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]

Tuesday, February 20, 2001

• 1112

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Members of the committee, I see a quorum. In conformity with Standing Order 106(1) and (2), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Canadian Alliance): I nominate Dale Johnston.

The Clerk: It is moved by Val Meredith that Dale Johnston take the chair of this committee.

Do we have another nomination?

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Yes, we do. I just want to mention that Mr. Johnston is a very fine gentleman, but I believe we have a problem with the experience of the chair. I want to put forth the name of Peter Adams to be chair of the committee.

The Clerk: It is nominated by Mr. Larry McCormick—

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): Larry, that's not the way my campaign manager is supposed to work.

Mr. Larry McCormick: You and I will accomplish a lot here at other times, Dale.

Mr. Greg Thompson (New Brunswick Southwest, PC): Mr. Chairman, if I might, if experience is a prerequisite, why wouldn't someone like myself, who has been around this place for a number of years, put forward the name of Joe McGuire, who has obviously been around the House much longer than most on that side of the table?

Mr. Larry McCormick: Joe who?

Mr. Greg Thompson: I put forward the name of Joe McGuire, the member of Parliament from Prince Edward Island, who has been a member of this committee in the past, a chairman of a number of committees in the past, and a government member. I think he'd serve us well if chosen as chairman.

The Clerk: The third motion, moved by Mr. Greg Thompson, is that Mr. Joe McGuire take the chair.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): I decline.

The Clerk: He has declined the nomination.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): It's nice to hear nice things about you.

Mr. Greg Thompson: If we had another Conservative at the table, Mr. Chairman, possibly my name could be put forward.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Next time.

The Clerk: It is moved by Val Meredith that Mr. Dale Johnston do take the chair of this committee. All in favour?

Ms. Val Meredith: In order to make it comfortable, could we not have a secret ballot? A precedent has been set.

The Clerk: If it is the unanimous consensus of the committee to proceed by way of secret ballot—

Ms. Val Meredith: It would just make it more comfortable because we have to work—

Mr. Larry McCormick: I wish we could have gone this route in the last seven years. I've only been on this committee for seven years, and each time, of course, the opposition, which is now the official opposition, has asked for a recorded vote. I don't think we can flip-flop from a recorded vote to a secret ballot. There is no consent, Mr. Clerk.

• 1115

Mr. Greg Thompson: On that point, Mr. Chairman, could you go through the Standing Orders? I refer to Standing Order 106. I think this is a valid point that the member brings up in terms of a secret ballot. What would preclude us from having a secret ballot? It's only by unanimous consent that we can proceed. Would you quote that from the Standing Orders, please?

The Clerk: Standing Order 116 basically stipulates that the rules that apply to the election of the Speaker do not apply to the election of the committee chair. Standing Order 106(1) and (2) basically mandate—

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, and not to be nitpicking, but when you use the term “basically” or “precisely”.... You've referred to the Standing Orders twice but you've used the word “basically”, and basically I'd like to understand what the word “basically” means. Is it basically or specifically?

The Clerk: The clerk of the committee is not competent and not in a position to lead any discussion on the procedure applicable to this process. I can direct you to the relevant Standing Orders, if you'd like to look at them, and I would be happy to read them for you if you wish.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I think this is a valid point, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the committee, this is the most important stuff of the entire process, the selection of the committee chairman, and I think we should be apprised of the technicalities within the Standing Orders in terms of this procedure. I'm a little bit concerned that none of us at this table, at least on this side and probably on the other side, are experts in terms of that procedure. So I think it's important that—

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Clerk, I move we call the vote.

The Clerk: The issue here, as I understand it, is that the clerk can only receive motions for the election of a chair. Therefore, the will of the committee, in the absence of a chair, can only be expressed by unanimous consent. If there is unanimous consent we can proceed by way of secret ballot. I cannot entertain any other motions.

Mr. Greg Thompson: For more clarification, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the committee structure, how many people at the table are entitled to vote? Normally the committee structure is seven government members....

Mr. Larry McCormick: Nine.

Mr. Greg Thompson: How are we proceeding?

Mr. Larry McCormick: There are five parties now.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Obviously we have more than eight on that side of the table. Some of those will be disqualified from voting, I guess is the point I'm making.

The Clerk: The members of the committee who are qualified to vote are those who were named by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and any appropriately designated replacements.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that leaves the opposition at a terrible disadvantage, because the government is taking advantage of the rules by loading the committee. So unless there's further clarification, I believe we have to revert back to the balance that we would normally see at the committee, Mr. Chairman, with due respect.

I believe the Reform member has a point as well.

Ms. Val Meredith: If I may, I would like to refer to Thursday, May 30, 1991, the third session of the 34th Parliament. After two nominations were made for the chair, a secret ballot vote occurred for the chair, and I want to quote my good friend Mr. Roger Simmons, who said:

Madam Chair, I heard you invite nominations. You have had two nominations. You have no motion except the motion to nomination. There was no motion before that. Two names have been entered into nomination. The normal procedure is now to proceed to ballot on those two names. That is secret or by a show of hands or whatever process, but surely it is not to vote for them one at a time. There is no precedent for that.

• 1120

It said a secret ballot could be an option.

Mr. Larry McCormick: It's an option.

The Clerk: It may help to put things into perspective to quote from Marleau and Montpetit, which is generally accepted as an authority on this subject and which says on page 830 of the English translation:

On occasion, committees have had recourse to a secret ballot. This is done only when the committee members express a unanimous desire to proceed in this manner. As the meeting is called pursuant to Standing Order for the sole purpose of electing a Chair, and since the committee is not properly constituted until the Chair has been selected, the clerk who presides over the election has no authority to hear points of order or to entertain any motion except that for the election of a Chair....

I have two motions that have been duly proposed. The first has been proposed by Ms. Val Meredith, that Mr. Dale Johnston take the chair of the committee.

Mr. Larry McCormick: I think you'd make a terrific vice-chair.

(Motion negatived)

The Clerk: I have a second motion proposed by Mr. Larry McCormick, that Mr. Peter Adams take the chair of the committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare that Mr. Peter Adams is duly elected chair of this committee and invite him to take the chair.

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Honourable colleagues, thank you for electing me for the second time as chair of this very important committee. It is indeed a great honour.

[English]

I'm very pleased we had the vote. I want to congratulate the opposition, Dale Johnston and Joe McGuire, for a very well-formed campaign.

You have the agenda before you, colleagues. I would like to suggest that first of all we proceed through that agenda but then under “Other Business” we proceed to a meeting to consider future business and the future organization of this committee, if that's appropriate. I propose that because there is important business before us. I know we all have many interests in what the committee is going to do, and we are a little late, in terms of the parliamentary session, in starting. So it seems to me it would be a good idea to follow through from this meeting of elections into an organizational meeting. Are people in agreement with that?

[Translation]

Agreed?

[English]

Okay.

By the way, if I could, I want to thank our clerk. Gary Sokolyk is our temporary clerk. For those of you who were on the committee before, you will know that Danielle Parent-Bélisle is normally clerk of this committee. It happens that by coincidence Danielle is away today and Gary is taking her place. Gary, we greatly appreciate it. And you did fine work there at the beginning.

We'll move to the election of vice-chairs. I have a motion from James Moore.

Mr. James Moore (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to nominate Val Meredith for vice-chair of the committee.

The Chair: James Moore nominates Val Meredith as vice-chair of this committee.

Judi Longfield.

• 1125

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'd like to nominate Diane St-Jacques from the government side, please.

The Chair: I have two nominations. Under number 4, election of second vice-chair, by James Moore, it's Val Meredith. For the government vice-chair, nominated by Judi Longfield, it's Diane St-Jacques.

Are there any other nominations for these positions? I'm going to take, if you don't mind, item number 3 first. For election of first vice-chair, it's proposed that it be Diane St-Jacques.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: For the election of the second vice-chair, from the opposition, it's Val Meredith. Are there any other nominations?

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): I nominate Paul Crête.

The Chair: Robert Lanctôt nominates Paul Crête. I'm sorry, but the nomination must come from someone who is a permanent member of the committee, and since that is not the case with you, I cannot accept the nomination. The same motion is moved by Monique Guay.

[English]

We have proposed two names: Paul Crête and Val Meredith. I call Val Meredith first. Those in favour of Val Meredith as second vice-chair, please show your hands. Those in favour of Paul Crête please show.

I declare Val Meredith elected.

We now have a number of routine motions.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Nothing is routine around here, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Dale, I hear what you say.

For new members of the committee, these routine motions are to sort of set the committee in motion, to give us the resources, the finances, and so on so we can conduct our business.

The first motion is 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 work, at the discretion of the chair.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'll move it.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: With regard to witness expenses, the motion is that, as established by the Board of Internal Economy and at the discretion of the chair, reasonable travelling and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses invited to appear before the committee, up to a maximum of two representatives for any organization.

Ms. Val Meredith: I'll move that.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next motion is that the committee authorize payment of child care expenses for witnesses appearing before the committee or one of its subcommittees and that such expenses be paid from the witness expenses item in the committee's budget for the fiscal year.

[Translation]

So moved by Paul Crête.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: With regard to Greg Thompson's remarks earlier, Greg, there is one difference between this committee and others, and that is that we do have 18 official members, not 16, which is one of the reasons for the numbers you were juggling with.

The next motion is that the steering committee on agenda and procedure be composed of nine members, including the chair, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour, one other member from the government, and one from each of the other parties not represented, to be named after the usual consultations with the whips.

For the new members, that means the parties submit which of their members will be representatives on the steering committee. The steering committee meets from time to time to do what I hope we're going to do as a whole committee after this meeting—deal with future business and matters of that type.

• 1130

Greg Thompson.

Mr. Greg Thompson: A question, Mr. Chairman. Is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development on that committee, as well as the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour? What's the reason that those two are identified, in addition to...? You have “composed of nine members, including the chair, two vice-chairs”. Why do you identify those two people individually, Mr. Chairman? I guess that is my question.

The Chair: I think this is useful for new members.

I mentioned already that the committee is the largest on Parliament Hill. We're also the only committee, I assume, that will still have two permanent subcommittees. So we're a very elaborate committee. One of the reasons for that is that we deal with HRDC, the budget of which is $60 billion. It's a very, very large operation, so the committee structure is there.

Within HRDC there are in fact three ministers. One is the Honourable Jane Stewart, the minister of HRDC. Raymonde Folco is her parliamentary secretary. The other is the Honourable Claudette Bradshaw, who is the Minister of Labour, and her estimates flow through. Her parliamentary secretary is Judi Longfield. The other minister is the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, Ethel Blondin-Andrew, but she does not have a parliamentary secretary.

The answer to the question is it's the nature of the HRDC department. Is that okay?

Mr. Greg Thompson: I was just wondering, in reference to other committees.... You've cited the budget of the HRDC department, but there are other departments that have huge budgets as well. To my knowledge, this is the only committee that's structured in this fashion in terms of the steering committee. Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Yes, it's absolutely correct. I suspect we're the only one with three ministers, Greg.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I guess the question goes back to the steering committee and an attempt by the minister to steer the direction of the committee. It's quite blatant, it's pretty obvious, and I was just wondering if there should be some discussion on that. How did this come about in the first place, Mr. Chairman? How did that come about? Mr. McCormick said that I should have dropped into the committee last year. Probably I should have. What's the historical background?

The Chair: The historical background is the decisions made following the 1997 election, when we had the structure of the five official parties, which we continue with, and negotiations that were made at that time. Now, why we ended up with 18 I suspect has to do with what we're discussing here now. This is a very cumbersome size if you think of it in terms of quorums and things like that. I think we went to 18 in order to compensate for some of these things—so there are more representatives of the opposition to balance more representatives on this side.

The steering committee is the same as was set up then. Normally a parliamentary secretary is on the steering committee. In this case we have two, and they're both on. But the steering committee is larger than normal. As you can see, it's half of the committee.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Yes.

The Chair: That's the best I can explain. Greg, by the way, I was not the chair of the committee when it was designed in 1997.

Have you finished, Greg? Okay.

Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: My understanding, Greg, is that the steering committee only makes recommendations to the committee as a whole, and the committee as a whole has to approve the agenda or the decisions made. So the committee as a whole is brought into it.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I understand that obviously the committee itself always gets its way. I guess the point I was making is it's weighted very heavily in favour of the government in terms of the parliamentary secretaries. I guess what I'm talking to is the government agenda and the ability of them to articulate on the minister's position or whatever.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I think it's functionally weighted, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think this one is different, in that there are two parliamentary secretaries. But on every committee I've sat on since I've been elected, the parliamentary secretary to the minister who reports to the committee is on the steering committee. In this particular case there are two. I don't need an extra me. I'm not here to push the agenda of the minister. It's just by virtue of the fact that the minister reports to this committee, and in every committee I've ever sat on the parliamentary secretary is on the steering committee.

• 1135

The Chair: I can only repeat, Greg—and I don't have to justify it—that it is larger. There are nine people. The purpose of the steering committee, as Val just said, is to deal with organizational business more expeditiously so we can bring it back to the main committee, which is the purpose of steering committees in every standing committee.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, the size of the committee—just for discussion purposes only, because I guess we're not in a position to change that today. Is the effectiveness of the committee determined by the size of the committee? Why does the committee have to be as big as it is? As an example, will we increase the size of the Supreme Court as the population of the country grows?

Isn't it in the best interests of the government to have a smaller...? I'm not talking about the majority on the committee, but the overall size of the committee. I can't see any advantage in having the committee as big as it is, and I'm saying that in reference to government. I know how difficult it is for them to have individual members appear before the committee. They're always juggling their schedules or—

The Chair: Having chaired it for a year, I agree with you. I think 18 is a stupid number.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Let's deal with that, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: No. I think you should ask your whip of 1997, who was part of the negotiation of it. For whatever reason, at that time, when they redesigned the committees to fit in with the five-party system, they made this an 18-person committee. It was agreed to by the whips and the House leaders, because that's how committees are set up. They're not just set up by the government. That's all I can say to you.

Does anyone move the motion we have before us on the steering committee? Raymonde Folco.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next is a reduced quorum. The motion is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive evidence from witnesses when a quorum is not present, provided that five members be present and provided that at least one member of the opposition is present, with the provision that in the case of the absence of either government or opposition members 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 five members are present.

If I can explain that to new members, the purpose, as you can see, is only to receive evidence from witnesses. It's not to make decisions. It's a common motion that committees use. If witnesses have come a long way and they're sitting here waiting and there are five of us, including this representation of the opposition parties, we can then proceed. Their testimony goes on the record. It becomes part of the committee record and they are inconvenienced as little as possible. It means too that the chair has to wait for 15 minutes in the hope that other members will arrive.

Would someone care to move that motion? Diane St-Jacques.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next motion is that the committee authorize the chair, in consultation with the clerk, to make the necessary arrangements to provide working meals from time to time and that the cost of these meals be charged to the committee's budget.

Mr. Alan Tonks: So moved.

The Chair: Thank you, Alan.

Can I explain this to you. Our normal meeting times are 11 a.m. until 1 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays. We do not serve meals in those normal meetings.

Ms. Val Meredith: Why do we meet at 11 a.m.?

The Chair: You've got me. That is our slot. By the way, it's a highly sought after slot, Val.

Ms. Val Meredith: Are we all in favour?

The Chair: We're stuck with it. Do you understand my point? I just want to make that clear. This means for exceptional meetings, and by the way, there may be one this week.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next motion is that the clerk circulate to all members of the committee Order in Council appointments referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I move that.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1140

The Chair: The next motion is that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only once they have been translated into both official languages.

Mr. Georges Farrah (Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next is on transcripts in camera. These are transcripts of in camera meetings, from the point of view of new members. The motion is that one transcript of all committee meetings held in camera be produced to be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): I agree with the motion, but I would like to add something to the item “transcripts in camera”. In the past, requests have been made to exclude Members' or research staff from in camera meetings. We've found, however, that it's useful to have our staff present when we draft amendments or attend to other business. Therefore, barring exception, I would like our staff to be present at in camera meetings. Could this provision simply be added to the motion dealing with transcripts in camera, or should I make this a separate motion?

[English]

The Chair: It's a useful suggestion, and it certainly could be added. But another approach, Paul, would be to decide that on a case-by-case basis.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, when we proceeded on a case by case basis, rather absurd situations arose at times where people who could have been of assistance to us were excluded. I think that as a rule, these individuals should be allowed to attend and that in exceptional circumstances, the committee can rule to exclude them.

[English]

The Chair: We have an amendment. Do you want to phrase your amendment?

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, I move that Members' staff and party research staff be authorized to attend in camera meetings.

[English]

The Chair: I'm going to call the amendment first and then I'm going to call the main motion as amended or not.

Discussion on the amendment?

Ms. Val Meredith: I've sat on four different committees, and it's standard form to allow staff in on in camera meetings. It's not uncommon.

The Chair: Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I just want to state for the record that I support this amendment because I feel it's important. We're not working for the army on top secret files. We're here to work as a committee and we need our staff for that purpose. I don't think we should have to justify our reasons for wanting our own staff on hand at every meeting. In any event, if they work for us, we would bring them up to speed on our discussions immediately after the meeting. It's simpler if they're allowed to remain in the room.

[English]

The Chair: Is there any other discussion of the amendment?

For the record, since I've been chair, the only in camera meetings we've had have been organizational, future business meetings, and meetings to discuss the last draft stage of a report. I'm saying this because I know we do have new members.

Those in favour of Paul Crête's amendment, please show.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: I will now call the motion as amended with regard to transcripts in camera. Those in favour of the motion—Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: It says they would be available and “be produced to be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation”. That means any member of the committee can access these. Who else can access them?

Mr. James Moore: Permanent members?

The Chair: Yes, permanent members.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Not associate members?

The Chair: No, and that's standard, Dale. There has to be some purpose. It means there's a record. The record is there. It's there for the future.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'm trying to figure out how it is implied in this motion who has access.

The Chair: That's the normal interpretation of it, to my knowledge.

Dale, as it is explained to me, under the Standing Orders that's what in camera means. It means that the information, the nature of the discussion, is only available to the committee members.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Then I guess we could have a discussion, but in my opinion in camera means the information is not even recorded.

• 1145

The Chair: That is not the case on Parliament Hill.

Those in favour, please show.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The schedule—

Ms. Val Meredith: I'd like to talk about it.

The Chair: I haven't called it yet. Let me call it first.

The next routine motion—you have it on your sheet—is that the committee will attempt to meet on Tuesday mornings at 11 a.m. and Thursday mornings at 11 a.m. By the way, typically, for new members, that's a two-hour meeting, not including lunch.

Would someone move that motion, and then we'll discuss it?

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): I so move.

The Chair: Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: I was just wondering why we would start a meeting at 11 a.m. It's the only committee I've sat on that didn't start at 9 a.m. or 9:30 a.m. Is there a logical reason?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, because there are other committees that meet at 9 o'clock on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Ms. Val Meredith: If we're such a big important committee, could we bump some of them?

The Chair: Just a minute. Let's have a reasonable discussion.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'll answer that question by looking to what's happened in the past. Members often return from their constituencies on Tuesday morning. This is a very big committee and a number of members fly in at 9 a.m., 9:30 a.m. or 10 a.m. This would simplify matters because it would ensure that most members would be present. If we call meetings for 9 a.m., some people won't be able to make it. This decision was made for practical reasons.

[English]

The Chair: If I could comment, I think it's not the sort of thing that individual committees can change easily on their own, because there's consultation between the parties on the schedule, as well as everything else. So all 18 standing committees have time slots and there has to be some sort of balance. I'm sure some begin at 9 a.m. and finish at 11 a.m., some at 11:01 a.m., and so on, each day. But this has been our traditional time. I think it's good to question what has gone on, but you can well imagine that we might bump a whole series of committees.

Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: We'll “attempt” to meet. That sounds like we'll meet whether we have anything to do or not, and I would just say that those times are reserved for this committee. I would think there are times—

The Chair: Exactly so.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So instead of saying “attempt”, the committee will reserve those times.

The Chair: Colleagues, you will be advised if the committee is meeting.

Val Meredith.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): It's not the same thing at all in French.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: That raises another issue. Do we have a standard meeting room? Is this it? Where do we normally meet, or do we chase all over—

The Chair: My answer to you has to be exactly the same thing. The meeting rooms are decided by the whips and the House leaders through the procedure and House affairs committee. So, for example, committees are assigned into the TV rooms, out of the TV rooms, and moved around and so on. It's not in the purview of the committee to pick and choose. By the way, we can ask, but we certainly can't demand a particular room.

Ms. Val Meredith: Okay.

The Chair: Those in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: On the notice motion, unless there is unanimous consent, 48 hours' written notice must be given to the members of the committee before any new item of business is considered by the committee.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I so move.

The Chair: Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I'd like to move the following amendment: that twenty-four (24) hours' written notice be given, instead of forty- eight (48) hours. Since the committee meets on Tuesdays and Thursdays, we've noticed in the past that if an item of business was debated on Tuesday and required an amendment on Thursday, it was technically impossible to move forward. We had to wait until the following week to act. I've been informed that twenty-four hours' written notice is the norm in five other committees that operate as we do and I think this would a be much more appropriate standard for us.

[English]

The Chair: We have the amendment and we're discussing the amendment now.

If I can comment from the chair, first of all, the 48 hours, in my experience, is interpreted as two days. In other words, no one counts 47, 46, and so on. It's two days.

Secondly, with regard to us, it deals with the space between, for example, our Tuesday meeting and our Thursday meeting. That's what it deals with, and obviously it deals between Thursday and Tuesday. So that's where it comes from.

We have Paul Crête's amendment. Is there any other discussion on Paul's amendment?

Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I just think you've made the point. If you put the notice in on Tuesday, it comes on Thursday, and I think that's appropriate. It could be any time on Tuesday. I also think if it's new business we need appropriate time to do the research so that the discussion is full and valuable. We're not here to waste time. If we have only 24 hours, then most of us would come to the committee without having had the ability to do the appropriate research. So I think 48 hours is appropriate. If something comes up that is urgent, then I think you'll get unanimous consent to move earlier.

• 1150

The Chair: Next is Monique Guay and then James Moore.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: Mr. Chairman, you said that there was some flexibility where the 48-hours' written notice was concerned and that you wouldn't be calculating the hours exactly. I'd like to know if the reverse is also true, that is to say if you don't want to entertain a motion or you deem it to be undesirable, might you decide to apply the 48-hour rule to the letter. Perhaps that's why we—or at least my party—would like to have 24-hours' notice so as to have time to table a motion and deal with an issue quickly. If we have to wait until the following week, we'll lose momentum and flow. We'll also lose valuable time. Therefore, I support my colleague's motion, not because I want to do some raiding, but simply because it would allow us to be highly effective and to table well-prepared motions that can be dealt with expeditiously that very same week. We wouldn't need to draft with undue haste motions that technically may be out of order.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. James Moore: I was just going to comment along the same lines as Monique. If the committee is going to meet at 11 o'clock on Tuesday morning and 11 o'clock on Thursday morning, that is precisely 48 hours. Mrs. Longfield made mention that we could work around that, but this is precisely the kind of language that could lead to a filibuster if there is any kind of conflict. If the members opposite aren't happy with this amendment, I suggest they put some other kind of language in there, given that we're going from Monday at 11 o'clock in the morning until Thursday at 11 o'clock in the morning, if they don't want to have any kind of conflict.

[Translation]

The Chair: Georges Farrah.

Mr. Georges Farrah: I want us to be clear on what you said. If in fact we're not necessarily talking about 48 hours, but rather about two days, then fine. However, if we go by what you're saying and include this 24-hour period, it would mean that we could table an amendment or other item for discussion on Wednesday evening for debate on Thursday morning.

Ms. Monique Guay: That's not 24-hours' notice.

The Chair: I just said that according to my interpretation, you would have two days.

Mr. Georges Farrah: That's your interpretation.

The Chair: Yes. Mr. Crête.

Mr. Paul Crête: We all agree that it's important to have clear rules of procedure. When a motion provides for 48 hours, we need to be certain that when we're debating a motion and require 48 hours to do so, we will have 48 hours, and those who require only 24 hours will use 24 hours. It's far better to have a clear procedural rule that's enforceable than one that doesn't work.

Several times during the course of the last Parliament, we found that the 48-hour rule led to problems and frustration within the committee. For example, when we wrapped up our study of one subject on Tuesday and proposed a new item of business, we couldn't get on it on Thursday. We had to wait until the following Tuesday to proceed.

We've all had the same experience where because of a parliamentary break, a motion was deferred until the second week following the break, thereby leading to more frustration. By suggesting as an amendment a 24-hour notice requirement, I'm not trying to trip up the government.

We can accomplish a great deal in 24 hours here in Parliament, when the will to do so is genuine.

The Chair: Alan Tonks, followed by Yvon Godin.

[English]

Mr. Alan Tonks: Mr. Chairman, in the case that was cited, could you not give notice on Tuesday that you wish to raise the issue? I don't see how this circumvents any member's ability to do that. If you give notice on Tuesday, then you are giving two days' notice. There should not be any problem.

[Translation]

The Chair: Yvon Godin.

• 1155

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I recall that one of the committees on which I served, specifically the Natural Resources Committee, did the same thing because of a similar problem situation.

We would arrive at a meeting prepared to table a document or motion, only to be told by the government that we could not debate this item of business. Twenty-four hours is a considerable amount of time. Your motion which calls for 48-hours' notice is unacceptable. On any given day, we might show up in committee only to find members conspiring together sitting opposite. Someone may be substituting for you, Mr. Chairman, and an argument might ensue. The clerk might say: Oh, oh, 48-hours' notice is required! A ruling would have to be made. Does that make any sense?

We, the members of the committee in opposition, must be able to work effectively. We need to be able to contribute to the work of the committee. We need time to meet and to digest what we hear so that we can go back to our office and decide to put forth an amendment if we feel that something isn't right. In other words, we have a great deal of work to do as well. I have no objections to the government wanting time to prepare itself, but give us an equal chance. We need time to draft our motion and to consult with people. That can take an entire day. If the meeting is scheduled for Thursday at 11 a.m., the government has 24 hours, beginning Wednesday at 11 a.m., to prepare itself. It has more staff than we do. Therefore, this seems like a fair and balanced solution. Our objective is to ensure that the committee works well.

In the past, when we showed up at a meeting wanting to table a motion, the government would tell us that this was impossible and that it wasn't even aware of the gist of the proposal. It would vote down the motion, not because it necessarily opposed it, since it wanted to work with the committee, but because it hadn't had an opportunity to review it, if only for 12 hours. I think the proposal is a reasonable one. Why not give this a try? If it doesn't work out, we can always reconsider our position. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I think this will be the last intervention, if we can. It's not for me to direct the discussion.

Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I was just going to propose an amendment that it say “two days' written notice”.

The Chair: Hang on. We're dealing with an amendment to replace “48 hours” with “24 hours”. If I can comment on this, the purpose of the notice, whatever it is, whether it's 24 hours, 48 hours, or two days, is not for the government. It is for all members of the committee. It is in order that individual members of the committee, not the chair—although it worries me, because I'm interested in the work of the committee—can be prepared to discuss whatever is coming up. For example, at a Thursday meeting, Yvon, everyone can get prepared to discuss a particular thing, and then someone from any one of the parties, including the government, can show up with a totally different topic, and then the members' work is for nothing. That's the purpose of the notice. It's not a delaying mechanism. I just wanted to explain that. So it's not a government thing; it's a committee thing.

The amendment I have from Paul Crête at the moment is to replace “48 hours” with “24 hours”. I'm going to call that. If there are other amendments, we can deal with those as they come up.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Are there any other amendments?

Ms. Val Meredith: We need to have an amendment or introduce the issue of questioning witnesses and the rotation. It's not on here.

The Chair: I'll be glad to come back to anything else you want or any other business. I'm still dealing with the same motion, Val. We haven't passed it yet.

Ms. Val Meredith: I thought it was passed.

The Chair: We just dealt with an amendment to it.

Are there any other amendments to the 48-hour notice routine motion? Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I would amend it that unless there's unanimous consent, two days' written notice be given to members of the committee before any new item of business is considered.

The Chair: This is another amendment to the same point.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes.

The Chair: Is there any discussion of the new amendment? Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I want to be sure I understand this clearly, so that I can make an enlightened decision. When we refer to two days, are we talking about the two days preceding the actual discussion of the item in question? For example, if we want to debate an item of business on Thursday, would we have to give notice on the Monday - and that would be worse than the situation we now face - or sometime on Tuesday?

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Table it on Tuesday for discussion on Thursday.

An hon. member: Tuesday means 12 o'clock.

• 1200

Mrs. Judi Longfield: During business hours, 5 o'clock, 6 o'clock, whatever, just as long as it's in there on Tuesday.

The Chair: I request that amendment be moved by Alan Tonks because Judi moved the original motion.

Mr. Alan Tonks: I move that amendment.

The Chair: The amendment is that 48 hours be changed to two days.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Can we have a discussion?

The Chair: By all means.

Mr. Dale Johnston: When it says two days, that means if I were to get a motion in before 5 o'clock on Tuesday, it could be brought up at 11 a.m. on Thursday.

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: That's the sort of thing Paul said as well.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Will that be on the record?

The Chair: You just put it on the record.

Mr. Alan Tonks: We have witnesses.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Val Meredith, you said I missed something else.

Ms. Val Meredith: It's the rotation for the questioning of witnesses, and I would—

The Chair: Where's that?

Ms. Val Meredith: It's not here. That's why I wanted to—

The Chair: Excuse me. I'm sorry, Val. I now call the main motion by Judi Longfield as amended.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

Ms. Val Meredith: It is not on here, and it needs to be added. That's the rotation for the questioning of witnesses. I would propose that the Canadian Alliance get the first rotation, the Liberals the second, the Canadian Alliance the third, and the Bloc the fourth.

The Chair: Do you have your motion in writing?

Ms. Val Meredith: Yes, I do.

The Chair: Give it to the clerk, please.

Colleagues, this is another routine motion that is being proposed. Again for the new members, it has to do with the order in which the parties will question witnesses.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Just to refresh my memory, what was it last time?

The Chair: The procedure we used the last time was Alliance, Liberal, Bloc, Liberal, NDP, Liberal, PC, and Liberal.

Let's assume we have this motion in front of us. I'll read it out in a moment. You understand what we're talking about. We're discussing it.

Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: The reason I'm proposing this rotation is that the Canadian Alliance makes up over 50% of the opposition, and we would like to see that reflected in the rotation.

The Chair: I'll read this to all of you, and then I will repeat what has been the practice in this committee. The proposed routine motion is that we establish a rotation of questioning of two or more rounds and that usually the first question period goes to the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, and then after that it goes Liberal, Canadian Alliance, Bloc, Liberal, NDP, Liberal, and Conservative. So the change from our practice is that the Canadian Alliance gets a second kick at the can as well as a first.

Is there any discussion?

Ms. Val Meredith: An explanation is that the Canadian Alliance makes up over half of the opposition, so we want that reflected in the questioning of witnesses.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I prefer the way things are now done because it allows us to share more information about the subject and allows each party to express its views in committee. I don't believe we need to take the kind of formal approach set out in this motion. I'm preparing to vote against it because I think it would be a disservice to the public, to our constituents and to political parties. It would not improve the committee framework.

The Chair: Yvon Godin, followed by Monique Guay.

• 1205

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I certainly plan to vote against this proposal. I don't have a problem sitting in opposition, but I'm not ready to make myself invisible. I find this type of motion regrettable. The member states that his party makes up 50 per cent of the opposition. I would say that his party represents five provinces, whereas ours represents six.

We could always advance arguments of a similar nature, but the point is that this committee should be able to engage in discussions and dialogue and should be able to submit proposals to the government. It's important that we be able to listen to one another and to work together. We won't accomplish this by excluding people.

[English]

An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Do you have a problem or what?

The Chair: Carry on.

Yvon Godin has the floor.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: It's important to be able to debate issues. In my opinion, things ran smoothly in Parliament in 1997 because people could bring matters before committees for discussion. That's why I would like to see the Official Opposition revise its position. If this party's members want to exclude political parties over the next two weeks, I think it needs to rethink its designation as the grassroots party, because it's really not thinking about the people at the grassroots level. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Monique Guay, Joe McGuire, and then Greg Thompson.

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: [Editor's note: Inaudible]... the entire population of Canada. I've been here seven years, and so has Paul Crête. We've been serving on committees for seven years, Mr. Chairman, and we take our role in opposition very seriously. If we no longer have the right to speak and to ask questions, then we can no longer represent the people and democracy will suffer. I don't think we can exclude anyone from any one opposition party. The opposition is comprised of four political parties, not merely the Canadian Alliance. We must all be given the opportunity to represent our constituents.

[English]

The Chair: I have Joe McGuire, Greg Thompson, and then Val Meredith. I hope to conclude this discussion.

Joe.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. What period of time are we talking about: ten-minute rounds, seven-minute rounds, or five-minute rounds?

The Chair: I can answer that, colleagues, only from our previous practice. It varied according to the number of witnesses we had and so on, but it certainly was not ten-minute rounds. It was probably more like five-minute rounds.

Mr. Joe McGuire: Every round is a five-minute round?

The Chair: No, it varied. But we kept the order we described. Paul Crête indicated that from time to time, particularly as we moved on into the questioning, we deviated from that very strict order. I think there was agreement in the committee that we should do so, that members followed up. It was about five minutes to start for the first round, Joe.

Is that okay, Joe?

Mr. Joe McGuire: I think we should be concerned about how much time each party has. I think that would be crucial to the vote.

The Chair: If I could suggest on the time—let's keep to the order at the moment. We're going to go into an organizational future business meeting in a moment and I hope we can deal with that then.

Greg Thompson and Val Meredith.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with the other members, the Bloc members and the NDP, with regard to the allocation of speaking order, and I'm opposed to Val's motion. I've heard the arguments from Mr. Godin and others.

The purpose of the committee is to question and to ensure that all committee members are active and engaged in the process. To be very honest with you, I think it's in the Alliance's best interests that all opposition members are engaged in the process, because from time to time—and I'm not attempting to preach to the Alliance member—we have to cooperate to get things done in this place. Again, I don't want to see it as the tyranny of the majority. It's nobody's fault but ours, I guess, that we're fourth- and fifth-place parties or second- and third-place parties, but again the committee structure should be designed so that we're all engaged in the process. It's in the spirit of cooperation. I would say it's in their best interests to allow us to revert to the system we have used in the past, because if you marginalize the smaller opposition parties at this table, at some point you're going to be marginalized, and you're going to be marginalized from the other side of the table.

• 1210

So I think there has to be some sense of fairness. Again, the rules of this committee are set by the committee itself. I'm hoping, in the interests of all of us, that we can come to some reasonable solution to this. I would say that the reasonable solution is to proceed with the rules under which we engaged in the last Parliament.

Thank you.

The Chair: Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: As you can imagine, Mr. Chair, I disagree, and it really comes down to the fact that.... I have sat in committees where we've had just the normal rotation, but the numbers are quite different, Greg, in this Parliament than they were in the last. We have four members on this committee, and if we go with the normal rotation, we may or may not get a second question out of four members. It kind of makes it redundant for anybody to come here if they never get an opportunity to ask a question.

I am not denying—

Mr. Greg Thompson: You're going to have a lot of repetition from your own party.

Ms. Val Meredith: I have the floor, Greg. This motion does not deny any party the opportunity to speak or to represent. It is just the rotation of the speakers. The first round allows absolutely every party to be represented with the same amount of time, with the exception that the Canadian Alliance would get one more position, considering we have four members at this table to accommodate.

The Chair: Greg, very briefly, if you would.

Mr. Greg Thompson: Mr. Chairman, what are the rules of engagement here in terms of debate on this issue?

The Chair: There is established practice. I think that's the answer. I don't want to speak to it until we've voted on this thing, but I have my own views on this. By the way, I think one of them is that the rotation is tied to the time and both are tied to the size of the committee.

I have mentioned to you that this is a very large committee. If members are to participate—and it's my objective as chair that we all participate—we can't proceed on the practices of smaller committees. I think there have to be reasonable rotations. So there would be a reasonable rotation and a reasonable pace at which the questions proceed in order that the parties get their share, which I accept—I do accept that—but the individual members, Greg, get their share as well. That's been my objective since I have been the chair of this committee.

It's a very clumsy committee. As you hinted, I would not have designed the committee like this, but I don't think we can go with some of the practices of other committees in this committee.

We have a particular motion before us, and that is that in the first couple of rounds the rotation of questioning be Canadian Alliance, Liberal, Canadian Alliance, Bloc, Liberal, NDP, Liberal, Conservative.

Those in favour of that motion?

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: The motion is defeated. I can speak to it now at greater length, and it goes back to what Joe said. Do you understand what I mean? If 18 of us speak for 10 minutes each, it's 180 minutes, not including witness time or introducing ourselves. If 18 of us speak for five minutes, it's an hour and a half. It doesn't mean we all have to speak at every meeting, but ideally I would say to you that members should be able to get something in, even if it's just one short question and one short reply in a given meeting.

Our practice—and I assure you I'll do my best, and if we get to an organization meeting we can discuss it in more detail—has been to have the rotation I described, which is the parties going like this, to keep it, Joe, to roughly four or five minutes so the pace is moving on, so that, for example, we do get back to the Alliance. If we have ten minutes each, we're not going to get back to the Alliance in a given meeting. And then from time to time, when the discussion gets going well, I would ask that we break that rotation. People will object and we can stop it, but if the chair sees that one of the members on this side or one of the members on that side has a very particular interest in a very particular witness, surely to goodness we should be able to have the flexibility to do that.

That is the way I tried to run the committee before. I got some praise and some criticism from all sides. That is a good sign, and I would suggest we proceed in the same way.

Can we move on, Monique, or do you want to say something?

[Translation]

Ms. Monique Guay: I have a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. In committee, members of the same party can split their time. Therefore, if we're allotted a total of ten minutes, I can very well use five and give five to Paul, leaving us time to ask questions. The Alliance could follow the Bloc's lead and adopt this practice.

• 1215

[English]

The Chair: Again, as we get into the meetings, as we get to know each other, I urge you all to be as creative as possible—that is one example—so that the parties can be well represented, so that the witnesses can get a fair hearing, and so that we as individual members of Parliament can get some....

Jeannot Castonguay.

[Translation]

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): This is all quite new to me, Mr. Chairman, but when I decided to run in my riding, I felt it was important to reflect the views of my constituents. We mustn't forget that we are all here for the same reason, whether we represent Eastern Canada, Central Canada, the North or the West, and that is to represent our constituents. Our problems are different from those of the people of Central Canada. It's far more important to be here to represent our ridings and as a committee, we must never lose sight of this fact.

[English]

The Chair: It may well be necessary, because of what I said, for me to cut you off in order that other people can speak, but I see that as part of my job as chair—particularly cutting Monique Guay off; I'd be glad to do that.

We have finished the routine motions item on the agenda.

My suggestion, as you'll recall, is that we do other business, and then I would suggest that we proceed to discussion of future business, which is normally in camera.

First of all, we have to approve a budget, and I raised this earlier. You know that Bill C-2 is going to be our first item of business and that we have to bring witnesses in from all across the country. Typically, you should know that this committee has had a budget of about $5,000. The suggestion here, as you see, is that we seek approval of the budget before you. It says “Executive Summary of Workplan”. This budget is largely, as you can see, for witness expenses, including child care expenses, as we proposed in the routine motions.

Would someone move this budget?

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: We've only just received it and I need some clarification. There is no projected budget to cover committee travel. In part two, under “travel”, we read “N/A”. As far as Bill C-2 is concerned, I think it's critically important for the committee to travel to the various regions of Quebec and Canada to hear people's views on the proposed legislation and to find out, for instance, whether they find the intensity rule adequate or whether they would prefer to see a much broader provision. We were repeatedly told that this committee would receive notices and propose amendments. Therefore, before we adopt the budget, I'd like to know if any of this is within the realm of possibility.

The Chair: Travel is included under witness expenses.

[English]

The calculation is for 30 witnesses at the moment—we could go for more later on—at $1,500 each.

That's on the third page, item 6. So the calculation here for the $45,000 is roughly $1,500 per witness. That would include travel, it would include whatever expenses they might have here, and it would include child care. If it were not enough, of course, we would have fewer witnesses, but we would have to ask for more money.

Yvon, I'll come to you.

Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: I merely want some assurances that if $45,000 is included in the budget, it is listed under “witness, travel and other similar expenses”. If we adopt the budget as it now stands, you could potentially tell us at any time that there is no money in the budget for travel. We need to settle this issue before we adopt the budget so that we know if in fact the committee will be able to travel, or if it must settle for holding its hearings in Ottawa.

[English]

The Chair: I can say to you now, Paul, on the record, which I think is enough, that it includes all of those things that you have mentioned. It's travel, accommodation, child care—all the things a witness would need to be here. If the committee needs more—either the witnesses are more expensive or we need more witnesses—we would go back and ask for more.

• 1220

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Does this take into account the fact that the committee might hold hearings in the Maritimes, for example, or in Quebec?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Paul Crête: That's my point.

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, Paul. It does not include travel expenses for the committee. If the committee is to travel, it needs the approval of the House of Commons. If the House of Commons gave us approval, we would get the budget to travel. This is simply to bring witnesses to Ottawa. I'm sorry I misunderstood what you said.

I'm going to go to Yvon Godin and then Val Meredith.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise the same issue as Mr. Crête.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mr. Yvon Godin: There's a reason why the committee should travel. Bill C-2 affects all those who have lost their jobs, have no employment insurance and can't afford to travel here to make representations. I think it's important that we at least discuss whether or not we plan to hold hearings in the regions. Do we intend to travel to Caraquet, Lamèque or Rivière-au-Renard? Do we plan to hear from the people who live in these communities? There are people who would like to appear before our community, but who can't afford it.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, if I could suggest—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's why I agree with Paul on this, but I do understand your position. This is something for Parliament to decide.

[English]

The Chair: The reason I suggested we have a meeting on future business as soon as we can is to discuss exactly that. At the moment we are simply anticipating witnesses coming to Ottawa, and therefore we need more than the usual few thousand dollars in our budget. The amount of $45,000 is for roughly 30 witnesses being brought to Ottawa.

Val Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Chair, coming from the west, I have a real concern that $1,500 is not going to accommodate witnesses coming from that part of the country. I think when we're talking about an issue as critical as this one, it's really important we make sure there's enough allocation in the budget to bring people from British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, and not just people from central Canada and Ottawa who are professional lobbyists. I know it's an average, but I also know for a fact that travelling from B.C. to Ottawa return is not cheap, and I just want to make sure that is considered in this average.

The Chair: Before I go to Raymonde Folco, I'd like to assure you that this is just a way of calculating the budget. We have no idea who the witnesses are yet and who's going to be coming. It may well be some are from national organizations with headquarters in Ottawa and they may cost us nothing. So this is an average, and it's a way for us to get a budget so we can start our work. I assure you that if the committee agreed on a witness coming from British Columbia and the cost was more than $1,500, they would get their expenses. I assure you of that. It's a method of calculation. There's no way hypothetically we can figure this cost, yet we have to have money before we can proceed. That's essentially what it is.

Raymonde Folco.

[Translation]

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to come back for a moment to a point my colleague Mr. Godin made. I'd like to draw the attention of committee members to the second budget item “travel”. It's clearly noted in parentheses that this budget figure is only to be included if you already have travel authority from the House, and so forth. Therefore, it's clear to me that in this instance, it's not up to us or to the chair to decide. The decision will be made at another time and place by other persons.

[English]

The Chair: Is that okay? I assure you we're not pre-empting it or anything. We simply must have a budget.

Mr. Greg Thompson: I move we approve the budget submission based on the information you've provided.

The Chair: Greg Thompson has moved we approve the budget as it stands under the circumstances we've discussed.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next item under other business is the motion received from Libby Davies. Yvon Godin is here. You have it, I think, in your package.

[Translation]

This notice of motion is dated February 12.

[English]

This has to do with future business. It's up to you, Yvon, how we deal with it. This is a motion by Libby Davies that we look again at the Canada student loan program. I am very interested in it and so are other colleagues. Our last meeting before the break was on this topic. It's something we would have to do after EI. I'm easy, Yvon. We can consider this now if you wish or we can simply build it into our discussion of future business.

• 1225

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Will we be discussing future business immediately after dispensing with this item?

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: We'll be getting to it today. I doesn't matter whether it's before or after.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, that's right. Is that okay, folks? You have all received it. The submission has been received by the committee. We can discuss it.

Are there any other items under other business? Paul Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête: Perhaps we'll touch on this when we broach the subject of future business, but I'd like to know if there will be a sub-committee on disabled persons, human rights, children and so forth.

[English]

The Chair: I think it is more proper that we discuss that in the next part of the meeting, which will be in camera. I'll explain that briefly for the new members in a moment. But the answer is yes, I think there is support. I've seen letters of support from both sides anyway, if not from all five parties. It is my hope that in one or two meetings' time we will re-establish those committees. But we will discuss it in a moment.

Is there any other business?

For the record, so that you all don't feel guilty about it, it is very normal for us to discuss future business in camera. One of the reasons for that, to give a simple example, is we may be discussing possible witnesses who should come and so on, as we were just doing, and we may be discussing them individually and personally, so it is usually much more appropriate to do that in camera.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I move that this meeting continue in camera.

(Motion agreed to)

[Proceedings continue in camera]