Bill C-20 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on March 3rd, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Seeing a quorum,

Welcome to you all.

I'd like to welcome everyone to the first meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-20. Any warm welcome requires a script full of standing orders for a sitting committee, so it is my duty to inform the committee that I have received the following communication from Speaker Milliken:

Pursuant to Standing Order 113, I am pleased to confirm your appointment as Chair of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-20, An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate.

It is my role to attempt to be a Peter Milliken look-alike, neutral in all things and I hope helpful in most matters. But I'm going to rely on my trusty clerk, who has extensive committee experience.

While I will be neutral, I expect and believe this committee wants to be in full gear very quickly. Our mission is to examine a bill about consulting Canadians on Senate appointments, and I know we will want to consult with the most able minds in the country to guide us in this effort.

I look forward to working with all committee members to complete this effort expeditiously.

I would like to move to routine procedures, but first let me introduce the clerk of the committee. I gather she's no stranger to most of you. Christine Lafrance has extensive experience, and she'll be guiding us through our proceedings. The legislative clerk attached to this committee is Marc Toupin, who's also no stranger to you. They are at your service if you have questions related to the process we are about to undertake.

First we have some housekeeping to attend to. A number of routine motions have been recommended. You have been provided with a list, and perhaps we can run through the list and determine which motions you'd like to adopt.

Do I have a mover for the first one? Are you moving a motion, Madame Folco?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I just want to get started on the routine motions, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

We are in a hurry, aren't we? Excellent. I like to see us work expeditiously.

The first motion before us is for the services of analysts from the Library of Parliament; that the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

I'd like to invite Mr. Jack Stilborn to our table. Welcome, Mr. Stilborn. I'm sure we'll be drawing on your services.

The second motion before you is that the subcommittee on agenda and procedure be established and be composed of the chair and a member of every party.

Do I have a mover for this motion?

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Debate?

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

This is not a standing committee but a legislative committee, and hence we're unlikely to get a wide variety of different items of subject matter before us, which is what a subcommittee on agenda and procedure tends to deal with.

On that basis, I think there's an argument to be made that we can simply deal with such matters as a full committee, sitting as necessary in camera, and avoid a certain level of bureaucracy. I don't anticipate our having a lot of these meetings. It seems to me that rather than being a help, they might very well be a hindrance and slow us down. I recognize that if you were trying to call special meetings of the full committee that would be a problem, but I think we can deal with scheduling items at the beginning of a meeting, go in camera as necessary and then come out of camera when we're finished.

So my suggestion would be that because the motion has been put on the table, the appropriate way of dealing with it would be for us to vote against this, and I would encourage members to do so. The default position, therefore, would be that we would simply deal with things as the whole committee, as I've suggested.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Any further discussion?

Madame Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

We can do that, but we need to know how many members Mr. Reid wants the committee to have, because that will slow the whole process down. I would like him to suggest how many members from each party should sit on the committee, so that we can make a decision. We have to be in agreement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Mr. Reid, are you suggesting that the entire committee determine...?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

There would be no subcommittee on agenda and procedure to debate matters; we'd simply do so as a full committee. Of course, as one does when dealing with these things, it would be in camera as opposed to being an open session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

I see Madame Folco's hand.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Madam Chair, Mr. Reid has just said that he does not anticipate this committee having a lot of meetings. I know that it is difficult to say how long it will go on, but can we say approximately when we will be able to have the job done?

If it going to be a very long time, I will stick with my motion. But if it going to be quite short, Mr. Reid's motion is acceptable.

Can we estimate about how many meetings there will be?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's not for me to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

It will depend entirely on the will of the committee.

That will depend on how fast we work and on how many meetings per week we have.

I am totally at your mercy on direction.

Madame Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I would not want to hold the committee up. I want it to be done quite quickly. I have seen bills studied for three years and then sent back to the House. I suggest that it should be limited, and it should have fewer members than an ordinary committee, but I have no objection to adding a few. But a full committee is a lot of people. There is a lot of chit-chat and a lot of time is wasted.

I feel that each party can have its say if it has representatives, without the need to have goodness knows how many.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Thank you, Ms. Guay.

Mr. Paquette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I appreciate the point that is being made. But the subcommittee has to report to the main committee. So for questions of logistics—like this one today—having one representative per party allows us to do the groundwork without long discussions.

Personally, I would be tempted to keep the subcommittee for insurance. We would not need it often, I feel, but it might be useful for solving logistics problems and avoiding the kind of discussion we are having now. I think that we all agree on the basics.

Let us keep it. Let us just not use it too much, just when it could shorten the discussion and prevent us from spending too much time reinventing the wheel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Mr. Murphy.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I support the idea of a subcommittee because it has worked for the other legislative committees I have sat on.

We support the motion for a subcommittee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

Would you like to put it to a vote?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's the easiest way of dealing with it.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Albina Guarnieri]

The next motion before us is that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least three members are present, including one member of the opposition.

That is moved by Mr. Murphy.

Is there any discussion?

Madame Guay.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

We would like to make an amendment to the motion. We would like to have at least five members present, including two members of the opposition, rather than three members, including one member of the opposition.