HUMA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND THE STATUS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DES RESSOURCES HUMAINES ET DE LA CONDITION DES PERSONNES HANDICAPÉES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 28, 1999

• 0934

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum. Therefore, I'd like to call this meeting to order.

In accordance with Standing Order 106(1), the first item of business on our agenda is the election of a Chair.

[English]

I'm ready to receive motions to that effect. Yes, Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): I move that Mr. Peter Adams do take the chair of this committee.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): I second the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare Mr. Adams duly elected and invite him to take the chair.

• 0935

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: The next point is a long speech from the chair.

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): My dear colleagues, I'm very pleased that you elected me chairman of this very important committee. The issues that we examine are very dear to me. I hope that we have a very productive year working together.

[English]

I'm very pleased to be elected chair. I'm very impressed by the work this committee did last year. I'm very impressed by the reflections of it in both the Speech from the Throne and in the speeches against the Speech from the Throne. I think there has been a lot of follow-through on the work the committee did. I'm very pleased to be chair, and I really do hope we have an excellent year.

As I understand it, we have two things to do. The first is in fact to elect the vice-chairs, and then we have a number of routine motions.

If we could proceed to the election of vice-chairs, you have the agenda before you. Would someone care to move the vice-chair from the government? Carolyn Bennett.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): I would move that Bryon Wilfert be the vice-chair.

The Chair: Carolyn Bennett suggests Bryon Wilfert, and I see it seconded by John O'Reilly.

Are there any other nominations? No. Bryon, congratulations. You're acclaimed vice-chair on the government side.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Do I owe John on that?

The Chair: Yes, you owe John O'Reilly on that.

Would someone care to move the election of a second vice-chair? Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, I would nominate Maurice Vellacott.

The Chair: Are there any other nominations?

Maurice, congratulations. You are acclaimed second vice-chair.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Could I second that one, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: No, you can't second that one, O'Reilly. You only get two seconds a day maximum on this committee.

We move to the list of routine motions. I'd be grateful if you'd look at them. You have the sheet. I'll call them by number. Would someone care to move number 1?

Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): I so move.

The Chair: It's moved. Any discussion on number 1? Yes, Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, we're talking about the composition of the steering committee here. Correct?

The Chair: No, no. That the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the library. It's moved by Libby Davies, seconded by Carolyn Bennett. I'm not sure we need seconders, but that's fine. We'll have them for this morning anyway.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Number 2.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I move number 2.

Ms. Libby Davies: I second it.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Number 3 is moved by Libby Davies and it's seconded by John Godfrey. By the way, I think this is a very interesting one. I think it ties in with the spirit of what the committee was doing the last time. I like it.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: We move to number 4. Carolyn Bennett moves number 4, seconded by Gary Pillitteri.

Discussion?

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I would like to amend it to include the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour.

The Chair: How do we do that?

The Clerk: And then we would put one other member from the government, because you don't want to change the composition of the number in the steering committee. So you would have—

The Chair: It's one instead of two. I see.

Danielle's point is that this other parliamentary secretary replaces one of the other government members.

Yes, Dale.

• 0940

Mr. Dale Johnston: Just for clarification, are you saying that the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Human Resources Development and the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of Labour are both going to be on the steering committee?

The Chair: That's correct. And by the way, if I can interpret it, because I hadn't thought of it before, it's because in fact both of those ministers answer to this committee. It's unusual, I think, that this is the case, because usually you have one minister.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, my point is that I don't think it's necessary for parliamentary secretaries to be on the steering committee. I think the steering committee can be made up of just regular members.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): If I'm understanding the amendment correctly, then it reads also “and one other member”.

The Chair: One other member from the government.

The Clerk: And it adds in the parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: The numbers are staying the same.

The Chair: That's correct.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: They can sub in in bills wherever they want to.

The Chair: Exactly. It doesn't change the party composition; it simply specifies that another one of the government side will be the parliamentary secretary.

Number 5. Any discussion? Will someone move it? It's moved by Christiane.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): I would like an opposition member to be present at all times.

What does this mean exactly, that "the Chair be authorized to call the meeting to order no sooner than 15 minutes after the time indicated on the notice as long as 5 members are present"?

[English]

The Chair: Yes, either side.

The Clerk: But you could call it to order without having the opposition—that's what she's saying—after 15 minutes. So if you want to remove that portion—

The Chair: That's correct. We could do the same, by the way, if there were no government members there.

The Clerk: It has happened often right here, and it was the opposite, there were only opposition members.

The Chair: The clerk tells me that it has happened that a meeting has been opened with a quorum and there have been no government members there, just opposition members.

[Translation]

The Clerk: This part of the motion would enable the Chair to call the meeting to order 15 minutes after the scheduled start time.

[English]

I think Mr. Johnston would recall that we had a few meetings where we didn't have people on the other side.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I maintain that at least one opposition member should be present before the meeting can be called to order.

[English]

The Clerk: So do you want to remove the last part?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: If no opposition party member is able to attend, then the meeting shouldn't take place, in my opinion.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, may I interpret again? My understanding is this is simply to receive evidence. The situation envisaged is that we have witnesses who have come here from let's say Shefferville in northern Quebec, and they are waiting. There are only a minimum number of members present. They've come to make their presentation, and there won't be votes; so in order to accommodate them, we start the meeting.

It says clearly “in order to receive evidence when a quorum is not present,”.

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I'm in favour of this motion with some minor editorial amendments, because the way the motion is proposed without an editorial change might mean that the two segments are contradictory to each other. And the minor editorial change would be “in the case of the absence of either government or opposition members”, as indicated above, and so on as indicated in the written motion.

The reason I think this is important is because there have been instances known to all of us that the regional requirement is not fulfilled. It is very embarassing for witnesses who have travelled for whom we will be paying expenses that for whatever reason, scheduled time or whatever, only all government members or all opposition members are present, so the restriction imposed by the first segment of this motion would disallow the continuance of that meeting and therefore unnecessary loss of budgetary expenses. At the same time, since it is only for the hearing of witnesses to which all of us will have access later on, to study the evidence, I think this is a worthwhile provision as a motion.

• 0945

The Chair: Thank you, Rey.

Christiane.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Perhaps we could make a distinction, based on the type of meeting. I can understand that when we have convened witnesses to a meeting, we have a duty to meet with them. However, I still maintain that at least one opposition member should be present at all times. The wording of the motion should be amended to make it very clear that the latter part of the motion applies only when the committee is scheduled to hear from witnesses.

[English]

The Chair: I have Dale Johnston first.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with the motion as it's set out here, because it does not convey advantage to either the government or the opposition. I think what it does is it puts responsibility on both parties to attend committee meetings. There's no business that can be conducted. And as Mr. Pagtakhan has rightfully pointed out, people have changed their schedules and travelled in order to be here as witnesses, and it's incumbent upon us to hear them at the prescribed time.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I would simply suggest something that would clarify—

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: We could amend the motion to stipulate that the Chair is authorized to call the meeting to order no sooner than 15 minutes after the time indicated on the notice when the committee is scheduled to hear witnesses and these witnesses are expecting to give testimony.

I wouldn't want this provision to apply to all meetings, regardless of whether any witnesses are scheduled. I realize it's quite another matter when witnesses have been convened.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): However, motion number 5 says at the outset that the Chairman is authorized to hold meetings in order to hear evidence.

[English]

The Chair: Just a minute, John. It's Maurice Vellacott first, and then Christiane again—

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I understand.

[English]

The Chair: —and then we'll wind it up.

Maurice first and then Christiane.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If we just said simply “in order to hear witnesses”, would that clarify and nail it specifically, to hear witnesses?

The Chair: The concern is being expressed by Christiane. My understanding is, and as the chair my interpretation of this is, it's not where there are going to be votes; it's simply where there are witnesses.

Christiane, if there's something—

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Fine.

[English]

The Chair: Are you comfortable with that?

The Clerk: I need point two, to hear witnesses, so that it—

The Chair: Excuse me, let me say as amended, very slightly amended, to confirm their meaning. It's going to mention witnesses, and it's going to mention as indicated above.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Would someone move number 6?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I move it.

The Chair: Judi Longfield, seconded for this one meeting only by Karen Redman.

And we have a question. Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: I just wanted to ask a question about this number 6, because ever since I've been on this committee there's been an issue about how it is that committee members bring forward business. originally we just brought matters up, and then we got into this 48-hour rule. I want to know from the clerk or the researchers, or people who have been around a long time, whether this is something that all committees do. Is this a matter of practice, or is it up to each individual committee?

My own feeling is that 48 hours is okay, but if a member wants to bring up an item of business, then even if it's not unanimous but there's some debate around it, why wouldn't that come forward? It seems a bit restrictive. So I wanted to get a sense as to whether or not all committees abide by this and it's a matter of ongoing practice.

The Chair: Before I ask Danielle, I would say to you, Libby—and I know you were involved with the committee before—that this is much simpler than it was last year. I looked at the motion for last year, and it involved the steering committee and something else.

Danielle, would you care to comment on this point about how general is this? Do most committees have this?

The Clerk: I think a lot of committees do pass it. It has been in the last few sessions, but it's not a mandatory motion to pass. Some do pass it, some don't.

The Chair: And I've been advised that thus far all committees that have been established have passed such a motion, Libby,

John Godfrey, briefly.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm never quite sure which committee I'm sitting on at any given moment, but I'm use to the idea of a—

The Chair: This is HRD.

Mr. John Godfrey: —notice of motion so that you can't just spring a motion on the floor, but you have to have a 48-hour notice of motion.

• 0950

Now, is that understood as a new item of business? Because there doesn't seem to be any other reference to notice of motion anywhere else in the document.

The Chair: Perhaps I could comment on that. The sense of this is that unless there is unanimous consent the committee.... Let's say we're meeting on a particular topic today and then someone came in and moved a motion that would change the item of business we had all prepared for. This would in fact allow the chair to say you need 48 hours' notice, that's all. And by the way, 48 hours is not long.

An hon. member: Or unanimous consent.

The Chair: Or unanimous consent, exactly.

Ms. Libby Davies: Just to clarify, this actually says “any new item of business”. So in theory you could bring something up, but it isn't necessarily a motion, and by this you would have to give 48 hours' notice. I think actually John Godfrey is correct, that before it was where you were planning to introduce a motion. So if you want to bring up a new item of business but it doesn't involve a motion, if you want to request some information or something like that, what would be the problem in doing that if it's not actually a motion people would like to have notice about?

The Chair: I would be quite comfortable without this, personally, as chair, but....

John, do you want to phrase this thing?

Mr. John Godfrey: All I'm saying is that no motion can be presented without 48 hours' notice.

The Chair: Okay.

Colleagues, before we vote on it I want to say this to you. My objective is to move the stuff along, okay? This is a very important committee. I want to deal with the great variety of topics we've got to deal with as effectively as we can. So I'm not in here putting in blocking motions. We're going to change it so it says—

The Clerk: I would say “any motions introducing a new item of business”, because—

An hon. member: No, no.

The Clerk: —you don't want to reduce yourself to not being able to make any motions at all.

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, it's any new motion, I guess. We had a phrase before—

The Chair: I'm going back to some of the old wording—“any motion introducing a new item of business”.

Libby Davies says yes. Is there any further discussion? Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I suggest that if we allow the motion that introduces any new item of business, it is so broad a phrase that itself will be the subject for procedural debate. I suggest that we only indicate no new motion.

The Chair: Judi.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think there should be a notice of motion that would require a vote. I think we need 48 hours. I think for anything else, if it's not going to be confrontational, there's going to be unanimous consent. I think if there's a notice of motion, we're going to vote on it, 48 hours is the minimum that should be required.

The Chair: Dale, is that a similar point?

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I think the whole idea of having to put in any time restriction on the motion is contrary to the process. I think we should be able to introduce a motion when it's timely. We may not debate it right at the point, and it's always the government's prerogative to defeat the motion, but we should at least be able to introduce a motion whenever it's timely.

The Chair: I'm torn, to be honest, between asking for unanimous consent to withdraw it or asking for another fairly precise amendment to bring this motion thing in. What is your wish?

Let's try the amendment route. John, say it—“before any new—

Mr. John Godfrey: There needs to be a 48-hour notification of any motion, except where there's unanimous consent to proceed immediately.

The Clerk: Any motion?

The Chair: Any motion, you see. I think we're not—

Mr. John Godfrey: I think we're not progressing

The Chair: Gary Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): We did this on the fisheries committee. Instead of having the 48-hour rule notice—and one of the concerns of government members is that for some strange reason they could not have a majority at the committee—we could bring motions whenever we liked, but we would defer the vote until the end of the meeting. That would allow the members to get—

The Chair: I'm looking at that.

Mr. John Godfrey: This is not right. We're not there yet.

The Chair: Libby Davies. This is the last thing on this.

• 0955

Ms. Libby Davies: On the amendment, I think it's a notice of motion where it's a new item of business, right? It's where you want to actually give notice and people need to be able to consider that for a couple of days to know what it is before it comes forward. I'm just hearing from what—

The Chair: Can I suggest that I pull this for either our next meeting or the next meeting but one? I'll try to explain to you what our next meeting is going to be. Then we'll bring it back to the committee.

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay.

The Chair: Could I do that? I need unanimous consent for that.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Will someone move number 7?

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): I so move.

Mr. John Godfrey: Seconded.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Number 8.

Ms. Libby Davies: I so move.

The Chair: Seconded, Monique Guay?

[Translation]

No, I apologize, Monique.

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): I want to propose an amendment.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Ms. Monique Guay: I'd like the motion to be amended to read "in both official languages".

[English]

The Clerk: Number 8 is the Orders in Council.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Not that motion, this one.

[English]

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Number 9—moved by Mr. Bryon Wilfert and seconded....

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I would like the documents to be distributed in both official languages. Often, documents are distributed first in English and translated later. Therefore, we find ourselves at somewhat of a disadvantage when a particular subject is being considered. Often, we receive the translation much later. Therefore, in order for a document to be distributed, it should be in both official languages.

Mr. John Godfrey: Otherwise, it's not distributed at all.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: That's right. Otherwise, members who are perfectly bilingual have an advantage over other members.

[English]

The Chair: Carolyn Bennett, John O'Reilly, and then Bryon Wilfert.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: I think we've also had the other experience at committee that if French witnesses have come with their documents only in French, people like me would rather have written French in front of us than nothing. It's happened often. They feel they've gone to all this work to prepare it and then we don't even have it in front of us while they're speaking. So I think it works both ways.

The Chair: John O'Reilly and then Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I don't think any document should be given to the committee unless it's in both official languages. I think if a person comes here and makes a presentation, no matter what language it's in, they not be allowed to distribute the documents until they're translated. Those are the rules of most committees.

The Chair: Bryon Wilfert.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. O'Reilly, except for the point that we would have to make a hard and fast rule with all groups or individuals. What happens of course is they come a long way, sometimes the timing is not appropriate, they come, they have a document, sometimes we haven't seen the document at all, and they present it here. Now, do you then not have them present at all? Do you send them home?

An hon. member: No, they present but they don't distribute them.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: They have no documents at all. Then they do it after the fact. There were complaints last year that we didn't have this information in front of us, and it was hard to follow. So if in fact we're going to go with Mr. O'Reilly's view, which I don't have a problem with, then I think we have to make it loud and clear to every witness not to bother bringing anything unless it's been translated in advance. If it has, then we'll circulate it. But it has to be circulated. When we say “in a timely fashion”, I presume, Mr. Chairman, that means probably within a week or so.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John O'Reilly: Mr. Chair, the rules of most committees are that it be in both official languages, as I said, and that it not be distributed, so that no one is at a disadvantage whether it's French or English, whatever, and that it be given to the interpretive service and they do it. But it's up to the clerk to make sure that when they're instructing witnesses to appear before the committee they should send their documents ahead of time. The service is here. There's no problem with it. If they send them two hours before, you're not going to have them for the meeting, but it shouldn't preclude someone from giving evidence.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Guay.

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, I totally agree with my colleague. Furthermore, it's the responsibility of committee staff to obtain the documents in advance and arrange to have them translated. We have a highly efficient translation service.

• 1000

Moreover, the witnesses can still make their presentation, but their submissions will only be circulated to members once they are available in both official languages. All committees operate in this manner.

[English]

The Chair: Perhaps I can comment. I have in fact closed a committee meeting because there were documents received from groups one would have expected to have been able to translate them. I closed it down.

So the situation envisaged here is this one. The point that's being made is that where we have someone who's come a long way, and they have a written document in, say, French, the way I would proceed, the way this is going, is that I would say okay, you can make your presentation, and we will within an appropriate period of time do translation. Even though there's some value....

Now, can I give you one exception? What if people show up with audio-visual material, such as slides or overheads?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Slides are not considered to be a written document. We are all capable of looking at images that are being projected.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Can I have unanimous consent to pull motion 9, to take it out?

Mr. John Godfrey: Why? You have agreement.

The Chair: No, I don't.

The Clerk: You have agreement to change it to “distribute in both official languages”.

The Chair: But it's the same thing. We don't need it.

Do you understand, John?

Mr. John Godfrey: I mean, you're not pulling it. What you're saying is that it's the rule of the committee that no document will be distributed—

The Chair: So we don't need it.

Mr. John Godfrey: —if it is not in both official languages.

The Chair: Yes.

The Clerk: But you could have an amendment saying that, if you want.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Mr. Chairman, I would rather the committee decide that these should be in both official languages. Some exceptions can always be made and that will be up to the committee to decide. I would prefer that we set this rule and let the committee decide, in exceptional circumstances, to distribute the document.

The Chairman: Fine.

[English]

We want to go on, because we're losing people.

Are you comfortable with that? Do we need a motion for that, or should we just accept that as a committee?

The Clerk: Madam Gagnon would like a motion.

The Chair: Christiane, could I ask you at the end to come up with a very short motion to that effect, please? Would you prepare it? I can't wait for it right now, because we have to move on.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But it's a very vital point, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I move that the committee....

The Chairman: Just one moment, Christiane.

[English]

Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I heard you say earlier that it is already the rule of the committee that they be circulated in two official languages only. If that were so....

Yes or no?

The Clerk: There's nothing written that says—

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay, then, I want to clarify that, because if it were so written, I don't think we can, by motion, change a written rule.

The Chair: I think the answer to that is no.

My sense is to go with the motion. Can we read it?

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: I move that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents only if they are available in both official languages.

[English]

The Chair: Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, that means if someone does show up here with documents in only one language, and they have not been given proper....

We all know that it takes some time to translate documents. They have to be correct. They cannot be ambiguous and lose the proper meaning in translation. If someone shows up here at our request, on short notice, and we say, well, that's fine, you can give an oral presentation but we won't accept your documents, then I think that's ridiculous.

The Chair: If I might interpret where we're at, we accept the documents but we don't circulate them until they've been translated. That's my understanding of the position we're in.

The motion that's here is to distribute the documents received from the public only once they have been translated. So the person could be there and could be in fact be reading from these documents.

My understanding, Dale—and this is the sense I'm getting here—is that those documents should not be circulated until they've been translated.

Gary Lunn.

Mr. Gary Lunn: Just to add to what Dale said, I think we all agree that we're trying to make sure we have documents in both official languages. We have often had government department witnesses show up at committee without translation, and that's not acceptable. The chair can point that out. But a hard and fast rule like this I think will really tie down the committee.

• 1005

You're going to get witnesses who show up on the spur of the moment, in a situation in which you get them in here the night before you call them. They bring something, and not to have some people.... It can happen either way, so I don't think you want to tie the committee down to that hard and fast rule. Are you here to look after the problems of HRDC, or are you going to get caught up in the language situation?

The Chair: I don't think it's that.

First of all, the point is that we have motion 9 before us.

Mr. John Godfrey: As amended, or just as is?

The Chair: No, at the moment we haven't been forced out, but I can ask for unanimous consent to withdraw it.

The Clerk: We have an amendment in front of us, so we'd have to withdraw both of them.

The Chair: I'd say it's not an amendment.

Can I have unanimous consent to withdraw motion 9 as written?

An hon. member: No.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: And replace it?

The Chair: By the way, I don't think this is an amendment. The amendment is a change in the sense of it.

An hon. member: Yes, I agree we should withdraw it.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Let's replace it.

The Chair: So can I have unanimous consent to withdraw motion 9?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The motion we have before us is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only once they have been translated in both official languages. I stress to you that this means physical distribution around the table. That's what it means, because if it was a constituent who was here, that constituent could give me a copy, and so on, in whatever language.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Would someone move motion 10, please?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I so move.

The Chair: Is there any discussion of motion 10? Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I know I have raised this point before in committees. To me, “in camera” means “in camera”. Why are we keeping minutes of in camera meetings? The in camera meeting is for those people who attend. It's for information only, and there's to be no record kept of it. In my mind, it's not an in camera meeting any longer if records are kept. I would suggest that if people want to know what happens at an in camera meeting, they should come to the meeting.

The Chair: My understanding is that it's for the benefit of the chair and the staff. For example, there has to be a report to the main committee if you have an in camera meeting. Somebody has to keep notes in order to cope with that, Dale, because it could be quite a complex meeting. That's my understanding, and the sense here is that those records are minimal records, but I'll have more discussion on this.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I am quite sure that I'll be overruled on that part of it, so I would like to make an amendment that simply says that any of these minutes taken at in camera sessions are to be destroyed at the end of the session.

The Chair: Okay, it's now an amendment. We can just take it informally, and we'll have some discussion. Libby Davies first, and then Bryon Wilfert.

Ms. Libby Davies: On the amendment and the general motion, I think it's really important that there be a record of all meetings, whether they're public or in camera. We're not going to distribute the in camera minutes, but what may be in camera this month may not be next year. It may be part of an important record about something. Someone has to keep a record, or else why are we here? So I totally disagree with—

The Chair: As this is informal, would you care to comment on the amendment?

Ms. Libby Davies: I don't agree with the amendment.

The Chair: Okay, very good.

Bryon Wilfert first, then Carolyn Bennett and Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, through you to the clerk, is there not a standard procedure with regard to in camera minutes? In my municipal days, they were normally for the benefit of the staff in terms of any clarification, discussion, etc.

The one thing I would ask, Mr. Chairman, is what we are defining as “in camera”. I have seen in camera meetings here that have included more than the immediate staff, i.e., the clerk and the members of the committee. I have seen other people in here whom I do not consider to be part of an in camera meeting. Maybe we could clarify what is in camera and what is not.

I know that in some municipalities and in some provincial governments there may be a timeframe during which they may destroy the records. I'm not sure, so I'd like to have a little more information as to the practice. But certainly you need them in order to have that ability to come back.

The Chair: Carolyn Bennett, and then Rey Pagtakhan.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Yes. I just want to clarify what in camera means, because I do feel it is really an important distinction that the staff aren't included, that there aren't documents distributed to the members' offices that could be read, and all of that. But it is extraordinarily important that we have a permanent record of the meetings kept with the clerk.

• 1010

The Chair: Okay. Rey Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Certainly I go with the argument that for archival reasons—and that's a very important basis—the records ought not to be destroyed.

Secondly, the spirit of in camera must be preserved at all times, since the members of the committee, absent or present, ought to have access to a document discussed in an in camera meeting. To begin with, members of the committee had the confidence of the committee itself, so even those absent may access the document, but only them. In that spirit, therefore, to save it only for consultation may be restricted, because the archival reason is also there.

I would say it in that spirit, in that it may be accessed by the clerk, by the chair and as the steering committee itself may deem—in other words, as the committee that held the in camera meeting may itself deem. If it is an in camera meeting of this committee, the committee itself in the future may deem that the document be released to the public on unanimous consent.

The Chair: Okay, the amendment is to the effect that transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session or something like that.

Yes, Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, my understanding of an in camera meeting is one in which no business can be conducted. No motions can be made in an in camera meeting, therefore no business is conducted in the meeting. If that's not this committee's definition of an in camera meeting, then perhaps I'm.... Any in camera meeting that I've ever conducted, Mr. Chairman, has been one in which no business can be conducted.

The Chair: I'll just comment on that, and then I'm going to call a vote on the amendment.

My comment, Dale, is that I think there are all sorts of in camera meetings, but one of the most common ones is the steering committee. The steering committee normally produces a report that it presents to the committee at the next meeting.

Those in favour of the amendment?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Can you read it to us?

The Chairman: Yes, by all means.

[English]

The amendment is with respect to the records being destroyed.

(Amendment negatived) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: For motion 11, I don't think we need a motion, do we?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Can you explain to us the proposed times for our meeting? Will the committee always be meeting at 11 a.m. and until what time?

[English]

The Chair: Monique, the reason is that if we have a regular slot, we get priority in that time. Other committees can't bump us, and so on. That's the reason. Even though we can't control the room, we do control the time slot a little bit.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Fine. If we meet at 11 a.m., will we be working through the lunch hour?

The Chairman: If necessary, yes.

Ms. Gagnon.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: During question period, we ask many questions relating to employment insurance and human resources, and I usually prepare these questions between 12 noon and 1:30 p.m. The scheduling could potentially pose a problem at times.

[English]

The Chair: I might suggest it. This is not a casual matter. In other words, if we don't take this slot that is our traditional slot, I think we have serious organizational problems, as I understand it. I really do. Now, we'll have to take into account that we'll try to finish at 12:30 or one o'clock and so on. But I say to you all, colleagues, that if we don't take this slot, we will be gypsies moving around the calendar.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Will committee members be served lunch?

[English]

The Chair: No, no lunch.

Bryon, very briefly.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: We had eleven o'clock as usual and were right out the last time. My only concern, Mr. Chairman, is that when we say eleven o'clock, I hope we are also saying no later than one o'clock. When we go into other times, that often means members have a conflict.

And Mr. Chairman, I want to have you impeached. Last year we complained that the chair did not provide lunch. I assume you're running on that basis. If you're not, I think you should withdraw.

The Chair: Okay, will someone move motion 11?

Mrs. Karen Redman: I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

• 1015

The Chair: Colleagues, if I can, and I know there's some restlessness here because there are other meetings going on and so on, I looked very carefully at what the committee did last time. We deal with some very complex departments. HRDC is likely the most complex of them all—very large, with a very wide range of issues, five previous departments. Labour is a very important one, and there are some other areas. I can well see that how we organize ourselves becomes very critical.

So I would like to suggest, first of all, that the next meeting be a meeting of the steering committee, that it would be at 11 a.m. next Tuesday, and that the steering committee would consider how the committee is going to operate and what it's going to do. Then a week from today we would meet as a full committee and consider that matter in considerable detail.

That's my first suggestion; it's not a motion. Are you agreeable to that tactic? Some of us are new, and it means we'll get our heads around what's going to happen, and that steering committee will come back and have a very full discussion of what the committee is going to do next Thursday. Is that reasonable?

Mr. Dale Johnston: That's the steering committee for what?

The Chair: That's the steering committee for this committee, to discuss future business.

Mr. Dale Johnston: It's what date?

The Chair: It's next Tuesday at 11 a.m.

The other thing is this: It does seem to me, and I've talked to some members but not all, that there is a consensus that we should have at least the disability subcommittee. I'm looking around like this because this is again something we can leave, but I think there is a consensus.

Libby Davies.

Ms. Libby Davies: I think we should have both subcommittees.

The Chair: Libby, if we get into that, I'm going to leave it, okay? It just seems to me there's a consensus about the disabilities.

What I'm saying is to give a head start we're going to discuss how we're going to organize ourselves, but it seems to me we're going to have at least that one subcommittee. We have its interim report and there are lots of threads still running for it, and if there is this consensus, I'm quite willing to accept a motion now—

Ms. Libby Davies: For the disabilities.

The Chair: —for the disabilities committee only, to establish it.

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay, could I clarify, then?

The Chair: Please do.

Ms. Libby Davies: We haven't had the other debate. You say you talked to some people. You didn't talk to me. So because you haven't had the overall debate, if we vote on the disabilities subcommittee, I don't want it to preclude having another subcommittee, depending on what that debate is. I don't want to cut that off. Do you get my drift?

The Chair: No, it truly doesn't.

Ms. Libby Davies: All right.

The Chair: There will be debate. Nor does it guarantee, though, that there will be other subcommittees.

Ms. Libby Davies: No, it doesn't.

The Chair: Libby, I think there are other ways the committee can organize itself, okay?

Ms. Libby Davies: Okay.

The Chair: With that condition.... It's just my sense. I was at a meeting and Wendy was there. So are we comfortable with that? I think its work was so well received.

You have a motion to create a subcommittee.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: This is the children's one.

The Chair: No, I have here that the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities draw up a subcommittee.... Oh, no, it's the wrong one.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: Are there not two sub-committees, namely the Sub-committee on Children and Youth at Risk and the Sub- committee on Persons with Disabilities?

[English]

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: So what are you saying?

The Chair: My point is that I think on Tuesday the steering committee should discuss how the committee is organized. But to give a start, because it seemed to me there was a strong consensus for the disabilities committee, there might be an advantage to having this one substantive motion today. That's all. If there isn't, I'm quite willing to wait until next week. That's my only reason.

Do you understand, Christiane? Is that okay? Okay.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just to be mischievous—

The Chair: No.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just to a make a point—

The Chair: Why be mischievous?

Mr. John Godfrey: No, what I mean by that is you haven't had the meeting of the subcommittee to decide what the main work of the committee would be. Suppose that meeting decided the main work of the committee was to study disability.

The Chair: That's why I asked the question. From having talked to as many as I could—and I hope to talk to you all individually now that I'm chair—my sense was that there was very strong support for this subcommittee.

Ms. Carolyn Bennett: Stop being mischievous.

The Chair: Would someone care to move the motion to create a subcommittee aimed at the integration and equality of disabled persons?

Mr. John Godfrey: I so move.

The Chair: The mischievous John Godfrey moves this.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: Yes, Rey.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chairman, is that the whole motion?

The Chair: Yes, that's it.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Even the composition?

• 1020

The Chair: It says in the second paragraph who they are, the composition, but the parties will put forward their members.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I thought we were only voting on the first paragraph.

The Chair: No, the whole motion.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Okay.

The Chair: Colleagues, the next meeting is a meeting of the steering committee. I assume the parties will send their delegates, and then we meet as a full committee at the same time, 11 o'clock next Thursday. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

The meeting is adjourned.