CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 26, 1999

• 0911

[English]

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

Your first item of business is to elect a chair of this committee. I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Could I just suggest, in keeping with democratic tradition, that we hold a secret ballot for the election of the chair and vice-chairs?

The Clerk: I'm not in a position to receive any other kind of motion except for the election of the chair. That's my role here.

Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): I would like to nominate Mr. Fontana as chair.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): I will second that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): He had his hand up first.

The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. Mahoney and seconded by Mr. Bonwick that Mr. Fontana do take the chair of this committee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I declare Mr. Fontana the chairman of this committee. Mr. Fontana.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

An hon. member: Recount.

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): I haven't had a gavel in a long time. Thank you, colleagues.

Now to the election of vice-chair. May I have a mover?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I would nominate Leon Benoit as vice-chair.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Nominations for second vice-chair.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Steve Mahoney.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Colleagues, we have a number of routine motions I want to go through to get this committee properly constituted.

By consensus, I think the way the committee operated before was that the committee met on Wednesdays from 3:30 to 5:30 and on Thursdays from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. Can I have a mover for that?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Before we move on this, have we checked this out with respect to what other committees are meeting at this time? We all have conflicts, and we would like to start off by minimizing the conflicts rather than maximizing the conflicts. So can the clerk or anyone else inform us as to what other committees are meeting at these times?

The Chair: John, I wonder if I could be helpful. It's a good question. As I understand it, these times have been vetted through the various whips' offices in order to minimize, as you say, interference that other members may have with regard to the other committees.

• 0915

For now, let's choose these times. I will do a further check, along with the clerk, and if in fact we find that there is some problem, then of course the steering committee and/or this committee could choose some different times. So far, I understand that these slots have been vetted through the various whips' offices and in fact meet the criteria you just spoke of.

Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Is four hours a week sufficient time to do the business of the committee?

The Chair: If we need more time, we could always set more time. You're absolutely right: there may be some subject matters or certain things this committee may want to do where in fact at your pleasure we may want to meet for longer periods of time. But I think we should leave that on an ad hoc basis.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Okay.

The Chair: Any further comments on that routine matter? None? Any objections to it?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): I accept my colleague's recommendation. There were negotiations, we have a rather tight schedule and I agree with my colleague that it is difficult but insofar as possible, I would like us to stick to the time slots and days chosen here today, since such was the agreement among the whips. We all know how difficult it is to negotiate times and days for meetings that suit everyone. So I would like us to stick as much as possible to what we agree upon today.

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Objections to that motion? None? Okay.

Establishment of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure: you have before you that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be composed of eight members—the chair, the two vice-chairs, two representatives from the Liberal Party, and one each from the BQ, NDP, and PC. I think that was the steering committee from before.

Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm not sure how common this is, Mr. Chairman. Most of the committees have a steering committee that has the chair, the.... Well, it just takes out the two extra representatives from the Liberal Party on this subcommittee on agenda. It doesn't make a great deal of difference, but usually you work by consensus anyway, and unless you guys want to hammer four people out to every one of these meetings, I don't know if you need it. Those meetings are usually pretty informal and work by consensus. Unless you think you really want to have that, I would say that most of the other committees I've been on just have the two Liberal representatives and then one each from the other parties.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chair, obviously Mr. Strahl and I are not attending the same committees, because the steering committees that I've attended in fact are constructed in a similar fashion to what you've described. I would suggest that this committee follow the same direction.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Now to hearing evidence and publication of the same when a quorum is not present. I think this motion deals with being a little respectful for our witnesses. We know how crazy it can get around this place between votes and other things, so the motion here is a recognition that we should be able to begin the meeting with at least three members of the committee for the purposes of hearing the witnesses and that the meeting be called definitely on time, fifteen minutes after it's supposed to.

Yes, Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like to see, if we could, a change to “no sooner than ten minutes”. Those fifteen-minute waits became too common last year. As well, make it five members, including two from the opposition, which is a more common requirement that is put into committees.

The Chair: Paul.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Again, there's an established principle that all committees have been going on, and that's certainly not it. Not that I'm suggesting that it wouldn't be nice to have two opposition members, but we certainly can't be holding up witnesses for two opposition members to show up. I would suggest we follow in line again with the chair's recommendation.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): I just wanted to make a point that I've had similar experience in other committees I've been on when only one opposition member has been able to arrive. You just have to move forward with the witnesses. So I don't think it's an unreasonable provision.

The Chair: Bernard, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the wording of this proposal, it would be possible to have a meeting with witnesses in the presence of three government members without a single opposition member. Is that correct?

• 0920

[English]

The Chair: I think it's fair to say in this case any three members for the purposes of hearing from the witnesses. It could be three opposition members, namely the vice-chair and two others.

I think the whole view here, and again there's some precedence, is to be respectful of the people who come to this committee, sometimes from afar, to make presentations. I like the idea of ten minutes. The sooner the better, because time is precious around this place.

With regard to three or five, I think it was the view that there was a problem getting five people here the last time, as I understand it. In some committees that happens to be a problem. So three was a way of making sure we were, again, respectful of the witnesses. If they show up, we can at least begin the meeting. It could be three opposition, it could be three government, or it could be a combination of either. That was just to begin the meeting for the purposes of hearing the witnesses.

I have Chuck, Jack, Mr. Mahoney, and Mr. Price.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure with your firm hand at the till...at the tiller, there is going to be no trouble.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Sorry about that.

The Chair: I like to levy fines, I should tell you right now. Anybody who is late will be paying big time.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It just came out that way. I don't know what happened to me.

Anyway, we'll be starting on time and you'll get all the members you need.

I really think there should be at least an opposition member present. If you're down to three members, and it does seem to me that somewhere on this side...I don't know if you had trouble getting Reformers to the meeting the last time or not. I think there's generally an opposition member available. There should be somebody from the opposition and I think normally you'll be able to get that. I think there's enough cooperation to get at least one person—I would hope.

The Chair: I think as whip of the Reform Party you'll make sure at least one of yours is here.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Absolutely.

The Chair: You'll be it, won't you, Jack?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Do chickens have lips?

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Last time I checked they did.

Mr. Chairman, I have two points to make. In terms of your comment with regard to respect for the witnesses, if I was a witness or you were a witness and travelled many miles to appear before this committee, I don't know if it would be respectful if only three members showed up out of a 13-member committee. I make that point.

The other point is I think we should not have a meeting taking testimony if there's not a member of the government present, and certainly there should be a member of the opposition present.

So I have a concern about the last part of this motion. I think we should scratch the last part and leave the requirement of three members, if this is the will of the committee, but it must be comprised of at least one government member and a member of the opposition.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): That's exactly what it says.

The Chair: Steve, and then David.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the ten minutes. I find the motion here, though, is a little bit contrary, where it says “including both Government and opposition be present” and then it goes on to say “with the provision that” you can go ahead anyway. Frankly, we should strike one or the other of those out of the motion.

My concern is that we have obviously less of a problem than the opposition members in fielding people, just because of numbers. You could be on conflicting committees and be unable to show. We could have people travelling from Vancouver or from anywhere in the country. These presentations are recorded. They come here to put their concerns on the record.

While the best-case scenario would be a turnout such as we have this morning for anybody to make a presentation, I don't think we can ask someone to either come back or to stay overnight, if they have other plans. We have to be able to go ahead. Hopefully, all of us, all parties, will make their best efforts to appear, particularly when there are presentations.

I would like to move that we strike the words “including both Government and opposition be present” and that it just simply read:

in the case of the absence of either the Government or the opposition, the Chair be authorized to call a meeting no sooner than 10 minutes after the time indicated as long as 3 members are present.

Mr. John Bryden: I second that motion.

The Chair: David.

• 0925

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Chair, I actually go opposite to that and say that we strike the next sentence. The phrase, “including both Government and opposition be present”, should remain there, with numbers not listed.

The Chair: Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have one final comment. I find it unbelievable that we'd be taking witnesses without government members being present. The Government of Canada ought to be represented at these committee meetings. If we're prepared to take testimony from witnesses without the government being represented, I think that's wrong. I agree with my original comments as well as with what my colleague from the Tories has said.

The Chair: Thanks, Jack.

John.

Mr. John Bryden: Just to put the cards right on the table, one of the reasons I feel we have to go the way Steve is suggesting is that there is always the danger these committees may become partisan in nature, that we may get into a big fight.

Some hon. members: No!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Not this committee.

Mr. John Bryden: If you have a requirement that either government or opposition members need to be present, it gives the opportunity to government members to paralyse the committee by not turning up and to opposition members to paralyse the committee by not turning up.

If you do that—and I'm not saying this committee will ever do that, because it's only very rarely that I've actually seen a committee fall into that type of open warfare—if it does occur, it's the witnesses who suffer. If any side stops this committee from having a scheduled hearing and if the witnesses have to travel from wherever they travel from, they're the ones who take the consequences. That's the reason I'm supporting the amendment as proposed by Steve.

I say this with great respect to my colleagues opposite, because on most of the committees I've worked on I've enjoyed only the greatest cooperation and we've actually moved forward excellently. But we still have to provide for that contingency.

The Chair: Maybe I can be helpful here. All of us have raised some very good points, but the main point, obviously, is that it's important when people come to a committee of the House of Commons for the purpose of giving evidence because we're having such hearings that we give them all the respect they deserve.

I think all of the points have been made. I think it's incumbent upon both the government side and the opposition side to make sure they hear from witnesses. Having been around this place, I know that sometimes there's nothing more discouraging than coming 4,000 miles to find only two or three members here. While it is on the public record and it may seem okay, the fact is that people get demoralized if out of fifteen members only three show up.

I think the rule ought to be this: that we stick to at least three, that the government and the opposition should each be part of the three, and that we move to ten minutes.

If we find we're going to have a problem, that's why the second part of that proviso is there, Steve and others. We're going to shoot for making sure that there's a government member and an opposition member out of the three, that both sides be represented. But in the event that wasn't the case, the chair could essentially say that because there were three from only the opposition, we could begin the meeting and not waste any more of the witnesses' time or the House's time. That's why it reads a little conflictingly: it covers both. It did provide for the chair, obviously, to be able to make that decision if there were no opposition members or no government members, and to proceed on that basis.

I'm in your hands. If you want to move with the amendment, that's fine.

The amendment was to strike the words “including both Government and opposition be present”, and to then delete the number fifteen and change that to ten. Is that the motion on the floor?

The Clerk: It is the amendment to the motion.

The Chair: Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, could we separate the two? I support the change to the ten minutes, but I will be voting against the other.

The Chair: Mr. Mahoney.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That's fine. I'll agree to that.

The Chair: We'll separate the issues.

First, on the issue with regard to deleting the phrase, “including both Government and opposition be present”, all those in favour?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: On the amendment on the ten minutes, all agreed?

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you.

• 0930

With regard to the allocation of time for questioning, I can only say one thing. There are different models around the....

I'm sorry. Again, we have to go back to hearing evidence and publication. Is the motion as amended agreed to?

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: On the allocation of time, different committees work in different ways. I've put down a suggestion that I think will be fair to all sides and all parties.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: Well, I'm sorry. Even though I know that in the past there have been some other...with regard to this, I think this is fair to all parties, not only to the government side but to the NDP and the PC, so there is a back-and-forth dialogue.

Leon, you might have some points, but can I just say that I would hope this committee operates with the view that while we represent the government and the opposition, we are all individuals, and around this table we have equal contributions, regardless of political parties making a point. I'd like to run it on the basis, hopefully, of being as non-partisan as possible. Regardless of who has the ideas or the questions, they are just as valid, whether or not they come from the government side or the opposition side. Therefore, one has tried to design it on the basis of that kind of a principle. Again, I'm your servant, so we can discuss this.

Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think we should go with what has proven to be very successful, and that is in fact what has happened at the fisheries committee. I think it would be hard to argue that it was a very successful committee last year. They have readopted this order this year. They have Reform going for 10 minutes on the first round, Bloc for five, Liberals for 10, and then Reform, Liberal, NDP, Liberal, PC, Liberal in the second round.

The Chair: Leon, just so I understand what you're saying, the only thing that would change is.... It starts with the Reform at 10 and then the Liberals get 10 and then everybody gets five. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. The order would be—and this is the way it is in the fisheries committee, readopted this year—Reform 10, Bloc five, Liberal 10, in the first round, and then in the second round everyone getting five, starting with Reform, then Liberal, NDP, Liberal, PC, Liberal.

The Chair: It's a hybrid of this in a way, but on five minutes.

Bernard.

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I'd like to ask two questions before making a proposal for an amendment to this motion.

First of all, what was the method of time allocation for committee members in the last session?

I'd also like to know, since I wasn't a member of this committee before, whether you think the committee worked well with this time allocation system.

So first of all, it would be useful to know how this operated last year and whether the committee functioned smoothly. If the committee is of the opinion that things functioned smoothly, I move that we adopt the time allocation method used last year, that is 10 minutes for the Reform, 10 minutes for the Bloc, five minutes for the NDP and five minutes for the PC, followed by 10 minutes for the Liberals and then a second round. That is my proposal.

The main thing is to ensure that the widest range of political ideas and views around this table are represented. Each of our political parties has a different vision of what citizenship and immigration should be in the coming years, and it seems to me that the proposals and whatever fine-tuning they require should reflect these different political visions.

That is why I move that we adopt the time allocation method used in the last session.

• 0935

[English]

The Chair: Thank you for reminding all of us of what the arrangement was last year. As to whether or not it worked, I'll let others speak to that. I wasn't here either, so I'm not in a position to say.

Chuck and then Steve.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm a little concerned. I know in the altruistic world you spoke of, all members have lots to contribute, so let's just give it all to the Liberals and we'll just listen to what they have to say.

A voice: Carried.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Although I'm sure that has a certain appeal to some members of the committee, in fairness, under this proposal, you're looking at 80 minutes down the round before the first round is done, of which 40 minutes go to the Liberals. I know that's great for—

The Chair: We are the government.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But to be fair, the first round should go somewhat more quickly than that. The proposal Leon has made gets everybody's oars in the water a little bit earlier. Otherwise, under this thing, the PCs have to wait over an hour to get a first comment from one of the parties.

The other thing we should think of in terms of fairness is that although committees are not strictly built along the numbers game, there has to be some recognition of the role of the official opposition and the numbers each party has in it. Basically you're giving it all to the Liberals, and then everybody else gets ten minutes. I don't know whether that's.... I agree it doesn't have to be exactly proportional, but it has to be somehow representative of the numbers of people on the committee and in the House of Commons.

So I would say this is not fair, and I don't think it's particularly fair for the smaller parties.

The Chair: I thought it helped the smaller parties.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Well, it doesn't get them in until....

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could I ask Leon to repeat, so that we can make a note of what he's proposing?

The Chair: Go ahead, Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Again, it's what the fisheries committee operated under last year and has readopted this year. It's ten minutes for Reform, five for the Bloc, and ten for the Liberals in the first round; then five for Reform, five Liberal, five NDP, five Liberal, five PC, five Liberal, and so on through that rotation.

An hon. member: What about the NDP?

Mr. Leon Benoit: They're in there. The NDP are right after the Liberals in the second round.

The Chair: Thanks for the clarification.

Steve, you still have the floor.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Frankly, I like that.

Mr. John Bryden: I like it as well.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You have a chance for back-and-forth.

The other thing I've found somewhat frustrating is that ten minutes is a fairly long time for one member through both rounds to dominate the questioning. Of course we can all do it, but is it productive? Is it really allowing members on a committee to, as Chuck said, get their oars in the water? There's some merit to doing that. If the fisheries committee is doing it, there's a precedent. They've readopted it, and it makes some sense.

I appreciate that of course as government we would like to have the majority of the time, because we are the majority government. But this is a committee. It's a little bit different. Maybe there's a chance, Leon, that we can make this committee work a little better than it did last time by allowing that kind of dialogue back and forth.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like that.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I would too.

The Chair: Thanks for bringing this up, Steve.

The other part of the equation is that yes, it's important to have as many ideas exchanged as possible, and the 10 minutes includes both the question and the answer. Also, rather than the witnesses coming here and just reading from a written text, which we already will have, for 15 or 20 or 30 minutes, hopefully we can keep them down to 10 or 12 or 15 minutes maximum for their presentation, which means more questions can be asked.

David.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The point you just brought up about the witnesses and the length of time comes into it. It's a large factor in this whole problem. Being the last at the end of the line, if I look at this formula, I know from my experience on the defence committee and the witnesses we had there that I would never have a chance to get any questions out.

If you can guarantee me that within this formula I will always have a chance to get questions, fine, I'll go with it. But I know you can't do that within this two-hour slot, which is really only probably about an hour and forty minutes of actually productive time and probably another hour of witness time taken up. The time is just not there.

So we do have to look at a formula that would at least get every party's oar in the water.

• 0940

The Chair: Well, I guarantee you're going to be able to get a question in. If you're the only one from your party and nobody else shows up, you're going to have a lot of questions to ask, based on the formula that we can go back and forth.

John Bryden, John McKay, Sophia.

Mr. John Bryden: I was just going to support Leon. I think that's a fair way of doing it, and it gives deference to the fact that it is the official opposition. There should be some respect shown for that position without unduly inconveniencing or making it difficult for the smaller opposition parties. I think it's a very good idea, and I think this committee could operate very well with it.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John McKay: I wonder whether Leon would entertain a slight amendment, which would be Reform ten, Liberal ten, Bloc five, and just continue on. It's a bit better in the symmetry and recognizes the essential thrust of his point. That way you're going back and forth in five-minute rounds. I agree with Mr. Mahoney's basic sentiments, that members run out of steam rather quickly in ten minutes. I think five minutes is perfectly adequate for people. The first two questions, ten minutes to the Reform and ten minutes to the Liberals, and then back and forth five.

The Chair: Sophia and then Rick.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you.

I think it's important for all parties to speak in the first round. I support that. Reform ten, Liberal ten, the other parties five, five, five, and come back to Liberal ten and then go accordingly.

Also, I suggest that if sometimes ten minutes is too long for one party, it can be shared by two.

The Chair: That's fine too.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Limoges (Windsor—St. Clair, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being late. There was a mix-up on my schedule.

The Chair: Don't let it happen again.

Mr. Rick Limoges: I won't.

The Chair: You buy coffee the next time. The last one in has to buy coffee.

Mr. Rick Limoges: I just wanted some clarification with regard to something you brought up a minute ago, and that is the amount of time allocated to the delegation to make a presentation. Is that specifically limited in these procedures?

The Chair: I have been told that by tradition it's between seven and ten minutes. I'd like to stick to a maximum of ten.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Might I suggest that we put that right in the procedure? I know from my experience in municipal council we usually limited it to five, with the chairman having the authority to extend that as he saw fit.

The Chair: A good suggestion. We'll add it to the allocation.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Because if you let them go longer, they'll repeat themselves and they'll go on and on. I've seen very few situations where they couldn't put it together and make it rational within that period of time.

The Chair: Rick, thanks. I think at the end of this paragraph we might just make note that witnesses will be limited to a maximum of ten minutes for their presentation.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Perhaps at the beginning or at the end of the last paragraph.

The Chair: Okay. I'm going to try to make some sense of this.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: With the concession in there that you have the authority to extend that. If you have somebody travelling from the Yukon and they've prepared a submission for this committee, ten minutes may not be enough.

Mr. Rick Limoges: We can let them know ahead of time.

The Chair: Yes, and that's the point. Hopefully we'll operate on the basis that before they come here we want to see the document in both official languages, or at least brought here way in advance of the meeting so that we know exactly what they're going to be talking about. They can make a short summary of that presentation so that we can question them, rather than reading verbatim for 20 or 30 minutes. It's something we should have and they would want on the record anyway.

Let me try to get a sense of this. I get the sense that there's a lot of support for Leon's compromise sort of situation with that one proviso that the order be changed, as John suggested, to have the Liberals go second for ten minutes. On that basis, I'm prepared to entertain that motion, Leon, if you want.

For the question rotation, we suggest the following: Reform ten, Liberal ten, Bloc five, Conservatives five, NDP five. Right?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, no, no. You go back to Reform.

The Chair: Reform ten, Liberals ten, Bloc five, and that was the end of first round.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

The Chair: Then we go to Liberal five, PC five, Liberal five, NDP five. It rotates back and forth.

• 0945

Mr. Chuck Strahl: In the proposal there, if there's a deference to the official opposition they come back with a five at the start of the second round.

The Chair: Yes. I'm sorry, that's right.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's the only difference. So we get a supplementary round, and then away she goes on the five each.

The Chair: The chair has a problem with these new glasses. They're too strong and everything is so magnified that the fives becomes tens, and the tens become whatever.

I think we have an idea of what we've agreed to, with the proviso that the witnesses.... I'm sorry, Pat.

Mr. Pat Martin: I think the order got flipped, though, with the NDP and PC.

The Chair: Yes, I know. My mistake.

Mr. Pat Martin: Is that clarified?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. No further discussion? All agreed to that great compromise?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Mr. Chairman, I request a vote.

[English]

The Chair: A roll call on it?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I request a vote.

[English]

The Chair: Are you calling for a roll call, or do you just want to see the vote?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: I request a vote. We have a proposal.

[English]

The Chair: A recorded vote?

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 3)

The Chair: With regard to the next motion, that a notice of 48 hours be required before any substantive motion be presented to the committee, I believe that's a standard procedure. It could be waived at any time, I suppose, with the consensus of the committee if that was brought forward and it was an urgent motion.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: With unanimous consent.

The Chair: With unanimous consent, yes.

Leon, and then John.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Just on that, this committee hasn't required any notice, I believe. I think that's what we had last time. Is that not correct?

The Chair: That's true.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would say I don't think that has caused any problem for the committee. I think it actually makes the committee more responsive. I suggest that we maintain that.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Bryden: I have no trouble with the idea of notice, but 48 hours is too long, and I'll tell you why. It hurts the government side as well as the opposition side. If you have your meetings Wednesdays and Thursdays, and one has a 48-hour rule, and you move that notice of motion on Wednesday, it cannot be heard for a full week under these rules.

Now, the idea of wanting a notice beforehand is a good one, because there's always the chance that people may, on this side as well as the other side—and I've been guilty of it myself—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: No.

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, I have.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Really.

Mr. John Bryden: People may try to disrupt the proceedings by popping in a motion that changes the theme of things.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Something to do with God.

Mr. John Bryden: So I do believe that notice is required.

Mr. John McKay: Divine intervention.

Mr. John Bryden: I don't know what I'm going to do with these guys. It's going to be a tough committee.

I would suggest an amendment that it be changed from 48 to 24 hours. I think you will all find that's a reasonable instrument that keeps the committee orderly and doesn't cause any problems.

The Chair: John, before you put the motion, let's deal with this informally and see what the consensus is. There are two questions: one, do we need notice; and secondly, what should be the time period?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Chair, it's my opinion that we do need notice, first of all, and second of all, that 48 hours is not unrealistic. We sit on as many as two and three different committees. Sometimes it's difficult, with us travelling, to be back within 24 hours. The committee structure just doesn't always warrant 24 hours' notice.

I have yet to see something that is so critical that it had to be passed in 24 hours. And there's still the opportunity for consent with the committee to change under a unique situation. So I have no problem with 48 hours whatsoever. In fact, I would support 48 hours, not 24 hours.

The Chair: Jean.

• 0950

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think the experience on this committee has been that we do need the 48 hours, simply because you cannot have a motion put on the table without notice and expect that we would be able to deal with it. If you remember, we've had some difficulty in the past with having to deal with motions placed on the table without notice.

The Chair: Thank you, Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine: They were not properly translated and there were all kinds of difficulties.

The Chair: Those are some very good points, Jean.

Sophia.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I support the 48 hours. It's necessary. It takes time to notify, and in the meantime, we have found that from the west coast it takes time to get here too. Thank you.

The Chair: Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I really would like to be reminded of when having no notice has been a problem in this committee. I just don't think it has been. I think it has allowed the committee to respond to situations much more effectively than having notice would. Certainly, if we're going to go to notice, let's make sure that if we give notice at the Tuesday meeting we can deal with it at the Wednesday meeting—at the very least.

The Chair: As I understand it, though, one is that other committees deal with notice only. But that doesn't preclude, Leon...if something comes up that is absolutely urgent, you shouldn't.... Seek the unanimous consent of waiving the 48-hour period. I've sat on many committees when one member would come in and would say he needed to waive it. In the spirit of cooperation, the waiver is usually given. The waiver provision is there.

With regard to the question of whether or not there have been any in this committee, Steve might be able to say so, but with regard to.... You had another point that I wanted to.... Oh, forget it.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Could I just understand the mechanics of this notice? By the way, there were two issues for Leon, who wanted to be reminded.

Leon, as you might remember, there were two issues that became rather acrimonious. Actually, I don't know if you were on the committee when the first one occurred, but it had to do with a motion introduced by Reform. I think your predecessor was looking to identify the countries of criminals who had been allowed into Canada and it became very...in fact, it was a shouting match and the committee fell apart and the whole thing. That was one. In fact, it was so acrimonious that the solution was that the government side talked out the day so that the vote didn't take place.

The other one, I think, was a substantial debate on the right-of-landing fee.

So there have been instances where it has been a problem. I'd like to see a notice. I think it's reasonable. I'd like to know the mechanics, though, of where and when that notice is given.

The Chair: I was just going to say that.

One is the moment the clerk receives the notice. It could be any day of the week.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right.

The Chair: From the time she gets the notice and it's translated, it comes to us. That's the automatic provision. You don't have to wait for a Tuesday or a Wednesday when we're meeting to make the notice. The moment you want to give notice, you send the notice to the clerk. We'll deal with it within 48 hours. If it happens to be that Wednesday—

Mr. Steve Mahoney: You could do it on Monday.

The Chair: —you could do it on Monday. We'll deal with it on Wednesday.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I did agree with what John was saying about the fact that under the system as we were interpreting it, you could force a delay of an entire week to deal with it. But that's not the case.

The Chair: No.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: This could be submitted to the clerk on Monday and could be on our agenda on Wednesday. I think that's reasonable. We should stay with the 48 hours for the reasons that have been cited, such as the travel, the difficulties of members, the translation issues, and others.

The Chair: Chuck, John, and Leon.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm not sure how you folks handle it in the Liberal Party. I have yet to see anybody jump on a plane and fly from Vancouver on an emergency basis because somebody filed a notice at a committee.

The Chair: We are true Gritters.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, let's be honest. That just never happens, okay? It just never happens.

The Chair: The mail doesn't even travel that quickly.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: That's right. Short of a vote of confidence in the House, nobody is going to do that for a committee meeting. I wouldn't think taxpayers would be thrilled with paying for that unless it was...I can't even imagine something in a committee that would be that overwhelmingly important. So I don't think we should use that as an excuse.

• 0955

I do think John has a point on the 24 hours. I know you can submit a motion at any time to the clerk and have it dealt with. It's not unique, but because of the way the meetings are structured in this particular committee, often there will be business arising either from a witness or from discussions on a Tuesday meeting that somebody may want to deal with in the form of a motion at the Wednesday meeting. You can do it by unanimous consent, but all it takes is one fly in the ointment among 13 people and you're suddenly stymied.

I would say the 24-hour compromise is a good one. It doesn't allow somebody to just step into a meeting and hold up witnesses who are scheduled to come. On the other hand, it allows people who have reasonable concerns, who want to bring a motion forward to deal with at the next meeting, to have them dealt with.

I really think notice is not a bad idea, but unless it proves to be a problem, I suggest that 24 hours is a good compromise. I think it gives that balance between the two concerns.

The Chair: Okay. John and Leon, and then that's it for this portion.

Mr. John Bryden: Chuck has made the point, and that was exactly my point.

The Chair: Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Actually, my suggestion was that we just accept John's compromise and go with 24 hours.

The Chair: Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: On the final point, the justice committee, which was struck yesterday, dealt with this issue, and they moved from the 48-hour notice to the 24-hour notice, bearing in mind that members should have an opportunity to prepare for a motion that is presented, to perhaps do some research and be ready to go when the motion is dealt with. So that was adopted in the justice committee yesterday, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: And transport went from 24 to 48 hours. It doesn't matter.

The consensus is that we ought to have notice, and I think it's split as to whether it be 48 hours. Let's try it on. We'll try the 48 hours and see where it goes. If it's 24 hours—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Actually, John had made a motion.

Mr. John Bryden: No, it was an amendment, and that's changing 48 to 24. Now, if it's defeated, then it's defeated. If it passes, it passes.

The Chair: I was trying to be helpful, John.

Mr. John Bryden: But we can't leave it to the discretion....

The Chair: I was trying to be helpful. You moved it. The amendment is 24 hours.

(Amendment negatived)

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I guess it's 48 hours. I thought I gave you an opportunity, John, but okay.

Okay, next is research: 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. Could I have a motion on that one, please? It is moved by Mr. McKay.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Witnesses' expenses: that as established by the Board of Internal Economy, and if requested, reasonable travelling, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses who are invited to appear before the committee, up to a maximum of two representatives of any organization. Could I have a motion? It is moved by Mr. Mahoney.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Order in Council appointments: that pursuant to Standing Order 111(4), whenever an Order in Council for appointment or a certificate of nomination for appointment is referred to the committee, the clerk shall obtain and circulate to each member of the committee a copy of the resumé of each appointee. Moved by Jean Augustine.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Jack Ramsay: I have a point of order. It's interesting, and I'm pleased to see that the copy of the resumé is included within that motion. We had some debate in the justice committee yesterday on that, and we did adopt it, but I'm pleased to see that this is contained within the body of the motion.

The Chair: Thank you for that, Jack.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: On a point of order, I think they should also include a copy of the Liberal Party card in there. It's just useful for the opposition parties. You don't have to dig that up.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: That's not true, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's just an idea, but I'll leave it with you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Do you want a list of our membership?

The Chair: You can ask a witness any question you might want to.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could I just point out to Mr. Mahoney how reasonable I am, by comparison?

Mr. John McKay: Just in case he forgets.

The Chair: Distribution of paper: that the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents received from the public only when they have been translated in both official languages. Can I have a motion on that? Mr. Price.

• 1000

Mr. Chuck Strahl: On a point of order, is that from either witnesses or correspondence?

The Chair: It says “from the public”.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So that includes witnesses.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So when witnesses come, they have to have it translated themselves.

The Chair: No, not necessarily. The clerk would like to explain the process.

The Clerk: When we get a brief from a witness, or even before that, we advise them that if they would like us to have it translated, we would be happy to translate it for them, if it's a big organization or individuals or anybody else, as long as they send it to us as soon as possible, so that we could expedite the translation.

The Chair: Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so that I'm clear, you can receive documents in either official language and then have them translated.

The Clerk: Absolutely.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So this doesn't preclude someone from making a submission in either official language.

The Clerk: No.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay. It's the distribution we're talking about.

The Chair: It's the distribution—not the receipt, but the distribution.

Any other questions on that? Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Would it be wise, Mr. Chairman, to add right at the end “as per the Official Languages Act”?

The Chair: I don't know what the act says. I don't think that's necessary—

An hon. member: No, it's not necessary.

The Chair: —because I think that's in the spirit of the act, if I'm not mistaken. I don't think that's necessary.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: That's the authority for this motion, though.

The Chair: Yes, pretty well. We don't need it, Jack.

Mr. Jack Ramsay: Yes, okay.

The Chair: Thanks for your cooperation.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Okay, you should all like this one. It's on working lunches: that the committee authorize the chair from time to time, as the need arises, to take, in conjunction with the clerk of the committee, the appropriate measures to provide lunches for the committee and its subcommittees for working purposes, and that the cost of these lunches be charged to the budget of the committee.

And I can assure you it won't be pizza and/or stale sandwiches from the House of Commons.

The Clerk: It depends on the clerk of the committee.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We have to have diversity in this food, though, if we're going to....

The Chair: I would agree. How about some jambalaya or whatever? You'll all trust my judgment.

Do we have a mover? Rick Limoges.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Transcripts: that one transcript of all in camera meetings be produced and kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation, and that all other transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session. This is only for in camera meetings, by the way.

Mr. Rick Limoges: You said “all other”.

The Chair: It should be that “all those” transcripts be destroyed, yes.

Who is moving it? Mr. Brydon.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm very opposed to the idea that any committee or any group of Parliament should meet in camera and have its record destroyed. In the interest of history, particularly a committee as sensitive as this, as we move into the millennium and we're discussing the most sensitive issues that reflect the life of Canada and Canadians, we should never be in a situation where our records are destroyed. We have nothing to hide. We should have nothing to hide. And we certainly should have nothing to hide from history. I would suggest that this—

The Chair: Would you suggest that we strike the last part of it: “that those transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session”? You're right, we could go either way. It doesn't matter; I think this is just the way it's been. So I don't mind. If you like John's argument, then we can strike those last words.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Where does it stop, after “office”?

The Chair: From “kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation”, and then strike everything from “and” on.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Mr. Chairman, with regard to in camera meetings, under what situations would we be meeting in camera? Is there a specific list?

The Chair: I would think the rule is going to be no in camera meetings, only with the exception.... And maybe that exception could be national security. Who knows? It'll just be the exception.

Mr. Rick Limoges: It's just that this particular issue deals only with in camera meetings.

The Chair: You asked a pretty good question, Rick. Steering committees have always been in camera, as I understand it, and those are really the only ones that are in camera.

Mr. Rick Limoges: It just seems to me that for historical purposes and so on, if there's any substantive issue brought out, then it will be brought out in the open at the next open meeting. If there is a reason to meet in camera, then we ought to meet in camera, but frankly I don't know what type of reason there would be to meet in camera.

• 1005

The Chair: Well, you're absolutely right, Rick. As I understand it, the exception is going to be in camera. For the purposes of the steering committee we'll meet in camera, but then that report of the steering committee is brought into the public forum before the total committee anyway.

Secondly, when it comes to drafting reports—and Chuck, we sat on the procedure and House affairs committee—I think right from the start we had better start respecting one another. Some of the work we may have to do in the drafting of a particular report may have to be done in camera, away from those lights, but then brought into the public forum.

That's the only time that I think it could be kept in camera until such time as the committee decides it wants to make it public. No one, on the government side or the opposition side, should go waving this thing to the press and everybody else before the committee and the House of Commons has even had an opportunity to see it. We're doing that work.

So it's only in those two instances that I would understand it—the steering committee and maybe the drafting of the reports. Everything else is going to be done in public as far as we're concerned and you're concerned.

John.

Mr. John Bryden: Well, you're covering the ground that concerns me. When I read this motion I presumed it meant in camera meetings of this committee. Now, I've had experience on committees where the full committee has met in camera, and I've always been desperately opposed to it. Obviously there have to be in camera meetings of steering committees. If that's the case, I think just striking the bottom part of this clause....

Making sure that there is always a record somewhere is the important thing.

The Chair: Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I want to bring forth two motions regarding in camera meetings to deal with this once we finish with this motion.

The Chair: Sure. Let's dispose of this one first.

Mr. John Bryden: But 48 hours—

The Chair: Fine. As it relates to this transcript, if there's no objection we're going to strike those words “and that all those transcripts be destroyed at the end of the session”.

That's deleted now. Is anyone opposed to that? No one?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: I don't have any other things before me.

Leon.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have two motions I'd like to put forth. The first reads that no in camera meetings shall occur without a vote by the committee at an open meeting. The second reads that all decisions to go in camera be made at an open meeting with a two-thirds majority vote required to approve the process of going in camera.

Mr. John Bryden: I agree with that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So we would have an open vote at this committee and you would need a two-thirds majority to go in camera.

The Chair: The only question I have, although I like your motions, Leon, is whether or not the two-thirds is applicable. I must admit, I don't know the legal precedence for whether or not two-thirds contravenes anything in the House of Commons standing orders and everything else. I think if you just kept it to the majority, we could pass it right now. If not, then I'm going to say that we might refer it to the steering committee to look at it.

I like the concept, but the two-thirds may raise some questions. If you want to just make it a majority vote....

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm not sure about the legal niceties or if it conflicts with anything in the standing orders, but the idea, of course, is that....

Again, I know the Liberals are above reproach in terms of playing politics with an issue like this, but they have the majority on every committee. That's as it should be, and nobody fusses with that. But if there is absolutely nobody else of four opposition parties who thinks we should go in camera, not one single person, then it is possible—and I have seen it done, although not in this committee—for the government to just say “Pound sand; we're going in camera”, and away we go.

So in a simple majority, away we go in camera. No one else wants it to happen, so....

The Chair: Leon and Chuck, if we can find out right now, we might be able to deal with it. If not, we can refer the concept to the steering meeting and/or the next time we deal with it. I think everybody is in agreement that we probably should operate on that basis.

It's just this two-thirds; we want to make sure it doesn't fly in the face of a standing order of the House of Commons. We are an extension of that House of Commons.

Rick.

Mr. Rick Limoges: Are we talking now about the entire committee going in camera?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Rick Limoges: I would assume that would be very rare.

The Chair: I know, but he was asking. Just for clarification, I think—

• 1010

Mr. Leon Benoit: If I could, on the first motion, there doesn't seem to be any argument, but as you know, Beauchesne's says clearly that the final decision on whether to sit in camera rests with the members themselves. It's up to us to decide. We decide the destiny of this committee on issues like this.

The Chair: So do you want to move the first part of the motion?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll move the first part for sure: that no in camera meeting shall occur without a vote by the committee at an open meeting.

The Chair: Okay. Any objections to that?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Do you want to hold on the second part until we get a clarification on the two-thirds?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Again, Beauchesne's does say clearly that it's up to this committee to decide that, so there's nothing to—

The Chair: Okay. Just hold that thought for a moment.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Whether there's a legal technicality or not, I have some difficulty with a majority government giving up its majority and extending the requirement to two-thirds from a simple majority. Either this gets the proper 48 hours' notice or Mr. Benoit accepts the amendment to simply say a majority as opposed to two-thirds. You're just raising the bar, in really a rather haphazard way, by putting in two-thirds. I'm just not comfortable with that.

The Chair: John.

Mr. John Bryden: If I may, I'd like to point out to Leon that this is one MP—I don't care what side of the table I'm sitting on—who could never see himself voting for a full committee to go in camera, and I would suspect that the chair has like sympathies. I would think that the majority of my colleagues would be very opposed to it, but I for one am really opposed to in camera meetings of full committees. Consequently, I think it's better and more proper to keep us as a majority—and the majority rules—and always rely on the fact that on the larger issues, and in camera is one of the larger and central issues, the committee will find the correct course.

The Chair: Leon, can I just be helpful? I think the first part of the motion now is the intent. The exception is that we go in camera, and if we have to go in camera it's going to necessitate a vote. I think we can continue the second part, if you don't mind. I could put it to a vote, and it might lose and it might win, but rather than doing that, why don't you just hold onto that second part of your motion until maybe a steering committee meeting where we can discover.... Again, it's whether or not it's fifty plus one or it gets to a threshold of two-thirds. Maybe you don't even need the two-thirds threshold. It could be a number in between. But if you could hold on....

Mr. Leon Benoit: Sure, I'll do that. I do have a motion I'd like to bring up—

The Chair: Does it have something to do with the same thing?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, it doesn't.

The Chair: Okay. With regard to the in camera meetings, I think we've dealt with that.

Another motion?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, and I know that now I would have to ask for unanimous consent because you've just passed a motion saying that we need 48 hours' notice for a motion.

The motion is that this committee conduct a study on all aspects of illegal immigration to Canada, including strategies for prevention, and report back to the House of Commons no later than December 1999. That would give us two months.

The Chair: I'll ask the first question. Does he have leave to present the motion now?

Some hon. members: No.

The Chair: Okay, but can I be a little helpful, Leon? It may very well be this.... Because we're going to adjourn, I wonder if we could do a couple of things. There are going to be an awful lot of good areas that this committee may want to do. You know that the performance report is out, and of course one of the very first meetings we may want is to have the minister come and talk to us about the performance report and any other things.

The other thing, too, is that I would like your suggestions—from everyone individually, not necessarily by party—as to what the steering committee and this committee may want to do in the next, say, year or two.

As you know, the Citizenship Act is in report stage in the House. We do not have any Immigration Act or amendments at this time; they may or may not come forward. But there's an awful lot of good work that we can do on behalf of Canadians as it relates to immigration. It's a very positive thing for this country, we know, but it has some challenges. I wonder if all of you could submit to the clerk your suggestions on some of the areas you may want to discuss. When the steering committee convenes, we can look at those areas that have been suggested by all of us and talk about some of those areas.

Leon, one of them may very well be a study with regard to illegal...did you say refugees or immigration?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Illegal immigration. If I could comment on that further, the importance of dealing with this issue quickly is obvious. Certainly the Mayor of Toronto, the Premier of Ontario, and the Government of British Columbia have stressed the urgency from their point of view, if it's not obvious enough just by what's happened over these past few months.

• 1015

I would hope this committee isn't going to shy away from difficult issues like that. The performance reviews and our reports are important to go over, but we have to deal with these issues that are facing the country right now. Canadians expect something to be done.

The Chair: Can I suggest, though, that we convene a meeting with the minister as soon as possible? I know she would want to come and meet her new colleagues who will be working with her. That way we'll be able to start to talk and ask her some of those questions about illegal immigration and what the government is doing or not doing. The performance report may help us, and then we can move to that.

I've asked for suggestions as to what this committee might want to do as a working plan. We'll convene the steering committee as soon as possible. Please send your ideas to the clerk and we'll talk about them.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

The Chair: Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: In response to what Mr. Benoit just said, you might be surprised, but I agree we should not shy away from those issues. But if we're going to just spring motions on the committee, as has happened this morning, without any forethought and without any opportunity for the steering committee to discuss a format of how we might deal with this, what the procedures are going to be, and how we might communicate with witnesses.... A lot needs to go into it. If we're going to try to do it this way, by throwing it out on the floor.... Frankly that's where we ran into some problems in the last session.

So bring your idea to the steering committee and let's talk about it. I'm very concerned about that issue and about the problems we've seen this summer. I'm sure every member of this House is.

The Chair: Steve, that's a very good point.

Leon, rather than having you put in your notice of 48 hours, why don't we meet as a steering committee on Wednesday, November 3, at 3:30 p.m., for the purpose of looking at your specific request and other suggestions so that we can plan our work schedule? You can put it in writing to the clerk or wait for this committee to meet, whenever it's going to meet formally, with the 48-hour provision. If you could do that, it would be helpful.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Why doesn't the steering committee meet tomorrow afternoon at the normally scheduled time for this committee? People can submit their suggestions in the meantime. I certainly will submit this one, along with others. That way we can get on with this. There's a real sense of urgency.

The Chair: Listen, tomorrow we'll meet at 3:30, the steering committee. You appoint whoever it's going to be. We know who those eight members are going to be. Believe it or not, I don't know who the members of the steering committee were in the past.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'd point out that we now all of a sudden run into conflicts with other committees.

The Chair: Yes, I know.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I can't be here tomorrow, and I'm on the steering committee. I have another committee. I would like to be there for that discussion.

The Chair: I don't mind meeting Thursday morning, if we can find a slot, Leon, for the purposes of the steering committee meeting and dealing with not only yours but some other stuff.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thursday morning?

The Chair: It's just that Wednesday morning it seems we might have a problem.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The Liberals have 156 members.

The Chair: No, but we need steering committee members. That's what we're talking about. Are you going to be on the steering committee, Leon? Who's on your side?

Who's going to be on the steering committee from the Bloc?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Did I hear you correctly? Are you suggesting Wednesday mornings? No? Then what are we talking about? What is the proposal?

[English]

The Chair: No, I said Wednesday afternoon at 3:30 or Thursday morning. Bernard, are you going to be the BQ member on the steering committee?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Bigras: Either one, Wednesday or Thursday.

The Chairman: I see. Thank you.

[English]

David, are you going to be on it?

Mr. David Price: Yes.

The Chair: Wednesday or Thursday is fine?

Mr. David Price: Yes.

The Chair: Okay. We'll find out then. I don't think we'll have a problem meeting Wednesday at 3:30 for the purpose of talking about the work program. That's tomorrow at 3:30. Thank you.

With that, I look forward to working together. We have an opportunity to fashion, for the new millennium, a great immigration act and other matters to make sure things work as they should in this country. Thank you very much.