OGGO Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, November 7, 2002

Á

1105

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.))

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

The Chair

Á

1110

Á

1115

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ)

The Chair

Á

1120

Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.)

The Chair

Á

1125

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Á

1130

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Á

1135

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Tony Valeri

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Á

1150

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

Ms. Liza Frulla

Á

1155

The Chair

Mr. Andy Scott

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Andy Scott

Ms. Liza Frulla

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

Ms. Liza Frulla

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

Â

1200

The Chair

M. Robert Lanctôt

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron

Mr. Robert Lanctôt

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Kevin Sorenson

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates

---

NUMBER 001

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, November 7, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Order. Your first order of business is to elect a chair. I'm ready to receive nominations to that effect.

    Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): I wish to nominate Mr. Alcock as chair of the committee.

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations? No?

    Nominations are now closed.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare Mr. Alcock duly elected as chair of the committee.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

    The Clerk: Once the election of the vice-chairs is completed, I'll invite him to take the chair to preside over the meeting.

    I'll now proceed to the election of the vice-chairs. Are there any nominations?

    Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton, Lib.): I nominate Tony Valeri as vice-chair for the government side.

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: As I understand it, procedurally, according to the new rules, we have to nominate the first vice-chair and complete that. Then we take nominations a second time. That's just the way the rules are.

    The Clerk: Yes. We'll nominate the vice-chair for the government side and then the second vice-chair after that.

    The Chair (Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.)): It's not done one-two, in a certain order; it's just whoever gets called first.

    The Clerk: Are there any nominations other than Mr. Valeri for vice-chair on the government side? No?

    Nominations are now closed.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: We'll now proceed to the vice-chair from the opposition. Are there any nominations?

    Mr. Alcock.

    The Chair: I'd like to nominate Mr. Forseth.

    The Clerk: Are there any other nominations? No?

    Nominations are now closed.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Clerk: I declare Mr. Forseth elected vice-chair for the opposition.

    I now invite Mr. Alcock to please take the chair.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Madam Clerk. And that, of course, was all done in secrecy, right? We'll see what happens when the ballots are counted.

    I'd like to welcome one of our newest members, the honourable Mr. Eggleton, who came to sit on this committee, because of his deep interest, once he saw we were going to review the PCO.

    We look forward to your attendance here, sir.

    Has everybody a copy of the routine motions...?

    Ah! I am told by the clerk that we have lost the committee bag, which I presume is a bag of things carried around by the committees and containing all the documentation.

    Now, we can deal with this in two ways. We have essentially agreed--and I think the way we've formed this today, despite what's going on around us, has been an example of it--that in this committee we will, as much as we can, attempt to move collaboratively on these things. I've had conversations with people from the various parties about how this might proceed. I'm guided by you. These are routine motions setting up the subcommittee on agenda and procedure and so on. I can read the motions out to you, or we can simply table this until the first meeting after the break and deal with them then, when we have the paper in front of us.

    Monsieur Perron.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): In so far as possible, I would like all of the motions submitted to be bilingual, that is in both French and English, and, as is customary, I would like them to be available 48 hours in advance.

[English]

    The Chair: Absolutely. That's why I'm saying...because I can have these photocopied. They are here in both languages. Remember, these are simply the normal motions we pass in order to make sure there's coffee in the room, our researcher from the library is available to us, and things like that. If you like, if the committee wants to recess for four or five minutes, I can get these photocopied and we can reconvene.

    Or to turn it around, I can get these copied, and while that happens I can talk a little bit about a few things. How about that?

    Perhaps we could save some time by simply dealing with some of the procedural...not the procedural issues in terms of motions, but just some of the discussions that have taken place. As many of you will know, having attended informal meetings of the membership of this committee, there have been some ongoing discussions about what we might be doing now.

    One of the dilemmas we have on this committee, given its mandate, is that we simply have far too much to do. The mandate is so enormous that we would be bogged down trying to get everything done, so we have to prioritize in some fashion in order to both meet the things coming at us and responsibly live up to the mandate we have.

    I've had some conversations with various parties around here. We will have a piece of legislation coming to us, I would suspect, after Christmas, possibly. It probably won't hit the House until late January or early February. It's going to be a very big bill dealing with the reform of the public service.

    One of our central mandates is this whole question of the use of information technology throughout government, across all government departments, and how the information infrastructure needs to change to make government more transparent and more accountable. It raises really two questions. One is the question of accountability. If you remember, this committee was formed out of two actions in the House. One was the desire for the House to get more involved in the use of information and communication technologies in the management and operations of government. As well, the Catterall-Williams report looked heavily at questions of accountability--what it means, and how that gets played out.

    Those two things are closely related in that accountability is based on your ability to understand what's going on and the information you have available. But one of the things we've talked about is the possibility of setting up some subcommittees that would be jointly chaired by a member of the government and a member of the opposition on a number of these topics. These would not do as some subcommittees do--that is, after they get up and running, they sort of disappear into the ether, occasionally producing a report--but really would serve the purpose of working up these important themes for the main committee. The members of the subcommittee would come back and chair and run the meetings that were relevant on that particular topic.

    So the mechanisms of accountability would be one, and obviously we would need to do some pre-study on and understand the bill. I believe it's the largest change to the public service administration in a good many years. It's been a long time since the act has been modernized.

Á  (1110)  

     The third thing, and it sits with one of our responsibilities, is that the Privacy Commissioner and the access to information commissioner both report to this committee now. On the issue of access to information, the access commissioner, in his report to the House, which he just put forward recently, makes the comment that the government has been studying changes to both the administration of access to information and the legislation. He argues strongly in his report that the House should take this up. He is really calling on the government not to put a bill into the House after second reading, but to put a bill in the House early and allow a committee to study it. He argues that it should be formed by the members of the House.

    My response right now, if the committee is willing, is to establish a subcommittee to pre-study that immediately, because those are two big topics that are intimately related to the whole question of how you structure information in government, but they are two very sensitive topics--how to access information, and its companion, how individuals maintain some level of personal privacy. So that's the third big area. There is the act, access and privacy, and accountability.

    I've had some opportunity to talk about this with individuals around the table, and I have a sense of some individual interest. I propose we take the break week to continue those discussions with the various parties and individuals, and then come back with a business plan at the first meeting when we reconvene, on the Tuesday after the Remembrance Day week, if that meets with your approval.

    Are there any questions on that?

Á  (1115)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Clearly, you're talking about the establishment of three subcommittees. How many people would be on each of those subcommittees?

    The Chair: Whether it is three subcommittees, two, or four, that's where my thinking has taken me, given the discussions I've had. But I have not had fulsome discussions with either the Bloc or the Progressive Conservative Party, and I wish to do that with Mr. Lanctôt and Mr. Perron before even forming my own thoughts about that.

    On the make-up of the subcommittees, all members can be members of subcommittees. It's really a matter of who is going to drive those particular topics, and part of that will be a function of interest.

    For example, I've had extensive conversations with Mr. Martin of the NDP. He has a real background in labour, and is very interested in the public service act. I believe, Mr. Forseth, you are also the critic for Treasury Board, which is where the act is coming from. I know there's interest on Mr. Cullen's part in that area also.

    Quebec has probably one of the strongest pieces of privacy legislation, and Madame Frulla has some experience with that. I want to speak to the members of the Bloc to see if they have an interest in that area, given the model that the Quebec government has developed that seems to work exceptionally well.

    So I think we need to have those kinds of conversations. I suspect various members will be able to choose to join whatever subcommittees they wish, as long as we have groups in charge to drive them.

    Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt (Châteauguay, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    At our last informal meeting, we discussed the fact that we didn't want to set up a lot of subcommittees, given the proliferation of committees and subcommittees on which we are asked to sit. In addition to my responsibility for this subcommittee, I also handle justice and transportation affairs. I have a tremendous workload. Therefore, while I have no objections to a subcommittee per se, I would like it to be mandated to study two issues, not one, to avoid our having to strike three, four, five or even six subcommittees. That only side-tracks us. Last time around, we pointed out that one or two subcommittees could be mandated to take on two issues each. If we start to look at the Access to Information Act, which is just as important as the Privacy Act, and then move on to ICTs and so forth...In my opinion, it makes no sense at all for us to strike a subcommittee each time we want to examine a particular topic. I think we need to broaden the mandate of the subcommittees, not create new ones. One or two, that's fine, but no more than that. In any event, I raised the same point last time.

[English]

    The Chair: No, I understand your point, and I certainly agree with it. What I was doing was outlining two of the areas I see coming at us, ones we're going to have to deal substantively with.

    But you're absolutely right. For example, for access and privacy it would be very useful to put those two things in the hands of one group. You are on justice, Mr. Scott chairs justice, and he is sitting on this committee because of his interest in.... This whole business of whether it's accountability or rights to access and privacy is part and parcel of how you hold and structure information, both to give citizens access to information about what government is doing and also to protect information about citizens so they can maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy.

    I think these are incredibly important questions. I know Madame Frulla has some interest in that, Mr. Scott has interest and expertise in that area, and I suspect you'll be encountering some of that in the work you're doing on justice. I would be quite interested in hearing.... I have previously met with the chief Information officer, or his equivalent, in the province of Quebec to talk about these things, and I think there is a great deal of interesting work that has gone on there on which they've already moved. The privacy commissioner in Ontario has done much the same thing.

    There's an interesting piece of work that is also going to come up in the work the central committee needs to do around information itself and about how government should structure information. One clear component of that is, if you have information and you're holding it in a particular way, how do you access it and how do you not allow access to it? You have that divide. We could spend, you are right, every waking hour of every day doing this kind of stuff, because it's a huge topic.

    Madame Frulla.

Á  (1120)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Liza Frulla (Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles, Lib.): I would just like to recount an incident that took place in Quebec. As you know, Quebec passed legislation respecting access to documents held by public bodies and the protection of personal information. This legislation prompted the federal government to adopt similar legislation. Since the act had a sunset clause, I was responsible for the legislative review process in 1990. The act was amended to include provisions respecting the protection of personal information and public citizens. The situation has evolved tremendously.

    A committee that would oversee only this... I agree that a proliferation of subcommittees is unnecessary because ultimately, that wouldn't accomplish much. However, if there were only two committees, I think that would accomplish your goals, Mr. Chairman. For one, we need a committee to look into the Access to Information Act, which in itself is extremely complex. The advantage is that Quebec is constantly delving into this legislation and we can look to Quebec experts for advice. Therefore, I can see a subcommittee that would review various aspects of this issue,

[English]

and then have another subcommittee on accountability, public liability, and whatever, one that contained all the rest, plus prepare ourselves for the new piece of legislation.

    The Chair: Just to wind up this particular discussion, I want to add two more things into the mix. I would define the work on accountability and the work of the main committee in this way. The main committee is a committee that has the same responsibilities as any other standing committee of the House, and departments report to it. Government services reports to it, PCO reports to it, Treasury Board reports to it, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, and so on: the great, long list you all have.

    One of the arguments is that committees need to be more active in holding departments to account and working with departments on their plans on an annual basis. If we did just that with all the departments we have, we would never do anything else because any one of those is a big job. One of the questions we will have to decide--and I would suggest that we not decide this today, that this is something we'll come back to with recommendations to be decided on in our first meeting--is this: How do we choose? If we're not going to do them all, how do we prioritize the ones we do choose?

     One of the things that was suggested is that we make a list of what's out there and first make a decision as to how many we want to do, how many we think we can reasonably do. Because this is the first time this committee has met, we may want to have them all in just to get the initial statements from them. We may say, we want to do x number this year and then maybe the opposition will pick one and say the Alliance will say we want to do this department, and the Bloc will say we want to do that department, and the government will say we want to do that department. That's how we'll form our agenda, which will give everybody a chance to select them, and those are the ones that we'll bring to the main committee to do the outlook reports, the performance reports, and eventually their estimates. Those are the ones we'll concentrate on.

    At the same time we have a dual responsibility around the accountability exercise. We have a responsibility to do it and we have the responsibility to oversee how it is done and study how the whole estimates process can be improved, how the information that comes out of the departments that describes their work needs to be modified. So we have two related but different exercises. And I know that piece of work certainly occupied the bulk of the Catterall-Williams report. But I would see that as a companion piece that gets tested as the committee does what committees should be doing. I mean, all committees should be doing good accountability work with their departments.

    By the way, I think some of you have met our researcher, Jack Stilborn. We haven't hired Jack yet, it's been pointed out to me, so I guess Jack doesn't exist yet.

    At any rate, Jack Stilborn is the research officer who has been assigned to the committee and also has the support of the research bureau, but because we have such a broad range of interest, there'll be other researchers brought in, depending on the topics.

    I think I've covered most of our earlier conversations, Jack, have I?

    So why don't we move through these routine motions and to the extent to which there's consensus we'll pass what is there. To the extent that you see a need for modification and we can reach a consensus we'll pass it, and if we can't reach a consensus we won't pass it

    The clerk tells me these are just a guide and we can change them. But that's what's known as a redundant conversation, because this committee will change anything it chooses, right?

    The first is the appointment of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. This is not a subcommittee as we've described before. This is the normal small steering committee that meets to determine the agenda.

    Does somebody want to move this?

    Mr. Andy Scott: So moved.

    (Motion agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Hearing evidence and publication of same when a quorum is not present. It says that the chair be authorized to receive when at least three members of the opposition are present.

    Mr. Andy Scott: So moved.

    (Motion agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: The next motion will now be known as the “hire Jack” motion. This is just the engaging of a research officer.

Á  (1125)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I so move.

[English]

    The Chair: Good.

    (Motion agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Witness expenses; does somebody wish to move that?

    Mr. Paul Forseth: So moved.

    (Motion agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Distribution of papers; this is that nothing will be distributed to members until they are translated.

    Yes, Mr. Perron.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: I'd like to move a minor amendment to this motion, so that it would read as follows: that the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute to members of the Committee all documents received only when they have been translated in both official languages. That would imply that all documents received either from the public or the clerk and tabled to the committee should be in both official languages.

    By deleting the words “from the public”, the implication is that all documents, whether received from the public or internal, must be in both languages.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I see some eyebrows...The proposed amendment would add the word “all” between “committee” and “documents” and delete the words “from the public”. This way, all documents, whether received from a colleague or from a party, would be included.

Á  (1130)  

    Ms. Liza Frulla: It's merely for the sake of clarity, because the documents we receive from the Board of Internal Economy are, obviously, bilingual. We're merely emphasizing the obvious and I don't have a problem with that.

[English]

    The Chair: Sometimes stating the obvious is known as symbolism, and it's important, right?

    So, yes, absolutely; the amendment, just so that we're clear, subject to your approval of the French translation of the amendment, and I'll deal with the English one--

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: All documents received shall be bilingual, in both languages...or something like that. So it's internal documents or external documents--all documents.

    The Chair: Can I suggest this:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the Committee all documents received only when they have been translated in both official languages.

    So we're striking out the words “from the public” and adding the word “all” before “documents”.

    And then, on the French side--

[Translation]

    Ms. Liza Frulla: We're deleting “from the public”.

    The Chair: That's right.

    Mr. Scott.

[English]

    Mr. Andy Scott: For the record, Mr. Chair, anything that comes from the government has to be bilingual. We don't control that, so it's not included here. All we're really talking about are things, in fact, that we receive from the public. The point we're trying to make is that those things have to be translated before they are received here. That's why it's worded this way. We don't have any control over what we get from Treasury Board. They have to give it to us in both languages.

    The Chair: Essentially, that's what Ms. Frulla said. It's a redundancy, but not an inappropriate redundancy.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: It's not pointless because we often have witnesses coming from Toronto or British Columbia. If we delete the words “from the public” and replace them with “all documents”, this would include government documents as well as any briefs from witnesses. Often, witnesses claim to not have had time to translate the document they're presenting. We ask that the document not be distributed until the next meeting or until it has been translated and everyone receives the information at the same time, even when that information comes from the public.

[English]

    The Chair: Members, just to be precise, do we have approval of the amendment?

    Mr. Forseth.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: On discussion of that point, as we know from experience, sometimes we have witnesses who come here at the last minute and they don't have the finances to be able to have the translation done. Once in awhile special requests are made to the committee to provide an exception to the rule. The committee then looks at who those witnesses are, and their relative capacity, and if they would have had a reasonable time or the financial ability, or whatever. Other committees have from time to time allowed, say, English-only or French-only documents, because of special circumstances when the committee has thought it wise that it would rather hear the evidence than send them away.

    The Chair: If I may interpret, though, as I understand it, this rule doesn't prevent anybody from presenting to the committee; it means that if somebody comes with a French-only presentation, before that document is circulated to all members it will be translated. They can come and present, and we'll have translation and deal with it, but then the document will not be given to all members. For example, the English documents won't be given to the English members first, and then we wait for the translation, and vice versa. All members receive the paper in exactly the same timeframe once it's translated.

    Now, you're right, Mr. Forseth, there may be.... I can think of an example where somebody was talking and there was a chart or something that underlined the point, so there'd be a request, “Would there be any objection if we got this piece...?”

    But we'll deal with that as an exception, on a case-by-case basis.

Á  (1135)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I agree and your explanation is correct. It restriction merely applies to the distribution of papers. The witness can still testify. He can make his presentation, only members do not receive a copy of the paper. If a particular submission was drafted only in French and a person has trouble reading French, whereas I have the time to go over the presentation so that I can put questions to the witness giving it...The intent here is to prevent this kind of imbalance, to ensure that documents are received by all committee members at the same time.The witness would not be prevented in any way from making his presentation.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Forseth, does that answer your question?

    Mr. Perron.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: To add to what Robert was saying, rest assured that we're not here to practise systematic obstruction. Most likely there will be exceptions or emergencies during the course of our mandate as a result of which a document may be circulated only in French, or only in English, with the proviso that a translation be done subito presto.We're talking about the situation in general.

    Since 1997, the Public Accounts Committee has had to seek unanimous consent only once.

[English]

    The Chair: Perhaps I can digress for a moment. Mr. Scott and I were members of the committee that studied the HRDC back in 1994 and that spent a great deal of time in small towns in Quebec doing hearings with people who were coming to us completely unilingual in French and with French documentation.

    So I understand the frustration, and I think it's a reasonable expectation that all members get treated exactly the same.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    (Motion as amended agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Next is order in council appointments. This basically says that all order in council...now the committee has the right to receive information on order in council appointments--I shan't editorialize--after the fact, and if the committee wishes, members can say, “Listen, we just received this notice, and we'd like to see this person.” And we can make that decision, but this is just to authorize the clerk to circulate that information.

    The clerk explains to me that this is to give the clerk the authority to get and circulate to each member a copy of the resumé of each appointee.

    Mr. Andy Scott: So moved.

    The Chair: Is there any discussion?

    (Motion agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: Next is the 48 hours' notice. This says that except for amendments to bills, a notice of 48 hours be given before any substantive motion may be presented to the committee and the motion be filed with the clerk of the committee, circulated to members of both sides of Parliament. Upon receipt of notice the clerk shall put the motion on the agenda of the committee's next meeting.

    Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): I so move.

    The Chair: Or Mr. Lanctôt....

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I'm not moving the motion; I'm moving an amendment.

[English]

    The Chair: No, in order to discuss it, it has to be moved. Mr. Valeri moved it so now we're open for discussion.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In light of my experience serving on parliamentary committees, I think 24 hours' notice is preferable. I've seen this kind of provision in place at the Environment Committee and elsewhere. Meetings are often held on Tuesdays and Thursdays. When Tuesday's meeting draws to a close and a member wishes to give notice of motion for the next meeting, scheduled for Thursday, a problem arises because 48 hours' notice is required. When only 24 hours' notice is required, all committee members can see the motion, study it and discuss it at the next meeting. It's not a problem when meetings are held on Thursdays, because the next meeting wouldn't be until the following Tuesday. The problem arises between Tuesdays and Thursdays. A notice of 24 hours would allow us to table our motions so that members could familiarize themselves with the context. Therefore, I move that we approve a notice of 24 hours, rather than 48 hours.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Lanctôt moves to amend the motion, reducing the 48 hours' notice to 24 hours' notice. Is there any discussion on that?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair or the clerk, have there been any substantive or even minuscule changes to any of the motions from the last Parliament to this? Is this document exactly the same, and have there been no changes?

Á  (1140)  

    The Chair: The answer to that is yes.

     Mr. Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Are you talking about this committee during the previous Parliament?

[English]

    The Chair: I'm sorry, your question was...?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: According to the motion being brought forward, there have been no changes in this motion as to what you were going under before.

    The Chair: Right. The dilemma for this committee, though, is that its sum or total experience as a committee was the founding meeting. Then the House recessed, and that was it. So what you have before you is what we passed the last time, but the committee has absolutely no experience with it.

    We do have a desire to function in a more collaborative way. There will be times when we don't; that's normal around this place. We can pass any motion, and can override the 48 hours' or 24 hours' any time there's consensus, as long as there's unanimity. All this does is produce a requirement for unanimous consensus to move within that timeframe. Whether it's 48 or 24, I'm open.

    Yes, sir.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Does the word “substantive” being in the motion have any bearing on the discussion? This requires a notice of 48 hours for “any substantive motion”, any motion of substance. Certainly we aren't opposed, as you've already said, Mr. Chair, to 24 hours' notice on some motions. Perhaps the word “substantive” is what should be taken into account here.

    The Chair: Let me go to Mr. Scott and then to Mr. Lanctôt.

    Mr. Andy Scott: Essentially, Mr. Lanctôt, in the justice committee, where Mr. Sorenson and I have some experience, we have 48 hours. And a substantive motion is simply one that is not procedural and is apart from what we had intended to discuss that day.

    For instance, on the Monday when we come back, we're discussing the work plan, and everybody knows that the Monday when we come back we're discussing the work plan. That means that we could in fact accept a motion around the work plan the Monday we come back. However, if you or I wanted to introduce a motion to call Mr. Easter on some subject—which wouldn't be unusual—we couldn't entertain that. It would be a substantive motion, independent of the work plan that we had talked about the last time.

    So that would be the distinction. It's a judgment call that the chair has to make, but I think that frames what it looks like.

    The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: That's a very good explanation. However, the Environment Committee approved 24 hours' notice. The reason why I'm suggesting this now, when other committees may have agreed to a shorter time frame—had I not been absent yesterday when the Justice Committee met, I would also have proposed 24 hours' notice—is that if an emergency arises, it's always possible to table a motion. Obviously, if the motion is “less important”, than the time frame is also not important. However, if we go with 24 hours' notice, it would be possible to give notice of motion between the Tuesday and Thursday meetings, which means the Canadian Alliance or the Liberal Party could...

    We've encountered a similar situation. Why not endorse this kind of emergency motion, given that the Environment Committee has approved the change? Our committee's mandate is so broad that emergencies could arise and we may well wish to discuss certain matters within 24 hours. Otherwise, in the case of a Tuesday meeting, we would have to wait until the following Tuesday to have our discussion, even in the case of an emergency. With 24 hours' notice, we could broach the subject on the Thursday.

    I would appreciate committee members supporting this amendment.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Valeri.

    Mr. Tony Valeri: I really don't have a problem with 24 or 48 on the substantive stuff, but I think it's also important to note that if in fact we do stay with 48 hours, and there is an instance of an emergency, I think in the collaborative nature that we want to go forward with, the committee can override the 48 hours to deal with the emergency. So it's not that we need specifically 24 hours to deal with the emergency....

    In making that point, I also want to say that I don't have a problem with 24 or 48. I really want to ensure that this committee continues to function in a collaborative way, and that we start to deal with the business of the committee.

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: Monsieur Lanctôt.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I agree with you. However, what you consider to be an emergency may not necessarily be an emergency in my books and I might not give unanimous consent, and vice versa. The point is to prevent this from happening, especially if it would create some animosity among committee members and that's not our job. Our job is to make things run smoothly. This way, the rule respecting the notice of motion would be the same for everyone.

[English]

    The Chair: The clerk informs me that there has also been some flexibility in 48 hours. Of course, it's like so many things; when the place is working well, then these things are not issues, right? It's only when we get into badgering each other about certain things, where the government does not want to give up their 48-hour buffer, and the opposition would like to have none so that you can sandbag me the first time that we're not in the majority.

    I hear no strong objection to the move to 24 hours. I hear some interest in doing it. I think it's a move that's in the direction of what we say we want to establish on this committee, which is a more collaborative form of procedure.

    Hearing no further discussion, I will call the question on the amendment to reduce the notice period from 48 hours to 24 hours.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    (Motion as amended agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: On transcripts, again, this refers to transcripts of in camera meetings only, so they will be kept in the clerk's office, available for people to see if they wish to check something that they thought was agreed, or whatever, and they'll be destroyed at the end of each session.

    I'm sorry, the clerk has mentioned to me that I did not highlight the second part of that one, which is that, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings. That's standard, that's understood.

    Mr. Andy Scott: So moved.

    (Motion agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: On the allocation of time for questioning, this is what was done before.

    Any questions, Mr. Forseth?

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes. We may not actually have to put this in the motion, but looking at other committees, it's just the order. Generally, it's the official opposition, the Canadian Alliance, that goes first; then perhaps it goes back to the government side; then back to the opposition side; and we go all the way down the table before it comes back to the second round. And in the second round, as it's outlined, it's five minutes for each, and it can be anybody, whoever gets their hand up. The clerk just takes the list. And it can go anywhere in the room. Or that's my anticipation.

    It sounds like chaos, yes. In this committee I don't think that's going to be quite as tight as perhaps it has been in the justice committee, where issues are different.

    I was wondering about the intent of the chair in that regard.

    The Chair: I have not thought this through in a definitive way. It's been some time since I've chaired a committee. It strikes me that in the questioning of witnesses, we often, because of these limits, feel compelled to ask questions to use the available time. I would hope that we can turn that around so that we are asking questions of witnesses to elicit good information.

    I think there is a certain precedence here. It strikes me that all members want to have an opportunity to get their points forward, and I would attempt to give all members the opportunity to do that. I have no difficulty following precedence, simply because that also is reflected in the number of people at the table. I see these things as guidelines as much as anything else.

    Again, if the committee is running well, if people are feeling that this is useful, then I suspect you won't be quite as concerned about what I see in some committees when the issues are very hot, where it's, “Did I get my so many seconds?” Some committees, I know, will go opposition, government, opposition and government, in the argument that there are as many members of the government as there are others. But I do think, as collectives, we have five opinions to be expressed around the table, given the nature of the five parties, and you would not want to exclude...and it's one thing, too, for the Alliance and the Bloc, who are represented here...but I suspect Mr. Masse and the Progressive Conservatives will want to ask questions and be represented at the table also.

    And if we strictly followed this one on a back-and-forth to the government, we would never, in the time available, get down to the other parties. So if you will grant me some leeway, I will simply commit to the committee that it's my desire to have good debate, and I will do everything I can to see that members get the chance to ask the questions they need.

Á  (1150)  

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Okay. I don't see the intent of going opposition, government, opposition, government within the wording.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It says just the opposite. It says “each party”.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: So my expectation would be the Canadian Alliance first and then over to the government side; then it would go to the Bloc, the NDP, and the Conservatives for the first round. Then the second round would be a five-minute free-for-all.

    The Chair: Can I respond to that, though? If we did it that way, you would get ten minutes for the opening statement and ten minutes for each party. Now we're at about an hour.

    Mr. Paul Forseth: Well, often it's not ten minutes for each party; it's ten minutes for the official opposition, then it's seven, and then it's five minutes only for the NDP and the Conservatives, in the first round.

    The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Lanctôt; I should allow you to at least express an opinion here.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: The question has been put and a response is in order. I'd like to say something before we move on to another subject.

    In my opinion, it should be clearly stated that in the case of a committee such as this one, each party is entitled to ten minutes during the first round. Suggestions like allocating ten, seven and five minutes make no sense. For the first round, before government members speak, a member from each party should be recognized, as is the case in other committees of note. This way, the official opposition and other opposition parties have ten minutes for questions during the first round.

    For the second round, we can alternate, since there are many more government members. During the first ten minutes, everyone can make his or her position known. Then, during the second round where members have five minutes, we could alternate. For example, we could start with the Alliance, move on to the government party, then on to the Bloc Québécois, then back to the government party, and so on. Given the stature of this committee, we'll have a great deal to discuss, so it's important that everyone be allocated the same amount of time, and that we not always alternate with government members. They'll have their say. That's not the important issue at the outset.

    For the first round, it's important for each opposition party to make their positions known to the government, which then responds to our questions. Then, during the second round, each committee member has an opportunity to speak or to pass. That's equally true of opposition members. Moreover, that's how it works in the Justice Committee.

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Scott, and then Madame Frulla.

    Mr. Andy Scott: Logically, say we were discussing something in a two-hour time slot and we had two witnesses. That would give us one hour per witness. If they opened with twenty minutes, and we did ten, ten, and ten, the last two parties wouldn't get any time at all. And realistically it wouldn't happen.

    So what we do is that all parties have seven minutes in the opening round to put their opinions down, ask their questions, and so on. That is the opportunity that is probably to the advantage of the opposition, if I can put it that way.

    In the second round, though, you have three minutes, and that goes back and forth. That's when the government side, with all these members sitting here, gets a chance to get everybody to have their individual opportunity.

    That works reasonably well in the justice committee, except when I have to cut off Mr. Sorenson. Otherwise, it works very well, and I would recommend it as an alternative.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Frulla.

[English]

    Ms. Liza Frulla: I recommend the same thing. That's how it's done elsewhere, to make sure all parties have representation. Then afterwards it goes back and forth, which makes it, I'd say, a more dynamic discussion. There's also a very specific time for questioning.

    We can do it, but we should try to make it as dynamic and as pleasant as possible for the people we're receiving.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: How do you wish to proceed then?

    Mr. Andy Scott: I'd like to move an amendment that each party be given seven minutes in the first round, to be followed by three-minute rounds, alternating between the opposition side and the government side. It has to be seven rather than ten because you won't get to enough threes if it's tens.

    The Chair: That's the amendment. Let's deal with that, and then I'm going to propose something additional.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: It's a good way of doing it, but I can tell you where the disadvantage is, not from a party perspective; it's probably the same for the government side. The third guy sitting in the chair, in the official opposition, really very seldom gets a chance, but very seldom does the government one sitting in the last chair, either.

    Mr. Andy Scott: Mr. Chair, having gone through this a number of times, what happens is that the trade-off, as unfortunate as it may be, is that it's better for the third person in the first party--the fourth person over here--not to speak than not ever get to the last person on that side, to be fair. In the context of a political party, if you have ten-minute rounds, many times you'll just run out of time. This way, there's a trade-off for both.

    And I won't say anything more about it.

    Ms. Liza Frulla: I'm just trying to understand; it's my first committee. Is it possible to have, among you guys, a rotation?

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Oh, yes, but it's just the third individual who....

    Ms. Liza Frulla: Let's say you have a common position, so at least we hear the common position of everybody, and then afterwards we'll fix it up amongst ourselves as to who speaks and whatever. You can't put everything on paper, either.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Yes.

    The Chair: Let me bring this together in the following way. I sense there's agreement on Mr. Scott's amendment as to the way we proceed right now, but I want to make two comments. Then I'll call the question, and then we have to deal with one more quick thing before we wrap up the meeting.

    It is my hope that we are able to overcome all of the culture that we live in here and find a different way to do some of this. Because the rules we have to guide us are the rules that have grown up really to protect ourselves when we argue with each other all the time, and when we get into fights. That's why we have the 48-hour rule and all of that kind of stuff. So the extent to which we can develop some other way to deal with it....

    Frankly, I'd like to see collaboration between members on both side of the House asking the same question because they want to get the question out of that person, not continuing the battling between old issues between them. That doesn't mean, in some instances, it isn't going to be necessary...and bills will be one. With bills, in the end there'll be some issues that are split along party lines and we'll sit back and do what we normally do.

    But I'd like to try to get us to...and what that is, I don't know. So I would suggest we revisit this rule when we reconvene at the end of January, see whether it's working, and see whether you're satisfied that I'm trying to elicit input from everybody. And we'll sunset this to the extent that we'll pass this rule as amended right now and come back to it in January to see whether we're satisfied that it's working. Because I suspect that we'll want to look at how we function as we get down the road a bit on this.

    Do I have agreement on that?

    Mr. Scott has made the amendment. Everybody's heard his amendment.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: I have no objection to Mr. Scott moving his amendment.

[English]

    The Chair: Do we have agreement?

    (Amendment agreed to)

    (Motion as amended agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Yes, but the amendment should also stipulate that members are allocated three minutes on an alternating basis, and that each party shall be heard. The amendment begins with: “that members be allocated seven minutes for the first question and answer for each party”. The same should be specified for the three-minute round. The reference is only to “each subsequent questioner”. The amendment should specify that three minutes are allocated for questions and answers from each party on an alternating basis. Do you understand what I'm saying?

  (1200)  

[English]

    The Chair: I should add one other thing, Mr. Lanctôt; your chair has attention deficit disorder, so if I lose interest in what's going on, the timing is going to go out the window anyway.

    I think the intention of the three minutes, though, was to give people the opportunity to pick up. Now each party has established their position, and this person has a really interesting addition, or this one, so we can bring them in rather than just repeat each party. The test of it will be, does the chair allocate it equally so no party feels that it's losing out? Perhaps you'd grant me that flexibility to test it, to see if it works. If we lock ourselves into this second round per party by three minutes, then we're just going to walk down the line again and likely see a restatement of what was stated in the first.

    It just would be interesting to see whether there's an argument with the witness that members from different parties are collaborating on because they want to get that out. That's all I'm thinking of there.

[Translation]

    M. Robert Lanctôt: I also prefer that members alternate for the second round. Often, three Alliance members are present, along with two Bloc members. Often a colleague may wish to speak during the second round. We alternate between questions from the opposition, and questions from the government, but we must respect a certain order, namely the Alliance, and so on. Nothing is specified for the three-minute round and it should be so noted.

    Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Scott's amendment makes provision for this.

    Mr. Robert Lanctôt: Then I'll listen to the wording of the amendment.

[English]

    The Chair: So we've agreed to this, and we'll revisit it structurally in January.

    There are two more quick things. The next one I suspect there'll be a lot of discussion on: that we get fed if we work over lunch.

    That's moved by.... Who's the hungriest here?

    Mr. Paul Forseth: So moved.

    (Motion agreed to--See Minutes of Proceedings)

    The Chair: I would ask your permission to do one other thing. I've talked with some of you about this, with the agenda here. Because time is short, and we have a lot of stuff to do, we're going to come back on the next Tuesday that we meet with a work plan. But should we also invite to that meeting one of the ministers to get us started on one of these briefings? For example, Madame Robillard from Treasury Board may come to speak to us, or the second one would be Ralph Goodale from PWGSC. Those are the two big departments.

    Assuming that the business meeting takes us half an hour and we have a two-hour meeting, would you be interested in doing that to save us waiting for another day?

    Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Canadian Alliance): Ralph will take four hours.

    The Chair: For his opening statement?

    So would you have an interest in that? Do you have any preference as to whether it's Madame Robillard or Mr. Goodale, or can I choose?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Good. Then I will undertake to do that.

    The clerk is asking whether we should do one on Tuesday and one on Thursday. I think we'll do the business plan and a minister, then we'll decide in the business plan where we go from there.

    Mr. Kevin Sorenson: Do you have a date schedule for regular meetings?

    The Chair: Apparently, the time we have is Tuesdays and Thursdays, 11 a.m. until 2 p.m., because nobody bought my idea of meeting six hours on Monday mornings, which I still think would be more fun. But we'll revisit that.

    Thank you very much. Have a good break. Take care of yourselves.

    Meeting adjourned.