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]

Tuesday, October 6, 1998

• 1142

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Good morning, members.

Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Clerk, prior to the order of the day, I would like the committee to discuss the possibility of having votes by secret ballot.

An hon. member: You don't get to vote twice, in other words.

An hon. member: How many ballots do you have?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Clerk: Mr. Thompson, that would be up to the members of the committee. I'll put it to them.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): And I didn't vote twice.

The Clerk: Our first order of business is the election of the chair. Do you want a secret ballot for the election of the chair?

Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes.

The Clerk: Okay, I will send them around.

I'm now prepared to take nominations.

• 1145

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): It's my pleasure to nominate Mr. Guy St-Julien.

The Clerk: Okay. Are there any other nominations?

Mr. Elley.

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): I would like to nominate John Bryden. I think he'd do an excellent job.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): I believe I have the opportunity to decline the nomination, if I may.

The Clerk: Yes, you do.

Mr. John Bryden: I would like to do so. I thank the member for putting my name forward and I do appreciate it, but I have other interests that have a higher priority. Although this committee is very important, I do have other interests, and I wouldn't be able to give it the time it deserves. But I thank you.

The Clerk: Okay. Are there any other nominations?

There's no need for a secret ballot then. If there are no other nominations, I declare Mr. St-Julien elected chair of the committee and invite him to take the chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.)): First of all, I'd like to thank members from all parties for electing me by acclamation. I also appreciate that one member wanted a secret ballot. That's what democracy is all about. We will now proceed to elect the two vice-chairs.

Our first item of business is the election of the first vice- chair. I am ready to entertain motions to that effect. Standing Order 106 (2) states the following:

(2) Each standing or special committee shall elect a chairman and two vice-chairmen, of whom two shall be members of the government party and the third a member in opposition—

Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): I am pleased to nominate John Finlay as vice-chair.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any other nominations?

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Although he is not present today, as his wife is extremely ill in the Ottawa General Hospital, I have informed him, and he is willing to accept; I want to nominate Derrek Konrad.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will begin by electing a vice-chair for the government party and then proceed to elect a vice-chair for the opposition.

Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Is it too late, or did you close it?

The Chairman: No, it's not too late.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I'd like to nominate Nancy Karetak-Lindell for vice-chair.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will start with Mr. Finlay. Are there any other nominations?

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell.

[English]

Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Thank you, but I would like to decline that, because I feel I'm not ready for that challenge yet. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Agreed. Thank you very much.

Only one person has been nominated, namely Mr. Finlay. Are we all agreed that Mr. John Finlay be elected by acclamation?

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I clearly nominated Mr. Derrek Konrad.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes, that's our next order of business. Mr. Finlay has been elected vice-chair for the government party.

• 1150

The next item of business is the election of the vice-chair for the opposition.

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: Okay.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are there any nominations for the position of second vice-chair?

You'd like to nominate Mr. Konrad?

[English]

Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Konrad, yes, in absentia.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Are we agreed that Mr. Konrad be elected by acclamation?

[English]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Monsieur Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Can anybody on the opposition side be nominated?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Well, in her absence, I'm filling in for Louise Hardy, who for medical reasons couldn't be here this week either. So if it's open, I nominate her.

Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I believe we just clearly indicated that the second vice-chair was to be Mr. Konrad. We all agreed to that. I don't see how the chair could rule otherwise.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You are right. Ms. Hardy's name was entered too late. It will have to be for another day.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I thought you agreed you could nominate him in his absence. I thought that was the agreement.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I pointed out earlier that Mr. Konrad wasn't here and I asked if there were any objections to our nominating him anyway. There were no objections. We voted on this and it was unanimous.

Mr. Bélair.

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): I'd like to say a word in support of Mr. Laliberte. You didn't say that nominations were closed.

The Chairman: No, I didn't.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Technically then—

The Chairman: Your point is well taken. Nominations weren't closed. We will vote on both nominations, Mr. Konrad and Ms. Louise Hardy, beginning with Mr. Konrad.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Perhaps we could take five minutes to discuss the next meeting.

[English]

Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Chair, just before we go, I'm wondering something on behalf of my colleague, Mr. Konrad, who wasn't able to be here. He was quite interested in knowing the status of his motion that was made on June 10, 1998, asking that this committee study and report back to the House on the implications for aboriginal economic development and land claims, both in British Columbia and across Canada, of the Delgamuukw decision. Do we know the status of that?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bélair.

[English]

Mr. Réginald Bélair: Mr. Chairman, I take it you have a steering committee that should look at past business and prepare the agenda for future committees.

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's precisely what I was getting at. I wanted to let the member conclude his remarks. The steering committee met to decide on the future business of the committee and to review the motions tabled previously by members from all parties. That's something to be discussed at the next meeting. I would ask the clerk to prepare a notice for the next meeting.

That concludes the first part of our meeting.

• 1155

[English]

Mr. Reed Elley: So we can expect, Mr. Chairman, that at the next meeting there will be an answer to this from the steering committee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad's motion will be forwarded to the steering committee.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, now that we're all here, I'd like to resolve the issue of the order of questioning, which was debated from time to time this past year. I'd like to move—and the motion is necessary—that the order of recognition for questioning begin with the opposition side, move to the Liberal side, go back to the opposition side, and back and forth like that, instead of the procedure we had before, which involved recognizing each one of the opposition parties for every Liberal.

So my motion is that the chair recognize questioners by beginning with the opposition side and then following with the government side, and going back and forth in that procedure.

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's a matter for—

[English]

An hon. member: The official opposition should always be first.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, okay, the official opposition, and then to the government side.

There are four opposition members here, and the difficulty, with great respect, is that each opposition member is recognized before a government member. What I'm proposing is that the opposition side should ask the very first question, led off by the official opposition of course, and then a government member, if there is a government member, and back and forth. If there are no government members, of course we'll do as many opposition members as possible.

I would like to move that as a motion, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: If you have no objections, Mr. Bryden, that's something that the steering committee could discuss.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. We never had much success discussing it in the steering committee before. I would like to put this as a motion on the floor, now that we're all here, because it is standard procedure with other committees, and I'd like to adopt this procedure for this committee. And I might say it would take some of the burden off the opposition members of this committee so they won't have to work quite so hard.

So I'd like to move it as a motion. Do I have a seconder for the motion?

An hon. member: I'll second it.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Iftody.

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): On the motion put forward by my colleague, I think it was in fact standard practice in most of the other committees that we would recognize the opposition party for the first question, with a question-and-answer limit of five minutes, and we would do a first rotation going to one government member and then to the next opposition member. I think for most of the committees, this was a standard practice.

I recall from my few visits to this committee in the last government that it was quite different from the other committees of the House and the committee of the whole. So I don't think Mr. Bryden is out of bounds on this one. It would be perhaps a little more helpful to the full debate of the committee as well. I certainly support that.

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: First of all, I don't think it is a motion that this whole committee can deal with. It should go to the steering committee, and the steering committee should decide the voting order.

Secondly, the principle of the motion is fundamentally wrong. The point of all-party committees is that all parties get to speak on every issue and that each party is represented, and that's exactly what happens here: each party gets to speak. If we do it your way, then the parties at the end of the line may or may not get to participate in the debate on any particular issue.

As for trying to say it's easier for a committee member because they won't have to do quite as much work, come on, guys, give your heads a shake on that one.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy. Mr. Bachand, followed by Mr. Finlay.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Naturally, I must oppose the motion because earlier, I voted in the absence of two individuals— perhaps you could ask Mr. Bryden to pay attention, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Please, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I apologize.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I will repeat what I said, since you are the one who moved the motion. Therefore, you are the one I have to convince.

Mr. John Bryden: You are absolutely right.

• 1200

Mr. Claude Bachand: As I was saying, I feel it is important to maintain a certain tradition. Earlier on, we voted for two individuals who were absent. I for one voted for Mr. Konrad simply because according to parliamentary tradition, the position of vice- chair should be held by a member of the official opposition.

There is a certain logic to following tradition. Another of Parliament's traditions is that in committee, the opposition must be given more time for the simple reason that the majority can decide what it likes in the House of Commons. In committee, tradition has it that members are given more latitude to speak their mind. But in this case, the majority will be able to prevail because it will be allocated most of the speaking time. Traditionally, opposition members have been allocated more time to speak. In any case, when all is said and done, the will of the majority will prevail. I have a great deal of respect for tradition and that's why I would like to convince Mr. Bryden to withdraw this motion.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I thank the member for his comments, but I've worked on a number of committees, and this was never a problem. I point out to the member that he will always get an opportunity to speak under these circumstances; he just may have to wait a little bit longer than has been the case in the past year.

I accept the point made by the parliamentary secretary. This is procedure with the vast majority of committees and it is an aberration—

An hon. member: Not all of them.

Mr. John Bryden: Not all of them—I didn't say all of them—but it is the vast majority. I think there was maybe one other committee that followed the procedure we had, for some bizarre reason.

I point out to you that the Liberals did win the election and we do have the majority, and this is why there are so many members on this side. We should have the opportunity to exercise that majority by at least having an equal opportunity with the opposition members to speak in this committee.

What was happening, Mr. Chairman, is that Liberal members often didn't have an opportunity to speak at all, because after we went through the four opposition members and maybe two Liberal members, we would have a situation where a third Liberal member might be waiting for an hour and a half before he had an opportunity to speak.

I suggest to you that if the voters have decided that this shall be the majority on this committee and it should sit on this side, this majority should have at least a fair opportunity to express themselves and to do good work.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden. Mr. Finlay, followed by Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Mr. Reed Elley: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I did have my hand up several times before, and you did recognize me.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[English]

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you. That gives the opposition equal time, you see.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Chairman: That's what I'm doing now.

[English]

Mr. Reed Elley: Thank you.

My own experience with this is in health committee, where I'm vice-chair, and we do exactly what Mr. Bryden has suggested. I guess I see some fairness in what he's suggesting.

The only concern of the opposition members, I think, is that once the rotation has gone through and all opposition members have spoken and there are still government members who haven't spoken and want to, then you go back to the beginning of the opposition and go through the rotation again, so that it's opposition, government, opposition, government, right through until you're through the questioning. I found that to be fair.

However, I might add that I really do think, as other members have suggested, that this matter should be worked out at the steering committee and brought back as a recommendation, as a first item of business.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, sir. Mr. Finlay, followed by Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have no problem with Mr. Elley's suggestion, but I would like to indicate that no one is suggesting, and Mr. Bryden is not suggesting, that the government members get most of the time or more of the time, as Mr. Bachand indicated. That has not been the practice, and my colleague Mr. Bachand knows that.

We have had people wanting to ask a question who simply never got a chance, because by the time we got through five, either the opportunity was gone, the time was gone, or they'd given up hope and left.

• 1205

I don't want one side to have more or less. I want everybody to have an opportunity to contribute to the committee. That's why I like committee work, because we're using everybody's brains and everybody's experience; we're not just listening to the expert or the minister or what have you. But it was cumbersome and it really affected people on this side of the table, Mr. Chairman, and I think we should look at it.

I like what Mr. Elley says. There was no suggestion that if there are only four people over there and there are eight people here, eight people here are going to speak. That was not what Mr. Bryden was suggesting.

An hon. member:

[Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. John Finlay: I agree. We would go down, and if there were more— Many times there were only two people from the government side who wished to speak, which was fair enough too. If all the questions have been asked, why keep on?

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay. You have raised some valid points.

Ms. Torsney.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): First of all, this should go to the steering committee and it should be the first order of business. Secondly, I'd like to put a motion on the table that would instruct all parties that we need 24 hours to deal with motions. And thirdly, I'd like to put a motion on the table to adjourn and have the steering committee come back with recommendations on all of the motions, except for the motion to adjourn.

Mr. John Bryden: There's a motion on the table, so you can't add motions to motions.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will conclude our discussion and move on to the second motion.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, I'd like to recommend that we amend the motion and have it go to steering committee, then, and I'd like the vote to be taken on that now.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: With respect, and getting back to the discussion, the flaw in what you're presenting here, as I see it, will be when we're dealing with legislation and we get into the clause-by-clause. At that time, it's important that each party have equal opportunity to speak and that it's not simply back and forth. Maybe during our debate we can accommodate—

Ms. Paddy Torsney: On a point of order, I was making a motion to amend the motion that's before us on the table—

An hon. member: You don't have a seconder. Get a seconder.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: —and I think Mr. Elley wanted to second that motion that it would go to the steering committee, which means you need to take a vote on that right now.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: You can only deal with one motion at a time.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I just amended the motion, and the motion kicks in that it needs to be voted on.

An hon. member: You're out of order.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The clerk informs me that this is not a sub- amendment. Perhaps someone would care to add something to this?

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I just want all the members to consider this. When we get to the clause-by-clause, it's important that every party be able to present their points in the clause-by-clause discussion. Maybe during the run of the regular meetings, we can go more back and forth, and if there are governments who would care to speak, that will give them more of an opportunity to. But when we get to the legislation and the clause-by-clause, it's very important that we continue with the old system, where every party has equal opportunity to speak.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

[Translation]

Mr. Wilfert, followed by Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I would support Mr. Bryden's motion for two reasons.

One, what is being suggested does not preclude what Mr. Keddy is asking. As long as the chair is judicious in making sure that the time allocations are adhered to, there should be no difficulty.

Number two, clearly not everyone has comments or questions on everything; therefore it would proceed accordingly. Obviously when you have four questions on one side and one on the other, and then you go back to four and then to one, and then go back to four and to one, it does make you question the relevance of sitting on this side of the table. Other committees, I've noticed, go back and forth.

But Mr. Keddy, the issue is one of time allocation. As long as the allocation is adhered to by the chair, there's no problem. We should try that.

As for the issue of having it go to the steering committee, that was done in the past, and obviously if it had been successful, we wouldn't have been debating it for the last 15 minutes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: I agree with Mr. Keddy's proposal. I would very much support that type of proposal on clause-by-clause, because it is very important that each party represent itself when it approaches legislation. I have no difficulty with that.

• 1210

That's the kind of flexibility we can have on a committee that really works well together. What we're proposing here—and in the other committees where we had it, it was excellent—is that opposition and government MPs work very well together on government operations. We have accomplished very good things. So it's just a matter of making sure that both sides across the table here have an opportunity to have input into the actual debates.

But when it comes to clause-by-clause, Mr. Keddy has a very good idea.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, the steering committee will debate your motion at 10 a.m. Thursday morning. Agreed?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Well, what's the general feeling? Would you rather I go to the steering committee, or would you like to do it now? It will have to be voted on regardless of whether it goes to the steering committee.

Why don't we vote on it now, and if we come to an impasse, then we can pick it up in the steering committee? Can I call a vote on the motion?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden, could you repeat your motion for the record so that it can be put to a vote?

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: That the chairman, in recognizing speakers during debate, first recognize a member from the official opposition, return to recognize a government member, and then return to the opposition side in the order—

The Chairman: To the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. John Bryden: Whatever is the correct order. Yes, of course it would be, according to the pecking order, and then return to the government side—in other words, alternate between the opposition and the government.

Mr. David Iftody: With a five-minute maximum.

Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure when I should do this, but I would like to see this go to the steering committee if it's not settled here.

Five-minute interventions are a little short. I would recommend seven minutes. I don't know whether to send that to the steering committee or whether we should settle that here, but the initial questioning should be a minimum of seven minutes.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, why don't we leave the minutes out of the motion? That is something that can be debated at the steering committee. All I want to do is establish the order of recognition of the members during debate.

Mr. Myron Thompson: I would call the question on the member's motion.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Bryden, you wish to establish a rotation for the future business of the committee, that is the official opposition, the Liberals— Let's start by deciding this.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Opposition first, Liberal, opposition, Liberal.

[Translation]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Do you still wish to move your motion?

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Well, there's no point in having it go to steering committee, but I would like to move the motion that there be 24 hours' consideration of every motion.

An hon. member: No way. That doesn't work.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: A motion has to be tabled 24 hours before it comes to committee. That is actually what's done on most committees.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Perhaps our clerk, who has some experience with these matters, could help out.

[English]

The Clerk: It's the same thing. It's something that should be decided on by the committee. Some committees have notice for their motions; others don't. It's something that has to be decided amongst you. I'd suggest it go to the steering committee.

Some committees have notice periods; some don't. It's not an obligation in committees, as it is in the House. It's up to you.

An hon. member:

[Inaudible—Editor].

The Clerk: Yes, well, the justice committee decided that. It's up to you.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: It was done in this committee in the past as well.

An hon. member: Was that the practice?

A voice: Yes.

An hon. member: Then I will defer to the parliamentary secretary.

• 1215

[Translation]

The Chairman: We still need to consider the matter of the seven minutes suggested by the member.

Mr. Keddy.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I think I interrupted. You were going to call the motion.

As for the point on 24 hours' notice for every motion, we've never done that in the past, and I don't see the reason for it whatsoever. It takes away the ability of the committee to do its work and come back. We have enough meetings without having 24 hours' notice every time.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Bachand, followed by Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I sense a change of attitude on the part of this committee. I have been a member since 1993, and we always managed, with the help of the Chair, to agree on procedural matters.

I am somewhat disappointed that efforts are being made to railroad us on this point. My concern is that we will spend more time on procedural matters then we will on examining the substance of issues, as certain committees do.

Regarding the 24-hour notification motion, I have some statistics for you Seven out of 20 committees require 48-hour notification, while two out of 20 require 24-hour notification. This means that 11 committees out of 20 have no set rule.

I would prefer it if we remained as flexible as possible. We have a Liberal majority. If I table a motion and the majority does not support it, then it will be defeated. What difference does it make if we require 24-hour or 48-hour notification?

I think this motion should quite simply be withdrawn. I don't think my colleagues should get bogged down in procedure. If they start to, then I will also do it and we will sidestep the real issues.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bachand. You've made a good point, especially given that we voted on a motion from Mr. Bryden, without the proper 24-hour advance notice. I appreciate your giving me the facts, as far as the different committees are concerned. I see that you have good research officers.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Very good indeed.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Maybe this is an issue we should refer to the steering committee for calm debate, because I agree with Mr. Bachand: we don't want to have our debates deteriorate into procedural wrangles.

I think the motion that was passed at this committee will be found by the members of the opposition to be a very constructive motion that will help this committee function very well. But to follow the lead of my colleague, who suggested that we should go to the steering committee on these other issues, I think that would be the better program.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: You didn't agree last time, but you agree with me now?

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, absolutely. I agree with it and I hear the arguments. Your point is very well taken. Having heard Mr. Bachand and you, I think it's absolutely appropriate that this should go to the steering committee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Bachand referred to the balanced approach we seem to have taken in the past. He indicated that this worked quite well and that we worked together for the welfare of all citizens from every province.

Is it agreed then that the steering committee will discuss this matter at 10 a.m. on Thursday morning?

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: I would just like to make one final point, since motives have been attributed to me. In fact this committee had 24-hour notification, and when a committee is re-struck and you're doing this whole process, you need to re-establish the same rules. So if it worked well before, and the committee worked well and everybody was happy, I can't imagine why you would oppose it at this point in time, or in steering committee.

But of course I would defer to the vice-chairs when they show up and have proper debate in steering committee so that you do have true representation of who is a member of this committee.

An hon. member: Yeah, right.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I agree with what Mr. Bachand has said, and I want to know what it is that's going to the steering committee. Is it the time, as Mr. Thompson indicated—whether it's five, six, or seven minutes on the first round? This was never a problem before, and I don't know why it should be now, but I'm prepared to look at any time that people want to suggest.

Is this 24-hour business part of it too? Because it certainly wasn't part of the operations of this committee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thursday morning, the steering committee will discuss the future business of the committee as well as the committee's proposed travelling schedule .

Mr. Elley.

• 1220

[English]

Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to move us on here. I move that the matter of time allocation and the matter of a 24-hour notice of motion be referred to the steering committee to come back at the next meeting with a report.

Mr. John Finlay: Seconded.

[Translation]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The steering committee will meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday morning in the same room.

In any case, the room number will appear in the notice of meeting that will be sent to each member.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney: And now we have a motion to adjourn.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.