LANG Committee Meeting

STANDING JOINT COMMITTEE ON OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

COMITÉ MIXTE PERMANENT DES LANGUES OFFICIELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 21, 1997

• 1115

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Tonu Onu): It is my pleasure to preside over the election of the joint chair representing the Senate.

[English]

It's my duty to preside over the election of the co-chair from the Senate for this committee. Do I have any nominations for the co-chair?

[Translation]

Is there a motion to nominate a joint chair representing the Senate on this committee?

Senator Louis J. Robichaud (L'Acadie—Acadia, Lib.): I move that Ms. Rose-Marie Losier-Cool be elected joint chair.

[English]

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Tonu Onu): Senator Robichaud proposes the name of Senator Losier-Cool for the position of co-chair of the committee.

[Translation]

If there are no other nominations, I declare Senator Losier-Cool elected joint chair of the committee.

[English]

Senator Losier-Cool is elected co-chair from the Senate for the committee. I ask her to take the chair.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.)): We will now proceed to the election of a joint chair representing the House of Commons. I'll now give the floor to the clerk.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Danielle Belisle): Pursuant to Standing Order 106(1), we will now proceed to the election of a joint chair representing the House of Commons.

Are there any motions in this regard?

Mr. Speller.

[English]

Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, Lib.): I would like to nominate Sheila Finestone.

[Translation]

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Danielle Belisle): It has been moved by Mr. Bob Speller that Mrs. Sheila Finestone take the chair of the committee as joint chair. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt this motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Danielle Belisle): I would ask the new joint chair, Mrs. Finestone, to take the chair.

[English]

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.)): I thank you very much.

[Translation]

I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

[English]

The fact that there were unanimous nominations I hope bespeaks the way we will be able to work in this committee, which is a large committee of 25 people.

[Translation]

I hope that by working together we will be able to reach a consensus, at least on the important matters that affect all of us everywhere in Canada.

[English]

At this point it is my pleasure to ask for the election of two vice-chairs from the House of Commons. The election of the first vice-chair shall be from the opposition parties.

An hon. member: Congratulations, Madam Chair, on your position. I nominate Rahim Jaffer for the position of vice-chair from the opposition.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you very much.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Are you asking for a nomination for the second vice-chair?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No, I'm just going to finish with the first vice-chair first.

Are there any other nominations for first vice-chair? Thank you.

Welcome, Mr. Jaffer.

[Translation]

Is there a motion for the position of second vice-chair?

Mr. Hec Clouthier: I move that Mr. Denis Coderre be elected vice-chair.

[English]

I nominate Denis Coderre for the deputy chair.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Hec Clouthier has moved that Mr. Denis Coderre be elected vice-chair. Are there any other motions? Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We are awfully lucky to have such wonderful support.

The next item on the agenda is the appointment of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, that is to say, the steering committee.

[English]

This is the steering committee. There has been a discussion with respect to the steering committee. Mr. Coderre, you asked for the floor in this regard.

• 1120

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): First of all, I would like to congratulate the two joint chairs and move that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be made up of nine members, that is to say, the two joint chairs, the two vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and one representative from each of the other opposition parties, namely, one representative from the Bloc Québécois, one representative from the Progressive Conservative Party and one representative from the NDP.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Could you tell me if your motion also provides for a quorum?

Mr. Denis Coderre: No, it only has to do with the appointment of the subcommittee.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I would like to make an observation. Do we all have to be present to have a quorum? If that is the case, I would like to suggest one.

Mr. Denis Coderre: First of all, we should pass the motion about setting up the subcommittee. Then we can move on to a quorum.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Prud'homme.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme (La Salle, Ind.): Congratulations, Ms. Finestone. We share the same positions on bilingualism, particularly within our province.

Perhaps I didn't hear the gentleman's motion properly, but usually we add the words "as long as both Houses are represented" when it comes to a quorum for the steering committee.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Not just the two Houses, but also the opposition.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: Personally, I don't want to make the motion any more complicated. I do not represent the opposition, and I just want both Houses to be represented.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): The opposition is represented by one of the vice-chairs.

[English]

Mr. Réginald Bélair (Timmins—James Bay, Lib.): I am somewhat confused. Are we talking about quorum or steering committee here?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Steering committee.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): We were talking about the quorum.

[English]

Mr. Réginald Bélair: That's right. Right now the members are talking about both at the same time. There's a motion with the steering committee.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We are discussing a motion in the steering committee.

[Translation]

Fine, you're right. Mr. Coderre's motion will deal with the appointment of the subcommittee. It will be made up of nine members. Should I repeat the motion?

(Motion agreed to unanimously)

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Would you like us to move on to the quorum now?

[English]

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: I would prefer someone to make the resolution.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Does someone want to move a motion about the quorum for the steering committee?

Mr. Denis Coderre: We could begin by thinking about it together.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Saint-Julien.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): I would like us to agree to a quorum of five members.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Is that alright? Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): It's not so much a matter of having five people, but rather, making sure that the Upper Chamber and the House of Commons are represented, and that at least one opposition party is represented. However, sometimes when the steering committee meets, one opposition member can tell the other opposition member that he is in agreement, and so he does not attend the meeting. So there may only be four committee members at the meeting, but the opposition is represented. So I favour having a minimum of five members, but sometimes that may not be very efficient.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Couldn't we turn a blind eye to that?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): So it will be five members, as long as both houses, the government and the opposition are represented.

Mr. Denis Coderre: And at least one opposition party.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): And at least one opposition party.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Danielle Belisle): Should we add that to the motion?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes please.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Motion number 5 has to do with the Library of Parliament. Do you...?

• 1125

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Madam Chair, should we designate the people who will be representing the opposition parties?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): It's up to the parties to designate their representatives.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Fine, thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): I will now accept a motion dealing with the Library of Parliament: That the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the committee in its work, at the discretion of the Chair.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): We will now move on to motion 6: That all documents distributed to the members of the committee be in both official languages.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I understand from the history of this committee—and the decision is always that of the total group—that this is so in all instances except where there is a call on community-based groups with short notice and we don't have the opportunity to translate that document. The document must be translated, but I don't think one can refuse the community-based group that comes with just the one document in one or the other of the official languages.

Does someone want to discuss that issue, having been on this committee before, and what the experience is?

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I agree that witnesses should be able to table their documents in the language of their choice; that is to say, some will have documents only in English, others only in French, and other witnesses will have them in both languages, when the committee calls in experts on demographics, for example. This already happened three years ago. Some experts from Toronto had come to analyze Canada's demographic situation, and they arrived here with documentation only in English.

I remember that I had asked for an adjournment, and it took one month to have the document translated so that we could work in both languages. I warn the committee: when experts are asked to appear before the committee, they will have to come with bilingual documentation. As for ordinary witnesses, that is to say people who come in good faith to say a few words about a bill or a particular issue, they can present in the language of their choice, because we always have simultaneous translation during testimony. So there really isn't a problem, but I want to make it very clear that I am going to be touchy about that.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

Are there any other comments?

Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I entirely support the remarks my colleague Mr. Plamondon just made, with all due respect for the principle, because we have two official languages, and after all, we have to set an example. However, I wouldn't want anyone to delay the committee's work by using procedure for any partisan reason. So I understand that that is how the Bloc Québécois will react.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Saint-Julien.

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien: On that same point, will the Crown Corporations that appear before your committee have to present documents in both official languages?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes.

[English]

An hon. member: Otherwise there can't be a crown.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It can't be received otherwise.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Let me repeat the motion just to make sure that everyone understands it: That all documents be distributed to committee members in both official languages.

I don't think we need to specify this for documents from Crown Corporations, but Mr. Plamondon did mention experts and their documents. Should we include them in the motion?

Mr. Louis Plamondon: No. We can agree on the principle.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): You have not presented an amendment. So I will move the motion.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Except for some special exception.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): What do you mean by special exception? Documents from experts? Are you talking about documents from organizations that are presenting at the last minute? I would like this to be clear. It's not clear to me.

• 1130

[English]

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): I think the exception was already stated that those people who are not part of a crown corporation—somebody from the general public who is coming to this in all good faith—should be allowed to put forth their document in one of the official languages.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): So do you want to include that in the motion?

Mr. Keith Martin: I think it should be explicitly stated that individuals who are members of the public or a group that comes on short notice should be allowed to submit their documents in either or both official languages.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I believe we can work by consensus. We do not need a motion. It is understood around this table the goodwill that's been expressed and yet the expectations that we would hope would be respected; certainly government institutions and crown associations would have to respect it.

I believe we have expressed our concern; I think there is a consensus and that good sense will prevail.

Mr. Keith Martin: Madam Chair, I say that for a reason. I have been on committees where documents from individuals who come to committees in good faith have not been allowed to be submitted for that reason. It might be advisable to have that explicitly stated.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Can I ask a question to clarify? I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, but you cannot deny anybody coming in speaking only French or only English to this committee, saying they cannot present, because after all, official bilingualism doesn't mean you have to speak two languages; you have to speak one of the two languages. So to force someone to speak two languages is not fair.

An hon. member: Nobody said that.

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: So the point I want to make sure everybody is clear about is when I come to this committee and speak French, I should be allowed to speak French and present my documents in French only, if I wish.

An hon. member: Sure.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Absolutely.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): We're talking about documents here, and what we—

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: You can't deny anybody.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Thank you. That's for sure.

[Translation]

Denis, still about the whole question of documents.

Mr. Denis Coderre: I think we have to be clear on this. As we say back home, there's the dream world and there's the real world. However, I do think that the committee has set an example, and we certainly don't want to keep anyone from coming before us to talk to us. On the contrary, I believe we have to be more open.

However, and this is where I agree with my colleague, Mr. Plamondon—when we make a specific request, when we control our own agenda, it is extremely important—and I'm going to be very vigilant about this, I'm even going to be virulent about it—that these documents be presented in both official languages. Obviously, this is a key principle in this country, and I think that the committee will be respected in this regard. If we are in control of our agenda, we can make sure that the translation service helps us out. I don't want my colleague to have the impression that we want to keep anyone at all from speaking. That's not the case at all, but we do have to respect the principle of this committee.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think that the proceedings of this meeting will certainly show the good will of everyone at the table and that common sense will certainly prevail. In any event, most of the documents will already be bilingual.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Absolutely.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Is that alright?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Yes, absolutely. I think that if we agree to sit on this committee, it's because we agree with the principle of bilingualism and that we also agree that documents must be published in both official languages. This is the motion that I have before me.

Are there any other questions about item number 6? Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Just one minor clarification. I know that witnesses can come and give testimony in the language of their choice, and I also know that they can bring a brief with them in the language of their choice.

However, in the past it was our habit to notify witnesses one month in advance. That made things easier for them, since they had more time to prepare for the meeting. So we can send a letter to the witnesses who will be appearing and tell them that things are much easier if they can come with translated documents, and that if they can't, they should send them in two or three weeks in advance so that we can have them translated. That will help enormously. I have often noticed that witnesses were not aware that they could do that. So I think we should get into the habit of notifying them.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): It's the responsibility and perhaps even the duty of the people setting the agenda for the meetings to notify these people.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Fine. Is that all right for number 6?

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Who would like to move motion 7?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Number six is understood by consensus, and it is reflected in the minutes.

• 1135

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): That's right. Let's move on to the printing of the minutes and testimony: That the committee print 450 copies of its minutes of proceedings and evidence.

Mr. Plamondon, would you like to move the motion? I think we should move it before discussion. Senator Louis Robichaud moves the motion.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: I have a question about the motion.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Mr. Plamondon first.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I wonder about printing 450 copies. I find that high compared to what we decided on in other committees I sit on. Is there that much demand for our minutes? Are there 350 to 400 people who run down to the office every day to get our minutes, or do they only occasionally ask for them? Perhaps we could drop this to 300 or 200, and if we were looking at a hotter topic, we would print more copies, depending on the demand.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Four hundred and fifty reflects the demand that there was in the past. However, I sit on other committees, and I realize that other committees have made adjustments. It would be up to the committee, perhaps the Chair, to make the necessary adjustments. I know that some committees are doing this.

Senator Robichaud.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: That was my question.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): We could agree on 200...

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: No more than 450 copies?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No.

And may I make the following observation?

I looked at that number as well, Mr. Plamondon, and I asked the clerks what the experience has been over the last four years. The experience of the last four years indicates that 450 copies is the normal demand. The concern I then had was what would happen if there is more than the normal demand. The answer I was given was that if there is more than the normal demand, the Senate has the in-house capacity to produce extra copies.

I think the observation made by my colleague just now was a very sensible amendment that might be added. That is, if there is a need, the steering committee will be authorized to order more copies. Other than that, I think it leaves us the latitude we require.

John.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): At the risk of sounding like a techno-snob, why are we printing any on paper? In other words, why wouldn't we put them on-line and have them available to be printed on an as-needed basis? Otherwise I think we're going to find piles and piles of unused reports going around. I think other committees have perhaps advanced a little further into the 20th century. Perhaps one of the clerks can tell us what we have to do and what we can do.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I will ask our clerk, please, to give you the answer.

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Danielle Belisle): You are very right, Mr. Godfrey. Other committees of the House have actually withdrawn that motion, but this is a joint committee and the Senate still does these hard copies. All senators get a copy. They have their list of distribution, and the 450 was actually based on the demand of my colleague from the Senate, who came up with that number. They do that distribution. On the House side it's still available through the Internet and so on.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Then does that need to be reflected in the resolution?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Danielle Belisle): It is going to go on-line in any event. We don't need permission to have it on-line.

Mr. John Godfrey: Oh, so that's automatic.

Could I ask a further question of our Senate colleagues?

Is this automatic policy for all Senate committees, that none have decided to take the electronic route? I won't make an editorial comment.

An hon. member: You had better not.

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Tonu Onu): If I may, Monsieur, the Senate is putting things on-line. There was a discussion a few years ago when the House decided to go on-line only and not print any hard copies. The Senate at that time decided to continue printing what we call hard copies and distributes these. This is a case where the Senate and the House have two different policies. We are going on-line, but at the same time we're still going with the old way of distributing copies of these issues, which may change eventually.

• 1140

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: I would add that this was at the very special request of a member of the House of Commons who became a senator. He was one of the toughest fighters in the lower House—if he wants to talk about us that way—the commoner, Mr. Gauthier. Mr. Gauthier fought for that in the House of Commons, not in the Senate.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): Shall we go back to item 7 with 450 copies? Is that all right?

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to recommend that the quorum be fixed at seven members, provided that both Houses are represented whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, and that the joint chairs be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and authorize printing thereof as long as seven members are present, and provided that both Houses are represented.

In general, all committees have three members. It's mandated that three members be present to hear witnesses and to ensure that evidence and printing takes place. I believe this to be a very special committee. I do think we should have both Houses represented, which means a minimum of two, and I think we should certainly have the opposition parties present. That's why I went to having seven present to hear witnesses.

Now, if you are in agreement with some advice that I've just been given—that we should stay with three or four members to hear witnesses—I will let that stand. I have some concerns about that.

[Translation]

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: I think that the Chair is quite right when she says that... She herself saw that it was unrealistic to have only a quorum of five members for the steering committee. That's five out of nine, and you're willing to have only four members of Parliament and senators out of 25. This committee has 25 members, not 16. I think that you are right to specify at least seven.

I don't want to insist about having a quorum of seven, eight or nine, but I think seven is more reasonable than four. Secondly, I didn't know that only four or seven members were needed to vote on motions. As far as I know, unless there have been some changes in the past few years, a committee does not vote on anything unless it has a quorum. That means at least 13 out of 25, unless I misunderstood the wording.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Would Madame Belisle please respond?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Danielle Belisle): To clarify, Senator, the standing orders of the House have something very special relating to joint committees. When you look at rule 118, it does say,

A majority of the members of a standing, special or legislative committee shall constitute a quorum.

So you're very right, but that's provided that in the case of the legislative committee, the chairman is not included in the number of members constituting a quorum. That does not relate here, but that same article goes on to specify:

In the case of a joint committee, the number of members constituting a quorum shall be such as the House of Commons acting in consultation with the Senate may determine.

So if you look at motion 13, this is why we would accept or adopt a first report, and in this first report we would recommend to the House what we have just decided: that the quorum is seven. But in this case, rule 118 tells us that for a joint committee, it's not majority plus one. It's determined by the House.

• 1145

We cannot determine what the House is going to say, so we recommend that the House think of us and accept our recommendation that we would like seven. That is why I have printed a first report that would go with what you've decided. I was to distribute it once we got to number 13. We would have to change the four to seven, but the exception is for the joint committees.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: I apologize to members, but that's not my understanding. If today you go from four to seven it has to be adopted by both Houses, but thereafter you cannot tell me that just seven, if seven were accepted by both Houses, would be enough to adopt any report of the committee.

An hon. member: It would be.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: It could, but it's certainly not wise to make an exception. I would therefore propose it for any other votes—in many committees there are only three out of sixteen present to listen to witnesses, by agreement—but not for a major decision now taken. It's the committee's decision to say after today no vote can be taken until you see a quorum. It would have to be postponed. The quorum in this case would be half plus one, or thirteen. It's a very important decision you're taking.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): I agree with Mr. Plamondon. Is it not standard practice in most committees when you have a vote to have majority plus one? I'm just curious. If that's the case, because we have such a large committee here, it would seem to make sense for us to do that in this committee as well, out of respect for the witnesses and various other issues that come up.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Are you suggesting that the quorum be thirteen?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Yes.

An hon. member: That will reflect majority plus one.

Senator Louis J. Robichaud: We don't need a quorum to listen to witnesses.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: No, that would be for a vote.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I thank you for that clarification, Mr. Prud'homme and Mr. Jaffer. I think that's well founded. I gather there are additional people who would like to speak.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: No, I just want to say that we have to agree about quorum. We have all belonged to various organizations that had a quorum of only 10% or 20% of all members. It wasn't 50% plus one. It was a matter of having a minimum number so that we could operate.

So I would be willing to move that we vote on the motion that the quorum be seven. In any event, we know that with the consensus, the fairness and the flexibility of the two joint chairs, we will make it. When the committee is looking at important issues, we certainly will all be present.

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: When you look at this resolution it actually says, when it comes to taking a vote.... I think that's where the confusion is coming in. If it's just simply quorum to listen to witnesses and various presentations so the committee can function, we should specifically say we could go with what's listed here—seven. When it comes to a vote taken by the committee, I think we need to specify it has to contribute majority plus one. It's just not clear in this motion.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I understand what you're saying. I have been advised that the standard form that is in front of you,

[Translation]

that's the standard in all the committees. History has shown that that was the standard.

[English]

That's what I've been advised. I can only go by what I've been advised. I wasn't here so I don't know. I believe this was based on smaller-size committees. Is that correct?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Belisle): The only other history we actually have is the other joint committee on regulations. Its members haven't had their organization meeting yet, but they've gone with those numbers of four and three.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): How many members sit on that committee?

• 1150

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Danielle Belisle): In the past there were 16 members. This time I believe there will be 26 members, but still, we thought we'd put exactly what it used to be and then it's up to the committee to change whatever needs to be changed.

As for official languages, in the past they have never done such a thing, it seems, as to present a report the way we're doing. That is a flaw. They should have done as the regulations committee has done. In the past they've gone on quorum plus one, probably, not really reading this part of the article that says it's up to the House, in consultation with the Senate, to determine what is quorum.

So if you want to keep on with what they've done...but somebody could at some point have raised that and asked, where is the number?

It's very clear here that the quorum is to be determined. It has not been determined by the House, and now if you want to say we want the normal way and we want it to be majority plus one, sure, and we'll present that as a report to the House and then have a reduced one to hear witnesses, as you say.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I think we have to distinguish between a quorum and a majority. We could decide that the quorum is a majority. We could decide that, or we could decide that a quorum is three, five or ten. So we mustn't equate a majority plus one member and a quorum. It's not the same thing at all. We have to determine how we can best operate as a committee.

They're saying that, for the two joint committees which will be sitting, they could function by having votes with seven present during a regular session. When we'll be hearing witnesses, we'll make sure that there are at least three persons present. Personally, I would prefer we said three persons, but that one of the two Chambers be represented and that at least one member of the opposition be present to receive a witness; that would be seven for receiving a witness and seven for...

There are two resolutions in there.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It was just said that it will be seven persons including one representative of the government, one of the two Houses and one of the parties of the opposition. If you find that that's too much, I don't mind, but it's up to you to decide.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: There are two things in there. First let's establish the quorum for a regular session. How many? Seven? Let's vote on that and then let's talk about witnesses. You're still talking to me about seven persons when there will be witnesses.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No, Mr. Plamondon. I said that the quorum would be set at 13 and that, to hear witnesses, it would be seven. That's the proposal that is before us presently.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: That is not what was proposed. You had a proposed a quorum of seven.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I was the one that...

Mr. Louis Plamondon: The first proposal was seven and three. If there is a new one, let's first choose and then discuss.

Mr. Denis Coderre: It's by discussing that we reach an understanding. I think that we were saying that the quorum would be seven members, on condition that both Houses be represented at the time of a vote, a resolution or any decision and that the Joint Chairs be authorized to hold sessions to receive witnesses and to authorize publications to the extent that three members are present and on the condition that both Chambers be represented. I'd even add "and a member of the opposition".

That's what I had gathered right from the start because, in any case, I fully agree. The quorum and the majority are two completely different things. We're talking about functioning, whether it be to hear witnesses or for regular sessions.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We're talking about how many on the first line?

Mr. Denis Coderre: About seven members.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): And on the second?

Mr. Denis Coderre: We're keeping three.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: We need at least four.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Just a second, please—

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Three, including a member of the opposition.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): What is the number you just said, 7 and 3?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: If the opposition agrees, we could agree on seven and four.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You need 7 and 4.

• 1155

[Translation]

Therefore instead of saying "including", we should say "plus one member of the opposition".

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Is that what we also adopted in the other joint committees? How many do they have?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Regarding the Constitutional committee on which I have to sit...

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): They haven't met yet.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: But in the beginning, didn't you first wish that it be seven and three?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Then you came back and you talked about thirteen and seven.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That's right.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Now we must choose between seven and three, and thirteen and seven. Is that it?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No. There is another proposal.

Mr. Denis Coderre: As for me, I was proposing seven and four to avoid all this debate, by adding "that both Houses be represented" for the four and "plus one member of the opposition". Therefore it is seven and four.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Including a member of the opposition.

Mr. Denis Coderre: Yes.

[English]

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Jaffer.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: That's fine.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Okay.

[Translation]

Now we're at number 9.

[English]

It's in regard to questioning witnesses.

Mr. Keith Martin: I would suggest, Madam Chair, that you allocate ten minutes for the first questioner of each party and thereafter five minutes for each subsequent questioner, with questioners rotating between parties so that we have an ongoing division of parties.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Coderre.

Mr. Denis Coderre: This looks good, dear colleague, but if we do the arithmetic, we see that there will be 40 minutes for the opposition and 10 minutes for the government.

Would it be, for example, 10 minutes for the Reform Party, 10 minutes for the government, 10 minutes... We already had to live with this at the Standing Committee on Agriculture, as my friend Proctor knows. We should perhaps consider that we don't want to spend all night here, and secondly that we must make sure that there is a balance between the opposition and the government while being as efficient as possible. The Bloc Québécois will certainly tell me that, we have more MPs than the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, and therefore we have more time.

At that point, we could perhaps group the parties together and say that we give ten minutes to the Official Opposition and seven minutes to the other parties. However, there should be a balance between the government and the opposition. This will mean that the Reform Party, the Official Opposition, will have the first ten minutes and will be followed by the government.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Ten, ten, ten, ten, ten; five, five, five, five, five, five, five, five...

Mr. Denis Coderre: This doesn't make sense anymore.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): This means that there will never be any time for a second round of questions.

Mr. Denis Coderre: This doesn't make any sense.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: How did this committee function during the previous legislature?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): We must remember that there were 12 members during the last Parliament.

Mr. Denis Coderre: There were three parties then.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: And now how many are we?

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): We are twice as many, we are 25.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: But the last time, it was ten...

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): And five.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Ten, ten, ten, five, five, five, and all the MPs had a chance to speak. And now we're proposing ten, ten, ten, ten, ten, and then five, five for everybody.

[English]

Mr. Sarkis Assadourian: I suggest we have time-sharing. If this committee has 25 members and we meet for 25 minutes, each member is allowed one minute. Or if you meet for 50 minutes, then each member is allowed two minutes. So if you have ten Liberals, then you have ten times two. If you have seven Bloc, then you have seven times two. This way, each one will get equal time according to the number of members they have on the committee. It's better than going back and forth for ten minutes.

I may speak on behalf of the Liberal Party for two minutes or five minutes, but we'll decide among ourselves who is going to be speaking and for how long. I think it will solve the problem for everybody if you adopt the concept of time-sharing among the committee members and within party lines or party affiliation.

• 1200

Mr. Keith Martin: What happened in the last Parliament?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): It's not relevant. You have more than double the number of members.

Mr. Keith Martin: We do have experience here on this committee. I would just like to know what happened with the rotation the last time.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Ten and five.

Mr. Keith Martin: No, between the division of the parties and who got to ask questions on this particular committee.

An hon. member: But there were fewer parties.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You had four parties.

Mr. Keith Martin: That's true, but what happened last time?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Who has any history here?

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Tonu Onu): First off it was ten minutes for each party and then you would go to a second round where everybody would have another five minutes each, and if there were time it would go to a third round.

Mr. Keith Martin: Did they go party to party to party?

The Joint Clerk (Mr. Tonu Onu): Yes, it would alternate between parties.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I'm filling in for Mr. Godin for the NDP. I want to pick up on Mr. Coderre's point.

First of all, I think the ten and five is ludicrous to a committee as large as this. I want to recommend to you what we are doing on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and that simply is that the opposition party starts off with seven minutes, it goes to the Liberals for seven, the Bloc gets seven, and the NDP and the Conservatives get five minutes in the first round. We're trying that. We haven't nailed that down. We've said let's try that for a couple of weeks. We had our first set of meetings today and it seemed to me to work reasonably well.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): The idea of putting it on trial for a few meetings...I'm not sure yet what amount of minutes, but the idea of trial time-sharing.

Mr. Dick Proctor: The problem with time-sharing is that two parties will get two minutes.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Within the individual parties you can determine how you want to share your time. If the member has a lot of substance to his observations, you let him use your full time. If you don't, he passes it on to someone else. You make that decision amongst yourselves. I don't think you have to deal with people.... The party can determine for itself how it will do it. It's the mass block of time we're talking about. You need a fair share of time.

I think your observation is a good one. Why don't we try that? Let's not pass point nine at this point. Let's leave it open and see what happens. If it doesn't work well we will come back and make stiffer regulations.

Mr. John Godfrey: Just to share what is going on in the heritage committee—we had the same discussion—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): How big is your committee, John?

Mr. John Godfrey: The suggestion was that while you have to recognize the parties up front, because there's a shortage of time in this committee and in most committees because of the increased membership, if all parties, including the government, get five minutes to start out and then after that it's determined partly on the basis of who shows up and interest in the subject, it's at the goodwill of the chair to decide amongst the others how it goes. That respects the individual strengths and interests of the members and gives those perhaps more weight than party membership. Party membership is recognized by the earlier allocation, but it leaves the maximum amount of time for interplay, for discussion, and for all the rest of it. It's another formula.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): How big is your committee, John?

Mr. John Godfrey: It's 16.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Thank you.

Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In each one of the parties, there's always one person who is more interested in this committee. This will be the case in my party and it will also be the case with the Progressive Conservative Party as well as with the New Democrats and the Reform Party. One person in particular will do the research, read all the documents before appearing, and will get in touch with the party researcher before appearing before the committee.

This is why I like to have ten minutes when making interventions. On the other hand, on the second round, for most of the opposition parties, they will only be one person speaking and we will not have our five minutes before everyone else has had their five minutes.

• 1205

For instance, we would give ten minutes to the Reform Party, ten minutes to ourselves, and if it were the case this morning, ten minutes to the Liberals, and in the second round, there would be only one Reform Party member who could speak, because we would have already spoken, and all those people would speak for five minutes. If they wanted to split up their first ten minutes into five-minute periods, it would be their choice. So, we would have the same amount of time, but the time allotted to the party in power would reflect its majority.

This is why I would really like to have ten minutes in the beginning when we want to speak on an issue. I know from experience that we don't always use up our time.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: Listen, I'm very comfortable talking about this, because I'm sitting as an independent, but we also have to be

[English]

I would say “fair” in English. There is something called the government.

If you calculate this at the moment, every new Parliament must have new rules according to the number of parties and the number of people elected.

At the moment it's around 50-50. If you add the Senate and the House of Commons, it makes 50%. Then if I listen to you attentively, the government side will happen to get fewer than 30% or 35% of the questions.

[Translation]

In order to respect what you seem to want to establish, I would humbly suggest to you that during the first round—and the gentleman is quite right—it should be the Official Opposition followed by the government and the other parties. In the second round, to be equitable towards the government, you would still do as you did before, but that could change: one for the opposition, one for the government and so on, and, at the end, you will see that you will have given almost 60% of the time to the opposition and 40% to the government. The first round is very important for the opposition MPs.

[English]

For the first time, it's very important for the opposition. There's no doubt.

[Translation]

The second round is important for the government because we must keep a certain balance. That's all I wanted to say. There's no way of calculating this. All this goes according to the mood of the committee. I think that both

[English]

co-chairs will understand how to move this smoothly.

[Translation]

I think that this was well expressed by the Bloc Québécois. There are people who are more interested than others are and all that is eventually discovered. We should not deprive the majority of one of its rights.

[English]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Madam Chair, for the record,

[Translation]

I think that we should agree about certain principles. I am a Liberal and I will be partisan in my view. We make up the government. We must agree on one thing. This committee cannot be reduced to a mere round table when we are questioning a witness. There are opposition parties and there is the government. It is clear that we should give ourselves a time frame and that we should decide, among colleagues of the party in power, which one of us will speak because we'll discuss this beforehand. We'll do our homework.

However, I insist very much on one element. If, for example, the Official Opposition were to put the first question during the time allotted to it, then we should alternate: opposition, government, etc. This is done at the Standing Committee on Agriculture where I sit with my colleague Proctor, and it works marvellously well. But there is one element we must take into consideration, which is the fact that there is the opposition and the government and that the government must have an appreciable amount of time.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I think it might be wise to give some consideration, while we're listening to those last two interveners, about having a period of not voting on question nine.

Go ahead, Dr. Martin, and then Monsieur Plamondon.

Mr. Keith Martin: I think Senator Prud'homme's point is correct. It's fair that my original suggestion would not give the government due consideration in the amount of questions it would have. However, the point I'd like to make is that in the second round, the rotation should start off in the same fashion as before: Reform, government, Bloc, government, and so on and so forth.

The other point is a question. When they refer to parties, are they including parties in both the Senate and the House of Commons or are they looking at them in isolation?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Combined.

Mr. Keith Martin: Oh, okay. That's fine.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Even during the previous Parliament when there were only two opposition parties, both these parties would intervene first and then it would be the government's turn. This has always been the procedure in committees. Thus, it has been agreed that, whatever the time that we might agree upon, the opposition party intervenes, the government intervenes and, in the second round, the party in power has more time, because it has more members sitting on the committee.

• 1210

We must have this habitual rotation, where the opposition parties express their views, followed by the party in power. Next, during the second round, there are more interveners from the government because there are more of them. And this is how we treat the party in power equitably. This is how it has always been done. We are not going to change the rules of the game.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Plamondon is very brilliant. He says that things have always been that way, but then there were fewer political parties. We presently have a totally different House. Things cannot be done like that.

We know what the practice is. Let's imagine that the minister and the media are here and that they have nothing much new left to say. The Official Opposition, naturally, will not defend either the minister or the government's policy, and there's also the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservative Party. Everyone will get up and leave when the government's turn to intervene comes around.

In my mind, we should establish right away that things cannot be done like that. If necessary, we could hear an opposition party, then another opposition party, then the government and, after that, the other two opposition parties. However, don't try to tell me that you are going to number the opposition parties—one, two, three, four—and that you are then going to hear the government. This is a new Parliament, Mr. Plamondon. This is not the former Parliament.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Regarding the second round...

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: And in the second round, you alternate.

The Joint Chair (Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool): At this stage, we could make a proposition and take into consideration what has just been said.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: We have to satisfy both sides.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: If we don't come to a consensus, we'll have problems all through the session. We'd better reach a consensus.

Mr. Denis Coderre: We can stir things up, but that's not the point. We want to come to an agreement. I propose that the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois should speak first. Next, the government would intervene. And next, the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives and the government would come back. And then we could talk about alternation.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I would like to suggest something. I said I was going to close it after Mr. Plamondon and yourself; we have allowed it to go one step further. I think I sense a consensus around the table. The following is the consensus that I understand: the first two opposite....

Would you please listen before you put up your hand that you don't agree? Okay, let me at least finish what I had to say.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: There is a proposal, but there has not been any consensus yet. However, there will be one if I can intervene.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I am not taking a proposition; I am suggesting to you the consensus that I heard, following which you can then have your other arguments. Okay? So let's just listen to the consensus I heard and see if it meets with people's approval.

We will start with the two opposition parties, followed by a government person. We would follow that with the other two opposition parties, followed by a government person on the first round.

On the second round, it would be first those present in the opposition party, then the government party, then the opposition party, and then the government party. In this way, everyone would have the opportunity to speak where there is interest and you would have a fair distribution on time.

I would like to also recommend that you withdraw your proposition, Mr. Coderre.

We'll work on this format for the next meeting or two. Let's see if that works, because that's the consensus I sense. If it doesn't work, we can come back to the questioning of witnesses as we present it for consideration to the steering committee.

Yes, Doctor.

Mr. Keith Martin: We really want to insist on having the second round for letting the official opposition have the first question.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I never said no, I said the second round would be official opposition, Liberal, official opposition, Liberal. Okay?

Mr. Keith Martin: Okay. Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): You're very welcome. I sat in opposition for nine years. I'm very comfortable with understanding the role of the opposition, and I want the opposition to be heard.

Mr. Keith Martin: The official opposition, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I was the official opposition, and I sat for many months as that. I also had respect for the opposition, and the NDP brought very enlightened questions.

Thank you very much.

Okay, so we move to point ten.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Could we try to get a consensus in that sense? Now we'll have to agree about the number of minutes.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We said seven minutes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: This is new. This has just happened.

• 1215

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): That's what I heard.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: You heard that from him at a certain point, but he never mentioned anything about minutes.

The first turn would last seven minutes, seven minutes, seven minutes, seven minutes, seven minutes and seven minutes.

As for the second round it would be five, five, five, five, five, five, five, five, five?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes. You'll never get to the third so don't worry about it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: And when we'd get to the second round, if one of the opposition parties has only one representative, would it be the same one who'd speak for those five minutes?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Agreed, it's clear.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Very well, Mr. Plamondon, you're going to have your go at it. Go ahead.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: Well, I'm going to...

[English]

I think I have made a good case for all of you, but you know I am an independent senator and—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Good. You'll get heard.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme:—I have been in trouble with the official whip of the Senate for the last five years. He refused to put me on committees, but according to our rules I am allowed to go to any committee.

I want you to know I'll be part of your consensus. I will not abuse this committee in which I have had great interest for 35 years, but from time to time you would be—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): We'll be charitable and we'll invite you to—

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: No. I don't like charity; I don't beg for charity. But if you would just include that, not put that in any resolution...it's only a question of fairness. That's all.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Senator Prud'homme,

[English]

you noted today that you have been more than welcome and your advice has been very interesting. In most instances I agree—

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: Knowing that the chosen ones for the Senate are absent.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Dr. Martin.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Listen, guys, we have to be out of here in four minutes, so let's move on this.

Mr. Keith Martin: The point you make about the second round, Madam Chairman, is that the opposition gets the first question.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Yes.

Mr. Keith Martin: Let's be very clear: not the opposition, but the official opposition—

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Stop worrying about it. You will get your time in the sun.

Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Regarding Mr. Prud'homme's request, I would like to remind us all that when I sat as an independent in a party that was not officially recognized, between 1990 and 1993, I was given the official right to speak through a guideline from the Speaker of the House in two committees and in the other committees, I never had any right to speak, except by unanimous consent, which I rarely received. This was a precedent. That is the way it used to be. Now, if the right to speak is regularly granted to Mr. Prud'homme, let us be conscious of the fact that for the future, we'll be creating a precedent for all independent MPs or senators.

We'll let the committee start its deliberations and I think that Mr. Prud'homme will act in a moderate manner. As for myself, I don't object to the right to speak, but I would like to recall certain things that were done to me in a very categorical manner in several committees of this fine democratic House, refusing me the right to speak because I was an independent.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: You would have been recognized by this chairman.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes.

Senator Marcel Prud'homme: You know it.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I've even been expelled from the executive of parliamentary associations because I was an independent.

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Expenses of the witnesses,

[English]

number 10, any discussion?

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Fine.

Number 11 is the notice for new business, the 48-hour notice.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): With regard to Senate authorization to sit during Senate sittings, it's up to you.

[Translation]

Fine.

[English]

Now for adoption of the first report, which is the form we just decided.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Fine. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: On a Point of Order, before leaving. When will the next meeting take place?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I don't know. I have to find out.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Next week or this week?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Not this week.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Not this week?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): No. What are we going to do?

The Joint Clerk (Ms. Danielle Belisle): It's at the call of the chair—

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Next week?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): I would like to have a meeting of the steering committee before...we will send you a notice about the steering committee. I think we really need to suggest a plan of action and an approach. I hope the steering committee meeting will be filled with good ideas. I assure you the official opposition will be well respected in every sense of the word. Worry not.

• 1220

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: It is highly probable that the standing committee will not sit again this week, but when will the next meeting of the steering committee take place? Are we already crowded?

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): Next week.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Not this week?

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mrs. Sheila Finestone): The meeting is adjourned.