Information & Ethics Committee on May 10th, 2007

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I don't see those as monstrous challenges. I think you can bring to the table your provincial consumer people, the Attorney General, and the finance department, or whoever looks after ID in a province. You can mandate one person to do that. I'm sure Mr. Clarke knows all the issues that different departments in the province look at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Clarke.

[David Clarke]

We work closely with officials in the provinces, and we certainly welcome your views.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Madame Lavallée.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

The questions Mr. Peterson asked are good ones. But to be fair, these two gentlemen are officials with Industry Canada, and I think committee members should be cautious about asking political questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's not a point of order, but thanks for your guidance.

Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You were not here Tuesday, and you missed a good meeting.

To begin with, I would like to convey my greetings to our witnesses, Mr. Jenkin and Mr. Clarke, and welcome them to the Committee.

However, with all due respect for our witnesses, I am going to have to raise an issue relating to logistics. According to Committee procedure, I absolutely must do that right now. Please accept my apologies. I do have questions, but I have to raise an issue with the Chairman first.

Mr. Chairman, the Clerk explained to me last week that I could only discuss the agenda at this moment, now that I have the floor. He explained that I could not do that at the beginning of the meeting. Given that the Clerk clearly explained things to me and that I am a good learner, if you don't mind, I'd like to raise an issue with respect to the agenda.

First of all, I note that the second half of our meeting is devoted to Committee business. There is a notice of motion from Mr. Wallace, and one in my own name. I would like time to be set aside right now for us to deal with those two motions. The last time that you chaired a meeting of the Committee, although I'm not sure why, we didn't have enough time to deal with that item on the agenda. So, I would like some time to be set aside now to address Mr. Wallace's and my own motion, and that the two of them be put to a vote. Can I make that request of you now, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Are you asking the committee for unanimous consent to deal with the timing of this meeting?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Yes, I'm asking for unanimous consent. I am no expert on procedure, but I know that you have an excellent advisor at your side.

Essentially what I am asking is that, in your capacity as Chairman, with responsibility for the proper disposition of Committee business, you ensure that we have enough time to deal with the two motions before the end of the meeting. We have to adjourn at 11 a.m. Therefore, we could conclude our discussions with the witnesses at 10:30 a.m., spend 15 minutes on Mr. Wallace's motion and 15 minutes on mine. That is my request, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

This sounds like déjà vu from Tuesday, even though I wasn't here.

Do we have unanimous consent to discuss Ms. Lavallée's suggestion?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Do you have any questions of the witnesses?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I want to be given assurances that we will deal with Mr. Wallace's motion at 10:30 a.m., and with mine at 10:45 a.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's not it at all. We'll deal with the witnesses until the committee has concluded its business with the witnesses. Then if there's time we'll proceed to other business.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

That is not the way it works, Mr. Chairman. Do you want me to take out the little rules book? Normally, all items on the agenda should be dealt with. I have not found the exact citation, but the Clerk will tell you that the Chair's role is to ensure that the agenda is followed. There are two items on the agenda we have in front of us. The second item has two parts to it, and I am asking that the agenda be followed, as laid out, Mr. Chairman, in the time available to us between now and 11 a.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I don't agree that we have to get through all of our business. We have an item on the agenda as item one. If we get through that, we go to item two. If we don't get through item one, then we don't get to item two.

There are other ways of getting to item two, but it's not for the chair to educate the members on how to do that. I invite you to look at your rule book at your leisure. We have lots of time. There will be other questions of the witnesses.

If you have a particular section you can refer me to, I would be only too pleased to read it carefully and make the appropriate ruling. At the present time, given the question you asked and the fact that there is not unanimous consent, we are in the process of questioning the witnesses.

I'm asking you, in the absence of being able to quote me a specific rule, if you have any questions of the witnesses.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, listen to your Clerk. He is a good advisor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Ms. Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if you refer to the Standing Orders, you will see that your primary role is to ensure that all the items on the agenda are dealt with. I'm very surprised by your comments. We have always done that. If you have no intention of dealing with all the items on the agenda, why bother having one at all?

There is an agenda, however, and I believe that we should deal with all items. It's just common sense. I don't see why unanimous consent is needed to address two notices of motion that were properly provided. You received them in time. To me, it just makes sense to discuss the two motions listed on our agenda.

If I understood you correctly earlier, you said there are other ways of ensuring that all items on the agenda are dealt with. You said that you wouldn't say what they were, but if I ask you directly, will you answer me?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Yes.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Well then, I am asking you now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

If you move a motion to proceed to other business immediately, it's a receivable motion. It is not debatable. We will vote on it.

If the committee decides to move to other business, other business is item two. If the committee chooses not to support that motion, then we carry on with item one.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Does it not have to be unanimous?