NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 9, 1997

• 1537

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): I want to welcome the members of the committee.

[English]

The last time we met we didn't have time to finish all our routine motions, so that is what I would like to do this afternoon. As you know, every committee has its routine motions, and we aren't different.

I think everybody has the motions in front of them. We have seven items on the agenda. The first is the appointment of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. If you will permit me, maybe we could keep that one for last, because we could have long discussions on it. We could go through the easy motions and come back to that one afterward. Is everybody agreeable to that?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

Point 2, 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 chairman.

[English]

In English, it's 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 chairman.

Is there a mover? Mr. O'Reilly.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Next is witness expenses. Is it okay if we dispense with the reading of this? Is there a mover? Mr. Price.

Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings

The Chairman: Order in council appointments. Mover?

• 1540

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): Could I make a clarification on this before we move it? Could we clarify that we're to circulate a copy of the resumé to each member in a timely fashion?

The Chairman: I think that as soon as we have them they will be distributed to the members.

The clerk was just informing me that he has it for Mr. Baril, so as soon as we pass this motion it will be handed out to all the members.

Mover?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): So moved.

Motion agreed to

[Translation]

The Chairman: We shall now go on to point 5, Meeting in the Absence of a Quorum.

[English]

I know that in some instances we have witnesses here who have travelled very extensively and they are waiting to give their statements. Sometimes, because of unforeseen circumstances, we don't always have a quorum. I know that in some committees they have put three members with at least one of them being from the opposition. Generally—

Mr. Peter Goldring: Could I make a motion that we have five members present, two of the members being of the opposition?

The Chairman: Five?

Mr. Peter Goldring: At least five.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): We agree with that.

[English]

An hon. member: It's quite normal.

The Chairman: I know.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): If you lose your quorum, the meeting's over.

Mr. Peter Goldring: There are 16 members on the committee. I think we owe it to them: five members, two of them being from the opposition, as a minimum for a quorum. It's quite normal.

The Chairman: I'm open to anything. What I want to make sure of is that if we put down five, two being from the opposition, then there will be two from the opposition and three from the government side. I don't want to be sitting here with witnesses waiting for 15 or 20 minutes to testify. If that's perfectly understandable to everybody, then I'm open to it.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Out of four opposition parties, I believe that we should be able to field at least two.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): I'm a visitor here, but I've been here before. From my experience, on a good day you may have trouble raising two opposition members. It means that your witnesses then are sitting there doing nothing and you're running around trying to find people, especially in the situation we find ourselves in now.

I know there are 16 members of each committee. That doesn't guarantee that you are going to be able to raise five, because they've got overlapping duties.

I think three is a reasonable number. That's not my recommendation; I'm simply talking from experience.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I think with 16 members—

The Chairman: How about if we agree with what you say, but in the event that there are not two members from the opposition, after 15 minutes we go ahead and hear the witnesses?

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I have only one comment to make on that. My colleague opposite seemed afraid that there might not be two opposition representatives.

The Chairman: No, no.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I would simply like to provide an explanation. As my colleague was saying, since there are four parties, the opposition should be able to produce two representatives. So, I don't think this should be a matter of concern for anyone. On our side, we commit ourselves to doing our share to ensure that there be at least two representatives from the opposition. So the government party should name three representatives.

The Chairman: Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): I think that a responsible opposition is behind that kind of proposal. If this proposal has been accepted by several other committees, it is hard to see why our committee might not also accept it as a valid solution.

• 1545

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): This is a rare occurrence in the House, but it happens and it has to come up in every committee. It generally comes up in dealing with weather or other things that take place within parties and cause it to take place. When a person is only giving witness, there is no vote, and there is no commitment of one side to the party, it just goes on the record of the committee that we've heard this witness, what that person wanted to say is on record, and we can draw it forward from the minutes of the committee and examine it when we're on the ground. So it's not decision making. It's not policy making. It's just allowing those people to go on record with their opinions.

Because of the members of Parliament not being here, the witness is denied testimony. Then they have to go back to wherever they came from. That has happened at least three or four times in the last three or four years. It's an embarrassment.

[Translation]

The Chairman: That is what we want to avoid.

[English]

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): May I make a suggestion? Maybe what we could do is just try it. We can always change it if it doesn't work. The only reason I felt strongly about having five was the fact that you get a witness in here who has probably come from a long distance and it's a lack of respect if we have just a couple of people around the table. That's the only thing I saw.

The Chairman: I totally agree with what you say, but what would be more embarrassing, as John was saying, is if they have travelled long distances and we don't have three on the government side or we don't have two from the opposition. If we put in the 15 minutes, we wait, and if nobody shows up after 15 minutes, then the witness can give his or her statement.

Mr. David Price: I would go along with that direction.

Mr. John O'Reilly: During the last Parliament we had trouble drawing opposition members to the committees. In one instance in one of the committees I chaired, the bells went off and everyone left. I paired off with one of the opposition members and stayed so the testimony could be heard. They came from all across Canada. There were seven witnesses at a committee, and they had travelled from all across Canada. If we didn't hear their witness it really would have been discourteous.

That's all we're trying to avoid. There is no agenda here to do anything but hopefully maintain that we can't start a meeting without a quorum. If we have witnesses, we want to be able to have them recorded in the evidence, have them give their testimony, and make sure they go away knowing they were heard. It doesn't matter how many people are at the table.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Chairman, I sat on defence the last time, and I have to tell you there was a great deal of interest. We never had a small turnout at any time. As everyone knows, there was a great deal of interest around the table because of the situation with defence and the veterans.

I will go along with what David has said, or what the chair has said. If the five aren't there after 15 minutes, then you can proceed, because it would be an insult to the people.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Five is the number. If they are not here, then you proceed.

Mr. Peter Goldring: What if we had the five-two for the first fifteen minutes and after the first fifteen minutes we went to three? In other words, after fifteen minutes we would always have one member from the opposition.

Mr. Richard Marceau: So we make sure there is—

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I simply want to ensure that it will always be someone from the opposition.

The Chairman: Do we agree on this? Do you want to propose a motion, Mr. Clouthier?

[English]

Is everyone favour of the motion as amended?

Motion agreed to—See Minutes of Proceedings

The Chairman: Item 6, opening statements and questioning of witnesses.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I move that the allotment be five minutes for the opening statement, five minutes for the next part, and five minutes—five minutes, five minutes, and five minutes—but according to the representation in the House rather than at the discretion of the chair.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, I don't understand. Just five minutes for the presentation?

• 1550

Mr. John O'Reilly: It can't be done.

Mr. Peter Goldring: It should be ten minutes for the presentation, I think.

Mr. John O'Reilly: You can't bring somebody all across Canada and then listen to him for five minutes.

The Chairman: We are scheduled here for two hours in our regular time slots, from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. I know that in some other committees we have given them 20 minutes to make their presentations.

Mr. Peter Goldring: Make it ten minutes on the presentation, and then five and five.

The Chairman: I'd like to hear some more comments on this.

[Translation]

Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I think it should be ten, five and five. The first witness should have ten minutes for his presentation, and then the first speaker would have five minutes, as well as each of the other speakers.

However, I would support my colleague insofar as representation in the House is concerned.

[English]

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Certainly those who are coming before us as witnesses for defence and the veterans will need a lot more than 5 minutes, and 20 minutes is usually the maximum. Most of them are preparing for 20 minutes. No matter where you go to speak, it's 20 minutes, because anything less than 20 minutes is an insult to them.

Mr. John O'Reilly: In the past we have allowed witnesses 20 minutes to make their presentations. On the questioning of the witnesses after, the latitude goes to the person giving the answer, which is the witness. So we have made it a habit that if you have five or six questions, you ask them all at once. The witness replies, and then they go over the time. You don't go over as a speaker.

The questioning of witnesses is very important, but the presentation is even more important so that we understand the content they are trying to lay before us. Twenty minutes sometimes is not enough if the subject can't be broached in that time, particularly when you're dealing with veterans.

The Chairman: For those of us who were here in the last Parliament, I remember some of the briefings we had when we were doing the work on the quality of life for the Canadian Armed Forces. Some of those technical briefings were long. I would have appreciated five minutes, but you have to give them time to give their material.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I agree. I think that 10 minutes would be an insult to these people. For any deputation, when they've come a long way on matters that are as critical as national defence and veterans affairs, I think 20 minutes is appropriate. From time to time, given the presentation, we may even be able to extend that somewhat. I would not support anything less than 20 minutes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Turp.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Twenty minutes seems very long to me. This morning we were at the Foreign Affairs and International Trade Standing Committee and there were five witnesses. This would mean 120 or 100 minutes. That is too much.

The Chairman: No, no. It's 20 minutes altogether.

Mr. Daniel Turp: For all of the witnesses?

The Chairman: For all of the witnesses.

Mr. Daniel Turp: In any case, 20 minutes seems like a long time. Your attention starts to wander after 20 minutes. It would be better to reserve more time for dialogue.

It seems to me that in other committees we agreed on 10 or 15 minutes at the most. This committee should not adopt a different procedure.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: Could the 20-minute presentation be given to the clerk? I agree with possibly 15 minutes for the other part, but the presentation itself can be presented to the clerk for everybody to read outside of the meeting. But the actual time on it would be 15 minutes.

Mr. John O'Reilly: They will circulate it to us at the meeting. If the military are making a presentation to us, they provide us with their presentation.

The Chairman: I think we will put the time of presentation to a vote.

All those in favour of the time for presentation being 10 minutes? All those against? All those in favour of 20 minutes being the time of presentation? All those against? Carried. It will be 20 minutes.

Now for questioning.

• 1555

Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Chairman, I think we should honour the opposition request of five minutes for each questioner on the first round at least and not have such long, drawn-out first questions, so everyone has a chance to answer their question. So I move that we allow each party a five-minute question period. Then I believe, Mr. Chairman, you can let them go to a two-minute once the five minutes are used up.

The Chairman: What I would suggest is that all the parties get five minutes and then after that, at the discretion of the chair, if I see somebody wants to ask a question or something...and the length also.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: I don't understand what you are proposing. Would that be the case for every other speaker?

The Chairman: During the first round, all the parties have five minutes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: Okay, but what happens after that?

The Chairman: After that, it is left up to the Chair's discretion. If I see for instance that you want to ask another question, I put your name down on my list and afterwards...

Mr. Daniel Turp: You are not proposing a certain number of minutes for these other comments?

The Chairman: It will depend a lot on how much time we have left.

Mr. Daniel Turp: I believe the other committees have proposed five-minute periods...

The Chairman: For the first round of questions.

Mr. Daniel Turp: For the second one.

The Chairman: It is up to us to decide how we want to work.

Mr. Price, do you have something to add?

Mr. David Price: I simply wanted to say that it should be five minutes at the most. If we leave it open-ended, the question may take more than five minutes.

The Chairman: Five minutes, that's for the first round.

Mr. David Price: I'm referring, rather, to the second round. You are talking about leaving that open-ended.

The Chairman: I think you can trust me. I will divide up the time in such a way that each party will have enough time to ask questions.

[English]

Mr. Ivan Grose: Mr. Chairman, again I'm a fill-in here, but this is the fourth committee on which I've gone through this. I believe what you should do, and what has been done in the other three committees where we've made this rule, is that whatever number of minutes you pick—in one committee it was eight, in another it was five—there should be five minutes for each member present at the start. Then you go on at the discretion of the chair. Otherwise you're going to get into a situation where you're accused of favouritism.

The Chairman: The way we worked in the 35th Parliament was that every party would get five minutes. If one day there are nine Liberals and we get one from the opposition, it means our side would get forty-five minutes and their side would get only five minutes. If we give it five minutes per party and then we come back to the second round, and if I see those who want to ask questions, we can pick it up from there.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Chairman, of all the committees we had in the last Parliament, this was the most non-partisan, because we were dealing with items that weren't necessarily partisan items. We found it to be a fact that sometimes the questioning of the opposition party, sometimes the questions from your own side, would prompt a question from a member and we would go back and do individual questions. It's generally a very non-partisan type of committee, more than the ones that have been dealt with previously.

The Chairman: You're right, John, and I remember circumstances where a person from the Liberal side would be asking a question and we would get a raising of a hand from the opposition party just to add a supplementary question, and the chair would allow it.

Mr. John O'Reilly: We had in the last Parliament Mr. Frazer, Mr. Ringma, and Mr. Hart, all of whom had long military service experience. Sometimes their questions cut right to the chase and were very good questions. People who hadn't had military service tended to let them ask more questions, because they knew the subject.

I think you'll find this committee should be less partisan in those respects.

• 1600

The Chairman: Mr. Turp.

[Translation]

Mr. Daniel Turp: It is not a matter of partisanship to want to have a good framework for debate. It seems to me, as our friend has suggested, that a five-minute maximum is what we need, because interventions of more than five minutes...

The Chairman: For the first round or the second round?

Mr. Daniel Turp: For the second round, you could at your discretion set a five-minute maximum. It could be a bit less, but you would have that five-minute maximum. In that way, we could hear more speakers.

After having heard a colleague speak during five minutes, you've had enough; you want to hear what the witness has to say.

The Chairman: One moment. The five minutes must include the question and the reply. If you need four minutes and forty seconds to ask your question, the witness will only have 20 seconds to answer. In fact, I have asked the clerk to get me a chronometer. Since there are five parties, I can assure you that I will be watching this very closely.

Mr. Richard Marceau: I think that everyone is in agreement on this.

The Chairman: Do we need to vote if you are all in agreement?

So, for the first round it will be five minutes, and for the second, the decision will be made at the discretion of the Chair.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring: I had made a motion that it be not at the discretion of the chair but by representation of the House.

The Chairman: We can vote on that. Could you repeat that, please?

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's not at the discretion of the chair but by representation in the House, for the second round.

The Chairman: If we go by what you say, the government side would get most of the questions on the second turn.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): We would get all of them. Thank you.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I suggest we vote on it. I think we're going to get an answer immediately. Then put a new one on the table.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The question has been called for.

Mr. Richard Marceau: It is ten, five and five minutes that we must write in the blank spaces?

The Chairman: No, it's twenty, five and five minutes.

Mr. Daniel Turp: The last one is five minutes? I did understand you correctly?

The Chairman: No. The first round will be a five-minute round and the second will be at the discretion of the chairman.

[English]

Mr. John O'Reilly: That means you take a list.

The Chairman: I take a list—

Mr. John O'Reilly: You take a list of names in the second round—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That may be the second motion. What we're dealing with now is the first motion. I think we should get that disposed of first.

The Chairman: We will deal with Mr. Goldring's—

Mr. Peter Goldring: It's much like in question period. So rather than take discretion—

The Chairman: We'll vote on it. All those in favour of Mr. Goldring's motion, as party representation...?

Motion negatived

The Chairman: On the other motion, at the discretion of the chair.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That's 25 and discretion.

The Chairman: Yes.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Now we come back to item 1, the appointment of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. There is the chair, there are the two vice-chairs and the two PS's from defence and from veterans affairs. Do you feel we need more people on there?

Mr. John O'Reilly: You would have only one opposition member. I think you should have more opposition members than one.

Mr. John Richardson: It's two from the government and two from the opposition, isn't it?

Mr. John O'Reilly: You have the chair, the two vice-chairs, and the two parliamentary secretaries. That leaves only one opposition member.

• 1605

The Chairman: I'm open here.

Mr. David Price: I suggest that there be one from each of the opposition parties.

The Chairman: So we would have....

Mr. John Richardson: Four from foreign affairs, four from defence.

We're talking about the steering committee? Oh, I'm looking at something else here.

Mr. Peter Goldring: If we haven't the members from the opposition, do we need the parliamentary secretaries—I mean, to keep it small?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. John O'Reilly: They are the key to getting the answers.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Sub- Committee on Agenda and Procedure be made up of the following members: the chairman, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretaries and a representative from each opposition party who is not a member of the subcommittee as described above.

[English]

We're up to eight.

[Translation]

As we said on several occasions, it is an important committee. I agree with Mr. Price that each opposition party must be represented on the steering committee.

I agree that we are up to eight members. The situation has been that, quite frequently, there have been seven people here. What is different is that we have two parliamentary secretaries. I don't see why the opposition party should be deprived of a voice on the steering committee because there are two parliamentary secretaries rather than one.

[English]

Mr. Ivan Grose: In the interest of trying to be helpful, and as an old, jaded veteran of one term before this, I would suggest to my new colleagues to take a good look at all the people here today. You are probably never going to see them all together at one time again.

You're talking about having eight members on the steering committee. You'll be lucky if you can get three or four people out at a time. What party they come from doesn't always mean anything either. So stop worrying about these numbers, because you will not all be back together again at one time.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, once again, I would say to my colleague in all friendship that he can deal with the Liberal side and we members of the opposition will ensure that our people are present. He always seems to be saying that the opposition is not sufficiently responsible to ensure that someone will represent us every time. As opposition parties, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Party commit themselves to sending someone. I would like us to pass the motion stating that there will be eight members. A motion was made to that effect.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Goldring, you had something to add.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I just want to repeat again: to control the size of this, do we need the parliamentary secretaries? Why?

The Chairman: A point of clarification here. Everything said or decided in the steering committee has to be brought back to the committee for ratification or to be accepted. It's just getting together and telling the committee what we should be looking at. It's not a decision-making body; it's more of a consultative group.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Could we have the vote?

[English]

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I agree that the subcommittee is a consultative group, but you won't be able to consult us if we're not there. Accordingly, I think there should be one representative from each of the parties on the steering committee.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm curious, because I'm new at this. If they are not there, does that mean the subcommittee can't meet?

The Chairman: No, we meet anyway.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So they are entitled to send one, but if they should not appear, things can go on.

The Chairman: We go ahead anyway. A quorum is five.

• 1610

Mrs. Judi Longfield: A quorum would be five on the.... That doesn't bother me quite as much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Marceau, could you reread your proposal, please?

Mr. Richard Marceau: Yes. The text is there. Since one of the two vice-chairs will be from the Reform Party... I have a question for you. Can we name the parties when drafting such a proposal, since one of the vice-chairs will be from the Reform Party, and talk about the need to have a representative from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservative Party?

The Chairman: All those in favour of the motion please signify.

[English]

All those in favour.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Of what?

The Chairman: I'll repeat it in English. What Mr. Marceau is suggesting is that the steering committee be made up of the two vice-chairs, the chair, the two PS's, and one representative from each opposition party—one from the NDP, one from—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay.

The Chairman: Are we ready to vote on that?

Motion agreed to

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Mr. Chairman, may I present another motion that is not included in that text? I have made photocopies that I could distribute.

The Chairman: What is it about?

Mr. Richard Marceau: It is about the distribution of French and English versions of documents. I move that the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute the documents received only when they have been translated and exist in both official languages.

[English]

That the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only once they have been translated into both official languages.

Mr. John O'Reilly: On a point of order, the motion is out of order because it's already done on the committee.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Listen, I'll speak from my experience. Many of the groups who will come to appear before the committee won't necessarily have the funds needed to have their documents translated and will arrive here with documents in French or in English only. You can't ask them to...

I know that the clerk will ask them to send us the documentation they intend to present insofar as possible a few days ahead, precisely to allow the translation service to translate them, but it will be impossible if a group arrives at the last minute with documents; we can't turn them down on that basis.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Just as a matter of information, the Standing Committee on Agriculture has decided that it would.

The Chairman: The Standing Committee on Agriculture is free to decide how it will run its own affairs. As a francophone, I recommend that all documents be translated insofar as possible into the other official language, but very often, if I refer to my experience during the previous Parliament, this proves to be impossible.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Although my colleagues opposite seem to find me bothersome, I find the situation unacceptable for some members of the Bloc Québécois, who are not as fortunate as my colleague Mr. Turp and myself in that they don't have a good command of English, as well as for certain people who will come to the committee and do not speak English at all.

That is why I feel it is important, and even essential, in a country that claims to be bilingual, to see to it that the documents not be distributed unless they are in both languages. We will ask the witnesses who will be coming to testify before the committee to send their documents in advance so that we can have them translated. I don't think that is too much to ask. It is just a matter of fair play, to use a very British term.

The Chairman: But, Mr. Marceau, if you will allow me this comment, the opposite may also occur. Some groups who will appear here will present documentation in French only.

So there is a motion on the table.

[English]

There is a motion for a vote. Everybody except me has a copy.

• 1615

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Could you please apprise us of what has been done in the past with regard to this, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: As I was mentioning before, whenever the witnesses contact the clerk it is mentioned to them to send the documents ahead of time to be translated. But a lot of times witnesses will show up and will present documents in one language or another. If we have these people coming in from British Columbia, we can't say that they have to hang around for another two or three days in order to have those documents translated.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: I agree.

The Chairman: We try to accommodate everybody, but sometimes it's impossible.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I agree with the spirit of the proposal. My understanding is that in the past sometimes documents, presentations, were presented only in English or only in French. It may not be feasible, depending on where that party is coming from, for them to have been able to get that translated. Therefore, yes, the documents will be translated, but they will not be translated necessarily at the moment of the presentation. That's unfortunate, but the reality is that it depends on where they're coming from.

If we insist...I don't know that you can do that. You say that the clerk would indicate that it's advisable, that we would like to have them all done in both official languages. If you make it a hard and fast rule, then either you'll have people come who make the presentations or they won't.

If it's going to be a policy, though, I believe the policy would have to apply to every standing committee and it should not be just in this committee. I would say if you want to make it for every committee.... I don't know who does that, but....

The Chairman: The other thing is that whenever the clerk asks them for a copy of their presentation, we don't ask that they send the document translated, because a lot of the smaller groups don't have the money.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: They don't have the money.

The Chairman: So we just ask them to send it along, and we have a department here that does that.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Are you suggesting that under this motion, if they don't send it in advance—

The Chairman: Anyway, in my opinion we can't have that.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Yes.

Mrs. Elsie Wayne: We have translation here, and for whoever is making a presentation, if they bring their document in and it isn't translated into either English or French, they're here. They're addressing it. That's what they're doing. It's translated right on the spot for us. In the meantime, if it hasn't been translated on paper, it will be translated later. That applies to anglophones as well as francophones, and none of us have ever complained about that.

The Chairman: I think we've heard pretty well both sides.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'd like to make some closing remarks on this topic.

The Chairman: Very quickly.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Since we have a translation service here, we will ask the witnesses to send their documents in advance in order to have them translated. The only thing we will demand from the small groups you referred to is that they send their documents in advance in order that they be translated here.

The Chairman: We are already doing that.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Since we are already doing that, why not put in in writing by stating that the only obligation imposed on those groups will be to send us their documents in advance, in good time?

The Chairman: Quite often, for one reason or another, the witnesses do not send the documents, even though the clerk has asked them to, so that they can be translated. Would we go so far as to prevent those people from testifying? I think not.

Mr. Richard Marceau: It's a responsibility...

The Chairman: With respect, there is a motion we should vote on. [English]

I would like to vote on Mr. Marceau's motion, please.

Motion negatived

The Chairman: I guess that's it. We will meet on Tuesday after the break.

Mr. David Price: Maybe the steering committee can get together.

What about a subcommittee on veterans affairs? Should I propose that now? How does that go?

• 1620

The Chairman: I presume you will be the representative on the steering committee.

Mr. David Price: Yes.

The Chairman: It can be brought up at the steering committee.

Mr. David Price: Okay, that's fine.

The Chairman: Maybe what we could do is next Tuesday, in one week's time, instead of the whole committee meeting, have just the steering committee meet so we know where to go.

Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson: It's always been veterans affairs, and this has been our main committee. We've never set up a subcommittee, unless to study a specific area of responsibility and have it report back so we could have concurrent researching or seeking out through a subcommittee something to be brought back to committee. When you relegate veterans affairs to a subcommittee of this committee, it kind of puts them off to the side. If they have equal access.... As a matter of fact, through the year we do a lot of work with veterans affairs.

Mr. David Price: I wanted to be sure they weren't left aside.

Mr. John Richardson: No, they get front and centre.

The Chairman: Were you suggesting that we create another committee?

Mr. David Price: Yes...well, a subcommittee attached directly to here, naturally.

The Chairman: Well, it is something that can be brought up to the steering committee.

Mr. David Price: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is there anything else?

[English]

I'm sorry, I forgot to introduce the research staff who always follow the committee. I'm sorry about that.

[Translation]

I will now introduce our research assistants from the Library of Parliament. They are Mr. Wolfgang Koerner and Mr. Michel Rossignol. Don't hesitate to address your questions to them.

Thank you very much; until next time.

The meeting stands adjourned.