Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 27th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

He did not move it, so he can't withdraw it.

At the last meeting, Mr. Martin....

Order! Order! That means we have to keep decorum here.

Mr. Martin, at the last meeting, the committee passed a motion for the members to submit a preliminary list of witnesses that they were suggesting—preliminary. As a consequence, it is fully contemplated that members will continue, as the process moves forward, to have an opportunity to add more suggested witnesses for the consideration of the committee as long as that order still stands.

I believe this one is moot. Would that be okay? Do you want a final list? This would say you have to have a final list by November 29.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No, it says the opposite, actually, Mr. Chairman. I was worried that the motion passed the other day did read that it was a final list, and it's my intention to make—

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

No, it's preliminary. Your point is—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, as long as it's abundantly clear that information gleaned through testimony may trigger the need for further witnesses....

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You're absolutely right, Mr. Martin, and let me assure you that it is a preliminary list. We will not close off that list so long as members can make reasonable argument that another witness or a return of a witness would be appropriate for us to discharge our responsibilities under the order. Is that okay?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

The final motion by Mr. Martin is with regard to our subcommittee, our steering committee on agenda and procedure.

Are you moving that motion, Mr. Martin?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I'd like to move the motion that the subcommittee meet to develop a plan contemplating extended hours for each hearing each week; that this committee sit when the House is not sitting, so that hearings on the current topic before the committee can be concluded and a report transmitted to the House in a timely manner; and that the subcommittee report back to the committee at the beginning of its hearing on November 29.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Okay, that's in order. It's a procedural recommendation and a motion that is in order.

Do you want to speak any further to it, Mr. Martin? I think it's self-evident.

I have Mr. Hiebert, and then Mr. Thibault.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Although I appreciate the concern that Mr. Martin is raising with this motion, I would suggest, in light of the fact that we only have two witnesses scheduled at this point, there's simply not a need to extend the hours of the sitting at this time. I would suggest that we table this motion until it's necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Thibault, please.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

I support the intent of the motion, Mr. Chair. I have concerns about extending the hours of sitting of the meetings while the House is in session, because all of us are working very hard to try to balance our schedules and it becomes very difficult.

However, I agree with Mr. Martin's motion, in that while the House is not sitting we could have some special sessions. We did that on the public accounts committee when we were studying the sponsorship program. It proved to be quite valuable because you can have days with six or eight hours of sitting in the day. You can have a lot of witnesses go through. So I think coming in January and doing a couple of weeks, or at least one week or 10 days of sittings, we could go through a lot of witnesses.

While the government side might find that the list is rather short of witnesses, I can assure them that it won't be. I think there are many people who should be heard on this. We intend to put a substantive list forward and I'm sure that the government side will have some members that they would like to have heard. So I would recommend that we do sit.

As for the day and the dates, I'd rather not see it in the motion. I think the steering committee could work towards that, if the intent is understood that we would sit for a seven- to ten-day period during the time Parliament is in recess.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Hiebert.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Just a point--my motion was to table this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

That's out of order.

[An hon. member]

The motion to table is not out of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

You can make a motion to withdraw or to put the vote and defeat it. You can make a motion to amend. It's properly before us, and if you want to challenge whether or not it's in order, or whatever, that's fine. We're dealing with this matter. It's duly moved. If you insist on having a vote on whether or not we should continue considering this right now and deal with it at some future date, I'd be happy to have a vote on that. Is that what you're—

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

That was the motion I was putting forward, that we table this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Order.

The clerk concurs that the motion was duly put and was in debate already. It was deemed to be in order, and it was under debate. When you are under debate, a motion to table is out of order. I will not put that question. I'm going to move on now. Are there further speakers on this?

Mr. Thibault still has the floor. Thank you.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, West Nova, NS]

Therefore I would propose the amendment that we would strike, in the second line, “meeting for two hours twice a week”, and strike, in the fourth line, “each hearing, extended hearings each week”, so that the full motion would read:That notwithstanding the usual format of the Committee, that the Committee subcommittee on agenda and procedure meet today 27 November to develop a plan for extended hours and sitting when the House is not sitting so that hearings on the current topic before the Committee can be concluded and a Report transmitted to the House in a timely manner, and that the subcommittee report back to the Committee at the beginning of its hearing on 29 November.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

That amendment is in order. We have further speakers.

Mr. Wallace, go ahead, please, either on the amendment, or generally on the whole motion.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Are you going to let me speak on the whole thing?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I'll let you speak on the whole thing. You're a good guy.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't have a list of other speakers to this, or other witnesses that we're having. I have no idea how long this would last. I'm confused by the part that says “when the House is not sitting”. Is that the Christmas week? It doesn't say here. Obviously that's what the subcommittee would deal with.

I think that once we, as a committee, see what the list is like in terms of the number of witnesses, and see how often we need to meet—which I think will happen in the next week or two—then a subcommittee could get together and look at what we would need to do.

Why are we putting this forward today when we have no idea what our witness list is going to look like and how long it's going to be? The government is committed to and in support of all parties in a public inquiry. Are we duplicating a public inquiry by doing this?

We all have our Christmas break coming. I can tell you mine's relatively booked, but one of those weeks.... I would like to see what the witness list is first before we indulge the subcommittee's efforts in finding any extra time needed to make that happen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Dhaliwal, please.