SJQS Committee Meeting

SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE TO AMEND SECTION 93 OF THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1867 CONCERNING THE QUEBEC SCHOOL SYSTEM

COMITÉ MIXTE SPÉCIAL POUR MODIFIER L'ARTICLE 93 DE LA LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1867 CONCERNANT LE SYSTÈME SCOLAIRE AU QUÉBEC

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, October 20, 1997

• 1533

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Denis Robert): Good afternoon. Ladies and gentlemen, honourable senators, there is a quorum. As Joint Clerk of the Committee, it is my duty to chair the election of the Chairman. I am prepared to hear motions to that effect.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, Ref.): Mr. Chair, may I make a motion that there be a secret ballot election of the chairs in question.

Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Excuse me, but I have a point of privilege. Acting Chair, number one, as I understand it, at no time are you authorized to ask for anything other than the nominations for the co-chairs. Number two, as a Liberal, I take great exception to people not knowing who I'm going to vote for. I am very proud of who I will vote for, and there's no discomfort with that.

• 1535

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Denis Robert): Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): With considerable enthusiasm, I move that my colleague, the member for Brome—Missisquoi, Mr. Paradis, be elected to the chair.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Denis Robert): Excuse me, Mr. Ménard, we are concerned with the Joint Chair from the Senate.

Mr. Réal Ménard: From the Senate? You are not there, are you?

A Voice: You didn't know the Senate was first?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't tell me the Senate is first.

A Voice: Of course it is!

[English]

The Joint Clerk (M. Denis Robert): In answer to your question, Ms. Meredith, I'm obligated only to receive nominations at this time. Secret ballots I cannot accept.

Senator Grafstein.

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein (Metro Toronto, Lib.): I move that my colleague Lucie Pépin do take the chair.

The Joint Clerk (M. Denis Robert): It is moved by Senator Grafstein that Senator Lucie Pépin do take the chair. Are there other nominations?

(Motion agreed to)

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Martine Bresson): As clerk of the committees of the House of Commons, I will now hear nominations for Joint Chairman from the House of Commons.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I nominate our colleague, Denis Paradis, the member for Brome—Missisquoi.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): Mr. Ménard nominates Mr. Denis Paradis as Joint Chairman. Are there any other nominations?

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. Réal Ménard: I know he is somewhat surprised, but...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.)): First, I would like to thank all those who have put their trust in us to chair these proceedings and I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you all on your appointment to this committee, which begins its work today. Before we proceed to the committee's organization, Lucie may have a few words to say at the start of this sitting.

The Joint Chair (Senator Lucie Pépin (Shawinegan, Lib.)): I would like to welcome everyone here today. Our work may not always be easy, but I believe that each and everyone of us brings to this committee the idea of producing the best proposal and bill possible. I can assure you that all your requests will be considered objectively and that, as Joint Chairman, I will try to support you so that we can produce the best possible bill. I wish you all good luck.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. With your permission, we will turn immediately to item 3 on the proposed agenda, concerning broadcasting.

[English]

Item three is television and radio broadcasting of the committee's proceedings.

[Translation]

As part of the organization of this committee, we move that these proceedings be broadcast, at the discretion of the Joint Chairs and in consultation with committee members, in accordance with the orders of reference issued by the Senate on October 9, 1997 and by the House of Commons on October 1, 1997.

Does one of you wish to second this motion?

Are there any comments? Mr. Ménard.

• 1540

Mr. Réal Ménard: I believe that, in the wording of the motion, the Joint Chairman, and I imagine committee members, will agree that, as far as possible, they would like there to be a permanent record of our proceedings and that they be broadcast as widely as possible.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): When we say broadcasting, we are talking about radio and television broadcasting with the aid of our cameras and our House system.

Mr. Réal Ménard: That is correct.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We all understand that point. Any other remarks? Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Would our proceedings be broadcast in Quebec?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): If I understand correctly, they would be broadcast on the CPAC channel.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): Yes, it is also available in Quebec and it is bilingual.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): In the same vein, since you are talking about CPAC, I suggest our proceedings be broadcast from start to finish. As for the press, it goes without saying that there will be press coverage. I move that the proceedings be broadcast in their entirety, from start to finish.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): However, we must be aware that, in the coming weeks, we may encounter problems because the rooms where we sit will not necessarily be equipped with the devices needed to record our debates, as we would ideally wish. It is somewhat for that reason that the resolution is broad. It is important, and in everyone's interests, that these debates, which concern an amendment to our country's Constitution, be broadcast as widely as possible.

Mrs. Finestone.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, I'm not quite sure that I am comfortable with the wording of this particular proposition. As co-chairs, you have given yourselves discretion. Even with consultation you have the final say. It is my view that a constitutional amendment is so vital and so important to the well-being of the citizens of this country from coast to coast that you do not have the right to cut out the citizens' ability to follow the democratic process.

I understand very well the fact that there is not more than one room and that occasionally there are temporary arrangements made for a secondary room for a television. I believe this would have an order of priority of importance. To ensure a democracy you need an informed citizenry.

There are a lot of myths and misunderstandings about the impact and the import of this particular piece of legislation. It would be very important for the rest of Canada, and particularly for people in Manitoba and Alberta and British Columbia who are asking questions, to understand why this is a one-province amendment, why it does not impact on the whole country and why it is different from the Newfoundland proposition. I would not like to give you that right and I would not support the fact that you would have the discretion.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mrs. Finestone.

Mr. Kenney.

Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary-South-East, Ref.): Mr. Chairman,

[English]

I would like to second the views expressed by Madame Finestone. As this is a hearing regarding a constitutional amendment, I think there is an obligation that rests with the committee to make these hearings as public as possible. Has the motion been moved yet?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): No.

Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): There is a proposition there that—

Mr. Jason Kenney: If the motion is moved I'm going to propose an amendment to strike the words “at the discretion of the joint chairs” so that we would take all practicable steps to make these hearings as publicly available as possible.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): All right. Would one of you like to make a motion to that effect, after which we'll see how we proceed? Mr. Coderre is making the motion. We are continuing with remarks. Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would like to make sure that this is indeed in the nature of an amendment; we're discussing an amendment moved by Mrs. Finestone.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Exactly.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I'm in favour of the amendment because, as I said a moment ago, the proceedings should be broadcast from start to finish. If they are, there is no discretion: all the proceedings are broadcast in the media.

• 1545

In light of the importance of this subject, I am very much in favour of having the proceedings broadcast fully from start to finish and of there being no discretion. That is why I will vote in favour of the amendment.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Meredith.

Ms. Val Meredith: I would just like clarification as to whether this would also include teleconferencing for groups that cannot be seen in Ottawa. Would this include teleconferencing so we could perhaps meet with them over the communication vehicle of television and telephone?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): It's not in regard to teleconferencing.

Ms. Val Meredith: Can we include that in the amendment?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): It's only in regard to the deliberation and whether the proceedings of this committee should be televised or broadcast or not. We're just at that point now.

Ms. Val Meredith: I'll bring it up later.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Denis Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): I believe everything has probably been said. This amendment is so important that the best thing that can happen is for the public to be able to see the proceedings in full. In that way, we are going to be able to do a better job. I believe we are ready to vote on this amendment without any further delay.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): I would ask Mrs. Finestone to repeat the amendment.

[English]

I would ask Mrs. Finestone to repeat the amendment.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: The amendment reads that under proposition three, the proceedings of the committee be broadcast pursuant to the orders of reference that were adopted by the Senate on October 19 and by the House of Commons on October 1.

[Translation]

I move that we delete the words "at the discretion of the Joint Chairs and in consultation with the committee members".

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Would others like to speak? Yvon Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I support the amendment moved by Mrs. Sheila Finestone. I do not know whether this is a good time to say it, but I absolutely do not agree with the fact that we are not going to Quebec. We are going to debate the Constitution of Canada, a very important question, and talk about minorities. When I was asked to sit on this committee, I was told that there was no problem in Quebec, that people wanted to get rid of denominational schools, but, since that time, I have received petitions. We're not even going to Quebec to meet the people; I find that terrible. I want my opposition to this decision entered in the record. At the very least, agreeing to this amendment will enable them to always listen to what is going on here.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Is there one final remark? Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Godin should not forget that we have not yet ruled on the question. From my standpoint, we should not rule out the possibility of debating the question whether we should go out into the regions at a later date.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): That could be a topic for debate.

Are you in favour of the amendment moved by Mrs. Finestone, that is to say that we delete the words "at the discretion of the Joint Chairs and in consultation with the members of the committee"?

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Do you all agree to the main motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The fourth item on the agenda concerns the printing of the committee's proceedings.

[English]

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, there is a sub-question that arises from this that I would like to have explained. Where does the right to have in camera meetings come into this when you're deliberating on your final findings and your report? There is something I read somewhere that allows you to deposit a report even in the absence of the House being open. Does that mean it has received the approval?

I don't know if this belongs at this particular moment, but I was wondering about the approval of that report. If we're going to have television and radio broadcasting of all our proceedings, I would presume that includes the final report and the acceptance by this committee of that report. Where does that fit into your points three, four, five, six, etc.?

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): I understand.

[English]

I understand that when we say the proceedings are to be broadcast it's when we have people here—

• 1550

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: The witnesses.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis):—groups or witnesses coming in front of the committee.... After that when we get together ourselves

[Translation]

to come to an agreement, draft the report and prepare to present the best possible final report to the House and Senate, I believe the cameras will not be necessary.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I have a supplementary to that, just to make things very clear. Did you need, or do you feel you would need, to have a 3(1)(a), for example, which will allow for in camera meetings and deliberations at the end? That was the question.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): The Joint Clerk, Ms. Bresson.

[English]

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): It's the choice of the committee to go in camera whenever it suits the committee.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Fine. Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): So whenever somebody asks and there is a favourable vote to go in camera, we will go in camera.

[Translation]

Are there any other questions on this procedure? No? Let's come back to item 4 on the agenda, which concerns the printing of the committee's proceedings. It is moved that the committee authorize the Senate to print the committee's proceedings as required. Will one of the committee members put the motion? Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I move that the committee authorize the Senate to print the committee's proceedings as necessary.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Are there any other speakers?

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Item 5 is the committee's budget: that the committee agree to the budget request of $50,925 for the fiscal year; that the Joint Chairs present the said budget to their respective financial authority, and that the committee authorize the Joint Chairs from the Senate to request emergency funds of $10,000 from the Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.

You have in your hands a draft budget for this committee. Will one of the committee members put the motion? We can discuss the matter afterwards. Mauril Bélanger puts the motion. Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would also like to make a motion. I would like to make sure that the budget amount allocated is based on the scope of the work. As I understand it, in the course of this sitting, we will be discussing witnesses, since the budget also includes their travel expenses and compensation paid to them.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Other comments? Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: That's precisely what I am concerned about. The budget makes no provision for any travel expenses.

At this point, I would like us to have a brief debate, make recommendations and come to a decision concerning travel in the regions, where we could meet the people and talk to them about this constitutional amendment, which is very important not only for Quebec, but for all of Canada, since it is an amendment that will provoke considerable thought across our country. This lack of travel funds is utterly unacceptable. I am prepared to move that amounts be set aside for such travel and that the committee travel to the regions.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. Finestone.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: First of all, in response to the observations that have just been put before us on committee travel, Mr. Chairman, in chairing other committees I have found that committee travel is extremely expensive and non-productive in the sense that you end up with a very tired committee, a very tired staff, and you do not accomplish the same goals. I believe we can accomplish our goals in a most effective and efficient way by inviting the interveners to come to Ottawa. It does a number of things. It allows us to meet them in a much more personal way. It allows us to speak with them in a far less rapid, successive way. I personally prefer having the witnesses come to Ottawa. I do not find that a constraint.

My second point is if you want to continue on this, that is fine. I just want to know where the coffee is in our list.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you.

Paul DeVillers.

• 1555

Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe-North, Lib.): I believe this is already decided in the orders of reference from the House and Senate that the committee will be sitting in Ottawa only. The debate that Mr. Godin is trying to start has already been conducted in the House and in the Senate. The decision has already been made.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would like the clerk to read us the paragraph relevant to what was agreed to in the Senate and the House of Commons. I agree with the last speaker. It seems to me this matter was decided by the House of Commons and the Senate. If we want to amend the orders of reference, I imagine reference must be made to the Senate and the House of Commons. From my standpoint, the matter has been settled. But the clerks could read us the passage pertaining to the resolution passed in the Senate and the House of Commons.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): I'll appeal immediately to the Clerk of the Senate. I don't know whether he has the text of the order of reference before him. Could you read us the part concerning...

[English]

Senator John Lynch-Staunton (Grandville, PC): I can help you—

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): ... from Ottawa or...

[English]

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: There's nothing in the terms of reference to stop the committee from travelling. We asked that the committee travel and we were told the government did not want it to travel. That's why.... We could not amend the terms of reference.

[Translation]

There is nothing stopping the committee from travelling if it wishes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Lynch-Staunton, if I remember correctly, there was a vote on that in the Senate and the decision was ultimately made. There are some here who would like our committee to travel to Quebec.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Yes, we in the opposition had asked precisely that the committee be able to travel, but the government refused. We also asked that the November 7 deadline be changed. That was also denied. However, there is nothing in the resolution concerning travel.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): In the order of reference.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Not in that from the Senate or in that from the House of Commons.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Are there any other comments? Mr. Denis Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, I believe that what must be considered here is efficiency. What is most important is that we see as many groups as possible, gather as many views as possible so that we can ultimately draft the best possible report for Canadians.

I believe we are ready to vote on the budget, and the mere fact that we are moving that additional funds of $10,000 be set aside as emergency funds for the committee may enable us to make certain decisions if we feel we should have more people come here or find ways to accommodate everyone.

What is important is not that the committee start travelling, but that we be able to agree to hear the largest possible number of speakers so that we can come to the most informed decision, in a context where we have to think about saving Canadians some money. We have to be efficient.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I somewhat agree. I won't make a habit of it, but I somewhat agree with my colleague who has just spoken, except on two points.

Each of the members of this committee must bear two concerns in mind. The first is that we must table a report and that the act must be proclaimed before the end of December. The work we are doing today is not academic; it will have repercussions for the expectations of the National Assembly. If we do not pass the bill, if there is no constitutional amendment in Quebec City by the end of December, there will be a problem and the consequences for the Quebec treasury would be extremely great.

I would have liked to know whether there are any witnesses for whom travelling to Ottawa poses a problem, since most of the witnesses will be witnesses from Quebec; not all, but many will be. If ever in the course of our work we realize that this is difficult for some witnesses, perhaps we could reconsider the matter. The debate will no doubt be much more informed and balanced once we talk to the witnesses.

I feel we must reassure our colleague, who is actuated by a healthy concern for people to be heard. However, since I am from Quebec, there don't appear to have been any submissions, to date, from people who could not come to Ottawa. If he has any indication to the contrary, perhaps he could say so when we discuss the witness list. We could rule on this point at that time.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: First, I would like to make it clear, so that people understand, that the idea is not only travel or that I want to travel. The problem is the concern of people who feel the issue is very important and want to have the opportunity to do something in their region or around their region.

For example, in 1989, when the Liberals were in opposition, they said that the only way to serve Canadians when making very important changes was to go to the regions.

Today, times are different; we have to save money and be careful. That's more efficient.

• 1600

It's amusing that times were different in 1989, when they were in opposition. When they were in opposition, they went out into the regions to listen to people because it was important to do so. Suddenly, today, I hear... I want to make sure my views are on the record: as a representative of the public, my position is that we should go into the regions and give people the opportunity to express themselves. If it is important to make changes to the Constitution, it is important that people be able to...

In particular, I am disappointed to see that we have to rush—perhaps that's one of the reasons we are here in Ottawa—so that the National Assembly in Quebec City can pass the act. People have to be given the opportunity to express themselves when Parliament passes laws that will have consequences for them. They must be given a very good opportunity. These are unacceptable shortcuts in my view.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you.

Marlene Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): I don't think travelling is the essential issue. The essential issue is consultation and accessibility. Everyone who so wishes must be afforded the opportunity to do so. I believe that, today, as a result of this marvellous technology... The lady beside me, Val Meredith, if I'm not mistaken, was talking about teleconferences. It seems to me we have all kinds of technologies that enable us to consult as widely as possible without actually having to travel.

However, I'm going to take note of the remark by Mr. Ménard, who said that, if someone who would like to testify before the committee could not make the trip and we were prevented from using technological means to hear his or her testimony, the case should be considered at that time. But we cannot forget the deadline. Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Ms. Jennings.

Paul DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: You asked the clerk to read the orders of reference. Perhaps that would clarify the matter because Senator Beaudoin agreed with me. I don't know whether he has changed his mind, but, if we could read them, perhaps that would help us.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you.

Denis Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I don't think it is appropriate to mix up the budgetary issue with the issues of the importance of consultation and travel. We must consider that we have to meet as many people as possible. If we want to debate the speed or slowness with which we address the issue, that's another matter, and... I think we must discuss it.

On the other hand, we are talking about expanding the debate as widely as possible, of making it as accessible as possible, and someone said we had the technological means to do so. I believe we should settle the budgetary issue immediately. If we then want to discuss the deadline or the way we are going to operate, the committee's logistics, that will be another matter.

This debate is extremely important not only for Quebec, but for all of Canada. We are talking about a fundamental statute here. I don't want us to do everything in haste. However, we must not indulge in petty political partisanship here; the issue is far too important. We won't start going back and forth saying that the Liberals said this or that. For my part, I won't start citing what the NDP or the Bloc Québécois said.

As Canadians, we know this matter has significant implications for Quebec, significant implications for Newfoundland and then for Manitoba, and so on. The object here solely concerns the constitutional amendment pertaining to the Province of Quebec. We are going to settle this matter and then we can debate other substantive issues. But we should not use a budgetary issue to settle all problems because, even if other questions arise, in my view, this is not the time to answer them.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): I'm somewhat confused by the comments of some of my colleagues, in that we have already agreed—and your discretionary power, yours and yours, as Joint Chairs has already been withdrawn—that our debates, proceedings and testimony are to be broadcast. If I'm not mistaken, the broadcasting is essentially to be done in this room. If we insist on travelling, we will not necessarily be able to broadcast as much as we wish. It's one or the other. As this committee has already decided, unanimously I believe, to broadcast our debates, perhaps we should stick to that decision.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Senator Beaudoin.

• 1605

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Coming back to my main question, either it's in the order of reference or it's not. If it is not in the order of reference, what does that mean?

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll ask the clerk to rule on this. If no provision is made for a committee to travel, it does not travel, and, if it is permitted to travel, it travels. If this rule is valid, if it is the right rule, well, the matter is decided. I quite agree that we are discussing a fundamental issue, but perhaps we are discussing it in vain because the question has already been legally settled.

If we have no order of reference permitting us to travel, doesn't that mean we should not travel? The clerks, who are the experts, know this.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): In response to the question you raised, Senator Beaudoin, Beauchesne reads as follows:

812. A committee usually sits in one of the committee rooms of the House, with the necessary arrangements being made by the clerk of the committee.

813. (1) Committees may be authorized by the House to adjourn...

So it's the House's authorization, and that continues. You are absolutely right: the House has not authorized the committee to travel.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Well, then, that should be said. Does the order of reference say yes or no? It should be easy to answer that.

A Voice: I believe the committee is the master of its own proceedings.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): I had one more name on the list, with your permission. David Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): I agree with Ms. Jennings. Of course, we seem to have come to a standstill, but why not leave open the possibility of a teleconference? With that, at least we would have the opportunity to work both here and elsewhere.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: Mr. Ménard raised the issue of the Quebec government's request that this matter be resolved by the end of the year. I hope this committee did not automatically promise to respect that wish. It is quite important that we get this straight.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): According to the orders of reference of the two chambers, Senator, we have a report to table on November 7.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: In any case, I'll come back to this point.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Paul DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the clerk if we have copies of the orders of reference. That's the problem; we don't have copies available so we can read them.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Can we ask the clerk whether we have copies of the orders of reference?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): No. If you wish to come back to the travel authorization, what Senator Beaudoin says is very logical. If we are not given authorization to travel, it is because Parliament prefers that we not travel.

Furthermore, it seems to me that this was raised in the Senate. I believe the issues of travel authorization and postponing the report were raised in the Senate and that this was not permitted. So I really think that...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Bresson, people would like to have copies of the orders of reference from the House and from the Senate.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): We will send you some. I was thinking that you...

Mr. Paul DeVillers: I was only asking if we had copies here so that we could read them and settle the matter.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Of course. Those in favour of the budget as moved, raise your hands, please.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We are moving on to item 6, which concerns research staff. It's A and B, $50,000 and the Senate emergency funds, and the sum of $10,000.

Val Meredith moves that the research staff motion be agreed to. Are there any comments?

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, the second paragraph states: "That the Joint Chairs be authorized to hire or retain experts".

Imagine, if you will, that I have already received in my office a request from a person wishing to be attached to the committee. I would like to know whether this request should be forwarded to you or whether the services of experts have already been retained.

• 1610

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We weren't Joint Chairs before this, but we are as of today. So...

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: In any case, we already seem to have a full schedule. So some work has been done somewhere. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): That's all for the research staff. The next item is item 7, witness travel costs.

[English]

travelling and living expenses of witnesses.

[Translation]

As you saw in the "budget" item, some amounts have been set aside for travel by witnesses. Can anyone make a motion on payment of travelling expenses?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Why a maximum of two witnesses? Was that figure set arbitrarily?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): This is generally what is being adopted in the standing committees. As many as 10 witnesses may come, but we will only reimburse expenses for two witnesses per organization.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): The authorization of accounts: Can someone move that one of the Joint Chairs be empowered to authorize payment of expenses incurred by the committee? Mr. Mauril Bélanger puts the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Distribution of documents: That the Joint Chairs be authorized to distribute the documents received from the public in their original language and to ensure that they are translated as soon as possible. Ms. Marlene Jennings puts the motion.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, it is customary here to remind witnesses that we would like documents that are to be distributed to the committee to be in both languages. In many cases, documents are in English and we have trouble obtaining them in French. I would like witnesses to be clearly informed of this when the joint clerks contact them.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you.

Sheila Finestone.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Ménard, does that mean that, if a coalition decides to submit a proposal or bill in its mother tongue, English or French, we will not accept it if it has not already been translated? I can't accept that.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mrs. Finestone, that's not what I mean. You and I have worked together, and I am somewhat surprised by your question. What it means is that we would like the document...

Hon. Sheila Finestone: We would like.

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no. That means that we must not find ourselves in a situation where most of the documents circulating are in English. A community group may not have enough money to have its brief translated, but we would ask to file it long enough in advance for the House of Commons to be able to have it translated.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard, I would like to tell you that the Joint Clerk Ms. Bresson has told me that some briefs are currently being translated.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I agree wholeheartedly on that because I believe it isn't fair to reject a brief at the last minute. It's the mother tongue that counts, and here we at least have assurances that it will be translated as soon as possible. It can take a day or two to translate a brief. I believe that gives us a little leeway.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Yes. A comment, Mauril?

[English]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Question: I want to know if there's any semblance of a rule in terms of when we get documents, let alone in which language.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Do we get them when the witnesses appear so we have all of 30 seconds to go through them? Or do we get them at least the night before so we can go through them then?

[Translation]

That's my question.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Bresson.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): Most of the documents have been sent to us to be translated. Some of the documents we have received have been sent solely for translation purposes. Now, as you can see, and you mentioned this, the committee will be extremely busy and most of the organizations have not been able to send us documents on time. So you will undoubtedly receive them a few hours ahead of time.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, I asked that we have them the day before. This isn't an unreasonable request. Some of us would like to take an hour or two to read them and try to analyze what is being put to us. When we try to listen to the witness, it's virtually impossible. At least I can't do it. I was asked to sit on this committee and I agree to do so. If you wish, I can put my request in the form of a formal motion. Can we expect to receive documents the day before the witnesses appear?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mauril.

Mr. Kenney.

• 1615

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to point out it's very difficult for witnesses who have only a few days notice, really, to make preparation when they're going to appear before the committee, to do a comprehensive brief on a complex issue of this nature and bring it in early for translation to turn it around for distribution to members of the committee.

The real problem here is that we're all working under incredible, I think undue, haste in consideration of a constitutional amendment. We're working on a timetable set by the Government of Quebec City, which has had three years to bring forward this amendment and which didn't decide to do so until the last minute. This committee should not throw itself and its witnesses into a frenzy in terms of preparing for these hearings, when the option of extending the hearings can be put back before both the House and the Senate.

So I would say let's not pettifog about reading briefs ahead of time. What we need is more time for consideration, as do the witnesses and all Canadians.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Kenney. Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, surely there is someone around this table who will say that there is a difference between the dream world and the real world, but there are two official languages in this country. That's the first thing.

The second thing is that it irritates me every time I hear that we can't complete a translation on time and that I, as a Francophone, am going to receive my copy in French as soon as possible, whereas the English copy will be ready on time. The converse is also true.

We are going to have to give serious consideration to the procedure here. I also think, as Mauril just said, that we will have to make the time. If I see that almost all the work has been well done, that we have nearly all the documents and "as soon as possible" actually means within a reasonable period of time... We'll work later if we have to, but I would like us to receive these documents on time and in both languages.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Any other comments? Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: You have already scheduled a number of organizations to appear. Am I to assume you already have their briefs in hand?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): What we have in hand are the briefs of those groups that have requested translations. In our letter of confirmation, we asked them to send them to us for today. The ones we have received are for translation only.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I don't understand. You're saying that the ones you have received are solely for translation. So you have a number of briefs in hand, but they are only in one language.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): That is correct.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Then, in light of the resolution on the distribution of documents, you can nevertheless distribute the document in its original language today and provide us with its translation tomorrow or later. In any case, you are nevertheless going to be able to comply with Mr. Bélanger's and Mr. Coderre's request.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: This seems to me to be a matter of common sense. It is quite possible that a community organization may not have a translation of its brief, and we can understand that. The problem in the committees and in the House of Commons is that there are not enough translators delivering the briefs on time. That's the truth. Mrs. Finestone will remember since that is no doubt one of her fond memories. We worked together, and she knows the way things are in certain committees: we receive the brief five or six days later. Our colleague, Mr. Bélanger, is right to say that, for the sake of the discussion, it is much more respectful for the witness when we have read what he has come to tell us before the sitting because that's more intelligent. I know that all the discussions will be intelligent, but they will be even more intelligent if we have already read the brief.

What we should want is for the two Joint Chairs to take all the necessary steps for the briefs to be translated. Now we won't object when a witness appears before us with a brief in one language. Normally, we should have the consent of all members for the brief to be presented in only one language. Being as reasonable as we are, we have never objected when...

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no, we have never objected when we were given a guarantee that the translation would be done in the next few hours. That's all I meant.

• 1620

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. We take note of Mr. Ménard's comments. I believe they reflect those of Mauril. We will take the necessary steps so that, where possible, you can receive all the documents in advance.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Can we essentially decide that our modus operandi will be to ask all those people wishing to appear before us to submit their briefs 24 hours before they appear? That's not unreasonable. Thank you.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, there will be large organizations that already have all their arguments and papers in order.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We take note of all these comments. Who is in favour of the motion on the distribution of documents?

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Motion 11 concerns meals. Reg Alcock put the motion. I see everyone is in favour of this motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you very much. We move on to item 12.

[English]

Let's move on to section 12, which is “Schedule for Meetings”.

[Translation]

This is the meeting schedule. The Joint Clerk Ms. Bresson has pointed out that this is a draft. And that is indicated at the top of the page:

[English]

it's a draft.

[Translation]

It's here so that we can discuss the matter today. I believe Ms. Bresson has already advised the groups to be ready in the next two weeks to be summoned on very short notice. This is a bill we have before us. Sheila Finestone.

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I've just taken a quick look at this proposed list in front of us of those groups that wish to be heard. What I find rather strange—and I don't understand who made these decisions—is the allocation of time. In some instances, at a quick glance, we see an hour and a half; in other instances we see half an hour; in further instances we see 45 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know who can make an enlightened presentation.... At 9 o'clock we have Mr. Picard, and at 9.15 a.m. Mr. Gary Caldwell. This is ridiculous. Who made this decision to put people together in such a compressed situation?

If we really want to be transparent and listening, we need at least half an hour per witness. That's number one. Number two, with a large organization we need certainly a minimum of 45 minutes, and then the committee needs to take a deep breath, be able to have five minutes to think and then meet and see the next group. You can't see them one group after another without a break.

So I would respectfully submit that rather than dealing point by point with each one of these groups, the list be given back to the clerk and be reworked in consideration of the reality of how groups appear, how people need to take a breath and why the committee needs to have a breathing point too.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mrs. Finestone, I would like to inform you that an attempt was made in this document to allow approximately 45 minutes for each group or organization, including roughly 10 minutes for introductions, followed by about half an hour of questions by members and senators, except for people appearing as individuals. That is the general rule that was applied in preparing this draft, but for people appearing as individuals, provision was made for 15 minutes instead. I am not trying to say whether this is valid, I'm just explaining the principle. Are there any other comments? Mr. Ménard.

• 1625

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, you've answered, but it doesn't make an enlightened look when you see the Protestant Partnership on Education at 10 to 10.30 a.m., followed by the Coalition for Denominational Schooling, and we know that's a big problem and a serious concern. You give them half an hour, and then you give the Provincial Association of Protestant Teachers 45 minutes. You give REAL Women 45 minutes.

Forgive me, but I think there's a difference in the value of the presentations that are being made, the nature of the group that is coming before us, and the issues at hand. Those have to be taken into account, and if the clerks want some input then maybe all of us could have some input as to which groups are assigned priority.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Finestone, you seem to be right on this one and I will ask our clerk to tell us something.

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): Where there are discrepancies, it's because the groups that were to appear had problems. Those groups agreed to cut their time short. In the case of the individual who was to appear for the Coalition for Denominational Schooling, that was virtually the only way we had to...

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: Then replace them with REAL Women, please, and give them some time.

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): It would be a pleasure to do so, but they can't come on Monday. That's my problem.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: I have a problem too, Ms. Bresson, and I can't accept the fact that we cannot accommodate such a large coalition that is being deprived of its right. We have to be able to address this concern, and this is much more important than the rights of the other coalitions.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): What group are you referring to, Sheila?

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Denis Robert): The Coalition for Denominational Schooling, on October 24.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): All right. We'll set that aside and come back to it in a moment. Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I entirely agree with Mrs. Finestone.

Second, I would like to move that each of us be able to have until tomorrow, at the end of the sitting, to complete the witness list. I would like you to allow us 24 hours to see whether we would like other witnesses to be heard.

Third, I believe we must draw a distinction between individuals and coalitions. How are we going to determine whether an individual wants to be heard? How are we going to ensure that what he has to say is relevant to the debate? I see, for example, REAL Women of Canada, and I wonder what they are doing in all this. I see that the Joint Chair, Ms. Pépin, is agreeing without stating her reasons; I believe we think alike on this point. There is a danger of going off the rails here, and we should not deny it. We have to make sure that everyone who wants to be heard and who is participating in the debate can do so, but we also have to ensure that there isn't just endless talk, which ultimately will serve no one's purpose. I insist that we be able to submit a witness list to you and I move that we have until tomorrow evening to do so. The clerks can then deal with it.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you. Mr. Alcock.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: I want to note something on the scheduling on Friday. You have two witnesses scheduled during question period. I'm assuming that was an oversight. Friday from 11 a.m. to noon is question period.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): You're right. So we have two problems there, from 11 a.m. on Friday there is question period in the House.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): Do they want to sit in the afternoon? That would solve my problem if they sit in the afternoon.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We'll see. Val Meredith.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: I'm curious as to whether or not we will be allowing for all those groups who are not on this list who may discover that this committee is meeting.

I don't believe there was any advertising in Quebec to allow the people to know that this is happening and I have real problems if we are not going to accommodate them. I think our mandate was to consult broadly, and not just people who may seem to have a concern but people who may feel precedents will be set that will affect them outside of Quebec.

I think we have to be very flexible to make sure that we accommodate those individuals who may, within a week's time, indicate that they want to appear before this committee.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): I agree. Mr. Kenney.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: I would like to second that sentiment and say that I think it's absurd if the committee tries to set up a test for who will constitute acceptable witnesses.

Presumably the people who come before us do so in good faith to address the proposed amendment to the legislation, and I think we ought not to prejudge any witness but that a set time ought to be allocated to any organization, and if for whatever scheduling reasons they choose not to take the full time, that's their prerogative.

• 1630

As a point of information, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you or the clerks could advise us as to whether any advertising has taken place, whether consideration has been given in the budget to advertising, not just in Quebec but nationally. This is Canada's constitution, not Quebec's constitution we're talking about. Also, will we be able to accommodate all potential witnesses by the deadline set for the committee of November 7. Do we know that?

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Next we have Mr. Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: Would you answer my question?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): There was no advertising made in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada, except that this situation has been in the newspapers almost every day, especially Quebec papers, saying that after the resolution by the National Assembly in Quebec, the House of Commons.... I don't know how it was elsewhere.

The problem we have is that today is the first meeting of this committee and we are bound by a set date that the House and the Senate gave us to report, which is November 7. We still have that, because some people presented an amendment or a motion in the House and the Senate and it was overruled. We're coming back to the date, which is November 7, and we need a few days at the end to revise the report, our own report, and to have it deposited in the House and Senate for November 7. This is the answer I can give you now.

I can come back to you after that, but now I have the intervention of Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, I asked you whether any allocation had been made in the budget for advertising and I didn't get an answer.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): There was none according to the budget you've just voted.

Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know if the Commissioner for Official Languages, Victor Goldbloom, has been invited to appear.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): The commissioner is not on the list that we have here. from what I've seen, but the commissioner is responsible for bilingualism or English and French in the Canadian government organisms and everything. Here, we're rather more discussing section 93 in regard to the education in the province of Quebec.

You're saying that we should have Victor Goldbloom. Is that what you're saying?

Senator Lynch-Staunton: I'm urging that he be invited and I also would like to urge that we invite constitutional experts on the propriety of applying section 43 of the appropriate amending formula. I think the jury is still out whether this is an amendment that comes under that formula or, because section 93 involves more than one province, another formula should be used.

I don't want to open the debate now, but I feel there it would be unfortunate if a successful challenge to section 43 were made after all the work that we are called on to do here. There must be a way to come to some kind of decision on it. I would like to see some experts some time during our deliberations.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): According to that draft schedule, three people, Daniel Proulx, William Foster and William Smith—

Senator Lynch-Staunton: Are they constitutional experts?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): They're supposed to be constitutional experts and they are there for tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

[Translation]

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: I have a final question. Was a representative of the Quebec government invited to come and explain exactly how this amendment, if passed, will be implemented in the school system and how the rights of certain minorities will be respected?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Not as far as I know. The organizations appearing here have said in one way or another that they intend to be heard.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: That's not my question. Pardon me for interrupting, but it's not up to Mr. Dion to defend the resolution; it's up to the Government of Quebec or a representative of the National Assembly, which passed it unanimously, to come here and explain to us why and how it will be implemented.

• 1635

When we debated Newfoundland's Term 17, we went to Newfoundland, and the ministers of the Newfoundland government came and defended their position. I don't understand why there are no witnesses from the Quebec government on the witness list.

I propose that the minister responsible...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Allow me to remind you that we are considering the schedule. I take note of your comments and we may come back to specific points. I would like us first to complete our comments on the overall analysis of the timetable. Senator Wood.

[English]

Senator Dalia Wood (Montarville, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to agree with Senator Lynch-Staunton. I'd like to see an independent expert, not only the officials from the Department of Justice.

In allotting 30 minutes to an organization, what part of that 30 minutes will be left for the 23 members sitting around this table?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): We have to deal with it ourselves, because we have the Senate and we have the House of Commons. We have the party that formed the government and we have four opposition parties. So we have 30 minutes to question the people who will be coming before us.

Senator Dalia Wood: That's not correct. You said you're giving an organization 30 minutes to speak.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): No, I said at the beginning there will be ten minutes for the organization to speak and then we will go into a question and answer period of about half an hour. That proposition is in front of you.

Senator Dalia Wood: No, you're still not right. You say 30 minutes on this piece of paper. If you're giving somebody 30 minutes, the questions have to fit within their time. Is that correct?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): The draft document refers to about 45 minutes to appear before us. Out of that 45 minutes there would be about a 10-minute presentation by the organization or group and then we would have about half an hour to question the people before us.

Senator Dalia Wood: I guess I don't understand you. You have one here from 9.30 a.m. to 10 a.m. That's 30 minutes for the parent support group, for example. If you're going to give them 30 minutes, how many minutes do we get?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Wood, I think there are some problems there, because we show only half an hour in some places. Mrs. Finestone just raised that subject and we will make sure the draft document is consistent.

[Translation]

We should review this document to ensure it contains a certain balance. That's why I believe it is important that we continue to take note of everyone's ideas and that they be reflected in the revised document.

Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we should then discuss the time available to the opposition based on the number of parties and the government. The situation is going to be quite chaotic.

I find some things unacceptable. We're giving the Equality Party 45 minutes and the Coalition for Denominational Schooling only 30 minutes. We have to realize one thing, that there are three issues in this debate: first, denominational schooling, second, the language issue and, third, the rights and freedoms issue.

At some point, we have to gauge the way we allot time to the various groups a little better. There are organizations that we simply know nothing about; perhaps that's because I am a neophyte, but I've been in public life for a fairly long time. As you know, in committees, we sometimes see new organizations suddenly appear.

[English]

They're coming from nowhere,

[Translation]

but we give them a lot of time. The Coalition for Freedom, all right, but we only allot 30 minutes to the Canadian Jewish Congress, even though we know how important it is.

• 1640

The Diocese of Montreal is important. However, why hear representatives of REAL Women of Canada? I am very much a feminist and very "pro-women", Senator, but they have no business here. There is also the Greenfield Park Dissenting Catholic School Board; if I formed a dissenting school board from Joliette, could I have 45 minutes?

I would prefer that we proceed in a little more serious-minded manner. In allocating time, perhaps we could allow 10 minutes for people testifying individually, 15 to 20 minutes for corporations or schools that are involved in the issue and 30 minutes plus the question period for more important coalitions or ones representing a larger number of individuals. Like Ms. Wood, I feel somewhat lost in all this.

We should agree on a modus operandi. Take the day and evening and reorganize the schedule. We should agree more on the interaction between opposition and government and the way we want to operate. How much time will we allot, first of all, to witnesses and how will we determine the amount of time each deserves? It seems to me that, for the moment, it's a little too arbitrary. Furthermore, the debate is a little too important for us to start getting into this.

Senator Wood.

[English]

Senator Dalia Wood: Mr. Chairman, is there a reason why you've excluded parents who want to appear before us? My office has received 15 requests from individual parents who want to come here. I see there's not one listed here, yet we forwarded these to the clerk of the committee.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): I refer the question to Ms. Bresson.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): We have received the documents you sent us. We could hear these witnesses in the evening, or at any other time you wish, and allow them 10 minutes each. This is a draft.

I would like you to tell me which organizations are important in your minds and which are less so, as Mr. Coderre was suggesting, after which we will prepare a new schedule. We have to meet tomorrow and are prepared to work this evening, but tell me exactly what you want, and more precisely than you have to this point. If you think the Equality Party should not have 45 minutes, tell me how many minutes it should have, but tell me.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Ms. Bresson. I turn the floor over to the other three speakers, Senator Beaudoin, Ms. Jennings and Mr. Ménard.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would like to come back to the experts because I feel this is extremely important. We are studying an amendment to the Constitution. Not everyone shares the same opinion; not even the experts all share the same opinion.

Tomorrow, we start with the Minister, which is entirely logical. The Minister may or may not be accompanied by experts; that's up to him. Following his testimony, we will hear three experts. However, I don't think you'll address the entire problem of the bilateral or trilateral amendment, or the question that is added to the denominational issue, in an hour or two; I very much doubt that.

In light of what the witnesses tell us—and we clearly have an incredible range of opinions here—we will have to make a decision and I hope that will still be possible. I believe we are starting out on the right foot, but we will ultimately have to summon a few experts because we will have heard differing and contradictory opinions. We have to take that into account. We as a committee will have to make a decision in the end.

I have always thought that we couldn't hear everyone. There are 30 million Canadians, and we should not forget that fact. We have to make choices, the fairest and most reasonable choices possible. We can't hear everybody. We have to make choices at some point.

It's a very good idea to start off with the issue of expertise, but I don't think that's exhaustive. Perhaps we should set aside a day or a few hours before drafting the report. For everything else, I rely on good judgment.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Beaudoin.

Ms. Jennings.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I've received the names of two organizations and an individual who would like to make a joint presentation. I could give them to you immediately if you wish. The Quebec Board of Black Educators is an organization that has been in existence for at least 15 years and represents black teachers in primary, secondary, college and university institutions providing numerous programs in the school boards and in organizations for young people from the English- and French-speaking black communities.

• 1645

There is also an individual, Mr. Steven Potter, whose brief I believe you have already received. He contacted my office to say he would like to make a presentation. I can give you his address and telephone number.

I support what Mr. Coderre said concerning the importance of setting time criteria, of saying how much time we can allot to individuals. Perhaps we can allot more time to an expert. In the case of a kind of umbrella organization representing many other organizations, I believe it is important to allow more time than for someone representing a very small group.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Ms. Jennings, check with our clerk after the sitting to ensure the people you mentioned have been clearly identified.

Mr. Réal Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: There are two major problems. First, this table is not balanced. There are some witnesses who should be heard and who will not be heard. We could adopt the following procedure.

Each of the members and senators will submit a list of 10 witnesses he or she considers important. This is often done in the committees: this is the first witness I would like to see appear, the second, the third, the fourth and so on up to 10. At that point, you group them together and you see which ones are repeated. That's one thing.

The clerks will have to be aware that this proposal regarding the witnesses is completely unbalanced. This is an amendment concerning Quebec, and the vast majority of the groups are not from Quebec. You must understand right off the bat that the Coalition for Denominational Schooling represents 43 organizations. It's not a minor group. We can't just hear it on October 24 from 10:30 to 11:00 a.m. These people represent all of those in Quebec who support the amendment.

Second, regarding expertise, it is true we have to hear experts. I agree with that. What I can see is that there are already three. Furthermore, perhaps we could determine tomorrow whether the Minister wishes to bring his legal expertise. In addition, each of us around this table will always have the opportunity to make motions. This evening, I believe we should set an objective of returning to our offices, preparing proposals and sending them to the clerk, and, with that in hand, you will group them together. The present table is extremely unbalanced.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Ménard. Senator Prud'homme.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme (La Salle, Ind.): I see Mr. Dion has ample time, but is he the Quebec government's spokesperson? I find it bizarre that there isn't this quid pro quo. On this point, I believe Senator Lynch-Staunton is absolutely right. This entire process is at the express request of Quebec, which has made representations and produced a bill which was debated in the National Assembly. But they are nowhere to be seen. So there is an imbalance, unless Mr. Dion has been converted and has become a spokesman of the Government of Quebec. We'll see about that.

On the other hand, I agree with Mr. Ménard on the schools question, which surprises me, but he is aware of that. He is absolute right as regards Friday, October 24. A half-hour for the Coalition for Denominational Schooling is not sufficient. This must be reviewed. I am making an honourable suggestion here.

Now let's talk about the Archdiocese of Montreal. An entire aspect of our society is being changed. The entire history of the Catholic French-Canadian people of Quebec is crumbling, and we're giving it 45 minutes. But we are also giving the Equality Party and Alliance Québec 45 minutes each. There is something bizarre going on here because I get the impression that roughly the same people and the same opinions are involved here.

My colleague and friend Ms. Wood says this is not the case. I would like to believe her because she is a good friend, but I find Alliance Québec and the Equality Party are often interchangeable.

• 1650

So I would like you to look at this matter a little more closely. That's all.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator.

Mauril Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Perhaps it would be appropriate to set a few deadlines so that we can operate and move forward. For example, is there a deadline, a date or a time, by which many members must hand in their witness suggestions? Is it 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, for example? This would let us make decisions as to the witnesses we want to call tomorrow afternoon. The committee can't yet accept its witnesses, and perhaps there are some we won't want to accept.

So it would be a good idea to draw up as final a list as possible of people we want to suggest. The committee would first conduct an in camera review of the list of witnesses we want to appear, which would allow the clerks the time to invite witnesses. If we don't want to decide in camera, let's accept Mr. Ménard's suggestion that we propose 10 witnesses each and the clerk will compile the names and invite those people.

It seems to me we have to do work fast. First, we have to finalize the list as far as possible, even if it means reviewing it later. I agree we have to allow ourselves some time at the end to invite certain experts and groups back. So we set aside a day or two at the end, but we should establish the list right away. We should accept or reject people. I don't necessarily agree that we should meet some of the groups that we have here. I won't identify them because I don't want to offend anyone.

This is usually done in camera, and I would suggest we do it tomorrow after we have heard the witnesses scheduled for tomorrow. Thank you.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Bélanger. Mr. Goldring.

[English]

Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): We were to broadly consult, but here we are as late as Friday and in my discussions with some groups they were not aware of the November 7 deadline. This came as news to them. So, as we sit here and speak, there are groups that are not aware of this deadline, yet we are prepared to cut these off.

I would think that at the bare minimum what we should be doing is keeping it open for people to come before this committee at least until the end of this week, to give them time to consider it, to give people time to consult. If we are to broadly consult the areas, then that takes time. So at least leave it open until the end of this week.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): In response to Mr. Prud'homme's wish... Mr. Prud'homme, I'm speaking on your behalf. I'm acting as caucus chair.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Is this on the agenda?

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: You would like a member of the Government of Quebec to appear. I don't think that's done in other committees. That was done in other committees? Yes?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Not under this government.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: We did it in Newfoundland.

Ms. Christiane Gagnon: In Newfoundland? I'm talking about the House of Commons here. I'm not talking about Newfoundland.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: Ms. Gagnon, it was the House of Commons and the Senate. When we travel, we represent Parliament. Whether we are in Newfoundland or here, we represent Parliament. It was a parliamentary committee.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: I would just like to confirm that this is not just for Quebec. This is for all Canadians. All Canadians are concerned about the changes and amendments to the Canadian Constitution.

I am curious as to why we stopped on Tuesday. Are we, as a committee, going to be sitting and hearing witnesses until the end of next week, which would be November 3? If so, it would appear to me that, with morning, afternoon, and evening, there should be plenty of time to meet any and all who may want to appear before this committee.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Of course I would have no objection at all to bringing in an expert witness from another province.

Ms. Val Meredith: Is there some reason why we are not scheduling to Friday, November 3, morning, afternoon, and evening, to accommodate those people who wish to appear before this committee?

• 1655

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: I think November 3 is impossible.

[Translation]

A Voice: Why?

[English]

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: It should be Friday, October 31, because November 3 is—

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Did everybody get the date straight?

[Translation]

We absolutely must table this report in the Senate and in the House of Commons no later than November 7. The Friday preceding that date is October 31, Halloween. I'm being told that our House and Senate services need one week to prepare the report, to translate it and so on. If we want to be practical, that means we have until October 31. That's the time we have left. You start at the end date, which is November 7, and move backwards one week. The most logical date for completing hearings of our witnesses, the groups we want to appear, is October 31. We have to make sure we can write a first draft of the report together. And I should tell you that leaves us with a tight schedule.

Coming back to what Ms. Meredith and others said about additional witnesses, I would be prepared—and I believe the Joint Chairman would as well—to say that we can receive names of witnesses, groups or experts we would like to hear until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Obviously, this is a tight deadline but this doesn't mean we are cancelling what is scheduled for tomorrow, that is to say the Minister at 9:00 a.m., the experts at 10:30, the parents, the Association des communautés scolaires franco-protestantes du Québec at 3:30 and then the Coalition for Freedom. Perhaps we could work tomorrow as planned. We'll accept your submissions as to individuals and groups you would like to add to the list and then work with a perhaps fuller, more comprehensive list.

If ever we realize along the way that, for some reason, we have forgotten someone really important in the system, it seems to me everybody will agree to find room to hear them.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I support your motion and move that we put it to a vote.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): All right. But first, Senator Prud'homme.

[English]

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: I would like to be very positive. Here is a suggestion that's very important for this important work.

Say the Marois-Dion team feels it's very urgent and very important. I'm not cynical, even though you could chuckle. As for the Marois-Dion committee, if it is so imperative to have it on November 7, may I kindly suggest to both co-chairs to impress on the government that this is not a regular committee; this is very urgent. It's at their request. Therefore, all the staff necessary should be put at your disposal. Only a chairperson could impose on the government and say that we're not going to take one week to translate, as the staff will be overworked.

I had to go through that many years ago when we created the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. We had a deadline. That was at the end of Trudeau's career, June 1984, and we got it right on time. That's because services were provided to this committee that were considered to be very important.

I therefore suggest that you should do likewise, and impose your agenda on the political masters of the day. You be the ones who request the deadline, so therefore ask it to give you the tools. You cannot ask your staff to work through the night. But work could be done at night.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman, the translators can work as we go along, translating what is done during the day. You can have everything so that, in two or three days, people will be ready to get to work. Otherwise you are going to have problems.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Prud'homme, you're quite right, particularly since everyone tells us the debates should be televised on our in-house system. I should tell you that we are taking on a heavy load at the outset because, for the moment, there is no room equipped with broadcasting equipment that can be reserved for us for two weeks. We'll have to move heaven and earth for the House to accommodate us in this regard. I take note of your comments.

Denis Coderre.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you considering my motion?

• 1700

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): You made a motion of the suggestion I made?

Mr. Réal Ménard: We should discuss it or put the motion to a vote and consider the matter closed.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): This is for your guidance, Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I've done procedure too.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You've even done some radio.

Mr. Denis Coderre: A lot of radio, which makes me more informed about drafts.

But am I to understand...

Mr. Réal Ménard: We won't request a vote on it.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Am I to understand that this isn't a draft and that those who are on the list have already been invited? They are going to be here tomorrow. So the Coalition for Freedom, with which I'm not familiar...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): From what I understand, these people will be available to appear at these times tomorrow if they get a phone call this evening. They haven't been sent for. If they receive a call this evening, they will be available at these times tomorrow.

Mr. Denis Coderre: So you are asking us for names of organizations and so on.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Let's work through tomorrow as planned. The only witnesses confirmed for tomorrow are Mr. Dion and the experts. In the afternoon, we will have the Association des communautés scolaires franco-protestantes du Québec and the Coalition for Freedom.

Mr. Denis Coderre: What does the Coalition for Freedom do?

October 29, 30 and 31 aren't on here. Is there a page missing?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): No, it's because it isn't finished yet and there is still some leeway.

Your motion is to set aside tomorrow.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, for tomorrow, but I would like us to close the matter of witnesses now. Returning to what you said, I move that each of our parliamentary groups be asked to submit to you a list of witnesses in order of priority by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. It seems to me that should close the debate on witnesses.

At the end of the sitting tomorrow, you come back to us with a revised list and we then continue the debate. Otherwise we could discuss the witness issue for another three hours.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Denis Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: It's being said that this is an extremely important issue because it is a constitutional matter that affects the Government of Quebec. It has been put before Parliament at the request of the Quebec government. This is the question. Has the Government of Quebec, through its Minister Pauline Marois, expressed a wish to come here and state its position?

No, she doesn't want to come here.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I'll answer the question from the member for Bourassa. That was my colleague's remark. Senator Prud'homme, whose humour cheers us all, knows perfectly well that the current Quebec government, not the one you would like, but the current government, will never come here to the House of Commons to appear before our parliamentary committee. So don't hold out any hope that your dreams will come true.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: "Says who?" as they say in English. Whose saying they won't?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Ménard, would you like to complete your remarks?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to disobey you, but, from the information we have, an appearance by the Government of Quebec, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or the Minister of Education, is clearly out of the question.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Ménard.

Senator Lynch Staunton.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: On the matter of a representative of the Quebec government, I can't believe we are submitting to a timetable imposed on us by the Quebec government, when we are told it is not even interested in coming to defend its case. This is the National Assembly. This is not a regular bill; this is an amendment to the Constitution that has been unanimously requested by the National Assembly. One of the recitals of the resolution—I only have the English text, but everyone will understand—clearly states:

[English]

WHEREAS such amendment in no way constitutes recognition by the National Assembly of the Constitution Act, 1982, which was adopted without its consent;

[Translation]

So we're being told today that the person who was to represent the National Assembly to defend and explain the resolution does not even recognize the Constitution and has the gall, and I mean gall, in his absence, to request that a report be quickly tabled by November 7. This is completely unacceptable.

• 1705

To highlight the disdain that the Quebec government seems to have for the Parliament of Canada, we could at least pass a unanimous motion here—yes, Madam, I mean disdain—inviting either the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs or the Minister of Education to appear here and to explain to us at least why an amendment to the Constitution, which is of great importance not only for Quebec, but for the other provinces as well, has to be made when the National Assembly does not recognize the Constitution. They could at least clear up the flagrant contradiction I have just pointed out.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): One moment, Mr. Ménard. You are third on my list of speakers.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I believe we have to watch the words we use.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): You can come back to those words later. It's Mr. Kenney's turn.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: A point of order, first of all, Mr. Chairman. What exactly is the motion before the committee?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): The motion in front of the committee right now is that everybody has until 5 o'clock tomorrow night to produce a list of witnesses or organizations or groups that would like to be heard by this committee. It is to produce to the clerk of the committee a list—

[Translation]

Yes?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: A point of order.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): A point of order by Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: If we don't have the list, personally, I am going to vote against it. We can't say, "by five o'clock tomorrow night" and we can't finalize the list by five o'clock. That will depend on what the...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Beaudoin, in response to your point of order, I mentioned earlier that we are requesting everyone's cooperation so that by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow, we have as full a list as possible. If a very important group has been forgotten and is mentioned after tomorrow evening, I believe everyone here would agree to try to find time for it to be heard. That's the meaning of what has been said.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: All right, if that's part of the resolution.

[English]

Mr. Jason Kenney: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think I had the floor.

I'd like to speak against the motion and propose an amendment to it. I find it just deplorable that, in one of the most important matters that will be considered by this Parliament, we're talking about giving organizations and individuals a 28-hour deadline to submit their names for consideration to appear before this committee.

Maybe those who are regulars who have followed this closely will have already submitted their names and will have made themselves known to members and senators around this table. But there are undoubtedly many organizations and individuals who aren't yet even aware of this, and to close off their opportunity to speak to an amendment to the Canadian Constitution 24 hours after striking the committee seems to me to be completely undue haste.

I would therefore move that the motion be amended: that all members of this committee submit names of groups or individuals no later than the close of business on Friday, October 24, and that all such groups or individuals who request to appear as witnesses before the committee be permitted to do so; furthermore, that in order to accommodate such witnesses, this committee, if necessary, request that the motion passed by the House and Senate outlining its terms of reference be amended to provide for an extension of its November 7 deadline.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. Let's not bury our heads in the sand. First, Mr. Chairman, everyone knows perfectly well that the committee was struck a few days ago. We know perfectly well that we are holding meetings to discuss this amendment. When I see people argue as though something unexpected had occurred... I believe the Reform Party has known at least since Parliament resumed that we were going to be considering an amendment such as this one. I don't believe we are discussing something new. I hope everyone around this table has thought a bit and has an idea of the witnesses he or she wishes to hear. This is what is happening, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): All right. Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I know perfectly well. For two weeks now I've been trying to find out when we would have to come and appear here. I learned that this morning.

Furthermore, it's not my responsibility as a member of Parliament to go to New Brunswick and promote this committee. That's not my responsibility. It's the government's responsibility to establish a system for spreading the news to everyone who might wish to see a change in the Constitution.

• 1710

And even as regards us, the committee's members, I am fairly certain that some did not know we were sitting today. They arrived this morning and learned about it this morning. We knew we were eventually going to sit, but it's not up to us...

If the National Assembly in Quebec wants to pass a motion without consulting people and without holding consultations, that's its problem. But when it comes to the Canadian Constitution, it's our problem.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Wood.

Senator Dalia Wood: Mr. Chairman, I would like to change something for tomorrow. We will hear from three associations in 45 minutes, late after the lunch hour. I don't think giving them each 15 minutes is sufficient. There is no other time to change this except today.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): The whole schedule is going to be revised, because the motion in front of everybody right now says that everybody will have until tomorrow night at 5 p.m. This is the motion. I didn't accept Mr. Kenney's motion.

Mr. Jason Kenney: You didn't rule it out of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): The motion that was there previous to your motion has not been voted on yet, so we will proceed. The change that you're referring to in your motion goes against the general sense of the previous motion. Let's go with the motion that was on the table before, which was tomorrow night at 5 p.m. for the members to produce a list of groups or witnesses, and let us proceed with that.

Yes, Mr. Goldring, on that.

Senator Dalia Wood: Mr. Chairman, I had not finished.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): With your permission, Mrs. Wood, there is a comment on what I have just said.

Mr. Peter Goldring: I would like to make a comment on that and say that 24 hours in which to provide a list when my first indication of a list or of people having applied was presented to me only when I entered this meeting hall...obviously, looking at this list and knowing other people in groups that I have also been speaking to...that's 24 hours, and there are obviously differences between this list and the people in groups that I do know. Twenty-four hours may not be sufficient time in which to contact these groups and let them know what is proceeding.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

Mrs. Wood.

Senator Dalia Wood: Mr. Chairman, we are giving 15 minutes to an association tomorrow afternoon, and I say to you that this is not enough time. You have given three associations 15 minutes each. With 45 minutes for three associations you can barely ask a question.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Excuse me, Mrs. Wood, I don't see that 15 minutes in tomorrow—

[Translation]

Senator Dalia Wood: You have three associations: the Association des comités de parents, the Association des communautés scolaires franco-protestantes du Québec and the Association franco-protestante de la province de Québec.

[English]

That's three associations.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): The clerk is telling me that they have asked to come here together because they want to be here together.

Senator Dalia Wood: Are they going to make one presentation?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): That's what we understand. It's their choice. They have been offered—if I have understood this correctly—the opportunity to come here separately, but they said they will go together in one presentation.

Senator Dalia Wood: It will be one presentation. Okay.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Coming back to the point before us, it was requested that the motion be put to a vote.

A point of order by Senator Prud'homme.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: I respectfully submit that the Reform Party's amendment is quite admissible. It's not a new amendment. It's only a subamendment to a motion and I believe the rules are quite clear. What Mr. Ménard is proposing is that the final deadline be tomorrow evening. What is moved is that it be Friday evening, not tomorrow evening. It could be Thursday, if they want to work together.

[English]

You could suggest Thursday, but it is not irregular to say that the member from the Reform Party is out of order. It is not a new proposal. It is an amendment that is valid and could be accepted, and the discussion should be on the amendment to the motion.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): As regards the amendment's validity, I will hear Mauril Bélanger, Reg Alcock and Paul DeVillers.

• 1715

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, if it is a point of order concerning a decision by one of the Joint Chairs, perhaps we should treat it as such. But you are right because the reform member's amendment expands on the meaning of the motion. It says, and I listened to it carefully, that all those asking to be heard should be heard, which was not at all in the initial motion. You are right, Mr. Chairman. It is inadmissible as stated.

[English]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Reg Alcock.

Mr. Reg Alcock: I'm sorry, Réal makes a good point, but Mr. Kenney, it was the following part of your subamendment that talked about going back to the House. We are creatures of the House and operate under House order now.

Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Chairman, I would withdraw part of my amendment to make it acceptable. It's simply to amend the motion to say that members of the committee may submit the names of individuals or groups interested in appearing as witnesses before the committee no later than the close of business on Friday, October 24, 1997.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Excuse me, Mr. Ménard. I have already given the floor to Mr. DeVillers.

Mr. Paul DeVillers: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I understand then that Mr. Kenney is removing the part that's saying we would hear all witnesses who come forward, and extend the date. So it's simply until October 24, 1997.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Now it's only an extension of the date.

[Translation]

Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: One thing is clear and that is that this committee has to work and that witnesses must be heard. If the Reform Party, as usual, wants to take time and more time to obstruct the proceedings of the House, we'll be stuck.

However, if it's merely a question—because I know Mr. Kenney well—if its purpose is to tell us that we can submit a list until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow and that we can fix the schedule now and hear witnesses, but that we allow ourselves until the twenty-fourth to add other witnesses, nothing prevents us from starting to hear witnesses, that's something else.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We are going to move on right away to vote on the subamendment by Mr. Kenney, who is proposing Friday evening as the deadline.

So Mr. Kenney moves that tomorrow's deadline for submitting the names of individuals or groups that would like to be heard be extended to Friday evening.

Mr. Denis Coderre: But do we meet the others, such as the Equality Party, in the meantime?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Let's settle one thing at a time. We're going to settle this first, then another afterward.

(Motion negatived)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We therefore return to the main motion by Mr. Ménard, which is that you have until five o'clock tomorrow evening to submit the names of individuals or groups who would like to be heard to the clerk of the committee. Based on that, the schedule will be revised to include additional names. It is understood in all of this that tomorrow will go off as planned, except as regards the Coalition for Freedom. Is that all right?

[English]

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I'd like to know who signed that request. Could the clerk tell us that, please?

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): So I repeat that you have until five o'clock tomorrow evening to submit to the clerk of the committee the names of the groups and individuals that you would like to summon. Tomorrow we will proceed as indicated on the draft I have here, except as regards the Coalition for Freedom. Do we all understand that?

[English]

Do you have a comment, Ms. Meredith?

Ms. Val Meredith: Are we moving on to item 13?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We have to vote on this one first.

[Translation]

May I put this motion to a vote, that is to say that the deadline be five o'clock tomorrow evening?

(Motion agreed to)

• 1720

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): So everyone has until five o'clock tomorrow evening.

Are there questions? Senator Prud'homme.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: I would respectfully submit that I am utterly indifferent to Mr. Ménard's suggestion that the Quebec government will never appear here. And the committee should be indifferent to it as well. The committee is entitled to ask to hear anyone, and that individual or group that we want to hear is entitled to say no. Unless we have written instructions from the Quebec government or from Ms. Marois or Mr. Brassard appointing you as their spokesman, which I doubt, the committee is entitled to ask to hear someone from the National Assembly. If that doesn't suit the government, well it can ask someone from the opposition. The committee has the power to do what it wants. It's their prerogative to say no and, at that point, we will be obliged to take note of the fact.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Prud'homme. Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, Senator Prud'homme, whose status on this committee you would be kind to tell us, is right to say that the committee has the prerogative of making a proposal to the Quebec government. I have no objection if the committee wishes to offer an official invitation.

However, I believe it is highly whimsical to think that the opposition can speak on behalf of the government. I am disappointed that a man with 30 years' experience has not drawn this basic distinction.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I believe the committee has the power to invite whomever it wishes. Nothing prevents us from inviting anyone we want.

Mr. Réal Ménard: We agree with you on that.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It would be on somewhat short notice, but... Yes, we can invite...

A Voice: Yes, it's short notice, but the other motion went too far.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: We can invite someone from Quebec. We can invite the Minister of Education or the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing prevents us from doing so. I don't believe we need to vote on that. He will come here with a motion tomorrow and it will take two seconds. I suggest we first hear the Minister and the experts, and then we'll be in a better position to determine where we're headed. I'm convinced of that.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Grafstein.

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: I want to support Mr. Ménard and Senator Beaudoin. If you take a look at the resolution from the National Assembly, in the last paragraph before the resolution it says that:

WHEREAS undertakings were given by the Federal Government to proceed...through bilateral action and with the agreement of the National Assembly and the Federal Parliament;

It strikes me that if we're dealing with a contractual agreement, we should be able to hear both sides. It strikes me that it would be more appropriate to hear from a member of the Government of Quebec, but clearly if on the face of the resolution it says “the National Assembly”, we should hear from somebody from the National Assembly. They are asking us to approve, shall I say, an agreement between two constituent assemblies. We're one constituent assembly. We should hear from the other.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the co-chairs give some serious consideration to that before tomorrow. Perhaps after we've heard from the minister and the experts we could have a brief discussion about that.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Grafstein. Mr. Coderre. Don't forget we are on "Other Business".

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, I know our friends from the Bloc Québécois are often quite thin-skinned, but the truth has its consequences and we have to talk specifics.

I have been active in politics for 15 years and I am a federalist French Canadian, and I believe that, if something concerns my Quebec, in my Canada, it is important for the Government of Quebec, which is the government of all Quebeckers, to be able to be heard. That's a somewhat clumsy answer because obviously you don't have a mandate.

I am prepared to move that the committee do everything in its power... I want an answer from the Government of Quebec. I want it to tell me itself that it does not want to appear. I would like to be informed of that because I don't know it. So I would be prepared to move that the Government of Quebec be duly invited along with the Leader of the Opposition. We will then make the answers known and people will judge them.

In any case it is important for the people in my riding to know why... If the Government of Quebec, which has been pressing us for a very long time to make this amendment, is prepared to seize the best of both worlds... There is no half-democracy, just as no woman can be half-pregnant. At some point, we have to get down to brass tacks.

So I formally move, and I need a second, that the committee do everything in its power to extend an official invitation to the Government of Quebec.

• 1725

[English]

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: I'll second that motion.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Are we ready to vote? Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: In light of the respect we owe the other legislative assembly, perhaps the plea or letter or invitation should be addressed to the Speaker of the National Assembly, since the request has come to us from the National Assembly.

A Voice: Why?

Senator John Lynch-Staunton: For reasons of protocol, to show our respect for that assembly, that legislature, the letter should be drafted in such a way...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mauril Bélanger has a point of order.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: It has been decided that we are to submit the names of all those we would like to invite to appear by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Are we going back on our decision and are we going to decide the matter right away, or do we wait until 5:00 p.m. tomorrow?

A Voice: With your permission, in this case, this isn't just any witness. These are the originators of the resolution.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Excuse me, with all due respect to my honourable colleague, we are talking about the Government of Quebec here. The National Assembly has asked us to make an amendment to section 93. It bothers me to hear witnesses without being able to hear the Government of Quebec tell us why it has made this request.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Your colleague is right in thinking that this is related to the witness list.

Mr. Denis Coderre: No, because it's at the government's request. It is more than just a witness.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I wouldn't want the Liberal Party...

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): One moment, please.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I call for a vote, Mr. Chairman.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): There is a motion by Denis Coderre, that we invite... Could you restate it?

Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Chairman, I simply move that the committee formally invite the Government of Quebec to come here and state the reasons for this amendment.

The Leader of the Opposition may be here as well. I have no objection to that. But above all, it's the Quebec government's view we want.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: There is a problem here.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): One moment, please, Mr. Coderre's motion.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I move that we invite the Government of Quebec and the Leader of the Opposition to come explain their views.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: I agree on that.

I would move that this resolution be deferred until tomorrow, when we study the witness list. I'll move that.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): A point of order by Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The Premier and the Minister of Education of Quebec, the Leader of the Opposition of Quebec and the Speaker of the National Assembly are not ordinary witnesses. They are the originators of the resolution that is before us. It seems to me we can quite easily draw a distinction between the two. We are going to hear the witnesses, the real witnesses, and we have until tomorrow evening to prepare their names. Tomorrow, we start with the Minister and the experts. It seems to me we will also have to decide tomorrow whether we invite the originators of the Quebec resolution. For heaven's sake, I can't understand why we are raising this issue.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Mr. Coderre, you have a motion.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Who is in favour of inviting the Quebec government and opposition?

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Are there any other items on the agenda? Ms. Meredith.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: I would like to move that the speaking rotation for this committee be the rotation that is for the questions and answers that is respected by the standing committees of the House of Commons.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Okay.

[Translation]

One moment, please. There is a motion.

[English]

There is a proposition by Ms. Meredith that the rotation in the questions we will ask our guests in the next weeks be the same as we have in the Question Period of the House.

Our particular problem is that it's a joint committee here: we have the Senate and the House.

Ms. Val Meredith: My concern is that the Reform Party is the official opposition, recognized in the elected body of the House of Commons, and I feel that this committee should respect the fact that we are the official opposition. The Bloc is also a party that does not have Senate representation. Nor do we, and we felt that it would be a legitimate request that we follow the procedure that is acknowledged and respected in the House of Commons standing committees.

• 1730

Senator Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: As a senator, I'm very sensitive to the point that both the Bloc and Reform make on this point. I think perhaps we should see how the first round or two of questions go, and if the opposition and the other place feel it's unfair or unfortunate, we should bring it back.

We in the Senate will show proper restraint. We tend to defer to the House on some matters. We are a smaller group than those on the high side, and I tend to be sensitive. But if they're taking undue advantage of our particular position and our independence, obviously we'll certainly welcome a fairness application. But let's see how it goes, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator.

Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: This is a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. We have joint chairs: a senator and a member of the House of Commons. We cannot follow the procedure of one particular chamber. I don't think we are entitled to do so. We are members of two separate chambers, two legislative chambers each of which is represented here by a chair. Consequently, I don't think we can say we are going to follow the House of Commons' procedure. Otherwise, it will not be a genuine joint committee.

I suggest we operate in a slightly more informal way because atmosphere is important. We have two joint chairs and it is up to them to decide on the procedure they wish to follow.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Excellent comment, Senator.

Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I agree the procedure should be friendly and informal. I also think we must agree on ground rules. I thought that, in the minds of our joint chairs, we would begin with the Reform Party, then move on to the Bloc and then the third party. I thought that, when there were senators, it was up to them to agree with members as to who should speak. Otherwise, it makes no sense not to start with the official opposition and then the Bloc.

What does the chair think? What do you propose as a procedure for speakers?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): For the moment, the floor is yours. Ms. Val Meredith.

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My concern is that, with the limited time for speaking, we start with Reform for five minutes, Bloc for five minutes, Conservatives for five minutes, NDP for five minutes, and Liberals for five minutes. That would take up the time. Everybody would have an opportunity to ask a question. Otherwise, some parties would not get a chance to ask questions, and I think it's very important that every party be given the opportunity to ask questions.

My only concern is that we are the official opposition in the House of Commons, the elected body in this Parliament, and I think this would allow everybody equal time to ask questions. It's merely because of the order that I am bringing this up.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Val.

Sheila.

Mrs. Sheila Finestone: I understand that this can present a dilemma. However, we have an expert who has lived some of this experience in Senator Beaudoin, who presented before the Beaudoin-Edwards committee, which was a joint committee of the House and the Senate. I believe he could give us some valuable guidance in this matter.

I see no reason for us to have this as an argumentative process. I think it is something that can be resolved in a way that is fair to everyone.

I wonder if Mr. Beaudoin would share with us his experience when he handled the constitutional amendments in this House in a very efficient and effective manner.

[Translation]

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: We hit on a certain compromise. If you say that the Leader of the Opposition occupies a special position in the Commons, the same is true in the Senate. There is an official opposition in the Senate, and that should not be forgotten. There are two oppositions here. There's one in the Senate and the other in the House of Commons, and there are other parties. So I believe we will have to reach an agreement. I agree with Mr. Ménard that we have to come up with rules. It seems to me we settled that in the standing committee.

Do we have a standing committee here? I ask the question.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): No, not formally.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It might not be a bad idea to have one.

It seems to me we could settle that by adopting a one-third, two-thirds rule. You can do that too. Our committee is made up somewhat that way: there are 16 members from the House of Commons and seven from the Senate so that's roughly one-third, two-thirds. If you give the opposition of the House of Commons somewhat special treatment, you have to do the same thing for the Senate. We have to be logical. We have to be logical at some point. Now this will be very difficult because we have periods of half an hour and three- quarters of an hour. That's very, very short.

It seems to me we will have to agree on the rules so that, on certain questions, perhaps only two parties can ask questions. Then it would be the turn of the other two parties. We have to hit on some kind of compromise.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Senator Beaudoin.

• 1735

Mr. Reg Alcock.

[English]

Mr. Reg Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to point out to Ms. Meredith that there are no set rules for committees. At this meeting, for each committee, they adopt their rules and they modify them. There has been a lot of modification now because of the new parties in the House.

It strikes me that in the absence of firm rules too, Mr. Chairman, the responsibility falls, in the House, to the Speaker, or the president of the chamber, in this case to the committee chair, to ensure the questioning is distributed in a manner that is representative of the representation in both chambers. It's hard to give a numerical amount, but it becomes the responsibility of the co-chairs to ensure at the end of the day balance has been achieved. C'est tout.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Thank you, Reg.

Mr. Bélanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Chairman, in the same vein, could we ask the two joint chairs, in consultation with the various representatives around this table, to put a motion to us tomorrow regarding the procedure for hearing and questioning witnesses?

Second—I apologize for bringing this up again—in addition to the government brief, are there any other briefs from the witnesses invited tomorrow that are ready and that we could have today?

Have we received any briefs that are ready? Witnesses are invited for tomorrow. Do we have any briefs?

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): On the first point, Mr. Bélanger, I believe I am going to meet with the joint chair to try to determine—and I have heard comments from virtually everyone—an efficient and simple procedure to enable everyone to speak. It seems to me this is what we are all looking for.

As to any briefs that might be ready, Ms. Bresson could give us that information. Do you have any?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Martine Bresson): For tomorrow's witnesses, as far as I know, no briefs are ready yet.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): That answers your question.

If there are no other items on the agenda...

[English]

Ms. Val Meredith: Wait a moment. We have a motion that might settle it.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): Which was?

Ms. Val Meredith: The motion to allocate time. In fact, there was a motion.

[Translation]

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We have a motion by Ms. Meredith on the allocation of time, which we were discussing.

(Motion negatived)

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We are coming back to Mr. Bélanger's motion. Mr. Bélanger, are you putting a motion that the joint chairs...?

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: No. It's a wish. Do it.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): We will consult each other and submit a motion to you tomorrow.

Mrs. Finestone.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: I asked that all the documents in our clerks' hands, whether they are in English or in French, be handed over us to immediately so that we can begin to read them, please.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): That's noted.

Hon. Sheila Finestone: I don't just want the documents for the sitting tomorrow, but all the documents you have.

The Joint Chairman (Mr. Denis Paradis): That's noted, Mrs. Finestone. So tomorrow morning the sitting resumes at 9:00 a.m. in another room across the hall, Room 237-C. Thank you, everyone.

The committee adjourned.