair, members are assigned to new tasks with every new session. It would be dangerous to set a schedule now as some members will not be able to keep to it and we will have accomplished nothing. I am sure you will agree that the schedule, timetables, are important for the members.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That is why I am suggesting that we make the decision when we have full knowledge of the facts, which is not the case today. That is the problem.

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps I can suggest that we work with our clerk on this. Hopefully we will have a researcher assigned to us who has some knowledge in the area, and some ideas. Everyone who is interested in suggesting what witnesses we need to hear from and the places we need to be in order to see what's taking place on the ground, get those suggestions in, through the clerk, in the next several weeks or throughout the summer. If people have specific days where it's absolutely impossible to meet, provide that information as well.

So we'll work out some kind of a plan. We'll come back together, probably on a Thursday afternoon if that works for everybody, and figure out what the work plan is from there. Then you can deal with your other committees or figure out what needs to be done in terms of staffing up on the different committee responsibilities.

Does that work? Madame Davies? Okay.

So if anyone has suggestions and would like to get them in to the clerk, that would be the most efficient way to centralize the information over the next couple of months.

Anything else? Any other motions?

[Translation]

Mr. Ménard, you have the floor. Then we will hear from Mr. Saada.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Normally in September we also deal with urgent motions. We agree on how members who wish to do so may table motions when work is in full swing. Generally, out of courtesy, we ask for 24 hour's notice. I think that suits everyone. I thus move that we require a 24-hour notice of motion, and that the committee be authorized to receive any motion if that time period is respected.

• 1550

[English]

The Chair: Does anyone have a problem with that?

The committee I sit on usually has 48 hours' notice. That's another option for people.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: A 24-hour notice period is quite reasonable, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Chair: Is there anything else, Mr. Saada? I believe you said...

[English]

Oh, sorry.

Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri: Madam Chairman, I would simply move that the meeting be adjourned.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The meeting is now adjourned.