[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 6, 1997
.1113 
[Translation]
The Chairman: I am the chairman of the committee and I have decided that we have quorum.
[English]
Order. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We have in front of you, as presented by the clerk, the proposed order of the day. I don't see a lot of information that is going to require us to be here for a long time at this meeting, but I'm in your hands as always.
The first item of business is a proposed motion. As many of you know, your steering committee met and this is the result of some information that came from the steering committee. I want to congratulate my colleague Mr. Langlois for his work on this proposal.
As I understand it, Mr. Langlois, you would like to make a motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): Yes. This is a little indecent. Ms Dalphond-Guiral will be moving that I be the representative of the Official Opposition.
Ms Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre): Indecent? Hardly!
Mr. Langlois: According to the motion, Mr. Kilger, who would represent the government?
Mr. Kilger (Stormont - Dundas): I have spoken briefly with my colleague, the Deputy Whip, Ms Catterall. Since I am already on the Board of Internal Economy, as are Ms Dalphond-Guiral and Mr. Strahl, from the Reform Party, it might be a good idea to have different people on the committee. Ultimately, we know that the recommendations will go before the Board of Internal Economy, where the final decisions are made.
In the past, there was a Sub-Committee on Members' Services, but now, unlike the situation in the past, the Official Opposition and the third party are represented on the Board. In addition, there is another member of Parliament, in this case Mr. Hopkins.
.1115
I know we're trying to avoid duplication, but I think different membership might be helpful in eliminating some frustration and perhaps promoting better communication. In any case, we are prepared to try this out in the weeks and months ahead. I hope that Ms Catterall will agree to represent the government party on the committee, together with you, Mr. Langlois, and we will find another representative from our party as well.
Ms Dalphond-Guiral: So it is not even indecent anymore.
Mr. Langlois: It is not indecent. Since we will not be appointing the second government representative, will we have to change the wording of the motion, Ms Carrière?
The Clerk of the committee: We could say: "and a second member of Parliament from the government to be appointed in consultation with the Chief Government Whip".
Mr. Langlois: That's fine.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker, did you want to make a comment on the subject?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): I agree with what we're doing; it's just a matter of who we appoint. I think the comment that was made with regard to Mr. Strahl being on the BOIE and that this should be a different person is a good one. In light of that, I could appoint myself.
The Chairman: We then have a motion. As I understand the motion, it is that in accordance with Standing Order 108(1)(a) a subcommittee on services to MPs be created. The mandate of the committee shall be to consider any matter referred to it in Standing Order 108(3)(a)(i), and this committee shall be made up of two members from the government majority, one MP from the official opposition, and one member of Parliament from the third party of the House. Is that the way the motion should read? This committee shall report unanimously, from time to time, to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That is the motion. Are there some questions on the motion?
Mr. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Chair, for clarification, in regard to the third submotion, that the subcommittee shall be made up of two MPs from the government majority, in the instance of a minority government is what we mean ``from the government side'' whether there is a majority or a minority?
The Chairman: From the government. Then take out the word ``majority''. But I don't foresee any minority situation.
Mr. Pagtakhan: I don't foresee it either.
The Chairman: The clerk is advising me that the motion would die in any event with this Parliament. If it were a new Parliament then we would need a new motion in any event. Dr. Pagtakhan's point is well taken. Would you agree to changing the word ``majority'' to ``side''?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: We'll now turn to the House of Commons publication motion adopted on March 8. You may remember that there was a problem with this. The Board of Internal Economy I think, Jamie, decided there was a problem. There was a briefing note with it. Jamie, perhaps you could quickly advise members as to why we're rescinding a motion and replacing it.
Mr. Jamie Robertson (Committee Researcher): I think the confusion arose with respect to the House of Commons administration. Essentially, the Clerk of the House sent a memo to the committee last February in which he asked the committee's concurrence with a motion to remove the publication of the monthly supplement to the Order Paper questions, because the outside auditors recommended this and it would result in a cost saving of $4,575 in printing costs.
At the committee meeting in October that considered this proposal, the motion proposed by the briefing note was adopted but there was an amendment made to it that indicated the Order Paper should be published on a monthly basis. This gave rise to some confusion, because this committee had previously agreed and recommended to the Board of Internal Economy that the items of private members' business outside the order of precedence should not be published on a regular basis. This was a cost saving of $135,000.
.1120
The addition of this wording at the end of the motion led to some confusion and some feeling this would reinstitute an additional cost of $135,000. To avoid that problem and to clarify the position of the committee, unless the committee wishes otherwise, the idea would be to amend the motion or rescind the earlier motion, and to adopt the motion at the top of page 2 of the agenda, which does not include the amendment and thereby doesn't create the confusion.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Speaker: I so move.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: The next item is the schedule of meetings. As you know, it's a tentative schedule, but unless other matters come to the committee, basically we will be seized for most of the month of March dealing with main estimates. There's a schedule of meetings. I just put that on the agenda for your information.
I note that the Speaker's estimates, which are on April 8, may in fact require two meetings, but they are the tentative meeting plans scheduled for this committee. As well, there's the likelihood of other meetings being scheduled, but presently that's what I'm able to report to you in terms of the meetings we've allocated.
Are there any other comments or any other business? Madam Catterall, please.
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): Our subcommittee on business of supply is doing its best to wrap up its report next week and report to this committee by March 21. You might want to include a meeting on April 10 to consider that report in the tentative agenda, provided I can break a logjam with Mr. Laurin.
The Chairman: Good luck.
[Translation]
Good luck with Mr. Laurin.
Ms Catterall: We might need some help from the Holy Spirit.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay. Is there any other business before we adjourn?
I adjourn the committee. Merci. Thank you.