[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 24, 1996
.1104 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum. Pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1), 106(2) and 116, the first order of business is to elect a chair.
[Translation]
I am prepared to entertain motions to that effect.
Mr. DeVillers.
Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): I move that Mr. Clifford Lincoln be elected to the Chair.
.1105
Mr. de Savoye (Portneuf): I second the motion, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Are there any other motions? Mr. DeVillers moves, seconded by Mr. de Savoye, that Mr. Lincoln do take the Chair of the committee.
Carried
The Chairman: The meeting is now called to order. The first item of business is the election of a first Vice-Chair for the government.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond - Wolfe): I move that Ms Phinney be elected Vice-Chair of the Committee.
The Chairman: Mr. Leroux moves, seconded by Mr. Peric, that Ms Phinney be elected Vice-Chair.
Carried
The Chairman: Congratulations, Ms Phinney. I am now ready to entertain nominations for the position of Vice-Chair for the Opposition. Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa - Vanier): I move that Mr. Gaston Leroux be elected Vice-Chair for the Opposition.
The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger moves, seconded by Mr. de Savoye, that Mr. Leroux be elected Vice-Chair of the committee.
[English]
A debate has been called. Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): Thank you. Mr. Chairman, as you're well aware, the Reform Party has made a point in all of the elections of the vice-chair positions that it is our belief that there should be some positions available for the Reform Party.
Rather than creating a confrontation or acrimony, I would simply like to request a recorded vote on this motion and to be clear. The reason for the recorded vote is that it is our belief that there is a joint force between the Bloc and the Liberals relative to the Reform Party in these positions, and we just want to have people on record for that. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Abbott. Mr. Peric.
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Mr. Chairman, would you be able to read the rules to us so we can follow the rules and then have no additional rules implemented by any party?
The Chairman: Right now, I think Mr. Abbott is perfectly in order to request a recorded vote. That's what he has asked for. There have been no counter-suggestions regarding the nomination of Mr. Leroux; Mr. Abbott has simply asked for a recorded vote, and I think we can proceed on this basis if I understand that is what Mr. Abbott would like to see.
So I would like to call for a recorded vote of the members regarding the nomination ofMr. Leroux, which has been duly moved and seconded.
[Translation]
I would like us to hold a recorded vote to either endorse or reject Mr. Leroux's nomination, which has been moved and duly seconded.
Carried: yeas 8, nays 1
The Chairman: Congratulations, Mr. Leroux.
[English]
Thank you very much. We have now several important items of business.
[Translation]
We have a very important matter to settle this morning in anticipation of our hearings on Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Copyright Act.
No doubt you received the memo I sent you recently, on September 20th to be exact, in which I proposed a chart, a witness list and a timetable. I have additional copies for those members who may not have this memo with them. Did everyone receive it? Mr. de Savoye?
.1110
[English]
I should explain to you that this tentative list and schedule is for members only until a decision is made to make it public. Please respect this, because a lot of people have asked to be heard and we have suggested a list to be discussed that is now for members only.
Mr. Abbott: Then I should make you aware of the fact that when we received the schedule, my office also had requests for that information, and until you had made this request I was unaware that was what you wanted to do. As a result, it is out in the public domain. It was not broadly broadcast, but there are two or three people outside of this committee who have it now.
The Chairman: I understand. There are several items to be discussed regarding the list and timetable of the work, plus other items relevant to the work of the committee.
My suggestion would be, and it is for you to decide whether you agree or not....
[Translation]
It's up to you to decide whether you agree or not. I suggest that the meeting be opened to the public for the most part.
[English]
Most of it would be a public and open meeting, but when we discuss the list of witnesses, until we finalize the list, I would suggest that we do this in camera for obvious reasons. We have 157 briefs; we must make choices. I wouldn't like the list to be known ahead of time until we have decided finally which of the people and institutions we want to choose to be heard.
[Translation]
I suggest that when we discuss the proposed witness list, we do so in camera, but that the remainder of the meeting be open to the public so that our discussions are on the record. Are we in agreement or would you like the entire meeting to be public? It's up to you.
Mr. Leroux.
Mr. Leroux: I agree with you as far as the proposed witness list is concerned, because I think we have a great deal to discuss regarding the proposals that have been submitted to us, in particular those having to do with grouping certain witnesses together.
However, I feel it is important for the discussions to be a matter of public record. It's important from an information standpoint.
As for the suggestion that was made, we can discuss it. Some fine work has been done with respect to the study of the bill and the hearings.
However, I would like some assurances, as you indicated in your memo, that witnesses will not be limited to discussing only the particular theme of their brief and that when the Official Opposition, the government or the Reform Party members have questions relating to other aspects of the bill, you will not call us to order by stating that we have strayed from the theme.
You stated this in your letter and I want some assurances this morning. As we know, groups often comment on the bill in general. It's a complicated process. Its fine with me, as long as the discussion is not limited to any one theme in particular.
.1115
The Chairman: I fully agree with you, Mr. Leroux. The idea of suggesting specific themes was intended to help us establish an order so that we could group requests together as much as possible by theme. However, it is clear that when these groups actually testify, they will be able to comment on all aspects of the bill if they so desire and you will be free to ask questions about the bill in general, if you wish to do so.
Mr. Leroux: That's fine with me, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Before we proceed any further...
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun - Saint-Paul): Mr. Chairman, I've been waiting to be recognized for about half an hour now.
The Chairman: One moment please, Mr. Lavigne.
[English]
Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: I'm not saying I'm opposed to the in camera, although I am at this point. I am prepared to be convinced, through argument, why it should be in camera. I don't understand why we should not have even the selection of the witnesses on public record. It just seems to me that there are times in public life when there is a deliberate attempt to say that a certain decision was made by someone else. We, as legislators, should be accountable. I am prepared to be convinced otherwise, but I would like to have an argument as to why it should be in camera before I am prepared to buy into that.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Lavigne.
Mr. Lavigne: The witness groups represent virtually all categories in which royalties may be paid, whether we're talking about books, television or productions. However, I note that there is nothing about photographs. Have you discussed...
The Chairman: Mr. Lavigne, I would suggest that we settle one thing first. When we get around to discussing which witnesses to invite and which briefs to consider, then we will discuss that matter.
For the moment, I want to know if the committee members want to discuss the proposed witness list in public or in camera. The rest of the meeting will certainly be in public. That is what I'm suggesting, but it's up to the members to decide. For example, Mr. Abbott would like the meeting to be public. If we do that, when we get around to discussing the proposed witness list, we will also discuss your question. I would then ask the research officer to provide you with the necessary explanations.
Can we continue now? What are your preferences as far as discussing the witness list is concerned?
[English]
As far as a list of witnesses goes, do we do it in an open meeting, or do we do it in camera? Is there anybody else besides Mr. Abbott and Mr. Leroux who wants to speak?
[Translation]
Mr. O'Brien.
[English]
Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): Mr. Chairman, all I can draw on is my previous elected experience of 13 years at the municipal level. I'm assuming the chair wants to maybe save some embarrassment. You're trying to pick the best of a good group of people and sometimes it's not a matter of being secret about it. I'm quite prepared to stand by our decision collectively or individually, however I vote. That's my experience. Sometimes you can have a franker discussion and avoid some potential embarrassment when you're not able to satisfy everybody's wishes.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: I feel the same way, Mr. Chairman. It's a matter of sensitivity. We have to be aware of the fact that there will be people who will be disappointed because we have not put them on our witness list. It's not a matter of hiding anything, because once a decision is made, everyone will know what it is. We simply have to avoid acting in a way that would needlessly hurt someone. In any event, it's not asking the impossible. We can hold our discussions in public, but it is customary to sit in camera for the reasons that I have just given.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any other views?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: I agree with my colleagues. We will be talking about whether we should group certain witnesses together, which brief we should select and whether a particular theme is covered or not by other associations. My colleague Mr. Abbott should know that anyone who tables a brief to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is free to publish it. We have no control over that. As well, they can announce that they have submitted a brief. I agree with my colleague that internal discussions give rise to certain exchanges on possible groupings of witnesses.
.1120
I don't think that we have to discuss in public the themes that we are going to retain for discussion purposes. If we decide to hear from all of the witnesses, the hearings will drag on and on and the same arguments will often be repeated.
That is a given. I too am convinced that the way we worked last spring... Everyone wants to hear from the witnesses, regardless of the arguments they have, and everyone wants to ensure that the bill is improved upon based on the representations that will be made to us. I have confidence in the committee members' ability to work on this.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: I have just one final comment, to summarize. From my experience on the finance standing committee when we went across Canada and did hearings one day in Vancouver, the next day in Edmonton and the next wherever, it struck me that the hearings were something of window-dressing in that there wasn't sufficient time and there was not a sufficient cross-section of witnesses.
With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I have now had an opportunity to take a look at the groupings, some of the briefs and the schedule, and I'm starting to be concerned that this legislation, which has been promised by the government for so many years, with the hearings being compacted into such a short period of time, is window-dressing. This permits some people to come to the issue, but where it affects so many artists and so many businesses, it is just being rushed through far too rapidly. If this is the best argument for having that part of the meeting in camera, I must say I disagree.
The Chairman: Mr. Abbott, of course I respect your viewpoint and I've listened very attentively to what you've had to say. I would just like to say that over the weeks of the summer three top researchers, experts in this field, have worked very long hours to look at a list of 157 briefs. I can assure you from my standpoint and from the standpoint of my colleagues on the Liberal benches - I can't speak for the others - that we are taking this extremely seriously. It is certainly not window-dressing.
It was my own suggestion that we ask the committee to employ the services of an outside researcher, who is considered to be one of the top objective people in the copyright field. From my standpoint, and I think from the standpoint of my colleagues, it's very much the other way. We want to listen to people attentively. We want to give them a chance, but no matter what you do, at one point or another you have to make a choice. We can't listen to 157 people. We'll be here till kingdom come. It's impossible. A lot of them overlap and duplicate. A lot of them belong to institutions that are in the very same milieu and they all want to be heard.
I think we will be suggesting that well over 60 groups be heard, which is a considerable job. We'll have to sit long hours. If you have looked at the schedule, it will mean sitting three hours per night. We'll be discussing this later.
I can assure you it's very far from my mind and from the minds of my colleagues with whom I've spoken to make this a window-dressing exercise. It's very much the other way. But I appreciate your viewpoint about an open meeting. My suggestion was that when you have to make choices and take one institution out of two or three that want to be heard, these choices are sometimes very difficult to make. If we do this in public, we don't want people to leave here with the feeling they've been left out.
.1125
I want to discuss the criteria for selection that I sent to you and then we'll make a choice. It's up to the members. If the members want to have it in camera, fine. If they want to have it in the open, that's okay with me. I have no objection either way. But at the same time, I think we have to decide.
Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. O'Brien: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I was surprised by my colleague Mr. Abbott's comments. I suppose I took some mild offence.
I've met with a number of groups in my riding on this issue and invited them to suggest questions that I might ask to flesh out the points they want raised. So if this is window-dressing, I want to go home right now. I don't think it is window-dressing. And I certainly would not have invited those people to come and raise their points. So I second your comments. I was a little surprised. I think we have some important work to do. Let's do it.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could close this part of the discussion. We have to make a decision. Is the whole meeting public or the whole meeting public except for the discussion on the list of the witnesses? That's what we have to decide, and it's up to you to decide one way or another.
I will put it to a vote. Will those who want a completely open meeting - that will be the first choice, your choice, Mr. Abbott - will you signify accordingly?
[Translation]
Those who would like the meeting to be completely open, and this includes the discussion on the proposed witness list, as Mr. Abbott suggested, will vote accordingly.
Motion rejected
[English]
The Chairman: Do I understand, then, that we're not going to a vote, that the reverse is what you want? In other words, you want to have a meeting that is open except for the discussion on the list of witnesses.
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chairman: So it will be.
[Translation]
According to our agenda, we will now dispose of certain routine motions.
You will recall that I wrote to you during the summer. The majority of committee members gave their consent.
[English]
that we take advantage of the services of an outside consultant who is an expert in copyright, Mrs. Wanda Noel. We now have to extend her contract, which expired because of the requirements of the House of Commons procedures. You'll find the first motion about contract consulting,
[Translation]
contracts for the services of a expert consultant. We have two motions, the first covering the period from August 1, 1996 to October 11, 1996 and the second, the period from October 12, 1996 to December 13, 1996. The first confirms action that has already been taken.
[English]
The first motion is to confirm the decision that was made by a majority of you to employMrs. Noel. The first one is a confirmation motion and the second one is a new motion to extend her contract to December 13, 1996.
Ms Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): I have one question. Will Ms Noel be available to all of us at any time? Or is she available only to the researchers in the committee?
The Chairman: Mrs. Noel will be available to all members at any time. She will work primarily with the committee researchers. It's a considerable amount of work. She's been working throughout the summer. At the same time, she'll make herself available to any member of the committee.
Ms Phinney: Thank you.
The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: I was just noting what appears to be a fairly massive escalation from $8,600 from August 1 to October 11, which I believe covers two and a half months. So for the sake of argument, that's $4,000 a month - to the next timeframe, which covers two months and takes us up to about $13,000.
.1130
The Chairman: The reason is that during the summer Mrs. Noel only worked certain hours to help the researchers when they needed the services, and it was a maximum that we could assign to this part of the project according to House of Commons rules. You'll appreciate that from this point on, October 12 to December 13, it's really the intensive period that starts. She'll be needed for all the hearings. She'll be needed almost continuously right now, so it's the number of hours she is working.
Mr. Abbott: In your judgment, Mr. Chairman - and I'm just asking for your opinion - is $13,000 a month a reasonable amount of money for a person of this calibre doing this kind of work?
The Chairman: Yes. In fact these are the guidelines suggested by the relevant committee of the House of Commons. It's a standard contract for this. In fact in outside practice Mrs. Noel would earn more than that. These are the guidelines and limits of the House of Commons. She was suggested to us by the previous committee, which employed her services when the first copyright legislation was done in 1988, I understand, by the Conservative government.
Mr. Abbott: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Peric, seconded by Mr. Leroux, moves the first motion.
[English]
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: As for the second motion, Ms Phinney moves and Mr. Bélanger seconds.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: We go on to the next motion.
As you know, we need a budget to operate, especially for the next works of the committee. The amount you see on there is an amount that the clerk discussed with the relevant committee of the House of Commons. There are the details of it, and the clerk will be quite ready to give you more information if you require it. It's a supplementary budget to permit the committee to operate from this point on. If you would like more details, Mrs. Hamilton, the clerk, will be very pleased to give them to you.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Yes, I would like us to discuss this so that we know where we are going.
.1133
.1135
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Chairman, these numbers don't appear to add up.
The Chairman: I just noticed that myself.
.1135
.1137
The Chairman: You're quite right; we're miles out. The clerk apologizes. It's just a misprint. I wanted to make sure with her that there was no item that had been left out, but apparently these are the three items, so the total is $133,555.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Are you certain that the correct figure is $133,555?
[English]
Mr. Abbott: The other thing I'm curious about is the final sentence under ``Executive Summary of Workplan'', which reads: ``The Committee is asking for $81,500.00 in additional funds to cover these costs.'' I don't understand what that number relates to relative to the bottom total of $133,555.
The Chairman: In view of your questions, I would like to ask Mrs. Hamilton to just make sure, before we start adopting things, that we have the right figures. I'll ask Mrs. Hamilton to recheck. We'll leave this item aside for now. It's too important. If we pass the wrong figure then we have to come back, and I would rather just make doubly sure.
While Mrs. Hamilton is checking, I would like to refer you to the timetable,
[Translation]
our timetable.
Mr. Leroux: As far as the budget is concerned, there is nothing stopping us from adopting it on Thursday.
The Chairman: I think that's a wise decision, Mr. Leroux.
Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: There is one item where no increase is provided for. I believe we usually order approximately 500 copies of the report to be printed.
The Clerk: The Board of Internal Economy authorizes us to print 550 copies. Since this is only a bill, there will be no special report and we will have no need of additional copies. We're covered for the first 550 copies.
Mr. Bélanger: I think there may be more requests for copies this time around, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps we should increase the printing budget a little to be able to print more copies. We have received 157 submissions in all. There will be more than the usual number of requests for copies of the report. Perhaps we should anticipate the increased demand and order 1,500 or even 2,000 copies to be printed.
.1140
[English]
Mr. Abbott: That's prudent.
[Translation]
The Clerk: The report as such will deal only with amendments at the report stage. Since we are studying a bill, the report will be in issue form and will be no more than four or five pages in length. We could always request that additional copies be printed internally.
The Chairman: In any case, I think your observation is very timely, Mr. Bélanger. I agree with Mr. Leroux that Ms Hamilton should review the figures and that we should take a definitive look at them on Thursday.
It is extremely important that members arrive at a decision as to the schedule. As for the meeting of Thursday the 26th, you will recall that in June, just prior to the conclusion of...
[English]
Just before the recess, we had....
I'm sorry. Ms Phinney.
Ms Phinney: I'm looking for Thursday, September 26. Mine starts at October 1.
The Chairman: No, this starts October 1. What I'm saying is -
Ms Phinney: This Thursday.
The Chairman: We have to make a decision regarding the coming Thursday.
If you recall, just before the recess we had an overview of the legislation by department officials. That was several months ago. Do you want one to be arranged with department officials on Thursday? An alternative would be for the research team, the three research officials we have - Madame Noel, Monique, and René Lemieux - to give an overview of the legislation to members, which they can do on any basis you want. They are prepared to go to your offices - to go to the Bloc offices, to the Reform offices, to the Liberal offices - or to give it to you as a committee. It's as you wish. Or the officials of the ministry can be approached to do it.
So we have a choice for Thursday in terms of whether you want an overview of the legislation again, or whether you're satisfied with the way the legislation sits as it is, in which case we would move the briefing on themes one to four, on labouring rights, provided for on Tuesday, October 1, to Thursday, October 26. The reason for this I will tell you later, but the minister has asked to appear on October 3. It would leave us a gap in which she could appear. So the choice is yours.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, this is clear in the operating plan drawn up by the experts. Before we proceed to discuss each theme, we could meet with the experts and discuss the issues with them to get a clear picture of what is at stake.
This seems to be an interesting approach and perhaps we should consider the possibility that certain themes outside the scope of our study may arise. If this happens, I will move to adjust the schedule to arrange for two additional hearings. I would like to schedule two additional hearings right at the end of our work, even though we may not need to sit at this time.
I also wanted to talk about the briefs. First of all, is this list definitive? Earlier on in the course of our discussions, I got the impression that it was still incomplete. Therefore, could someone confirm if in fact this list is definitive?
The Chairman: I would suggest that we deal with the schedule first, Mr. Leroux, and then move on to the matter of the briefs.
.1145
[English]
For Thursday, do you want an overview of the total legislation, or are you prepared to discuss the first four themes on Thursday of next week? It's important for us to know this, because then we have to play around with this -
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, this ties in with the question that I just asked. I don't want us to move on to the first theme on Thursday if we have not yet discussed the order in which the witnesses are going to appear or who in fact will be testifying.
The Chairman: We will be discussing the witnesses very shortly.
Mr. Leroux: This morning?
The Chairman: Yes, this morning. We have adopted a motion to do so in camera. I would like to clear up all outstanding issues and then, when we proceed...
Mr. Leroux: The discussion will be in camera.
The Chairman: Yes, that's correct. We will do that as soon as...
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be a little better prepared and to know as well if there are other possible witnesses. I still have some preparations to make and I would like us to discuss this matter on Thursday. We only recently received this document.
Since I was in my riding yesterday, I was unable to look into this matter in detail and I would very much like to do so. I would like to go over the groupings of witnesses and the suggestions. I am not prepared to discuss this at this time.
The Chairman: Mr. Leroux, I will do everything I can to accommodate your wishes, but if we agree to discuss the witnesses on Thursday, we will have to arrive at a decision at that time. You realize that the committee is required to extend invitations to the witnesses and to inform them of the day on which they are scheduled to appear. We have to start making our arrangements almost immediately, in particular where the first witnesses are concerned. Therefore, on Thursday, if this goes to Thursday, we will have to come out of the meeting with a definite list because we can't wait much longer, unless we postpone things until much later.
Mr. Leroux: I have no problem with that.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: I concur with Mr. Leroux.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is everyone in agreement?
[English]
Are all of the Liberal members in agreement? Okay, so we'll discuss the list in camera on Thursday.
In the meantime, I would like to know whether or not you also want to have an overview of the total legislation when we discuss the list on Thursday. That overview would be with the researchers who are here and who know the legislation backwards, or with the officials from the ministry. If it is with the officials of the ministry, we will have to have a formal setting like this one. If it's with the researchers, they are prepared to go to your offices to meet with you individually or on a party basis, as you wish.
Mr. Peric: I would prefer that it's with the researchers, if it is possible.
The Chairman: Is this the feeling of all members?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: I agree that this should be arranged between the researchers because they have done a good job with this from the very beginning. We have already done two readings together and I think that we can skip this stage, all the more so given that before broaching each theme, we will discuss the issues. The discussions will then be more in-depth.
The Chairman: I would now like to discuss a matter of utmost importance to all of us.
[English]
As you can see, this timetable provides for sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays, starting at 11 a.m. and finishing at 1:15 p.m.,
[Translation]
from 11 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. every Thursday and then another sitting from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. There is one other possibility.
[English]
We could have those morning sessions on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and a night session on Tuesday, and, instead of Thursday - many members, especially those who live a long way from Ottawa, like to go home on Thursday - we could have an evening session on Wednesdays. I think it's very important for us to know now so that we can book the halls, because we are required to do it on a systematic basis. Unless there is an emergency, if we decide it is Wednesday, then it will be Wednesday night. If we decide it's Thursday night, then it will be Thursday night.
.1150
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, last year, we began sitting at 11 a.m. because of a problem with the room. Is this still a problem for us? We could sit at 9 a.m. if a room was available at that time. Instead of starting at 11 a.m., we could start at 9 a.m. In any event, last year as you may recall, the problem had to do strictly with the availability of the room.
The Chairman: We decided to sit at 11 a.m. because many people were coming from outside the region. However, if the committee prefers to sit from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m...
[English]
Many members come from a long way away and are not here on Mondays. Many don't arrive in time for the Tuesday...and this is why we decided on 11 a.m. But the clerk tells me that 9 a.m. is possible, so we could go from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. or 11:15 a.m. instead of from 11 a.m. until 1:15 p.m.
[Translation]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Chairman, I have an idea, and it is only an idea. I see that we are scheduled to sit five hours and fifteen minutes every day. If you break this down, you will see that we sit part of the morning and all evening. If we were to sit for five consecutive hours, from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m., we would only be working in the morning.
We know that members on all sides of the House are very busy. I understand that witnesses can't arrive for any early morning meeting if they only leave home that morning, but if we hear from them at 9 o'clock at night, they can't go back home that evening either. They will have to sleep over and go home the following day. Therefore, it is feasible to have the witnesses arrive one evening and testify before the committee at 8 o'clock the following morning. While the meeting may be rather long, we would only have to sit once, rather than twice, during the day. It was only a thought. If I were running my own business, I would urge my employees to adopt these hours because they would be more productive.
The Chairman: I remind you that we have a problem with the room at 8 a.m. At 9 a.m., there is no problem, but the clerk informs me that at 8 a.m...
The Clerk: The problem stems from the scarcity of committee rooms and the fact that committees work according to a block system. Rooms are reserved for a certain number of committees from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and then for a number of others from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. If we want to meet outside of our assigned block of time, the room is available only if the other committees do not want it.
Mr. de Savoye: Could we exchange our time with a committee that would want to sit in the evening? Our block of evening time would be available for other committees who might wish to switch their day block with us. It's a game of give and take. We simply have to make some adjustments. And of course, we can always rent a room.
There are many people seated around this table and we should be able to concentrate our efforts, instead of sitting for a few hours in the morning, and then later in the evening and sacrificing the rest of the day in the process.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Chairman, I'll come back to the business of the block of time in just a second, but this brings up a point. I address the point of my friend Mr. O'Brien. When I made the comment about window dressing, you know, Mr. Chairman, that I have the highest regard for you as a legislator, as I do for everyone in this room. I am not suggesting that anyone in this room is here with ill will or that there is any concept among ourselves as individuals of this being a window-dressing process.
.1155
What I am deeply concerned about - and when I received this list, it drove it home - is that we are going to be doing legislation by exhaustion. I suggest that the problem is not with the committee; the problem is with the department. The department, having delayed and delayed and delayed in bringing forward the legislation, has now said to this committee that it wants the legislation out so that it can be passed before Christmas. If they were in such a cotton-picking rush to begin with, why didn't they get the legislation out sooner?
In other words, we're looking at parliamentarians who have responsibilities to their constituents and to other issues in Ottawa, who are now being asked to take out this block of time. Are we going to be able to give a proper hearing to the people who will be taking their time to come here to do this?
I suggest that the problem is not with this committee. The problem is with the schedule imposed by the Department of Canadian Heritage. As a consequence, I think no matter how we slice this thing up, however the hearings take place, if they are jammed into this compact period of time the quality will simply not be there, no matter how much goodwill each of us has in coming to this.
On the second issue, with respect to Mr. de Savoye, I would find it far easier to do two and a half and two and a half with a complete split so that I would be able to attend to the other issues of the day. To do five consecutive hours and take myself out of the things I would normally be doing would simply not be workable.
So with the greatest respect, I think the idea of going from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. and then doing three hours in the evening is probably the most workable - exhausting, but workable.
The Chairman: There is just one point to be made, Mr. Abbott. I understand exactly what you're saying, but we had a choice to make. Before we broke up in June, we made a conscious choice. You may not have been there yourself; I don't recall. The department was then ready to get going with the legislation. The legislation was there. I remember telling committee members that this was their choice. We could start the hearings, as some committees did, in the summer, or if we left them until after the summer and started in September or October, we would have to compress the schedule. The department had indicated that it would like the work to be finished by early December, but we had the choice ourselves to start in June and work in July and August. We as a committee made that conscious choice and I left it open to the members.
I don't know if it was you or your colleague, Mr. Hanrahan, who made the decision on behalf of your party, but the fact is that we all decided we didn't want to have hearings in the summer and we would leave them until the fall. I remember putting it to members that if we had them in the fall, they must be prepared to sit in the evening. Everybody agreed. In fact, I said we might have to sit three days in the evening, and everybody agreed because they preferred to be home in their ridings in the summer. This was the conscious choice we made. At the time, the legislation was ready for us to deal with.
All I can say is that I think the desire is here on behalf of all of us to do a conscientious job. I think you were present quite a bit of the time when we worked through CEPA, which was an extensive process. We worked long, long hours, and I think we did justice to the people we heard because we all wanted to do a conscientious job.
I hear you loud and clear. If we don't have enough time, then we have to make the time. We have to sit longer. But this is the schedule we prepared with a lot of forethought, and I think it's feasible.
Let's say now that we have three choices. Number one, there is what Mr. de Savoye said, that if it could be done we should sit five hours at a time. Number two, we have this choice here, which is Tuesdays and Thursdays, mornings and evenings. The third choice is mornings on Tuesdays, mornings on Thursdays and evenings on Wednesdays. So there are three very clear choices.
.1200
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: When I suggested earlier that we begin sitting at 9:00 a.m., it was not because I wanted the committee to sit from 9 to 11 a.m., but rather from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., two consecutive sittings, so that we wouldn't have to sit on Thursday evening.
The Chairman: I understand. Mr. de Savoye's and Mr. Leroux's proposals are substantially similar. The committee would sit from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
[English]
Ms Phinney.
Ms Phinney: I'm still not clear on his proposal.
The Chairman: His proposal would be that instead of starting at 11 a.m., we should start at 9 a.m. and carry through to 1 p.m.
Ms Phinney: On Thursdays.
The Chairman: On Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Mr. Leroux: On Tuesdays or Thursdays, I don't care.
The Chairman: On both days or one of them?
Mr. Leroux: Maybe one day,
[Translation]
merely so that we would not have to sit on Thursday evening. If that proved to be a problem, we could make some adjustments. I have no problem with the committee meeting on Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
[English]
Mr. de Savoye: Mr. Leroux is saying let's have one long morning from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. to replace one of those evenings.
Mr. Abbott: Yes, and that would be on the Thursday.
The Chairman: Ms Phinney first, please.
Ms Phinney: I'm not sure. I had three choices, and it was clearer. I didn't want to have a long session. I find that after even two or two and a half hours, our questioning drags. It's obvious to the witnesses that we're not interested after about two and a half hours. It's not because we're not interested, but because we're tired.
I like the idea of having only one night meeting, so now I'm in a quandary. I don't know.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Mr. Chairman, is Thursday evening a problem for the committee in general?
The Chairman: I'm sorry, but I would like to give the others an opportunity to speak.
[English]
Mr. Peric and Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Peric: Mr. Chairman, we have a southwestern caucus meeting every Tuesday evening. Thursday night, I would like to go home and spend the weekend with my constituents. I would prefer and support this idea of having two long ones and a 15-minute break between.
The Chairman: The problem with Mr. Leroux's suggestion of 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. is that we lose one hour. If you look at the schedule, the evening sessions are three hours long. We lose one hour every time. We have to make it up somewhere, because one hour means one group -
Mr. Peric: Go to 1:30 p.m. instead of 1:00 p.m.
The Chairman: I'll listen to Mr. Bélanger, then I'll come back to you, Mr. Peric.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make another suggestion, with your permission. If my colleagues prefer not to sit in the evening, perhaps there is some way to do away with evening meetings while maintaining the same number of sitting hours. During the week of October 14, while the House is in recess, we could devote three or four days to considering this bill. We could sit for eight hours on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, for a total of 24 hours. This way, we wouldn't have to sit in the evenings.
You're right, Mr. Chairman, to say that it was our choice to postpone this study until the fall. We quite expected to have to meet more frequently. I realize that this creates some problems. If it is too much trouble to take three days and in the process, eliminate the need for evening meetings, then we will have to sit in the evening. It's as simple as that.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Peric.
Mr. Peric: I would support that idea if my riding were in Ottawa, but my riding is not in Ottawa. When we are out, we have to be in the riding.
The Chairman: Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: If I understand Mr. Leroux's proposal, it's that we would be going from 11 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. on Tuesday, then 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. on Tuesday. Then we would be doing one long one on Thursday starting at 9 a.m. Is that the proposal?
.1205
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux: Not on Thursdays. The issue is to find some way of avoiding a Thursday evening meeting. First of all, let me just say that I had no objections to the proposed schedule. Those who have to leave Thursday evening are the ones who have a problem. All I want is for us to shift the Thursday evening sitting to another time slot.
You have suggested that we facilitate matters for those who want to leave early on Thursday. All I'm trying to do is to get us to reschedule the Thursday evening meeting.
As far as the recess week is concerned, I already have other commitments. These weeks are planned in advance. It's the Thursday evening that appears to be the problem. Reschedule this sitting and, if necessary, we will agree amongst ourselves on the work to be done. We've said that we would work and work we will. I have no objections to our extending the hours of several sittings or to our rescheduling the Thursday evening meeting.
[English]
The Chairman: Okay, I think now we can eliminate the week of the break. I think that seems to be the consensus. There's at least one less thing to talk about.
Okay. Now we've got these choices. We had better just kind of make up our minds. Tuesday, as indicated, is from 9 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. Thursday is 9 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.
There's Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, Tuesday and Thursday mornings or Tuesday and Thursday evenings. That's option two.
Here's option three. Tuesday, if it's possible to get the necessary rooms and stuff, would be from 9 a.m. to.... In fact, to have the equivalent, we would almost have to go to 2 p.m., or just add more time on the other sessions. In that case, we would sit Tuesday mornings, Tuesday or Wednesday evenings, and Thursday mornings.
Mr. Abbott: Because we're not really sure if we can do these things, can we actually vote on this today anyway? In other words, are the rooms going to be available even if we make a decision today?
The Chairman: Well, at least we should give a signal of our choices to the clerk, otherwise, we're just spinning wheels. She can't just confirm it. She could confirm it on Thursday if we make a choice. This has been checked out.
What has also been checked out is the alternative of Wednesday nights. That we can say is feasible. If we now just say we'll have a big block on Tuesday morning or Thursday morning, then that has got to be rechecked. But at least we have to make a choice here as to what we want. It's no good for her to go and check it out if it's unnecessary.
Excuse me, the clerk has advised me that there's a problem with extended blocks. She will only be able to book the rooms one week at a time. That makes it almost impossible for witnesses.
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that you and the clerk confer. We've got quite a few variations on the table. I think you should confer with her. I would suggest that you, as chair, confer with the clerk and come back to us on Thursday with a couple of choices, which we'll finalize Thursday.
I've heard about seven or eight different variations, and the only thing I say is that I'd like to move it away from Thursday nights. I'm prepared to sit any other time that we can. There are several variations already here. I think we need some checking to be done. I would suggest the chair come back and give us the two best options on Thursday, and we'll pick one.
Ms Phinney: If it's impossible to do Tuesday.... I don't want to come Thursday evening. I would also like to have Wednesday free, because I think we all like to have some time with other people in our own party or to do things here. I know we're here to work, but I would also like Wednesday.
If we picked the third choice, Tuesday morning, Tuesday evening and Thursday morning.... But we can't do Tuesday morning from what you're saying, as it's a long one.
Why don't we do Tuesday morning - that's a long day, isn't it - Tuesday afternoon and Tuesday night, and then one on Thursday? So it will be all day Tuesday - two, two, and two.
.1210
Mr. de Savoye: From what I hear, I believe we all agree that Thursday nights should be eliminated. We also favour three sessions per week: two mornings, one evening. I've heard one morning, one afternoon, one evening. We are going from four to three sessions, and I think there's consensus on that.
I would move, Mr. Chair, that the clerk present next Thursday a solution respecting those two things - if it's feasible, of course.
The Chairman: With all due respect, Mr. de Savoye, we have a problem. We made a conscious choice that come the fall, because we wouldn't sit in the summer, we had so many hours to give. These are the hours that we must find as a minimum. We can't do it in less time than this, otherwise we are just sacrificing the work we have to do.
Eventually we will have to make a choice. We can't say Thursday we don't want to sit, Wednesday it's impossible. Either we do or we don't. It seems to me the choices are very limited. The clerk tells me it's impossible because of the rules to have longer sessions in the mornings without having to do them one week at a time.
It is impossible to plan. You tell witnesses to come ahead of time, and then you say the next week that it won't be possible, that you'll have to change it. We can't do that. We have so many hours we have to devote to this. The number of hours are there. Every day we have to find that amount of hours.
Mr. de Savoye: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, there are ten hours in the week that have been allotted as time slots. What I understand as a consensus is let's divide those ten hours, not in four slots but in three slots. Let's make the time, and we agree on that. Just let's make it more respectful of the other obligations every MP has, because if we have to put time on this committee, we have to put time on other chores that are important too.
If it is not feasible - and the clerk will have the opportunity to check that - then certainly this committee will accept, if worse comes to worse, that we will fulfil the time as expected. But let's check it first.
Mr. O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about five or six weeks. I served on the environment committee for the second year, when you were there as well, and we went on for weeks and weeks with the schedule. We can do five weeks of the schedule. I think we should move the Thursday night to Wednesday night and leave it like it is here.
It's not like we haven't discussed this before. We had a preliminary discussion of this before the summer. We talked about, quite likely, this schedule. I favour moving the Thursday night to Wednesday night, and let's finalize it. We're not talking about the whole session; it's five weeks.
Ms Phinney: If we can't manage, we'll change it after two weeks.
The Chairman: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: I have no problem with what has just been proposed.
There's one other caveat we might want to keep in mind. That is, very often we have votes on Tuesdays, around 5:30 or 6 p.m. If we are scheduling witnesses for that time and we end up having votes, then it's not good for the witnesses and not good for anybody. We might want to think about un décalage d'une heure for Tuesday nights. Start a little later, even if we have to finish a little later, so that we don't jumble witnesses all the time. I found that rather...
[Translation]
It's unpleasant for the witnesses and for us as well.
[English]
The Chairman: Given all this discussion, can we arrive at a decision so that these people can go to work? It's very complicated to set up these things. They have to look at rooms, and so on.
Can we take Mr. O'Brien's suggestion as one the clerks can work on, and also take into consideration what you suggested so that I can ask the clerk to check into that? Then we'll give you the final dates and everything on Thursday morning. Is that fair enough?
.1215
If you look at the schedule here, the minister was shown to appear on November 5, 1996, at the end, which we had thought the minister might want to do as a wrap-up. She would rather appear at the start of the proceedings, and she has given us a tentative date of Thursday, October 3, 1996, in the morning. So we are going to look at the schedule again to fit in the minister and see how we can reorganize this, and we'll give you a revised list with the new dates and everything.
We have taken note of Mr. Leroux's suggestion that at the end of the proceedings we have some kind of departmental wrap-up, which we have provided for, and we would allow the members nearly two full weeks from the end of the hearings, which would be November 5, 1996, to prepare motions, especially the opposition parties to prepare the motions and amendments you want, so that you have time to study them. Then we would start the clause-by-clause study on November 19, 1996, when we return to the House. Hopefully we would devote a week to that and be finished by then.
Does that appear okay to you so far? Would you please indicate as soon as you can to the research team, through the clerk or my office, when you want to meet with the researchers for an overview or theme discussions?
Unless members have other points to discuss, this concludes our meeting for today.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: We are not going to sit in camera then?
The Chairman: No, because Mr. Leroux and Mr. Abbott prefer that we discuss the proposed witnesses on Thursday. Therefore, Thursday's meeting will be in camera.
Mr. Bélanger: I see.
The Chairman: They want to review the list and we'll begin to do that on Thursday.
[English]
We'll start a closed meeting to discuss the list of the witnesses and then we'll have a revised timetable for you - 11 a.m. Thursday. If you prefer 9 a.m. Thursday, it's fine with me.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux, if you would prefer that we meet at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, we could arrange to do that.
Mr. Leroux: I can adjust. You want me to adjust and therefore I will adjust.
The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.