Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 3rd, 2006

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it's a bit comical: Mr. Lukiwski and Mr. Poilievre asked me a question, but I cannot answer unless you recognize me. So, I can now answer your questions.

I am seated next to two women, one is deputy leader of the Liberal Party and the other is deputy leader of the Bloc Québécois. Ms. Monique Guay is not here on Mondays, be it in the afternoons or the evenings. As we also have work to do in our ridings, she is here from Tuesday to Friday and I'm here from Monday to Thursday. So, I think we will be maintaining the status quo.

Yesterday, I did indeed receive information regarding the schedule. However, we did say that if it was necessary to hold a meeting at another time because a witness cannot attend for any given reason, we could reassess the situation and perhaps allow for meetings on Tuesday evenings.

However, the schedule which was handed out and calls for twice as many meetings as a standing committee is the one that I will keep.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I would make the following motion, then, to amend Mr. Sauvageau's motion: that we add meetings from 6:30 to 8:30 on days Tuesday and Wednesday. That is my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have an amendment.

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to vote against the amendment, but I don't want the basis upon which that is being done to be misconstrued.

My suggestion would be that we go with the motion and that we learn by experience. We want to move this agenda; there is absolutely no hesitation in saying that. I'm sure everybody believes that. But let's get some experience in the rhythm of hearing the deputations and getting to the essential amendments that are going to be made. Let's learn by experience.

I want to say that I respect the predication upon which the amendment is made with respect to distance factors. Having gone through that with special committees before, I think what is being suggested, the 10 hours...let's see if we can press it, and then if we need more we can reconvene. It's without prejudice with respect to this motion that at some subsequent point we can bring it back onto the table and discuss it, but let's get a sense of the rhythm of the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Guay.

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

I will be brief, but this is important. We are looking at 10 hours of committee meetings per week. As deputy leaders we also sit on other committees. That would involve an enormous workload. We need to take this work very seriously. If we sit too many hours—and I discussed this with Pat, my NDP colleague—we won't be able to focus. This is a very complex bill. We need to start with the schedule we had established. Ten hours a week is a lot.

We have to do our work diligently, take the time to review documents and make the necessary amendments. It's extremely technical work. I have been here for 13 years. I think 10 hours per week, for the time being, will do. Later on, we could look into making changes or dealing with emergencies. We are able to get along. For the time being, 10 hours per week represents an enormous workload.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I have an opinion on the motion and, at the same time, I'd like to discuss the subamendment, if it is moved.

When I decided to sit on this committee, I set aside all of my other duties so as to be available here full-time. If some members are holding down two or three jobs at the same time, I don't think we'll be able to do very good work, because they will be busy in the House, left, right, and centre, in other committees. It is therefore important, considering the work we will be doing—

Although I'm a new member and I don't know what happened in the past, I think it would be important for those who are doing two or three things at the same time to simply focus on this, and if not, to delegate another member from their party who can sit here and work at the same time as us. We are being paid to work here, in Ottawa, and not in our ridings.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Jennings.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

It is clear, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Petit is not only new to the committee but also to Parliament Hill. First of all, when members both from the government and opposition sides talk about other jobs, they are not talking about other paid employment, they're referring to parliamentaries responsibilities.

Secondly, I think that Mr. Sauvageau's proposal regarding the number of meetings and the number of hours we would sit each week is completely reasonable. Allow me to explain why.

I have already had the honour of sitting on other legislative committees. I have also been a member of special committees and of regular committees. I had the experience, in 2004, of being a member of a committee that sat in the morning, the afternoon and the evening during adjournment weeks of the House of Commons, and I must remind you all that it was I, Marlene Jennings, who moved the motion to add extra meetings in the evening, the daytime and during the adjournment weeks. This was not an opposition member's motion, it was a motion tabled and moved by a member of the government at that time, in this case myself.

It was a painful experience for all the members of the committee, on both the government and opposition sides, to the point where the committee had become almost dysfunctional, was not working properly. This was a committee that had always functioned well, that had always managed to reach consensus and to negotiate reasonable agreements. This nearly broke its back and ruined its reputation. I attribute this in part to the number of hours that the committee members were asked to sit.

Therefore I find that ten hours is altogether reasonable. As all my colleagues mentioned, I think this is a committee where everyone wants to do the right thing. If, in the future, circumstances are such that as an exception it is necessary to hold an evening meeting, I think you will see that we are all reasonable people.

This is why I will not support the amendment moved by Mr. Poilievre and I will only vote in favour of Mr. Sauvageau's main motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Before we go to Mr. Savageau, I'd like to read the section that keeps popping up a little bit. It's Standing Order 115(1):

Notwithstanding Standing Order 108(1)(a), no standing or standing joint committee shall sit at the same time as a legislative committee on a bill emanating from or principally affecting the same department or agency.

Obviously, that may clarify it for some of you.

Monsieur Savageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Before the question is put, I would like to address a brief comment to Mr. Petit.

Mr. Petit, I speak to you all due respect. Congratulations on your election victory in your riding.

I have been a member of the House of Commons for 13 years. First of all, generally speaking, standing committees like the Finance Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, which are relatively important committees, meet on average for six hours a week. We are proposing ten hours per week.

Secondly, you referred to jobs. You probably meant assignments or additional responsibilities. I am sorry, but I think that every day, at 2 p.m., there is question period, for yourself as is the case for the rest of us. We keep that time for question period.

I also believe that, in theory, your party would have a caucus meeting on Wednesday. We can therefore not have a meeting on Wednesday during caucus. In principle, I believe that on Tuesday and Wednesday evenings, after 5:30 p.m., there will be votes in the House of Commons on bills that your government will table. And so I do not believe it will be easy for the committee to sit while votes are being held in the House of Commons, because we cannot do so.

Moreover, I am convinced, because you are a professional, that before hearing from the witnesses you will read the excellent information on them that will be sent to us by the Library of Parliament. If you are sitting here 40 hours a week, when will you read the research documents, when will you do the debriefing on the witnesses that you have heard, and when will you prepare your amendments?

I am sorry, but I find it hard to accept being told that we are lazy because we do not want to spend more time sitting on this committee. I wanted to share that with you most respectfully.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Poilievre would like to say a few words.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'll just say one quick thing, and that is that if members cannot be here, that should not be a reason for our modifying our schedule or our timetable. They should find replacements. If I cannot be here, I promise to find a replacement. I will never ask the committee not to sit because I cannot attend a meeting. But at this point, I think we've heard both sides of the argument. I gather that most people have made up their mind about how they're going to vote on my amendment and probably on Mr. Sauvageau's amendment, so my suggestion, respectfully, is that we go to the question.

(Amendment negatived)

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, Madam Clerk, we still have to ask the question of what we're going to do tomorrow.

Do you have another motion, Monsieur Poilievre?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Yes, I have a motion. Now that we have set out some terms for the committee, we're ready to get right down to work. The minister is prepared to testify before this committee tomorrow morning, so I would suggest that we invite the minister to testify before the committee tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Which minister?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

The President of the Treasury Board, the minister responsible for the legislation, tomorrow morning at nine.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Please give me a moment.

Mr. Poilievre, do you have another comment to make?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

My motion is clear: for nine o 'clock tomorrow morning, the minister has availed himself to present before this committee. I understand we have no other business planned for tomorrow morning. We do have a scheduled meeting, now that we have accepted Monsieur Sauvageau's planned schedule. At nine o'clock tomorrow, we're meeting anyway, so why not hear from the minister? We've all debated this matter in the House of Commons. We all have very well-developed opinions. Let's just get down to business and invite him.

I would suggest that we go straight to the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I agree. However, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that someday you would want to have a list of witnesses. I would like you to tell us when that might be.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're back on, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I would like to suggest that all committee members bring in their lists of proposed witnesses tomorrow. I think the chair should accept these lists tomorrow. That gives us an evening to prepare all our lists. For our part, our list of witnesses is ready now. If the other committee members want to prepare their list, they will have an opportunity to do so this evening, and we could begin tomorrow. I think the lists will be long and that we will be hearing from many witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We are, I expect.

Mr. Sauvageau, before I recognize you, I just want to be clear.

Eventually, all the caucuses, or at least most of the caucuses, if not all, are going to submit lists to the chair, and I need some guidance as to where we go from there. So I get four pieces of paper, then what do I do? That's just something for you to think about.

Mr. Sauvageau, go ahead, please.