NRGO Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES ET DES OPÉRATIONS GOUVERNEMENTALES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, October 27, 1999

• 1534

[English]

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

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): I would like to nominate Joe Volpe as chair of the committee.

The Clerk: Is there a seconder?

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): I so move.

The Clerk: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare Joe Volpe duly elected chair of the committee and invite him to take the chair.

• 1535

The Chair (Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Let me thank all of the members around the table who expressed a vote of confidence in my candidacy, especially on one side of the table,

[Translation]

that is the members who are always seated to the left, but who do not lean to the left.

[English]

A voice: Not too many of them.

The Chairman: No, none of them at all.

[Translation]

Therefore, I would like to thank these opposition members.

[English]

Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity—Spadina, Lib.): I'd like to move a motion for the vice-chair.

The Chairman: No. The very first rule will be that parliamentary secretaries can speak only when spoken to.

Mr. Tony Ianno: You learned well in that role.

The Chairman: Standing Order 106 states that each standing or special committee shall elect a chairman and two vice-chairs, of whom two shall be members of the government party and the third member in opposition to the government.

So I am willing to entertain a motion for the election of the first vice-chair. The first vice-chair will be from the government side. Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): I would like to nominate Julian Reed.

The Chairman: Do I have a seconder?

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): I second.

The Chairman: Everybody in agreement?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Wonderful. Mr. Julian Reed, you are now the first vice-chair of this committee. Congratulations.

Mr. Julian Reed (Halton, Lib.): As long as I have nothing to do, I'll be happy.

The Chairman: We can arrange that.

We are in a position where we are to elect a second vice-chair, and that will be from the opposition side. I'm prepared to entertain a motion from Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate Mr. Chatters.

The Chairman: Mr. David Chatters has been nominated by Mr. Valeri. Do I see a seconder.

Mr. Julian Reed: I'll second that.

The Chairman: Is it the pleasure of this committee to have Mr. David Chatters as a vice-chairman?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Another unanimous decision. This is wonderful. Congratulations, Mr. Chatters.

Ladies and gentlemen, we'll be very brief today. We'll just go over some operational business and then we will take it from there.

The clerk is distributing some paper regarding routine motions and the way we will operate. On the very first item, on subcommittee on agenda and procedure, I propose—and I understand this is already a tradition on this committee. I find that this tradition has worked well for other committees as well, especially ones on which I have served. It is that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure will be this committee, the committee of the whole. It will just sit in camera on matters regarding details of what business we will conduct. Unless there is any disagreement with that, I am going to continue with that particular tradition.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your support. We will dispense with that subcommittee and it will be the committee of the whole.

The second motion is with regard to research staff: that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the chair. I believe we have had two, and we have two present with us today. They are Jack Stilborn, on the government operations side, and Jean-Luc Bourdages, on the natural resources side. They should be working with us.

Do I have a motion for that?

Mr. Julian Reed: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: On witness expenses: that at the discretion of the chair, reasonable travelling expenses, as per regulations established by the Board of Internal Economy, be paid to witnesses invited to appear before the committee and that payment of these expenses be limited to two representatives per organization—not one and not more, but two.

Do I have a motion to that effect?

Mr. Brent St. Denis: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: In camera meetings and transcripts. There will be occasions when we will be in camera, especially as it deals with procedures and consideration of reports. The motion is that in camera meetings be transcribed, that the transcripts be kept by the clerk of the committee—that's you, Richard—and that they be destroyed at the end of the session. We can refer to them as need be, but at the end of the session they disappear in the shredder.

• 1540

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Yes, sir.

Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Chairman, why do they have to be destroyed at the end of each session? Is there a specific reason for that?

The Chairman: They're transcripts from in camera discussions. They aren't part of the public record. I think traditionally the perception has been that at the end of the session the committee's work is done; therefore, the private matters of the committee no longer carry on to another committee.

Mr. Gilles Bernier: Okay.

The Chairman: So it's best to destroy it and let the new committee constitute itself.

Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): With regard to in camera meetings, does it go before the committee before you have in camera meetings?

The Chairman: Yes. I have tried to operate on a consensus basis, and I was pleased to hear that that's the way this committee tried to operate as well. It doesn't necessarily have to be put to a vote. I think most people will realize a time when we need to go in camera, and procedural issues might be one of them. As I said, consideration of a report before it is published might be another. I can't think of very many other circumstances where one would go in camera.

I know you're a great defender of democratic principles and transparency, and I share those views.

Mr. Darrel Stinson: According to Beauchesne's Sixth Edition, citation 850, it should go to a vote of the committee before you go in camera.

The Chairman: As I said, we'll try to work that through when we come to those decisions. Thanks, Mr. Stinson.

On the question of evidence and witnesses: that pursuant to Standing Order 118(2), the chair be authorized to hold meetings in order to receive and authorize the publishing of evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that one member from the government party and one member of the opposition party, as well as the chair or a vice-chair, are present. That's not a huge number of people for a quorum to hear evidence only.

Mr. Réginald Bélair: I so move.

Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): I second the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Madam Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I have a question.

The Chairman: Of course.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Despite my propensity to shop, and despite the fact that I was in the middle of a transaction as I came up here, I would suggest, since we have an illustrious and experienced and forceful chair, as we did last year, we are going to make a more concerted effort this year to get a better time slot and a better location, closer to the action over there, Mr. Volpe. I was assured that if I voted for you, you would.

He told me that at question period, that if I voted for him today.... Unfortunately, I was not required to vote for you, but I am going to hold you to your promise because I would have been downstairs still trying on suits, but I thought you needed me.

So I would hope that you would take it under advisement that we would like a better slot, closer to the action over there.

The Chairman: I'm one of those people who doesn't like to be held responsible for promises made in the heat of political debate. However, I am going to depart from that tradition for a moment—

Mr. Brent St. Denis: In the pursuit of support.

The Chairman: That's right. Madam Parrish, I've just asked the clerk to look for 253-D as a first choice, 237-C as a second choice and, failing that, to go to 112-N as a third choice.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I like that one.

The Chairman: A fourth choice is somewhere in the west block, and this place, not a choice. That's number one. I hope you will all agree that the selection of sites conforms with where you'd like to meet.

Secondly, in terms of time, the time slots that are essentially negotiated...some of these can be negotiated through the liaison committee, but I think it is really done by the Clerk of the House. What we will do is try to get a time slot that's really amenable for us.

The 11 o'clock time slot is really good, especially if you're in 237-C, because that's close to where the food is served at about 12.30. But in the event that we cannot get a more adaptable time, 11 o'clock sounds good, to me at any rate. But 10 looks good too. I am going to try to stay away from 9 o'clock as much as I can.

• 1545

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I have procedure and House affairs, and we've got legislation going through there shortly. I also have legislation that will be coming here shortly. I'm pretty good, but I can't be in two places at one time.

The Chairman: Do you want to negotiate now?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

We'll try to accommodate every member's needs as much as we can. I realize that there are two different groups under this one umbrella. We'll try to do the best we can so that the interests of all members are served whenever we deal with anything. That includes logistical considerations. As I understand it, every two weeks you have to put in a request for a location and a time, and it's best if you stay with a particular time and be consistent with the location. But there is going to be a mad rush in the morning. Richard is going to sprint down to the clerk's office to make sure we always have the one we want.

What I'd like to do for a few moments is just consider when we are going to meet again. Today is Wednesday. I suggest that on Tuesday morning we dedicate our time to business. There are several considerations that are already on the agenda. Some of them are carried over from the last time the committee met. I think some of those issues, notwithstanding the fact that we are in a new session, may be issues that will be of interest to committee members around the table. I think if those need to be revived, then we will go through the appropriate steps to take them. Members who have a particular interest that's new, that was consistent with what developed last time, or have an interest in reviving a particular issue, maybe this is a good time for you to make the chair, through the clerk, aware of what that interest would be. We will discuss it at Tuesday's meeting. That will be an in camera meeting.

I already have one request by somebody on the government operations side, so please be prepared to come and discuss where we are going to go.

Any questions at all? Seeing none, I want to thank all of you—oh, I see one. Oui?

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that no provision has been made to move a motion requiring that papers be distributed in both official languages.

The Chairman: But that's a given.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Is that automatically understood?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Therefore, there is no need to move a motion to this effect.

The Chairman: I didn't see any need for such a motion, because I thought this was understood.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Fine.

Nor do I see a motion respecting the allocation of time for questioning witnesses. It was my understanding that we would not adopt any hard and fast policy as such and that questioning would proceed on a more informal basis. However, I do think it would be wise to agree on a structure of some kind.

The Chairman: We could discuss this point today, but I would prefer to wait until Tuesday.

[English]

If we can deal with the issue of how we'll distribute questions, I'll tell you where I come from. I think five minutes going back and forth is sufficient. That way we give every member, notwithstanding on which side of the table they sit, an opportunity to pose questions. When I have been given the opportunity to be flexible, I think if somebody is in the middle of a question, the five-minute timeline is something the chair ought to be able to ignore. If members around the table would prefer that the chair be much more rigorous, then I'm prepared on Tuesday, when we meet, to entertain a motion that at five minutes it stops.

[Translation]

Mr. Serge Cardin: Alright. We'll deal with that issue next Tuesday.

The Chairman: Right.

Mr. Serge Cardin: Fine.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Reed.

Mr. Julian Reed: Mr. Chairman, I think you should have the discretionary power to remain flexible. There will be times when we get subject matter we are dealing with where everybody has a lot of questions and your timeline will probably have to be enforced fairly rigidly. There will be other times when it won't be. The experience we've had is that it fluctuates all over the map, depending on the level of interest and so on.

• 1550

The Chairman: I can live with either one. At the beginning, at our first meeting, I want to have an understanding that we are going to operate under one system or the other. If everybody around the table agrees that the chair should be very flexible, I wouldn't like members afterwards to take the chair to task because of his flexibility. Aside from the fact that he has a thick skin, he also develops deafness when he hears those kinds of complaints.

Thank you very much, gentlemen and lady.

One last question, Monsieur St. Denis.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Mr. Chairman, for things like notice of motion and so on, can we do that Tuesday?

The Chairman: Yes, we'll do that Tuesday. We'll get through all the procedural stuff.

Mr. Brent St. Denis: Just to support you on the flexibility that the chair needs to distribute questions, for what it's worth, it is a formula that I'm sure you have found helpful—it's one I did generally—in proportion to the membership in the House, if you get into a jam.

The Chairman: Absolutely.

Merci. The meeting is adjourned until Tuesday at 11 o'clock.