AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 29, 2000

• 1556

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.

[Translation]

Welcome to the meeting.

[English]

You'll have before you the minutes prepared by the clerk from our subcommittee steering committee that was held last Thursday, March 23. You'll see there that the subcommittee considered future business.

First of all, you are all aware that the estimates will be released tomorrow. It was agreed at the steering committee, which needs a ratification here, that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be invited to appear before the committee on the main estimates 2000-01, and on future expenditure plans and priorities of the department.

I understand from our clerk that the minister has consented to be here next Wednesday from 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m, if the committee wishes.

Is everyone in favour of having the minister here for estimates?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: The next minutes tell you that the subcommittee proceeded to the consideration of a letter to me from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I received it the day before this meeting, it was circulated to all members of this committee, I had it translated, and we discussed it at the steering committee.

In light of that letter and the discussion, the steering committee instructed the research officers to draft a consolidation of the thoughts contained in the minister's letter and the thoughts that were enunciated by members of the steering committee. Our two researchers have put that together and we've circulated for you—it's from Mary Hurley and Tonina Simeone, dated March 28, Parliamentary Research Branch—a draft of those discussions.

This draft was circulated to you in advance. It is about the proposal of what a study could entail. This would be a fairly lengthy study. The only thing I would say at this point, before opening it up to discussion, having looked at this and thought about it a little bit, is that the second line talks about ensuing discussions of the steering committee, and I'd like to take that out and insert something to the effect of—Mary has given me some ideas here—“in the context of the themes advanced in Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan.

Again, if we're going to have a study, it should be in the context of the work that has gone before us and to bring it up to the state where we are now, because many of these issues were addressed in Gathering Strength—Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan.

• 1600

Has anybody not received or not considered the letter and this draft report? Mr. Konrad sent in a letter that has been circulated to everybody. There are some things he wanted to add. I just got that, but it seems that a lot of these things are already in the draft, Mr. Konrad, to a large extent. Do you want to just comment on that? Have you compared the two?

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Canadian Alliance): Well, there are a couple of things I'd like to see changed in here, but I presume we'll discuss the whole document here, maybe page by page.

The Chair: Yes, but I just wanted to give you the opportunity, because you were the only one who put something in writing, to say whether or not you thought some of what you have is already in here.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: As I say, I can talk about the things in my letter, rather than talking about my letter, and fit them into the context of the entire document, as we go through it. I think we should go through this page by page, if that's all right with you.

The Chair: That's fine with me.

Does everybody agree that we should start going through this draft document? Okay.

We'll go to the heading. Does anybody object or want to discuss what this is called? It's an “Outline for Potential Study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development”. The heading is entitled, “Perspectives on Challenges Facing First Nations”. Does anybody have any large issue with that?

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Chair, this meeting of the larger committee affords me the opportunity to explain the position that I defended when the steering committee met.

In my view, it is highly irregular, and even risky, to give the research branch the mandate to proceed with a study covering all of the issues listed here, based solely on a letter from the minister. I wanted to bring this up in this forum because I think the committee should be totally independent vis-à-vis the minister. I believe the committee has the right to set its own agenda. The agenda now before us refers to perspectives. It reflects exactly what the minister wants us to do. I have a bit of a problem with this because while I agree that the minister does raise a number of interesting issues, some of them are highly political and are likely to elicit a reaction of some kind on the part of the opposition. When the minister puts forward a policy, we react to it. However, as for what the minister is proposing we examine, among other things, the Corbière case and the safety of aboriginal women, there is no established policy in place.

Quite simply, the minister is asking the committee to take the initiative and examine the situation and ultimately come up with the basis for a policy that won't be too widely challenged.

I find this approach highly disturbing. Moreover, I was the only person to vote against it at the last meeting. Perhaps some committee members will find that the mandate corresponds to what they are looking for, but personally, as I said, I would have rather we consulted with First Nations to find out what they want. Which studies would they like us to carry out? From the discussions I've had with them since taking this stand, I get the feeling that they are quite simply fed up with studies.

I think Ovide Mercredi said it clearly three years ago when he mentioned that he had shelves full of studies. The time has come for the government to act on the basis of the data collected and studies already conducted and to put forward some policies. It's not up to the committee to formulate policy, either with regard to the Corbière case or to the treatment of aboriginal women, to compensate for gray areas in the Indian Act. I merely wanted to make my position clear.

Of course, if we're voted down and the majority of committee members endorse this agenda, we will certainly take part in these studies. However, I must say that I think the committee is setting a dangerous precedent by taking a letter from the minister and using is as a pretext to order the research branch to consolidate the thoughts contained in the letter and to use this as a basis for a study. Again, I think we are setting a dangerous precedent and I simply wanted to state that for the record. Thank you.

• 1605

[English]

The Chair: Okay. This was actually raised by Mr. Bachand at the steering committee meeting. Our clerk can just comment on the process of receiving letters from ministers, or sometimes directions from the House, and whether that is a normal process, just to clarify the procedure on those things.

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee: This practice has become well- established in recent years. In the past, the minister would table an order of reference in the House which in turn would assign a particular mandate to a committee. In the past seven or eight years, we have seen a different approach in the case of several committees where the minister sends a letter to the committee chair inviting the committee to focus its attention on a particular matter. Therefore, this is a relatively new approach, albeit one that's been used for the past seven or eight years.

[English]

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Madam Chair, I don't read this.... I heard Mr. Bachand last week and again today, and as I said in my last intervention, I appreciate fully what he's saying. We've spent well over a couple of years together in this committee.

There are issues of economic development questions that still need to be tied together, particularly regarding western Canada. Still, I don't see this as a directive from the minister, but rather a point of consideration.

Having said that, I note with great interest Mr. Konrad's letter, which I've just had a chance to review very quickly. It seems to me the official opposition is certainly eager to get into some discussions, perhaps, around the whole rubric or idea of governance. I think we concluded, if I might say—and I think it's a reasonable conclusion—that the questions of economic development and governance are not indistinguishable from each other. We said that we would talk about creating a framework with pillars and posts that reflect both of these and that our discussions could focus on it.

Recently considerable research has been brought forward by the Senate and Congress committees in the U.S., and there's a new and emerging body of research on the whole question of governance, which I think is fairly instructive for our Canadian context as well. The Harvard study, as it's called, has been submitted as a point of departure, at least for our consideration.

So I don't think it would be falling prey to the blind wishes of the minister to perhaps consider some of these things. I don't see his musings, which they really are in the letter, as a way of pushing the committee around, as it were. I think they're good things to consider.

I'd ask my good and reasonable colleague, Mr. Bachand, to think about those two things.

The Chair: Mr. Konrad, go ahead, please.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'd just like to say that the official opposition previously moved to have this committee study issues of accountability. That was refused at the time. The committee instead did the wishes of the minister, which was to look into economic development. That report was panned and shelved after it was submitted.

The minister already sends legislation to this committee, which it reviews. Obviously it has a mandate to do those things. I think the minister should stay out of the other work of this committee and allow the committee to make its own decisions.

I'm in support of what Claude Bachand said. On the other hand, we are anxious to study aspects of accountability. That's the only reason the official opposition is in agreement with the minister to study those things. We were there before, and we don't intend to walk away from it simply because the minister has suggested it.

If nobody else has any discussion on that particular issue, I suggest we move to looking at the draft.

The Chair: I just might clarify that, from the chair's point of view, this committee is the one that does its mandate.

An hon. member: Right on.

• 1610

The Chair: This body in this room will decide. There is a letter that is circulated, and that's why we had the thoughts of the steering committee put together in the first place. It's your decision what you want to study. That's it.

Go ahead, Mr. Konrad. Let's move to the next point.

Before I go, are we somewhat in agreement with “Perspectives on Challenges Facing First Nations”?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: No.

The Chair: Is that what you're talking about then?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Yes.

The Chair: Oh, okay. I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to go to the next paragraph. Go ahead.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I don't care for the title, because it doesn't state the mandate of the committee, which is to look at issues of accountability regarding first nations. I'd like to see that changed.

The Chair: Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Iftody.

Mr. David Iftody: Derrek, invariably, if you're going to look at questions of governance, good governance more generally described is going to necessarily include those kinds of things. What I don't think we ought to do is dive down to the bottom of the lake immediately and tie ourselves to one particular post, because I think it's too narrow a question.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Accountability is very wide, I think, David, and to just say “challenge” is too.... That's my perspective on “Perspectives on Challenges Facing First Nations”. You're welcome to disagree with me. You're entitled to be right or wrong.

Mr. David Iftody: Well, Derrek, I would say that in reviewing questions of accountability within a first nations community, obviously you're going to want to look at the entire functioning, the relationship between the members of the band and the band, groups within that grouping who have come forward to you from time to time complaining—and you've raised these in the House—about concerns they have with respect to the different power relationships within a band council.

Under the whole question of governance and empowerment for good governance leading to economic strength—and therefore accountability—in the communities, it's not improper or unusual to take a broader picture. I don't know if it would be useful to narrow it down. You can raise those kinds of questions day after day if you want, Derrek, but I don't think narrowing the focus immediately in terms of this study is going to be particularly useful.

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): What wording are we talking about?

The Chair: Well, because people wanted to start at the beginning of the document, I started at the title. Maybe I should have first done an overview of the whole document. There's more than one theme in there. There's talk about a background of briefings, first of all, which included looking at the Indian Act, theory and practice—our researcher scoped out some of the things that could be included, if you wanted them to be—a look at policies, again things that could be included; a briefing on the Harvard project; some of the Auditor General's reports; and an understanding of the process of first nations-provincial agreements.

That was just a briefing to bring a baseline of understanding for everybody around the table to start off with, before you even get into thematics.

The thematics included not only what Mr. Konrad is referring to as accountability, but there were themes of first nations women, electoral systems, and—as Mr. Iftody stated—governance and economic development.

What was important to me at the end here was the approach. It was not a directive approach, but a listening approach—as Mr. Bachand pointed out last week—to have the voices and views of those affected be considered. The important point was that obviously this is pretty massive. It can't be done in a very short period of time, but would be done in segments with themes going on certain points.

• 1615

The steering committee last week agreed to put forward to this larger committee that we go with the briefings, first of all, because those would be the easiest to arrange. Then from there perhaps, if this committee wishes, and unless there are further discussions on this point, we could have our baseline briefings and work on the draft of this to see where we're headed and in what order.

You don't have huge chunks of time before now and the end of June. This is not something that can be completed now, and it will have to go on in the fall. I'm advised that we're not likely to get any pieces of legislation, so we're going to have to do a study, and it's going to have to, at the will of this committee, be around certain themes.

So Mr. Konrad, from what I'm hearing as chair, wants just to do an accountability theme. I'm hearing from Mr. Iftody that there's governance. There are other issues that were advanced by the steering committee for discussion, and I would appreciate hearing from some of the other people around the table to see if they are in agreement with any of these approaches.

First of all, on the briefings, is there anybody against this? The recommendation from the steering committee is to have briefings from the department, then maybe from the AG on some of the chapters that have already been identified by the AG, and then from the Harvard project. I included what I got with that letter and had it translated, so all of you have what I have—which I haven't even had a chance to go through fully yet.

But does anybody around the table object to starting off with some briefings overall on these areas?

If you turn to page 2, the researchers have set up 1.A, 1.B, 1.C, 1.D, and 1.E, getting some baseline briefings in those areas. I might add that implicit in that is it would be within the context of Gathering Strength.

Mr. Iftody.

Mr. David Iftody: Madam Chair, I see a real theme emerging here, particularly in section 1.A. I think it would be particularly helpful for the committee to have a number of people come in to talk about these sorts of things. We're looking at taxation; land management; application of provincial laws; exemptions under section 88 of the Indian Act; division of powers in sections 91 and 92; constitutional application; and some background in law, adjudication for example, on aboriginal issues. I think these would be very helpful in setting those boundaries we talked about earlier for the committee.

I would say to Mr. Konrad, in looking at just those themes that emerge there, in addition to the fact of having the minister appear first on the estimates, this certainly is getting to the heart of that question on accountability. It sets the context of how that governance works, in the same way, may I argue, that the concept of the Canadian Constitution—peace, order, and good government—does. We operate under that rubric. What does that mean? Well, you have to start from the basic understanding of our relationships.

Madam Chair, I must repeat, on behalf of a number of parties and of course my minister, that there is not a complete understanding, not only with Canadians generally but among many of our members, of the larger framework in which self-government and the constitutional provisions under section 35 are operationalized within the context of a Canadian reserve system. In other words, when we do those transfer agreements with the Indian reserves, what's the reciprocal relationship between the state and the first nations people? Those whole questions of accountability will come out of that process.

The Chair: Mr. Konrad, go ahead.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have no problem with background, that's for sure. That's important in any study. But just going back to the title, to set the record straight, why do we not call it “Study into Issues of Accountability Facing First Nations”? That covers where we want to go, really. It looks into the interrelationships of all levels of government and the people being governed.

The Chair: Could I make a helpful suggestion?

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Sure, you can.

The Chair: Maybe we shouldn't talk about the title until we've figured out what our study is going to be about. It seems a little backwards, doesn't it? Let's go to something that sounds like we can get some agreement on it. Would there be an agreement to get some briefings from Indian Affairs on these areas?

• 1620

[Translation]

Mr. Bachand.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Getting back to what you just said, Madam Chair, I think that would be a sound approach to take. If there are no objections, I agree that briefings should be held. However, I don't think we should decide right away which issues need to be examined. Let's start by listening to what people have to say and then we can select our study themes. If you go ahead and select some themes today and then ask me to attend briefings later, I will object to the whole process. I made it clear to you that I would.

Before we agree to study the Indian Act, policies respecting aboriginal women, the Corbière case and the Harvard Project, could we first attend some briefings and set our objectives? Or do you want us to decide immediately what our objectives will be?

[English]

The Chair: From my point of view, which is a personal one, I have no objection to working on this draft in stages, hearing some baseline briefings and then coming back to this when the committee has a better view of where they want to go, before we bring in outside witnesses. In other words, we want an understanding and an education, not only of the people around the table but of those reading our minutes and everything else, on where we are today in the context of Gathering Strength with some of these outlined activities.

It's not a real problem for me as chair to set our drafting of what we're studying down the road after our briefing sessions. If that's the will of this committee, as chair I don't have a problem as long as what we're being briefed on is these areas.

Mr. Claude Bachand: These objects.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I have just a quick comment. I'd be willing to go along with that idea, whether we go just with A or we want to include B in it as well. If we are including B, I have just a couple of ideas on what should be added into B.

The Chair: Quite frankly, I think if we did A and B, at least that gives us a couple of weeks to go. Then if we have to, we can come back to the committee and see if they want to go on C and D again.

My problem is trying to have our people lined up. It's not like we say this one day and the next day somebody's ready for us. I don't really want to waste time. We've had to delay a little bit. There's a very real problem of having our hard-working clerks also being clerks for the Senate, as they've gone through the Nisga'a process. I would like to be able to give some notice. I think it would be reasonable to at least have the briefings complete as opposed to partial.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Okay. I'm sure we will have questions for the people when they come to do the briefings. So B will to some extent be included as we move through A, I presume.

Mr. David Iftody: Can I make a comment on that?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. David Iftody: I was just looking at this a little more closely. I think we can perhaps collapse some themes here, depending on the ability of the members to digest or how deeply you want to go into these issues. In section A, the first three points are about the constitutional scope of the act. I think those are one separate issue to be discussed. The next one is about registration and modifications to Bill C-31. Band elections could be another separate category. Then if you go on to the scope of band bylaw-making authority, including taxation; land management; and application of laws, that could fit more fully into and with part B—funding arrangements, fiscal accountability, and audit—as a separate section.

What you do then in terms of setting it out is to provide the constitutional relationship between the Government of Canada and first nations so that we understand those points, move next to an understanding of the manifest application of the Indian Act within that, and then move perhaps to larger questions such as the application of provincial laws, tax laws, band law-making authority. That's where you'll have obvious questions of the fiscal relationships coming in, how they're allowed to spend the money and how they're not, the application of tax laws back and forth, and perhaps audits. This is where Mr. Konrad will have ample opportunity to ask lots of questions on accountability.

• 1625

The third category, Madam Chair, deals with the Indian Act registration, Bill C-31, and women's issues there. That is a matter particularly germane to women. We can bring in perhaps another group of people to talk about that as a separate question. I think the themes are, first, constitutional construction and the fiscal relationships; then this more pointed question of accountability; and then the representation of women within the context of the Indian Act and changes in that, changes in Bill C-31, and other questions that might arise from that.

I would go further to say that in terms of C, D, and E, when you look at understanding the process of first nations and provincial agreements, that can go back to that section of application of provincial laws. There are lots of incidents there in social services and other kinds of arrangements where we can talk about that. The Auditor General's report, obviously in terms of part B with the fiscal accountability, can be used. We can merge in the Harvard project on good governance, particularly talking about band law-making authority and good governance generally. We can merge that into some of those other projects.

In other words, you bring in three different types of people from within the department, maybe in three separate sittings with two hours for each one, to give us a briefing on these particular topics. I think from there, certainly, there would emerge a concrete understanding of where we might want to go for the following weeks.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): I said that each briefing would last two hours. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Yes, two hours each.

I'll just note for the record that when you were giving your categories, you left out relationship breakdown and real property.

Mr. David Iftody: Yes.

The Chair: I think that must have been an oversight.

Mr. David Iftody: Yes, I'm sorry. That would deal with some of the questions this committee wrestled with under Bill C-49. We had many representations from women under that. That would fit perfectly under that.

There are certain themes here and a building-block process in terms of understanding how we got to where we were. Maybe we can provide some more intelligent questions and answers, hopefully.

The Chair: Okay.

I'll just ask our researchers here.... You're the ones who go and get the people from the various departments. Did that seem realistic, having at least three or four sessions in those categories, or is it an unrealistic expectation for us to be able to be briefed in those matters?

Ms. Mary Hurley (Committee Researcher): The clerk and we have not discussed this yet. We are actually going to be sitting down tomorrow and trying to figure out more of a concrete work plan.

I think three might be a bit optimistic, to include all the things Mr. Iftody mentioned under the accountability heading. The way I was hearing him, he envisages including scope of band bylaw-making authorities, scope of and responsibility for land management, application of provincial laws, extent of devolution to first nations, funding arrangements, fiscal accountability, audit requirements and practices, the Auditor General's reports, and the understanding of the process of first nations agreements in one. I think that might be a bit ambitious.

I can see that the constitutional context and the statutory context could be done in one if it were well done. The registration and membership and the band elections question and even the relationship breakdown and real property could be done in one. But for all of those other things, it would probably take two. To a certain degree, those are the most complex in terms of the relationships and the context in which they occur. That would be my view.

The Chair: Mr. Keddy, go ahead, please.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): I think part of our difficulty here is that we're trying to deal with a bit too much information in too short a space of time. I quite agree with the research staff. If we try to break this into three sessions of two hours each, I can't imagine how we can deal with it. I'm not even sure this is where I'd rather head at this present time, when we don't have other issues that need to be dealt with.

The difficulty is that at the end of the year, we have one report that's really.... We have a rough draft and we're not making much headway on that today.

• 1630

I wonder if we shouldn't try to deal with two of the issues on that paper, maybe A and B, and set aside time enough to do that. Then after we do that, if we don't have a clear direction or any other legislation—and we understand we won't have new legislation coming down the pike—we either look at C, D, and E, or we finish up our economic development or do some more on that, do some more on accountability—economic development and accountability go together—look at women on reserve or first nations women in Canadian society as a whole, or decide to do something that's clear. If we have ten issues or a dozen issues, we're here, there, and everywhere and we really can't concentrate on any of them. I don't mind going through this exercise for the next couple of weeks or maybe—-

The Chair: A and B—is that what I'm hearing from you?

Mr. Gerald Keddy: A and B for now.

The Chair: Personally, I agree that we could be more than three sessions. I think A and B would probably take maybe up to six sessions. The people who have to determine that are the ones who are putting it together.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The only advantage here is that most of us—I think all of us—at the table have been briefed and have some background on all these issues now. We just don't have the complete and full background in it. So yes, that might speed it up a bit, but I still think there are other issues out there. I'll just put one on the table: the ramifications from the Marshall decision on the aboriginal fishing strategy that is being implemented on the east coast, which is a great example to do a number of things. I realize there is some controversy involved in the issues, but it's an excellent example to deal with several issues at once, all of which we already have on the table.

Certainly on accountability there's a tremendous amount of money being spent. How is it being spent? Going back to social and economic opportunities, on reserve and off reserve, and implementation of the aboriginal fishing strategy, which is already in place, we have a clear opportunity to look at this in the greater context of whether or not it's going to be successful. Quite frankly, its success will depend upon the ability to integrate the two groups together in one commercial fishery. And that may be my point of view and not everyone else's.

There are many areas here we will be dealing with. It goes back to our original study of economic opportunity for first nations.

The Chair: Mr. Konrad and then Mr. Bonin, please.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Just in responding to Mr. Keddy's suggestion on the aboriginal fishing strategy, I think that's already a subject of study by the fisheries committee. I think we would simply be reproducing work already being done, so I wouldn't be in support of that suggestion.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: The fisheries committee—because I sit on that committee as well—only refers to it.

The Chair: Okay. Mr. Bonin, your turn.

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Madam Chair, I just want to caution the committee on topic A, the Indian Act. I want to caution this committee because all the work—I'm sure things have changed—has been done, and the report to the House of Commons died. As a matter of fact, the bill died because of the election. So now some people are suggesting that we do a study on theory and practice in the Indian Act.

The Chair: No. Maybe I'll have the researcher tell us why they put it in that way.

Ms. Mary Hurley: Mr. Bonin, the idea of the items that are listed on page two is not to do a study of those items, but to get some briefings on those items so that we have a common understanding of how things work. The reason we divided it into theory and practice is because we frequently heard in our hearings that the Indian Act says that things occur in a certain way, and on the ground things happen in practice in a different way. We thought it would be useful for the committee to get an understanding of the circumstances in which the practice differs from the theory. So these items on page two are not your study subjects; they're your briefing subjects.

• 1635

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Okay.

In spite of the information just given, I think most people agree that the Indian Act is so flawed it should either be abolished or at least amended. If what I just said is true, maybe you should get down to business in getting it done, because eventually this Parliament has to address the Indian Act. Everyone agrees on that.

Those witnesses have come forward. We sat until ten o'clock a number of nights. And I'm glad it's not a study, because we would reinvite those same witnesses to the study and then we would reinvite them because we have to do something about the Indian Act. There are only so many times you can call the same people back.

What I'm seeing at this meeting is some people are upset because we don't have lots of meetings so we're going to create some work. That's the way I see this meeting right now. It may as well be said.

I think what we should do is maybe adjourn and then members should submit issues for this committee to study. These should be put on a page and then members should vote and prioritize these issues.

I may be wrong, but I see this as a make-work project. If we have no work to do—and I'm sure there is—we're all very busy elsewhere. I'm as interested in doing work as everyone else is, but I want to make a difference. I don't want to do another study. As my friend Claude said, Ovide Mercredi did tell us very clearly, and he was correct, “My shelves are full of your studies.”

It's the same witnesses every time we do a study. So maybe we should just take the time to reflect a little bit.

The Chair: Mr. Bonin, your steering committee did take a look at this, did do this instruction. The researchers have gone and done what the steering committee has asked.

This committee can either ratify some aspects of that work.... I've been trying to take it slowly, because I realize that their draft just got distributed today. I have no objection as chair to postponing our decision on how we work on that, but there are people around this table who do require the briefings. I would say I would include myself in that body. I don't think I'm an expert on everything that's on that list, and I certainly could personally use those briefings. I'm not afraid to say that to anybody and put it on the record.

So for my part, whether I do that privately in my office or we do it as a committee, I think it's important that we have a baseline of understanding around this table. A couple of meetings of briefings I don't think could be particularly detrimental to the work. Otherwise, we're going to have another steering committee where we come back and go around the same issues. Why not have our briefings and do three or four or five weeks of meetings of those briefings and then come together after everybody has crystallized where they want to go with the remaining time?

This committee is not the generator of legislation, and legislation is how things are going to change. We all know what's been happening dysfunctionally in the House, and there's not a lot of legislation going through. So we are going to do some work in the committee.

Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Madam Chair, I will move that we initiate a series of briefings for this committee and that a quorum not be required for the briefings. That means no motions presented at those meetings.

The Chair: Yes, we actually have done that on the public accounts committee in the past, where it's optional whether people come and you don't have to leave your other committees. So we'll set up those briefings for the benefit of those wishing to be here, quorum not required.

I think that's an excellent suggestion, Mr. Bonin.

Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): I just wanted to vote in favour.

The Chair: Okay, all those in favour—while we've got this much consent.

Mr. Konrad, go ahead, please.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I don't have a problem with that. I would just add that after we get our briefings, possibly the steering committee should meet again—so we don't need to sit here trying to get a quorum of busy people—to put together the further agenda based on what the discussions were here today and what we hear in committees.

Mr. David Iftody: Fair enough.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: So it's unanimously carried.

• 1640

Now, April 1 will come very fast, and we will have zero money. In the event that we would like to invite witnesses shortly, I would like to be able to put at least a partial budget.

Yes, Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I move the budget as it stands.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: That's fine. I will take it to our liaison committee to get us at least a partial budget for upcoming work to be done.

Thank you very much. And I hope the next time we can all reach a quorum within ten minutes, at the very latest—and much preferably, right on time. I undertake to you as chair that I will be here on time. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.