Evidence of meeting #47 for International Trade in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was environmental.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I call the meeting to order.
We are working on Bill C-24, the free trade agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama.
We want to thank our witnesses for being here.
From the Embassy of Panama in Canada, we have with us Ambassador Corona. Thank you for being here.
Before we get to our witnesses, we have a motion for which we need unanimous consent to bring forward because of the timing.
Do we have unanimous consent to bring it forward?
3:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Yes.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay. Then we will ask the mover if he's interested in moving it.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
The motion is fairly straightforward. There has been a lot of open debate and discussion on the free trade agreement with Panama, both in the two previous Parliaments and in this Parliament.
We had second reading debate in the House. We could wrap up our hearings in pretty short order, I think, proceed to clause-by-clause study, and get back to the House for third reading.
It's just an attempt, Mr. Chairman, to move this along in a reasonable fashion. I think there would be agreement from the House leaders to hear it on third reading.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Well, the motion claims that if the clause-by-clause consideration hasn't been completed by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, October 4, the chair.... That's the motion...?
First, my apologies for being a few minutes late, Mr. Chair. I didn't have the benefit of the discussion—
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
—but I do want to speak on this. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to reconsider this motion.
I've only seen this motion once before, and I've been around here a while. The place I've seen it was the committee discussing the Canadian Wheat Board legislation, which the government rammed through without allowing a vote of producers. There were certain clauses that needed much more than the five minutes of discussion time and there were others that didn't, but I firmly believe that this motion is an absolute affront to our system of democracy and how Parliament should work.
This is something that you would see in a totalitarian regime, not in a democracy like Canada's. None of us on the opposition side, do I think, are being problematic in trying to move this legislation through. We want to see it done, but I'll tell you this: if this motion passes, you're not going to find that kind of cooperation from me in terms of trying to get it through, because you're shutting down the voice of the Canadian people, through their elected MPs, to do an adequate job of discussing issues that will affect their lives in the future. It's wrong.
This is the second time. A precedent has been set.
Is this going to happen at every committee? I don't think the parliamentary secretary drafted this motion. This comes out of somewhere at the centre, because it's exactly the same as the motion that went to the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Chair. I'm telling you that I'm very, very much against this, and I think it will make opposition members harder to get along with because it is, in all honesty, something that you'd expect to see in a totalitarian regime, not in an open and transparent democracy, which Canada is.
It takes the opportunity of voice away from members of Parliament, who have a responsibility to do their job and analyze, question, and debate legislation properly. I'm telling you that it's wrong, and I'm suggesting to the parliamentary secretary that it might be a wise move to just not push it: I think you'll get your legislation through faster.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay. Thank you.
Just to let the committee know, I actually sat on the committee that our honourable colleague was just talking about. This is a different motion. This is the first time I've seen this motion.
We're debating this motion. That's what we're about to do.
Go ahead, Mr. Davies.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
On behalf of the official opposition, I would like to note for the record that we share, if not the exact expressions of Mr. Easter, certainly the tenor of his comments.
In my four years here, I've never seen any attempt to restrict parties to debate for a maximum of five minutes per party per clause of legislation. The motion already has a deemed passage of the bill if we're not through clause-by-clause study by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, October 4, so already the government is guaranteed passage of this bill out of committee by the close of October 4.
However, the government is not content with invoking closure; this motion actually would restrict our examination or discussion of each clause to five minutes. I have to say this is wrong, it's undemocratic, and it needlessly limits parliamentarians' focus. There could be some clauses that are less important, but on some clauses the parties may want to dig in and have some meaningful input, and that will be simply impossible.
We're already in a situation in which we have exactly three meetings of witnesses—three simple meetings of witnesses—whom we're going to hear from before we pass what the government calls an important piece of legislation. The official opposition has had seven minutes of questioning of our own government on this bill. If we're fortunate enough to have the departmental officials come back on Tuesday, which Mr. Chairman has already said would be the case, that may stretch out to 14 minutes. At the outside, we may have 19 minutes, a full 19 minutes of official opposition questioning of our own government on a free trade agreement with Panama.
The government has said repeatedly that it's justified in rushing this bill through this Parliament because it has been tabled in previous parliaments and has been discussed before, but I would point out that this is a new Parliament, Mr. Chairman, with new members. In fact, every single member of the official opposition is new on this side, and we've been elected since May 2011.
More importantly, the government will say, and has said, that when we get into the discussion of Panama we expect the witnesses to say that things have changed since this agreement was last tabled in Parliament. They will say that the state of democracy has improved. We already heard at our last meeting that one of the major criticisms when this bill was before Parliament earlier was that there was no tax information exchange agreement with Panama. Now we heard last time that we're in negotiations with one, so that's a significant change.
The government can't have it both ways and say it's going to ram this bill through this Parliament because we've talked about this before, when we have new members and there have been changed circumstances on the ground. This bill, by trying to limit not even a person but a party to five minutes per clause, is as undemocratic as I've seen in my time. I don't think any parliamentarian from any party should be supportive of such a limitation.
Remember, governments change. There will be a time when the Conservatives will be sitting on the opposition side, and I wonder how they will feel when any government of the day says it will limit their whole party to five minutes of discussion.
Therefore, we'll vote against this motion.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay. Just to interpret how I would read it as the chair, the motion is that it may limit debate in keeping with the timeline of being through clause-by-clause study on Thursday, so I certainly wouldn't be limiting the debate if we could see that we could get it through by the timeline of Thursday evening, which is midnight Thursday. That would be the way I would interpret the motion, as the chair.
Go ahead, Mr. Keddy.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
After the 53½ hours of debate already, 22 hours of debate in this Parliament, I think it's time to move it on. We typically question witnesses here for seven minutes per party, Mr. Chairman. I'm not interested in debating this ad nauseam. I'm really not. If the members want to go in camera and debate this for the rest of the day, we can, but if not, I suggest we vote on it and move forward.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Just a minute, Mr. Easter. We'll go to Mr. Davies very quickly, and then Mr. Easter, and then we'll move on.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Chairman, I have two points to make.
One is that I appreciate your interpretation, but the motion very clearly has two clauses. One says the chair may limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five minutes per party per clause, and then the second one deems that if clause-by-clause consideration has not been completed by, essentially, midnight on Thursday, then the bill will be deemed to have passed.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I'm sorry; that's right. It'll pass committee.
With great respect to my friend Mr. Keddy, my second point is that I don't believe that debate in the House is the equivalent of what a committee does. Bills are referred to committee after second stage for detailed scrutiny and clause-by-clause analysis. The purpose of committee is to have a much more in-depth, rigorous examination of the wording of the bill and how each clause fits with the others. That's not the same thing as the general debate that happens at second reading, nor the debate at third reading.
Essentially, Mr. Keddy is saying that we don't really need an effective committee examination of a bill. I'm sure that's not what he meant, but that's what it sounded like.
The committee structure is a very important part of the British parliamentary system. It's an important part of the Canadian parliamentary system. I've heard no compelling reason given by the government side as to why it is vital that we ram through the Canada-Panama trade agreement in four days of committee hearings. Is there a deadline looming? Is there some imperative?
3:40 p.m.
An hon. member
There's no deadline.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
I think the point is made. We can go back and forth on it, but you made the point effectively.
Just to clarify for the committee, what I'm to understand is that it is to be done by midnight. We start at 3:30, so that's eight and a half hours of debate on clause by clause.
Go ahead, Mr. Easter.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I agree with the points Mr. Davies has made.
As I said, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary. Can he explain fully to me why this is necessary and why this approach is new to this government? If it's not the exact wording, Mr. Chair, it's exactly the same principle as what happened at the Canadian Wheat Board committee. You know that. Deadlines are imposed, proper debate is not given, and parliamentarians and parties.... You're shot down to parties now. We're all elected in our own right, but you're down to parties.
Can the parliamentary secretary explain to me why this is so necessary? I assure you that this is going against the grain of gaining cooperation and understanding from the public and from at least this party.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay, we'll have Mr. Keddy answer, then we'll move on to vote.