SIFS Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL REPORTING GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

SOUS-COMITÉ DES LIGNES DIRECTRICES ET NORMES INTERNATIONALES RELATIVEMENT AUX ÉTATS FINANCIERS DU SECTEUR PUBLIC DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES COMPTES PUBLICS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 16, 2000

• 1523

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'd like to call this meeting, which is the Subcommittee on International Financial Reporting—

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Chairman, do we have a quorum?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Clerk, do we have a quorum?

The Clerk of the Committee: We don't have a quorum to—

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So, we will wait.

[English]

The Clerk: —move motions or to vote, but we could discuss.

[Translation]

We can discuss things.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Very well.

The Clerk: This is done on a regular basis in committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Starting again, this meeting is a subcommittee meeting on international financial reporting guidelines and standards for the public sector of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The agenda for today, orders of the day, is the minutes of proceedings of Thursday, March 2, 2000, future business, and adjourn to the call of the chair.

Now, you may recall at the last meeting there was a little bit of confusion because we were under a bit of a rush. The bells were ringing. At that point in time we were debating and discussing the orders of that particular meeting, which was the travel budget to go to Washington, D.C. There was a fair amount of discussion about that. As I mentioned to you, the bells were ringing and we called the vote, and at that point in time there was some more discussion. I called the motion carried on division, which is reported by the minutes.

• 1525

Mr. Sauvageau indicated to me that perhaps I hadn't conducted it according to procedure, that I didn't give him time to call for a recorded division. The minutes do not reflect the fact that he had objections to the motion that was before the committee at that point in time.

The motion that was passed.... It says that Mr. Harb moved that the subcommittee seek the authority to travel to Washington, D.C., from May 7 to 10, 2000, in relation to its study on international financial reporting guidelines and standards for the public sector, and that the necessary staff accompany the subcommittee.

The question having been put on the motion, it was agreed to on division. I immediately adjourned the meeting in order for everyone to get to the House to vote.

Since that time I've had some discussions with the clerk as to what to do to put the record straight. I believe Mr. Richardson has a motion he would like to put on the floor.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): That's correct, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move that the minutes of proceedings of the subcommittee meeting of Thursday, March 2, 2000, be revised to indicate that the motion of Mac Harb was agreed to on the following recorded division: yeas—Mac Harb, Steve Mahoney, and John Richardson; nays—Benoît Sauvageau.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Richardson. A copy of the motion Mr. Richardson has just read has just been distributed in both official languages to the members before us. So we'll have a little bit of discussion.

It seems to me the motion is fairly straightforward. The motion to travel does not require unanimous approval. Therefore, as long as it's carried on majority, it would be passed, effectively.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I have a question on procedure.

The Chairman: A question on procedure, yes, Ms. Phinney.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Could you just tell me what quorum is for this group?

The Chairman: Quorum is five—two opposition and three members—

Ms. Beth Phinney: Only four voted on it before, then.

The Clerk: The chairman didn't vote because it wasn't a tie.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I didn't say the chair voted.

The Chairman: No, the chair did not vote.

Ms. Beth Phinney: So four voted.

The Chairman: There were three who voted in favour, and Mr. Sauvageau voted against. I as the chair did not vote.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Did you just say quorum was five?

The Chairman: Quorum is five, but quorum includes the chair. The chair does not vote except in a tie. So four people voted, but it did not record that Monsieur Sauvageau from the Bloc wanted to be recorded as opposed. Hence, the new motion that Mr. Richardson has reported.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that, personally, I have nothing against anyone because a priori, I believe that everyone is well intentioned and kind. However, I might have some comments to make on the duties of certain people and I don't want those people to feel personally attacked, because those comments will bear on their duties.

Firstly, during the meeting held on Thursday, March 2, 2000, Mr. Chairman, you breached Standing Order 116. In passing, I feel that as Chair, you must be neutral and respect committee rules. I must question your neutrality as chairman in light of the fact that you did breach that Standing Order which I refer you to, Mr. Chairman, in order that you and our colleagues may understand it fully. It says that the provisions of the Standing Order concerning the limit imposed as to the number of interventions and the length of speeches in the House do not apply in committees.

Thus, as long as you have the floor, you cannot be asked to conclude.

• 1530

On Thursday, March 2, not only did you ask me to conclude but you interrupted me, put the motion to the vote and recorded the results of the vote although I had not finished speaking. Perhaps you were unaware of that rule. That is a possibility. However, in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, by Marleau and Montpetit, on page 834, it states that:

The clerk of a committee is the procedural advisor—your advisor and especially ours—to the Chair and all members of the committee and also acts as its administrative officer. The role of the committee clerk is analogous to that which the Clerk of the House...

I suppose that in the House, the Clerk is impartial. It even says “and of the... members”.

As a non-partisan and independent officer, the clerk serves equally all members of the committee as well as representatives of all parties; clerks discharge their duties and responsibilities with respect to the committee in consultation with the Chair.

So let us admit, Mr. Chairman, that you were ignorant of Standing Order 116. To defend myself here in committee, and to represent me, help and advise me, I have at my disposal the services of the clerks. The clerk should have told you that you did not have the right pursuant to SO/116 to interrupt me while I was speaking and then to put the motion to a vote while I was speaking.

What is worse, Mr. Chairman, is that during the previous session of the committee there was a desire to put the motion to a vote without a quorum. As a member of the committee who did not know page 834 of Marleau and Montpetit by heart, I would have expected the clerk, who is my advisor, to tell me that we could not act in this way while only four persons, you among them, Mr. Chairman, were present and while we did not have a quorum.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, I was had not once but twice. Personally, I have nothing against anyone. However, the people who exercised these duties must like you, Mr. Chairman, be non-partisan and like you, Mr. Clerk, know the Standing Orders—, I hope that these words are being recorded—be neutral and impartial, and advise us as indicated on page 834 of Marleau and Montpetit.

Further, the presentation of Mr. Richardson's motion required a 24-hour notice, a fact which the clerk should surely have mentioned to us if he had advised us well. We had a problem there already.

I believe that we need to start all over again. If you absolutely want to travel we can find some way to agree. The same thing goes for clerks and researchers. You told me that we had to proceed very quickly. We cruised the Internet. We consulted the PCOA site, the Parliamentary Conference of the Americas, and there was nothing. We concluded that we could travel.

We don't even know what we will be presenting to the representatives and senators in Washington; we haven't even discussed this amongst ourselves. When you want to be sales representatives and sell a product or an idea, you have to have the product or the idea in hand. In the present case, the committee has not even studied the question. We're going to go there to say that we intend to have a good idea, about which we know nothing, but we will certainly be having it. We are going to ask American representatives and senators to support that idea. I suppose that they might ask us to let them know what it is first before telling us what they think of it.

The committee met a first time to say that it would be interesting to travel. It met again to decide to go to Washington and say that it would be interesting to establish international links in the area of audits. Our researchers checked with one of those organizations, the Parliamentary Conference of the Americas. It is not up to my office to do so but this morning I nevertheless requested that the Auditor General's Office be called to find out if some of this research was not already being done. I also asked—I had asked for this but it had not been done—that this be checked with the Department of International Trade as well.

I also have in my notes a document that contains the list of a certain number of international organizations, parliamentary associations or other organizations that might perhaps... If no one does so I would not object that after we discuss it amongst ourselves we present our idea. Further, once our idea has been defined we could carry out some research and invite people here to tell us what needs to be done, and then undertake our trip.

• 1535

For my part, I would ask you for two things, Mr. Chairman. I would ask you, firstly, to exercise your chairman's duties in an impartial, neutral and honest way. You told me that in the House, after the vote, the motion would be put to a vote again. For my part I said that if we did not resume our work, we would not be hearing witnesses until June. I don't even have to respect the committee rules to have witnesses put off till June because if you don't respect the rules of the committee why should I be concerned with them? So, if the motion is not put to a vote, we will not be hearing witnesses until the month of June. And if my leader once again appoints me to this committee in the month of September, well, you will not be hearing witnesses until Christmas, I promise you that. Mr. Chairman, I give you my word on that. I will ask my leader to appoint me to this committee once again. So, I would like you to exercise your duties with impartiality.

Mr. Clerk, I would ask the same thing of you. You're here to see to it that my rights are respected. I'm not supposed to know Marleau and Montpetit by heart. I'm not supposed to know the Standing Orders of committees by heart. You're supposed to advise us.

Should I be interrupted again while I am speaking and should a motion be put to the vote and should it be decreed that my vote is a dissident one, I will raise a point of order in the House of Commons. I will address the Speaker of the House—God knows who that will be at that time—and I will table a formal complaint concerning the Chairman's partiality.

Consequently, I would ask you to put the motion to a vote once again. For my part, I have a motion to table, and in keeping with the Standing Orders, I hereby give you 24 hours' notice.

[English]

The Chairman: First of all, the clerk is here to advise the chair and the members on request. It is not the clerk's job to jump in on his own volition to direct the meeting. If it is not requested, then he will not jump in. That's a given.

Regarding the impartiality of the chair, as far as partisan politics is concerned, I go to great lengths to try to ensure that I am impartial as far as I possibly can be. Like every other member around here, I come here because of political points of view, but as far as party impartiality is concerned, when I'm in the chair, I try to do that.

As far as the travel is concerned, I do not see that as a partisan issue; I see it as part of the work of the committee. Of course, quite a number of members haven't come to all the committee meetings and aren't fully informed as to what the committee has been doing. Perhaps that may apply to you as well, Mr. Sauvageau.

The motion was properly put. I never put a motion on the floor unless there is quorum. A quorum has been checked some time during the meeting.

In regard to the motion on March 2, I think that was the second meeting at which it had been on the agenda, because at the prior one there wasn't a quorum. Don't quote me on that; it's just my vague recollection. But there was quorum some time during the meeting on March 2, and I think we had quorum at the time the motion was moved and voted upon, but nobody called for quorum at that time or else it would have been checked.

As a matter of interest, we do have quorum at this point in time—don't we, Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk: Yes, you do have quorum.

The Chairman: We have quorum.

The Clerk: And there is no requirement for 24 hours notice in the subcommittee.

The Chairman: There is no requirement of 24 hours notice in the subcommittee.

We have a motion on the floor.

Mr. Sauvageau, a short intervention, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: My intervention will be as brief or as lengthy as I wish.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau—

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Now, Mr. Chairman,...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: ...I simply want to say on the topic of the quorum that at the meeting which preceded the meeting held on Thursday March 2...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: ...I asked the clerk...

• 1540

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau. Thank you.

The chair does have the right to intervene if the intervention goes on ad nauseam or off subject—so as I said, a short intervention, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: At the meeting preceding the March 2 meeting when I asked the clerk whether we had a quorum, the clerk did not want to answer. I asked a second time whether we had quorum and at that point the clerk agreed to answer.

At the March 2 meeting, while you were interrupting me and putting a motion to a vote, I asked the clerk if you had the right to do that. I never got an answer. So, in response to your statement that it was not the clerk's place to come forward to provide me with information and that it was up to me to ask for it, I would reply, Mr. Chairman, that I did so on two occasions. At the first meeting I twice asked whether we had a quorum; at the second meeting, while you were all busy cooking something up together, I asked him whether you had the right to do that and he did not reply.

I have motions to introduce in both official languages. As it is not necessary to provide 24 hours' notice, I will sign them and give them to the clerk.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau, we have a motion on the floor, and with full respect to you, because we do know you wanted to be recorded as opposed at that particular meeting, this motion will recognize that you were opposed at that particular meeting. Now you are asking for the vote to be retaken, perhaps with the concurrence of the committee.

Does it require unanimous consent to revisit, Mr. Clerk?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: As you had confirmed.

[English]

The Chairman: We want you to defer to Mr. Sauvageau and have him vote again. Is it possible to vote twice on the same motion?

The Clerk: It should be by unanimous consent.

The Chairman: By unanimous consent.

The Clerk: We don't have the same members.

The Chairman: And we don't even have the same members.

First of all, we have a motion on the floor. In order to recognize Mr. Sauvageau's objections in the meeting on March 2, I would think we should vote on that and affirm the motion recognizing that he did object.

Ms. Beth Phinney: Is this the motion we're voting on?

The Chairman: It's the motion that was being circulated.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes. I am ready to see it put to the vote.

[English]

The Chairman: That's four in favour.

Mr. Sauvageau, are you in favour? You're not in favour. Do you wish to be recorded as opposed?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Sauvageau is being recorded as opposed.

Mr. Sauvageau, you have a motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, I have a motion to introduce.

I propose, that the motion adopted March 2:

That the Sub-Committee seek the authority to travel to Washington D.C. from May 7 to 10 2000 in relation to its study on international financial reporting guidelines and standards for the public sector and that the necessary staff accompany the Sub- Committee.

be rescinded.

[English]

The Chairman: The clerk advises me that it requires unanimous consent.

Does it require the same members, Mr. Clerk?

Well, we'll rescind and then we'll put the motion back on the table.

You say the motion is in order?

The Clerk: I say the motion is in order, and the easiest way is to put it to a vote. If it's not rescinded, it stays, and that's it. You can't come back with rescinded.

The Chairman: Do you have additional copies, Mr. Sauvageau?

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Do we have any additional copies? No.

• 1545

[English]

The Chairman: Okay. Let me read the motion I have here. Mr. Sauvageau proposes that the motion adopted March 2, which was that the subcommittee seek the authority to travel to Washington, D.C., from May 7 to 10, 2000, in relation to its study on international financial reporting guidelines and standards for the public sector and that the necessary staff accompany the subcommittee, be rescinded.

We have the motion in front of us, and the clerk advises me that it is a valid motion. As you know, back on March 2, which is the meeting that is being questioned by Mr. Sauvageau as to the legality of the approval of the motion on the table, if you vote in favour of Mr. Sauvageau's motion, the authority to travel is rescinded. If you vote against his motion, the authority to travel remains.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. The motion says “the subcommittee seek the authority”. We have no right to rescind the authority to travel. What we're rescinding is seeking the authority to travel, isn't it?

The Chairman: The methodology of a committee travelling is that, first, the committee passes a motion to seek authority. It goes to the liaison committee. If it passes there, it goes to the House leaders. If it passes there, it goes to the House of Commons. If it passes there, now you have the authority to travel. Only the House can grant authority.

Mr. John Finlay: Right.

The Chairman: But this is the first step. If we rescind the motion to seek authority to travel, then it will not go to the liaison committee, the House leaders, or the House of Commons.

Mr. John Finlay: I wasn't present at the first meeting, but I take it that the intention of the committee is to travel.

The Chairman: That's correct. I have asked the committee and its members to go to Washington to continue the agenda of the subcommittee, and Mr. Sauvageau has some concerns.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, following my intervention, you said that I was perhaps not aware of certain data and certain studies, and because of my absence at certain meetings I was not aware of the status of the committee's work with regard to the preparation of those international financial reporting guidelines and standards for the public sector. You said that that was probably why I was opposed to the trip. It seems to me that that would already be a valid reason. Although such a request is rare, I would ask my Liberal colleagues to listen to me very carefully because they will see that my perspective is not based on political motives.

Firstly, Bill C-20 was passed and is a thing of the past. We shall go to Washington. Let us leave political considerations aside in this debate. I am a big bad separatist, but let's suppose for a minute that I don a different costume and that we are all parliamentarians considering going to Washington from May 7 to 10. If I asked you what you are going to do there, none of you could provide me with an answer. I could put this question to my colleague across the way, Ms. Augustine. I am not being partisan. I am sure you don't know. If I ask Ms. Phinney what we are going to be presenting in Washington, I'm sure she will not know either.

I respect parliamentarians. Whether they are Quebeckers, Canadians, Americans or hail from some other place, I respect them. I'm not against going to Washington to defend international guidelines and standards. On the contrary, I'm in favour of such a trip, but I would like us to go in a rational and intelligent fashion. We don't know what we are going to say during this trip from May 7 to 10. If we don't know, should we not postpone this trip to the fall? Washington in the fall is pretty. Should we not postpone the trip to next winter or next spring?

• 1550

Mr. Chairman, Standing Order 116 provides that when a motion has been tabled, you cannot interrupt me.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau, as I say, the chair has the right to intervene. That's the chair's prerogative. If you have other points to make, I'll allow you to make them. I do want to give you the opportunity to present your point of view, but I do want to proceed as well.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I will repeat the object of my request because the Liberal representatives that sit on this committee change often. I have asked the researchers to tell us the status of the study on the international guidelines and standards in order that we have some idea of what we will be taking to Washington. We still have not received any research documents. Rather, we have made some efforts in order to determine whether we would travel or not travel, telling ourselves that we could determine afterwards the reasons for that trip.

What I have to say to all of you, to you, Liberals, and to you Mr. Chairman, is that we mustn't look like a bunch of nerds when we go before...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau, if I can just interrupt, if I may, I would answer the point you've made.

Travel, as you know, has been somewhat of a hit and miss these past few months in the House, without going into the reasons. We didn't want to line up a complete agenda of meetings and then find that we weren't going after all. As I said, it requires the House to approve this. It's not being approved here; we're only seeking leave to approve. As you know, many committees have not been able to travel for reasons that are debated in the House.

Now, we do have a list of people we would like to see, but we have refrained from setting up these interviews and these meetings until we have fairly definitive approval that we are going, because we don't want to contact all these people and say we're coming and then not show up. We have had to put the cart before the horse to some degree because of the unusual circumstances in the House.

I'm not going to continue the debate too much longer. If you have any additional points to make, please do, and then we'll call the question.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, I had not finished my intervention. Since you told me that to obtain information I had to ask for it, I would like to ask the clerk whether pursuant to Standing Order 116 the chair can interrupt me like that or can decide that I only have five minutes to present my motion, or whether the Standing Order provides that as long as I have the floor the chairman cannot ask me to conclude. I'm asking for that information.

[English]

The Chairman: The clerk advises me, Mr. Sauvageau, that the chair has a very serious role to play: to maintain decorum, to maintain order, to ensure relevancy, and to ensure that the meeting is conducted in a fashion that's appropriate and in accordance with the decorum of the House of Commons. Therefore, I'm saying to you that I'm listening to each individual point you make, and I'm giving you the opportunity to make each and every point, but, as I said earlier, you cannot continue ad nauseam without the chair saying enough is enough.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I want to ask you, Mr. Chairman, to read Standing Order 116 to me.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll quote Standing Order 116 under the heading of “Meetings”:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

But as the clerk advised you, I have the responsibility of maintaining decorum in the meeting. If a chair has no right to interject, we don't need chairs. So that's the way it has to be.

• 1555

As you know, it has been adopted by this committee—no, not this committee, but in the public accounts committee—that each intervention shall be limited to eight minutes in the first round and four minutes in the second round, and I cut people off at the appropriate time. So the rule of Standing Order 116 is open to interpretation according to the appropriate circumstances. I think I give people a reasonable amount of latitude to speak.

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you whether you see a difference between the time allotted to each of the parties to hear witnesses and participate in the question period, and the debates held after a motion has been tabled. That is my first question.

My second question is what difference is there between this sub-committee and the committee studying Bill C-20? I would remind you very humbly and respectfully that during the hearings of that committee my colleague the Member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte- de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, who shall remain nameless, managed, after a motion was tabled, pursuant to Standing Order 116 of the House of Commons, to address the Canadian population and the members of the committee in a very eloquent and laudatory way during five hours and fifteen minutes.

I would like to know what amendments have been made to the Standing Orders since last week as well as what the difference is between this committee and other committees. I would like to know, lastly, what interpretation you, as an impartial and neutral chair, have to give us.

[English]

The Chairman: My role as the impartial chairman, as I say, is to maintain decorum. We have in the main committee, as I said, agreed upon limits to interventions when we have witnesses. The chair maintains a policy of trying to ensure that all members have an opportunity to speak at the main meetings when we examine witnesses. During the examination of reports in camera I try to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to be heard, that nobody gets cut off and their point of view is heard. And I'm applying the same policies in the subcommittee and at this particular meeting.

I'm prepared to listen to what you say. If you make some valid points, fine, let's hear them, let's debate them, let's discuss them, let's vote, and let's move on. That's the situation, and the chair will not deviate from that.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, how do you interpret the fact that as long as we have the floor we cannot be asked to conclude? Would you like this committee—and I'm asking you if that is your wish, and if it is we will discuss it—to amend the Standing Orders in order that this provision no longer apply to this committee, nor to any other committee? If that is the chairman's wish, I have no problem with that. If that is not the chairman's wish, in spite of my friend Mac's recriminations—I think that I am going to give him my Air Miles points so that he can travel—when we debate the motion I have tabled I would like you to respect my rights as the clerk has advised you to and I would like you to apply Standing Order 116.

I swear to you, Mr. Chairman, that if you had not done what you did to me last March 7, I would not be doing what I am doing to you today. Reciprocity does exist in life and what I am doing to you is a demonstration of that. I will begin.

So, may I debate the motion I tabled pursuant to Standing Order 116, yes or no?

[English]

The Chairman: You can speak to the motion you have tabled. I think you already have done that, and now we want to hear from Mr. Harb.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would like to put the motion that the question be put.

I think it's the prerogative of a member of this committee when a debate goes on.... It's quite obvious from what has taken place that my colleague from the Bloc has a different objective from that of the committee, and certainly he's pushing an agenda. This issue is not before us. Bill C-20 has already gone through the House of Commons and is on the way to the Senate. Perhaps if he wants to deal with that issue he can go there.

We have a very serious business to deal with here. It's my suggestion, Mr. Chair, that the motion my colleague has put in be put on the table and we vote on it and that will be the end of it.

An hon. member: Absolutely.

The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau, one moment please. We have Ms. Phinney and Mr. Finlay.

Ms. Beth Phinney: I second that motion.

The Chairman: You second the motion.

We have a request that the question now be put, and that is not debatable. Am I correct, Mr. Clerk?

The Clerk: That's not permitted in committee; that motion is not permitted.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, it's not permitted in committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: So, it's my turn. Very well, I will begin.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, as a point of information for my friend, Monsieur Sauvageau, we once went on a trip in connection with another committee and we learned a lot and we had a good time. This committee doesn't say we're going to tell the people in Washington, it says we are going to study; we are going to study and hopefully learn. That's the purpose of the trip. I think that Mr. Sauvageau, being an educator, would understand this. I'm cut to the quick that he doesn't want to go on another trip with me, and I'm certainly going to be unhappy if he doesn't.

• 1600

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like to raise two points. First of all, I apologize for the delay Mac is complaining about, but in Quebec, we say: “You are missing a good program because you're on the wrong wavelength.” We are not talking about the same thing. As for the gentleman over there, I would like to point out that we did not say study, but promote. When you want to promote something, you have to have something to say.

Mr. Chairman, I have already referred you to SO 116. In order to ensure that we understand each other properly, I have brought along my Standing Orders and we can read them together. This will allow us to determine where we agree and where we disagree. When you disagree, raise your hand.

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: I think this is a waste of time.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ah, I'm sure that my friend who is a great democrat will respect the law. So, as I was saying:

At the opening of the first session of Parliament,...

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: It's really denying an opportunity for this committee—

The Chairman: Order. We can't have two people talking at the same time.

Mr. Sauvageau, it seems to me that you intend to start reading the rules of the House of Commons, the Standing Orders, verbatim from the beginning to the end. Mr. Harb is objecting to that and I as the chair object to that.

I will say to you before you start that you must remember that there is a motion that was passed on March 2 that has been recorded having you objecting. The motion is passed and on the record. You're disputing the validity of that motion. You have placed before us a motion to rescind that. If you continue to read and this meeting adjourns when a quorum is broken up, the motion to travel remains. You must be aware of that.

You can find out how the people vote on the motion to rescind, but for your own edification recognize that the motion of March 2 will stand with you having been recorded as opposed.

I can see this meeting coming to an end fairly quickly if you start to—

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: This one and all the other ones too.

Mr. Mac Harb: That's fine, Benoît, if that's what you want. You have to remember one thing: that this is a forum for the opposition. This is a committee wherein the opposition have an opportunity to question the government and government departments on their spending and on their programs and everything else. If you want to bring it to a paralysis, to a point where we cannot conduct our business, that's fine. You go and tell your colleagues on the opposite side of the House of Commons what you have done so far. And we have been very cooperative so far. We have been trying to work as a team in a non-partisan fashion in order to push the agenda forward.

We disagree from time to time, but on the whole this committee is working well. And for God's sake, my colleague, Benoît, don't try to bring to the forefront what happened two years ago when one of your colleagues was the chair of the committee and the committee met about fifteen or twenty times but never was able to conduct business, not even once, because of the difficulties encountered with some of its members.

This committee, with the ability of the chair and with the qualifications of the people around the table, has been very functional and very productive, and I appeal to you one final time not to block the progress and not to block the agenda of this committee. But if you want to do that, two minutes from now we're going to leave and go and do some productive stuff. That's fine: you speak by yourself to the microphone and no one will listen to you.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, through you, I would like to say a few words to my colleague Mr. Harb. It's nice to hear you, but your refrain seems a bit—and I don't want to offend you in any kind of personal way—like that of a fellow who arrives at his home inebriated every night and tells his wife every time that it is the last time.

I don't want to cause trouble here in this committee. You have seen me work since my arrival and you know that this was not my intention, not in the least.

First of all you say it is the role of the committee to observe and study the government, and you are right, but be advised that it is not the role of a sub-committee. That is your first mistake: we are talking about a sub-committee and not a committee.

You committed a second error. You say you hope I will not cause problems and that we will be able to hear witnesses. I had hoped that you would respect the rules and that at the meeting on March 2, you, Mr. Harb and the members of your party, would comply with Standing Order 116. I had hoped that you would not demand, while I was speaking, that the motion be put to a vote in order to allow the committee to travel to Washington from May 7 to 10, without even knowing what we were going there to promote, because we did not know what we had accomplished up to that point.

• 1605

So, rather than proceeding a posteriori...

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chairman, I'm breaking the quorum. We have to convene the other committee meeting anyway, no?

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: There will not be any.

[English]

Mr. Mac Harb: So I think for this part of the meeting I have to break the quorum.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Very well, good day.

If he is leaving, must I also leave?

[English]

The Chairman: Five is quorum.

Mr. Mac Harb: Let's get on to the main agenda, Mr. Chair. Probably we'll have something we both agree on. If not, that's the end of this part of the debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, if we state that there is no quorum while I am speaking, during the next meeting of the sub- committee I will invoke Standing Order 116 in order that you not cut me off while we are debating the same motion once again.

A Voice: No.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes. Please read the Standing Orders before saying no, fellows!

[English]

The Chairman: We no longer have quorum, Mr. Sauvageau, so I will adjourn the subcommittee.

The subcommittee is adjourned.