INST Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Wednesday, November 6, 2002
| ¹ | 1535 |
 |
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ) |
|
An hon. member |
|
The Clerk |
| ¹ | 1540 |
|
The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)) |
| ¹ | 1545 |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
| ¹ | 1550 |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1555 |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| º | 1600 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1605 |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joseph Volpe |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
| º | 1610 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Masse |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
Mr. Dan McTeague |
| º | 1615 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1620 |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
Mr. James Rajotte |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
| º | 1625 |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, November 6, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1535)
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members of the committee, I see a quorum. We can now proceed to the election of the chair. I am now ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): I would like to nominate Walt Lastewka, the member for St. Catharines.
The Clerk: Are there more nominations?
The nominations are closed for the chair.
[Translation]
I declare Mr. Lastewka elected chair of the Committee.
Are there any nominations for the vice-chairmanship on the government side?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): I nominate Mr. McTeague.
The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): I nominate Mr. St. Denis.
The Clerk: Are there any other nominations on the government side?
So we will now proceed with the secret ballot. Let me explain briefly how it works. My colleague and I are going to distribute a ballot which you will fill out and deposit in the box.
I declare Mr. McTeague elected vice-chair of the committee.
Now, are there any nominations for the vice-chairmanship on the opposition side?
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): I nominate Mr. Paul Crête.
[English]
An hon. member: I propose Mr. James Rajotte.
[Translation]
The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?
We are going to proceed with the vote, following the same method.
¹ (1540)
I declare Mr. Rajotte elected vice-chairman of the committee.
[English]
I will now invite the newly elected chair to preside over the meeting.
The Chair (Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.)): First, let me thank the committee for their confidence in me. I appreciate it very much. I congratulate the two vice-chairs on their election, and I warn them in advance that we have a lot of work to do, so we'll have to work very closely as a team to cover all the items.
The fact that we are starting a bit late will require us to move ahead on a number of items. We should go through the routine motions one at a time.
We normally have had a subcommittee for steering a way through, and from time to time we meet as a total group in camera to discuss items. The objective was that the steering committee could do some preliminary work and present things back to the whole committee. So I would ask someone to move the motion to propose a subcommittee. Mr. Volpe.
Before I proceed, I'd like also to welcome all the new members to the committee. You'll find that this committee is very busy. We try to stay as non-political as possible, and we try to stick to the subject at hand. The chairman has a habit, when it becomes political, of ruling the politics out and trying to get us back in focus on the items of the day. So I would ask for your patience on that.
So there's a motion on the floor. Is everybody clear on the motion?
Mr. Fitzpatrick.
¹ (1545)
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): With the subcommittee, there are members from all the opposition parties on the list except the Alliance. Is that an oversight? I know the vice-chair is there. There are two Liberals besides the chair and the vice-chair, so it seemed to me we should have one Canadian Alliance member on there as well.
The Chair: Yes, it should have read one Canadian Alliance member.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Is that just a typo, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: That is strictly a typo.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Okay.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, you have the Alliance there, and you have a vice-chair who happens to be of the Alliance. Is that of any consequence? In effect, you would have two.
The Chair: That's what it should be.
Mr. Dan McTeague: I just wanted to make sure we understood there were two. In the event that for instance, an Alliance member were not, by accident, a vice-chair, then you would, effectively, the way this reads, only have one. So I wanted to make sure, Mr. Chair, we had two.
The Chair: And we try to get everything done by consensus, as you know, on the steering committee, and then it's always brought forward to the main committee.
(Motion as amended agreed to)
The Chair: Okay.
We need a motion for the research officers to make sure it's recorded. Moved by Mr. St. Denis, seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Is everybody clear on number three? I would ask for a motion.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: I have a question before you get your motion there. Do the three members include the chair?
The Chair: It's at the discretion of the committee.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Then I move that the motion be read as including the chair among the three.
The Chair: Including the chair and including a member of the opposition.
Monsieur Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): It says here:
| That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least three (3) members are present, including a member of the opposition. |
This is simply a reference to hearings that involve witnesses. It does not talk about other hearings, when we do not hear testimony.
¹ (1550)
Mr. Serge Marcil: It could be ten members, if that is what we want. It is a minimum.
Mr. Paul Crête: Yes, but I want to make sure that these are not meetings on bills or something else, that we are really talking about meetings to hear testimony.
[English]
The Chair: This is strictly to receive and publish evidence.
Madame Girard-Bujold.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: You said earlier: “That the Chair be authorized to hold meetings [...]”. That is indeed what it says here. So, the chair has that authority, and in addition to the chair, at least three members have to be present. When someone is authorized, this means that he must also be accompanied by three other members. This is what I understand from the French version.
[English]
The Chair: That's the way I understand it. It's the chair plus three members, of which one has to be from the opposition. So it would be two, one, and the chair. Okay?
Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: That might have clarified it. I was thinking there has to be a minimum of three, and I was just wondering whether it was mandatory that one of those three people be the chair of the committee. I don't see something going ahead without the chair being part of it.
The Chair: It gives authorization for the chair to proceed with a meeting with three members, which is what we've normally had.
Moved by Mr. Savoy, seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Maybe the two vice-chairs could help me out here on four. This is with normal procedure. In the past, depending on how many witnesses we had, we would give more or less time, and I, as chair, would notify the people how much time it was. I wouldn't want to be pinned down.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Mr. Chair, as a matter of clarification, I don't want to be technical about it, but I presume, in exercising your discretion on the matter, you would allocate time in accordance with the proportion of representation you have in the House and so on.
The Chair: That's right. Sometimes when we've only had, for example, two witnesses, we've given them a little extra time, because they were putting on a presentation and we didn't want to cut them off too fast. We'd give them extra time, but we'd always allow the extra time also for questioning. As long as you give me some flexibility, depending on the circumstance....
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chairman, I think the other vice-chair will also agree to this. We've been very flexible in the past. It has worked out very well. It's been done by consensus, and we've worked with this written wording. It has worked before, and unless there's any objection, I don't see, for the benefit of the chair, any need for amendment.
The Chair: Mrs. Gallant.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Does the time limitation apply to ministers as well?
The Chair: As you know, when ministers appear, we allow them no more than 20 minutes. With the last estimates, we adhered to that for every minister. In fact, we ended up asking a minister to cease because we wanted to get into questions. We do not allow ministers to go past 20 minutes. They're warned ahead of time that they have 20 minutes, and we don't want any games played where somebody can take up 40 minutes so there can only be 20 minutes for questioning. When that happens, we extend time.
Monsieur Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: At the end it says: “[...] at the discretion of the Chair.” What exactly does this discretion concern? The alternating allocation of time, or the duration of the intervention? I think that you provided an explanation as to the length of questions, but could the chairman's discretion also extend to the fact of deciding who among the members will first be given the floor? Is it really systematic in this committee, or is it the opposition that begins, followed by the government party, followed by another round in the same order?
[English]
The Chair: We always start with the opposition and then go to the government side in each case. When we have extra time and we're going through questioning, we might give the first round a few extra minutes to make sure everybody has a chance. Then in the second round, depending on time, we might reduce it, in order to again give as many of the opposition and the government members an opportunity to speak as possible. It's worked pretty well in the past by making sure we watch the clock and how many people still have questions.
¹ (1555)
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Chair, perhaps I could ask for a further clarification on that. As I read this--and bear with me in the mathematics here--if 10 minutes is allocated for the first questioner of each party, it means that when a minister is present, the first 50 minutes of questions are taken up by 5 people.
The Chair: This is a little bit different from what we've had. Mr. Rajotte, was it 7 minutes?
Mr. James Rajotte (Edmonton Southwest, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chairman, it used to be 7 minutes, I believe.
Perhaps the committee should suggest that ministers receive the 10 minutes that's allocated here. Minister Rock last time took about 10 minutes, if I'm not mistaken.
The Chair: Depending on what the priorities are for those ministers at that time, some ministers a little bit more, some less. What we've done is say no more than 20. In the past some of them have come here for 30, 35, 40 minutes. That's why previous committees have reduced it to 20. If there's a major item that the minister wants to bring forward, we don't want to make it short, because then all they're doing is explaining during the questioning.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of clarification--and I'm probably having a dull day--as I read this, if I follow it through--and you'll forgive me if I use names--if Mr. Rajotte is the first intervener, followed by Mr. McTeague, that's 20 minutes. Then it goes to Mr. Crête, and he gets 10. Then it goes to Madam Redman, who gets 5. Then it goes to Mr. Masse, who gets 10. Then it comes back to Mr. Savoy, who gets 5. Then it goes to Mr. Barnes, who gets 10. Then it comes back to Mr. St. Denis, who gets 5. So by the time we have finished going through each of the parties, it is not 50 minutes, it is 65 minutes. If the minister has 20 minutes, that's 1 hour and 25 minutes. That would mean that if we go in alphabetical order, I could never ask a question.
The Chair: I think that's why we decided to take it down to 7 minutes and just kept it 7 minutes all the way through.
Mr. Fitzpatrick, then Ms. Gallant.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: In relation to how you exercise your discretion in proportion to representation, Mr. Volpe's example didn't really meet what I thought I was trying to illustrate at that point. The Canadian Alliance has 60-some members in the opposition. When you look at this allocation we've worked through, a party with 13 is going to have the same amount of time in the committees as the party that has 66 or 67 members. That's what I was saying, that in the exercise of that discretion, the time should somehow be allocated according to the proportion of representation we have in here.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: On my point of clarification, I wonder if you'll allow this, Mr. Chairman. I have raised this before. In my view, you can do great justice to the representation in the House--on both sides, by the way--by just taking a look at the numbers at the table. If everybody had five minutes, the Alliance Party would have 15 minutes, the Bloc would have 10 minutes, the NDP would have five, the Conservatives would have five, and the Liberals wouldn't have much more, an additional five minutes and that's it. The way I read the discretion, Mr. Fitzpatrick, is that in the event that we don't have a full house, the chair can go to a second round where the NDP or the Conservative can have an additional go. In fact, it could happen with the Alliance, that it could come back and you'd have an additional round. But I can't see how the chair would have the discretion if the time is consumed. You can give him all the discretion in the world, but if you say you're going to go 10 for each of the first members of the five parties and then five minutes, and we meet for an hour and a half to two hours, not everybody's going to get a chance to have an intervention.
In my time on this committee, it's the spirit of involvement for everybody that has attracted me. If everybody's going to get a chance to be involved, then there's a good working environment. If there are no other questions, Mr. Chair, I hope you will entertain a motion, and I'm prepared to give one, reflecting my understanding of what I'd like to do.
º (1600)
The Chair: Ms. Gallant was going to speak next, so I would like her to speak before you make the motion.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: I would suggest that if a minister can only stay for an hour, his or her remarks be confined to 10 minutes. We've had situations before where by the time everyone was sitting down, 10 to 15 minutes had gone by, and they had to be out for a cabinet meeting at 10 o'clock.
The Chair: The only time we've had problems with a minister here is when there's been a vote in the House. If it's a cabinet minister, they're usually excused from cabinet to appear for at least the 90 minutes. We've been adhering to the 90 minutes. The only time we got interrupted last time around was when there was a vote called.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: My motion would be that the minister's speaking limit be 10 minutes if he or she is appearing only for one hour. That is the motion I'm putting forth.
The Chair: Okay. Could I take that under advisement, or do you want that as a motion?
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: I'd like that as a motion.
The Chair: Okay. It is moved by Ms. Gallant that when a minister appears and it's for 60 minutes, the minister have no more than 10 minutes before questioning. Ms. Gallant, is that what you want?
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: That is correct.
The Chair: Are there questions?
Mr. Rex Barnes (Gander—Grand Falls, PC): There's no trouble with giving the minister only 10 minutes, but I think, if this is going to work effectively, whatever the party you come from, you should be treated as an equal on the committee, so that each person has an opportunity to ask a question of the witness or the minister, regardless of where he or she sits. If it isn't so, you're going to cause internal conflict for no reason at all. If you separate it and all of a sudden you work together as a unit, and we know the Liberals hold the majority on the committee, of course, that's fine. But each party should be given the same status in speaking for the same time to question the minister.
The Chair: That's not speaking to the motion. I think we understood what you were getting at, but I'd like to have a discussion on the motion first.
Monsieur Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Precisely, the distinction has to be made carefully. That is what Ms. Gallant suggested, and it has nothing to do with the other issue. It is just to ensure that when a minister comes before the committee, if he is coming only for an hour, we do not have a 25-minute speech and 35 minutes for questions. This is in my opinion a very relevant issue, one which we should settle; we can then move on to the other motions.
[English]
The Chair: I can assure you, Mr. Crête, that the ministers have been cut off at 20 minutes as long as I've been chairman and that we minimize ...
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the motion correctly, it is requesting that when a minister comes before the committee for 60 minutes, and we have been given notice of that fact, he be given 10 minutes at most.
[English]
The Chair: Agreed. Let's vote on the motion.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Let's go back to the main motion.
Mr. Rajotte.
º (1605)
Mr. James Rajotte: To follow up on what Mr. Volpe said, if we allocate five minutes per member, which I think is a fair way of doing it, and if we have an hour and a half or an hour, is it possible for the clerk then to allocate that time? Say the Alliance has 15 minutes, and that's fair, we know we have to share that time, the Bloc Québécois has ten, they know they have to share that time, and so on.
The Chair: What I've done in the past is, depending on how many people are here--many times we don't have everybody here--move it up from five to six or seven minutes in order to give the questioner a little more time. Then I keep score with the clerk to make sure we've allocated all the time. You can check the score sheet any time you want, and you'll see that I've allocated--
Mr. James Rajotte: I would certainly say you have been extremely fair in the past. I think what Mr. Volpe was referring to, though, is that if a minister comes, obviously, all the members are here and they all want to ask questions. It's those times when everybody's here and wants to ask questions that we should perhaps have some formula that allocates time.
The Chair: I think, Mr. Volpe, you were going to put a motion.
Mr. Joseph Volpe: If everybody understands where I was coming from, I'm prepared to move a motion that each member get five minutes, and the rotation be as indicated here.
The Chair: That it goes back and forth.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Mr. Marcil.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: Mr. Chairman, when you say that we alternate, that means that if the Alliance has the floor for five minutes, then it is the turn of the government party, and then you go back to the other side and then to the government party again. Is that correct?
[English]
The Chair: That's right. What we try to do is go back and forth.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: What I understand from Mr. Volpe's motion is that five minutes would be given to the Canadian Alliance, five minutes to the Liberals, five to the Bloc Québécois, five to the Liberals, five minutes to the NDP, five minutes to the Liberals, and five to the Conservatives. Otherwise, there will be 30 minutes of debate between the government and the Canadian Alliance before the other parties are given the floor. Here, the effect would be the opposite of the one Mr. Volpe was seeking to achieve. It would have to be five minutes, five minutes, but by giving the floor alternately to one party, then another.
Mr. Serge Marcil: The principle put forward by Mr. Volpe is that all parliamentarians around the table have the right to speak. So, each one must have at least five minutes. We are not taking political parties into account, in fact. We do not want to allocate time by political party, but by members present.
I understand what Mr. Crête means. We have to avoid the situation where, at the outset, the three members of the Canadian Alliance will each speak for five minutes. We have to have a system where a member of the Canadian Alliance would speak, followed by a Liberal, followed by a Bloc member, a Liberal, a Conservative, a Liberal, one from the NDP, a Liberal, and then we start over again. We would have to do it that way, and not by party.
[English]
The Chair: Exactly. It goes back and forth. When we get to the point where there are no questions, we always go back to the official opposition and back to the government. Sometimes--and I understand this--the Conservative Party and the NDP Party come to a meeting and then have to leave because they're on another committee. The objective is to allow them to at least speak their five minutes, because they would leave and it comes back to the official opposition. Okay?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure I understood correctly. We hear a witness, and the first person to ask a question is a Canadian Alliance member, and he or she has five minutes. Afterwards, five minutes are allocated to the Liberals, five minutes here, and we give the floor alternately to the different parties.
[English]
The Chair: Okay. Let's vote on the motion.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Let's go to motion 5.
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: There's not a separate motion for what I would like to raise, but it does fit in after this motion.
º (1610)
The Chair: After the motion on witness expenses?
Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Yes. It is that when we have a minister appearing before us, we direct the clerk to apply for the room for television coverage. We went through this the last time, and it's not automatic.
The Chair: The House leaders, I understand, were to put a procedure in place, and I believe it is in place now, that when a minister is appearing in front of a committee, they automatically go to a televised room. If there are more ministers appearing at committees than there are rooms, then the House leaders will decide.
Okay. Motion 5, moved by Mr. McTeague, seconded by Mr. Masse.
(Motion agreed to)
Now motion 6 on working meals.
(Motion agreed to)
Now motion 7, notice of new business.
Mr. Masse.
Mr. Brian Masse (Windsor West, NDP): There's this 48 hours of notification, but are members then provided with that information, if there are some written documents?
The Chair: As soon as the clerk receives it, he immediately puts it out to all the members. All right?
Mr. Brian Masse: Thank you.
The Chair: We hope to have a calendar of meetings and so forth soon to make it easier for your planning.
(Motion agreed to)
Motion 8 is on attendance.
(Motion agreed to)
Motion 9 concerns transcripts.
(Motion agreed to)
Motion 10 is on distributions.
Mr. Rajotte.
Mr. James Rajotte: I support the motion, Mr. Chair, but last committee we had a number of situations where witnesses did not translate their information, so a lot of the information was not available to the members. So could we make it explicitly clear to witnesses that they are supposed to provide it in time so that it can be translated? I think there were five to seven times when witnesses did not have the material translated.
The Chair: Mr. Clerk, that's your direction.
Mr. Bagnell.
Mr. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): I have a question about procedure. If they send it in, does the clerk translate it for them, or do they have to do the translation?
The Chair: The clerk has facilities to do the translation. Many times the document is not available, so it can't be translated and so forth. I think we'll have the clerk do the background on the official procedure, so the steering committee understands.
Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I just want to make sure—and we have always cooperated on this—that the documents will be tabled in both languages, to the extent that this is possible. If in certain cases this causes a problem, we should then ensure that the translation of documents is done as quickly as possible so that they can be tabled with the committee in both languages, as they should be.
Mr. Serge Marcil: ... always in both languages.
[English]
The Chair: Exactly.
Mr. McTeague.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: It should not be “if possible”, but “always” in both languages.
[English]
Mr. Dan McTeague: I think, Mr. Chairman, it deals strictly with documentation the committee has received. There have been times in the past when the chair has provided discretion, depending on, basically, the consensus of the committee that a witness should not be denied an opportunity to present because of a clerical problem or a misunderstanding that was not meant to be in any way intentional. So the discretion is with the committee.
º (1615)
The Chair: I take Mr. Crête's comments very seriously. If it's at all possible, we should attempt to make sure we have everything in both official languages. I think your assistant would vouch for the fact that we try as much as possible. We've had it both ways this past year.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: As Mr. Marcil said, the documents have to be tabled in both languages.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. St. Denis.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: I have a question regarding the handling of future business meetings. How do you foresee this working out? Would just the subcommittee deal with future business, or would all members be invited? I can see the subcommittee meeting on some things, maybe planning and what not, but when it comes to the long-term planning and the list of items before committee, would all members be invited?
The Chair: Any of the members can come to the steering committee meetings.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: We'd always be given notice, then?
The Chair: You're always given notice when we're meeting, because you could be asked to substitute. Once we get all the information, we'll make a calendar of events and try to do things well in advance, so you can plan.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: If we're all invited, that's the answer.
The Chair: Yes, you are.
I'm told we didn't carry motion 10.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Since we weren't really constituted till today, there was no possibility to give advance notice on matters. If you look on your calendar, November 18 and 19 see the innovation summit in Toronto. I advised the minister back in June, if you remember, to make sure the industry committee members, whoever they were at the time, would be invited to the major summit in Toronto, which is on the afternoon and evening of the 18th and on the day of the 19th. I've been trying to find out if you got invitations or not, and my understanding is that those invitations have not come forward yet. Mr. Marcil, I would ask you to follow up to see about members who wish to go. Each of the parties might like to send two or three people, the Alliance might want to send at least one, and there might be some Liberal members who want to go. This is the accumulation of all the summits that were held across Canada from sea to sea to sea, and now it's going to be a summary summit in Toronto.
Mr. Marcil.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So there will be more than 400 people present at this summit: academics, business people, and all of the members of the House of Commons are invited to attend. They will probably be receiving an invitation this week. We talked about this this morning at the government committee and everyone agreed that all of the members of the House be invited. Of course, everyone will not be able to go because we are in session, but at least, each one of the parties will be able to send people if it wants to and the members of the committee should be present.
[English]
The Chair: My concern, as chair of the industry committee now and in the springtime, was to make sure the industry committee was there. We'll let the rest take care of themselves. I appreciate your comments. My concern is that the industry committee should have some representation there, because we will have follow-up work to do. It's better for us to be in attendance, if possible.
I probably should have done this in the springtime, but I failed to. Unless we have a motion, our researchers can't go. It has to be moved in the committee, and not being constituted, we couldn't send out a notice of motion. I think it would be bad for us not to have two or three of the people we count on to do research for us in attendance. We would need a motion that would read along the lines that the industry committee send at least two or three researchers to the summit, to be paid out of our travelling account, if possible. The reason I say “if possible” is that I don't know whether we have a budget. We can't have a liaison committee to give a budget until we have all the committees, so until we have all the committees, we can't meet as a liaison committee, we can't have a budget.
So if you wish, as a committee, to send two or three of our researchers to the summit, I would ask for a motion from the floor.
Moved by Mr. St. Denis that we send up to three.
Mr. Rajotte.
º (1620)
Mr. James Rajotte: Maybe Monsieur Marcil will respond to this. What is the format for this meeting? I attended the one in Calgary and the one in Ottawa. Is it similar to the one that occurred across the country, or is it different in format?
Second, it's less than two weeks away. Is there a reason why members who were on the industry committee in particular have not received any notice? Maybe you know that, Mr. Chairman, I don't.
The Chair: No, I don't know. I would rely on Mr. Marcil to give the full answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: The format will be a series of plenaries and workshops. There will be opening remarks by the Prime Minister on the evening of the 18th, I believe. In fact, this is not a symposium where we should intervene as a government or even as parliamentarians. We will be there to listen to people who will be coming from all regions of Canada. We will be there to listen to what they have to propose concerning this new orientation the government of Canada wants to put forward. It is a follow-up to all of the regional symposia which were held throughout the country. People will be able to express their views on various topics in the workshops, and the symposium will end with a large plenary.
So no parliamentarians or ministers, with the exception of the Minister of Industry and the Prime Minister, will be making an opening speech or closing remarks. Why? I cannot give you the reasons because I do not know them. All that I know is that what was said this morning was that all of the members of the House of Commons, the members of the Industry Committee among them, were to be invited. I do not know anything else. First of all, I am not a public servant, and secondly, I am not privy to the secrets of the powers that be.
[English]
Mr. James Rajotte: As a follow-up question, will the Minister of Human Resources be there? This is a partnership between Industry and Human Resources, is it not?
The Chair: That is correct.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: Ms. Stewart and the other minister should also be there.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick: Prior to that meeting would it be possible for the members of the industry committee to receive the summaries of these regional summits that were held throughout the summer, or the findings that came up from those workshops?
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: If memory serves, everything should be published next week. A summit has just ended in Toronto. So I think that everything should be finalized at the beginning of next week. I will convey the message.
Mr. Chairman, it would be a good thing if the Industry Committee made the request. It might be the right way to go about it. Normally, these meetings are public. All parliamentarians could participate in all of these debates in the regions. So, it is a public process; there is nothing to hide in all of this. It is only a matter of technical details and organization. The last summits ended last week, and they need time to gather all of the proceedings into one volume. I think that we should be receiving this next week. I don't know how many copies will be printed. I think that all of the parliamentarians should receive the document, but the Industry Committee could make the request right now, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I am a bit surprised by what Mr. Marcil is saying, that parliamentarians were invited to all of these meetings. In Quebec, Canada Economic Development held meetings to which business people were invited. Members of Parliament were never invited to participate in these events. I asked to be sent interim reports, but I was told that it was impossible to get them before the final version was published. I think they referred to 17 regional reports in Quebec, and there was to be a comprehensive report, but to my knowledge, Quebec parliamentarians were never invited to attend these events. I would like to know if you were.
º (1625)
Mr. Serge Marcil: Of course, as parliamentary secretary, I could attend all of the regional symposia. There were meetings in all of the regions and they were public. So they were not only for a select few.
Mr. Paul Crête: In any case, we were never invited to these meetings.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: That is correct.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Marcil, if there are documents available in advance for the summit on November 18 and 19, is it possible for you to send them out to the members of the industry committee?
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil: I am going to enquire, Mr. Chairman, and convey the message to the Minister of Industry.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
Ms. Girard-Bujold.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I would like the committee to be informed. Whenever there are meetings like those in the Quebec regions, opposition members are never invited to them. I always complain about this to Canada Economic Development. Since Canada Economic Development comes under the Department of Industry, I would like us to say to the minister responsible that until further notice, we are members elected by the population and must participate in discussing on the issues that are raised at these meetings. This is not the first time that we have made this request and we never receive a reply. I am thus asking the parliamentary secretary to bring pressure to bear on the minister responsible for Canada Economic Development and tell him that in a democracy, the opposition must be taken into account.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
I suppose we could go on to have some discussion on future business, but I'd have to go in camera and ask those who aren't assistants to the members of Parliament to leave.
[Editor's Note: Proceedings continue in camera]