[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 7, 1996
.1107 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2), the first item of business is the election of a Chair.
[English]
I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Reed (Halton - Peel): I'd like to nominate Mr. Vanclief as chairman.
The Clerk: It's been moved by Mr. Reed that Lyle Vanclief do take the chair of this committee as chairperson. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: Congratulations, Mr. Vanclief.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead): Mr. Chairman, I see the first item of business on the agenda is to elect the vice-chairs. I would like to nominate Elwin Hermanson as the opposition vice-chair.
The Chairman: If I could make a clarification.... Election of the vice-chairs will be conducted as a motion. For a motion you don't make a nomination. So if you wish to change the wording....
Mr. Breitkreuz: I would like to make a motion that I nominate Elwin Hermanson for opposition vice-chair.
The Chairman: There is a motion. I will just make a comment to the member on my left. We can have only one motion on the floor at a time, so the chair will deal with the motion. If the motion is carried, naturally the motion is complete. If the motion is defeated, then there would have to be another motion to deal with the matter at hand.
I will make another comment. There is already another motion on the floor for first vice-chair of the committee. I will accept the motion when that process is completed. Then we will require a motion for the other vice-chair of the committee, to deal with that process, after which we will need motions for some other matters before the committee.
There is a motion on the floor that Mr. Hermanson be the vice-chair of the committee. I don't believe we can have a -
Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): A point of clarification. It has been mentioned,Mr. Chair, that over a period of time they want to ensure that these votes are above board per se. So I recommend that they be done in secret. So we would have a ballot.
.1110
The Chairman: There has been a suggestion that the voting on the motion be done by secret ballot. I'll leave that with you for a minute.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): Mr. Chairman, I would like to comment on my colleague's suggestion that we proceed in the usual manner, that is very secretively. Since being elected to the House of Commons, only once have I seen us hold a secret vote, and that was when we elected Speaker Gilbert Parent. We are all politicians and we should not be afraid of expressing our convictions and our views.
Therefore, as British parliamentary tradition dictates, the vote should proceed by a show of hands.
[English]
The Chairman: There are varying comments on whether there should be a secret ballot.
Mr. Hoeppner (Lisgar - Marquette): I seconded a similar motion - or brought it forward - at the last organization meeting. It's only fair and democratic to do it by a secret ballot. That is the way we choose our governments. That's the way most of the organizational meetings in other industries or in other boards are done. So I feel that a ballot is the proper way, and I would support that.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I don't know why secrecy is more democratic than the other way. That logic escapes me. Secrecy is not by definition more democratic. I beg to differ.
Mr. Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Chairman, is there a motion on the floor for a secret ballot? I would oppose the secret ballot and go with what -
The Chairman: There is not such a motion on the floor. The motion on the floor has named a person for the position of vice-chair. The discussion now, which we cannot and will not vote on, is to reach a consensus on whether we shall have a secret ballot or vote by a show of hands.
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Whether we have a secret ballot or a public ballot is not critical. In fact, sometimes I think it's good if we are prepared to express our opinion publicly, and we do that quite often here.
The only comment I would make further to that is there has been some information from various sources, including the government whip's office, that in fact precedents in the Standing Orders and tradition indicate that the opposition vice-chair should be selected from the ``official opposition''. My whip has done some research in that area, and in fact the election of an opposition vice-chair to a committee is a fairly new tradition. It was begun in 1991, at the start of the third session of the34th Parliament. That's when the new Standing Orders providing for the opposition vice-chair went into effect.
At that time 21 committees elected vice-chairs, and in fact Mr. Neil Young, an NDP MP, was elected as the vice-chair of the human rights and disabled persons standing committee. Mr. Taylor is here, and he could probably vouch for the fact that when his party was the third party in the House, that in fact happened.
I just wanted to clarify that.
[Translation]
Mr. Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Chairman, all you have to do is ask who is in favour of holding a secret vote and who prefers a vote by show of hands. Then we'll see how much support there is for either of the two options.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I understood that there was a motion before this committee. The motion was in reference to a particular candidate for the position of vice-chair. Given that there is already a motion before you, I don't think you can entertain a second motion to do anything. I don't think it would be in order to entertain a second motion for a secret ballot, for instance.
.1115
The only way to proceed with that, now that you have another motion in front of you, is by unanimous consent, which I don't think I'd be ready to give. Given that you don't have unanimous consent, I suspect you have to deal with the motion to elect the vice-chair. I forget who was nominated...but the person who was nominated.
If I can speak to the issue of the opposition vice-chair for a second, who the official opposition is and so on, the Speaker has ruled on that, not me and not anybody in this room. And we already know who that is. It is true that in the last Parliament the then opposition - and I know, because I was a member of that opposition, and so were some colleagues here - relinquished two or three of its vice-chairs to the third party at the time. I understand there were similar negotiations this time between the opposition and the third party and negotiations broke down because the third party wanted to be vice-chair of finance or external affairs or whatever. I'm not quite sure of the names of the committees, because I wasn't there. In any case, the third party turned down the vice-chairs.
But now that they have turned down the vice-chairs, I don't know why it's the job of the government members on this committee to re-establish the negotiations between the two opposition parties. That's their business. If they want to negotiate that again, that's amongst them. I don't think members on the government side should be deciding who their own opposition is. If they're going to make an arrangement between them....
They had negotiations a couple of years ago. They broke down. They can restart them whenever they want to. As government whip, I don't think I should have anything to do with negotiating between the two opposition parties. If and when they arrive at new conclusions to their negotiations, they can apprise us. Once they do, I'm sure we'll adhere to what they have concluded between the two opposition parties, as we did when we were in opposition some years ago. We did make an arrangement at that time. As a matter of fact, I believe we did that twice.
An hon. member: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Before we do that, I want to make it clear I have not accepted a motion on the way the ballot is. There was a suggestion on how the ballot.... There is a motion before us now. There is not a second motion before the committee. I did not accept a motion. We are having a discussion. I would ask all members....
We will not have a vote on that. I will have to draw a conclusion after members voice their views on how the ballot should take place and on how we have that.
We will go to the point of order.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Chairman, maybe I'm wrong, but I got the impression that we were going to deal with the motion Mr. Collins put on the table before we had -
The Chairman: I did not accept that as a motion, Mr. Hoeppner.
Mr. Hoeppner: You didn't accept that?
The Chairman: We had a motion on the floor. You can have only one motion on the floor at a time, and I did not accept that as a motion. I made that clear then and I just made it clear again a minute ago. It came forward as a matter of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.
Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad we have the whip here to keep us all in line, because I would feel terrible if I ever made a misstep in this committee. But I tell you, I don't give a damn. I'll vote in the open, if that's what you want.
All I'm saying is it seemed to me I had heard some rumblings from folks who said, jeez, we never know whether people have the internal or intestinal fortitude to vote. So I said, well, if there's a mechanism you want to look at, that's your business. But it seems to me within the committee surely to God we'd be able to have a little foresight, to say if we want to do it by ballot, c'est la vie. If we want to get on with the vote - and I don't want to harangue on this or anything - we have to get on with it and get it done.
I thought I was going to assist some folks in doing it. But I just say to you that if it's the consensus of people that we do it by ballot, then I would ballot. If it's the consensus of this group that we don't, then let's do whatever we have to do and move on.
Mr. Hermanson: I'll just check quickly with my colleagues, but I don't think we'd be opposed to having a public vote.
.1120
The other clarification I would like to make is in response to Mr. Boudria, because I was the House leader at the time.
Yes, when we first got here we were told by the government that the opposition parties should have discussions as to who the vice-chairs of the committees would be. We started down that road. We got to looking at the Standing Orders and saw that they did not prescribe it. In fact, the positions went to the official opposition unless some negotiations were made to give some of them to the third party. All the Standing Orders called for was that a vice-chair be elected from the opposition, with a small ``o''.
Once we were made aware of that and it was clear in our own minds, we said: ``The committees are supposed to function democratically. We'll take our chances and put forward nominations at the committee level, as is allowed in the Standing Orders, rather than trying to work out some kind of formal/informal deal with the other opposition parties.''
We still subscribe to that formula as being the most democratic, open, and responsible way in which to elect vice-chairs from the opposition side.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. I don't think we're going to spend any more time on this. I'm going to rule that we shall vote on the motion before us, with a show of hands.
Mr. Hermanson: Could we have that recorded?
The Chairman: Okay.
There will be a recorded vote. I will ask the members to respond to the motion, which is thatMr. Hermanson be the vice-chair of the committee, by yea or nay.
Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Are there any further nominations for the vice-chair of the committee?
[Translation]
Mr. Landry: I move that Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien be elected Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
[English]
The Chairman: There's a motion on the floor. Unless there's a comment on the motion -
Mr. Hermanson: Could we have a recorded vote?
The Chairman: I will ask the clerk to conduct the recorded vote.
Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The next item on the agenda is the motion for the second vice-chair of the committee.
Mr. Reed: I move that Mr. McKinnon be made the second vice-chair.
The Chairman: There's a motion that Mr. Glen McKinnon be the second vice-chair of the committee. Are there any comments on the motion? Hearing none, I will call the question on the motion.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Before we move on to the other items that we need to conduct as a committee, colleagues, I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity and privilege of being chair of this committee.
As we know, we are all involved in one of the largest industries in our country, one that employs, from the primary producer right through to the sector, the agriculture and agrifood industry, 1.8 million Canadians; one that without question starts inside the farm gate at the primary producer level; and one that goes far past the farm gate. If you look at the numbers for jobs, in the agrifood industry about 75% of these are beyond the farm gate.
.1125
However, we know very clearly that the economic viability of everybody in that industry is all-important, starting with the economic viability of the primary producer and going through.
As in any business today, whether it be agriculture and agrifood or otherwise, there are increasing challenges to that economic viability and the sustainability of that industry. When we use ``the sustainability of the agrifood industry'', I know that conjures up in all of our minds different definitions of sustainability. Whether that starts with the sustainability of the soils of rural Canada, of our rural community, of our lifestyle, or of the contribution that rural Canada makes to the social and economic fabric of our country, it does a lot.
Sustainability through the farther, past-the-farm-gate sector of the agrifood industry is all-important as well, because, regardless of the business you're in, you need a customer for the product you produce. If you're in agriculture or elsewhere, it's important that you produce what you can market, because going out and trying to market what you've decided you'd like to produce no longer works. So that connection and that cooperation have to be there.
So we have an opportunity as a committee. In the seven-plus years I've been on Parliament Hill, I've been very pleased with the way in which the agriculture committee has worked for the mutual benefit of the industry that we're all here to represent.
We have the opportunity and the ability to bring forward views on the agrifood industry and, after digesting those views, to do the best work we possibly can to improve the lot of Canadians that we represent. And we represent every Canadian, because every Canadian is a consumer.
I'm certainly pleased with the expertise and the ability and the talents of all of you around the table today, and I look forward to working with all of you as a team for the industry that we're all involved in, in a constructively critical manner.
We are the ears for many in our constituency out there - and I mean the broad constituency of the industry. We are the ears for those people in the industry, and we have a duty and an obligation to listen to them, to hear their views, to discuss and debate with them, to ask them questions and to ask them to clarify their views.
We also have the opportunity to be innovative in this very innovative industry we are all a part of.
I promise you that, to the best of my ability, I will, as chair, be fair and neutral and work hard. I know that all of you will do the same.
From my experience, and from the experience of those of you around the table, who all have now been on committees for varying lengths of time, I know that committees do their best work when they work together, when we respect each other's views even though they may differ. I or you may not agree with someone else's view, but that does not mean that we don't respect them. We may differ, but we have that respect. I know that's here.
I look forward to working with the committee in a non-partisan way, even knowing full well that a little bit of partisanship might come forward now and again. We have a job to do. We're in an industry that is going through an incredible amount of change and facing an incredible amount of challenge, but, even better than that, we're in an industry that is facing an incredible amount of opportunity.
As a committee we have a goal to lead that to the best of our ability, and I thank you for the opportunity to share all of that with you and to share the successes that I hope this committee can bring forward on it.
.1130
To start that process, we need to form a steering committee. I would ask now if there is a motion for the formation of the membership of the steering committee for this committee. Mr. Reed.
Mr. Reed: Mr. Chairman, I move that the steering committee be composed of the chair, the opposition vice-chair, the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Wayne Easter, and one other opposition MP.
The Chairman: There is a motion there naming four out of the usual five members on the steering committee.
Mr. Reed: Five.
The Chairman: It names positions that are filled and then it names Mr. Easter, but at the other position it was a member of the opposition. I'm just wondering how to deal with that; if there might be a suggestion or consensus on that.
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): I think since Mr. Hermanson would like to sit on the steering committee his name should be placed there, because he is the critic for his party.
An hon. member: I would so move if he's agreeable, yes.
The Chairman: All right. So the motion before us, then, ladies and gentlemen, is that the steering committee be the committee chair, the opposition vice-chair, the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Easter, and Mr. Hermanson.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Then that is the formation of the steering committee. Thank you very much.
There are a few other motions, colleagues. There is usually a motion on hearing evidence when a quorum is not present.
Mr. Chrétien.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I move that with respect to the hearing of evidence when a quorum is not present, at least four members be required to be present and I would like the motion to read as follows: «with at least one member from the Official Opposition present». Therefore, there would have to be at least four members present and, of the four, one from the Official Opposition.
I'll repeat the amendment for the benefit of the Clerk. I move that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to hear evidence and authorize the printing of minutes of proceedings when a quorum is not present provided that at least four members are present, including at least one member of the Official Opposition.
[English]
The Chairman: Any discussion on the motion? Is everyone clear? If not, please ask for clarification.
Mr. Pickard, a question.
Mr. Pickard: I didn't get where Mr. Chrétien was coming from. There is opposition and then there is official opposition. Quite frankly, I think it's very important that we encourage every possible interest to come to the committee at all times. There's no question there. But I think for purposes of a committee, proper notice being given, and if there is no possibility of someone from the opposition coming, that has always been a case where the chair can negotiate another time.
The problem I see is that quite frankly, if it came to an issue that was to be sidelined and not dealt with by the committee, if the official opposition decided it wouldn't send a member to the committee, it would hamstring the committee totally. In other words, when a certain issue is being discussed, the official opposition could shut the committee down totally just by saying ``nobody go''. That in itself creates a problem, from my perspective. So I hope, as Mr. Vanclief pointed out...and there always has been, in my opinion - and I was in the chair briefly, but I have sat on this committee for the last two years - a good working relationship among all parties here at this committee.
.1100
So I think we endanger a principle if we say ``official opposition''. But I don't want to sideline your comment. If someone from either your party or the Reform Party couldn't be at a meeting, I would hope we would do whatever we could to facilitate everybody adequately through the chair.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, could I amend that motion, then, to delete the word ``official'' and just include ``a member of the opposition''?
Mr. Pickard: Definitely.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): I realize that committees have an eminently collegial role to play. All members want to work to ensure the welfare of voters concerned with issues such as agriculture in particular.
The proposed amendment would reassure the public that there would always be someone on the committee to address the flip side of the issue. I think it is quite in keeping with the reality of parliamentary life to ensure that at least one member of the Official Opposition is always present.
The past being a good barometer of the future, as the honourable member stated so eloquently, the Official Opposition will make it its duty to be present. I don't see how we could be absent.
I'm simply asking that the motion be properly worded.
[English]
The Chairman: In my understanding, at present we have a motion on the floor that says for the purpose of hearing evidence or witnesses we require four members of the committee here, one of whom must be a member of the official opposition. The amendment removes the word ``official'' to change the motion. If passed, it would change the motion to one of the four being ``a member of the opposition''.
Mr. Calder (Wellington - Grey - Dufferin - Simcoe): Mr. Chairman, I'm still curious. It doesn't matter whether it's the official opposition or just the opposition. If a member of the opposition isn't present we still can't hold a meeting. Whether it's ``official'' or just ``member of the opposition'', if the second party and the third party get together and they say no, we're not going to go to that meeting, we can't have a meeting.
The Chairman: That's true, but if the government members decided they weren't going to come to the meeting, you wouldn't have a meeting either. So that could cut both ways.
Mr. Pickard: I think the very point that has just been made is there. We have a process in place. Proper notification is given to all members of the committee and there are timelines on those notices. So in reality there is opportunity for the opposition to know about it well in advance and be aware of the meetings. So if it happened that one of the members could not attend, they certainly could appoint someone to speak for them at the meeting.
The concern raised here - and quite frankly, I think it is an important concern - is safeguarded by the fact that we notify people well in advance of meetings. It would almost, in a way, be an action that would deliberately try to shut down the committee, where someone wasn't coming. So I have to think our safeguards are in place.
I have to think there's another part to this, too. This committee has tried to work together very well, in my opinion, and tried to resolve strife, and I think that goodwill continues.
So safeguards are in place. It is important that all members have opportunity, but protective mechanisms are there to make sure that happens.
The Chairman: Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. O'Reilly (Victoria - Haliburton): Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about holding meetings so much as about receiving evidence. When you are receiving evidence, no motions are made and nothing is done other than the printing of the minutes.
We are talking about bringing witnesses in here. If someone from the official opposition doesn't show up, it's a great cost to the taxpayers. You pay their expenses to come here. Then you have to reschedule the meeting if you don't have a member of the opposition present.
.1140
I feel that the number is the way to go. It's the least expensive and the most economical. No business is conducted other than the receiving of evidence. This is what we're talking about.
I have been in committees where there is not a quorum, there aren't enough people there, and you have witnesses, at our expense, sitting around waiting until we scrape up enough members for a meeting.
I think you should go with a straight number. If you want to increase the number of the quorum, then I could accept that, but I couldn't accept having the specification that a member of the opposition has to be present, whether it's official or unofficial.
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: On a closing note, Mr. Chairman, the past has certainly given you a good indication of our conduct. The Official Opposition has never missed a meeting. Even when matters were at their worst, it has always ensured that at least one representative was present. We always make it our duty to cooperate and not disrupt things. We have always cooperated, even when occasionally we could have caused some disruptions, particularly as regards this country's Official Languages Act.
For the sake of democracy, it is essential that the Official Opposition be present to cross-examine witnesses. That is a minimum, of course. Most of the time, two representatives of the Official Opposition are present and often, there are three on hand. The minimum number is set at four. When important witnesses travel to Ottawa from the other end of the country and there are only four members present, it must be frustrating for them.
Occasionally, we do hear from witnesses when only four members are present. It doesn't look good for members of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee to invite witnesses and then not show up at the meeting. I'll admit that we are very busy, since we have many problems to address and several thousand voters to please, but we the members of the Official Opposition have always attended committee meetings until now and you have my word that we will continue to work in the spirit that has guided us since October 25, 1993. Our concern is for the democratic process.
The members on the government side were once in opposition. You shared the opposition ranks with the third and fourth parties. The situation that we are presently experiencing is rather amusing, but we have to live with it.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: I don't know if this subject is worth a long deliberation, but it seems to me that if it was just one member from the opposition, from any opposition party, then, in the spirit of cooperation that Mr. Pickard suggested, we should be able to function.
I have been to a subcommittee meeting, if not a committee meeting, where no member of the official opposition was present but the opposition certainly was present.
I wonder about the validity of having witnesses in and going through the procedure if there is not someone from the opposition side to be there, at least to witness what is going on, if not ask questions. It detracts from the effectiveness of the committee process, and therefore we should take all steps to ensure that there are many ears at least, if not voices, at the table when we have these witnesses in to appear before a committee.
Based on my limited experience of the last three or so years, I've found the parties to be very cooperative in making sure that members of the committee are present to hear witnesses.
The Chairman: If there are no further comments, I am going to ask for a vote on the amendment. If I understand it correctly, the amendment is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive evidence and authorize the printing of minutes of proceedings when a quorum is not present, provided that at least four members of the committee are present. The original motion says ``one of which must be a member of the official opposition'', but the vote before the committee now is on the amendment, which removes ``official'' from that, which means four including one member of the opposition.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: We will now vote on the original motion, which says that four members must be present, one of whom must be a member of the official opposition.
.1145
Motion negatived
Mr. Easter: There's no motion on the floor - correct?
The Chairman: No, there's no motion on the floor.
Mr. Easter: I move that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive evidence and authorize the printing of minutes of proceedings when a quorum is not present, provided that at least five members are present.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: If I might make a comment as chair, as a member of the committee in the past I found it very embarrassing at any time to have witnesses before this committee or any other committee when we were not able to have a respectable number of committee members there.
Knowing full well that we are all busy, I guarantee that I will do all in my power to make sure that we shall make it as convenient as possible before any witnesses come before the committee. If not, we shall not be doing the things I talked about at the beginning as collectively as we can.
Mr. Pickard: Having been the chair of the committee in the past for a short period of time, I would like to thank the staff who have worked for the committee. I can assure everyone at this table that we have staff that is par excellence. There is no question that in handling requests, information passing, research, and background material for every member of this committee, they have done an outstanding job. I want to thank them very much for helping me with the issues, the organization, and the work. What they did was very much appreciated.
I would also like to say a thank-you for the cooperation of all the members who were here. We have an excellent committee on all sides. There is no question that I found great cooperation and the ability to work through issues and concerns in such a way that I really respected each member of this committee. So I would also like to thank the committee members for their cooperation and work in trying to make - as you said earlier, Mr. Chairman - the agriculture and the agrifood communities excellent in Canada.
We're very fortunate in having the staff and the members we have in this committee. I really look forward to working with everyone in the next while.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Pickard. You echo the thoughts of all of us as far as the calibre and the energy and enthusiasm of the staff members here are concerned. We will collectively promise to keep them as busy as we possibly can, and probably the reverse is true as well.
We have some other motions to deal with. There is one on the Library of Parliament. I believe you have those motions before you on the agenda.
Mr. Easter: I move that the committee retain, at the discretion of the chair, the services of two research officers from the Library of Parliament, to assist the committee in its work.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The next one deals with distribution of papers.
Mr. Calder: I move that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute in their original language the documents received from the public and that the clerk of the committee ensure that such documents are translated and the translation is distributed as promptly as possible.
.1150
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I was quite young when Mr. Pearson was Prime Minister of this great country. He said that regardless of a person's origin or religion... Mr. Trudeau raised the stakes by adopting legislation that costs dearly, but which keeps the country united. I'm talking about the Official Languages Act.
I am one of the few members in this House who is a unilingual francophone. I'm working hard to learn the language of the majority, but given my age, I'm having a great deal of difficulty. It's a very slow process.
If the members of the Agriculture and Agri-Food Committee are all equal, they should receive official documents, evidence or otherwise in both official languages at the same time. Otherwise, I will get the feeling that I am a second-class member and I won't shy away from denouncing this fact publicly to my constituents and to my province.
I'll concede that the Official Languages Act is expensive to enforce. As the former members of this committee know full well, at times I denounced certain violations of the Act. If our Clerk notifies witnesses that documents must be in both official languages, then we receive them in both languages. However, if witnesses continue to submit unilingual French or unilingual English briefs and ultimately it makes no difference that they do, what kind of effort will they make then to have their documents translated? No effort whatsoever!
For example, when the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development travelled across Canada last year, it held a meeting in Lévis which is not far from my riding. A few of my constituents submitted briefs to the committee and I asked them to ensure that they were in both official languages. There are no unilingual anglophones in my riding. Residents speak French very well.
They said to me: "Why, Jean-Guy, should we submit our briefs in French and in English?" I explained to them how we worked and they graciously agreed to have their briefs translated into English for the Lévis hearings.
Here, in Ottawa, in the Nation's Capital, if we allow briefs to be tabled either in French or in English, we will rarely see submissions in French. Very often, they will be presented solely in English. My friends, I say to you right now that this will blow up in your face.
[English]
The Chairman: Madame Dalphond-Guiral.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: I hope that the vast majority of the members seated around this table will support the position of the member for Frontenac. He has provided a very clear illustration of the role that the Official Opposition must play, namely ensure compliance with laws viewed around the world as being characteristic of a democratic country such as Canada. He has given us the example of unilingual francophones who, out of respect for democracy in Canada, take the time to have their briefs translated into English. I think this is indicative of the quality of the Official Opposition.
I hope that we will have everyone's support.
[English]
The Chairman: I was watching Madame speak and I don't know who had his hand up first, so Mr. Hermanson, I'll go over to Mr. O'Reilly, then to you and Mr. Calder.
An hon. member: ``O'Reed''.
The Chairman: ``O'Reed''. Mr. Reed. There are so many Irishmen around. It's getting close to March 17. I hope you're not offended.
Mr. Reed: And all those who want to be.
The Chairman: You can pass that judgment call with Mr. O'Reilly, whether you want to be one of those ``O's'' or you want to be Mr. Reed. Go ahead.
Mr. Reed: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I just want to go on the record as saying I agree withMr. Chrétien and I feel the position he has put is quite correct.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: I just think the first proposition here is a little better. Let's put ourselves in the chairs of the witnesses who come to present. We talked about how rude it will be if they come to make a presentation and we don't have a quorum here to hear them. Certainly it would be preferable if they brought their briefs in both official languages, but if they fail to do that are we going to tell them to go home because they brought them in one of Canada's official languages and we weren't prepared to hear them?
.1155
I think that would not be very wise on our part.
As members of Parliament we should be gracious and should be prepared to accept their briefs in spite of the fact that they didn't get their act together perfectly. Perhaps they were unaware.
I would certainly be prepared to receive their presentation, whether it be in English or French, and have it translated for my convenience later.
The Chairman: If I could interrupt for a minute and make a point of clarification, my understanding is that, to follow the logistics of what Mr. Chrétien says, the committee could receive the document and it could be presented to the committee, but it could not be distributed to the committee until it was in both official languages.
Correct me if you have a different impression.
So if someone arrived at the committee meeting and had their presentation in only one official language, they could make their presentation. We at the committee table would benefit from the simultaneous translation, but that document could not be distributed to the committee members until it was translated into both official languages. They would not have to be told to leave town or that they could not make their presentation until it was in both languages.
That's my interpretation, and I believe it is that of the clerk as well.
Mr. Calder: Mr. Chairman, you just kind of pre-empted me, because that's exactly what I was going to say. I know that Mr. Chrétien would agree with me. We had exactly those same examples last year, and it was unanimously agreed by the committee that if a document was presented in either English or French but not both languages, then it wouldn't be given to the committee members until translation was made. I think that was the standing agreement last year, and I can't see any reason why it wouldn't be a standing agreement this year.
Mr. Hermanson: I am just wondering. Certainly that's possible if they distribute their documents ahead of time, but if they bring their documents with them, that's not going to be possible.
Are we then saying that they cannot give their documents to those of us who are members of Parliament? That's actually a breach of privilege, and we can't do that.
What you're saying is that the clerk can't do it, but they can do it. Is that what you're saying? In that case it means very little. If they walk around the table, they can hand them out to us, but they can't hand them to the clerk and expect him to hand them out to us. Is that what we're saying here?
The Chairman: I'll have to ask the clerk to clarify that.
The Clerk: I think it would be up to the committee basically to decide what it wishes to do. If the committee takes the position that the document should not be distributed until it's been translated in both official languages, then it would be logical for the committee to ask the witnesses not to distribute it until it has been translated into both official languages.
Mr. Pickard: I really believe there's a principle here that we have to be dealing with. The principle is convenience versus fairness. Quite frankly, any person who comes and testifies before this committee can be told directly by the clerk that if they have material to circulate to the committee, it must be translated into the two official languages.
As a government, we have striven over the years to make certain that that will be done.
We could even go to the point that if those people who are coming before the committee got the documents to our clerk in time, then the clerk could make every effort to have them translated as well.
So I believe the logistics of that problem can be handled best by the communication of the clerk through the organizations that are coming.
In my mind, the best scenario is that if we know well in advance the issues we're dealing with and the people we're contacting and inviting in, then there should be no reason why we can't enforce that principle adequately. Any organization can pass anything along to any person. As a committee, we cannot restrict that. We can just say that officially the committee cannot deal with the documents until it has them in both official languages.
That brings equality, which I think is something that is being asked for by all people across this country. So it's a very good proposition and one we should definitely support.
The Chairman: Mr. Easter.
.1200
Mr. Easter: Mr. Chairman, you really in effect made my point, because what we're talking about here is distribution of documents. Under Mr. Chrétien's proposal we could hear witnesses but not distribute their documents. I think that's well and proper. I would suggest if Murray would withdraw his first motion and move to a second motion here, we could accommodate and deal with this issue.
The Chairman: I await the direction of the committee.
Mr. Hermanson: I would like to comment before we get to that. I've been around here long enough to see how the government moves, sometimes. They may, if they put it into hurry-up mode, put a bill into committee, demand the chairman to have the witnesses appear in three or four days - very quickly - move to clause-by-clause, move closure on third reading, and within a matter of less than a hundred hours you've gone through the witnesses, you've gone through clause-by-clause, report stage, and third reading of a bill. You're going to tell me you're going to deny those witnesses the time to get their documents translated or to have the committee translate those documents for us so we can adequately deal with that evidence before we're actually voting on the bill at third reading?
Let's have it one way or the other. If we are going to follow this kind of routine, or this kind of schedule, let's not have the heavy hand of government forcing the committee to deal with legislation through closure and after-supper committee meetings that go on into the wee hours of the morning. Let's have that assurance. Otherwise it's not fair and you're not going to allow the opposition to do their job.
The Chairman: Just a comment, Mr. Hermanson. I don't think you've seen that happen with agriculture legislation.
Mr. Calder: Mr. Chairman, actually, what Wayne has suggested here is a good suggestion. I'll withdraw the first motion and put in a second motion here. Just to allay Mr. Hermanson's concerns, this motion won't be restricting anybody from appearing in front of the committee. It'll just be restricting the fact that if the documentation has been brought in just one language, then it will be restricted until it's in both languages.
Mr. Chairman, that motion would be that the clerk of the committee be authorized -
The Chairman: Mr. Calder, we have to have unanimous consent to withdraw the motion.
Is there unanimous consent to withdraw Mr. Calder's original motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: No? Then we will have to vote on the original motion. The committee can deal with it through a vote if they so wish. The original motion is the first one on your agenda, that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute in their original language the documents received from the public, and that the clerk of the committee ensure such documents are translated and translation distributed as promptly as possible.
Motion negatived
The Chairman: Are there any further motions? Mr. Calder.
Mr. Calder: I move that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only once they have been translated in both official languages.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Another motion on your agenda before you deals with witness expenses. Is there a mover for the motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Chrétien: I move that, at the discretion of the Chair, reasonable travelling expenses, as per the regulations established by the Board of Internal Economy, be paid to witnesses invited to appear before the committee and that for such payment of expenses, a limit of no more than three representatives per organization be established. I would go along with a maximum of three. In the case of five or six representatives, they would have to share travelling and living expenses. I would accept a maximum of three representatives.
[English]
The Chairman: The motion states that such payment for expenses be done to a limit of three representatives per organization. My understanding is that if the committee wishes to change that at any time for a different number it can do so, but this is the standard. It is understood by those who come forward that it is a maximum of three.
Are there any comments or discussion on the motion? Mr. Pickard.
.1205
Mr. Pickard: Before I comment, may I have a comment from the clerk of the committee?
What has been our practice in the past? The difficulty I see with throwing out the number three is that it may create some difficulties. That may not be the case. I foresee that if you say the number three, then they'll automatically bring three, whereas in some cases one would be sufficient.
I agree with your idea of trying to limit our costs, because the more one group takes, the less budget we have for other people to come in. That really is a restrictive measure, because we don't have unlimited funds.
At the same time, if we don't know what the past practice has been and how that has been handled, it's hard for me to make the determination that three is the proper number.
The Chairman: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Pickard. I believe that during this Parliament the number has been two. My recollection - and the clerk is checking - is that in the previous Parliament it was zero, recognizing that the committee can at any time make a motion to cover the expenses of witnesses.
The clerk might wish to clarify that.
The Clerk: In this particular Parliament the practice has been to reimburse expenses, with a limit of two individuals per organization.
The committee is the master of its own destiny and could decide either to increase or to decrease that number if it so wished.
Mr. Pickard: May I then speak to the point I was making? If we increase from two to three, we have a limited number of dollars in the budget for transportation, for witnesses, for whatever. It has been very clear policy within our government at this time - and this policy will not change - that when we spend more in one area, we'd better find our covering costs in another area. This means that if we increase this to three, then we will probably decrease numbers of organizations that may come in and we will start looking at budgets and who comes.
It is probably best to put the ceiling at two. Then, under whatever things we're talking about, it's not necessarily the case that we're going to sponsor two from an organization, but we could vary that.
I think the guideline should be for the clerk to talk to groups with, say, a maximum of two.
Mr. Reed: Perhaps Mr. Chrétien would be agreeable to simply changing the number.
[Translation]
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: I think he should be agreeable to this.
[English]
An hon. member: He's shaking his head. I think he said yes.
The Chairman: Can we speed things up? We can go through the amendment process if there's mutual consensus here that the number should be changed from three to two.
Is there any objection to that being done in the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Hearing that there is consensus, on agreement to the motion, all those in favour?
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: There is one last motion, on the questioning of witnesses.
Mr. Easter: I move that, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't have to be read.
The Chairman: Okay. That does it. Ten minutes for the first round and five minutes for the second round - do we all understand what that is?
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
Mr. O'Reilly: I move that we adjourn.
The Chairman: Before I accept that motion, I will say that I would like to have a quick get-together of the members of the steering committee or somebody representative. Unless there's an objection - and I'll ask the clerk to check - I'm going to strive for a meeting of the steering committee on Tuesday morning. Let's strive for 9:30 a.m. or 10 a.m. We'll check with our calendars in the best way we can.
Is there any objection to having the clerk feel this out and see how we're available in there?
Mr. Hermanson: I'm flying in from Winnipeg that morning. I'm not sure of the time at which I'll get to Ottawa. I know I'm coming in in the morning. Can I get back to you?
The Chairman: I'll have the clerk check with you. Maybe 11 a.m. would be a better time.
This meeting stands adjourned.