[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 12, 1996
.1731 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum.
[Translation]
Gentlemen, we have a quorum.
[English]
The first item of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect. Do you have a proposition?
Mr. Keyes (Hamilton West): Yes, Mr. Clerk. I'd like to nominate Reg Alcock for chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport.
Mr. Jordan (Leeds - Grenville): I'd like to nominate Joe Comuzzi as chairman of the transport committee.
[Translation]
The Clerk: We have two motions. We'll start by dealing with the first motion and then, depending on the result, move on to the second.
[English]
We have the first motion. It's moved by Mr. Keyes that Mr. Alcock be elected chair of this committee. Is it the wish of the committee to adopt the motion?
Mr. Jordan: Excuse me; it's that he be nominated chair of the committee, not elected.
The Clerk: We're now proposing the motion for a vote.
Is it agreed that Mr. Alcock be elected chairman of this committee?
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Can we have a recorded vote?
Mr. Clerk: Yes, we can.
Motion agreed to: yeas, 6; nays, 5
The Clerk: I declare Mr. Alcock duly elected chairman of this committee. I invite Mr. Alcock to take the chair.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, congratulations on your election, and I'd like to nominate for the position of opposition vice-chair Mr. Jim Gouk.
The Chairman: Are there any other nominations?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier (Blainville - Deux-Montagnes): I nominate of Mr. André Caron, MP for Jonquière.
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any others?
Mr. Keyes: Do you want both vice-chairs now or just one?
The Clerk: Yes, both.
The Chairman: The nominations are for the opposition vice-chair.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to nominate Mr. Joe Comuzzi for vice-chair.
The Chairman: But that's for the government vice-chair.
Mr. Keyes: Oh, sorry. Are you going to do the second vice first?
The Clerk: That's right.
Mr. Keyes: I'll put that in abeyance.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I want to say something just briefly because there's been some misunderstanding about vice-chairs on some of the other committees, particularly the opposition vice-chair.
There has been some thought that the opposition vice-chair had to be a member of the official opposition, but in fact if you look at the Standing Orders, the ``o'' is a small ``o''. It just says it has to be an opposition member.
.1735
In fact, when the Standing Orders were changed in 1991 and the opposition vice-chair position was created, in that first go-around there was a vice-chair nominated and elected from the third party, which at that time was the NDP. I believe it was Mr. Young, who was elected as a vice-chair to the human rights and disabilities committee.
So there is no precedent that says that a third-party MP cannot be an opposition vice-chair, and in fact, there is a precedent that it is quite acceptable for that to be the case.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Mercier, do you wish to comment?
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: Mr. Chairman, I don't deny that the motion that has just been put forth is in accordance with the Standing Orders, but if we go by usage and common sense, a representative of the Official Opposition should be vice-chair for the opposition.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Mr. Chairman, in fact the member from the Reform Party, Mr. Hermanson, was right in saying that since 1991 there was one instance in which the third party was elected vice-chair. What he forgot to say is that it was the official opposition who gave it up to them at the time, and that in fact was the only precedent. In fact, vice-chairs are always one from the government and one from the official opposition, unless one was relinquished.
What happened was that there was negotiation between the then official opposition and the third party, and the official opposition gave one of its vice-chair positions to the third party for whatever reason.
I understand there were similar negotiations after the last election and that the third party was not satisfied with the vice-chairs, I believe more than one, offered to it by the official opposition in this parliament - I wasn't there - and those negotiations apparently broke down.
If they're prepared to resume their negotiations and there is a different outcome to that, I'm sure all of us would be curious to know the result of those negotiations were they to take place again. But at the time we were told that the then representative of the third party, after the election in 1993, walked away from the table because she couldn't get the vice-chairs she felt she was entitled to and said she preferred not to have any. Apparently it has been held that way ever since.
In any case, I wasn't the government whip then, and secondly, the then government whip was not party to that. It's an issue between the two opposition parties for them to sort out if the opposition decides to relinquish some positions to the third party. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't there at the time.
The Speaker has now ruled, and it's quite obvious who the official opposition is. I'm not saying that I like it that way. I've fought separatists an awful lot and will probably do so again in the next election, and I've campaigned against the Bloc Québécois much more, if I may say, than perhaps some members of the Reform Party. But the electors decided that the Bloc Québécois was the official opposition. It's not my fault, but it's the truth, it's a reality, and I have to respect that notwithstanding the fact that I don't personally vote for them - that's obvious. But it's there.
The Chairman: Mr. Hermanson, and then Mr. Lavigne.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. For the government whip, who wasn't involved in any of this, to seem to have so much knowledge about the circumstances seems rather odd. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I know something of those negotiations because I was the House leader for the Reform Party at the time, and in fact we were told by the government that this was the road down which we needed to proceed.
We started down that road, but upon further examination of the Standing Orders we found that the advice or direction given us by the government was in fact wrong, that the committees are masters of they own destiny and that they are to choose their vice-chairs amongst themselves by an electoral process, and in fact there is nothing in the Standing Orders that suggests there has to be some preordained decision as to who the chair is going to be and who the vice-chairs are going to be. So based on our discovery of this in the Standing Orders, we immediately decided we would throw our lot in with the electoral process in committee and not pursue negotiations, particularly with a separatist party.
I want that to be clear and to be on the record.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Mr. Lavigne.
Mr. Lavigne (Verdun - Saint-Paul): Mr. Chair, I propose that we go to the vote, please.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes.
.1740
Mr. Keyes: When I was privileged to be elected chair of the last go-round, the same issue hit the floor and we had a discussion; I believe Mr. Hermanson was here at the time. I asked the question then, as I will again today, because I think it's important for the record.
I think Mr. Hermanson respects the Canadian democracy - he nods in the affirmative. So let's talk about the importance of convention in the Canadian democracy.
By example, the Governor General appoints the Prime Minister, but by convention, he turns to the leader of the party that gains the most number of seats in an election to form the government in the House of Commons. That is convention; convention is important to our democratic society. Therefore, the convention of parliamentary committee business is to elect a chair from the official opposition as first chair.
Mr. Hermanson: That's incorrect, because this convention was only initiated in 1991. We're not talking about the Governor General; we're not going back 130 years; we're talking about very few times. It's just a convention that's been initiated by the Liberal government since the 1993 election.
Mr. Keyes: Over a hundred times, I think, would justify convention, Mr. Hermanson. A hundred times we've elected a chair from the official opposition. That is convention.
Mr. Hermanson: The Standing Orders were only changed in 1991 to allow a chair to be selected from the opposition. We're not talking about 130 years.
Mr. Keyes: No, we're talking about the hundred times that it's happened.
Mr. Hermanson: The very first time it happened, a member of the third party was selected as a vice-chair of a standing committee. With all due respect, Mr. Keyes, you're wrong.
Mr. Keyes: Mr. Hermanson, you stand to be corrected because of the fact that since 1991 there have been over a hundred instances where the chair has been elected from the official opposition. That provides the convention, to which we say that the position of the vice-chair comes from the official opposition. There is your convention.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Keyes.
We have two motions before us. Shall we proceed to the vote?
Mr. Chatters (Athabasca): Can we have a recorded vote, please?
The Chairman: It is moved by Mr. Hermanson that Mr. Gouk be elected vice-chair of the committee.
Motion negatived: nays, 6; yeas, 5
The Chairman: It is moved by Mr. Mercier that Mr. Caron be elected vice-chair of the committee.
Motion agreed to: yeas, 6; nays, 5
The Chairman: Mr. Caron is a vice-chair.
It is moved by Mr. Keyes that Mr. Comuzzi be elected vice-chair.
Motion agreed to
Mr. Hermanson: The Liberals have a majority, if that's what they want.
The Chairman: Yes, we do.
.1745
Everybody has a copy of motions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 12(a). I'm informed by the clerk that these motions are in the same form as they are every time we constitute a committee having to do with time allocation, distribution of papers, witness expenses and the like. What is the wish of the committee - do you want to go through each motion or do you wish to adopt them in a block?
Mr. Chatters: I wish to propose an amendment to number 8.
The Chairman: Then, shall we move through each one of them? Okay.
For motion number 5, I need somebody to move that the chair, the two vice-chairs and two other members appointed by the chair after the usual consultations with the whips of the different parties, do compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.
Mr. Keyes: I so move.
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: Next is motion number 6 on time allocation. Is it agreed to?
Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): Mr. Chairman, someone will have to move that to put it on the -
The Chairman: Move what?
Mr. Hubbard: Number 6, will they?
The Chairman: It doesn't say that here. It just says -
Mr. Hubbard: I disagree with it, and the reason is that quite often witnesses appear for an hour or less. They often taken up 20 to 30 minutes with their presentation, and in many cases only three members get the opportunity to ask any questions. I really feel that if our committee is limited again to 10 minutes each, there is very little opportunity for a second person from each party to have any part in the process. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that five minutes should be allocated for each questioner.
The Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this item? Mr. Keyes.
Mr. Keyes: What I think we did in the last go-around was agree to these terms on the time allocation. But we could also add the point of flexibility here, Charles. For example, depending on the circumstance and on the legislation and on the schedule and on everything else, the flexibility could be given to move to five-minute rounds at the discretion of the chair, moved by you, if necessary. I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule on who gets to question and for how long, etc.
The chair, I am sure, would be given the latitude to let Charles go not five minutes but ten, if he was the second questioner, or the opposition, if they didn't have ten minutes to fill. I knowMr. Mercier often only takes five of his ten minutes. I think the flexibility is there and I think this is just a motion for a time allocation as a hard and fast rule, but we're always very flexible in this - that is, I've known past chairmen to be very flexible.
The Chairman: Mr. Comuzzi.
Mr. Comuzzi: Mr. Chairman, first let me congratulate you on winning the election. I said at the outset that we were going to have an election and I congratulate you on being successful - and I congratulate myself on not being successful!
The Chairman: Thank you. It was the band.
Mr. Comuzzi: I just listened to Mr. Keyes, and he made about the same statement as he made last year on time allocation. I support Mr. Hubbard, inasmuch as it's sometimes very difficult to properly question a witness who has some important information to bring before this committee.
I would like to see motion number 6 on time allocation be changed and perhaps.... Let's just change it, and so as not to belabour this meeting, let's not adopt it so we can discuss thoroughly what is the best way to get the best results out of our witnesses.
The Chairman: Mr. Comuzzi, unless there's further discussion, I might suggest that we not pass it at this time, and I'll take it to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. We'll have a discussion with all present and come back to the first meeting with a recommendation.
Mr. Comuzzi: Thank you.
The Chairman: Next is number 7 - distribution of papers. Is it agreed that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents, such as briefs, letters and other papers received from the public and addressed to the members of the committee in the language received, the committee clerk to ensure that such documents are translated and circulated as promptly as possible?
An hon. member: Agreed.
The Chairman: Any further discussion? Mr. Chatters, you had a...?
Mr. Chatters: Yes, I'd like to move that an amendment be made to the last line to have it read: ``provided that both government and official opposition members are present''.
I recall on a number of occasions in the last session of this parliament the Reform Party was required to be present to provide a quorum so witnesses could be heard on the transportation bill that was before us. Certainly, if it's so important for the official opposition to have the vice-chair position, then I think it's equally important for them to make the commitment to have people here at every meeting or to hear witnesses. On the occasions I've mentioned, members of the official opposition were busy off campaigning in a referendum to break this country up. We had to make up the quorum so this committee could proceed. I think it's reasonable for that to be read as official opposition.
.1750
The Chairman: Mr. Lavigne, do you have any discussion on this?
[Translation]
Mr. Lavigne: This motion stipulates that, ``the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute... in the language received...''
Does this mean that all the papers will be distributed as they are received and they will then be sent to translation? I would rather that the documents be filed in both of Canada's official languages?
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Lavigne, we've passed that motion.
[See Minutes of Proceedings]
I can take your comments as advice to the committee, or we can come back to it if you wish to discuss it any further. Would that be satisfactory?
Mr. Lavigne: I beg your pardon?
The Chairman: I can take your comments back to the general procedure committee. We've already passed motion number 7 now on the distribution of papers.
Mr. Lavigne: Okay.
The Chairman: Mr. Keyes, on motion number 8.
Mr. Keyes: Yes, just a follow-up to Mr. Chatters' suggestion. I'm not too clear on this. This motion says ``and opposition members are present''. Are you saying that it should say ``official opposition members are present''?
Mr. Chatters: It's that the official opposition has to have members present.
Mr. Keyes: All right. I wouldn't suspect that the Reform Party would want to be obstructionist to opportunities of the committee to do its work. Mr. Chatters will know, Mr. Hermanson will know, and everyone will know that on some days when you get in here there are, for example, ten witnesses lined up who have come to Ottawa from across Canada to make a presentation to this committee and to be scrutinized by members of the committee. You wouldn't want to hold up the timetable of the committee or that of the witnesses who have come from across Canada to make their presentation to the committee because one member of the opposition was not present.
As Mr. Chatters will know, we want to hear what the witnesses have to say. There are times when there is an opportunity to see beforehand the papers that will be presented to this committee. Sometimes members don't have questions for the witness, but whatever the witness has to say is on the record for anyone to read at any time later on down the road, or whatever. I would only hope that we could proceed with a witness if there was a member of the opposition present.
The alternative is just for the chair to say we should begin without any opposition present and just use a point-of-information meeting, at which time the witness starts to produce anyway. So I think as a courtesy to the witness, we would want to have at least one member of the opposition, not necessarily the official opposition, present.
The Chairman: Mr. Mercier.
[Translation]
Mr. Mercier: I don't think we should make it anymore difficult for witnesses to be heard. They sometimes travel far to come here.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Chatters, do you wish to come back on this?
Mr. Chatters: Yes, I would. I think that the Reform Party would have been prepared, had they been given the vice-chairmanship, to make the commitment of having the vice-chairman have that privilege. We would also accept that responsibility to make sure we have members here so the committee could carry on business. I think the official opposition should be prepared to well take that responsibility. I think the one goes with the other. I think it's a reasonable request.
The Chairman: For the committee to proceed, Mr. Chatters, would you like to make as a motion -
Mr. Chatters: Yes, I would.
The Chairman: - that the word ``official'' be included in the last line of motion number 8.
Is everybody clear on the intention of this?
Motion negatived
.1755
The Chairman: Item 9 is witness expenses. Is it agreed to?
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Next is working lunches. Mr. Hermanson.
Mr. Hermanson: Is this for the committee itself? I thought you were talking about witnesses' expenses.
The Chairman: Right.
Mr. Hermanson: Is that witnesses' expenses?
The Chairman: Yes. Item 9, Mr. Hermanson, is witness expenses.
Mr. Hermanson: Are we saying how many can come per organization? Is it a limit of two?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Hermanson: Okay, that's fine.
[See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Item 10 is working lunches.
Mr. Comuzzi: It's not to have any, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Well, I can certainly do without lunch, Joe.
Mr. Keyes: This is just from time to time. It's not every day. It just says from time to time we'll bring in lunch if we go over.
Mr. Comuzzi: Who pays?
Mr. Keyes: The committee.
The Chairman: The motion, Joe, is that the committee authorize the chairman, from time to time, as the need arises, to take, in conjunction with the clerk of the committee, the appropriate measures to provide lunches for the committee and its subcommittees, for working purposes.
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Item 11 is the printing of minutes of proceedings. Is it agreed that the committee print copies of its minutes of proceedings as established by the Board of Internal Economy?
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Item 12 is Library of Parliament research officers. Is it agreed 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 works, at the discretion of the chair?
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: Item 12(a) is the consultant. Is it agreed that David Cuthbertson be hired as a research consultant to the committee?
Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings]
The Chairman: So ordered.
Is it agreed that we adjourn?
Some hon members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you.