AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 2, 1997

• 1057

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum. Your first order of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Clerk, I note the first order of business is to nominate a chair. I propose that because the committee is the master of its own destiny, it consider the merits of conducting the election of the chair and the vice-chairs by secret ballot. If the consensus of this committee is to proceed by secret ballot, then I believe the clerk must oblige.

The Clerk: Is it the pleasure of the committee to conduct by secret ballot?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): No. Quite simply, the government's response is that there is nothing to hide. The members are here and we must all vote as we have done in the past.

[English]

We need to vote à main levée and I think the desire on the government side is not to proceed with a secret ballot.

Mr. Mike Scott: Hon. members, the committee is the master of its own destiny and it has the right to determine the rules by which its chair and its vice-chairs will be elected or selected. I would ask all hon. members to consider that this would be a democratic way of approaching the selection of the chair and the vice-chairs, as opposed to the traditional way, which is by appointment. So I would ask if there is a consensus in the committee to move to a secret ballot.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Madam Clerk, our position is very simple and very clear. The way to proceed is by show of hands. If the official opposition would like us to hold a vote to decide if the election of the chair and vice-chairs will be done by secret ballot, I would ask that we put this question to a vote and get on with it. However, the government's position is quite clear. We will employ the traditional voting method. We have nothing to hide, we will see who people are going to vote for and we will vote by show of hands.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Madam Clerk, I note that members are still coming in. I note that our friends from the Bloc, for example, have just arrived. I would certainly like to have this brought to the attention of all members.

Also, I would like to make the members of the committee aware that there are precedents for this. On Thursday, May 30, 1991, in the third session of the 34th Parliament, in the Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, after two nominations for the chair were made, a secret ballot vote occurred for the chair and the vice-chair positions.

• 1100

So Madam Clerk, there are precedents for this. I believe it would be a great way for the committee to start, by actually beginning with a touch of democracy rather than with a touch of appointments.

Madam Clerk, there are other members of the committee here who I'm sure would be interested in putting their point of view forward, so I would ask that some of the other people who are here today be heard on this before we move to select our chair and vice-chair.

The Clerk: I bring members' attention to the note on the agenda today. The clerk of the committee can receive motions only for the election of the chair. The clerk cannot receive other types of motions and cannot entertain points of order or participate in debate. I would propose that since a request has been made for a secret ballot, those in favour of a secret ballot might care to indicate their choice in an informal way, and those against....

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Okay.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Just as a straw vote, let's do it.

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): You guys who want a secret ballot, raise your hand.

Mr. John Bryden: Motion defeated. Carry on with the main motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: That's democracy.

[English]

The Clerk: The suggestion has not been adopted by the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I move that Mr. Saint-Julien do take the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I will second it.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Patry, seconded by Mr. Finlay, moves that Mr. Saint-Julien take the chair of this committee.

(Motion agreed to)

La greffière: Je déclare M. Saint-Julien élu président du comité et je l'invite à faire une déclaration.

The Chairman (Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.)): Thank you very much. Before we proceed to elect two vice-chairs, I would like to make a brief statement. I am proud to be the Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

As we know, the history of Canada mirrors that of many of our aboriginal compatriots who, after many attempts and failures, are still endeavouring to co-exist in peace and harmony.

I pledge to work with you, my colleagues, today and in the future to find concrete solutions to problems that are difficult to resolve. I intend to respect our political differences and I hope we can work together for the welfare of aboriginal peoples. I am confident that our discussions will demonstrate to natives and to other Canadians that there is much to be done to prepare for our next meetings and that many issues need to be addressed. The focus will be on respect, recognition, sharing and responsibility. I am grateful for your support and I know we will be able to work together.

Let us now proceed to the next item on the agenda, the election of two vice-chairs.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, I would like to move that the first vice-chair be Mr. John Finlay.

Mr. John Bryden: I second that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry moves that Mr. John Finlay be elected vice-chair of the committee.

• 1105

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: I declare Mr. Finlay elected vice-chair.

Now to the election of a second vice-chair. Yes, sir.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: I move that Mr. Derrek Konrad be nominated as second vice-chair.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I second the motion.

Mr. John Bryden: Secret ballot.

Mr. David Iftody: We will vote publicly.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): I don't know if this is a point of order or not, but since some of us are new and we don't really know the names that are being put forward, is it possible that when a nomination is made the individual nominated could stand so we would know who they are?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Scott, seconded by Mr. Patry, moves that Mr. Konrad be elected second vice-chair.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it might be appropriate for us to introduce ourselves around the table by just going right around and introducing ourselves by name, and giving perhaps just a couple of sentences about party affiliation if you will, but more importantly a little bit about background. I understand that Derrek is a land surveyor, and I would think that might be relevant to the types of things we do.

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's a good suggestion.

[English]

That's okay. I agree.

[Translation]

We will begin with Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Mike Scott, representing Skeena in northwest British Columbia, first elected in 1993 and re-elected in 1997.

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Derrek Konrad. As has been stated, I'm a land surveyor. I'm from Prince Albert constituency in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): I'm Grant McNally, representing the Reform Party from the riding of Dewdney—Alouette, which sounds like it might be in Quebec but it's actually in B.C. I was a teacher before entering politics and have approximately eight aboriginal bands in my riding.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): My name is Claude Bachand and I am the member for Saint-Jean. At one time, I was a physical education teacher as well as a trade unionist.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: My name is Gordon Earle. I'm representing Halifax West for the NDP. My background is in social work. I was in community work and I was also a human rights ombudsman and a deputy minister before entering politics.

• 1110

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): My name is Gerald Keddy. I represent the riding of South Shore, in Nova Scotia. I'm a PC member. My background is in farming and forestry. I've spent a fair amount of time working in the offshore oilfield. I've travelled a fair amount and done quite a bit of canoeing in northern Quebec and northern Canada.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): [Editor's Note: Member speaks in his native language]

My name is Rick Laliberte. I come from Beauval, Saskatchewan. I've been labelled Métis, but I'm a Cree speaker. That's my first language.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'm very honoured to be here to represent the NDP caucus and to represent a riding that has 60% aboriginal people.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): My name is Bryon Wilfert. I'm a Liberal from Oak Ridges, Ontario. My background is as an educator and municipal politician and as president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. I was involved in the establishment of the municipal aboriginal institute.

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I'm Nancy Karetak-Lindell.

[Editor's Note: Member speaks in her native language]

I'm an aboriginal. I guess that is one reason why they put me on this committee. I represent Nunavut, which is 80% or more aboriginal, and where the first language is Inuktitut. The majority of them don't speak English. I was the secretary-treasurer for one of the regional Inuit organizations. I'm delighted to be here. I hope I will be able to bring another point of view to this committee.

Ms. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'm Judi Longfield, and I'm from the riding of Whitby—Ajax. I was born and raised in northern Ontario and in a former life I was a teacher. I spent a number of years teaching ESL to aboriginal communities along the James Bay coast, at Moosonee and Attawapiskat. I'm delighted to be here.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): My name is Charles Hubbard. I'm from Miramichi riding in New Brunswick. I'm filling in for Lawrence O'Brien. In Miramichi we have three aboriginal first nations communities, but Lawrence is from Labrador and will be returning to the committee when he comes back to Ottawa. Of course he's very much involved with the first nations and the Cree people of Labrador.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I'm John Finlay. I'm from Oxford, which is in southwestern Ontario. I don't have any aboriginal communities in my riding, but there are several close by: the Six Nations in Brant and Delaware and so on. I served on this committee for a year and a half in the 35th Parliament and have been involved with the Circumpolar Conference and the APS in the Arctic. I had the pleasure of going with the minister to a Nunavut commission meeting. I think we have a real task to deal with the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report and a lot of other issues.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm John Bryden, a Liberal from Wentworth—Burlington. I don't have any Indian or aboriginal reserves in my riding, but in the adjacent riding is the Six Nations reserve. My background is as journalist and historian. I'm hoping my background as an historian might be useful on this committee.

Mr. David Iftody: My name is David Iftody. I'm the member of Parliament for Provencher. Those of you familiar with history will know that Louis Riel was the first member of Parliament for this riding. I was elected in 1993 and of course again in 1997. I have a background in public policy. I worked as a consultant to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in Manitoba and taught aboriginal public policy at Carleton University. It's a pleasure to be on this committee and serving with these distinguished members, particularly our aboriginal members.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: My name is Bernard Patry and I am the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, a Montreal West Island riding. I served as mayor of my urban community municipality for 18 years and I was elected for the first time to the Canadian Parliament in 1993 and subsequently reelected in 1997. For the past 18 months, I have been the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

The Chairman: My name is Guy Saint-Julien and I represent the riding of Abitibi, the largest riding in Canada's ten provinces. It encompasses 802,000 square kilometres and has a population of 92,000.

• 1115

My riding is home to 14 Inuit villages often represented by Zebedee Nungak. It extends from Ungava Bay to Hudson's Bay. I am sure you are familiar with the names Billy Diamond and Matthew Coon Come. Eight Cree villages and three Algonquin villages are also located in my riding. I am a former union president and I served as a member of the House of Commons for nine years, from 1984 to 1993. I am at your service.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): My name is Ghislain Fournier and I am the member for Manicouagan. At the risk of being in competition with my colleague, I too represent a very large riding which extends over an area twice the distance from here to Sept-Îles, which is in the heart of my riding. My riding stretches over an area of more than 3,000 kilometres and encompasses the island of Anticosti, Schefferville, which is located 650 kilometres from Sept-Îles, and Fermont, approximately 700 kilometres from Sept-Îles.

I served on Sept-Îles' municipal council for four terms. I was the president of the local metalworkers and Wabush Mine workers union in Sept-Îles for seven years. I also served as president of the Conseil du travail de la Côte-Nord, which represented 12,000 workers at the time. I was elected to Parliament last June 2nd and I must say that I am very happy to be here and to sit on this committee with you. I hope that I can contribute in some small way.

The Chairman: Thank you to the representative of my neighbouring riding.

The next order of business is the list of routine motions for committees. We will begin with the appointment of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure, or steering committee.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair,

[English]

I move that the chair and the two vice-chairs and one member of each party do compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Mr. Mike Scott: I second that.

The Chairman: Agreed?

[Translation]

Is anyone opposed? I wanted to know if it was our duty to appoint the members of the steering committee, but the clerk informs me that the party whips will provide us with a list of names of those members who will sit on this committee. Is that proper procedure?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: On a point of information, Mr. Chairman, since there are vice-chairs, myself and Derrek, do we count as the member of the party? In other words, is this committee made up of eight people or of five people?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, my motion was that it was the chairman, the two vice-chairs, and one member of each party: another member from the Liberals and another member from each of the Reform Party, the Bloc Québécois, the PCs, and the NDP. There are five parties, plus three people, which means there will be eight people on the steering committee.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Is that normal procedure?

Mr. Bernard Patry: The problem we are facing is that in the previous Parliament there were just three parties: the Reform, the Bloc, and the Liberals. At that time the steering committee was the chairman, the two vice-chairs, and one member from the parties. Now that we have the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP, we feel they should be part of the steering committee for the agenda. That will increase the numbers, but we feel we should do so.

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, I think if you had a steering committee of eight people you would find you had a cumbersome steering committee. It might be more in order to have the chair, the two vice-chairs, and then a representative of the other parties that do not hold positions within the chair or vice-chair positions. In that way you would end up with a steering committee of five, which seems to me to be more representative of what a steering committee is all about, rather than a committee of eight.

• 1120

Mr. Bernard Patry: The problem we're facing with this is that usually the parliamentary secretary of the government is on the steering committee. We have the chair and vice-chairs and we need to have the PS also. If you want to have the PS and if you want to have the other parties, I could agree with this.

Mr. Mike Scott: I'm not sure I understand.

Mr. Bernard Patry: The fact is that on the steering committee you have the parliamentary secretary, who is added to this. Now we have the chairman, who is a Liberal, the first vice-chair is a Liberal, and the second vice-chair is from the Reform Party. You should have at that time the parliamentary secretary, another member from the Liberals and, if you want, on top of that, the PC and the NDP. I will agree, but you're taking a member from the Reform Party and a member from the Bloc. No, we're having the Bloc member—the Bloc, the PC, and the NDP—I'm sorry.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry. Are there any further comments? Mr. Finlay, you have something you would like to add?

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: I want to be clear on what the parliamentary secretary is suggesting as perhaps an alternative. I'm understanding him to say that the steering committee would be made up of the chairperson, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary, and a member from each of the other parties.

Mr. Bernard Patry: That was my initial proposition, because as the PS, I was the one from the Liberals. Our whip will probably choose the PS as usual, as it is a tradition. But I said in the first motion that we'll have another member from each party. That would mean, as we have four opposition parties, that we would have four other members. But my colleagues from the Reform Party suggested that we should have just the members of the opposition who are not, let's say, a vice-chair. However, if we do so, we'll be reducing the steering committee by one member from the Reform Party.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You are proposing that the Liberal Party have three members and the Reform Party, two members, and that the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Progressive Conservative Party have one representative apiece, for a total of eight members.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, that's correct.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: What exactly do we hope to accomplish with a steering committee? Mr. Patry is proposing that we have an eight- member steering committee, whereas there are perhaps 15 of us here. As a rule, a steering committee is much smaller and therefore can discuss many more things.

As for the parliamentary secretary being present, I think that the colleagues representing him, namely yourself and Mr. Finlay who will be the vice-chair, will take it upon themselves to pass along anything discussed to him. In turn, the parliamentary secretary will make it his duty to pass along information to the Department, given that he is the Minister's right hand.

To my mind, appointing a steering committee does not simply mean taking the whole committee and splitting it up in two. It should be a much smaller committee. Mr. Scott is proposing that a member of each party, in addition to the two Liberal members and the Reform Party vice-chair, sit on the steering committee. We would then have a five-person steering committee, which would be a much fairer balance. We could conduct more in-depth discussions and e would not have to rehash all of the discussions in a committee split in two.

A steering committee, as its name suggests, is more restricted in nature. I envisage one composed of five members representing all parties who would pass along the necessary information to their officials and to the parliamentary secretary who, in turn, would convey to the Minister the messages of the committee and of his representatives on said committee.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Bachand's position is certainly quite acceptable in that all of the resolutions passed by the subcommittee on agenda and procedure are referred back the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I am amenable to his suggestion, namely that the subcommittee be composed of the chair, the two vice-chairs as well as of a member of those parties not represented by the chair or vice-chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Therefore, there would be six members.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: I concur with my colleagues that it would be workable to have the chair and the vice-chair, and we would have a representative as the opposition vice-chair, and one member from each.... I think six would be more workable.

• 1125

The Chairman: That's fine.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Let me repeat. The committee will be composed of the chair, the Liberal vice-chair, the Reform Party vice-chair, a member of the Bloc Québécois, a member of the NDP and a member of the Progressive Conservative Party, for a total of six members.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I wish to make this a formal motion.

The Chairman: So moved by Mr. Patry, seconded by Mr. Bachand.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The next item is a motion concerning the Library of Parliament: that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers, at the discretion of the chair...

I'm sorry, but Ms Karetak-Lindell had asked for the floor. I apologize for this oversight. Please proceed.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: It's just a procedural thing. I'm sorry we came in late, but we don't have any agendas or papers in front of us.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I apologize. We will provide you with copies right away. You are quite right.

We continue with motion 4 concerning the Library of Parliament: That the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the chair.

(Motion agreed to unanimously)

The Chairman: Perhaps the officers from the library could introduce themselves.

[English]

Ms. Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher): My name is Mary Hurley. I'm with the law and government division of the Library of Parliament. I was attached to the committee for the last several months of the second session of the 35th Parliament. I look forward to working with you.

Ms. Jill Wherrett (Committee Researcher): My name is Jill Wherrett. I'm with the political and social affairs division of the Library of Parliament. I've been with the committee since September 1994, the past three years.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I think we are going to have some competent staff. That's important.

Moving on to item 5, a motion respecting meetings in the absence of a quorum: That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least... We need to decide how many members need to be present, including members of the opposition.

Would someone care to make a motion? Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chair, I think it's quite different from the last Parliament, in that there are more opposition parties. This is just for witnesses. It has nothing to do with voting. Sometimes we have witnesses all day, starting at 8 a.m. and ending at 10 p.m. or 11 p.m. The quorum should be as low as possible so long as there are some people from the opposition. If we try to get a very high quorum it will be difficult, because if we don't have a quorum at that time we are just postponing our witnesses. It's very costly for the government. In the last Parliament we had videoconferencing all across the country.

We feel the quorum should be as low as possible. I thought three members should be present to start, including one member of the opposition parties. But I'm very open to any discussion on this.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry. Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: My honourable friend makes some good points. Naturally we don't want to see additional expenses incurred. We also understand this is not for the purpose of voting, it's simply for the purpose of hearing witnesses.

• 1130

How many are we in this committee in total? Sixteen. Three out of sixteen is a very small percentage. I would suggest that we should be a bit higher than that. I don't think we need to get into big numbers, but I certainly think we need to have more than three. I would suggest possibly five, with two being from the opposition.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I would like to hear the comments from the other opposition parties before....

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Fournier has asked for the floor.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: To hold meetings when a quorum is not present demonstrates, in my view, a lack of seriousness and openness. A committee must act in a responsible manner and each committee member must be told in advance that it is his duty to attend meetings. That is the least we can do to secure a quorum. We are all responsible individuals and in my view, it is unacceptable to hold a meeting when a quorum is not present. This would be the first time that a serious committee would be called upon to make decisions when a majority of its members are absent.

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I agree with my colleague. However, this motion applies only to meetings at which evidence would be heard. I agree with Mr. Scott that 3 out of 16 members would not be good enough for a quorum. However, five would be a slightly better number. I feel compelled to emphasize what Mr. Patry said. When people make the effort to travel some distance to attend the meeting and when we must apologize to them because we do not have a quorum, we end up looking a little ridiculous. Furthermore, we incur additional accommodation costs because we must call them back.

I could see us sitting with a quorum of 5 out of 16 members when we hear evidence from witnesses and don't make any decisions. However, I want us to be very, very clear on this. It would only be for those meetings held to hear evidence from witnesses.

Have we agreed on a quorum for meetings during which decisions are to be made? Considering that the committee has 16 members, what is the minimum number of members required to constitute a quorum? Perhaps the clerk could answer that question for us.

The Chairman: The quorum is set at nine members.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Nine members. Very good.

The Chairman: The agenda states that the quorum has been set at nine members.

Mr. Bernard Patry: In reference to the comments of my colleague, the member for Manicouagan, I have to say that there is quite a difference between a meeting where votes are scheduled and a meeting where evidence is to be heard.

You have to realize that when Parliament is up and running at full speed, members will have other duties aside from sitting on committees. Let me give you an example. When the last Parliament began, some members like myself sat on three committees as well as on a number of sub-committees.

It is also your responsibility to show up in the House and to speak, for example during the debate on the Address in response to the Throne Speech. You may also be asked to take on other duties or you may have to travel. In times like this, it is very difficult to get a nine-member quorum.

We have to understand—and Mr. Bachand made this point eloquently—that with nine persons... When we are unable to hear the witnesses that travel to Ottawa, costs are incurred such as airfare, accommodation and so forth. The quorum is not required in this case to hold a vote, but simply to get the meeting under way. When a meeting is scheduled to begin at 9 a.m.—everything is fine this morning—and only eight members are present whereas the quorum is nine, we are unable to hear evidence from the witnesses. The sole purpose of this motion is to address this particular situation.

Therefore, I fully agree with this motion which, even though it originates from the opposition, would set the quorum required to receive evidence from witnesses at five members.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patry. Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Just for clarification, this being a briefing meeting, what is the role of the associate members? You're talking about the 16 members who are on the committee, but do you have associate members and what role would they play in case there's no quorum?

• 1135

Mr. Bernard Patry: The role of the associate member is quite clear. The associate member can attend all the meetings and may ask any question as a member of Parliament at any meeting, but he cannot vote at that meeting unless the associate member is replacing his full member of the committee. That's the role of the associate member.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Please proceed, Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: In attending a meeting where witnesses are in evidence, the five we're proposing, there could theoretically be five associate members.

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, there need to be five permanent members.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Five permanent members.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Five permanent members of the committee and perhaps those designated by the whip's office.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: It would be five members of this committee, of the sixteen members right now, but sometimes one of the members cannot attend, for some reason having to do with his riding, and the whip will say, listen, even if he's not an associate member he can replace.... Any member of Parliament can replace another member. There's a procedure for doing it, but that's the way we proceed.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Theoretically that could happen.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes, it will happen.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Laliberte, I have here the form entitled "Amendments or changes to the list of committee members" that your whip signs to designate another member as an alternate, as was the case this morning. I believe you are familiar with this procedure.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you. You had something you wished to say, Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of clarification, and then I'd like to make a comment. Does the chair constitute one in terms of making up the quorum?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

Mr. Mike Scott: So what we're talking about is having a chair and four members, if we follow through on the proposition I made?

The Chairman: Yes, two from the government side and two from the opposition side, plus the chair. But the chair could be the acting chair too. It could be a member of the Reform or the government side.

Mr. Mike Scott: With all respect to yourself, Mr. Chairman, and other members of the committee, if we're holding a meeting where sometimes witnesses are coming from a great distance to provide evidence or testimony before this committee and we can't have five or more members present, then I suggest we're not doing our work as a committee. I suggest we're asking people to go out of their way and incur expense themselves, and the government is incurring expense on top of that, and really the committee is not going to receive the benefit of that testimony and is not going to receive the benefit of that meeting. I question why we would even want to proceed with the meeting if we couldn't have at least that many members. I suggest that's a bare minimum. I would hope at most times we're going to have far more members in attendance than that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I will just move that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least five members are present, including two members from the opposition.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Patry, seconded by Mr. Scott, moves that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least five members are present, including two members of the opposition.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: We continue with item 6 on the agenda which pertains to opening statements and questioning witnesses: That witnesses be given a certain number of minutes for their opening statement and that during the questioning of witnesses, there be allotted a certain number of minutes for the first questioner of each party and that thereafter a certain number of minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, at the discretion of the chair.

Are there any comments regarding this item?

Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, we know committee meetings often are relatively condensed in terms of time. Most last an hour and a half, I believe. In order to be fair to the various political parties represented here, I believe what we have to do is look at a breakdown that is representative of the make-up of the committee in terms of the political parties that are represented here. So I would move, Mr. Chairman, that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement and that the allocation thereafter be based on the make-up of the committee by party. In other words—and I'm not sure what the percentages are—if 50% of the committee is Liberal, then 50% of the time would go to the Liberals, etc. The breakdown would be made on that basis.

• 1140

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are you proposing 50% of one and a half hours, not counting the ten minutes?

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Yes, but obviously there would have to be a rotation. I have a couple of suggestions. One is a rotation that would go: witness presentation, then immediately after that ten minutes for Reform, ten minutes for the Bloc, ten minutes for the Liberals; five minutes Reform, five minutes Liberal, five minutes NDP, five minutes PC, five minutes Liberal, five minutes Reform, five minutes Bloc, five minutes Liberal. That kind of rotation would reflect the make-up of the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I have a brief comment to make.

The Chairman: Briefly, because Mr. Bachand is next in line.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Just before Mr. Scott's motion.... When you make a motion, that means we should vote on this first.

I would like to get all the remarks from our other colleagues before you move anything, if you don't mind.

Mr. Mike Scott: Okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I think it's a good idea to allocate questions based on the make-up of the committee by party. This seems to be the fairest and most democratic approach. The Liberal Party won 155 seats in the last general election, the Reform Party 60, and the Bloc Québécois 44. In my view, it is normal that the time allocated for questions be based on representation by party.

Given the principle of equitable representation and given the make-up of the committee by party, I wouldn't go so far as to say that we want ten minutes whereas the other party wants five minutes, but I support this sound idea, provided the principle of fair representation is respected.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand. Please proceed, Mr. Earle.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I feel we should take as much of the politics out of this committee as possible. I think the committee is established to do a job, and the job deals with aboriginal affairs and northern development. I think we should allow questioning on a rotational basis, but not necessarily quantifying it according to representation of parties. I think it's important we get at the issues and deal with the issues fairly, and I don't think that necessarily is represented by parties. I think it's represented by fair questioning in light of what the witnesses have to say.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Chairman, I want to address this, and I'm couching my words carefully, because I don't want to insult anyone on the first day of the committee sitting.

Certainly this is a committee. This is not the Parliament of Canada sitting here. You form committees so everyone has equal representation on the committee. We understand the chair and the vice-chair represent the government and it gives them some decided advantage there. However, in order to hear points the time factor is of necessity. If we allow ten minutes for someone to present a brief, I have no heartache with that whatsoever. We also have to have time for everybody on this committee to ask questions. I think it's incumbent upon us to split that fairly amongst all the parties represented.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy. Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you very much. I just want to respond.

It's true this is a committee and the chair of the committee is the boss. He's really the boss and he is the one who runs the committee itself.

You're talking about equality. I will just remind you that in all committees, even this one, the members who are not—I don't like to use the word “equal”—who are disadvantaged are the ones on the government side, because there are more opposition parties and they will try all the time to give all the time to all the members.

I fully agree that all the members should have a chance to ask questions. You realize that when we have eight members sitting, plus the chairman, on our side, sometimes we don't have a chance even to ask a question. This is not fair to all the members.

• 1145

I fully agree with Mr. Scott that we should give ten minutes for the opening statement of the witness. First of all, the witness is very important. If we want to ask questions of the witnesses we need to be sure what they are going to tell us.

After that, as for the time allocated, I thought it would be about five minutes for the first questioner of each party. That means the Reform will start with five minutes, the Bloc five. Five will go to the PCs, five to the NDP, and five to the Liberal Party. That closes the first round. After that, at discretion, it will be five minutes to any member. That's the resolution in front of us right now.

That means, and it's quite true...because that morning we could have three members from the Liberals and two members from the Reform and two from the Bloc, and if there's none from the PCs we're not going to go to the PCs. We'll go accordingly. But most of the time in the previous House and previous government sitting it worked very well because the chairman recognizes all the members when we go by turns. If he goes by turns most of the time.... First he'll go to the official opposition, then to the Bloc Québécois and the other parties, the PCs and the NDP, and he will end up with the Liberals. Most of the time it works well.

I agree with the ten minutes, and I think we should go with five minutes for every party, including the Liberals, five, five, five, and five, then after that at the discretion of the chair, but going in the same way.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I want to support the democratic principle my colleague Mr. Scott outlined, and also Claude Bachand, because he will remember I tried to get that notion through this committee in the last Parliament and was unsuccessful. I'm delighted it's there—and I think your point, sir, about every party asking a question is perfectly correct.

Sometimes we felt like fifth wheels, Mr. Chairman, when the chair adhered too strictly to a rotation and it was ten, ten, ten, ten, ten and we had people sitting here who wanted to ask a question and didn't have an opportunity.

So I would support the resolution on the floor and leave it up to you, Mr. Chairman, to keep in your mind that there are eight people here and eight people there and we all want a chance to question the witness.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Scott, please.

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, obviously those of us who have sat on committees before recognize that the chair already has a great deal of discretion, and in many cases we will be relying on your discretion. I don't think you're going to sit there with a stopwatch and time people as they ask their questions.

In any event, what I'm getting at is that the Reform Party has three members on this committee. If we're hearing witnesses, each one of our members is going to want to have some hope of an opportunity to question them. I would imagine the Bloc and the Liberals and so on....

My concern is that we just have that opportunity. We're working in a limited timeframe. I hear what my friend from the New Democratic Party is saying and I understand his concern, but I do believe there is, to a degree, politics on the committee, in the sense that you have so many Liberals, so many Reform, so many NDP, PC, Bloc, and so on. I think each member of the committee has to have a reasonable expectation they're going to get a chance to ask a question. So I think your suggestion that we have five minutes and five minutes and five minutes and five minutes is fair. That gives everybody a kick at it.

Then I do not have a problem with turning it over to the discretion of the chair, but I think we have to ask the chair to recognize there is a make-up on this committee. There are members.... Everybody wants to have a chance to ask a question, and it would be unfair to allow one or two to dominate that questioning process and shut others out in the process.

• 1150

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. McNally.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: I concur with my colleagues. I believe that if we don't have a fairly tight structure in place before we start, then possibly we will get into an area where we will have people wanting to ask questions but not having the opportunity to do so. Time will get eaten up, so to speak.

Perhaps the members from each party are able to share amongst themselves and develop their questions. Running short of time, one member might ask a question on behalf of another. So I support Mr. Scott's motion.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. McNally. Mr. Patry.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Does it mean, Mr. Scott, that you agree to ten minutes for the witnesses and after that five minutes for each party? That would be the first round, and after that it would be five minutes, but at the discretion of the chair.

You were here in the previous Parliament. Most of the time it goes first to the official opposition and then around the table. I think that would be fair for all the members.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I apologize, Mr. Scott. Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: While I don't know you very well, I personally have a great deal of confidence in your discretion as chair. However, when we rely too much on the chair's discretion and fail to adopt rules that are sufficiently stringent, we run the risk of straying off course before too long.

I see no problem with each member taking five minutes during the first meeting, but if subsequently we rely solely on your discretion and I raise my hand and you recognize the Liberals and the Reform Party members a little too often, you can expect some protests from the Bloc Québécois.

Is the position you're taking today final or provisional? Perhaps we could follow this course for several months and if we are not satisfied with the discretion exercised by the chair, we could then reexamine the issue and decide to adopt a new time allocation rule. Would that be possible?

What I am saying is that I will agree to go along with your discretion for a certain period of time. You will be put to the test and if we are satisfied, we will accept the status quo. However, if we are not satisfied, we will make our feelings known and call, not for a new chair, but rather for a new procedural rule. Would this approach be in keeping with parliamentary procedure?

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Bachand. I have taken note of your comments and I immediately got out my watch which comes from the Cree Nation of Mistassini.

I want you to know that I have nine years of experience serving on House of Commons committees. As I stated at the outset in my opening statement, I intend to respect each political party. Our most important consideration is our witnesses. We have urgent matters and difficult issues to deal with, but I will try to be fair. I will respect you, just as you will respect me. I think we'll enjoy working together very much.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Mr. Chairman, regarding Mr. Bachand's comments, I have to say that I agree with you. Officially there are rules to abide by, but unofficially, as has always been the case in previous parliaments, when the second round of questioning begins, the opposition parties always go first.

I am confident that the chair will not immediately recognize the three or four Liberal members. The second round of questioning begins with the opposition parties, and ends with the government party. This has always been the case unofficially and this is how we should proceed. I am not instructing the chair, but rather making some suggestions.

The Chairman: I accept your constructive suggestion and I appreciate it. That is how we will proceed. If I make a mistake, you can tell me and I will correct myself.

Mr. Claude Bachand: One final clarification: will the rule that we adopt today remain in effect for the duration of the committee, that is for the next three or four years?

The Chairman: We will start with this year. If we have to change the rule in mid-course, I think that will be possible.

Mr. Claude Bachand: That would be possible?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Very well.

The Chairman: We could change the rule at a later date. It would be up to the committee to decide.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: I was only going to suggest that as long as Mr. Bachand doesn't take more than his share of the time, which he sometimes has a tendency to do, we'll get along quite all right.

[Translation]

The Chairman: In any case, Mr. Bachand and the other committee members should know that I plan to bring a stopwatch to time questions carefully and fairly. When questioners have a minute remaining, I will signal to them, as we do in the House of Commons. I think that this will work and that we will get along splendidly. If I make a mistake, I will take responsibility for it.

Are there any further comments regarding this matter?

• 1155

We can now move on to item 6, opening statements and questioning witnesses: That witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement and that during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated five minutes for the first questioner of each party and that thereafter five minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner, at the discretion of the chair.

Will all those in favour of the motion please raise their hand.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: Did you move it?

Mr. Mike Scott: No, we didn't move it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Who wishes to move the motion?

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: I will move it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: So moved by Mr. Patry, seconded by Mr. Scott.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just had a question on the ten-minute opening statements by the witnesses and then the five minutes you had for the opening round. Are you expecting the witness to respond to your question within those five minutes, or are you saying it's a five-minute-long question?

Mr. Claude Bachand: It's questions and answers.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Five full minutes.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: You'll have to stretch your questions.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will now proceed to item 7 which relates to witness expenses: That, at the discretion of the chairman, 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 representatives per organization.

Are there any comments? Who wishes to move the motion?

So moved by Mr. Patry, seconded by Mr. Scott.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The next item of business is motion number 8 pertaining to in camera meetings: That, when in camera meetings are to be transcribed, the transcript be kept by the clerk of the committee for consultation by the members of the committee and that these transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to propose a motion that changes the wording here, because I think this committee on all sides ought to be sensitive to the fact that when we have discussions in this committee we are making history and we are going to be affecting the lives of Canadians for future generations. While I would hope this committee would never, if possible, ever have an in camera meeting, I certainly think that in the light of what has occurred with the Krever inquiry and the disclosure that transcripts that have a tremendous bearing on the lives of Canadians have been destroyed we should reconsider this subsection and amend it such that we strike out the last line, that the transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session, and instead say that the transcripts be retained in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts.

Mr. Chairman, these two pieces of legislation provide fully for protection of witnesses who would not want their personal information disclosed if they requested of this committee to testify in camera. The Access to Information and Privacy Acts have a number of provisions that do look after the interests of Canadians. I don't think it should be incumbent on this committee to destroy transcripts when the legislation exists that will protect information appropriately, and reveal information appropriately as well.

I don't know whether I have a seconder or not, but the motion I would like to put forward is that the last line be struck, the words “destroyed at the end of the session”, and that line, “destroyed at the end of the session”, be replaced by “retained in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Access to Information and Privacy Acts”.

Mr. Gordon Earle: I will second that motion.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any comments? Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I agree with my colleague opposite. If these transcripts are destroyed, it would be as if these meetings had never taken place. There would be no evidence of them. We may as well not hold meetings or have discussions if the transcripts are to be ultimately destroyed. We are, after all, going to the trouble of meeting.

• 1200

Initially, I expressed some reservations about in camera meetings. What we are discussing here is public knowledge. We are paid by the people, by Canadians and it is our duty to operate openly and above reproach. Everything we discuss is of interest to the public. Since we are paid by the public, we should not, in my humble opinion, sit in camera. We have no business hiding ourselves away to discuss issues of public interest or the benefits awarded to native peoples. These issues concern everyone and the public has the right to know what we are discussing and what our intentions are, as well as the improvements we wish to make to the lives of native peoples.

The Chairman: Messrs. Scott and Finlay.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: First, I would support the motion.

Second, I'd like to remind my friend that it's not for the protection of the committee or the committee members that we go into in camera meetings. It's for the protection of witnesses who may wish to appear before us and provide information that they don't necessarily want to.... It is not that the information would be disclosed, but the person providing the information may want protection because they could be at personal risk for doing so.

Particularly in this committee there may be times when we will hold in camera meetings. I want to assure you that I have no interest in trying to protect members of the committee, including members of my own party, but I believe there are times when we want to protect witnesses.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Before we continue, I'm going to recognize Mr. Finlay and Mr. Keddy. The clerk informs me that these transcripts are kept for 30 years. Is that correct?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chairman: They are stored in the archives for 30 years. I just wanted to let you know that.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: I'd like to follow up on Mr. Scott's remarks. If the members of the committee are having a meeting, fine—as you say, sir. We do have witnesses who may be very useful to us but whose names and whose situations they want to come before us and no one else. I would hesitate to vote for this until I had some—and I'm not asking for a ruling—information on the rules of the House or the rules of committees as to whether there's a practice with that we should know about in these in camera meetings.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The Clerk has advised me that based on her experience, rarely are there witnesses present at in camera meetings.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I think my question has been answered. It was the time factor of how long the information would be kept on file. The danger certainly is that we may have someone who would want to present a brief or make testimony before the committee but, because it was not in camera or they felt the information would get out, they wouldn't represent themselves. So if it's 30 years, I think that's looked after.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I was mistaken. Mr. Konrad will speak first, followed by Mr. McNally.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have just a quick question. On these people who are appearing in camera, if it should come to that and the transcripts were to be saved as suggested, could the names not be removed and simply left with the information provided? Or does that make a mockery of the whole thing?

Mr. John Bryden: I think what needs to be clarified here is that the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act provide for all this. They provide for the protection of privacy of personal information, that kind of thing. So the legislation exists that sets rules of disclosure and privacy, both, in the public interest. So this legislation exists, and I merely refer to that because my colleague's point is that when you destroy it, you can never get it back.

Mr. Mike Scott: Does that legislation cover the minutes of the in camera committee meetings?

• 1205

Mr. John Bryden: Yes. I'm proposing only in camera meetings.

With the legislation, when an access to information request for that in camera material is made, if it is releasable according to the access officer and it does contain, say, personal information, then it is customary to strike out the names of the individuals. What happens is that an access officer, as an arm's-length person, has an opportunity to review the in camera information when it is requested at a future time and to decide whether in the public interest a certain portion of it should be released. So you have somebody outside this committee who is making sure that this committee isn't acting, say, out of self-interest in withholding information. Because the two acts run conjointly, the interests of the individual are always protected—at least in my view.

Mr. Grant McNally: I have some concerns similar to Mr. Keddy's. If the witness knows that the information could be released, even though for somebody to get the information would be a process through the Privacy Act, then that might stop them from wanting to give testimony.

My understanding is that this information would be on file for 30 years. Is that right?

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's correct.

[English]

Mr. Grant McNally: Also, sometimes there may be a slip-up; something that shouldn't be released may be released. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be in the witnesses' best interest....

I understand your wanting to have this information open, but—

Mr. John Bryden: I'm not wanting it open, I'm wanting to preserve it. If you destroy it, it's gone.

Mr. Grant McNally: Right.

Mr. John Bryden: It's annihilated. The meeting never occurred, as my colleague here says.

Mr. Grant McNally: I would tend to agree with leaning towards the protection of the witness in this case.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Just a moment. Only one copy would be archived for 30 years. The clerk has told me that according to procedure, copies of the transcripts are not available to members.

[English]

Mr. Gordon Earle: I would tend to agree with the hon. member across the way. I think it is important to preserve the information in accordance with the access to information and privacy legislation. I say this having had experience as an ombudsman working with that particular area of concern. There is sufficient legislation to protect the identity of people so they don't suffer when information is being sought.

If you start destroying information, then the danger one runs into is that there are rumours and allegations and you have nothing out there to either confirm or deny what took place. It is then open to speculation. So it is very important for the workings of government to be open to public scrutiny in accordance with the legislation that's applicable, which does provide for protection of individuals.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: This whole issue may not be in isolation of this committee. I'm new at this whole process. Maybe Parliament should review the committee, and this policy, these processes, these practices, as a whole. This is only one of many committees. The witness issue and the protection of information may relate to other committees and other processes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The Clerk pointed out to me that she has never attended an in camera meeting in nine years. This is a very rare occurrence.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Some committees sit in camera. The only time I did so was on the subcommittee on House procedure.

[English]

on the private bills of the members. It is in camera, and this is quite easy to understand. It's just discussion among members to see which private bills and motions from members will be votable or non-votable. It's in camera, which means there are no witnesses. Well, there are witnesses—the members are coming in front of the committee—but there are no people behind us except from the research staff. There is no TV or anything like that. It could happen. It was agreed by all the parties.

You could also have some in camera meetings, say with CSIS, in the defence committee or some other committee, for the protection of the witnesses.

I fully agree that this committee would have nothing at all to hide. I think this discussion this morning is quite fructuous; it's a good discussion. I think all the members agree that we don't want to destroy anything. The action is not to destroy our in camera meeting.

• 1210

I don't know if my colleague would agree. He wants, as he mentioned, to say that these transcripts would be retained, but if we can just scratch the last sentence and say that these transcripts would be destroyed at the end of the session.... If we don't say so, that means they're going to be kept; they're not going to be destroyed. I think it's that last sentence.

[Translation]

The last sentence states that transcripts will be destroyed at the end of the session. If they are not destroyed, they are kept in accordance with the rules governing all committees, the Access to Information Act and so forth. We could simply

[English]

delete that sentence.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any further comments?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I'll just say that the reason for adding the legislative codicil to my amendment is simply that it indicates this committee's dedication to the protection of the information and using the machinery of legislation that already exists.

If we do not put that in, then the transcripts will be retained but they will not be retained under any circumstances that we could control. They might even be releasable, for all I know.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm not sure if I'd be comfortable with making this change almost without having been given notice. In the committee's interest, it might be better to study this until the next meeting and then come back to look at item 8 on your agenda.

Ms. Judi Longfield: I'll make a motion that this item be tabled for the time being and that it be addressed at the next meeting of this committee.

Mr. John Bryden: There is a motion on the floor. I think I'd rather see the motion voted upon and then the member's motion dealt with subsequently.

Mr. Bernard Patry: There will be two motions. Mr. Chairman, you're the one who is going to decide which motion you're going to deal with first. It's your role now. We'll see how you judge.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, it's up to you.

Mr. Bernard Patry: The clerk just mentioned that it's something like 30 years, and we're not sure even about this. I don't think all the members here right now can fully understand the way it is kept, and before taking a full decision I think I will agree with my colleague's proposition that this should come up at the next meeting. This will give our clerk enough time to come up with everything that is existing and what we're going to do and what we're going to vote on.

If my colleagues will agree, I will support my other colleague's proposition.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Before we continue, I would like to call upon Mr. Bryden to withdraw his motion which was not seconded.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that's a very reasonable approach to the problem, because we want to be sure.

My colleague over here made a very important point, that this issue is bigger than this committee and that perhaps we should make it a point to study it, to resolve it at our next meeting, and then, I would hope, to convey the results of our deliberations to the other committees. I say this because I believe it's a very important issue.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is it agreed that motion 8 be deferred until the next meeting?

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: If we defer this motion, can we defer others as well?

The Chairman: Which ones do you have in mind?

Mr. Claude Bachand: It was customary for committee members to be accompanied by their staff members. The purpose, among other things, of the in camera motion was to protect witnesses, but this shouldn't stop us from having our staff members accompany us to an in camera meeting.

I wanted to discuss this matter with my colleagues. Our staff members accompanied us in the last Parliament. I wonder if I should make a formal motion to this effect. If the committee members agree that our staff members should be with us, then I won't table a motion. However, if members are opposed, I will present a stronger argument.

The Chairman: Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Regarding my colleague's proposal, I would simply like to say that there may be some differences of opinion. I have no objections to having staff members present at in camera meetings or at meetings of the steering committee.

• 1215

That's why I would like the Clerk or someone else to clarify for us this situation and present the reasons and circumstances which call for an in camera meeting. I think we could do that at the next meeting. The Clerk could share this information with us at that time and we could discuss it then. Is that okay?

The Chairman: Ms Longfield.

[English]

Ms. Judi Longfield: My motion is simply saying that this is too big to determine today and all of these issues have to be discussed.

Mr. Bernard Patry: We are agreed.

Ms. Judi Longfield: I would like to discuss with members of other committees even before we make a decision. I think Mr. Bryden has said “after we've made a decision”, but it might be helpful to do it in consultation with other committee chairs.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have just a very quick comment, because I know we're running late. Would it be possible for the clerk to send us all a package of information on the motion?

The Clerk: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Prior to the meeting.

[Translation]

The Chairman: It is agreed that we defer consideration of item 8 respecting in camera meetings until the next meeting?

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. I presume that my motion will still be on the table, that it is merely being postponed until the next meeting for discussion?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: There's no problem. We have one item remaining on the agenda.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I would like to second the motion.

The Chairman: So moved by Mr. Patry, seconded by Mr. Fournier.

Motion 9 concerns working lunches: That the committee authorize the Chair, from time to time, as the need arises, to take in conjunction with the Clerk of the committee the appropriate measures to provide lunches for the committee and its subcommittees for working purposes and that the cost of these lunches be charged to the budget of the committee.

(Motion agreed to unanimously)

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, during the last Parliament, we spent our time, and my colleagues will agree with me on this, wondering whether or not coffee would be available to committee members. I'd like us to resolve this issue once and for all right now so that we don't have to decide at each meeting whether a pot of coffee will be provided at the next meeting.

Could we have coffee like all of the other committee? I am tired of having to cross the hall to borrow a cup of coffee from the National Defence Committee when it is sitting. We are entitled to the same treatment as every other committee. Coffee and juice should be available for all members and for staff.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Of course.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Do I need to make a motion or can we reach a friendly agreement?

Mr. Bernard Patry: A friendly agreement will suffice, Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Perfect. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: I just want to congratulate my colleague Mr. Bachand, because I had the same thing in mind: I wanted to ask if working lunches included a little coffee, mid-morning.

Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Chairman, before we break, I'd like to congratulate you on taking the chair. I would like to set the record straight: when I moved for a ballot this morning, before you took the chair, it was in no way any reflection on you or your work in the House of Commons. It was simply a matter of our position that we believe there should be a democratic election. We wish you well in your position as chair and we look forward to working with you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I look forward to our next meeting.

The meeting is adjourned.