[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, March 11, 1996
.1730 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, pursuant to Standing Order 106, the first order of business is to elect a chair.
[Translation]
I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): I would like to nominate Mrs. Guarnieri.
The Clerk: Mr. Pierre de Savoye moves that Mrs. Guarnieri do take the Chair of this committee.
Motion agreed to
[English]
Mr. Stinson (Okanagan - Shuswap): Madam Chair, I'd like to nominate Bill Gilmour for vice-chair.
The Chair: I haven't called for....
I just wanted to thank everyone for the opportunity. You have to allow me a maiden speech since I've never done this before and the chair is sizzling. I certainly want to thank my nominator. It was a welcome and pleasant surprise. I am looking forward to working with all of you.
Mr. de Savoye, I see your finger going up.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: When you're ready for motions, I will move one.
[English]
The Chair: In accordance with Standing Order 106(2), the committee shall proceed to the election of two vice-chairs, one of whom must be from the opposition to the government. I am ready to receive a motion to elect a first vice-chair.
Mr. Stinson: I'd like to nominate Bill Gilmour.
The Chair: I recognize Mr. de Savoye.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: I'd like to nominate Mr. Gilbert Fillion for Vice-Chair.
[English]
Mr. Stinson: This is what we call democracy.
The Chair: It is moved by Mr. de Savoye that Gilbert Fillion be vice-chairman of the committee. Agreed?
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Debate?
The Chair: Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: Thank you.
I was rather hoping that because the Liberal government whip was here today that it was going to be a turnaround, that perhaps he would be prepared to follow the precedent set in the 34th Parliament when the third party was given one of the vice-chair positions.
I was rather hoping this government operations committee was going to be the final breakthrough to stop the exclusion of the Reform Party as the national opposition from the function of being able to perform their role as a national opposition in being members of standing committees - that is, the steering committees of the standing committees - which would have happened in this committee, or, should the whip ever change his mind, would have the opportunity of occurring, that the Reform Party be given the opportunity to have some input, as I say, as the third party.
.1735
I also wanted to mention for the record that we had made the nomination prior to the recognition of the Bloc member by the chair.
That being the case, I think we've accomplished our task of at least putting these things on the record. I just want to say I find it very unfortunate that the Liberals have chosen, perhaps because they don't like the idea of the sound of the feet of the Reform Party coming up behind them in Canada.... Perhaps this is the reason why they're freezing us out. I don't know. I find that really unfortunate.
Mr. Stinson: I'd like a recorded vote.
The Chair: Mr. Abbott, I know we all have our illusions here, but let me reassure you all members of this committee will be permitted to make a considerable contribution to the committee. In fact, we not only welcome it but we hope you are inspired to continue doing so.
I notice Mr. Boudria has a comment.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): I was the subject of a bit of an attack there, not too ferocious but one nonetheless. The first thing is that it was mentioned in the remarks by Mr. Abbott that one of the objectives of this exercise is to ensure his colleague had an opportunity to be on the steering committee. Of course I'm sure that being as well versed in the rules as he is, he would know that's going to come anyway, actually on our order. Immediately after the election of the vice-chair there is the election for the creation of a steering committee. It is customary and duly respected that a member of each party at least is on the steering committee. I'm sure the members will not make it such that this tradition is broken.
On the issue of who gets to be vice-chair of committees generally, I'm not wearing my usual tie with little cows on it, but that argument has been driven until the cows come home. This issue was brought on the floor of the House. The Reform Party lost the argument there. The Speaker has indicated who the official opposition is. I didn't create that situation. I want to have nothing to do with it. It's not for me to say.
Yes, in the last parliament the then opposition party relinquished one of its vice-chairs to the third party. The individual in question was Mrs. Beryl Gaffney, who, together with the whip, had made an arrangement whereby the third party would get vice-chair. As a matter of fact, Mr. Neil Young had been elected from the third party at that time.
I understand - I wasn't there - there were negotiations between the Bloc Québécois, the official opposition, and the third party at the beginning of this Parliament, and these negotiations broke down because the third party had asked for something and if they couldn't get whatever it was they were asking for, apparently they said they would prefer to have nothing. I wasn't there. It was a story that was told to me.
If the two parties want to restart those negotiations, whenever they reach a conclusion I'm prepared to listen to it. But I'm not going to tell the two opposition parties how to negotiate between each other. I don't see why it's the role of the government to choose its own opposition. Clearly it is not. The Speaker has established that.
If there is ever a change and the official opposition wants to give up committee vice-chairs to the third party, well, they can inform us. And if, some day soon, the roles are reversed, so the now third party is in the official opposition and they want to negotiate with the third party at that point, they can inform us of the conclusions from those negotiations. But right now, I don't know why it is the job of the government whip to pretend he can decide a third party should be the official opposition in certain cases as opposed to others. I don't think that is our role as a government, and it's a very bad precedent in a parliamentary democracy for the government to choose its own opposition.
.1740
If the test were ideological, of being a national party that ran candidates in the most provinces and that is now represented in the House of Commons, then maybe the third seat should go to the NDP. After all, they ran candidates everywhere. But that's not there. And it would probably be advantageous to the government. After all, there are fewer of them. You see, once a government starts choosing its own opposition based on ideological grounds, you're on very slippery ground.
That's why, Madam Chair, I don't think I ever want to get into a position where I think I have the kind of authority in this place...and, hopefully, government whips will never think it is their job to decide who their own opposition is. I think it's a very dangerous thing to get into. It's wrong in the House and it's equally wrong at the micro level to apply it in here. That's why it should never be done.
I have too much respect for this institution to start dismantling it in that kind of way, and I don't think any of my colleagues should have any part of it either. I hope they agree with me.
Mr. Abbott: Madam Chairman, I would like to raise the point with the whip that the standing order very clearly says, ``one of whom must be from the opposition to the government''. It does not say official opposition.
I would like to ask the whip, if I may, please, it being the case that we are going to be voting on the Bloc member at this standing committee, am I to understand that he is saying he does not want to choose the opposition, he doesn't want to become involved?
The fact that it simply says the member must be from the opposition...should the Reform Party get their member nominated first, as happened in the case of other committees, would the whip be amenable to the idea of his members, if they so choose, simply being able to vote in favour of the Reform Party member becoming the vice-chair? I think that's what the whip just finished saying.
Mr. Boudria: It feels like we're in a mini-Question Period, but I think the point is still the same, Madam Chair. It is that I didn't decide the day after the election who the official opposition was. I had absolutely nothing to do with that decision. Being in a riding that borders on Quebec on three sides...I think my Bloc colleagues will know that I campaigned vigorously against it in a number of ridings - not always successfully, but I did.
It's not me who decided that it was such. It's the Canadian electorate, and I respect the decision they made, even though, in the case of some MPs, it's not the decision I would have preferred.
The official opposition, the one that traditionally holds a second vice-chair representing the opposition, has been chosen by the electorate. If the composition changes in the House some day, I intend to respect that as much as I respect what has happened now, even though I don't agree with it. But it's there.
The Chair: Having said that, are we in agreement, Mr. Stinson?
Mr. Stinson: No. I'd like to have a recorded vote on this issue.
The Chair: Fine. We're ready to call for the vote.
We're voting on the motion that Mr. Gilbert Fillion be vice-chair of the committee.
Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 3
The Chair: Next, we have a motion for the vice-chair of the committee pursuant to Standing Order 106; we're electing another vice-chair.
.1745
May I receive a motion?
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle): I nominate Mr. Eugène Bellemare as Vice-Chair.
[English]
The Chair: We have before us a motion to elect Mr. Bellemare as the vice-chair of the committee. Is it agreed to?
Mr. Boudria: I want to speak on the motion, saying that I have spoken to Mr. Bellemare over recent days. He has recovered quite well. He is no longer in the hospital. As we all now know, he suffered from a heart situation and was very well treated. He received triple-bypass surgery. He is recovering extremely well, and sometime after Easter he will be back to work with us.
I conversed with him personally and asked him if he would accept to be the vice-chair, and he has indicated that he would.
I thought I would take the occasion to share this with the committee, given that Mr. Bellemare is a long-time member of the House of Commons and a long-time member of this committee.
The Chair: Thank you. We certainly wish him well, and we wish him a speedy return, because he's an invaluable member.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: My understanding is that now we should have routine motions. Does everyone agree that we should proceed?
The first motion is to create a steering committee. Are there any motions before us? Is anybody proposing anyone?
Mr. Stinson: Bill Gilmour.
The Chair: Do I hear unanimous consent?
Mr. Harvard (Winnipeg St. James): For the vice-chairs?
The Chair: We are taking the vice-chairs.
Mr. Harvard: The chair or the vice-chairs?
The Chair: We usually have the two vice-chairs, and we have two other members, whom we're appointing now, for the steering committee.
Mr. Bertrand: I nominate Mr. John Harvard.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: So the two other members of the steering committee will be Mr. Harvard andMr. Gilmour.
Mr. Harvard: So that sort of makes it the chair, the two vice-chairs -
The Chair: The chair, the two vice-chairs, and two other appointed members.
Would someone like to move the next one, that the committee print its Minutes of Proceedings as established by the Board of Internal Economy?
Mr. Harvard: I so move.
Mr. Jackson (Bruce - Grey): I'm trying to get my name on one of these.
The Chair: You'll have to beat him to the punch, Ovid.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: It's going to be a nice short meeting, very efficiently done.
An hon. member: I can move the next one for you.
The Chair: The next motion we have to deal with is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive testimony and authorize the publication of evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members of the committee are present, including a member of the opposition.
Mr. Abbott: I would like to move an amendment to that motion.
I would amend the motion by adding the word -
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: On a point of Order: Has a motion already been moved?
[English]
The Chair: My understanding is that Ovid Jackson has already moved the motion. Sorry.
Mr. Abbott: Thank you.
The Chair: You'll just have to be faster and quicker at the punch here.
This motion, Mr. Abbott, is just a courtesy, because it's been my experience that sometimes witnesses come before us and people are late because of having a heavy schedule.
.1750
Mr. Abbott: I understand. I would like to move a minor amendment, but one that seems to fall in line with the original discussion we were having. I would like to insert the word ``official'' before ``opposition''. So it would read ``including a member of the official opposition''.
The Chair: We have already moved the amendment Mr. Jackson passed...at the main motion, rather. So -
Mr. Abbott: I'm sorry. I believe Mr. Jackson moved the motion.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr. Abbott: I'm moving an amendment to a motion.
Mr. Harvard: What's the purpose of the amendment? I'd like to hear Mr. Abbott.
The Chair: Would you be good enough to elaborate and give us an explanation for the editorial change?
Mr. Abbott: Okay. I don't consider it necessarily an editorial change. I think it's reflective of the original discussion that took place between myself and Mr. Boudria.
If the committee sees fit to give recognition to the official opposition in the position of vice-chair, there should be some responsibility that comes along with that. It has been the experience of my party that in some cases...and I'm thinking now of the heritage committee - Mr. Harvard would be familiar with it - from September through to December. I wasn't there. I'm reporting what I was told, that there were occasions when that committee could not have met under this quorum rule had the Reform Party not been there.
In other words, there is a responsibility if a person or a party is going - I'm sorry to be repetitive, but to state the case clearly.... If there is going to be recognition of the official opposition by way of the vice-chair positions on the party, then I believe there has to be some small corresponding responsibility on the part of that party. Therefore it would be their responsibility to ensure they always have members here at this committee for it to work.
The Chair: Well, you've certainly provoked a discussion. I have Mr. Harvard, Mr. de Savoye, and Mr. Fillion. You know how to inspire debate, Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Harvard: I have reservations about the amendment. First of all, Mr. Abbott refers to attendance records of other committees. In my short experience as a chairman - I'm going back to the beginning of 1994 - I have found attendance rather spotty on the part of all parties, certainly spotty on the part of the Reform and the Bloc, and there are times when I've even been disappointed in my own Liberal colleagues.
As the chairman points out, this provision is really a courtesy. I think the obligation is on the committee to provide at least some token representation from the opposition. If we've already started the proceedings, surely we have already had someone from the government, in the name of the chairperson.
I don't see the need to specify one of the two opposition parties in this particular case. The status quo should be maintained. I really see no need to single out the official opposition. My concern is to have at least the voice of one opposition member.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Chair, Mr. Abbott had read our minds because we were getting ready to move the same amendment.
The fact we are the Official Opposition gives us a bit of additional responsibility. It takes nothing away from us, but we have to assume that responsibility. We would like your proposal to be accepted by the representatives of the government party because the Opposition agrees that it should be the Official Opposition. I don't think you can really object to this when the Opposition parties are in agreement. Thank you.
.1755
Mr. Fillion (Chicoutimi): It's quite clear that I share my colleague's thoughts except that I accept this motion as he has explained it and not as explained by Mr. Abbott who is actually trying to impute motives to the members of the Opposition concerning their presence at committee meetings.
To my knowledge, during the last session, no committee even the one he has just pointed out was ever prevented from sitting because no member of the Official Opposition was present. I sat on three committees myself and despite numerous meetings, the Official Opposition was always represented.
I'm simply crossing a few t's here. Let it be on the record once and for all in order to avoid debates, in future, which lead nowhere and are simply a waste of our time.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
If I might interject just a footnote here, it's my understanding that the spirit of this motion is simply to allow hearings to be held when witnesses have been invited.
If I might interject, your comments earlier implied a certain amount of criticism. You said members of the official opposition weren't in attendance at the heritage committee. It would be very remiss of me if I didn't share with you an insight I received in my two years with the heritage committee.
I have no wish to impede the official opposition from functioning in every capacity they see fit as official opposition. But this motion really permits the committee to function after the witnesses have been agreed to and are appearing before the committee. In the case of the heritage committee, if my memory serves me right - we can certainly check on it - it was members of the Reform Party who chose not to come, after they had insisted on extensive hearings on CBC and provided us with a lengthy list of artists and artist groups, cultural groups, who were to appear before the committee.
So I would just urge a bit of caution. This motion simply allows the committee to proceed with hearings once the witnesses have been agreed to and appear before the committee. In the event that sometimes members' schedules don't permit them to attend on time, it would be very inconsiderate of us to have invited these witnesses and then not hear their presentations. I would just urge a bit of caution with this motion, but I don't wish to disallow the official opposition from assuming any functions they may see fit in their capacity.
Mr. Jackson: Madam Chair, I think it's important the committee be allowed to function. I will not be part of making any rules or regulations that would hamstring it. Each one of us is elected. There are different ways of recording our actions in this House. People do it in many varied ways about our committee work.
We come from all over this country. Often we have long distances to travel. I don't want to make any rules or regulations that will encumber exactly what you've said. You have witnesses. All of us make commitments. I try my hardest to get to all my committees or to get somebody in my stead. I'm not going to make any rules or regulations such that we will have five or six people here and because we don't have one or two other people the thing can't go on.
So I personally would be voting against the amendment.
Mr. Abbott: I have just one last comment. It's the responsibility of every party whip to take care of the situation Mr. Jackson has referred to. It's noted that Mr. Gilmour and Mr. Harris are the official members of this committee, whereas Mr. Stinson and Mr. Abbott are the people who are here today. That was an arrangement by our party and by our party whip. I would suggest the government takes on a responsibility when people are coming to the committee as witnesses to act responsibly and ensure sufficient members are here, even if none of the members are the people who are members of the actual standing committee.
I would suggest again - and apparently on this side of the table we happen to be in agreement - that if there is official recognition of the official opposition, although the word ``official'' is missing from the original motion we voted on, in order to give a consistency we shall include the word ``official'' in this motion.
.1800
The Chair: Mr. Abbott, would you concede that sometimes unforeseen events may impede members from attending on time and that it would be rather rude on our part to leave witnesses sitting around if there is a quorum or if members are here to hear them? Unforeseen events sometimes impede members from functioning as they should.
Mr. Abbott: I suggest, with the greatest respect, that out of 52 members, or 53 or 54, whatever the number ends up being, the Bloc Québécois might be able to hustle up one.
We seldom, if ever, actually engage with the Bloc Québécois in any discussion about committee meetings. As a consequence, if it's being left to happenstance, then at least the responsibility is on one party, not on both.
Mr. Harvard: I want to say just one thing. If we were to pass the amendment proposed by Mr. Abbott, it would mean that representatives of the official opposition could hold up proceedings all by themselves. Under the current rules it still can be done, but it would mean the combination of both opposition parties.
There's absolutely no need for this, and I encourage everyone to vote against it.
I'd call the question.
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand: I'm also asking for the vote.
[English]
The Chair: We have an amendment on the floor. Is it unanimous? Can I call for a vote? Yeas and nays, please, on the amendment, which is that the word ``official'', for the opposition, be included in the motion.
Amendment negatived
The Chair: Then we vote on the main motion before us.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: The next motion is 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 under the direction of the chair.
Do I have someone to move it? Mr. Fillion.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Let's hope we speed up here. I promised everyone a speedy meeting today.
The next motion is that, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and if requested, reasonable travelling expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who have appeared before the committee, up to a maximum of two representatives of any organization.
Mr. Malhi (Bramalea - Gore - Malton): I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: The next motion is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public in the official language received, with the translation to follow.
Mr. Harvard: I so move.
[Translation]
Mr. Fillion: When you say documents received from the public, you mean witnesses from non-government organizations, don't you?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Fillion: So these are organizations that have been invited to appear. I don't know how this committee works, but aren't witnesses from those organizations invited well in advance?
The Chair: It's not up to us to decide...
Mr. Fillion: I'm actually asking the Clerk.
The Chair: It's up to us to decide who is going to be making presentations. We'll do our best to always have the documents in both official languages.
.1805
Mr. Fillion: So this motion doesn't prevent us from asking non-government organizations to appear before the committee with their documents in both official languages.
The Chair: Exactly.
Mr. Fillion: So the Clerk's office will make an effort in this respect.
The Chair: We'll do our best.
Mr. Bertrand: We can ask them but, in my opinion, many of those organizations probably don't have the time, the means or the staff to do a translation.
The Chair: We'll do our best and ask them in advance to submit their documents in both official languages. We'll do our own translation, but it may happen from time to time that we receive a document in one official language only. We'll do our best to solve that problem.
Mr. Fillion: Fine. I accept your answer.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: I just want to say that I agree with the chair. In the committees that I've been associated with, Mr. Fillion, the clerks, the staff have always asked to have documents and presentations in both official languages. Sometimes, despite the best efforts and the best pleading, it doesn't happen. Because they've already arrived and their documents are only in one of the official languages, it would be difficult to send them away, so their evidence is accepted and the translation follows. I know that in my experience, the staff does its best to get presentations in both official languages.
The Chair: We have the motion before us. Do we have someone who moves it?
Mr. Bertrand: I so move.
The Chair: Is it unanimous?
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Is there other business?
An hon. member: I move to adjourn.
The Chair: That's the best news I've heard. I've never seen such happy faces.
Let me say it'll be a pleasure working with all of you.
[Translation]
I thank you and I'm looking forward to working with you.
[English]
The meeting is adjourned.