AANR Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

1535

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

The Clerk

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Clerk

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Clerk

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

The Clerk

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC)

The Clerk

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.))

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

1545

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

1550

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1555

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan)

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.)

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

1600

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

1605

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

1610

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

1615

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1620

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Stan Dromisky

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1625

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Reed Elley

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

1630

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1635

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

1640

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Hon. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

The Chair

Hon. André Harvey

The Chair

Hon. André Harvey

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Serge Cardin

The Chair

Mr. Serge Cardin

The Chair

Mr. Serge Cardin

The Chair

1645

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Serge Cardin

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

1650

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Hon. Larry Bagnell

Hon. Andrew Telegdi

Mr. Reed Elley

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. John Duncan

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Rick Laliberte

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1655

The Chair

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Chair

Mr. John Duncan

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 001

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

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

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1) and 106(2), your first item of business is to elect a chair. I'm prepared to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I would like to nominate Mr. Guy St-Julien for the position of chair of the committee.

The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): I'd like to nominate Mr. Pat Martin.

The Clerk: Mr. Loubier, the nominee must be a member of the government party.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: What a shame! However, Guy St-Julien is a stand-up kind of guy. He's nicer that Mr. Bonin, to be certain, and more understanding as well.

[English]

The Clerk: Seeing there are no further nominations, I duly declare Mr. St-Julien the elected chair of the committee.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Clerk: We now proceed to the election of the vice-chairs. For the government vice-chair first, I'm prepared to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, Lib.): I would move that Nancy Karetak-Lindell be selected as vice-chair.

The Clerk: Are there any other nominations?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would have nominated Raymond Bonin, but I don't see him.

[English]

The Clerk: Seeing that there are no further nominations, I duly declare Nancy Karetak-Lindell elected vice-chair of this committee.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Clerk: Now for the opposition vice-chair, I'm prepared to receive motions.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): I would like to nominate Yvan Loubier for vice-chair.

The Clerk: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, CPC): I nominate Maurice Vellacott.

I think you have a letter indicating his concurrence?

The Clerk: Yes.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I nominate Mr. Pat Martin for the position of Vice-Chair. We need to vote. Correct?

[English]

The Clerk: We have three nominations for the opposition vice-chair: Monsieur Yvan Loubier, Mr. Maurice Vellacott, and Mr. Pat Martin.

We will now proceed to the election by secret ballot.

¹ (1537)

¹ (1542)

The ballots having been counted, I duly declare Mr. Vellacott elected opposition vice-chair in absentia.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

The Clerk: I will ask Mr. St-Julien to take the chair.

[Translation]

The Chair (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.)): Thank you. Merci infiniment. I truly appreciate this honour. However, I want you to know that from this moment forward, I'm going to act as a chairman, that is I will afford each and everyone of you equal treatment. I have served as Chair in the past and my job is not to look out for our interests, but rather for the interests of Canada's aboriginals and resource regions. We're working for the people, and that's a truly important mandate. Our job will not be easy at times, but we're going to engage in dialogue. Both the opposition and the government are here to press forward, in a climate of mutual respect. The discussion may occasionally become heated, but I warn you right now that we must be respectful and follow proper procedure. I will be flexible because the Aboriginals and Inuit are our neighbours and friends. As you know, it's not always smooth sailing for the Aboriginal Affairs Committee because it is confronted with many problems.

Our first order of business is routine motions. If there are no objections, I think we can group them together. So then, let's get to them right away. You're all familiar with the drill.

Thank you very much for placing your trust in me. Congratulations to Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell, the Vice-Chair, and to Mr. Vellacott, who isn't here, as well as to the other two members who were in the running.

The first motion concerns the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. If you've all familiarized yourselves with the motions, we can begin. The motion calls for the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to be composed of the two vice-chairs, of the parliamentary secretary, and of one representative each from the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party.

So moved by Mr. André Harvey.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: May I propose an amendment to the motion?

[Translation]

The Chair: Yes.

Is your amendment in writing, or should we write in down?

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: No.

¹ (1545)

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead and read it, Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: It says that I, John Duncan, the member for Vancouver Island North, propose that we amend the motion by deleting the reference to the parliamentary secretary. It's a simple amendment to delete the three words “the parliamentary secretary” on the basis that the parliamentary secretary is now a member of Privy Council and that this sets up a natural conflict of interest.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you. You wish to move an amendment to the original motion. Committee members must decide if they want the parliamentary secretary to serve on the subcommittee. From what we know, other committees have agreed to this arrangement. The decision rests with members. If necessary, we'll have a vote.

Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I second the motion to amend. We've always maintained that committees are independent bodies and that the members decide on procedure and on which direction to take. The desire has always been there to draw a line between the government and the freedom and autonomy of committee members. Therefore, I support this amendment. The parliamentary secretary has no business getting involved in the workings of the committee.

The Chair: Mr. Chuck Strahl.

[English]

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

I agree with the amendment as well. It's consistent with recommendations that go back to the McGrath committee era even 20 years ago, and it's even more so now because the parliamentary secretaries are members of cabinet. You can make an argument that there shouldn't be parliamentary secretaries even on the committee, actually. A lot of people believe that, but that's not for us to choose here today.

I think a steering committee should be comprised of ordinary, if I can call them that, members of Parliament, not members of cabinet. So I support the amendment. I think it's wise and it will be wise in the long run for the minister as well to be at arm's length. He can refer to what's going on here in an arm's length manner, and I think that's wise for him and for this committee.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the real difference here and the reason this is a valid amendment is that under the new rules for parliamentary secretaries, they're now sworn members of the PC. They swear an oath of loyalty in their new role as members of the Privy Council. They aren't simply ordinary members of Parliament who have special duties; they're in fact members of cabinet and sworn in as members of the PC. So the rules have changed, and I think it justifies us revisiting the status of the parliamentary secretaries as members of standing committees. Therefore, I support the motion to delete “parliamentary secretary” from this motion as well.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Lee.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Thank you.

With all due respect to members who have spoken in favour of the motion, they are somewhat misinformed on the current status of parliamentary secretaries. I've heard it said that the parliamentary secretary is now a part of the cabinet. This is not true; this is not accurate. Parliamentary secretaries are not now, and have not been, part of the cabinet. Ministers are part of the cabinet.

The existence of the status of privy councillor exists as another category. There are other privy councillors among us, previous cabinet ministers. Even our colleague, Lorne Nystrom, is a privy councillor. Surely, you're not arguing that because one is a privy councillor, as Lorne Nystrom is, as Charles Caccia is, that they should not be able to serve on our committees. I hope in terms of pure logic you will accept that position, that the mere existence of the Privy Council designation does not exclude someone from that.

Parliamentary secretaries, at least in the recent past, in the last 10, 15 years, have been members of committees, and the one parliamentary secretary who mattered, of course, was the PS to the minister whose portfolio was the mandate of the committee. That has proven to be usually quite helpful to the committee in having the parliamentary secretary here. It has probably also been helpful to the minister. Certainly it hasn't hurt the committee's work.

So I reject the suggestion that parliamentary secretaries are in the cabinet. I reject the suggestion that the designation PS would exclude someone as a serving member of a parliamentary committee. I hope members will vote against the amendment, because it doesn't appear to serve any useful purpose.

¹ (1550)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

Mr. Dromisky.

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I object to the amendment on two grounds.

First of all, if you take a look at the logistics of the committee, it's composed at the present time of seven members. To me, this is an extremely important committee.

If any of you had been sitting on the aboriginal affairs committee in the recent past, we had some very bizarre regulations put into force and implemented on an ongoing, daily basis, and not only daily but also nightly basis. To me, they were absolutely bizarre in comparison to the way other committees had been operating in the House of Commons.

So with seven members as it is right now, more or less the power is in the hands of the opposition, correct? I would like to see it maintained and possibly perhaps even changed in the future. We'll see how this operates. The agenda is very important. The procedure is very important, but the agenda being the most important, I would like to see a contact and a communicating officer from the inner circles, and the information that could possibly flow to help this committee operate in a much more effective manner, with precise, pertinent information to any issue that might be on the agenda at the time.

So I am in favour of leaving it today as it is at the present time, and of opposing any amendment.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, Mr. Chair, I think it's probably premature to jump into this conclusion of the role of the parliamentary secretaries. And also, if that were to take place, I think it would be quite courteous to include a Liberal member to replace a parliamentary secretary.

So I think a bigger view of this issue should be considered, and I'm not prepared to adopt the resolution.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I understand. I don't have any problem whatsoever with the parliamentary secretary sitting on the main committee. However, I do have a problem with the parliamentary secretary serving on the steering committee which discusses the operation of the committee and proposes topics of discussion, and consequently, all administrative matters. Having the parliamentary secretary on the committee is like having the minister present, someone who might want to take the subcommittee in a particular direction. If the minister's representative is on the subcommittee, how can we say the Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources Committee is independent? If we have a parliamentary secretary, a minister's representative, pulling the strings when it comes to procedure and agenda items, how can we claim that committees are independent bodies? The parliamentary secretary answers to the minister. If he sits on the subcommittee, then the committee's independence is no longer assured.

Committees haven't really been independent for some time now. They enjoyed some measure of independence in the 1980s. You were a member of the Conservative Party and you may recall a time when committees operated with substantially more independence than today. This is the main criticism levelled at committees in the past decade, namely the fact that their members are sometimes nothing more than the minister's puppets.

Even in the Public Accounts Committee, the situation was rather abominable last week. That the President of the Treasury Board would extend an invitation to MPs who sit on the Public Accounts Committee before even meeting with the full committee speaks volumes about the Prime Minister's commitment to democratic reform.

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Before we continue, I'd just like to ask that clerk if there was a subcommittee in the past. Five members have indicated that they wish to speak. We'll continue, but I'm wondering if the subcommittee sat in the past.

The Clerk: A motion to that effect had been moved, but the steering committee never met, at least not during my tenure as clerk. Decisions were made by the main committee.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: The chairman at the time was a dictator. That's where you're different, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Serge Cardin (Sherbrooke, BQ): Prior to 2000, the subcommittee did hold meetings.

The Chair: I was simply curious. Let's move on.

[English]

Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Maybe it would be helpful if there was a government member who could provide us with the rationale for putting parliamentary secretaries in the Privy Council. What benefit is that to the whole parliamentary system?

Depending, I guess, on the answer that is forthcoming from the government to that question, would there be any situation where the parliamentary secretary would be sworn to cabinet secrecy because of that position, which would interfere in any way in the democratic operation of the committee, particularly the subcommittee on agenda and procedure? So perhaps we could be enlightened as to the answer to that question, or both questions.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC): The PS sits at the cabinet when that minister is dealing with those issues.

Mr. Reed Elley: Mr. Chair, is there a government member who can answer that question? Could I have an answer to that, please, as to the rationale behind making parliamentary secretaries part of the Privy Council?

[Translation]

The Chair: Just a moment. I can't answer that question. We'll press ahead and come back to it later.

Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think the idea is to strengthen the role of the parliamentary secretary. My understanding is that the PS accompanies the minister when issues concerning the PS are dealt with at the cabinet table. Am I right?

Hon. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph—Wellington, Lib.): That's correct.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So for the first time parliamentary secretaries sit at the cabinet table on occasion, not continuously. Reed's point is well taken. At that moment they become part of the cabinet for that brief period of time, and they deal with issues they are sworn to secrecy to deal with. That's fine. Again, that's the prerogative of the Prime Minister.

But what we should be careful of here--and I would urge people to think about this--is that it also protects the minister. The reason you don't get the minister or the PS involved in committee work at the agenda and procedure level is so that the minister can say in all reality, “That is not my business”. It protects the minister, folks. The Liberals should be thinking about this. The minister can say, “That's not my bailiwick. They are the masters of their own destiny. I leave it with them. I await their report.” Or he can say whatever he wants to say. As soon as you get somebody who sat at the cabinet table also sitting on the steering committee you compromise both the minister and the committee. It's not wise to do it.

And it's not routinely done, Mr. Chairman. I've never been on a committee that has had this motion before it. Never, that I can remember, has there been a motion that says the parliamentary secretary should sit on the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. I've never seen this before. I'm not saying it has never happened, but I've never seen it. I just don't think it's wise.

For all the reasons I've said, take him off, and then let the chairman work his magic among the group that to me looks eager to get the job done. This will just compromise the minister, the committee, and the work. I think it's wise to take him off.

[Translation]

The Chair: It's common knowledge that the subcommittee doesn't make any hard and fast decisions. Decision-making authority rests with the standing committee members. Why have a subcommittee at all when basically, the standing committee makes the decisions? We've had a steering committee in the past, but it never met. However, we'll continue the discussion, since this is a democracy.

Mr. Duncan.

º (1600)

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: May I give up my place to Mr. Telegdi and reverse positions? I'd like to hear what Mr. Telegdi has to say before I speak, if that's agreeable to Mr. Telegdi.

[Translation]

The Chair: Of course.

[English]

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): I certainly am touched by Mr. Strahl wanting to protect our ministers. I think we had this discussion on the citizenship committee in 1998, as I recall. I was parliamentary secretary. The theory advanced at that time was that a parliamentary secretary could not be independent of the minister, and lo and behold, I was a parliamentary secretary who was independent of the minister. As a matter of fact, I disagreed with my minister, and I voted against her legislation. So I think history bears out that parliamentary secretaries have their own minds and move on their own issues.

The reason parliamentary secretaries are now on the Privy Council is so that we can access documents that are important in terms of the duties we fulfill. The fact that I can access a document and be required under legislation not to divulge that doesn't make me a less effective member of a committee. I think it enhances my situation because of what I can bring to bear on the deliberations.

Another point I want to make is that even with the parliamentary secretary included, the opposition has four members on the committee and the government has three.

I really don't see the problem. I regret that we have to prejudge parliamentary secretaries in that fashion, as being an extension of their minister. I can certainly tell you I was not, and there are many parliamentary secretaries who argue strenuously with their minister.

Those are my points, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm glad that I waited to hear what Andrew had to say. First of all, when you were a parliamentary secretary, you were not a privy councillor, so you had never sat at cabinet. If, at any single occasion, you had sat at cabinet, you would not have been able to disagree with the cabinet position. Those are the rules. So that is a difference.

The question about access to documents is significant, but it puts the parliamentary secretary in the unique position of more stature or status, and the power to bring forward or not to bring forward documents, and to potentially manipulate the array of documents they might bring to the table. I think that's actually also an argument of much concern, for me.

Now, rather than force this into a vote, which would probably be a very tight vote, the agriculture committee today dealt with this same motion. What they did was compromise on an amendment, which added the words “as necessary” to the statement, right after the “parliamentary secretary”. The agriculture committee accepted that amendment this afternoon, or earlier today.

º (1605)

[Translation]

The Chair: Is that clear to you? t's the same amendment.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I'm offering a friendly amendment to my own amendment. I think I'm allowed to do that.

[Translation]

The Chair: That concludes our discussion. We are now ready to vote on Mr. Duncan's amendment, which reads as follows: that the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs, the parliamentary secretaries, if necessary... Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: “As necessary”.

[Translation]

The Chair: All those in favour say yea.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Could we just have a recorded vote? That's the easiest way.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 7)

[Translation]

The Chair: We will now turn to the main motion.

Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: On a point of order, it was defeated by what count?

The Chair: It was eight to seven: eight, no; seven, yes.

Mr. John Duncan: Oh, I thought there were eight here.

The Chair: No. Madam Picard is not a member.

The amendment was defeated by eight to seven.

[Translation]

If there's a tie, that is seven for and seven against, then I'll rule.

Thank you, Mr. Loubier, for your interest in this matter.

Moving on to the main motion moved by Mr. Harvey, since I realize members may have other commitments this evening, it reads as follows: that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chair, the two Vice-Chairs, the parliamentary secretary, as well as one representative each from the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The second motion reads as follows: that the committee retain the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament, as needed to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the Chair.

So moved by Mr. Laliberte.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The third motion concerns the reception and publication of evidence in the absence of a quorum. It reads as follows: that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least three members are present, including a member of the opposition.

An hon. member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: The fourth motion on the agenda concerns time limits for witnesses statements and questioning. It reads as follows: that an organization be given up to ten (10) minutes for their opening statement...

Mr. Dromisky.

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a very slight amendment. If you take a look at that paragraph, right in the middle it refers to giving nine minutes to the questioner of the official opposition--that's fine. Then it states that the questioner of the other parties will get seven minutes.

I would like to have inserted, right after “parties”, the very same terminology used to refer to the three-minute periods at the very end of the paragraph. I'm referring now back to the phrasing about the seven minutes for the questioner of other parties. Insert--in brackets--“alternating between government and opposition parties, and that thereafter, three minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner”--again, in brackets--“alternating between government and opposition parties”--to make it very, very clear that we're all here for the very same purpose. We all have something to contribute, some more so than others.

I would like equal opportunity as far as time allocation is concerned for each and every member of this committee, so we don't operate as we operated in the past session of this committee. The way it's going to operate is that the opposition has seven minutes, then the government has seven minutes. We go back and forth, not as we did in the past.

All right? The opposition leads off for seven minutes, then the Liberals have seven minutes; opposition, seven minutes, Liberals, seven minutes; opposition, seven minutes, and so on, until we've covered the whole slate and then we go into the second round of three-minutes, again alternating three minutes, three minutes, three minutes, three minutes, back and forth.

Therefore, everybody has an opportunity to contribute. We never satisfied the demands and the needs of members in the last session of this committee because we went right through the opposition until everybody in the opposition had spoken, and then there was very little time left for members of the government to speak.

º (1610)

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

As noted earlier, there's no seven-second time delay, as is the case for Don Cherry in Toronto.

Go ahead, Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would speak strongly against going along with Mr. Dromisky's idea, for the simple reason that the ruling party already enjoys a disproportionate advantage, if you will, and the idea of the structure of the questioning in this committee is try to balance that out somewhat.

We aren't the only committee that does that, that gives more of the questioning privileges or a disproportionate amount of time to the opposition members, recognizing that the ruling party has the access to the inside information, and so on, that the minister has, and we actually don't.

The way this committee has been operating for the past couple of years is that we go down the opposition side first, the official opposition. I have no problem with them getting a larger chunk of time, and that's what this motion contemplates, that the official opposition would get nine minutes. The other opposition parties would then get their seven minutes and seven minutes, and then we can go back and forth in equal measure of three minutes each. That gives ample opportunity for representatives of that party to have their turn; otherwise, that party would get a disproportionate number of turns, because the Liberals, who already enjoy the advantage, would get a further advantage.

So I think it's actually being quite greedy on Stan's part to be insisting for even more of this pie, which we don't believe was divided all that equitably to begin with.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before I recognize Mr. Loubier, I just want to say how surprised I am by this discussion about time allocation. I'm thinking here about organizations that come to Ottawa to testify. Witnesses, who often represent the resources sector or the aboriginal community, may be traveling here from a remote region, from Vancouver or from Northern Ontario. They may have been preparing their presentation for several weeks and all they get is ten minutes of our time. One day, I'd like to see them get more time to make their presentations. Admittedly, they can stir things up for the government, but I would too, if I were in their shoes. I'd like to hear members' views on the 10-minute time limit. I'd like to see this increased to 15 minutes. Why not give an additional five minutes to groups that are testifying, that is our Inuit and aboriginal friends, who worked hard on their presentations and consulted with members of their community? I'll leave it at that.

You have the floor, Mr. Loubier.

º (1615)

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, you've taken the words right out of my mouth.

Before I focus on the last point you mentioned, I would like to discuss for a moment the arguments put forward by Mr. Martin. I concur fully with him. The Liberals already have the advantage of forming the government. Furthermore, we have time on our hands. I'm somewhat surprised to hear Mr. Dromisky make this suggestion. Based on my experience, during the last session, he didn't seem to have a problem with the way in which the former chair ran the committee. He didn't express any dissatisfaction. In fact, for 55 days, he was silent on Bill C-7. At times, he even dozed off, Mr. Chairman. I have to wonder why he wants more time, since the Liberals don't even use all the time allocated to them in the first place. Moreover, we were deeply insulted by what transpired. We presented some 250 amendments to Bill C-7 and not one single Liberal member bothered to speak to this matter. They want more time. To do what exactly? That's the question I have to ask myself.

As for the number of minutes allocated to our witnesses, I share your opinion, Mr. Chairman. It's ridiculous to limit witnesses who have things to say to 10 minutes. They may have come here all the way from Quebec's far north, from Alberta or from British Columbia and we give them a mere ten minutes before sending them on their way. I disagree with this practice. A little more flexibility is warranted. Even 15 minutes isn't much time for representatives of a community grappling with serious problems...

The Chair: I'd simply like to give witnesses more time.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I agree. Even 15 minutes might not be long enough. I'd like us to agree on a minimum of 15 minutes and to be as flexible as possible, depending on the importance of the issues under consideration. In my view, this would allow us to do a better job.

The Chair: Thank you.

You have the floor, Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a point of order.

Just so I'm clear, we're not restricting the witnesses to nine minutes on their presentation; this is only the cross-examination. We might listen to people presenting for half an hour. That's not addressed here.

The Chair: It is so.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Is it? Oh, I see, the 10 minutes. I'm looking further on.

The Chair: Mr. Duncan.

Mr. John Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the difference between sitting here now and sitting here before is that there are seven freed-up minutes. Before, we had two opposition parties where there's now one. So with that seven extra minutes in that first complete round, you can allocate five minutes to the presenters, to make 15 minutes, and add two minutes to the official opposition, which, after all, has gotten significantly bigger, to take us up to 11 minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: If you got your two, it would make it nine.

Mr. John Duncan: We had that before. We were the biggest before; now we're even bigger.

[Translation]

The Chair: Does anyone else wish to speak?

Mr. Dromisky.

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes, it's a very valid point you have raised, Mr. Chairman, pertaining to the 10-minute period of presentation. I have always felt it should be left in the hands of the chair. You have to be discriminatory here. If you think people have a lot to offer and it's critical, that the evidence that they're presenting is absolutely essential and requires more than a 10-minute presentation, that should be your prerogative, and not the prerogative of individual people on the committee. This is the way I feel.

However, I think we're getting off on the right foot with Mr. Loubier. We had an exciting period in the last session with seven. I was here every session, never missed any. He missed a great number of them. And when he did make his presentations, they were so monotonous that it was very difficult for us on this side of the House to stay awake.

Sorry, Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, Mr. Dromisky was joking.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Well, I think it's funny too. See, I'm smiling. Mr. Dromisky may have been too tired to stay awake, but some fifty or so members of First nations spent all day and all night listening to us and they were very interested in what Pat Martin and I had to say. Perhaps Mr. Dromisky should take some vitamins, especially Vitamin C. It helps people stay alert.

º (1620)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Bagnell.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, given that a number of times we have witnesses for an hour, if we give 15 minutes, which I think is a great idea, to expand the time of the presenters--because they've come a long way--that would leave roughly 14 minutes out of the hour for Liberal members, which would be three and a half members.

What if we made a minor amendment, a sort of compromise, that it would go in the order as presented except that everyone would get to speak before a person can speak a second time, so that if in the rotation people who hadn't spoken, on either side, who didn't get a chance, wouldn't be replaced in the rotation by someone speaking again? Every member of Parliament equally represents their constituency, so they should have a chance to speak on a topic. That would give them a chance to speak, and it would still primarily follow this format--the opposition would still have more time.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Any other comments?

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I'm calling for the question.

[Translation]

The Chair: The clerk will read the amendment and it will be duly noted by the committee. Go ahead.

[English]

The Clerk: It's the amendment of Mr. Dromisky, that after the word “parties”, we add “alternating between government and opposition parties”. It's the first amendment.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you want to include the 15 minutes for the witnesses in the same amendment?

[English]

So 15 minutes for the witness, in the same amendment?

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I would like to see more time. I don't know whether 15 minutes would be the appropriate amount. Let's move ahead, with the understanding that if 15 minutes is not enough we'll use our intelligence and make a rational decision to provide more time for special witnesses.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: If you want 15 minutes I'll add it to my amendment, so at least you'll have something to work from.

[Translation]

The Chair: I'd like to go with at least 15 minutes. In the past, the minimum was 10 minutes. A minimum of 15 would...

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Okay, I'll put it in there.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We need two amendments. We can vote for 15 minutes, but not for his proposed amendment. That doesn't make any sense.

The Chair: I understand. I apologize for that. Mr. Loubier has raised a valid point. We have two amendments. You're right in that I was moving a little too fast. We need to vote on the initial amendment.

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Mine is first.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The way this reads, if the amendment were to go through.... It's just not done anywhere else. We could set a precedent, but it's just not done.

It goes around to one speaker for every party, including one on the government side, in every committee I've ever been on. That's just the way it is, folks. It's hell being in the government, but that's just the way it is. It goes down the line. The government has a primary speaker who asks their question, and then we go back and forth.

If we want to get fussy here, those in the official opposition--and we're fully half of the row here--could say we want to get half of the opposition questions and stuff, and we're going to trust that the chair is fair. But folks, that's the way it is. Every party gets one kick at the cat, or one series of questions to the witness, and then we go back and forth. It's just the way it is, Stan.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: It's not the way it is. I was on two committees where we alternated back and forth.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We do alternate. It says we alternate back and forth.

[Translation]

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Dromisky. One moment, Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The point is, you look at the time. As Larry has pointed out, we only have a limited amount of time. If you allow seven minutes for everyone from then on, we could be happy with that. We'd get the second round on the opposition side.

Basically you shaft the guys down there. You and I could be happy about it, but that's not the way it's done. The proper way to do it is for everyone to take a turn. Then we go to the rapid-fire round and go back and forth, and everybody gets a shot. It goes one per party, and then it's fair. Otherwise the smaller parties will not even get a kick at the cat.

I think it will work the way it is, and that's just the way it's normally done. If you don't get seven minutes, Stan, the big parties will hog the time and the witness will run out of time and leave.

º (1625)

Mr. Stan Dromisky: I call the question.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

I'm sorry, Mr. Dromisky, but Mr. Martin was up next on my list, just before you.

Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I didn't have my hand up.

[Translation]

The Chair: Alright then.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Tell us what the motion is.

The Clerk: It reads that the motion be amended by adding after the words “for the questioner of the other parties” the following: “alternating between government and opposition parties”.

[Translation]

The Chair: All those in favour of Mr. Dromisky's amendment, please raise your hand. That will clarify matters.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: Would someone like to move the amendment calling for a minimum 15-minute time limit for witnesses?

Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'm prepared to move this amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I would like some assurances that 15 minutes is a minimum time limit, particularly if members agree that when an important issue is being debated, a witness should be allowed more time.

The Chair: Thank you.

The amendment calls for a time limit of at least 15 minutes and if we must go over that time, the Chair will see about it. All those in favour of the motion, say yea.

Go ahead, Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Can you clarify that? If it's a minimum of 15 minutes, at the discretion of the committee, it could go longer?

[Translation]

The Chair: The decision rests with the Chair.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: It doesn't say shorter. The minimum is 15 minutes.

Mr. Reed Elley: That's true.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: So the way it's written now, if you just add “15 minutes, at the discretion of the chair”, I think that's all you need. If you go minimum, then if somebody has a three-minute presentation, we'll be struggling to add seven minutes to that. So minimizing it could be trouble.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are we agreed with Mr. Laliberte?The reference to “minimum” is deleted and the motion will now read “15 minutes”.

Moving on to item 5, payment of witnesses' travel and living expenses...

I'm sorry but I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's get back to the main motion: Time limits for witnesses statements and questioning.

Who would like to move that an organization be given more than 15 minutes for their opening statement and that additional time be granted at the discretion of the Chair during the questioning of witnesses?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I trust this doesn't mean that the Chair will always lean in the same direction, that is to say he will use his discretion to grant additional time to a witness who is supportive of the government's position. It's like listening to music. If you like a song, you can listen to it for a long time, but if you don't, you can decide to turn off the music. I want the Chair to promise not to show partisanship when exercising his discretionary authority.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier. However, it's been my long-standing experience that our aboriginal friends have never misspoken. They've always acted with total rigour.

º (1630)

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Fine then.

(Amendment agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you. We'll now vote on the amended motion, with the 15-minute time limit.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Is it moved?

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Strahl.

[English]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, moved.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have one motion that I would like to introduce, but in the order of sequence that you have here it's necessary for me to move my motion now, prior to you getting to the 48-hour notice motion.

I'd like to ask if I can intervene at this stage and deal with this one motion that I have. It will be the only motion that I will move at this juncture. Also, in arguing why I should be allowed, I don't think there's anything that says we must deal with these motions in the order in which they appear on the paper circulated by the clerk. So I'd like to make a motion right now.

[Translation]

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

I'd like to move that when first nations legislation is before the committee, the committee membership may be expanded to include at least one ex officio representative from first nations who would sit on the committee with voice but no vote.

I guess I don't need a seconder. I would like an opportunity to speak to the motion when the opportunity arises.

[Translation]

The Chair: The Chair recognizes Mr. Dromisky.

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate where the honourable member is coming from at this time, in light of his background of experiences, and so forth. I feel that the motion should automatically demand a legal response from someone in the House, whether it be the Clerk of the House or some legal representation regarding the legitimacy of such a request. So I'm asking if the voting on the motion could be deferred until we have legal presentations.

[Translation]

The Chair: I'd just like to say something before we continue. I do however want to hear what you have to say before we adjourn.

When you refer to first nations, it's important to remember one thing: the reference to first nations does not include all aboriginals. They are not all members of first nations. Under the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement, the James Bay Cree are not part of the first nations. The same is true of the Inuit. That's a subject we could debate for an hour or two. However, let's move on.

Mr. Martin, followed by Mr. Lee.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would add just a couple of brief points in defence of my argument.

First of all, I don't think we have to worry about Stan's point; we are the absolute masters of our own destiny, as members of the committee. We can break new ground, or we can create new precedents any time we want. We don't have to be subject to any outside opinions, or to be limited by those.

I would argue, as well, that when we ask for representation from first nations to sit as ex officio members of the committee, we use the definition in the Canadian Constitution. In fact, the precedent is the Penner inquiry of 1982, which added representation from first nations, Inuit, and Métis. So aboriginal people are those three, or that is the definition we would have to go by. I would contemplate leaving it up to those groups of people to name who they would like to represent them. It would be arrogant for the committee to say “We'll have you at our committee, but we will not accept you at our committee”. That would be a choice for those organizations to make.

So I believe the precedent is there. I believe the urgent need is there to heal the historic wounds, if you will, of a century of being left out of the decision-making process. No one could argue that those ex officio members should have a voting privilege, because that's for members of Parliament around the committee. But to have voice—and no vote—could lend to an enormous amount of input and value being added to the debate around this table, by having the full and meaningful participation of first nations at this table, instead of them being outside the door, often with picket signs, asking to be welcomed in.

What a gesture this could be. What a gesture this simple thing could be, and what a message it would send to aboriginal people right across the country, that in all future deliberations on legislation affecting aboriginal people, “You'll be welcomed to the table. You don't have to wait outside the door. And you don't have to wait for your 10 or 15 minutes as a witness. You'll be part of the decision-making process.”

I just ask my colleagues around the table, why would we be afraid of that? Why would we be reluctant? Let's think outside the box a little bit here. There's no downside; there's no cost factor. It doesn't diminish our authority or power one iota as members of Parliament to allow this; we would have the same authority and power to vote on issues, or for ideas to succeed or fail. That would be our decision-making, our vote. But the benefit would be to have representation from the legitimate voice of first nations people across the country in every future piece of legislation that comes before the committee.

So I appeal to members to be generous in your attitude towards this simple request, and let's do something different and something we can be proud of today.

º (1635)

[Translation]

The Chair: Before we hear from Mr. Lee, it should be remembered that this is the Aboriginal Affairs and Natural Resources Committee. If we receive a request from the mining, natural resources or forestry sectors... But I'll let Mr. Lee and Mr. Laliberte continue.

[English]

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm actually going to ask the clerk to advise us technically on whether or not the motion is in order—but it might be a good idea to have more representation on the committee and on the subject matter the committee would be be working with. We certainly, at this point, have members of the aboriginal community sitting on the committee.

But I point out, as far as I can see or as far as I know, contrary to what Mr. Martin has suggested, the committee has no ability to create membership, to expand its membership, or to select its membership. The number of members of the committee, the membership of the committee, is provided for explicitly in detail by the House under the Standing Orders, and the committee has no ability—none—to add or subtract members. It just doesn't.

I would ask the clerk to advise us whether I am correct on this.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee.

[English]

The Clerk: Mr. Lee, during the study on self-government, when Mr. Penner was chair of the committee, this committee did have an ex officio member from the first nations sitting. There were first nations represented--

Mr. Derek Lee: I didn't ask the clerk what happened with the Penner committee. If we were going to discuss the Penner committee, we might want to take a look at the terms of reference, whether the House set it up and how it set it up. And the House is completely able to devise something like that if the House wishes.

I would need to know that, so I'm asking the clerk to advise us, if the House doesn't do that, can the committee do it? Can the committee expand its membership? Can the committee add persons to the committee at will?

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much Mr. Lee. However, the clerk brought up a good point. We'll hear from Mr. Laliberte, Mr. Telegdi and Mr. Loubier. In my opinion, we should defer the motion until a later meeting because we might need one or two hours to debate it, not just 15 or 20 minutes.

Mr. Martin, I want to defer the motion until a later time so that we can discuss the matter properly. It's now 4:45 p.m. and we know people have many committee meetings to attend. I understand very well the gist of your motion and its implications, but I suggest we defer our consideration until later and make a decision together.

Mr. Laliberte.

º (1640)

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Maybe I can put the question to the member who's considering this motion.

I'm just looking to the 48 hours' notice that you're trying to bypass, I guess. This is a very substantive motion, and I think the 48 hours would give all members time to think about it. I don't think there are any time precedents here. I don't think there's any bill that's coming in that would require us to act upon this type of situation.

The other thing I would recommend, I think similar to the Penner report, is that the special position was for specific legislation. We may have to deal with this legislation by legislation, because with some legislation there are proponents and there are opponents. Sometimes, in allowing one seat, you may have to have both views reflected from that one position or whatever.

So I think we need a more substantive look at it. I think it's a good gesture to deal with the experiences you referred to from the past, and perhaps this is a way to address those issues, but if it's going to be a substantive decision by this committee, I think we should take the time.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much. That was an excellent comment from Mr. Laliberte.

Mr. Telegdi and then to conclude, Mr. Loubier.

Hon. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, in light of the 48 hours' notice, we can defer the matter, with Mr. Martin's permission. Otherwise, we'll be here until 7 p.m.

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Martin.

Hon. André Harvey: No, that's fine, Guy. We'll defer the motion.

The Chair: You agree to defer your motion?

[English]

Hon. André Harvey: Next meeting.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, I was only saying that I wouldn't have any problem dealing with it at a later date, but I did feel that this was the right time to raise it. We are putting in place the rules under which this committee will operate for the coming year, and I thought it was necessary to raise it now. I felt that there may be some procedural reason why I couldn't introduce it after the fact, once the rules of this committee were carved in stone, if you will.

So as long as you accept the motion now, I don't mind dealing with it later.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Chair: Agreed? Thank you.

Moving on to item 5, payment of witnesses' travel and living expenses. The motion reads as follows: that, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two representatives per organization; and that, in exceptional circumstances, payment for a third representative be at the discretion of the Chair.

So moved by Mr. Harvey.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Distribution of documents with translation: that the Clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute to the members of the committee documents only when they exist in both official languages.

So moved by Mr. Loubier.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Purchasing documents: that the committee be authorized to purchase documents for the use of the committee.

So moved by Mr. Lee.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Working meals: that the Clerk of the committee be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide for working meals for the committee and its subcommittees.

An Hon. Member: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Staff attending in camera meetings: that, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings.

So moved by Mr. André Harvey.

Mr. Serge Cardin: By “ordered”, are we to understand that the full committee decides?

The Chair: That's correct. The motion reads as follows: that, unless otherwise ordered, each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings.

If I say I don't want any staff present... The decision rests with committee members.

Mr. Serge Cardin: There's a difference here, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: You're right.

Mr. Serge Cardin: You may not want any staff present, but if the committee decides otherwise and...

The Chair: Each member...

º (1645)

Mr. Yvan Loubier: The motion should read: “unless the committee decides otherwise”.

The Chair: You're right. “Ordered” is not the right word. The motion should read “decides otherwise”. That's a good point. It should read “unless the committee decides otherwise”. Let's make the change.

Mr. Serge Cardin: “... unless the committee...”.

The Chair: The motion, as amended, reads as follows: unless committee members decide otherwise, each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure where you are, exactly, but I do have a notice of motion I want to get in before we discuss the 48 hours' notice.

[Translation]

The Chair: Moving right along to the motion respecting in camera meetings transcripts: that a transcript of in camera meetings be kept in the office of the Clerk of the committee for the purpose of consultation by Members of the committee, and be destroyed at the end of each session of Parliament.

So moved by Mr. André Harvey.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Notice of substantive motions: that, except for amendments to bills, forty-eight hours' notice...

I'm sorry, but I'm getting ahead of myself again. Mr. Duncan moves the following motion:

I, John Duncan, Member of Parliament for Vancouver Island North, move that the following two motions be added to the Routine Motions of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

1) That whenever the Main Estimates or Supplementary Estimates are referred to the Committee, the Committee invite the Minister and any relevant Senior Officials of a Department to appear at a meeting of the Committee and, if possible, that it be televised.

2) That whenever a Chapter of a Report of the Auditor General refers to a subject under the mandate of the Committee, the Committee invite the Office of the Auditor General of Canada and any relevant Senior Officials of a Department to appear at a meeting of the Committee and, if possible, that it be televised.

Is this similar to the notice of motion tabled in other committees?

Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: I attended a meeting of the government operations committee, and we adopted these two amendments. I understand it has occurred at several other committees as well. It's non-controversial.

The Chair: Monsieur Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: At the procedure and House affairs committee it was almost exactly the same as this, except that because the Speaker was involved we had to specifically deal with Elections Canada and the Speaker. We had to name them a little differently, but otherwise the two motions were exactly the same. Well, they were not exactly the same, but we had to make those two amendments because we dealt with those two specifics. Otherwise, it's the same.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Strahl.

You have the floor, Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Why would this be considered at this point in time before the 48-hour notice? This is worthy of a 48-hour notice of consideration. It is substantial. There are some questions that I am sure some of my members are going to ask others in government. Could it wait for a 48-hour consideration?

[Translation]

The Chair: Because we haven't adopted the 48 hours' notice of motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: When I attended the government operations and estimates committee we actually did it after the 48-hour motion was in place, and the committee simply waived the 48-hour notice. The committee can do that to deal with these motions. It was preconceived that we would do that. A committee can operate in various ways. I don't know that it's a very complicated motion, to be quite honest, that it would require 48 hours' notice, but if people insist on 48 hours, so be it.

º (1650)

[Translation]

The Chair: Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Are there any questions? All those in favour?

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Which motion are we referring to, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: This is on the motion that is coming from Mr. Duncan. You have a copy.

Mr. John Duncan: Essentially, this is what we practise anyway. You invite the minister to talk about the main estimates and you try to arrange for televised coverage of the minister coming to committee to deliver the main estimates.

[Translation]

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Bagnell.

[English]

Hon. Larry Bagnell: Mr. Chairman, I think what Mr. Laliberte was saying is that we should go through the sheet and then we can look at the motion if we want, but we can't keep throwing things in and going out of order.

Hon. Andrew Telegdi: This is out of order.

Mr. Reed Elley: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, you asked for a vote. We took a vote. No one voted against it. Can I have a ruling from the chair whether that vote was indeed valid?

[Translation]

The Chair: Yes, but I'll recognize one final speaker, Mr. Laliberte, to get his viewpoint.

Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: Yes, when I asked the member if there was anything permanent so that this required attention now, without the 48-hour notice, he said it didn't make any difference. I just assumed we would be waiting 48 hours to let this settle in our minds. You may have substantial support on this side, but right now, when you had a quick vote, it was very hesitant on this side. You may have more support if you give us more time. There is no need to push it.

Mr. John Duncan: I wasn't pushing it.

Mr. Rick Laliberte: I just raised an issue. You weren't concerned.

Mr. John Duncan: No, the only thing I'm suggesting is, no other committee has found it necessary to not deal with it immediately. That's all I was pointing out.

[Translation]

The Chair: I'll hear from two more members, Mr. Martin and Mr. Strahl, and then we'll vote.

Go ahead, Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out, for the benefit of some of the members, that there is nothing magic to the order of these routine motions and there is nothing stopping any of us from interjecting a motion that we feel is important during this process. These are only put together by the clerk, not by the members of Parliament and not by the minister. There is nothing that says we must deal with these particular motions in this order. Therefore we should all feel free and comfortable, as long as we can get the eye of the chairman to recognize us, to introduce motions as we see fit and prior to the 48-hour notice of motion. As we called this meeting to put together the rules under which we will operate for the next years, it's exactly appropriate for us to do that now.

[Translation]

The Chair: I'll think you'll respect my decision. I did agree to hear his motion before the 48 hours had passed.

Go ahead, Mr. Laliberte.

[English]

Mr. Rick Laliberte: What I wanted to raise is we dealt with an issue that didn't need 48-hour consideration. Here's another issue that doesn't need the 48 hours. It doesn't need attention now. We come here for orientation. I'm a new member and I'm trying to get my orientation book and you're dealing with procedural issues. Give us a chance. There's no rush for this. We can bring it up at the next meeting. I'm sure you'll have possible consideration by government members.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The reason there's not 48 hours' notice is that this is routine. This is what all committees, almost all of them, are governed by. Again, when the estimates are tabled, it's routine. We get the minister in to deal with the estimates. This suggests, if possible--if there's a room available, in other words--that it be televised. It's always the sexy part of committee work. The minister gets to do his or her thing and we get a little publicity for our committee work. It's all just what we do; it's routine. There's nothing sneaky about it. There's not 48 hours' notice for it because we should be governed by these rules all the time, so let's just make it part of what we do. It's like we give the witnesses so many minutes, we call the ministers to deal with estimates, we televise it if possible, if there's a room, if the chairman can book a room. If he can't do it, he can't do it, but we try to do it. It's just what we do; it's routine. It's not a surprise or a trick. We should just say that's what we do. We're governed by these rules. It's not a surprise. Everyone knows it.

º (1655)

[Translation]

The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Dromisky.

[English]

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I don't see why we're smashing our gums together here and spending a heck of a lot of time dealing with something that is so elementary and so compulsory, as far as my thinking is concerned, in terms of how this committee should operate. If we do have the estimates, we must bring in the minister and other dignitaries. So let's not fool around. Let's get this motion on its way and get on with our business.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Right now.

[Translation]

The Chair: I agreed to hear the motion before the 48 hours had passed and I listened to members' comments. I'll now call a vote on this motion which has already been agreed to by several other committees. The point raised by Mr. Dromisky has been duly noted.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Moving on to the final item on the agenda, ladies and gentlemen.

Yes, Mr. Duncan.

[English]

Mr. John Duncan: Regarding technicalities, I think it's actually two motions. I think we have to take two votes.

The Chair: Motion 1 and 2, just one motion. I will read it. For me it is one motion.

[Translation]

This is the last motion. Thank you for being so patient. It reads as follows: that except for amendments to bills, forty-eight hours' notice be given before any substantive motion is considered by the Committee; and that the motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and circulated in both official languages.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: As it is now 5 p.m., the meeting is adjourned.