Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Jan. 29th, 2007

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I sense some openness on the part of the government, but we need to be fully aware of what we are about to agree on. That would mean that we would move to clause-by-clause consideration on the 19th and so we would have approximately one week to complete that exercise. However, in my opinion, we should give adequate consideration to each suggestion and to each amendment, in committee. If there were to be a number of amendments forcing us to extend the one-week period, these amendments would automatically be voted upon without debate.

I would like to ask the clerk for some clarification. Supposing a number of amendments were submitted and we had reached the last meeting. I would like to know what would happen to those amendments we would not have the time to consider. Would they be voted upon without debate?

We ought to be very careful, because we will have heard from witnesses, there will have been suggestions made. I would like some clarification as to what would happen if we did not have the time to consider everything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Okay, I'll point out again that whatever is voted on becomes a resolution of the committee. The committee can modify those resolutions if, when the time comes, they require modification, which will obviously entail more discussion. But I have a feeling we're going to have a fair amount of discussion over the next couple of months in any event. So ultimately nothing is cast in stone.

Mr. Jean.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Can I ask for some advice from the clerk?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Bigras, the answer was that whatever is passed is a resolution of the committee, which the committee can modify. So if the committee gets to the 26th and we're only halfway through the clause-by-clause, then it's up to the committee to carry on or not. The committee is the master of its own fate.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I was waiting until Mr. Bigras was done. I think it's important that all members hear this before we go to another vote.

Yes, Mr. Bigras, I also wanted to make the point that we need an end date. We need to make sure that this is not going to be filibustered to some time in 2009. I think this compromise is reasonable in the circumstances—to have it reported back to the House by the 26th—and the committee's not bound by today's decision in the future.

The majority of members can make a change, and obviously we have to vote on the legislation—on each bill and each section.

But do remember this as well: that for a normal committee clause-by-clause is not one but two and a half to three weeks of time. So it's eleven hours, if we go by the schedule Mr. Cullen has suggested, and certainly we can extend either the hours or the timeframe. But I think we need a timeframe for reporting back to the House, so that Canadians can expect to get results on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Manning.

[Fabian Manning, Conservative, Avalon, NL]

I'll speak to the amendment, Mr. Chair. We have a very aggressive schedule here, with our proposed hours for the hearings. We have a two-week break in March, then we come back on the 19th to try to have an end date of the 26th. I think this is a positive move.

Also, contrary to what Mr. Godfrey said earlier, I think Canadians expect us to be able to sit and think at the same time. So it's important that we put all our efforts into eleven hours a week here, with a schedule over the five-week period. We can accomplish a fair bit and still be able to report back to the House on the 26th.

I think the scheduling proposed by the member opposite is something we can all work to. If we reach the two-week break, starting on March 2, and see that we need extra time, as we said earlier, we're willing to sit through the March break to have this back to the House by the 26th.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Scarpaleggia.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Chair, we've been quite clear in telling the committee that we have no intention of dragging this out until June, or until 2009. However, I will not accept that members opposite hold a gun to my head, as a member of Parliament, and say that you have to be finished by the 26th and these are the rules of the game. I cannot accept this as a member of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Holland and then Mr. Bigras.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Further to that, again, I have no interest in doing anything but moving through it expeditiously.

One of the things that is interesting to note, from a procedural standpoint, is that if the committee were to agree to an end date of the 26th, and then the opposition members--the six on this side--decided we wanted an extension, the chair's vote would go in favour of the status quo, which means that if we needed a few extra days we would lose the opportunity to be able to carry that. Effectively, if we support that now, the six of us are essentially giving up the ability to extend it later. It's a clever bit of procedural trickery, but it's not something we're going to fall for. The idea that we would be given one week and we would forgo additional items we want to work on is certainly not something I'm going to support.

I think it's fair to say we're willing to move this process forward in a timely and fair fashion. We should have some degree of trust in that. If it starts at any point being protracted--God forbid it should take two weeks--then it would certainly be the ability of any committee member to move a motion to wind things down and report to the House.

I would certainly think we would much rather err on the side of being able to have proper debate on amendments that might be put before us rather than being put in a position where we're given one week to debate any amendment that comes forward, no matter what its complexity or what happens through the witness process.

It's ridiculous to me that we would put ourselves in that position. It's absolutely unthinkable that I would vote for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I apologize to Mr. Scarpaleggia for speaking out of turn during his testament.

I will remind members of this committee that we supported an exact same procedure for Bill C-288. We had a date to report back. There was no concern at the time for any of the ridiculous trickery that Mr. Holland is proposing. We put a specific time, and I voted to have a firm time. We didn't want to drag it into Christmas or have this go on. I know the Liberals were very concerned about that. I believe the Bloc and the NDP both voted for that amendment. We are considering using the same tactic. If it wasn't ridiculous then, it certainly isn't ridiculous now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

From what I gather, Mr. Chairman, the government is intent on finishing by March 26. That seems rather clear to me. My motion referred to a two-week period for the drafting of amendments. Why not shorten that period? We could start hearing from witnesses straightaway or over the next few days and put an end to the hearings on March 2. Over our break week, we could draft the amendments. We could begin clause-by-clause on March 12 and complete it by March 26.

I think that may be an interesting idea. Two weeks was perhaps a bit long for the drafting of amendments. We could begin clause-by-clause consideration a week earlier than suggested. During the weeks of March 12 and March 19, we could move to clause-by-clause. That would give us two weeks to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Bigras, if that's a distinct motion, or it will be, we're dealing with the existing motion first.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

I could recall mine. Let Mr. Bigras' amendment stand and I will withdraw mine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

So you're withdrawing your amendment.

Mr. Bigras, you're proposing that as an amendment. Again, we'll get the clerk to confirm the wording.

Please read the main motion and the amendment.

[The Clerk]

The main motion from Mr. Godfrey is that the committee hear witnesses until March 2, that the two-week break be used to formulate amendments, and that the committee begin clause-by-clause the week of March 19.

The amendment from Mr. Bigras is changing the two-week break to one week, so that the week from March 5 to 9 be used to draft amendments, and that clause-by-clause begin on March 12 to report back to the House no later than March 26.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Again, the only point I would make on this--and I appreciate it wouldn't be a consideration for everybody but it is a consideration for me--is I have three children. I don't have a lot of time with my three children and that is the March break for my children and I was hoping to do something with them. Again, that may not be a problem for everybody at the committee, but that is a problem for me. I was planning on doing something with them over that break. So I'd ask that people consider that when they're doing this. I appreciate that some people may be in Ottawa or not have young families, but those of us who try to manage the priorities of this job with personal expectations have to have a life in this process as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I appreciate Mr. Holland's concerns.

A couple of options seem available with this amendment being considered. One, and I know it's not necessarily favourable, is that other people from the party occupy your place during that clause-by-clause period that one week. I know that might not be favourable, but it is one to be considered. The second is if we allow more witnesses to be heard earlier on, that would move the schedule around. But making a calendar by committee is one of the most awkward processes it's possible to go through, and we're choosing to go through it. I remind people that there is an option of doing a subcommittee that may allow us greater expediency in this, rather than trying to pick dates that work with all 12 or 13 of us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have four kids myself, ages two through nine. I can certainly appreciate the concerns of the member opposite. What I keep in mind is that at the end of the day, this is for my kids.