Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Poilievre.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

With all due respect to Mr. Poilievre and his excellent comments, I am opposed to his motion for a number of reasons.

I have been on committees for a number of years, and generally when witnesses appear before us, we have a document prepared by the researchers with suggested questions. I sincerely believe that our researchers did that because they had time to do it, and that they're not doing it now because they don't have time, and yet we are only sitting 10 hours per week. If we sit 48 hours per week, logically, they will have less time, and so will we.

This is the first time I have been on a committee where we didn't have a document to prepare us to hear witnesses. In my view, it's not a mark of great professionalism. I would like to think that Mr. Poilievre agrees with me about that.

I am going to give a few examples to show that the bill needs to be considered quickly, of course, but that we still need time to study it seriously. I am referring to the part that deals with the political appointments commission. In my opinion, the decision announced yesterday by Mr. Harper to eliminate the political appointments commission, rather than to appoint someone else, is going to change our consideration of Bill C-2 somewhat.

For example, you announced, and it's a good thing, that the $1,000 reward would be eliminated. That shows how important it is to have witnesses. All of the witnesses proposed amendments. I submitted a document from the library that indicated that for the 600 acts passed between 1988 and 2000, the average length of time between first reading and royal assent was around 200 days. We are even willing to accelerate the process in order to cut that time in half, but I think it's a bit much to go from 200 days to 15 days.

Page 840 of Marleau- Montpetit says the following: “While the average length of a committee meeting is two hours,” twice a week, “a committee may choose to meet for a shorter or longer period...”

We voted that the committee, rather than meeting twice for two hours every week, would meet for 10 hours every week. We have just greatly increased the number of sitting hours. So we have been very cooperative and have shown that we are prepared to give quick consideration to the legislation.

For all of these reasons, which seem rational to me, we are going to oppose the motion. I would ask you to forgive me in advance, Mr. Chairman, because I don't want to presume what the outcome of the vote will be, but should there be a tie, does the chair's vote have to maintain the status quo?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think it's an improper question to ask me when there's no tied vote. If there's a tied vote, the chair will look at the rules and ask for a few moments to consult with the clerk. I'll do my best to honour the rules of this place, but so far...I don't know.

Is there any other debate?

Madame Guay.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of questions here. We have before us a work plan that we passed yesterday. I hope we are going to stick to it with the amendments that we made to it, which included the 10 associations. It would have been completely crazy to bring them all together for 90 minutes.

So we adopted a work plan, and I think it's too soon to say that on June 6, we will already be ready for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The committee sitting hours make no sense, and the witnesses are having trouble following us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Just so you know, we're dealing with item one. We're not at item two yet.

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

I know, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to come back to the committee's hours. There are people writing to me to say that they've been asked to produce a document the same day. It makes no sense. If we increase the number of hours, it will be even worse.

Also, it doesn't make sense to ask members who have other tasks to be at the committee's meetings constantly. That means that we are going to have to ask any old member from our parties to come here. That's called fast tracking, and I don't agree with it. Let's stick to the schedule we set for ourselves. If it has to be reviewed later, we can do that, but for the time being, we should just follow the work plan we have before us.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there any other debate on the motion?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I just reflect, as a new member of Parliament, that one of the orientation sessions had a respected and distinguished speaker--committee member, Conservative--who said that you can expect to prepare three hours for every one hour of witness. By my tally, if we go with this motion we'll be sitting about 24 hours a week. If we do that--listening to this eminent Conservative--we'll be up to 72 hours a week. There is this thing called the House over here that our whips want us to sit in sometimes. Then there are some other things.

I find it ironic that something as important as accountability--if this went through, respectfully--would be put through in a very haphazard fashion. Unless Mr. Poilievre can lead the way, as he did in The Ottawa Sun this morning, and say, “Well, look, let's not waste time discussing the $1,000 whistle-blower item”.... That's probably two or three hours we wasted on that. If that's a giveable and there are other things we can work toward closing the issues on, why don't we spend some time doing that, as opposed to putting witnesses through unnecessary preparation?

I just think it's a little premature to do this. There have to be other ways, from my municipal background, that people can work to narrow the issues. That's why I'll be voting against it, I guess.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is there any other debate?

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

Sure.

This is an honest effort to give more time to this important act and at the same time see that it is enacted within a reasonable time period. It's also a motion that ensures we will continue debate. An important principle of committee life is to continue debate and maximize the amount of debate that can happen.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have no idea whether I'm in order myself for making these comments, but I'm going to make a couple of comments.

The chair and the clerk are bound to arrange for witnesses and arrange for the process. If this motion carries, then we will either fill up that time or we will not fill up that time. The concern for the clerk and for me would be that if this motion were to carry, I wouldn't want to be sitting here without witnesses. If that occurred, it would be terribly embarrassing to the committee, terribly embarrassing to this place.

I don't even know whether it's appropriate for a chair to make suggestions, but I'm throwing this out as a thought: the words “as required” or “at the call of the chair”.... For example, right off the bat we have meetings from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m. and from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. on our first Monday back. I just raise that question. I'm just alerting the members of the committee that it is conceivable that if we abide by this motion, if it carries, then all of a sudden we might not have anything to do.

I'm wondering whether that's crossed anyone's mind or not.

Mr. Lukiwski and then Mr. Sauvageau, go ahead, please. Mr. Sauvageau had his hand up first, I think.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if my question is in order. Bill C-2 is probably very important. A motion was passed by the Standing Committee on National Defence to reassess the relevance, conditions and reasons for our participation in the Afghanistan conflict. How many hours per week does that committee sit? Can anyone tell me? I have no other questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No one at this end of the table seems to know that, sir.

Excuse me?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm told it sits four hours per week. Just for the purposes of comparison. That's all I'm saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Mr. Lukiwski, I think, was next.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Yes. My point, Mr. Chair, briefly, is that I certainly will be supporting this motion because I'm motivated, obviously, as I think a few other members are, to try to do the due diligence but to get it done, again, before the end of June.

We have many things going on in our ridings. I suspect that Mr. Sauvageau also does because of the amendment that he had presented earlier saying that if we have to sit in the summer, let's start in August rather than July. I'm assuming that he has many events, as I do, many commitments, as I do, in July. So clearly I would like to do what we need to do to thoroughly examine this bill, but also to be out of here in a reasonable time--by the end of June, I would suspect.

It seems to be a concern that by altering the schedule to expand the sitting times as his motion proposes, we would inconvenience, in some manner, the witnesses who have already been contacted. My point is that we have a break week coming up, and I would suspect that the clerk or others could probably reschedule or get more witnesses in. That would give them from now until May 29--approximately ten days--to accommodate their schedules, to get to the committee on its expanded time schedule. I don't think it would be a true inconvenience for any witnesses if we gave them that much time in advance.

If there are a lot of witnesses, as everyone suggests there may be, we should be able to schedule them and have a packed week when we return from break. If that ends the witness list, we would be able to get into the clause-by-clause examination, where I think, quite frankly, Mr. Chair, we're going to see the majority of work done.

Once we have heard the witnesses with all the amendments--and many of them have been very useful and I think good amendments--we'll get down to the clause-by-clause examination, which is the meaty work of this committee, to get this bill passed. I think the sooner we can get to the clause-by-clause examination, the better served Canadians will be. So that's why I'm voting in favour of this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, Mr. Poilievre?

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

I'll just say I don't, respectfully, believe that the chair's concern will materialize, because we have ten days between now and the effect of this motion. This motion does not take effect until May 29, so there's plenty of time for the clerk to get in contact with witnesses to fill those time periods. We did so on one or two days' notice at the beginning of the committee's work.

Finally, there's no question that there will be enough witnesses because the opposition keeps telling us that there are many witnesses that we need to hear from, and that they're all just waiting to come, and there is much testimony that this committee needs to hear. Clearly, there shouldn't be any problem filling these time slots if there is that overwhelming demand that the opposition speaks of.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Monsieur Petit.

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

I'm going to support this request because it's time-limited. We're talking about four meetings, from May 29 to June 2. Nothing else is being added.

If I understood correctly, we would supposedly reach clause-by-clause consideration after that. There may be some doubt, but we're only talking about four new meetings. That's no big deal.

I had asked Mr. Poilievre to suggest to the opposing party—sorry, it's an old habit—to sit during the break week. I was told that was impossible because everyone was busy.

I was willing to do that. We would have followed the same schedule with ease. But now, we're going on vacation, indirectly, and adding four meetings. That's why I would support the decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Do you have a point of order?

I have a list. I have Mr. Tonks next.

A point of order.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I wanted to raise a point of order.

I believe the committee is televised. Mr. Petit just said we were going on vacation next week.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Mr. Tonks.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief.

When this came up at the steering committee I suggested to Mr. Poilievre that he table this motion. And there was a very brief discussion around the approach that we're going to use to consider amendments.

It was my inference that we--

[A voice]

Careful. The steering committee was in camera.