HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 8, 2000

• 1106

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

Colleagues, we meet here today for a relatively short time to fulfil our role under the standing orders in creating a legislative committee to deal with Bill C-20. The process, which we don't actually do too often, under the current House procedures would normally involve each of the parties putting forth nominees to sit on the C-20 legislative committee. It sounds like a pretty simple procedure.

If there are no points of order, we will go around the table and I will ask each party to nominate the appropriate number of members from their party for the legislative committee. Just to review the numbers, the government party, the Liberals, would have eight of the 15 spots; the Reform Party would have three; the Bloc Québécois would have two; the New Democratic Party would have one; and the Progressive Conservative Party would have one. That follows the pattern of mathematical ratios we've been using in the House during this Parliament. It reflects generally the representation in the House of Commons.

Keep in mind that in addition to the 15 members, a chair will be selected from the panel of chairs, and that chair will then become the chair of the committee. That would mean a committee of 16 including the chair.

We will now address the issue of the 15 members. I will now go to the government to seek nominees for that committee. Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr. Chairman and colleagues, you all have a copy of the list of those members from the Liberal Party on the government side: Messrs. Alcock, Bonin, Cotler, Drouin, Mills, and Patry; Ms. Redman; and finally, Mr. Scott.

The Chair: Thank you. We now go to the official opposition, the Reform Party.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're pleased to put forward the names of Grant Hill, MP for Macleod; Rahim Jaffer, Edmonton—Strathcona; and Ms. Val Meredith, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll now turn to the Bloc Québécois.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): I nominate our colleague Daniel Turp, the Member for Beauharnois—Salaberry and Intergovernmental Affairs critic, and our colleague Michel Bellehumeur, the Member for Berthier—Montcalm and Justice critic.

• 1110

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. Next is the New Democratic Party.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I nominate Mr. Bill Blaikie, our party's Intergovernmental Affairs critic.

[English]

The Chair: Merci. Next is the Progressive Conservatives.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Chairman, I nominate Mr. André Bachand, our party's Intergovernmental Affairs critic.

[English]

The Chair: Merci.

Madam Clerk, we now have a full roster. They're all recorded.

Now I'm going to seek from the floor a motion that would adopt a committee with those names. You have an agenda in front of you. You may wish to read it.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I'll be prepared to move the motion to establish the membership of the legislative committee on Bill C-20.

The Chair: There you go. It is that an act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec secession reference be adopted as committees report to the House and that the chair present the report to the House. Is that your motion? I think that's a good motion.

Do we need a seconder for that, Madam Clerk? We don't.

I'll put the motion if there is no debate. Seeing none, I'll put the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I have a question for you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little surprised to hear you say that this is an excellent motion, considering that as a rule, you have an obligation to withhold judgement and display neutrality in such instances.

This being said, I do have a number of questions about this committee. I'm not sure whether we have the right to decide, or at the very least...

A member: Suggest...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Well, I would imagine that we have a duty to debate the right, strictly speaking, of this committee to hear what its members have to say about this subject.

I willingly concede, Mr. Chairman, that the Standing Orders leave us little choice, since the Order of Reference stipulates that the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs must proceed to create and appoint members to this legislative committee.

I'm not sure whether our report could contain a number of suggestions as to the possibility of the legislative committee travelling across Canada, and in particular to Quebec, to hear the views of concerned experts and members of the public.

This brings me to my second point. I mentioned members of the public and experts, because I would imagine there was a reason for opting for a legislative committee. The government knew full well that in accordance with the Standing Orders, only those experts deemed competent to appear as witnesses on technical matters may be heard by a legislative committee. The word "technical", as used in this context, has never been defined and the tendency has always been to interpret the word rather broadly.

My third point is that this provision respecting witnesses authorized to appear before a legislative committee was introduced by the Conservatives, much to the dismay of the Liberals who, at the time, loudly objected to this move, arguing that the Conservatives were seeking to limit the number and quality of the witnesses to be heard.

If they cast their minds back to that time, I imagine our government party colleagues will agree right away to allowing any group, person or expert interested in giving testimony to be heard by the committee. If, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claimed yesterday in the House, all of the Quebeckers he has encountered are opposed to sovereignty and support his bill, well then, they should be given the opportunity to tell us so in person. We need to make things easier for them and give them the opportunity to address us in their own communities.

That's why I strongly recommend that this committee be empowered to travel, particularly in Quebec, to avoid a repeat of the restrictive, anti-democratic measures that the Conservatives attempted to bring in in 1991, when the word "technical" was added. That way, it could hear from as many witnesses as possible, considering the importance of this issue.

• 1115

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, we all appreciate your effort to assist this new legislative committee to get on with its job. The committee, of course, has not been struck by the House yet because the House hasn't adopted the legislation or referred it to a committee yet. But all of the elements of procedure for legislative committees are contained either in the existing standing orders or are part of what we would call the traditions of the House and its committees. Not only is there no need for this committee to reinvent the wheel for a legislative committee—some colleagues might think it inappropriate for us to do that; however, your suggestions are probably seen as good ones, and I'm sure colleagues on that committee would want to take them into consideration if they had a chance to review them. So thank you for your comments on that.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I understand perfectly well what you're saying, Mr. Chairman.

However, I do hope that the minutes of this meeting will be formally tabled to the legislative committee so that its members are apprised of the fact that we fervently want broad consultations to be held, as we saw in the case of the Nisga'a agreement and Quebec's call for section 93 of the Constitution to be amended.

The Minister was the first person to argue that extensive consultations were needed to achieve some kind of broad consensus. As a university professor, he himself stressed the importance of having the committee hear from as many witnesses as possible.

I realize that we cannot issue directives to this committee and that it is up to it to decide how it will proceed. I would like us to be as open as possible and I would like the minutes of this meeting to be forwarded to committee members to apprise them of our position on this matter.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I'm not opposed if it's desired that the transcript be made available, but I don't for one minute believe that once the committee is struck by the House and goes to committee after second reading that the members representing the Bloc Québécois,

[Translation]

Mr. Turp and Mr. Bellehumeur will not be making the same representations. Our colleagues will more than likely have an opportunity to discuss exactly how the committee intends to proceed. However, if forwarding the minutes of our meeting to them could be helpful in some way, then I'm all for it.

[English]

The Chair: Just on a technical basis, it's not possible for us as a committee to report to the new legislative committee. It doesn't exist yet and it's not within our authority to report to another committee. We could only convey or report to the House. At a later point in time, it would be possible for us to ask our clerk, on an informal basis, to convey a copy of the transcript of our proceedings to the new legislative committee after it is put in place.

By the same token, it is very possible for members of the new legislative committee, Madame Tremblay's colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, to ask that the transcript of this particular meeting be tabled in that committee, if so advised. I suggest we take note of the representations by Madame Tremblay, and if so advised later, we may wish to ask our clerk to convey our transcript or other colleagues may wish to take note of it in the new committee when it's created.

Is that all right? Okay.

I'm going to call the vote on the motion of Ms. Catterall.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1120

The Chair: Thank you. That completes the business part of this—

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Other business?

The Chair: Mr. Strahl on other business.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, if I could, I would like to nominate Jay Hill to have a position on the steering committee, replacing myself, if that's possible. I don't know if you need it in the form of a motion. How does that work?

The Chair: Madam Clerk.

The Clerk of the Committee: A motion would be good.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I move that the member for Prince George—Peace River be our Reform Party representative on the steering committee.

The Chair: You've heard the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: It's agreed unanimously. Thank you.

Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I have a question. The Speaker made a ruling this morning. He referred the matter to committee and asked that he be kept informed, before actually making a final decision. Do you know when and how we are going to proceed? I really in the dark as far as procedural matters are concerned and I'm simply looking for information. I'm sure you're waiting for his letter, but what happens now?

[English]

The Chair: Now that the Speaker has made his ruling this morning and referred a matter to the committee, the actual definition of that referral would be forwarded to the committee from the House clerk and this committee would take up the matter as part of its future business.

I would point out that within about five or ten minutes we're going to commence a steering committee for this committee and that steering committee would then set up our future business for the next month or two. That referral by the Speaker to this committee will be one of those items. We have about half a dozen matters that we're going to have to deal with in the next couple of months.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I need you to clarify something for me. You just said something that has me somewhat mystified, namely that there will be a meeting of the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure in a few minutes' time. Did I hear you correctly?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, that's correct.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Was due notice given of this meeting?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I see. It's just that I checked with my colleagues who are here and they don't seem to be... You are? Fine, then.

[English]

The Chair: Anyway, we're delighted to have you here.

If there is no further business for the main committee, we may adjourn. I'll take a motion to adjourn, and we can go right into the steering committee, if members wish to do that. Mr. Bonin moves that we adjourn.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you. We're adjourned.