HERI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 28, 1999

• 1105

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum. Your first item of business is the election of the chair.

[Translation]

I am ready to entertain motions.

[English]

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): I move Clifford Lincoln as chairman.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Are members agreed?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: Mr. Lincoln, you are invited to take the Chair.

The Chairman (Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)): Thank you very much for this show of confidence. I've never before seen so many members in attendance. I hope this bodes well for the future.

Mr. Raymond Lavigne (Verdun—Saint-Henri, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, can I recount a very brief story?

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Mr. Raymond Lavigne: René Lévesque buys some cloth for a suit from a merchant on rue St-Laurent. He heads to France and takes the cloth to a French tailor. “Can you make me a suit out of this cloth?”, he asks the tailor who answers: “Mr. Lévesque, there is very little fabric here, barely enough to make you a waistcoat”. Mr. Lévesque regretfully leaves with the cloth in hand.

Next, he travels to Belgium and makes the same request of a Belgian tailor. The tailor eyes him and says: “Mr. Lévesque, there isn't enough fabric here to make you an entire suit, but I can make you a suit jacket”. Again, Mr. Lévesque leaves the tailor's shop with the suit cloth.

Finally, he goes to see an Italian tailor and makes the same request. The tailor answers him: “Why certainly, I can make you two pairs of pants, a jacket and a waistcoat”. Mr. Lévesque looks at him and asks: “How is it possible to do that with this small amount of fabric? The French tailor said he could only make me a waistcoat. The Belgian tailor said there was only enough cloth for a suit jacket. You're telling me that you can make me two pairs of pants, a jacket and a waistcoat. It doesn't make any sense. How is that possible”? To which the Italian tailor replied: “You know, in the eyes of the French, you are a very big man. The same is true of the Belgians. However, in the eyes of the Italians, you are just a little man.”

The Chairman: Well, that's starting us off on a positive note.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I hope you will maintain a little more order in future.

The Chairman: We're talking a holiday today because we're celebrating the election of the two vice-chairs.

[English]

I would like to go to item two, the election of two vice-chairs. I would like to entertain a motion.

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Ref.): I'd like to nominate Mr. Inky Mark for a position of vice-chair of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Mr. Mark, thank you for accepting. Congratulations.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

• 1110

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: We now proceed to the election of a second vice-chair. I'd like to entertain a motion.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would like to recommend Mr. Mills, but I do not believe it is a first and second vice-chair, is it? It's just a vice-chair position, as a point of clarification.

The Chair: That's correct.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Good. I would put forward Mr. Mills' name as vice-chair.

The Chair: Do I have other nominations? I take it Mr. Mills is nominated by unanimous consent.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now, we have a lot of motions before us. As you see, they are just routine motions. I should mention to you that these motions are taken from the exact type of motion we had last year. So they are routine motions, but anyway, we'll just take them one by one.

[Translation]

The first motion reads as follows:

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.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: Motion two reads:

That, the Chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the publication of evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least 3 members are present, including 1 member of the Opposition.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The third motion reads:

That, unless there is unanimous consent, twenty-four (24) hours' notice must be given to the members of the Committee before any new item of business be considered by the Committee.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Mr. Chair, I would move the motion with a slight change to “48 hours' notice”.

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I would like to move an amendment because I believe that 24 hours' notice is not sufficient.

The Chairman: In fact, I think 48 hours' notice was required last year.

The Clerk: That's right.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, although I wasn't a member of the committee at the time, I believe this provision had been amended last year to require only 24 hours' notice. I assumed on reading the text that the motion was to adopt the same practice as last year. I can't support an amendment that would change the situation in any way.

The Chairman: We need to choose between requiring 24 hours' or 48 hours' notice. Members will have to indicate which requirement they prefer.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): I thought we agreed on 24 hours' notice.

The Chairman: Right.

[English]

So there's a motion before us. Does any other member want to speak? Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: On the 24 hours, I can remember last year several occasions where members of the opposition party felt there wasn't enough time for some of the reports that came forward, and it's just for the benefit of everybody to go to 48 hours.

The Chair: If there's no other discussion, we'll just go for a vote and go from there. All in favour of Mr. Limoges' amendment that this be changed to 48 hours?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: We will now vote on the main motion, that there will be 48 hours' notice. We voted on the amendment; now we vote on the motion as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: The next one is as follows:

That, the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute, in their original language, documents received from the public and that the Clerk of the Committee ensure that such documents are translated and distributed as promptly as possible.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: To whom exactly do these provisions apply?

The Chairman: The clerk can clarify that for you.

The Clerk: This motion concerns documents presented to us by witnesses.

• 1115

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, since I was first elected in 1993, it's been traditional for most committees to see to it that documents are distributed to members in the official language of their choice, thereby allowing them to fully discharge their duties as parliamentarians.

The Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: However, I also realize that in some cases, committees have made exceptions to allow individual witnesses or small organizations which do not have translation services to table a unilingual document. Therefore, with your permission, I'd like to propose that we amend this motion by adding the following:

Documents received from government agencies or large organizations must be in both languages before they can be distributed to members.

That seems reasonable to me.

The Chairman: Yes. Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. de Savoye, does the term “government agencies” include all levels of government?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Including provincial governments?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Absolutely.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine.

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye, before I turn the floor over to Mr. Forseth, I'm just wondering if perhaps we shouldn't define “large organizations”. May I suggest that we substitute the expression “corporations”?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes, that's a good idea. I believe you have grasped my meaning.

The Chairman: Right.

[English]

Mr. Forseth.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you.

We've obviously had this difficulty in committee after committee. Often there's been a distinction between receiving documents from witnesses and the clerk distributing those documents to members of the committee. Often we have made it very clear that the committee will receive documents in either language, translated or not, but the barrier comes when they are officially distributed by the chair. Then they should be translated, and they're not distributed until they're translated. Generally that has been the rule.

To start distinguishing between who is going to table documents, whether they're large or small or whatever, I think, is a difficult distinction that just puts something more on the table for us to fight about. I would rather be prepared that the committee would receive documents from anyone in either language, but just before they are distributed by the chair, they are translated. That's the rule.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): I think what my colleague is amending is that the writers of the documents do the translating, not the committee.

The Chair: I don't think he was saying that necessarily. I don't think it should be—because there are some organizations that might be large but at the same time not have any facilities or something. I think it's been a tradition that the Library of Parliament ensures that documents are translated as far as possible within their powers.

Mr. Godfrey and Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): I agree with you and I'm trying to figure a way of amending this to reflect that: That the clerk of the committee be authorized to receive in their original language documents from the public and that the clerk of the committee ensure that such documents really are only distributed in both languages. Does that carry the—

The Chair: We distribute when translated.

• 1120

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes, you can receive them. You can submit them in any language, but we don't actually pass them out. We can't stop them, of course.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Is that alright with you, Mr. de Savoye?

[English]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: John, could you just repeat that so it is very clear to me?

[Translation]

Mr. John Godfrey:

That the Clerk be authorized to receive documents from the public in the original language and that these documents be circulated only when they exist in both official languages.

Therefore, documents won't be distributed until the clerk has them in both official languages. A witness can always make an oral presentation to the committee, but no written submissions will be circulated until they have been translated. Obviously, we can't stop the witness from distributing copies, but we won't do so ourselves.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with the principle, providing the message is sent to the people who are going to come before the committee so that their documents are received by us in due time for the translation. Otherwise, we run into the same problem we had in the past with hearing witnesses, where they bring documents in one language usually, in either French or English, and we have the same argument all over again.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just tell them that their document won't be distributed unless it's received in time to be translated, but that they can read from it.

Mr. Inky Mark: They should be told that, though.

Mr. John Godfrey: Yes.

An hon. member: They usually are.

The Chair: We have an amendment by Mr. Godfrey that the clerk of the committee receive the documents in their original language but they must be translated before distribution. That is the sense of the amendment, and the wording will be done.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I thought the amendment came from that gentlemen.

The Chair: You're prepared to make this amendment, Paul?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, I'll make it.

The Chair: So we'll make it in the name of Paul Forseth.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: Now for the next one:

That, at the discretion of the Chair, the time allocated for the questioning of witnesses...

It follows exactly what we had last year and it seemed to work okay.

Monsieur Limoges.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Mr. Lincoln, I have serious difficulty with that.

The Chair: Which one?

Mr. Rick Limoges: This one, the time allocated for questioning. First of all, it doesn't reflect the fact that we have a majority government here and that more than half of the people in this room are Liberals. Therefore, as a Liberal member, I could wait in excess of an hour before I get a chance to ask a question after the first question is asked. I believe that is inappropriate and does not reflect the reality of government on the Hill.

I would propose that we have an alternating question period, 10 minutes each, Liberal then Reform, Liberal then Bloc, Liberal then NDP, Liberal then PC, 10 minutes each, and then repeat that for round two at five minutes each. I would also add that delegations that make presentations before this committee should be limited to a five-minute presentation, to be expanded to 10 minutes at the discretion of the chair. I would so move.

The Chair: Mr. Limoges, before we go on to the discussion, let me just point this out. There's a strong tradition in all committees—and it has been almost entrenched—that the first speaking order is always given to the opposition. That's not just in this committee; it's in all the committees. It has been like this—

Mr. Rick Limoges: Not at the other committees I'm on.

The Chair: Pardon?

Mr. Rick Limoges: Every single committee of the House?

The Chair: Well, every one I've been on, anyway. If it's not so, I can tell you that it's the exception to the rule.

Here's what we did last year. When we talk about 10 minutes per party, we have one spokesperson only, who speaks during that 10 minutes for his or her party, in rotation, starting with the opposition and finishing with the Liberals, and the Liberals themselves elect who should speak.

This means that after the speaking order, every member has five minutes. That doesn't mean to say that the Liberals can't be the first on the list. There could be two Liberals in succession. There could be three Liberals in succession. Last year it seemed to work extremely well, I think.

Mr. Forseth, then Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I've been here since 1993. Looking at the rotations in justice committee and environment committee, it first of all starts with the official opposition for 10 minutes, then we go to the the Bloc for five minutes, then the Liberals for 10 minutes, back to Reform for five minutes, Liberals for five minutes, NDP for five minutes, Liberals for five, and then PCs for five. Then it goes beyond that. That's the system that works best, I think, and that most committees follow. To deviate from that starts frustration.

• 1125

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: When I read this, I see that the first round is by party and the second round is by member, so that the member equals out, because you can go backwards and forwards once you've done the initial 10-minute round. Then the number of people in the room starts to matter. If there are more Liberals, you have more members, right? Am I reading too much into this?

The Chair: Yes, that is the way it has been.

Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the status quo from the last year. As we've experienced here, we have to be flexible even with the questioning. Last year, a lot of times, the official opposition didn't use its 10 minutes. Maybe it had two questions and quick responses from the witnesses. I believe we had a good working relationship last year with the whole group and I think everyone was satisfied with and happy with how the chair operated throughout the year. I don't see any need for change.

The Chair: Monsieur de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Chair, I've been around since 1993, as many of us have. The way you've suggested is the way committees usually function best. I would be very disappointed if the motion in front of us were to be received, because it would be contrary to the traditions we have enjoyed since 1993. I won't support this motion. I will support yours.

Thank you.

An hon. member: The chair doesn't have a motion.

The Chair: I don't have any motion.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Mr. Muise.

Sorry, Paul.

Carry on, Mark, and then I'll go to—

Mr. Mark Muise: I could defer to my honourable colleague.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: In the spirit of all this.

Mr. Mark Muise: Of course.

The Chair: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: First of all, in regard to what Mr. Limoges is proposing for the second issue with regard to timeframes on speakers, I don't know if we should maybe soften that just a little bit, if we allow five minutes...we have groups coming in from Newfoundland, from the Yukon, from Victoria, and although we don't want them reading the script, which has been presented to us two or three days in advance, I think it is very difficult to limit them to five minutes. We had a little more latitude last time. It's simply very difficult, especially if you're receiving a panel of three witnesses, to say—

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Bonwick. That doesn't refer to the witnesses themselves.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: No, but Mr. Limoges put forward a motion that was twofold.

The Chair: I see.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: One was time allotment for members. Secondly, part of the same amendment was a time allocation for witnesses. That was five minutes per witness, or per deputation, if I understood it, with the discretion of the chair in allowing it to go to 10 minutes. I think that is far too brief in many cases. Quite often we did receive three or four witnesses at the same time. To ask them to split it up to 90 seconds or a minute per witness simply would not, I think, be effective for the purposes of the committee.

So in that regard I would ask that we give some consideration to maintaining the status quo, how we received our witnesses last year. I think it worked fairly well, other than giving a cautionary note, saying to witnesses to please not read the three or four pages that they have presented to us a week in advance or two days in advance; that happened quite regularly. We can all read quite nicely. Maybe they could just summarize their reports. If the clerk notifies them of that before they present, I think it would save a lot of time.

I do have issue with regard to the structure that we followed last year as far as the time allocation per party is concerned. I couldn't support Mr. Limoges' 10 minutes because at that point it would be 80 minutes or 90 minutes for the first round. When we take into consideration perhaps 20 minutes for a witness's presentation, there would very little time for a second round.

But I would suggest that Mr. Limoges is quite right in saying that we do comprise about 56% of the total committee and we are a majority in the House, yet we enjoy 20% of the time at committee. That does not appear, in my mind anyway, to be fair representation on the committee.

• 1130

A proposal I would make, subject to the defeat or passing of Mr. Limoges' motion, is that we do five minutes back and forth. I think we'll find we have better attendance as well. If I'm sitting here and I know Mr. Bélanger is going to speak for the Liberals in the first go-around, I know that in all likelihood I'm not going to be given an opportunity to speak for the first hour and a half, if in fact I'm given an opportunity to speak. So I'm more of an observer than I am a participant in the committee. That was happening on a regular basis last year.

So subject to Mr. Limoges' motion, I would suggest we do revisit the structure in order to make it more fair for all members concerned. We're not trying to make this partisan, and certainly I don't believe it was a partisan committee last year. But we all want to feel we're part of the process, and that was not the case on this side with the time allotment last year.

Mr. Rick Limoges: I would consider that a friendly amendment.

The Chair: Mr. Muise and then Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was extremely pleased two years ago when I came to this committee and saw the non-partisan way in which we were able to conduct our business. That was one of the surprises I was very happy to run across.

I would suggest we keep something similar to what we had last year, and if Mr. Limoges, after having sat with us for a number of weeks or months, sees that something should be changed, maybe he should recommend it then. But at this point we've shown goodwill and things have worked well, and I would suggest we keep what we have.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, a committee is only as effective as the chair. Fortunately we're blessed with an effective chairman.

I'm now entering my third year on the HRD committee, and I can tell you the clerk always brings a little clock. As long as the members adhere to 10 minutes and the witnesses to 10 minutes, and as long as the chairman ensures that, I have no difficulty with that. Afterward, I certainly agree with Mr. Limoges that the alternating of five minutes back and forth across the floor is not only important but necessary.

But again, I'd simply like to make sure of the timing, because I have been in some committees where there is absolutely no order and they ramble on forever. As long as we adhere to the timing, I don't see that there's going to be much of a problem.

[Translation]

The Chairman: You have something you'd like to say, Mr. Bélanger?

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with the colleagues who have been on the committee for a number of years. Mostly through your ability to conduct and keep order in debates, it has proven a fairly effective committee, devoid of needless partisanship. It's there when it needs to be.

As Mr. Muise suggested, if indeed after a couple of months we find out things are not as new members of the committee would rather see, I'd certainly be prepared to revisit it at that time. But for the time being, perhaps we should give it a try as it has been working, mostly.

I've noted Mr. Bonwick's comments, and I need not speak for this side of the table all the time.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: No, it wasn't meant for you. I just looked down at you at the end of the table.

The Chair: Mr. Breitkreuz and then Mr. Forseth, and then, if you're agreeable, we'll just move on.

Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: We acknowledge that the government has a majority in the House and a majority here as well. And of course in the House it's the opposition that gets the first questions, and that tradition should be transferred over to committee and work that way.

Mr. Paul Forseth: I would just like to separate the two issues that were on the table. One is the ordering of questioning, and the other issue is focused on the witnesses and their timing.

Making an estimation of five or ten minutes for the witnesses should be left in the hands of the executive committee when they're looking at the list. Sometimes we might decide to only receive one or two witnesses at a committee meeting. At other times, based on who the witnesses are, we may have five scheduled. So as we build the list, we will be studying how much time is going to be made. If we have a departmental official making a major presentation, we're not going to limit them to five minutes; we'll give them the whole committee time. So that issue should be off the table and left with the executive committee.

• 1135

Coming back to the other matter of the rotation, the official opposition goes first, and then we go back and forth. But as to the relative time, whether it's five minutes, eight minutes, or ten minutes, we have to leave that sometimes to the discretion of the chair and just leave it at that.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey, and then we'll close.

Mr. John Godfrey: I was just doing some calculating. If we have a two-hour meeting and we allow 20 minutes for opening presentations and hello and hi and you're late and all that sort of stuff, that leaves 100 minutes left over. If you go with the first round of ten minutes for the five parties, that takes half of your 100 minutes, which distributes to 40-10. Then you add on five minutes, five minutes, five minutes, and five minutes. At the end of your 100 minutes, 65 minutes have gone to the opposition and 35 to the government. If, however, you were to start your opening round with five minutes of questioning by each party, just change that initial thing from ten minutes to five minutes, then it nets out at roughly—I'm not very good at dividing 70 by 2—but anyway the proportion changes—

An hon. member: It's 35.

Mr. John Godfrey: All right. Anyway, it roughly comes out to—and I know it doesn't add up to 100 and I'm embarrassed—about 55 minutes for the opposition and about 40 for the Liberals, which seems kind of closer in numbers. It's rough. But all it means is that you have to be a little bit briefer in your opening round, but everybody gets the opening round in a row. You only get five minutes on the government side as well on the opening round, and then you move to the... Just a thought. I'm just here to serve.

The Chair: Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: The experience I have is that the first round allows every party to have a ten-minute conversation with the witness. Most of the time, as a matter of fact, it's not the question that is long, it's the witness that is long.

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: It would be very difficult to try to get this shorter without impeding the very communication we want to have with the witness. We would be rendering ourselves a disservice.

Then after the first round it's on a “who has a question” basis. As a matter of fact, I've seen in some committees a couple of Liberals in a row asking questions before an opposition member comes with a question. In the end it balances out nicely, because what are we after? We're after information from the witness. We don't want exposure. There are no TV cameras in here—well, sometimes, but not most of the time. What we want is to extract some useful information from the witness. I think we've been getting that result meeting after meeting most of the time in a very orderly and productive fashion.

So I really go as John is saying. Let's have a mix of both, first, the opposition parties and then the government. That will respect the way the House usually operates. Then go on an individual basis, and that gives an opportunity to everyone on an equal basis. This has worked in all committees since 1993. It still worked a few months ago, and it should still work again. Anything else could just prove less fruitful, and we would have lost the wisdom we had developed from the past.

The Chair: Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to reiterate the point that for the official opposition to use the ten minutes, what does that really mean? Does that mean I use the whole ten minutes to ask the question? In the past I haven't done that. My question has always been very brief. But again, as my colleague has indicated, it's the answer part that's important. I still believe that with an effective chair and a committed committee that works cooperatively, this will not be a problem. I didn't find it to be a problem last year. Everyone worked well together, and I just don't see why we need to start off on this kind of footing.

The Chair: Did you want to say something, Alex?

Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Sure, why not? Everybody else has had something to say.

I sympathize with Mr. Godfrey's point of view, because we're already acknowledging that this methodology has a tendency to skew the debate toward the opposition parties, and maybe there's an argument for that. I suppose if the committee worked beyond the party structure, we wouldn't have the first round of debate in the first place. So to diminish the partisan aspect that exists within the committee system, it may well be argued that we should reduce the ten minutes to five minutes. I think the result is that it's still skewed, but it's not skewed as badly as it was. So I would sympathize with that sort of an amendment.

• 1140

The Chair: We'll go next to Mr. Limoges, and then I think we have to cut it off and go on.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Thank you.

It was my intention to reflect the composition of the committee. Whether we start out with a ten-minute round or a five-minute round really doesn't matter, only that I believe we ought to be alternating. If the opposition starts, that's fine, but then it ought to go from one side of the table to the other, alternating questions. In that way each side gets a representative amount. In fact we would still be at a slight disadvantage, only getting 50% of the time. I believe that would be the appropriate way to go. So that was in fact my intention, whether it's ten minutes or five. The ten-minute period reflects the ability of the question to actually allow the delegation to expand upon the points they made in their presentation and to get their point across if they didn't have enough time in their initial presentation. It's strictly in the sense of proper representation on either side, firstly, and, secondly, getting the information from the delegation in the most appropriate way. So that was my intention.

The Chair: Okay. I think we've had enough discussion.

The way I see it is that Mr. Limoges has agreed to a friendly amendment by Mr. Bonwick. The sense of Mr. Bonwick's amendment is that instead of the ten minutes at first, we make it five, and then carry on alternatively at five.

The other side of the story is the motion we now have before us, that is, ten minutes to start with for each party, starting with the opposition parties, then the Liberals. I remind you that last year we had a rotation amongst the Liberals, but I can see Mr. Bonwick's point as well. Then five minutes for individual members—

Mr. Paul Forseth: Are you saying we have two motions on the floor, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: No. You agreed to have Mr. Bonwick substitute a friendly amendment. We always start with an amendment. We'll start with him, and if that is defeated or won, we'll then proceed with the amended motion. So there's only one amendment so far that we'll vote on—

Mr. Paul Forseth: So what you were describing was not on the floor, then, but what was done last year.

The Chair: You said you were ready to consider a friendly amendment by Mr. Bonwick—

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's correct.

The Chair: —so we are going to consider that.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

The Chair: So that amendment says that instead of ten minutes there, we would change it to five minutes. The rest stays the same. We'll vote on that. If that gets defeated, then we go back to the ten minutes and to the original amendment. If it wins, then we'll vote on the amended motion, and then it'll be five minutes, five minutes.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Is that well understood? We'll start with the friendly amendment proposed by Mr. Bonwick, that at the discretion of the chair the time allocated for the questioning of witnesses consist of...and instead of ten minutes we have an amendment that says five minutes, and then five minutes afterwards per individual member. So we'll start with that. Depending on the outcome of that, we'll go back to ten minutes, or it gets defeated regardless.

We'll make it a joint amendment by Mr. Limoges and Mr. Bonwick, and we'll now vote on that.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Now we have the motion left on the floor. The amendment has been defeated, so it stays like it is. So we're going to vote on that.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1145

The Chair: Let me just say this because of the new members. I think Mr. Wilfert made a very important point, and so did Paul Bonwick and Mr. Limoges. I've never been a stickler on time except when it goes too long. Certainly I've been trying to press people to keep within their time limit and at the same time to rotate as much as possible to give an equal chance. I think people on the opposition side have been extremely liberal, if I might say—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: —and we haven't had any problems. I can assure you I'll do whatever I can to make it so that members get a chance. I'm very conscious of what Mr. Bonwick said because I didn't realize that before, that a member could wait here for 45 or 50 minutes before he has a chance to speak. So we'll all have to make sure that we've tried. If it doesn't work, then we'll go back to another resolution a little later.

The next motion is as follows:

That, the transcript of all in camera meetings be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Next:

That, at the discretion of the Chairman, reasonable travelling expenses, as per the regulation established by the Board of Internal Economy, be paid to witnesses invited to appear before the Committee, and that for such attainment of expenses a limit of two (2) representatives per organization be established.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The next motion reads:

That, when the committee holds working sessions during meal hours, the cost of meals be charged to the Committee.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: What other motions are there?

Mr. Paul Forseth: That the subcommittee on procedure and agenda be composed of the chair, two vice-chairs, one member of the Bloc, one NDP, and one PC.

The Chair: Where do you see that?

A voice: It's not on.

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Mark.

Mr. Inky Mark: May I propose that we exercise the same process we had last year regarding Order in Council appointments, that the names be circulated to members of the committee. Does anyone have a problem with that?

The Chair: It's automatic, but if you want a motion on it, sure.

Mr. Inky Mark: What happened last year was that it wasn't automatic; we actually wrote a resolution to that point.

The Chair: All right. So there's a motion by Mr. Mark that we circulate all Order in Council appointments relevant to the committee.

I think this is just a routine matter. If we want to clear this up, I'm going to ask for unanimous consent that we'll present this thing, because we do it anyway.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Just before we move on, while people are here, I would suggest that, as soon as possible if you are agreeable, we invite the deputy minister of the department, who is new, Mr. Himmelfarb, to give us his views and orientation so the members have a chance to question him. Also, last year, as you recall, we had twice invited the National Arts Centre and they were proceeding with a work plan. They just started the work plan the second meeting, so we might invite them again, if it's agreeable. These are items that we could be discussing as part of our work for later.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly support inviting the new deputy minister of the Department of Canadian Heritage to start with, and as for the rest, let's give ourselves a chance to have every member suggest what they wish, so that we can act on this first one at least right away.

• 1150

The Chair: Sure. At this point, as soon as possible, could you give us your suggestions as to what you would like to see the committee attend to early in time. We have to start a schedule of work, so perhaps you could file it with the clerk or let me know.

Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: This is on a topic that I've seen happen on numerous occasions when we get close to the end. We have legislation that's going to be coming before us again, and I would like us not to box ourselves in so that we're pressed to deal with a piece of legislation in two days or can't see the witnesses that we should. We know we have legislation coming. Let's give ourselves some time to deal with it so we are not at the end and I have to scream and you have to sit me down.

The Chair: The parliamentary secretary is taking due note.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr. Chair, if I could, there is a report that we tabled in the House and I believe the 150-day period for response is coming. Should we not actually have the minister come in at that time and address the government's report?

The Chair: It's a good thing you raised it, because I had forgotten to say that the response of the government is going to be coming very soon. As soon as a response becomes official, certainly that would be really a good idea.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you. Just so you can put on the agenda to actually have the minister come before us.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Godfrey: What will be the normal meeting times?

The Chair: I guess last year we met on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock, and this was a time that people agreed to last year. Is that agreeable generally, 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I'm the vice-chair for the human resources, and that's Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 to 1 o'clock. Of course, I'm no stranger to that. I've had the same problem for the last two years. It really lightens the workload when you have one committee and then you have to decide which one if there are votes. I think my colleague here is in the same boat.

The Chair: Okay, for the time being it's Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The meeting is adjourned.