PACC Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 8, 1997

• 1536

[English]

The Chair (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.)): I call this meeting to order. I believe we have a quorum. The orders of the day include composition of the steering committee, along with routine motions. We also have the Auditor General appearing as a witness later.

Let's start with the composition of the steering committee. A motion has been circulated. It says that the chair, the two vice-chairs, and “blank” do compose the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chair, maybe the clerk could tell us what the practice in the past was in terms of the steering committee.

The Chair: Well, I can take the liberty. Because there were only three official parties, there were two from the government, one from the Bloc, and one from Reform. That was the steering committee, and all the parties were represented.

Mr. Mac Harb: Three from the Bloc.

The Chair: No. There were two from the government—the two vice-chairs—the chairman of the committee, who was a Bloc member, and one member of Reform. They composed a committee of four.

Mr. Mac Harb: So it was two and two.

The Chair: Yes, two and two.

Mr. Mac Harb: Then I think we should do the same thing this time around. We should have three members from the government and three members from the opposition.

The Chair: Okay. Would you like to be a bit more precise on the three members from the opposition?

Mr. Mac Harb: You would have the chair plus two other members. The two vice-chairs are both Liberals now. Then you would add an additional Liberal member, along with the chair and two opposition members.

The Chair: So you're saying there would be three members from the Liberal Party, including the two vice-chairs; one member from the Reform Party, who is the chairman of the committee; and two additional members—

Mr. Mac Harb: From the other parties.

The Chair: You'll have to specify the parties.

Mr. Mac Harb: Perhaps somebody wants to volunteer on it, unless you want to represent each party. In that case, we would have to have four from the government, which would be unwieldy.

The Chair: Are you prepared to have a revolving steering committee? I think we should name the parties if we're going to have five.

As far as I'm aware, Mr. Harb, the other committees have actually had three from the government side. Is that right?

The clerk advises me that the other committees are going with the chairman of the committee, who is a Liberal, plus the vice-chairman, who is a Liberal, plus the vice-chairman from the official opposition, and one member from each of the other three parties, for a total of six.

Mr. Mac Harb: Then we'll follow the same principle.

The Chair: Do you want to move that?

Mr. Mac Harb: I'd like to move that we follow the same principle as other committees.

The Chair: Mr. Harb moves that the steering committee be composed of two vice-chairs from the Liberal Party, the chairman of the committee from the Reform Party, and one member from the other three parties, for a total of six.

Mr. Mac Harb: Would that mean the Liberals would have the same number as the opposition?

An hon. member: No.

Mr. Mac Harb: Then we would need one more.

The Chair: You'd need one more.

Mr. Mac Harb: That's right.

The Chair: So it would be two vice-chairs and a third Liberal, plus the chairman from the Reform Party, plus one member from the other three parties, for a total of seven on the steering committee. That's your motion?

• 1540

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, if my colleagues here are....

Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Could you repeat that, please?

The Chair: Mr. Laurin, Mr. Harb is proposing that it be the two vice-chairs, who are Liberals; two additional Liberals, for a total of four Liberals; the chairman from the Reform Party; one member from the Bloc; one member from the New Democratic Party; and one member from the Tory party. There would be a total of eight.

[Translation]

Mr. Laurin.

Mr. René Laurin: Are there one or two motions on the table?

[English]

The Chair: There is only one.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Until now, if my information is correct, in all of the other committees, the number of members on the steering committee has not exceeded seven. With eight members, we will have problems when tie votes occur.

Therefore, I think that we should go with seven members, namely the committee chair, the two Liberal vice-chairs and one member from each party.

[English]

The Chair: Does anybody else have any other suggestions? Mr. Mayfield.

Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): I do have a suggestion.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I'm sorry, but there are three Liberal members, not two. We have the chair, who is from the Reform Party, three Liberal members, one BQ member, one PC member and one NDP member, for a total of seven.

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite open. Each one of my colleagues probably has an idea of his own. I'll put my motion in and—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Before you do, may I make a suggestion?

Mr. Chairman, I believe we're after a steering committee. It is not to be a large group. I believe the steering committee should be substantially smaller. I would therefore suggest that the Liberals' two vice-chairs, the Reform chairman, and a member from the Bloc Québécois form the steering committee.

An hon. member: I agree with that.

Mr. Mac Harb: We could do that too.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: If it would be in order with you, Mr. Harb, I would move that.

The Chair: Let's ask Mr. Laurin.

Mr. Laurin, Mr. Mayfield is suggesting that there be two members from the Liberal Party, one member from the Reform Party, and one member from the Bloc Québécois. So there would be four members for the steering committee.

Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): Of course, for the membership of the committee and the way in which we look at it, the composition and number may be predicated on the understanding that the steering committee on procedure and agenda reports to the mother committee for ratification of whatever it has agreed upon. If it is in fact a given that whatever is decided at the subcommittee binds the mother committee, my position will be different. However, I will be agreeable to any suggestions given by Mr. Harb and Mr. Mayfield if it is understood that in fact the subcommittee on agenda and procedure reports back to the mother committee for ratification of its minutes.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I think that's understood.

The Chair: With Mr. Harb's permission, can I just have editorial liberty to say that I think the motion should now read that the steering committee will be composed of the two Liberal vice-chairs, the chairman of the committee, who is of the Reform Party, and one member from the Bloc Québécois?

Mr. Mac Harb: I would say “one member of the opposition”. It may turn out to be one member from the NDP, the Conservatives, or the Bloc. I just don't want my motion to exclude one member of the other parties.

The Chair: The point being, who would determine the—

Mr. Mac Harb: It would be up to the members to determine that.

• 1545

The Chair: I'm not sure we would want to leave it open so that those from the NDP, the Tories, and the Bloc Québécois need to have a joint caucus meeting to determine who their member might be. It might be a little protracted.

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, that's why I propose to follow the same principle as in the other committees in allowing the Liberals to have one extra vote on that steering committee, because the chairman is not a government member.

I guess we have those two options. I think we should chat a little bit about them. Either/or, it is my hope that this committee this time around will work in a positive fashion.

The Chair: Certainly, that is the intention, Mr. Harb.

Does anybody else have suggestions? It seems that Mr. Harb is leaving it open at this point in time to say that he thinks he would like to have three Liberal members on the committee, one from the official opposition, and one from another opposition party, for a total of five. There would be three Liberals and two from the opposition. That's what Mr. Harb's suggestion is.

Does anybody have any comments on that?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I would like to ask you a question, Mr. Harb. Inasmuch as the steering committee is only recommending—it has no power—do you feel your suggestion is necessary at this point?

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, absolutely.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I think a smaller steering committee would be more effective.

Mr. Mac Harb: That's if the members agree to it. But if there is an insistence from the members that each political party have one representative on the steering committee, then I would say it's only fair to have a steering committee that is similar to the other standing committees. There's one exception. In the other standing committees, the chair is a government member; in this particular case, with this committee, the chair is an opposition member.

As a result of that, I suggest we add an additional member to the government members.

We are quite open. Say there is an agreement on the opposition side such that in order to have the chair and one additional member from the opposition, they would have that member rotating. So at a meeting, there would be one member from the Bloc, at another meeting there would be one member from the NDP, and at a third meeting there would be one from the Conservatives. That's fine. We're quite open to that too.

The Chair: Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: We want this committee to be able to function, but the more members we have, the more difficult it will be to work effectively. We would have gone along with seven members, but I think we are now prepared to accept the four-person format. It's not necessary for the government party to have a majority on the steering committee since the decisions are made here in committee. Everything will be submitted to the main committee for its approval.

The government party imposes its will when it wants to. We mustn't impede the steering committee's effectiveness merely for the sake of maintaining a majority.

We would be prepared to support Mr. Mayfield's motion, and in the event it is not adopted, I would like to know the order in which we will be dealing with the motions before I decide whether or not to support them. We too had a proposal calling for a seven- member steering committee. We would be willing to support the motion calling for a four-person committee, but we would like to know how this is going to work.

[English]

The Chair: We should also bear in mind that the other committees are settling, I understand, for six, of which two are from the Liberal Party. Therefore, they actually would have a minority on the steering committee. Is that right, clerk?

The Clerk of the Committee: That's right.

Mr. Mac Harb: It was indicated that there were seven on the other committees.

The Chair: Six.

The Clerk: I think there was one committee—I'm not sure which one—in which the parliamentary secretary in a standing committee has the mandate to study the department. So the parliamentary secretary of that department was added as the seventh person.

Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): It is very common for parliamentary secretaries to be added. It was never in this committee in the last House, I know.

The Clerk: But it was still only three Liberal members, and the chairman did not vote, except in the case of a tie. The Liberals, even with a seven-member subcommittee, did not have a majority.

Mr. Mac Harb: Would that be the same case here if we were to go with six?

The Chair: Say you go with six. You're talking about two Liberals and one from each different party, for a total of six.

As this is the public accounts committee—we've always known it to be the opposition committee—I'm not sure that as the chairman, and I haven't thought about not having a vote on that committee.... I have said that I would not want to have input on that committee.

• 1550

Mr. Mac Harb: So that's pretty well answered.

The Chair: Remember that Mr. Mayfield did say the recommendations come back here for approval. There is no decision-making capacity in the steering committee; none whatsoever.

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): I am sorry for being late, but I had important business to attend to. There are two motions on the table regarding the steering committee. Could you kindly summarize them to ensure that we understand them properly? I know that the BQ representatives may also have a motion to put on the table.

[English]

The Chair: There are two proposals, and I think it's best to consider them as proposals at this point in time. Once we have a general feel we'll then put them into form.

The motions are, first, as Mr. Mayfield said, two Liberals, one Reform, and one Bloc, for a total of four; and second, as Mr. Harb said, three Liberals, one from the official opposition, and one representing the other three parties, for a total of five.

Mr. André Bachand: That is six.

The Chair: No, three Liberals, one from the official opposition, and one member representing the other three parties. That's five.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: If I understand correctly, none of the motions now on the table provides for representation on the steering committee by either the New Democrats or the Progressive Conservatives.

[English]

The Chair: Under Mr. Harb's proposal, that last person, the one representing the other three parties.... He hasn't indicated whether it would be someone from the Progressive Conservatives, the New Democratic Party, or the Bloc Québécois. We haven't reached that point in the discussion. He just said it would be one representing these three parties.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: I hope that consideration will be given to the democratic make-up of the House. I disagree that more members would make the committee less effective. We have to face the facts and not underestimate the people who will be serving on the committee. That's important to remember. A slightly larger group is quite capable of working very effectively.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Just to assist in the discussion, may we have an indication, through the chair, on the part of the NDP and the PCs, as to their interest in serving on this steering committee? We may be discussing something that is moot.

The Chair: Unfortunately, I can't give you an answer, Mr. Pagtakhan, because I haven't talked to the NDP. As you can see, they're not present here, so I wouldn't want to speak on their behalf.

Mr. Bachand could speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, in terms of his party's desire to participate on the steering committee and on this particular committee. Bearing in mind the numbers they have, they are going to have to spread themselves fairly thin around the House.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: We want to serve on all standing House Committees. I would remind you that all other committees have agreed to let one member of the PC party sit on the steering committee.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb: There is a possibility of entertaining the idea that the chair and the two vice-chairs form the steering committee.

An hon. member: I think that's agreeable.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: This is not a dictatorship.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I'm sorry, but this does not bode well at all for the committee's work. We would be prepared to support Mr. Mayfield's proposal calling for a four-person committee, but out of respect for the other opposition parties, we cannot accept a steering committee that has no BQ representative, given that we are the second largest opposition party in the House.

• 1555

However, we are prepared to agree to representation for the other two parties, which, given that the chair does not vote, would result in a committee with a maximum of seven members: three Liberals, one BQ, one PC, one NDP and of course the chair who represents the Reform Party.

Assuming that the steering committee would not have any important decisions to make, since everything is submitted to the main committee, we could agree to a seven-person subcommittee, one on which all parties would be represented.

[English]

The Chair: Are we going to go for seven? Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: As I said earlier, any number would work. In terms of agenda, we're working towards a consensus here. Whatever is decided at the subcommittee level will be presented at the mother committee for ratification.

In terms of all membership, the proportion will be there. Again, in the spirit of consensus, I think it will be okay. From my own perspective, the recommendation of seven will be acceptable, with three from the Liberals and four from the non-government side. But I will defer to the opinions of other members on the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Pagtakhan is suggesting a committee of seven, with three Liberals and all other parties represented.

Mr. Mac Harb: Provided that the chair doesn't vote.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Well, the chair may vote too. This is where I differ, with all respect to my colleague, because the decision of the subcommittee will go back to the mother committee for ratification. I would be prepared to accept that, but I am just one member who is equal with everybody else.

The Chair: I think that's a workable solution, Mr. Pagtakhan.

Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. André Bachand: If I understand correctly, our BQ colleagues are proposing that at least one PC member sit on the steering committee. That is very, very important.

Mr. Laurin is suggesting, therefore, that the steering committee be composed of one PC member, one NDP member, one BQ member, one Reform Party member and of government members. Is that right?

Mr. René Laurin: There would be three Liberal members in addition to one member from each opposition party.

[English]

The Chair: Three from the Liberals.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Chair, the function of the steering committee is to try to work out items that we would present to this committee. There's absolutely no decision-making power involved. In the last Parliament we had two vice-chairs, we had the chair, who was from the Bloc, and we had you. That committee just came to this committee with an agenda, and this committee made the decision on whether to accept or not.

So it's not a decision-making thing. It's something to keep the work of the committee flowing.

I think Mr. Pagtakhan's suggestion is something I can support. It allows for the New Democrats to be there, and for the Conservatives to be there as well. I'm not sure about the practical realities in terms of the New Democrats and the Conservatives being really spread out, which you will be in terms of committee work because of the numbers you have. I'm not sure if they're going to be able to attend.

I think seven is a good number because it will ensure there will at least be some kind of quorum there. Then, if they want to attend or not attend, that will be up to them based on their own realities.

So I think we should get Mr. Pagtakhan's motion on the table.

The Chair: Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I think we have to understand that we have a different Parliament and that we're trying to be fair to all parties represented officially in this Parliament.

Practically speaking, sometimes when there were steering committee meetings in the past, the clerk would go away and try to line up witnesses before the steering committee results were ratified by this committee as a whole. I think we have to understand very clearly that if we do have a steering committee this time, it has to come back to get ratification before meetings are set up on an agenda and before witnesses are lined up. That's the problem.

I have less problem with a smaller number or a larger number. I don't care what the number is, quite frankly, as long as everybody understands that this is what's going to happen and that it is going to be necessary to have an extra meeting, to come around the table to figure out what our course of business is and to have it hammered out.

• 1600

To a certain extent I'm beginning to feel that the steering committee is a useless exercise and we're going to be doing it by the committee as a whole every time, because all it's doing is adding in the steering committee and then having to have an extra committee and we're not gaining anything from the exercise. But I'm prepared to go along with the normal steering committee with the understanding that you cannot then go and book meetings and then expect instant ratification or not expect argument about where the steering committee is going.

The Chair: It seems to me that the consensus has come around to Mr. Laurin's motion, which Mr. Pagtakhan agrees with and which Mr. Telegdi says is fine, which is three Liberals, presumably the two vice-chairs and one other; the Reform Party, represented by myself as the chairman; and one member from the Bloc Québécois, one member from the New Democratic Party, and one member from the Progressive Conservative Party. Do we think we have consensus for—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Mr. Chairman, a couple of statements have been made that I wouldn't agree to without clarification. I'm thinking of what Mr. Telegdi said, that the steering committee brings recommendations, which we accept or reject. I would have a great deal of difficulty sitting still with that basis, because I would expect to be able to make my recommendations on behalf of my party and my position to the steering committee. I'm not prepared simply to accept what the steering committee decides, or not to accept it. I think there should be a more fruitful conversation than that. I think the members should have input and the steering committee basically should be a coordinating and an organizing body for the will of the committee. So to my mind we're putting an awful lot of time into the composition of the steering committee when it's really a facilitating group and not a decision-making group.

The Chair: I think we're now just talking about the same issues. Does someone want to make that motion, that we have three Liberals, being the two vice-chairs and one other—

Mr. Mac Harb: With the understanding the parliamentary secretary has indicated, we have no problem with that.

The Chair: Yes, that's right. The Liberal Party decides their third representative. The Reform Party will be represented by the chair, the Bloc Québécois will put forward a member, the New Democratic Party will put forward a member, and the Progressive Conservative Party will put forward a member.

Is that understood? Does somebody want to make that motion?

Mr. René Laurin: So moved.

The Chair: Mr. Laurin made it and it was seconded by Mr. Pagtakhan.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next item in front of you is about the research staff: that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament as needed to assist the committee in its work at the discretion of the chair. Again, it's the standard routine motion. Does someone want to move that?

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): I move that motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The next one is meetings in the absence of a quorum. It's that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least so many members are present, including a certain number from the opposition.

Mr. Mac Harb: What was the past practice?

The Chair: Well, we did have a little problem in the past.

An hon. member: We never got to adopting one.

The Chair: We never did. Well, we did have one in the first session of the last Parliament, but—

An hon. member: No, not even in the first.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: No, you never had it.

The Chair: Not even in the first?

An hon. member: After hours of debate.

Mr. Mac Harb: What was it here before the last Parliament? What was it in the previous Parliament?

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I've never been a member of this committee. May I make a recommendation? I would recommend five members, including two members of the opposition.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Unfortunately, they would have had meetings in the last Parliament where we could have heard evidence, and I think that's very sad, when people are put on notice.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Do you mean five members couldn't show up?

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I mean when you specify two members of the opposition, unless you're saying just two members of the opposition and it's not two opposition parties.

The Chair: No, the motion reads “two members of the opposition”.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: “Opposition” solely.

The Chair: So you are suggesting, Mrs. Barnes, we remove the word “the”.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: No. Give me that again. I—

• 1605

The Chair: Okay. It is 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—

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Five members are present.

The Chair:—including two members of the opposition.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Or rather two members from opposition parties.

[English]

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, we have to consider it very carefully. We can have a really serious dilemma when fewer than five are present and we have paid for the travel expenses of the witnesses before the committee. The witnesses have booked their times—most of them would be out of volunteerism, perhaps—before the committee, and I think there is a political responsibility on the part of each of us—and we know that—that we would like to be there, or we will be criticized by those witnesses and the citizens at large.

So I would make it the least onerous on the part of the committee through the chair. As long as the chair is there, or his substitute is there, and then at least one member is present, I would say that the evidence should be heard, because the evidence is only heard. That would be my view.

The Chair: Mr. Harb, just to give you some indication, when the committees were smaller than they are today, where the quorum of the entire committee was seven to get the committee going, where it could do active business including pass motions, they accepted three in order to hear evidence. Now that we have a quorum of nine in order to conduct real business, Mr. Mayfield is suggesting that we increase that minimum number by two, to have five people present in order to hear witnesses.

It would be only to hear witnesses, not to make any decisions of the committee whatsoever.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Are you counting the chair in the two opposition?

The Chair: Yes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Okay. So, really, all we're asking for is three from our side, the chair, and one member of an opposition party, and they're not specified as to party.

The Chair: That's correct.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I can agree with that.

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I think we should keep in mind that we're a little bit different from the other committees. We do not hear witnesses from far and wide. We hear witnesses who are government employees, deputy ministers and so on, who are resident here in Ottawa. So we don't have this vast problem with travelling expenses and so on. They don't come from far and wide.

The Chair: I thank you for that, Mr. Grose, but from the opposition's point of view—and that incudes the Reform Party—we don't want, and shouldn't have, the authority to hold up business just by not showing up.

I think Mr. Mayfield's proposal is quite acceptable to most, so I'll call for the question.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'm just wondering when I read this. We could have a situation in which we have five opposition members present and no government members present at all.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: Then you don't hear it.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: It doesn't say this, not the way it reads.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Yes, it does.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: “At least five members are present, including two members of the opposition”. You could have five members present and they could all be from the opposition, with no member from government. I think we should specify. We'll accept with three government members present.

The Chair: I accept that point, Mr. Telegdi: including at least three members from the government side and two members from the opposition.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, I'm going to call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now opening statements and questioning of witnesses.

Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, are you quite sure that when the member refers to opposition members, he is indeed talking about two members of opposition parties, not two members from the official opposition?

[English]

The Chair: You're absolutely correct.

Moving on to the next one, opening statements and questioning witnesses, as you know this is a committee of public accounts that questions people in detail. Now that we have five parties in the House, I'm sure we would like to have a significant amount of time, or as much time as possible, available for questions. We're therefore suggesting that the witnesses be restricted to a reasonable length of time for opening remarks.

• 1610

The motion is that witnesses be given, say, five minutes for their opening statement, and during the questioning of witnesses some time would be allocated for the first questioner of each party and thereafter so many minutes would be allocated to subsequent questioners, at the discretion of the chair.

Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, I presume when witnesses come before the committee they would have documents you could pass on to the members, so there's no point in their going over the whole document to put it on the record. We can always put in a motion that their written record be included in the record of the committee. That will eliminate that. So I would suggest that five minutes would be ample time for the opening statement and that three minutes should be allocated for the first questioner of each party and two minutes to each subsequent member questioner. This way if we have more time we'll go back and people will have a chance to ask more.

The Chair: So you're saying five parties, ten minutes each, and then two minutes for the subsequent rounds.

Mr. Mac Harb: That's right. You have three minutes for question-and-answer in the first round, five minutes for the opening statement, three minutes for each party—

The Chair: Oh, three minutes for each party.

Mr. Mac Harb:—three minutes for each party—and then two minutes for subsequent rounds. If we have more time, then more members will ask questions.

The Chair: I think, Mr. Harb, the three might be just a bit tight to get your question out. Often you're going to get out only one question in that time.

Mr. Mac Harb: I tell you, Mr. Chair, from my experience, sometimes you can ask a question and you can get an answer that goes on for ten minutes and you just don't get a chance to get anything in.

The Chair: We're talking about time that includes the answer. But why don't we get some other ideas from around the table.

Mr. Grose.

Mr. Ivan Grose: I think we're forgetting this is the public accounts committee. If you're going to restrict the Auditor General and two deputy ministers to five minutes, this isn't going to fly. This is a committee different from the rest of them.

What documents do they have? We have the Auditor General's report. That's what we work from. They don't bring any additional documents. The Auditor General comments on the particular chapter. The deputy minister may want to comment on it. Five minutes is ridiculous.

The Chair: Ms. Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I'm just going to try to do what I tried to do yesterday and say there are a lot of people who could be working hard in their places of work right now, and it's very obvious, to me, that we're going to take a lot more time, interrupted by a vote, to do our normal course of business. Out of courtesy to the people who are working at great taxpayers' expense, sitting here, as I tried to explain yesterday, I would request that we consider letting our witnesses go for the day so we're not wasting any more of their time. We're not going to get through this in five minutes.

The Chair: Ms. Barnes, rather than doing that, would you consider sending the opening statements and questions to the steering committee, now that we have that created and all parties are represented? I would doubt we would have a problem with the next motion. We can hear the Auditor General and still be there for the vote.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: No, absolutely not. I think I was very clear about wanting, before we heard one witness, a notice of motion. I've made this abundantly clear for one year, and I'm not backing down on this.

The Chair: Then we'll go back to debating. Mr. Grose and Mr. Telegdi were saying this is a public accounts committee, and normally—this is for the newer members—at a meeting we have an opening statement by the Auditor General. We have one or two witnesses representing one department, sometimes even more, who make a single opening statement. I think we are agreed that they can perhaps give a summary of that and append the document to the minutes.

In the past it has usually been the case that it was ten minutes for the first round for the three parties, because there were only three parties, and then five minutes in subsequent rounds for questions and answers, because if a member wanted to bring out a particular point...and sometimes these points were quite difficult to bring out. The public accounts committee is not hearing evidence by witnesses who want to put all the information on the table. Sometimes we have to pull it out. Therein lies the difference with the public accounts committee. So a longer time for the first round might be quite appropriate.

• 1615

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chair, I'm trying to work with some numbers. If I remember, what usually happened last time was that we would get in the first round, which was ten minutes. The government usually split that, but the opposition didn't need to. We would then have the second round, which would be five minutes, and we usually got two or three second-round rotations in.

Since we're now going to have five parties versus those three, how would it be if we went with something like initial rounds of eight minutes and following rounds of four minutes? It would still extend on the time, but it would shorten the time from last time. It would allow us to get into some of the questioning that we want to get into. We could go with eight and four.

The Chair: Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: In previous years, the first questioner had ten minutes. Based on our experience, this is not a great deal of time to question the witness properly.

Quite often, the witness can take seven to eight minutes to answer a first question which may have taken the member one minute to ask in the first place, which means that ten minutes have already elapsed. It is impossible under these circumstances to do more than merely scratch the surface.

Considering how many of us there are, if we are not allowed to ask a first, second or third supplementary question, the questioning of the witnesses will be a rather pointless exercise. We will never uncover anything of use. We will meet and hear from witnesses, but our questions will not produce any concrete results.

I prefer the old format of ten minutes per party for the first questioner and five minutes for the second questioner from each party. Subsequently, the chair could grant five additional minutes, depending on the requests received.

Ideally, the format should be ten minutes and then five minutes. I think we should stick with this, even if it means having to change our position if we see that we cannot sustain this ten- minute and five-minute pace.

If we find that there isn't time for enough questions, we can reduce the time allotted. We can always come back and change our minds insofar as the time allocation is concerned. I think we should give some serious thought to going with ten-minute and five- minute rounds of questions per party.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Laurin would like to stay with the ten and five. Mr. Telegdi said we could bring them down to eight and four. We have to remember that there are five parties this time, not the three that we had before. We only have a two-hour meeting. If we could squeeze 200 minutes into a two-hour meeting, that would be great.

Mr. Mayfield is next.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I'm hopeful that the focus of the members of this committee will be perhaps on forming a unified fist in accomplishing a purpose rather than sparring with each other over procedure. That would be very frustrating for me, because I'm here to accomplish something. I look forward to participating in that accomplishment with all the members from all the parties. I think we have an important job to do.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest this decision is not going to be carved in stone. It can be modified if it's not meeting the needs of the chairman or the needs of the committee as we proceed. I do know from past committee experience—which I have worked hard at and have enjoyed—that ten minutes is not very long if you have a line of questioning. I would therefore suggest that we try this on and see how it goes for a few weeks and review it as we gain experience.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mrs. Barnes.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I would love to see things work out down the road, but it's sort of like a prenuptial agreement. It gets difficult at the divorce stage.

Mr. Philip Mayfield: I've had experiences in which it has worked, Sue.

• 1620

Mrs. Sue Barnes: I've had the experience of it working in other committees. It doesn't work in this committee. That's the reason why we need very clear rules.

The way it is, as we're talking right now, 50 minutes into the meeting we're finally going to get the government being able to question. You have 50 minutes. You're doing a presentation and then you're going to do 4 opposition parties, and finally, 50 minutes later, we're going to get to speak. I'm sorry. You are not going to get the people sitting on this side. Just get real.

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, is the whole notion that by limiting the time per questioner you will have a chance to have more people asking questions, not fewer? I guess because we have so many parties we have to learn to cut down on the preambles and get to the heart of the matter with the questions. That's why, Mr. Chair, I have proposed limiting it to three. If the will of the committee is to go to five minutes, I think even that would be reasonable. But if we go to any longer than that, I think we will be faced with a situation where our committee meetings will start dragging on and we will not be able to achieve what we want to achieve at the end of the day.

So what we should do, perhaps, Mr. Chair, is agree on the five-minute opening statement for the witness first, if there is an agreement on that, and then move and entertain, possibly, a compromise between the ten and the three that I am proposing and the eight my colleague is proposing and see if we can come up with something that is workable, with the understanding that we could revisit it at a later date, within six months or so, and see if it's not working. Then we can change it.

The Chair: That's true, and we can also change the rotation. Rather than four opposition parties before the government side, we may interject the government in the middle.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: That's an idea.

The Chair: I think Mr. Telegdi had an excellent point, that we do sometimes want to follow a line of questioning.

Mr. Laurin.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I think we could alternate. The first question could come from an opposition party, as was customary in this committee, while the second could come from the government party and then the third, from an opposition party. If all Liberal party members were allowed to put their questions before any opposition member were recognized, well then, it would be game over for us. We would have time for one question before packing up and going home.

Personally, I would agree to a rotation of some sort. However, I maintain that we should begin with ten-minute and five-minute rounds, alternating from one party to the next.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Laurin, I would ask if you would consider Mr. Telegdi's proposal of eight and four, because of the five parties. It's not a lot less than ten, and we can revisit the issue later on if you so desire. I think we're consolidating around eight and four, if you would like to accept that.

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: I would be prepared to proceed by consensus. If more members prefer ten minutes, then fine. If most seem to prefer eight minutes, then that's fine too. However, I'm leaning toward ten minutes, because based on my experience on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, ten minutes is really not very much time.

Let's start with ten minutes and if that doesn't work, we can go to eight minutes. I don't want to make a major issue out of this.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laurin. I appreciate your point that it's not a battle. Why don't we accept your motion on the floor and we'll vote on ten and five. If that fails, then I'll accept Mr. Telegdi's motion of eight and four. So we're going to have a choice between ten and five and eight and four. We'll start off with Mr. Laurin's motion of ten minutes for the first round, followed by five minutes in subsequent rounds—

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): How much for the witnesses?

The Chair: Five-minute opening statements.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: A clarification. If a member who is asking a question in one of the parties decides they want to pass on their questioning, can they give their time to a colleague?

The Chair: Of course. We've always done that.

So we'll start with Mr. Laurin's motion.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: We'll now follow with the motion of eight for the first round, four for subsequent rounds.

• 1625

[Translation]

Mr. René Laurin: Mr. Chairman, before we go any further, I have a question.

Similarly, I would support eight-minute and four-minute rounds of questions, and if we were to realize after a while that this was not enough time, we could revert to the original ten-minute and five-minute format. Would that be acceptable?

[English]

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The point Mr. Grose makes is, I think, a valid one. The nature of the witnesses who come before this committee would be such that they may well require, and we may well want them to take, more than five minutes to lay their program out. I wonder if we couldn't change it to say that witnesses would be given up to ten minutes. Then there's a little bit of discretion.

The Chair: What we have done in the past is ask the departments to prepare a statement. It is used quite often, circulated ahead of time. Therefore, that is why we can append it to the minutes. They have a five-minute summary of that.

Mrs. Sue Barnes: It's time.

Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Yesterday, at my other committees, all the members had little name tags in front of them. If we could have that at all of our meetings that would be really helpful for getting to know all of the names.

The Chair: New Parliaments take a while to get organized.

I think I said the motion would call for eight minutes in the first round and four in subsequent rounds. All in favour?

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: What about the time for the witnesses? Have you clarified that?

The Chair: That was five minutes for the witnesses.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I'm going to suspend the meeting because of the vote.

We're going to be gone for about 45 minutes. We should be back at about 5.15. The meeting should adjourn at 5.30.

I'll adjourn the meeting for today.