Evidence of meeting #20 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Could you please put Mr. Poilievre here?
Would you like to remain on the other list for the main list?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
Yes, but when I put my name on the list, it was the first on this list, not the first on that one.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Understood.
Okay, Madam Foote, excuse me. I'm going to correct my error.
Mr. Poilievre, then Madam Foote, and then Mr. Hoback, Mr. Plamondon, and Mr. Easter on the motion of Madam Freeman.
Please.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Nepean—Carleton, ON
I'll begin with an amendment to Madam Freeman's motion. There seems to be an amendment that you might be interested in hearing about. Madam Freeman has proposed that the committee call Mr. Rob Walsh, and my amendment changes the name “Rob Walsh” and replaces it with “Minister John Baird”.
I'm going to begin by speaking to my amendment, Mr. Chair. I'm going to read from chapter 1, “Parliamentary Institutions”. This is in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
Excuse me, Mr. Poilievre. I apologize, but another member called a point of order. As you know, I have to deal with that.
Madam Freeman.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Carole Freeman Bloc Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC
Point of order. Mr. Chair, Mr. Poilievre is trying to put forward an amendment that has nothing to do with the current motion. It is totally separate, something different. It has no bearing on the main motion—none whatsoever.
June 10th, 2010 / 11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Louis Plamondon Bloc Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC
The name of the witness cannot be changed....
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No. Just a moment.
In my experience, we're just entering into a period of time that ultimately does not get the committee any productivity. It's probably not helpful to have multiple points of order or amendments all over the place on various things. I think everybody around this table knows exactly where this is going, and I think we should step back a second here and try to figure out what the deliverable is from our committee.
I want, by the end of this committee meeting, to have some sort of a consensus on a template or a draft report for the committee so that when we have finished with all witnesses and the 15th has come and gone, and we know with certainty what the facts are, we will be in a position to have a vote on a final report and an instruction to the chair to table it in the House.
Madame Freeman, you made a motion to call Mr. Walsh and you made your argument on why it's important for him to be here, and I suspect that every member around this table could come up with another name that would be just as interesting or relevant to the committee with regard to this study. They can either make their own motion or hear yours out and have a vote on it, and then somebody else will make a motion that they want to hear from the minister and have a debate on that. Once all of that happens, it will be one o'clock and we will have accomplished nothing.
I'd like to hear from the committee. If we're going to filibuster and play games and not get any work done, I think the members ought to just save everybody the time now and let's just adjourn the meeting. Okay?
But if members want to get on to the substantive work we have to do, if it's so serious, if everybody's saying it's so serious, then we'd better treat it seriously with regard to points of order, with regard to more witnesses, with regard to amendments, with regard to all these very valid ways in which you can disrupt a meeting.
We only have two meetings left, this one and one more. That's it.
If we get this draft motion concurred in, in terms of the substantive content of it and the direction of the committee, we will wait until Tuesday, we will know what happens, whether or not anyone agrees to appear--of the witnesses that Madam Freeman made in her prior motion--and then we will entertain a motion as to whether or not the—
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Paul Szabo
No. Madam, I understand that. Just a moment. I have a responsibility to try to maintain order and decorum and to keep the committee moving in the right direction. Let me finish.
We have two meetings to go. These are the consequences. We passed Madam Freeman's motion at the last meeting, that the witnesses be asked to appear no later than June 16, next Wednesday. We don't meet on Wednesday; we meet on Tuesday. So presumably, once we have our meeting next Tuesday, if there are no further witnesses who had been summoned who appear, then the report we have before us—should it be agreed upon—would be in a position where we could deal with it at the meeting on Tuesday and we could authorize the chair to table the report in the House, which could happen on the Wednesday or Thursday.
If we call a bunch of witnesses—and we have Mr. Walsh proposed for next Tuesday and there are more witnesses—we will never get around to talking about a report to the House. All of the work we will have done will not be able to be reported to the House by next Thursday. I understand it's possible the House may rise on Thursday, which means this whole matter and all the work that has been done by this committee will not be finalized until we return in the fall. If that's the will of the committee, we're on the right track to make that happen.
Madam Davidson, and to other members, all I'm saying is I've seen this before. I know the route we're on right now, and the intent of anyone who continues down that route is that they don't want to have this reported to the House. That would be a valid interpretation by any observer.
Mr. Poilievre has the floor and he has proposed an amendment to Madam Freeman's motion that we call Mr. Walsh. He has proposed to say that rather than calling Mr. Walsh, he would be more interested in calling the Minister of Transport to appear. That's where we are.
Now I am going to stop and we're going to see how many points of order and other things we're going to have.
So where are we, Mr. Clerk?
Madam Davidson was first. She called a point of order.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Patricia Davidson Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
I did, Mr. Chair. I called a point of order. It was on the fact that I was not allowed to speak on this document that was circulated to us and you were. That was my point of order, why you could speak on the issue that was not before us, which happens to be the motion.
You've explained your point. Carry on.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
There is a motion on the floor that I think we're giving Ms. Andrews and Mr. Soudas until next Wednesday—
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
You said in your remarks that we would deal with that next Tuesday, which is really a day ahead of the motion. Are we not meeting next Thursday? I think rather than get into the business of having a motion on the floor which says the 16th, in fairness we have to do that on the 17th, not the 15th.
This is probably to the government's advantage, but I think that's fair to the witnesses and the motion we have already passed. I can't see finalizing this report—and I want to talk on that later—a day before they're supposed to appear. I think we ought to do it on the 17th.