SJNS Committee Meeting

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AMENDMENT TO TERM 17 OF THE TERMS OF UNION OF NEWFOUNDLAND

COMITÉ MIXTE SPÉCIAL CONCERNANT LA MODIFICATION À LA CLAUSE 17 DES CONDITIONS DE L'UNION DE TERRE-NEUVE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, November 17, 1997

• 1542

[English]

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Blair Armitage): Honourable senators, members of the House of Commons, as Senate co-clerk of this committee I'm prepared to accept nominations for the position of Senate co-chair.

Mr. Goldring.

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): I would like to ask the committee to give its consent to having a secret ballot on the elections.

Senator William H. Rompkey (North West River, Labrador, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I nominate Senator Fairbairn.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Blair Armitage): I declare the election of Senator Fairbairn as Senate co-chair.

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Roger Préfontaine): Honourable senators, members of the House of Commons, we have a quorum. The first item on the agenda is the election of the chair.

[English]

I'm ready to receive motions to that effect.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Gerry Byrne as the co-chair for the House of Commons.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Roger Préfontaine): I declare Gerry Byrne the duly elected chair of this committee and invite him to take the chair.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, Lib.)): Thank you very much. I was just commenting that I wish my last election had gone as easily and as quickly.

Thank you very much, colleagues from both houses, for the confidence you've put in both myself and Senator Fairbairn as your co-chairs in the very important work of this committee, the Special Joint Committee on the Amendment to Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland.

• 1545

We have a very ambitious schedule in front of us, but I feel that with diligence and cooperation we will undoubtedly get through it quite handily. I know that with the expert work of all members of both houses we'll arrive at a conclusion that's befitting to our respective offices.

That said, I would just like to say that our task is indeed quite important. Respectively, we've been given the task by both the Senate and the House to report back on the proposed amendment to Term 17.

In the course of our deliberations, I feel quite confident that the spirit that it will be approached with will be one of cooperation, mutual respect, and of course one of good, healthy debate. It's very important to maintain that posture as we proceed. I feel extremely confident that this particular special joint committee will work expeditiously within the mandate, within the terms of reference, and resolve any obstacles and hurdles over the course of our three weeks together. We'll resolve them, and in due haste we'll get to the conclusion that has to be reached.

That said, I'd just like to briefly turn the floor over to my very capable co-chair, Senator Fairbairn.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Lethbridge, Lib.)): Thank you very much, Jerry, and thank you, colleagues from both the House and the Senate.

This is a very important issue. It's been around Parliament at some length in the last couple of years.

I think that one of the things we wish to achieve within the terms of reference under which we will operate is to hear as balanced as possible an explanation of views on both sides of the issue. That will enable us to, in the best way that we can, form our conclusions in the report we will have to present to each of the Houses of Parliament.

With my co-chair here, I know that we hope to have a very open and collegial set of hearings on this issue. Your comments, encouragement or suggestions will be ever welcome. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Thank you, Senator.

So we'll proceed, and with that said, we'll try to maintain an atmosphere that is as relaxed as possible. We will encourage the witnesses to come forward and speak without any sort of air of confusion or uncertainty as to exactly what the procedures are. I think that by taking a relaxed position we'll better serve exactly what it is that we're here to accomplish.

Of course the special joint committee to review Term 17 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada was established by order of reference adopted by the Senate on November 5, 1997, and the House of Commons on October 27, 1997. With that as our guide, we'll let the proceedings begin, but undoubtedly questions will arise in terms of procedure and other matters, which we will resolve among ourselves. I'm quite confident that we'll be able to do so in a fair and balanced manner.

One of the things I'd like to say, members, is that my role and the role of my Senate co-chair will be to provide a balanced environment for debate. In terms of our discussions on how we handle questions and answers and other things, I think what's important is to keep the perspective that we're here to hear from the witnesses through specific questions. We'll try wherever possible to make sure the questions are specific so that we can hear the answers as they come forward.

• 1550

With that said, I think we should get on with the other matters of procedure that the clerks have put before us in the proposed agenda.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Do you have copies for the members of the Committee, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We certainly do. My apologies if you haven't gotten one.

Everybody now has a copy of a total of fourteen items on this agenda. We've already gone through items 1 and 2, the elections of the joints chairs of both the Senate and the House, so I guess we're on point 3 at this time.

There's a motion regarding television and radio broadcasting of the committee's proceedings. The motion reads that the proceedings of the committee be broadcast at the discretion of the joint chairs, in consultation with members of the committee, pursuant to the orders of reference adopted by the Senate on November 5, 1997, and by the House of Commons on October 28, 1997.

Do we have a mover for this motion?

Senator Philippe Deane Gigantès (De Lorimier, Lib.): Before the moving of the motion, could we ask the television people not to have lights shining in our eyes. It is technically possible to not subject us to that.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I think that's very sensible, Senator Gigantès. We won't adopt that in the body of the motion itself, but I take your request quite seriously. We'll pass that on.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions on this, if I may. Is it the intention of the committee to travel, or is it to stay in the capital?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I think that's for discussion by members, but we have no specific instructions within the terms of reference.

The clerk has just reminded me that if it indeed is our intention for this committee to travel, we would have to return to the House and ask for specific permission.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm not arguing either for or against; I just wanted to know. If we are not to travel as a committee, I just want to point out that we had a similar situation dealing with the constitutional amendment to change the nature of the school boards in Quebec. When we came to this particular motion, when it was on the grounds that we were not travelling, the words “at the discretion” were removed so that there would be fully televised debates. If the committee is not to travel, that might be something this committee may want to consider again. Since it is an issue of some importance to the members and the people from Newfoundland—and to others in the country—the committee for the Quebec school boards issue had resolved that it should not be discretionary, and that all proceedings should be broadcast so that the people could follow.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Your point is well taken, and it has been suggested to me by several members of this newly formed committee that proceedings could occur here in Ottawa and that it would be very appropriate to do so. The point that was brought up to me was that we are mandated by resolution, in both the House and the Senate, to report back by December 5, and to use any means and technology available to us to be able to do our work as efficiently and expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In that case, I'd move to remove the words “at the discretion of the Joint Chairs, in consultation with members of the Committee” from that motion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Just as a point of clarification, going into an in camera session for discussion of the final report would of course—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes, in camera debates are held in camera.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): You're referring particularly or especially to the presentation of witnesses, and the fact that they will have a full opportunity to be on CPAC.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That's correct.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Rey.

Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.): There is one issue that, when we amend that motion, will not be hampered just in case there is no room availability with the broadcasting of the proceeding. In other words, I would still like some flexibility on the part of the chairs using the intent of the committee to proceed with broadcasting sort of almost mandatorily but when an occasion arises that the room is not available the chair may choose an alternative room in order not to delay the proceedings should it pose a delay.

• 1555

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): For the benefit of members of both houses, I've already actually taken the opportunity to ask the question of the whip's office to make sure that space is available. If it pleases the members, it would be my intention, unless instructed otherwise, to make sure that.... You're absolutely right: this should be televised whenever and wherever possible. So I throw that out, but respecting your—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The reason I put that forward—there is no slight at all to the joint chair—is to reinforce your hand, in that if this committee felt that all witnesses appearing had to be broadcast and if the committee directed so through this amendment, it reinforces the chair's position.

Lo and behold, in the case of the Quebec amendment all proceedings were broadcast. Where there's a will, there's a way.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): That is the way, certainly, in which we would wish to operate, with the caveat that when we have matters within the committee itself to discuss we would—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So I maintain my amendment.

Senator William Rompkey: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): So we have a subamendment, and I take it we have consent.

An hon. member: There is no subamendment.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: The amendment was to strike the words in the English version “at the discretion of the Joint Chairs in consultation with members of the committee”.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Yes, okay, understood.

We have a mover for the motion. It is moved by Mr. Pagtakhan.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Motion number 4, with reference to a motion to print the committee's proceedings. The motion reads “That the Committee print today's deliberations, and that the method of printing the committee's future proceedings be considered by the Joint Chairmen”.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Motion number 5, with reference to the budget committee, is that the committee adopt its proposed budget for the fiscal year of 1997-98. We'll circulate our proposed budget at this time.

I'd like members to consider that in this proposed budget there is not a financial allotment given to the needs of video-conferencing. Therefore I would suggest a $5,000 additional allocation, which would supplement the budget that's being circulated, as it stands right now, for video-conferencing requirements. You'll understand a little bit better when you see it in print.

Senator William Rompkey: Is that in addition to the $10,000 on an emergency basis?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): That's correct.

To carry forward with that reading: “THAT the committee adopt its proposed Budget for the fiscal year 1997-98 in the amount of $67,225 plus $5,000 and that the Joint Chairmen present the said budget to their respective financial authorities. THAT the committee authorizes the Senate Joint Chairman to seek authorization from the Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to incur expenses of up to $10,000 on an emergency basis”.

Mr. Lawrence D. O'Brien (Labrador, Lib.): I have a question on the budget. Who devised these figures? How were those figures devised? I ask this because 30 witnesses from St. John's—and then there's a portion shown—a percentage for the Senate for witness expenses and a percentage for the House. I'm at a loss there. How was this arrived at?

• 1600

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The budget itself was basically formulated out of committee experience in the past in matters such as this. It reflects, currently, 30 presentations being made by 30 individuals travelling to Ottawa at an approximate expense of $1,500 per person.

There is some latitude within the budget itself, if, for example, the witness list is expanded beyond 30 members. There is some latitude in terms of the contingencies, but I'd suggest that members might consider that $1,500 per witness to travel to and from Ottawa, and for accommodations and per diem, sounds like a reasonable amount to me. Of course, the floor is always open to discussion.

Senator William C. Doody (Harbour Main—Bell Island, PC): This is not exclusively St. John's. I mean, you would entertain witnesses from Stephenville, or Deer Lake, or Gander—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Even Goose Bay or Nain.

Senator William Doody: —or Goose Bay. I was coming to Goose Bay. That was going to be my punchline.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Always, Senator...especially if honourable members suggested that we should have a representative from Goose Bay.

Senator William Doody: I'll be back on the telephone in a few moments to my constituents.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Hearing no further discussion, can we have a mover for the budget of the committee? Moved by Mr. Pagtakhan.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Number six, colleagues, is to enable us to have research facilities available to the committee to assist us, not just as the Library of Parliament always does through the process of the committee, but also as we get to the point of working on a report. This motion would enable us to make that research available to the committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I so move, Mr. co-chair and Mrs. co- chair.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): On number seven, as the joint chair has indicated, we will be very open to having witnesses come to appear before us, as that is also the experience we have in the Senate and the House of Commons. We will reimburse them for reasonable travelling and living expenses.

The motion indicates no more than two witnesses from any one organization, and they will apply to have their expenses covered.

Senator William Doody: I have no problem with that, and I would agree.

How will the witnesses be decided on? Have they already been invited, or have all the applications been accepted? Who decides? Is there a steering committee to be selected?

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Senator Doody, there have been possible lists of witnesses that people around this table have been...some have been sent in.

We will discuss this as we go along in our organization meeting this afternoon—

Senator William Doody: So it's not closed off.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Absolutely not.

Senator William Doody: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): May I have a mover?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Okay, motion number eight, approval of payment of accounts, is in some respects an administrative matter. It reads that either the joint chair or, in accordance with the direction of the joint chairmen, the joint clerk be authorized to approve payment of expenditures of the committee.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

• 1605

Senator Philippe Gigantès: I have a bit of nit-picking. When we look here at the budget, it mentions the global budget, then the House percentage, and the Senate percentage. But it doesn't give percentages, it gives the figures. It's a small detail, but we should nit-pick every written presentation.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Absolutely. Your point is taken. Let's just analyse this for a minute.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): You would be referring, Senator Gigantès, to the 70-30?

Senator Philippe Gigantès: No. In the little table, they have the percent sign, but it shouldn't be there.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Okay.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Yes, I understand.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is that the last nit-picking you'll do?

Senator Philippe Gigantès: No.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): We can scratch that out.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): At least you're keeping us on our toes.

I assume the motion was indeed carried.

As for the distribution of documents, this is worth discussion:

That the Joint Clerks of the Committee be authorized to distribute, in their original language, the documents received from the public and that the Joint Clerks of the Committee ensure that the documents are translated and promptly distributed.

This, of course, is a motion. We'll be receiving written briefs from a number of witnesses in one official language or another. Although it would obviously be the preference of this Parliament, we will not necessarily be receiving briefs in both official languages. Given the financial resources and expertise available to many of our witnesses, many briefs will be submitted in one official language only. Quite frankly, I think members of both Houses will appreciate that briefs will often be submitted or presented for the very first time upon a witness appearing in front of the committee.

I'd like to have some direction as to how members feel about this in terms of operations within both official languages.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: We have a nice hypocritical tactic on this. The witnesses who have a unilingual brief can distribute it to us by hand, not by our staff. Our staff will not have touched a unilingual document in that sense. The witness is perfectly free to give us a unilingual document. We do that in Senate committees.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I respect the witnesses and the need to have the presentations put forward as quickly as possible. I will say, however, that it's the desire of this joint chair that the briefs should be translated—if this is indeed the motion we adopt—as soon as humanly possible. It is very important for all members to receive this in both official languages as soon as humanly possible.

Senator William Rompkey: I think that's the best course of action. I think you'll find that when witnesses come, they will come with their briefs. We won't see the brief until we actually get it, in most cases, and there won't be time to translate. I think Senator Gigantès's suggestion is a good one. But as soon as the committee has the opportunity, it should move to have the document translated.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator, I will further endeavour to ensure that all witnesses will be contacted in advance and that they are asked to provide a written brief in advance of their appearance before this committee. They will be asked for that. So translation services will take their unilingual brief and translate it into the other official language when possible.

Senator William Rompkey: But experience shows that you won't get them beforehand, you'll get them on the day of the presentation. I suspect most of them will come on the day of the presentation, not beforehand.

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I will concede to my colleague, Mr. Rompkey, that this is the most likely occurrence. But in the event that some witnesses are able to give us an advance copy of their brief in one official language, if we were to follow Senator Gigantès's suggestion, it is clear that it ought not to be distributed. However, I would like to pose the question to all of us, could we afford not even to take the step that it is only when sent in in advance and make use of that advance distribution so we can pre-study the document? This would facilitate question and answer. I would like that flexibility to be given to the committee, with all respect to the wishes of Mr. Gigantès.

• 1610

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The motion then stands. Can we have a mover?

Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No dissent on that?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Voting by chairman. This is an administrative matter. It's a procedural matter, in some respects. It's that the standing orders of the chamber of the joint chair prevail while that joint chair presides. I'll ask my clerk to provide a technical interpretation of that.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Roger Prefontaine): That is to provide for the different standing orders of both Houses. For the House of Commons, the chairman of a committee does not vote unless there is equality of voices. At that time the chair can pronounce himself.

I'll let my colleague from the Senate explain the procedure for the other House.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Blair Armitage): In the Senate, if the chair is choosing to vote on a question the chair must declare along with everybody else with whom they are voting. Whether they are a yea or a nay, their vote is taken first. If they decline to vote on a question and find the vote is tied, they do not then have the choice of voting at the end of the process in the manner of the House of Commons just described.

Senator William Rompkey: And the vote is declared lost.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Blair Armitage): That's right. In the case of a tie it would be declared last.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): So it's basically a procedural matter. It's respecting the standing orders of both houses.

Do I hear any discussion on the issue?

Senator William Doody: Just a question, Mr. Chairman. Does that mean you and Senator Fairbairn will alternate—you will chair a meeting and she will chair a meeting rather than co-chair all meetings?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): That is correct. It's a fair question, because if both of us are—

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): I would think we would both be enough gripped by the issue that we'll both probably be here most of the time.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): You are very right, Senator.

Senator William Doody: Then which standing orders apply, if both of you are chairing?

I'm just trying to out-nitpick Senator Gigantès.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): What we'll probably do is have one of us declared pre-eminent chair for that time of day and those standing orders will prevail at that time.

Senator William Doody: At what point will you make that decision? Just before we come to a question? Then we can decide whether or not the chair who has the right to vote participates or doesn't participate.

It's more than just an academic question. It could lead to a procedural wrangle we'll all regret.

You think about it and tell us when you....

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Could we ask the clerks to seek advice on which house prevails when you're both there, which rules prevail?

Senator William Rompkey: There have been joint committees in the past and they have operated, so there is a lot of precedent to go by, but I would think if a chair took a committee and the co-chair took the next session, the next hearing of the committee, that would be a reasonable way to proceed.

Senator William Doody: I have no quarrel with that. I just wanted to know what the procedure would be.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Blair Armitage): For the rules committee and the business management committee of both houses joint committees have been an issue on this particular point.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator Doody, as a way of answering your question, at the beginning of the meeting one will declare which is chair and which will.... But at any time, I should point out, of course, during the course of even that individual meeting, the other co-chair can fulfil that chairing role.

Senator William Rompkey: If the chair has to go to the washroom, for example. This may happen from time to time.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Exactly. That's right.

The motion is on the floor. Can I have a mover for the motion?

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): I so move.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

• 1615

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The next motion is number 11, regarding meals, a point that's near and dear to my heart.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The motion reads that the joint clerks be authorized, in consultation with the joint chairs, to order food, etc., whenever...I 'm looking at that with some liberty.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I'll carry on: whenever a committee meeting is scheduled to extend into or over a meal period.

Senator William Rompkey: So moved.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The next point, point number 12, is the schedule for meetings.

Members, what we're about to circulate here is absolutely and strictly a proposal. We have a relatively tight timeframe. We're mandated by both the Senate and the House by resolution to report by December 5, 1997, so therefore I'm simply putting forward a proposed program for the consideration of members.

In completing this proposed program, and again I emphasize the word proposed, let me say that it is a compilation of all requests received to date. To summarize this particular proposed program, I would say that it is very inclusive as opposed to exclusive. It respects the timeframe that we have for this committee in terms of its deliberations.

There are, I would also like to point out, additional opportunities for additional witnesses. The list by no means is complete. No one should feel that by consenting to this proposed program it will be exclusive of further witnesses.

For example, Senator, if you would like to—

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): For one example, just in looking over the list, Senator Doody, there is not a mention of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, for instance, who we would wish to have as witnesses. This is a basic list, as my co-chair has said, with evenings blank, which opens up an opportunity for additions. We offer it for the consideration of members.

Senator Gigantès.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: What about conflicts with our other committees? As I look at the first page, I wish I had the gift of ubiquity.

Senator William Doody: Me too.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): There's not a lot of that going around.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: Wednesday afternoon is legal and constitutional, Thursday morning is legal and constitutional, and so on.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Senator Gigantès, I think probably everybody in the room would have difficulties along this line. I can only speak for our chamber, but I believe the importance given to this joint committee would put an onus on members who have agreed to serve to try to find their replacements with the other committees for the next reasonably short period of time. That is what we would normally would do in the Senate. There's no question that it adds another burden, but it's important.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Just before we carry forward with the discussion, I'll just point out a couple of things and then I'll ask Mr. O'Brien for some comments.

• 1620

We're on Monday right now, of course, and we have some procedural matters to take care of. Tomorrow morning is reserved in case there is some spillover from today's business. Quite frankly, I'm hoping that perhaps we will be able to dispense with this business and be able to move on to Tuesday at 3.30 p.m., when our first witness of course naturally would be the federal minister who is proposing the legislation before the House and before the Senate, or sponsoring this particular amendment in terms of the federal government. He would be followed by the Hon. Roger Grimes, the Minister of Education for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course we've asked Jack Harris, who is the leader of the New Democratic Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, to come forward and provide testimony. We've also asked the Conservative opposition leader, but he has informed us that given the nature of the opening of the House of Assembly in Newfoundland he won't be able to travel this time. We've asked him for a written brief and certainly we're also open to the leader of the opposition in Newfoundland either coming forward at a later date or taking advantage of the video-conferencing opportunities.

With that said, we'd move on to a larger program of stakeholder groups and constitutional experts as well. We've received submissions, requests to appear from various groups. Just to talk about the fungability of this particular program, we've already got a little bit of an update to the proposed program that's before you right now. We're integrating the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, who recently requested to appear, into the schedule as well.

I'll just go through the whole program if that's what members would like me to do. I hear dissent on that. Mr. O'Brien, do you have some comments?

Mr. Lawrence O'Brien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know if we're trying to meet a schedule here that's practically impossible to meet. The chair mentioned a few minutes ago that we would be responsible to find somebody to replace us if we can't make it. I can tell you very simply, I can't make this, and I'm not going to be able to make it many times. I find this the most unreasonable schedule. To expect to wear ourselves so thin, starting from today, going this week and next week—it's as if we have nothing else to do.

The other point I want to make is I plan to be away all next week on the fisheries and oceans committee in Atlantic Canada. I don't think it's conceivable that I can expect to find replacement members to meet all of these sessions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Mr. O'Brien, I'd just point out in terms of the timeframe we're dealing with here that there was a resolution that was put forward in both the House and the Senate. The resolution—

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Roger Préfontaine): The order of reference.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The order of reference, excuse me, specifically stated—and this is the order of reference that members of both houses voted on—that this special joint committee report to both houses on December 5, 1997. So the timeframe we're dealing with.... Respecting your comments, I appreciate the fact that it is a very ambitious schedule, that we have a very big workload, which in some respects is similar to the section 93 workload, and that we have a lot of witnesses to hear from.

We have two choices. Basically we can cut short the witness list and not be as inclusive as possible, which is a possibility. Or we can work extended hours, working into evening sessions and for the full two-week period basically, plus the report-writing session. But I just ask all members of both houses to bear in mind in terms of these deliberations that this was an order of reference adopted by both the Senate on November 5, 1997, and the House of Commons on October 27, 1997. It specifically stated that this special joint committee must report to both houses by December 5.

• 1625

Senator Philippe Gigantès: How about considering the possibility of breaking up the membership into groups to hear witnesses? Rather than the whole committee hearing each witness, we can divide the task. It's not as satisfactory as the other, but there will be written reports on what has been done and there will be summaries. It will make the lives of members of the committee easier, members of the committee

[Translation]

who are sitting on other committees and who have other commitments.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We'll hear from the honourable member, followed by Senator Doody.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. co-chair, Mrs. co-chair, before going any further, could you tell us if the proposed list of witnesses includes all the people who have asked to be heard or if some other people or groups not on that list want us to hear them?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Certainly a number of groups wish to be heard. Suggestions have come to us about others we might wish to hear from. People around this table may also have suggestions as to groups they might like to hear.

This particular list is one for discussion. It's one for suggestion, and if others have other suggestions and additions, we would certainly be willing to accommodate them.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I have a couple of remarks and suggestions if I may share them with you. I agree wholeheartedly that Thursday, November 27, should be the last day we hear witnesses, which would leave Friday and the following week to agree on a report.

Number two, I believe we might want to consider shortening the time allowed to each witness. Instead of 60 minutes we could make it 45 minutes. If we can all agree on tightening the questions and so forth, we can fit in more, because from what you've told me this is not the entire list and already we're hearing grumblings that it's too much. In reality, we'll probably end up sitting more than is suggested here.

The third comment is that I hope we will not encroach on question period time, as I think we will on Friday, November 21, when we're going from 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I think you're quite right in your draft, which of course is a living document.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Roger Préfontaine): The anglophone one says 11 a.m.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Mr. Bélanger, it's 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. and 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. on that Friday.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Fine. The one I have here says 10.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m.

So we should consider not hearing witnesses any later than November 27 and tightening up the time.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Before we go to Senator Doody, I have a couple of points. Your comments are very much appreciated. One of the things we could consider to help resolve some of the issues Mr. O'Brien has raised in terms of hearing from witnesses and receiving witness testimony is to operate at a reduced quorum. Right now the quorum is 12, I believe, Mr. Clerk.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Roger Préfontaine): It is 12.

• 1630

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): What I would suggest is that for the hearing of witness testimony, we work with a number such as six, provided that both houses are indeed represented within the six—no specific mix and match of six, but six members present, with at least one member of either house. That may resolve some of the issues.

Senator Rompkey, we're going to have to go to Senator Doody.

One of the things about the suggestion of shortening the timeframe is that when we get into the question and answer period, you must please bear in mind that it's indeed the suggestion of members of both houses to actually reduce the timeframe. We will have to be very tight, and as co-chair of this committee I will have to guide my gavel accordingly. Okay?

With that said, we'll pass the floor over to Senator Doody.

Senator William Doody: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm a little bit concerned about the feeling that I'm getting. People seem to want to compress this, to make it shorter, to hear fewer witnesses in shorter timeframes, and so on. This is a constitutional amendment we're dealing with here. It's of vital importance to the people of Newfoundland. They have a right to have reasonable hearings and a reasonable timeframe.

I don't know what's so magic about December 5. It has something to do with government priorities, I presume. It's not unknown that committees have gone back to their respective houses to ask for an extension when they needed it. I'm not suggesting that we do that, but it's certainly an option that can be looked at while we try to formulate a plan of action here.

Above all, I don't want to give the people in Newfoundland the impression that the Parliament of Canada is too busy to hear their legitimate concerns. This is not an amendment to the Highway Traffic Act. This is an amendment to the Constitution of Canada. Surely, we have to treat it in that light at all times.

I just wanted to get that before the committee. Thank you, sir.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Point taken, Senator. It's certainly not a light-hearted amendment. Deliberations are very important. However, we can't circumvent Parliament. It was a debate that was held, and votes were taken in terms of the December 5 timeframe. I think Parliament did not take that date lightly, nor should we. I respect your comments, and we'll—

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): And we still have the evenings.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Indeed, you're quite right, Senator, we still have some time within the evening sessions, and can add witnesses. Quite frankly, this is not a solid agenda by any standard of the imagination.

Senator Rompkey, I believe you had some—

Senator William Rompkey: I agree with Senator Doody. And I would further say that this is the only set of hearings on this issue. There were no hearings in the province of Newfoundland, so this is the only time this issue will be heard on this particular question. I think it's important that everybody—not necessarily every single person who applies, because we may not be able to do that—has a chance, that there be a full and complete balance on both sides of the issue. I think that was achieved before, and I think it can be achieved again.

I don't think the idea of the smaller quorum is a good one, as much as I see the point that Senator Gigantès is making. If we split ourselves, I think that would lead to some confusion. Not all of us would hear all witnesses, and I think all of us should hear all of the witnesses in order to get a balanced view.

The other point I would make is that we don't necessarily need to hear the witnesses one at a time. One thing we did before—and I think Senator Doody will agree—was group the witnesses. If you had a group of four witnesses, each could give a short presentation, and you could then ask questions. Not every member is going to want to ask every witness a question. So if you grouped your witnesses, you would get through it much more quickly and more expeditiously.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): He's absolutely right, Senator.

Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Most of the points that I wanted to make have been made. I think the grouping of witnesses is preferable to splitting the committee, because you still have a quorum problem in a split committee. We'd still be working around busy schedules that all members and senators have.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Senator Gigantès.

• 1635

Senator Philippe Gigantès: I'd like to point out that we should have a smaller quorum. We're splitting the committee. Not all of us will be here. So not all of us will hear all the witnesses. But we could ask the staff to have quickly produced summaries of what witnesses have said so that those of us who for valid reasons have not been present can read up.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): That's a very good point, Senator.

We've been negligent in that we haven't taken an opportunity to introduce the Library of Parliament research staff formally. Perhaps we could take that opportunity right now.

Molly and Mr. Stillborn, perhaps you could just stand up and introduce yourselves to the committee.

These are the people who will be preparing some of those reports.

Ms. Molly Dunsmuir (Committee Researcher): I'm obviously the Molly and he's obviously the Jack.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): One of the things that we will probably be doing is augmenting some of our research capability and our report writing capability, because I don't know how two individuals could possibly take on the volume of material. We have that flexibility within the budget.

Your point is taken that wherever possible we would like to provide updates to members of both houses.

Ms. Michelle Dockrill (Bras d'Or, NDP): We're all talking about tight schedules and a lot of witnesses. I notice that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is on here twice. Is there a need for duplication,—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): That's a very good point.

Ms. Michelle Dockrill: —as we're on a tight timeframe here?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Perhaps I could respond to that.

My experience in working with House committees—and my suspicion is that it may be very similar to the Senate committees as well—is that, oddly enough, it's the minister who appears at the beginning of the committee sessions but is always requested to return to respond to specific questions from testimony that occurs during the course of the committee; however, they never have the time and very rarely does it actually happen.

One of the things that I saw as an opportunity here, based on experience of House committees, is let's book the guy in right now—because I've a feeling sincerely, respecting your comments, that indeed we will want the minister to reappear in a final summation to respond to specific issues that will have been raised by witnesses.

Ms. Michelle Dockrill: But is it not correct that this is not like other committees, that we're trying to do this in a two-week timeframe? That seems to be the issue I'm hearing here, trying to make sure that we will give adequate time to the witnesses within two weeks. It's a short timeframe.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): It's simply a suggestion.

Ms. Michelle Dockrill: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): My own personal experience with the House committees is that it's the minister who ultimately has to respond and provide answers to the questions; therefore I thought it prudent to allot some time and give him advance notice that chances are we will indeed be asking him to return, because he is indeed the minister, as well as a minister from Newfoundland.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Senator Pearson and then Mr. Bélanger.

Senator Landon Pearson (Ontario, Lib.): I had just two quick questions. One was in response to Senator Gigantès' comment about summaries of information we don't hear.

While it's really nice to have a summary, it's not fair for testimony. It's very risky to make a summary of somebody else's testimony. I think we're going to have to do our homework. If we're not here, then we're going to have to read the full transcript. I think it's important to do that.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: That's a good point.

Senator Landon Pearson: The second one is about people I think we should hear from. Should I speak about that later?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): I'm always ready to entertain suggestions.

One of the things that I think I'm hearing is that this is not a bad list. I may or may not be hearing that. I sense that, rather than being considered an exclusive list, this is a fairly inclusive list. I'm hearing that there's room to add some more.

• 1640

Are members of the committee open to further fine-tuning on the recommendation of the co-chairs, respecting the wishes of committee members, or should we have a final list prepared here tonight? I want to get a sense of it, because I would be more than happy to entertain any further additions to the list, with respect to the timeframe. I would be happy to receive any submissions that you have right now, as I'm sure we both are.

Senator William Doody: Do we have to close it off?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): No, we certainly don't.

Senator William Doody: I would prefer to leave it flexible. Who knows what might come up during the next week or so?

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): But if somebody actually has—

Senator William Doody: Yes, of course.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): —somebody, so that we can get on the phone and contact people...if anyone has any extra suggestions today, those would be received.

Senator Landon Pearson: I want to continue with my suggestion.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Of course.

Senator Landon Pearson: I think, after all, we are talking about the educational system and we are talking about schools, and one of the stakeholders that has no voice here is the young people themselves. I'd really like to hear from some representative group of young people. They don't necessarily have to be students today, but they need to be closer in age to—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Senator, if I could interrupt, that was one of the things that my Senate co-chair actually suggested to me today: Where are the kids in all this? And then she pointed at me.

Senator Landon Pearson: Well, I know you're much younger than I am.

If that's possible, even if it's the head of the student union at Memorial University, that would still be closer in age, closer to the experience of the school system.

When the Senate had hearings last time around, we did have a panel of young people. It was very stimulating, and I certainly wouldn't mind an evening session on that if it were....

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In order to speed up things, wouldn't it be appropriate at this time to move a motion for a smaller quorum? If you agree, I move that the quorum for hearing witnesses be reduced to six members provided that both houses be represented. I shall come back later to the list of witnesses.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): If I may ask a question, Mr. Bélanger, that is for the purpose of hearing the testimony—

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Yes.

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): —and everybody around this table could be assured this is not for the purpose of voting, or anything like that?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Strictly hearing witnesses—six, both houses.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: It's not for the purpose of what?

The Joint Chair (Senator Joyce Fairbairn): Voting. This would be purely to listen to witnesses.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): So we have unanimous consent, I believe, for that motion.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: As a second point, I would like to suggest that there be a cut-off at some point. You need to have a cut-off. I would suggest sometime in the first week, perhaps Thursday noon or something like that, or even Friday noon, or whatever, so that the co-chairs and the staff can then finalize.

There may be extraordinary circumstances, that we forgot somebody or somebody absolutely wants to in the following week, and we can always come back to it. But there has to be a point where we're fairly secure that this is it, and I would suggest that the cut-off be sometime this week. Thursday noon might be an opportune time.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: On the list, you mean.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: So if anybody wants to suggest anybody, it is their responsibility to get it to the co-chairs by noon Thursday, let's say.

Senator William Rompkey: From the point of view of making plane reservations, you would necessarily need to know when you're coming to Ottawa to get proper reservations for coming.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll move it if you think it would be useful.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: Move it.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: That any member wishing to suggest any name of witnesses, it's their will...Wednesday, Thursday or Friday.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: By Wednesday.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'll start with Wednesday, at noon.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: I second the motion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We have consensus.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Well done.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Is there anything else to be resolved?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Do we have others?

Mr. Matthews.

Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To follow up on the grouping of witnesses, I would really like to see suggested groupings, some way that we could at least.... Because I'm sure we all have different opinions as to who should be grouped. Looking through the list here, I can see where naturally some of them could be grouped very readily and easily, and make a lot of sense and save time, and still accomplish the end result.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Bill, I'll take your suggestions right now if you want to put them forward, because that's what it's all about. I agree with you. Where we can sort of economize, without deteriorating testimony in any regard whatsoever, I'll....

Do I sense a level of trust that the co-chairs and I can work out a decent committee witness list?

• 1645

Senator Philippe Gigantès: You look like an honest fellow.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Can we have it as a formal motion that at the discretion of the co-chairs, respecting consultations with members—

Senator William Doody: Will you pass it by us before you finalize it?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): We certainly will.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Members, if we can get current at this time for Tuesday and Wednesday we can send out notices. I'll have to confer with my clerk.

If members agree, we'll move to hear from Mr. Dion tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. His testimony will be for an hour and half, followed by Mr. Grimes and Mr. Harris. Those individuals have indeed been contacted. Nobody else on this list has been contacted because that would be a circumvention of respective committees.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: Which room?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): That's a very good question. It will be one of the two televised rooms, Senator, because I proactively went to the whip and got him to reserve the rooms for us.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Roger Préfontaine): Tomorrow afternoon is 237-C, the reading room.

Senator Philippe Gigantès: Might I point out that the notice I received said in English that it was in the West Block and in French that it was in the East Block, Room 308.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): My French is improving every day.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: A motion to adjourn is in order.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): Yes, I think so. Just one second, Mr. Bélanger, you're not chair yet.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I'm not going to be chair. I just want to go.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Gerry Byrne): The clerk informs me I should clarify a point of housekeeping. People have been notified that they will be called but they have not been told a specific time. They have been given heads-up so they can prepare their briefs. I just want to clarify that so there's not a false statement on the record.

The meeting is now adjourned.