NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 9, 1997

• 0905

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Hon. members, I see a quorum.

According to Standing Order 106(1), your first order of business is the election of a chairperson. I am willing to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): I would like to ask, before we start proceedings, if the committee might consider conducting the election of the chair and vice-chairs by secret ballot.

Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.): I have a point of order. The first order of business should be that, pursuant to the standing orders, the clerk at this time could only entertain the motion to elect the chair of the committee.

Mr. David Chatters: It was a reasonable request.

Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): On a further point of order, I point out that we're not trying to circumvent that, but only talking about the procedure by which we follow that very direction.

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Clerk, as I understand the rules, the only motion you can entertain now is a motion for the nomination of a chair.

Mr. David Chatters: I didn't make a motion.

An hon. member: We're off to a bad start.

The Clerk: Perhaps it would be helpful for members to express themselves on whether or not they wish to have the ballot secret. The members are quite correct in pointing out that I can only receive motions for the election of the chair. However, if there's a consensus, if the majority of committee members wish to proceed through a secret ballot, the committee could so express that desire. If not, then I would proceed with the election of the chair in the usual manner.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): We have to have something on the floor in order to have the discussion, so I would move that Brent St. Denis be the chair of this committee, just so we can have something to chew around, and then we could make that decision.

An hon. member: I'll second that, secret ballot. As long as I'm the scrutineer, I'll do it.

Mr. Jim Gouk: We have no objection to the nomination whatsoever and suggest that we deal with it by secret ballot.

The Clerk: Could I ask for comments from members as to whether or not there's a consensus to proceed in that fashion?

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): I move that we hold an open vote; we have nothing to hide here. It has been moved and seconded that Mr. St. Denis be elected Chair of the committee. Let's not delay the whole process.

We have a lot of more serious issues to consider than a secret ballot. It is childishness to ask for a secret ballot this morning.

[English]

Mr. Roy Cullen: I wonder if the colleague opposite from the Reform Party who has made his proposal could provide a rationale and a reason for proceeding by way of secret ballot.

Mr. David Chatters: Certainly I could do that. In my experience over the last four years there has seemed to be a deliberate manipulation of the process of electing chairs and vice-chairs in committees, and I thought the secret ballot would allow members of the committee the freedom to elect the person of their choice rather than the person they were directed to elect.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Kent—Essex, Lib.): I think the argument is one that doesn't hold any water, I guess, until you have a second person nominated as chair. That is number one.

Number two, I certainly would like an open vote. So I just put that on the table. I think, from what I'm hearing from most of my colleagues around the table, an open vote will stand for what we elect.

Mr. Jim Gouk: We just thought you wanted do it in the same way as we do the Speaker.

Mr. David Chatters: If I might, Mr. Clerk, there's nothing sinister in our proposal. It's a position we've taken in the Reform Party for four years, and we put it forward for the committee's consideration.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): We were just discussing this. As far as we're concerned, let's vote on it and get moving. The members are all here and we're just delaying and wasting a lot of time. Let's move along, vote on it, and do it.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Could we hold a vote to determine whether we will hold an open or a secret ballot? Then we will see. If the majority wants a secret ballot, we will have one, and if the majority wants an open vote, we will vote in that manner.

• 0910

[English]

The Clerk: As an indication to me, it would be useful if we could have a straw vote. This is not a formal vote by any stretch of the imagination, just a way for me to gauge whether or not the majority of members on this committee are in favour of holding this election on a secret ballot.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Clerk, I will be so rash as to suggest the members on this side are not in favour of the proposal put forward by the Reform, so let's get on with the vote. Pose the question.

Some hon. members: Question.

The Clerk: Those who are in favour of holding the election of the chair by way of a secret ballot, please indicate by raising your hands.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: There's no motion to that effect.

The Clerk: It's not a motion. It's just to get a sense from committee members of how they wish to proceed.

Those who are against? I see the proposal is not accepted.

A motion has been moved by Mr. Jackson, seconded by Mr. Provenzano, that Brent St. Denis do take the chair of this committee as chairperson.

Motion agreed to

The Clerk: Congratulations, Mr. St. Denis. Kindly take the chair.

The Chairman (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): Thank you very much, colleagues, for your support, the methodology notwithstanding. I want to welcome all members here and, in thanking you for your support, say I look forward to chairing this committee over the next period of time, whatever that may be.

A few minutes from now I would like to go around the room, but I think it would make sense to do the vice-chair elections right now.

Madam Folco.

[Translation]

Ms Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I move that Mr. Benoît Serré, who is unfortunately absent this morning, be nominated as first vice-chair of this committee.

[English]

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): I move Dave Chatters.

The Chairman: Thank you. Let's take the vote on Mr. Serré's nomination. Is there a seconder for Mr. Serré's nomination as vice-chair on the government side?

Some hon. members: So moved.

The Chairman: Are there any other nominations? If not, for that position we will declare Mr. Serré elected.

Mr. Stinson, you proposed Dave Chatters.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Yes.

The Chairman: Are there any other nominations for vice-chair of the opposition?

Mr. Jim Gouk: By clarification, can we just simplify this by having election of the government vice-chair and election of the opposition vice-chair?

The Chairman: We just did. I just declared Mr. Serré the government vice-chair—

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay, that's fine. I still have a ringing in my ears.

The Chairman: —and I'm just about to declare Dave Chatters.... There being no other nominations for the opposition vice-chair, I declare Dave Chatters the vice-chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Colleagues, we have a number of procedural resolutions to deal with, but I wonder if I could, with your indulgence, first make a few comments, and after that I would like to go around the room for everybody to take a minute to introduce themselves and say a little about what their main interests are.

But before that, I would like to introduce the staff for our committee, starting with Marc Toupin, who is going to be our clerk. I would like to say a few words about Marc, so you would have some understanding of his background.

Marc graduated from the University of Ottawa in 1981 with a bachelor's degree in biology. He later obtained a bachelor's degree in education. He has been with the House of Commons since 1989 and has been with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food as well as the transport and fisheries and forestry committees.

Jean-Luc Bourdages, who will be the natural resource-side researcher for the committee, is a biologist specialized in land use planning. He has been a research officer in the science and technology division of the parliamentary research branch, Library of Parliament, since 1990. His areas of specialization have been forestry, natural resource issues and policies, environmental aspects of natural resources, and sustainable development.

• 0915

From the government operations side we have Jack Stilborn. Jack is a specialist in the areas of Canadian federalism and public administration. He holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Western Ontario. In the last Parliament he worked with the Standing Committee on Government Operations when it studied departmental estimates. He has worked for successive committees on constitutional and human rights issues since 1986.

Of course, in observing that we have two researchers, one from the natural resources side and one from government operations, we have a challenge before us, colleagues, inasmuch as we have effectively two committees in one, the one aspect, government operations, being somewhat capital centred, natural resources being somewhat non-Ottawa centred.

Mr. Jim Gouk: When you start going around with everybody doing their thing, could they say whether they're from the natural resources side or the public works side?

The Chairman: Indeed we'll ask that, Jim.

Does anybody mind first names? I suppose that might be a problem for the translators. Of course we're always helped by the console operator, a messenger, a receptionist, and translators, all of whom help us make our work easier to do and more effective.

I will start with David. Please take a moment or two to introduce yourself, say where your riding is, whether you were in the last Parliament, what your interests are, either government operations or natural resources, or both, because we may end up being both regardless of whether we're interested in them or not.

Mr. David Chatters: I'm from the riding of Athabasca, which is one of the largest ridings in Canada, 225,000 square kilometres, in northeastern Alberta. It's a very resource-rich riding, with the tar sands being Canada's energy security future, certainly. There's a lot of conventional oil and gas, and pulp and paper. It's a rich agricultural area. It's my second term in Parliament. My interest, of course, considering my riding, would be in the natural resources sector.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I'm from Okanagan—Shuswap, in British Columbia. Most people call it God's country, and it certainly is. My main interests lie in natural resources, particularly mining and forestry. In large part my constituency is made up of the forest industry. It's also heavy in the agricultural end of it. I'm actually interested in both committees, but my preference is definitely in natural resources.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I'm from West Kootenay—Okanagan. Darrel's is God's country, and my riding is where people who aspire to go even beyond that come when they leave Darrel's. I'm the Reform Party public works and government services critic. I was transport critic for three and a half years in the last Parliament. Our riding has hydroelectric, forestry, a bit of mining, and some of the best wine country in the entire world, the Niagara Peninsula notwithstanding.

An hon. member: Does that make you a winer, Jim?

Mr. Jim Gouk: It might.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: My name is Gérard Asselin and I am the Member for Charlevoix, Quebec. I also represent a large riding which comprises 52 municipalities. I have been a member of Parliament since 1993. My riding is rich in natural resources and there are mining and forestry operations in it, and almost all of the hydroelectric dams are in that constituency as well.

Natural resources are a concern of mine, as I sat during two years on the Standing Committee on the Environment which of course focuses closely on natural resources.

The Chairman: Thank you, Gérard.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): My name is Yvon Godin and I am the member for Acadie—Bathurst. I am a newcomer on the political scene.

Among the resources of my region of Acadie—Bathurst are mines, forests and fish, as well as a large number of peat bogs around the mines.

My interest in this committee is really related to natural resources and development. It is encouraging to hear it said that some areas are functioning so well, since everyone knows how poorly things are going back home, and that is a topic you will hear me talk about often in the course of the next four years.

• 0920

My interests, then, lie with the development of natural resources as a means of job creation for my fellow citizens. I am really interested in working with all of you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Yvon.

[English]

Mr. Keddy, Gerald, you are an associate member of the committee.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I am the associate member and I represent the riding of South Shore in Nova Scotia. My background and affinity are to the natural resources side of this committee. I'm a fifth-generation farmer and logger and have made my living in the industry all my life. I also have eight years' experience working in the offshore oilfield on the east coast. That's my background.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): My name is Gilles Bernier. I'm from Tobique—Mactaquac. It's a brand-new riding in the province of New Brunswick. I have the largest riding in the province of New Brunswick. It's an agricultural and forestry riding. My portfolio is public works and governmental services, but I'm interested in both natural resources and government operations.

The Chairman: It's nice to have you, Gilles.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Gerry Byrne. I'm the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. I was first elected in March 1996 in a by-election. You might remember that there were five across the country at that time. I come from the planet Zoltar.

I just wanted to see if anybody was listening.

I actually share with the clerk an academic background in environmental biology. I worked in northern Newfoundland for several years.

I think it's fair to say that my riding is rich in forestry resources. Pulp and paper is a major industry there. There is mining of gold and copper, and formerly asbestos was a big industry there. As well, oil and gas development on the western side of the island of Newfoundland is a hot play right now.

So I have a personal interest in it from an academic standpoint and from riding issues. I look forward to working with the committee in developing a national policy for natural resources and maximizing the benefits.

The Chairman: Paul, I think you are here for Bob Wood.

Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Yes.

The Chairman: Bob Wood's riding is Nipissing, in northern Ontario.

So I might skip to Roy.

[Translation]

Mr. Roy Cullen: My name is Roy Cullen and I am the Member for Etobicoke North, close to Toronto. I was elected for the first time in 1996.

[English]

In Etobicoke North there's not much forestry, mining or gas, but my interest is in natural resources, as I have spent twenty years in the forest products industry. I believe this committee can play a useful role in this Parliament in bringing balance to the debates that we're undoubtedly going to have about greenhouse gases and global warming and a number of other very important issues that will be coming up.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Raymonde.

Ms Raymonde Folco: My name is Raymonde Folco and I am the Member for Laval West, just north of Montreal. As you can imagine, natural resources are not a feature of my riding, either.

I had asked to be allowed to deal first and foremost with government operations. In the past, I have, among other things, been chair of a Quebec government organization and I also worked on the federal Immigration and Refugee Board. My experience, thus, is far removed from our concerns here today. However, we'll see what develops.

[English]

The Chairman: Carmen Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): My riding is Sault Ste. Marie, a city of 81,000. Sault Ste. Marie, as you probably know, sits right at the top of the junction of the three lakes, Michigan, Huron and Superior. Because we're resource based, I have a natural interest. As well, Sault Ste. Marie is the home of one of five research centres. The Canadian Forest Service Great Lakes Forestry Centre resides in Sault Ste. Marie and they've done a lot of leading research in the forestry area. So naturally you can tell I'm interested in the resource side.

• 0925

We export a lot of wood products. Forestry is primarily the interest, although the general area around Sault Ste. Marie has been the scene of a fair amount of mining activity in the past.

That's where I'm from. I can tell you I don't come to the committee with any preconceptions or axes to grind. I'm wide open to whatever issues we're going to be discussing.

The Chairman: Thank you, Carmen. Jerry Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I'm Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. My riding is in southwestern Ontario. Mine is the most southerly riding in southwestern Ontario. If you take a line between Detroit and Cleveland, my house actually lies almost halfway between the two cities. We're very Americanized, with the inundation of all kinds of American TV, culture, that side of it.

Within my riding I'm very heavily involved in agriculture. We have the H.J. Heinz Company of Canada Ltd., the largest plant in Canada, in my riding. We have the largest greenhouse operation in the world, in reality, in a small complex. The only area that has as much greenhouse is Holland. There's no question the growth there is phenomenal. Last year alone 150 acres of greenhouse went up in my riding.

In the farming category we have all kinds of variables. I have four wineries in my riding. As it moves on it's soybeans, wheat, and a variety of different agricultural products.

Just to the north of one section of my riding is Windsor, the auto capital of Canada. Many of the people who live in my riding are very involved in the auto industry.

At the same time we are very interested in small business. A new ethanol plant just went into my riding in the city of Chatham. We hope it will open this November.

So we're seeing things boom and move very well, and certainly natural resources as well as government operations are areas in which I have a lot of interest.

The Chairman: Thank you, Jerry.

Bob is here for Benoît Serré of Timiskaming—Cochrane, but Bob was a past chair.

Bob, feel free to comment, if you would like, having had some time as chair of this committee.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: I was the chair for the first two years of the last mandate, and I can tell you it was refreshing to see us talk about resources besides oil and gas. When the government previous to this government was in office, they had a committee that was dominated by people who were very interested in the oil and gas sector. Our committee spent a significant amount of time trying to rebalance that. We talked a lot about forestry and a lot about mining, and I think that was a welcome change. I think a lot of people in those sectors appreciated the fine work of the committee.

This committee can do some very good things. It's a very important committee. As you know, natural resources have to be the number one industry we have. Whether people want to admit it or not, they are really what has made Canada what it is today, and will continue to do so.

I assume I will be visiting you on a regular basis, since Ben likes to go hunting a lot. I'll be here to take his place, because I'm very interested in your work.

I represent a third of Ontario's land mass. My riding is Kenora—Rainy River. I have 85 communities in over 400,000 square kilometres of land mass, 51 first nations. Only one-third of it is accessible by road. The rest of it is pretty well what I call frontier. There's a lot of interest in where we go with the natural resources sector.

I'm very pleased to be filling in for Ben, and I look forward to what you ladies and gentlemen will be studying and looking at. There's no doubt, as you can tell, my interest is natural resources based. I really don't know why anyone would want to look at government operations—sorry, Jim—because everything is going so well there's no reason why you would want to spend time there anyway.

I wish you all well.

Brent, this is a good committee. I thought the stuff we did in the last term was exceptional. Some very good reports out there were done by the committee, not only when I was the chair but when the committee carried on when I moved on. But you should probably, especially the new members, give yourselves access to the reports that were already done, to bring yourselves up to speed on what is already there. It's not that old, so it would certainly be good reading. There was a lot of good work and we worked very well together.

• 0930

I think we could say that, Darrel. You've been there forever, it seems.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I rather enjoyed it when you were there, Bob. I don't want to say it went too far down after you left, but it did go down.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: That's it.

The Chairman: Thank you, Bob, and we will certainly value your advice in the months ahead.

Ovid Jackson.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: I'm Ovid Jackson. I'm the member of Parliament for Bruce Grey, Ontario. Bruce Grey is a rural riding northwest of Toronto, comprising some 35 municipalities.

My background is that I was born in Guiana, South America. A lot of my education was in England. I worked as a Rolls-Royce mechanic. I have some engineering degrees in the automotive field. I'm an automotive vocational specialist. I taught high school for 28 years. I had 19 years in municipal politics: 8 years as an alderman, 11 years as mayor. I came here from the mayor's chair in Owen Sound in 1993. That was my first term. I am currently the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

I believe that Canada's resources, not only its natural resources but its people resources, go hand in hand. The way we use and dispense them is very important in a sustainable way.

My riding is quite diversified: farming, forestry, fisheries, and I guess there is some mining too if we get to the oil shale or what have you. So it's actually quite diversified.

My colleagues don't know this—they see some parts of me every once in a while—but I have quite a good notion about the environment. When I went to teachers' college, Toffler was coming up in 1967, Future Shock. I've read Limits to Growth and Barry Commoner's The Closing Circle. I am to some degree an expert in the way the automobile works and the emissions that come out of the tailpipes or stacks of cars. Some people don't see that side of me very often.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: We don't want to know.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: I think we all came to this job by Canadians. They sent all of us, regardless of which party we come from. We have various points of view. As far as I'm concerned, the name of the game is to work for our country and our people, and that's why I'm here.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ovid.

By way of concluding, my name is Brent St. Denis. My riding is Algoma—Manitoulin, in northern Ontario. It is a Great Lakes riding, taking parts of Lake Huron and Lake Superior as its shores. It is not as big as Bob's, but certainly it is a very large riding.

I want to point out that Tom Cormier is my executive assistant and he will be available to help me and any of you as we go about our work.

My background is in industrial engineering, but I represent an area that has a history in natural resources. Elliott Lake, for example, which is in my riding, was once the world's uranium capital. Now there is not a single uranium mine in Elliott Lake. I have a good example in my riding, then, of a town that has changed itself from a one-industry town to a whole new concept, and the population is growing. Of course, forestry is also very important to my riding.

Those introductions are very helpful. It's obvious to me that we have a very good team here. Let's proceed to the resolutions that we have to deal with to really get our mandate started.

Number 3 is the resolution dealing with meetings in the absence of a quorum. I guess we could entertain a motion as to the number of members, including members of the opposition, that will need to be present in order to take evidence. This is not for voting purposes at a meeting. This is if we've got a witness sitting here waiting to get started and we've got a few members. How many members do we need to have here to hear the witness and get evidence on the record? It is a quorum for evidence only.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: I'd like to move that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least five members are present, including one member of the opposition. For the information of the new members, this is the standard process we've used around here since Christ was a cowboy. I guess that is probably the easiest way to put it.

• 0935

Mr. Darrel Stinson: He still is.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: I thought he was a miner, damn it.

I so move, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Is there any debate on that?

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: It's important that when people come here to give evidence they are allowed to do so. If we fiddle with those numbers we'll end up with members, for reasons...they didn't catch their plane or they got caught with the media, and all this type of stuff. We literally insult people when they come here and they make the arrangements. I think it's incumbent that we get here and that we always have more than five, but I think it's a good number to work with.

The Chairman: In the absence of any other comments, do we have agreement on that, colleagues?

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Number 4, opening statements and questioning of witnesses. This is, in hearing evidence, up to how many minutes we should accept from a witness, although I think your chair would need to have the right to let that slip one way or the other in a given situation.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I can't see how we can nail down how many minutes are given to an opening statement unless we have some idea of how long they're going to be here. If we have a half-hour witness and they talk for 15 minutes, that's a long time. If we have something really important come before us that's going to be here for two hours, obviously you might want to give them half an hour. I think we should judge it according to the situation.

Mr. Paul Steckle: Just to give some guidance on this, as we did in a previous committee a few days ago...we left that discretion to the chair. Based on the number of witnesses you have, the number of members you have attending your meeting, the chair may wish to change from time to time. I think in fairness to the witnesses that also needs to be taken into consideration. The discretion of making those decisions was left with the chair entirely.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to disagree with my colleague, but I do. If I were in opposition I wouldn't be very enthused about that particular proposal. I think it's important that you have some guidance as the chair. Part of it would be that no matter whether it's a half-hour presentation or an hour, under normal circumstances we've always given the witnesses ten minutes for an opening statement and comments. Ten minutes usually gives them a chance to put their position on the table.

The real issue you have to deal with is if there are this many members around the table, how much time do you get for opening comments by each party? I would suggest, if it's an hour presentation, a five-minute opening round. If you add that up—

The Chairman: This is the witness, Bob.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: No, that's not right. If you look at the whole statement it also asks you how many minutes for each question.

The Chairman: On the second part?

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Yes, on the second part. It's 10 minutes for the witness. On the second part it's 5 minutes if you have an hour presentation. That gives you 35 minutes in total. That leaves you enough time for the chair to use some flexibility and go around the table and get some good questions out there. If you have a half-hour witness then I would recommend that you should probably have 4 minutes for opening comments—10 and 4. That will give you enough for your half hour, if you want to add it up that way, and then give the chair some flexibility.

In other committees, we have tried to give people who are of a substantive nature an hour to make a presentation. In fairness, if we're going to pay them to come here we should try to give them an hour so we can get into it. If they really don't have anything to say and it's only half an hour, I guess we should question what they're doing here to some extent. That's the recommendation I would make, and give the chair, especially with the hour, the flexibility of the other 25 minutes. That way if everyone works together you can go from side to side and not have to continue the little rotation. The recommendation I would make is it would be 10 and 5, basically, if it's an hour witness.

The Chairman: Gérard Asselin.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Yes, the same thing goes for me, generally speaking. I also trust the chairman's good judgment. However, if there are several witnesses, that is another kettle of fish.

We should allow for a maximum one-hour period when we hear a single witness, and that period would include the presentation, the questions by members, as well as the witness's replies. If we have time we can go to a second round. I feel we should limit hearings to one hour if we have only one witness.

If we are to hear several witnesses, we should adopt a guideline asking for a much shorter presentation and giving less time to the political parties for questions and comments. We could then set a 30-minute limit on the period at their disposal.

So, when we were hearing one witness, we would grant him or her one hour, but if there were more than one, we would grant each one 30 minutes.

[English]

The Chair: Gerald Keddy.

• 0940

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The time allotted to the witnesses is essentially what we're talking about here, but I'd also like to bring into that discussion the time allowed to ask questions; that we understand that each party represented at the table has an opportunity to ask questions, because that's not laid out in the discussion.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: That's part two of the motion. It deals with exactly that, how much time each party gets.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: All right, I'll wait for part two, then. I would hope that each party represented has the opportunity to ask their questions. That's the only thing I wanted to say, to make sure that's part of it.

The Chairman: Guaranteed.

Ovid Jackson.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: Mr. Chairman, the whole question here is fairness to all of us as members, but it's also that we get the answers from the witnesses. We have to be mindful that they don't come and read their statements for the whole time or that they read long, convoluted statements. Of course, the chair would govern that. Some people can play a shell game and get out of tough questions by giving long answers. I think what we want is fairness, I think all of us want to make sure that we get the answers, and I think the important part is that if we have somebody who is very good at a particular topic, we might want to give them more time. I think it's very important that we do that.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, I really feel that flexibility is required, and I think we're hearing a fair amount of it around the table. I think your judgment would be good.

There are 16 members on this committee. It's a very large committee. When we look at it, if we structure 10 minutes and 5 minutes for each party, one person in each party and the speaker is going to take up well over half an hour, which makes the other 12 people around this table share 20 minutes. I think your judgment as to the time of someone presenting...I think we can flow along with this committee and see how things move. But I'm sure people want to share time. I'm sure people will want to get questions in. I don't see a need for someone to structure a 5-minute presentation when they may get away with 3 and share their time with another member of the committee.

I think I would rather see you take over the chair and try to give justice to everyone here, and if anybody finds it imbalanced we can come back to this discussion. But I would trust your judgment.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I don't have a problem with that. I think one of the things we're going to have to do is try some things and see how what the committee decides is going to work; that we go with whatever procedure we agree upon today and try it out, and also agree that we will revisit it if we see some difficulties.

In terms of balance, are we going to go equitably in terms of the five? How exactly are you planning to apportion that out, or is there a plan at this point?

The Chairman: Maybe I could leave my comments until the end, Jim, and just tell you how I would try to do it. If there was a consensus to go by the discretion of the chair, I would try to give you an idea of how I would try, and I think the idea of coming back to it if it's not working is a fair suggestion.

I have Roy and then David.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think one needs to give some guidance to the witnesses, because too often witnesses will come with a written text and will proceed to read the written text. It doesn't really catch your attention, and I'm not sure it gets the full attention of the committee. I think a presentation should be limited to 10 or 15 minutes.

Given the size of the committee and the need for all the opposition parties to have a question and then a response, it's very difficult to do that unless, it seems to me, in five minutes you ask a question for two or two and a half minutes, and you need to have the witness be able to respond. So five minutes per member of the committee...I think half an hour, even if you have a full slate of witnesses, is a little tight, because if you allow 10 to 15 minutes for a presentation you'd hardly get enough for one question from all the members representing the different parties. I think we need to look at an hour in total.

At another committee we allocated the time based on the composition of the committee. The more members of the committee you had the more time you had, and the different parties allocated the time amongst themselves before the witnesses came. That could be a possible solution.

• 0945

The Chairman: Thank you, Roy. David Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I agree with most of what is being said, but with reference to the size of this committee and the number of parties sitting on the committee, I would ask that the chair be given flexibility. Also, rather than our trying to give all 16 members of the committee a chance to be heard, I would ask that the time be allotted according to the representation of the parties on the committee and that the parties work out the questions they want to ask that particular witness amongst themselves.

The Chairman: Yes, Darrel.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I have a couple of things.

In committee, as those of us who have sat on committees before know, many times your question will be asked by another member, and a lot of times in some of the committee functions we just pass that time on. I think if we could agree to do that even here amongst ourselves it would be helpful.

There is one other thing. When committees call witnesses—at least this is my impression—we want witnesses to give us the answers; we don't want to listen to 20 minutes of rhetoric from them on their opening statements. So my main concern is that we be allotted the time to get the answers over top of their being allowed to give their opening spiel on it.

The Chairman: Bob Nault.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: The recommendation I would make to you as the chair is to be careful you don't put yourself in no man's land. There will be days, even though they may be very numbered, when there is a hot topic and members may be a little more aggressive than they normally are, and you may have to revert to the motion, which is that this is the way it will be, in order to keep decorum in your committee.

So to keep it so loose that you don't have direction from the committee is not a very good thing to do. I think you have to set the parameters and then committee members have to agree that the chair will have some flexibility as long as everything goes smoothly.

So I would recommend that you have 10 and 5—10 for the witnesses and 5 for the parties—and you have the flexibility. As Darrel said, if he only uses 2 minutes and you go to the next person, that's great, no big deal. But there will be days when people want their 5 minutes and that's it, because it's a very important topic. For your own protection and for the management of the committee, I think you need to have some minimums put on paper, and I would argue that 10 and 5 is a very legitimate way to go if you're going to have an hour for a witness.

The Chairman: Roy Cullen.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chair, I notice that in the motions we're going to be looking at there's no reference to a steering committee. The reason I ask is that it might be an option to put this question to the steering committee and have them come back with a recommendation for the full committee to consider. I think it would be very difficult to solve this in the full committee. Is there an intent to have a steering committee?

The Chairman: I was going to propose initially that we start as a full committee and get to know each other, that because we have two separate committees rolled into one, we just run this by consensus. I think this is a good discussion. It is helping us get to know each other as well.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Is it the intent, Mr. Chair, to set up a steering committee?

The Chairman: In due course, I think, but initially I would propose, unless there is a contrary view to that by the committee, that we start out in this fashion, by consensus of the whole group, for the first little while anyway.

Yvon, then Gérard.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I share the opinion of my colleague opposite; we need rules. When we have those rules, we can show flexibility, and if control is lost, we can come back to the rules. Those rules will allow the chairman to do his work and will prevent arguments within the committee.

The Chairman: Gérard.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps our debate could be shortened if you specified how you intend to chair the committee. You said earlier that you had some idea of how you intended to proceed. Would you take the presence of all political parties into account? Today, we have the Liberal Party, the Reform Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Progressive Conservative Party...

Mr. Yvon Godin: No, no, no.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: I mean the NDP. There could also be a Conservative member.

Mr. Yvon Godin: He is there.

Mr. Gérard Asselin: He is there. What I mean is that if all political parties are represented, we will also have to have some minimum period of time at our disposal to question the witness. I don't want to be a wallflower here; I really want to get involved.

[English]

The Chairman: With your indulgence, I think it's fair to have some kind of statement in writing as to what to do in an awkward situation, but as a general rule, I would have to look at how much time is available for the witness, or if there are two or three people together but the witness.... I would have to make a quick arithmetic calculation of the time, allowing, say, ten minutes for the opening address.

• 0950

I agree with Darrel's point, I think it was, that witnesses' speeches should be kept to a minimum and there should be more time for members to ask questions and elicit their responses. I don't think we want to go much past ten minutes. You can make your point in ten minutes. So I think it would be fair to set a rule like that, but one giving me some discretion to play with it a bit each way.

I would divide the time up like this. Say we had an hour for a particular witness. We would use up the first 10 or 15 minutes for their presentation, then divide the rest of the time roughly proportionally to the representation in the House. You would have to allow me, like the umpire in a baseball game who makes a bad call on one play, to make up for it on another play. If we have a day when it doesn't work out exactly, just understand I will make it up another time. We can't divide it up perfectly every meeting, but over time everybody and every party would have their fair shot at the subjects we are dealing with.

Mr. Jim Gouk: If we're going to do it in such a manner that basically it's going to be a proportionate once-around—

The Chairman: What I would see—and tell me if you think differently—is this. I would start with the official opposition. I don't want to leave the government to the very end, so then we would maybe bounce back and forth, but I would make sure we got through all the parties in reasonable proportion to their deserved time. I think we would start with the official opposition.

Mr. Jim Gouk: The one thing I've found very useful sometimes—and of course it was a lot easier when there were only three parties at the table—is say the allocated time you quickly work out for Reform is five minutes. We could, at our option, reserve a minute or so for a supplementary for something that arises out of the testimony.

The Chairman: I don't see any problem with that. It would be your time to use as you saw fit.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Okay.

The Chairman: You would divide it and use it the way you thought was appropriate.

Just to move things along, if somebody wants to move a motion along the lines of giving ten minutes to the witness, I would feel comfortable with that as your chair. I'm not sure if you want to give minutes on the rest—

Mr. Jim Gouk: Balance the proportional time.

The Chairman:—and balance the remaining time among the parties at the discretion of the chair. You'll judge my performance from there. If anybody wants to move a motion to that effect, maybe we can move on.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: So moved.

The Chairman: Are we okay with that? It's a subject that can come up again if it doesn't work out.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: The only problem I can foresee is that if it doesn't work later that example will not work in our favour. We won't have any support. Why not settle this question right away? A minimum period would be the same.

[English]

The Chairman: Yvon, may I suggest that it's my job to be fair to all the parties. If there's a problem, you can bring it back to the group.

Is that okay for now? If you want to propose something specific, we can vote on it.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Your motion as it stands now—

The Chairman: Would be ten minutes for the witness and the balance of the time to be distributed fairly among all the parties.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Proportionately.

The Chairman: Distributed proportionately—which would include you, Yvon—among the parties at the discretion of the chair. Over time, of course, it would balance out.

Is there agreement on that? It looks as if we—

Mr. Jim Gouk: Could I just hear the way it's worded?

The Chairman: Marc's going to try to read this back.

The Clerk: I like to be put on the spot.

It's that witnesses be given ten minutes for their opening statement and that during the questioning of witnesses time be allocated, in proportion to the parties' representation in the House, to all parties at the discretion of the chair.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Let's go on to item 5, Library of Parliament. This is a perfunctory motion.

• 0955

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, I have a side comment. Somebody made a very important point that a lot of people will come in and put a paper in front of us. If you could encourage people to give us those written submissions as soon as possible, that will help every one of us; and similarly if you ask those people who are coming in with information to try to give us a synopsis rather than read any document to us. We can probably read faster ourselves than it can be read to us.

The Chairman: Excellent point, and that will help keep our presentations down to ten minutes. Point well taken.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Especially ministers.

The Chairman: Okay, does someone want to move the motion on the Library of Parliament?

An hon. member: I so move.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Next is witnesses' expenses. We need a number of representatives per organization. Two might be normal.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: I so move.

The Chairman: Any debate on that?

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Just exceptions to be ruled on by the chair.

The Chairman: Yes, okay. I think I would bring that to the group or the steering committee, if we have one.

Motion agreed to

The Chairman: Item 7, distribution of documents. I see there are two versions there. I ask you to consider both, or any other alternative.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: Mr. Chairman, a new Parliament is beginning its work and we should not hear a witness if we have not received a background document from him first, or at least a summary.

When we set a date for hearing a witness, we should already have received his or her documents; or, at least, when the witness registers with the committee, he or she should table those documents. Witnesses often tell us that they will be sending documents, but once the committee has heard them, those documents never arrive or we receive them one or even two months later.

I wish we would not accept any document that is not in both official languages, and this would principally apply to large organizations. Small volunteer organizations that wish to appear before the committee and do not have the financial means to have their documents translated would have to send them to the Library of Parliament at least a week ahead of time so that when they appear we would have in hand a copy of their brief in both official languages. I think that is the least we should ask for this morning.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I have no problem with having documentation in both official languages. I'm just wondering if the brief shouldn't be sent to the chair and whether we as a committee have the financial resources to have them print it here instead of asking the person or the group that's coming to speak.

My second question is about in camera sessions. If you're having an in camera session, obviously the person or the group is not going to want to bring that documentation forward before the session. It stays within the group. At the last committee meeting I was at we raised the Access to Information Act and the fact that in any in camera session the documentation should be saved or we're actually working in contravention of that act.

It's just something we should discuss at the table. There's a 30-year moratorium on the tabling of documents, so there's no reason why any witnesses should be reluctant to have that information saved, but we should also understand the confidentiality involved in an in camera session and we should talk about it at the table here this morning.

The Chairman: I'm wondering if this motion relates just to—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, one at a time.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Mr. Chairman, I agree that all documents submitted to this committee should be bilingual. All kinds of logistic problems are going to come up. All committees have seen this over time. Mark will support this. People will come into the committee with a brief in French or English and try to have it circulated. The problem is that it is unfair to single-language people sitting at the table to have a brief submitted in only French or English.

• 1000

I would support the idea of the clerk making certain, before the documentation is distributed to the committee, that the language of preference is there for both groups. I think that's fair. Otherwise I would ask that the briefs be held until interpretation is done properly, so we make it very clear to anyone coming to this committee that if they submit the briefs far enough in advance we can have an interpretation done and the brief distributed to the committee in the appropriate languages. If it isn't submitted in a bilingual fashion then the brief, if it doesn't have that time gap, will not be given to the committee until it is given on an equal and fair basis to everyone.

That has been a problem. It is more a problem for the clerk because he's caught in a catch-22 no matter what. If somebody comes in with an English brief and we have people who don't understand all the logistics of the English side, they feel they've been shortchanged. Similarly, if someone comes in with a French brief, the English folks at the table would have the same problem.

I think, just to help the clerk, the rule should be that nothing is distributed unless everybody in the committee has equal access to the language of preference.

The Chairman: Gérard had suggested, if I understood you, that even a summary would be acceptable.

[Translation]

Mr. Gérard Asselin: A witness who wants to appear before a committee gets in touch with the clerk. We should adopt a rule according to which the clerk would inform the witness of the need to table documents in both official languages. If the witness cannot do that, the document should be sent well in advance so that we can have it translated.

When the witness appears before the committee we would have in hand both versions of the document, translated by our translation service or the organization in question. We have trouble and are often suffering from information overload when the document only arrives two months after the testimony. Very often, the translated document is never sent to us.

[English]

The Chairman: Bob Nault.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Mr. Chairman, if I read correctly what everyone is saying, motion 7, the first one, deals pretty well precisely with what the members are asking for. The only catch in the first one is that there is the exception that will occur. Do you want to hold up the business of the committee because on occasion...? If you have, for example, a contractor from the forestry industry who doesn't send it to the clerk because he just didn't get around to it and then shows up on the day, do you say you're not going to hear from him or her? That can occur on occasion.

The majority of the time, if the clerk is up to speed—and I'm sure you have one who is—he'll have all that looked after for you. But it happens every once in a while, and you have to have the exception. That's why it says “distribute as promptly as possible”, and translation will occur. But some groups just don't have the capacity.

The other problem we have in this place, as Jerry mentioned, is that there are just so many people who are doing translation. If you have four or five major committees on the go with a lot of witnesses, it's pretty tough to get your stuff in there and have it done before the witnesses appear. It may show up a few days later. If you want to sit here and twiddle your thumbs and wait for that to occur—and you can complain to the all-powerful people who run this place, but that's not going to do you any good. That's why this motion has always been worded this way. It gives the committee a little bit of flexibility and the clerk a bit of a way out if in fact you end up with that problem.

The first one is a good motion, and it's up to you and the clerk to try to push to make sure it's fair for everyone as far as the translation is concerned.

The Chairman: Jim Gouk.

Mr. Jim Gouk: I found with the transport committee that in most cases we had bilingual material available to us. It's to the advantage of the witness as much as it is to the committee, and they have to be made to understand this. If someone presents a brief only in French, in my case, I don't get the point that witness is trying to make.

• 1005

I think we just have to impress on the witness the importance of following the procedure and, as Bob said, recognize that sometimes witnesses get called and they are scrambling right to the last minute to put their stuff together, if there's technical stuff and they are a small organization. Some of them are still writing it on the plane as they come, to get their notes. So I think we should retain that flexibility.

Again, as we said about the speaking rotation, let's try that. If we find it's a problem, then let's revisit it at that time. But let's not solve a problem that doesn't necessarily exist and restrict ourselves too much.

The Chairman: Gérard and others for whom it's a problem, if I undertook as your chair, in cooperation with the clerk, as was pointed out by Mr. Nault—if you look at the first motion there—to make every attempt to satisfy that concern, but being allowed in the one in a hundred cases where it might be a problem for a witness...rather than preventing that witness from appearing.... And if we couldn't get it, we would try to get even a summary translated ahead of time. But if you were assured that every attempt would be made by me and the clerk to arrange it to satisfy you, would giving me a bit of room in a serious case be okay?

Mr. Gérard Asselin: We'll see.

The Chairman: You'll try it?

An hon. member: Let's try it.

The Chairman: Okay. So if there's no more comment, we'll go with the first resolution on item 7.

Motion agreed to

Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Chair, I would like to submit a further routine motion. It would read that whenever order in council appointments are referred to this committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of said appointments.

The Chairman: Doesn't that happen now? I think it happens now.

Mr. David Chatters: It's my experience, Mr. Chairman, that it happens that those lists of appointments are delayed and not distributed promptly by the chair of the committee.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Can we have the motion tabled? I would like to review the procedure, with the order in council. I think they come to you first, Mr. Chair.

Mr. David Chatters: Yes.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Then your motion is to have them distributed.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: To each member.

The Chairman: To me it's an administrative thing. As chair, I would undertake that if I receive something that should rightfully belong to the committee, I would distribute it.

Mr. David Chatters: Well, that has been the procedure, but it's the matter of timing that was my concern.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: To my knowledge in working with clerks—I've been with Marc for the last few years—there has never been a delay in circulating material to a committee. I'm surprised there have been some clerks who have not got information that was sent to the committee to the members as soon as possible. Has that happened in some committees?

Mr. David Chatters: That's my understanding, yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I think what you're saying is a common sense, normal procedure that should be in place. If we receive something through the clerk or the chair, it's part of this committee. I don't see any problem with the motion myself.

The Chairman: I would be derelict in my duties if I did not get it to you, I think.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chair, if this is a standard procedure of the committee, I'm not sure why we need a motion on it.

Mr. David Chatters: As I said, it has been a problem before. If it isn't a problem with anybody, let's pass the motion and then it's there.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: I'll support the member in what he's saying about sending the information out. I agree it's standard procedure.

I would like to revisit the Access to Information Act and the tabling of documents and what we're going to do with those.

The Chairman: Okay, just leave that for now.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay, I will.

• 1010

Ms Raymonde Folco: I have another matter, because unfortunately I have another meeting to go to right now and I'm late.

I wondered whether you'd like to speak, Mr. Chairman, on the distribution of the two subcommittees. Do you intend to create two subcommittees? How do you intend to proceed regarding the natural resources and government operations sides?

The Chairman: We're going to take some time with those questions.

Ms Raymonde Folco: This morning?

The Chairman: No. I hadn't intended to discuss that this morning. We need to do some briefings first. Let's finish the topic of Mr. Chatters' resolution.

Jim Gouk was next.

Mr. Jim Gouk: The intent behind this is that this isn't routine information coming to the committee. This is a specific notification that goes to the chair. There have been a variety of experiences in the way different committees have worked. As Bob suggested this morning, there have to be some rules so that we have a base to work from. We just want to make sure it's understood that these particular things, orders in council, will be promptly sent to members of the committee.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I think we could get into a lot of procedural things with this committee, and I'm not sure this is the right time.

The Chairman: I'm going to make a ruling on this. As I understand it, the appointments go to the House, they automatically come back to the clerk, and the clerk is supposed get those through to the committee. So to me this is stating what already is a fact.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Then there should be no problem in passing it.

The Chairman: But in my view it's redundant to pass it, Jim.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: It is assuming a problem exists before one actually does. This is the first meeting of this particular committee, Jim.

Mr. Jim Gouk: Based on past experience.

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Past experience in a different committee maybe, Jim, but the point is that they are redundant motions. As a committee we should be very careful to make sure we don't produce overlapping motions.

I think the proper procedure here would be to let the procedure, as it stands through convention, play, and if there's a problem with it then you can raise a point of order. Actually it would be a point of members' privilege.

Mr. David Chatters: According to the standing orders, it is a routine motion that has been passed in many of the other committees, but it's at the pleasure of the committee.

The Chairman: Are there any questions?

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: Yes, I have one quick question about it.

Is this a public document when it's tabled in the House by the clerk?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: It's public, so you should be able to get it from any source—technically, get it from the House or what have you.

Mr. Jim Gouk: The point is that we do get it but not on a timely basis.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: Not on a timely basis.

Mr. Ovid L. Jackson: As soon as it's tabled in the House, are members of Parliament not authorized to be able to get it?

Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Chair, I don't think we should be passing motions as to whether or not the coffee is hot. These are things that we really should be resolving amongst ourselves. There is a procedure in place. You are duly entitled to the order in council appointments and these are the types of things you resolve on a daily basis through the practice of committee.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Mr. Chairman, maybe it's time to put the question to the committee. The motion as it now stands—I haven't seen it, I've just heard it—doesn't talk about timeliness. It talks about a standing procedure of the committee. So I think the motion doesn't even deal with the issue you're addressing.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: In order to get off on the right foot, the most important thing to do is to set the parameters of how the procedure will work. There's nothing wrong with putting motions, but today we were called in to deal with a particular agenda. It's always been at least my own interest to keep the committee abreast of what other members of other parties want to do. If you're going to present a motion to the committee, then it should be tabled in order that other members will get a copy of the motion. Now we're talking about a motion that only one person has and one person sees and we don't know exactly what it says, except for what it says it says.

Mr. Jim Gouk: What more can it say?

Mr. Robert D. Nault: I would suggest that we adjourn the meeting.

You set up the agenda and table it. It's still there. You can talk about it the next day. Everybody can get a copy of it.

• 1015

The nuances of a motion are pretty tough to see, especially when you're doing it in two official languages, if nobody has a copy of it and can't see it. In order to be fair to everyone, I think the process should be that if you want to spring motions on people you had better bring copies for everybody and have a discussion about it, at the very least, or table it and then at the next meeting review it. Then you set the process up that way and it runs very smoothly.

There is nothing wrong with Dave's motion. I just think it's better to do it that way and then everybody seems to have a better handle on it.

Mr. David Chatters: I'm perfectly willing to table it.

The Chairman: There was a motion to table it.

Mr. Robert D. Nault: Okay. So I would move that this meeting now adjourn, and instead of getting into all those other things, you can carry on.... We were suppose to be done by 10 o'clock, and other members have not set up their timetables to be here until 11 or 12 o'clock this morning.

The Chairman: Mr. Chatters has tabled his motion, so we'll do that. We can revisit the subject. The points on both sides were well made.

If there are no other comments, I'll conclude by saying that I look forward to working with all of you. We have the work of putting together an agenda for the work of this committee over the next few months. I'm going to propose for starters, though, that when we come back after the break we start with some briefings. We have the performance reviews of some of the departments available to us and we're going to try to give, at least initially, equal treatment to government operations and natural resources.

So you can schedule your lives around Tuesdays and Thursdays from 11 a.m. until 1 p.m., at least for the first few weeks after the break, and we're going to start with some briefings. I would be pleased to hear any ideas you have on agenda items as we prepare for our work in the months ahead.

On the question of coffee, I'm inclined not to have coffee at the meetings. It costs us money. If anybody has strong feelings about it to the contrary, please let me know. But unless I hear a strong voice—

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Coffee won't hurt me.

The Chairman:—we're probably not going to bother with coffee at our meetings.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: I think that's the first order of voting, isn't it?

The Chairman: So there won't be, unless I hear a strong outcry.

[Translation]

Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Will our next meetings always be held here?

[English]

The Chairman: Not necessarily. Watch your notices for the room.

We're adjourned. Thank you very much.