Evidence of meeting #3 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was public.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Before I begin my comments, can I get a point of clarification? Is the member suggesting through this amendment that after the deadline of Tuesday at 5 p.m. we continue to accept submissions, but only written submissions? Is that an accurate characterization of the amendment?
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I think that upon the expiry date of May 9, members of this committee can continue to propose further witnesses, and further individuals may continue to request to be heard.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Okay, that answers my question.
I'm opposed to this, and I'm curious as to why this was not brought up at the subcommittee. It appears Ms. Jennings is now opposed to the decision that was reached by the committee, which had the support of her own member.
I'm curious as to why the Liberal delegation would want to alter the roles now from what they agreed to yesterday before a subcommittee. I think that the public is going to be watching this committee to ascertain if members are really serious about bringing in this Accountability Act and getting the job done or whether we're going to pass motions that are deliberately designed to extend the time period to keep discussion going and to waste away the days. That, in my view, is what is going on here.
We have a deliberate effort to keep an ongoing, never-ending debating society going on here, as long as humanly possible. There's no reason why we can't anticipate which witnesses we want to hear from. There's no reason whatsoever why we can't sit down--we've already had a week to do it--and decide which witnesses we're going to want to hear from so that the clerk can get busy planning the witnesses and when they will be coming before this committee.
I guess if there are members of this committee who want to deliberately delay the passage of this law for their own partisan interests, then so be it, but the public will recognize that for what it is.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, thank you.
The member opposite talks about how in the subcommittee there was agreement of all of the members, including a member of this party. In fact, regardless of what happened in the subcommittee last week, this committee in whole adopted what I just proposed as an amendment, firstly.
Secondly--
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, she's just added herself to the speakers list. Is there a speakers list?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
No, I'm clarifying a misstatement, and that's a very polite way of qualifying what the member, Pierre Poilievre, stated. He misstated what actually happened last week in this committee.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
As well, I'd like to clarify that proposing a deadline for a preliminary list of witnesses is in no way impeding the work of this committee any more than a proposal of preliminary lists on the part of the Conservative Party during the public accounts committee hearings on the Auditor General's report on the sponsorship throughout the hearings was an act of impeding.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you.
You've heard the point of clarification.
Sir, I'm going to have trouble with your name. The chair is having trouble with a lot of names.
You have the floor, sir.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
May 9th, 2006 / 9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chairman, when an amendment is tabled, it has to be clear so that we can all understand it. It also has to be seconded. At the moment, we are discussing various peoples' opinions. The following process has to be observed for an amendment to be adopted by the committee: the amendment must first be seconded; next, it is debated; and, after everybody has given his or her opinion, the question is called; and, once that is done, we turn our attention back to the main motion. If we do otherwise, we will get mixed up.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Petit, we're debating item number 2 in the report, and that's the way we're going to go.
I have Ms. Jennings again on the list. Are you finished, Ms. Jennings, or do you have some more comments?
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, I have one more comment, which is that the amendment I am proposing to this draft report is consistent with the decision that this committee made. It might even have been a unanimous vote; I do not recall.
But in any case, there was a vote and it was adopted last week. Therefore, I am simply bringing this report back to reflect what the committee decided on, firstly.
Secondly, my amendment in no way is aimed at impeding---
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Just for clarification, the chair's recollection is that there was no motion. There was a consensus that the reports be in by Monday, which was the day before yesterday, for consideration. Yesterday there was a motion made by the subcommittee, which has been reported in item 2.
We'll check the minutes, but I don't recall the motion you're talking about. There was a consensus. The consensus was for yesterday.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Thank you for the clarification.
If in fact it was a consensus, it was very clear.... If you check the transcripts, I believe you will see very clearly that members of this committee made it very clear when discussing the issue of a list of witnesses to be proposed by members of this committee that any deadline would simply be a preliminary deadline; it would not be a final deadline.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. Well, we got a report from that subcommittee, and that's where we're going, so we're starting to repeat ourselves--
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Therefore, I'm simply making this proposal.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I have a point of order. This is a substantive motion that Ms. Jennings is putting forward. This substantively alters the decision of the subcommittee. Given that it is substantive, she does need 24 hours' notice.
It is not a housekeeping motion; it is not a friendly amendment. Mr. Chair, this is a substantive motion.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Poilievre, we're trying to amend this report. There's no substantive motion. The amendment is in order.
I have Mr. Tonks.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, may I, on my own behalf, assure Mr. Poilievre that I personally have no hidden agenda or desire to unnecessarily prolong the deliberations of this committee. I think in that respect I speak on behalf of all the committee. I'm not sure where that inference is drawn from, but I'd just like to put that on the record.
The second thing is that it was my recollection--and sometimes I wonder whether I was at the same committee--that we were really concerned about notices of motion. We had a long discussion about that.
The matter of witnesses, I thought, was according to the established process. I chaired the environment committee last term, and we did from time to time hear from a witness about whom the committee was motivated to say, “Well, you know what, that really comes under somebody else's jurisdiction. We'd like to put them on the witness list.” Never at any time, in any committee that I have sat on, was it the approach that we would truncate the process and not allow for that kind of flexibility on the part of the committee.
So, Mr. Chairman, if the intent of the amendment--and I'm not even sure what it is--is to leave it open to the flexibility of the committee without prejudice and without any relevance to what is suggested as the motivation, I think we should be as flexible as we possibly can, especially in hearing from the public, because that's the nature of committee work.
