Evidence of meeting #35 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
There's no debate on this. My decision is my decision. If you're challenging my decision, I invite you to do that, but I was pretty clear in the explanation that this was allowable.
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
I'm not challenging your decision, Mr. Chair, on the contrary. You said something, and I was just trying to explain how I understood your comment.
You clearly said that the rule applied when someone sought to temporarily suspend debate, but that wasn't the case here. The basis for your decision, according to you, doesn't apply.
The premise you gave to explain your decision does not reflect the circumstances.
Will you revisit your explanation regarding a temporary suspension and the circumstances to which it applies?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
The debate we're having right now is on Mr. Barrett's motion.
I made a decision. I'm not open to any discussion on that. I invite you to challenge my decision if you like, but the debate is on Mr. Barrett's motion.
We'll continue.
Ms. Church, go ahead.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Mr. Chair, is it in order for me to move a motion to adjourn and reconstitute this debate on Thursday?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
You can make a motion to adjourn, if you like. It's not going to determine the date. It would be up to a member to introduce a motion to resume debate on this motion. If you wanted to do that on Thursday, you have the ability. You don't have the ability to dictate what day this resumes. The dilatory motion, if you're presenting it, is to adjourn the meeting.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Is it possible if there's unanimous consent around the table? I'm not sure if there is, but if the idea here was to move a motion to adjourn, with the caveat that debate on Mr. Barrett's motion would resume on Thursday, would that be amenable to the chair and to the committee?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
There are two types of motions that you can move. You can move a motion to adjourn debate or to adjourn the meeting. If you move anything else beyond that, then it becomes a substantive motion and it is open and subject to debate.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Thank you. If it were open and substantive, I would be open to that.
Conservative
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
The motion would be to adjourn with the understanding that the committee would return to Mr. Barrett's motion at its next meeting on Thursday.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
The only thing I would suggest is that a substantive motion....
We already have a motion on the floor from Mr. Barrett. If you want to adjourn the meeting, then you can do that. Anything in addition to that, with any conditions at all, would be deemed inadmissible, and I would rule it inadmissible. If you want to adjourn the meeting, you can go that route. Anything further than that is not admissible, because we're already dealing with a motion that's on the floor. I hope I explained that properly.
Liberal
Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON
Yes. That's very helpful.
Then, Mr. Chair, it would be my intent to move a motion to adjourn.
I would say to members of the committee that our intention would then be to agree to a motion to resume debate on Thursday, but yes, I'm moving to adjourn.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
I can't accept that part of it. What I can accept is a motion to adjourn the meeting. I can accept that, Ms. Church, if that's your intent.
I'm not going to speak to the intentions of other members of the committee. I know we have plans for Thursday, including the OECD coming in on the Lobbying Act review. These are people who have committed their time to us on Thursday and they have allowed us Thursday as the time. They're in Europe, so I would really like.... We also have the B.C. commissioner coming in person on Thursday as well. I'm just telling you what I have planned for Thursday already.
Anyway, the motion is to adjourn the meeting. I'm not sure we're going to have consensus on this, so I'm going to ask Madam Clerk to take the vote.
We have a tie. I will vote no.
(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
The motion by Ms. Church to adjourn the meeting has been defeated.
We're going to resume debate. I have Mr. Fergus on Mr. Barrett's motion.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I have a very quick point of information that I'd like to ask before I get to the substance of the motion.
Mr. Chair, would you and the clerk be able to tell us until what time I could plan to be here?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We're working on that now. As it stood, we had resources until 9:30. The suspensions are going to add to that, so there's a likelihood that we could be here until 10:15 or 10:45. The clerk is working on that.
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
Abdelhaq Sari Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, there was a speaking list before the debate was suspended. Does that list still apply?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Brassard
We did. I'm sorry, Mr. Fergus.
You're quite right, Mr. Sari. I had Mr. Turnbull. I do have Mr. Fergus and then I have Mr. Sari.
Mr. Fergus, go ahead.
Mr. Sari, you're next. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm glad to have this opportunity, because it gives me a chance to add my voice to the discussion on Mr. Barrett's motion. I would like to draw my colleagues' attention to a specific part of the motion, the last sentence.
And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.
Again, if we want to proceed quickly with this study, a study Mr. Barrett deems necessary and Mr. Hardy sees as pressing, in addition to the fact that we are going to spend the next three hours discussing the motion for the study, I have trouble with that last sentence. Not only could it prevent the committee from proceeding with the study right away, but it could also go against what we as members want to do. It could spark a lengthy discussion in the House, instead of a debate that should be taken up by the committee, a standing committee of the House of Commons.
As you well know, the purpose of standing committees is to make effective use of members' valuable time, given that members have an array of responsibilities, including sitting on other committees. They have responsibilities to their constituents and as parliamentarians. Using the House's time for this kind of debate brings to mind what we went through at the end of the 44th Parliament, in the fall, when debate on a question of privilege went on for more than 70 days. Yes, there were amendments and motions for concurrence in a report, but the whole time, it was impossible for Parliament to do its job.
How did that debate turn out? We can say that almost every member had the opportunity to share their views on a series of discussions. I think it's important that members be able to have their say. However, it gave Canadians, ordinary folks, the impression that Parliament was no longer a place to debate issues that regular people care about. Although the question raised at the time was important, it did not reflect the interests of all Canadians.
Frankly, it caused trouble for us. Those who were seen as being responsible for the debate didn't fare well in the last election. It would appear that Canadians took a very negative view of those who tried to waste Parliament's time and voted accordingly. What we should learn from all that is that we should use our time very effectively.
A number of outs have been proposed today. I recognize that they weren't in order, but my colleague Mrs. Church proposed that the committee debate the matter at its next meeting. Her motion wasn't in order, but I completely understand her intention, her rationale, and she was entirely right.
This motion is about Alto. My colleague Ms. Lapointe spoke very eloquently about Alto and the importance of the project, not just to her constituents, but also to all Canadians.
I had the privilege of being there when the project was announced, in my Hull—Aylmer riding, just before the holidays. I have to say that the proposed route doesn't go through Hull—Aylmer, but still, my constituents found the project very interesting, especially those in central and western Gatineau, which is part of the beautiful riding of Hull—Aylmer I have the pleasure of representing. In fact, I encourage everyone to visit it. Mr. Hardy is one of my temporary constituents, since, as a Quebecker, he lives in my riding temporarily, just like several of the members at the table who live in Hull—Aylmer. The project is very important to Gatineau and its residents because people know it will create jobs. Creating jobs in Quebec is in everyone's interest. In fact, the project is so important that the City of Gatineau passed a motion expressing its support for the project. That's how important it is.
It's estimated that the project could boost GDP by some $35 billion and generate more than 50,000 jobs. Those numbers aren't just really good; they're excellent. I have the right figures. The project is incredible news for the people between Quebec City and Windsor, who make up about half of Canada's population. This is a proven technology.
I remember when I was small, a young boy, and France launched its high-speed rail network around 1977. It was amazing, and it made all the difference in France.
France's national railway, the Société nationale des chemins de fer français, quickly realized that it was much more efficient to move people across the country by high-speed train than by plane. National airlines like Air France concluded that it was even more cost-effective not to provide short-haul domestic service. It was easier and even faster to encourage people to take the train to the airport when travelling outside the country.
Personally, I'm very eager for Canada to have that capacity and for us to move quickly to make that happen. My fear is that this lengthy discussion will become yet another waste of Parliament's time, for political reasons I don't grasp. If every effort was made to have the committee undertake the study right away, without reporting to the House that it was doing so, I think it would be a much better motion, but that's not the case.
This project has been long-awaited in Canada, some 50 years. The official opposition voted against it at the finance committee, but then asked for and received permission to change its vote in order to support the project. When the issue was referred back to the House of Commons, the official opposition voted in favour of the budget implementation bill, which included measures to fund all this, but for whatever reason, that suddenly has to change.
The motion says the following:
And that the committee report to the House that it is undertaking this study.
All that will do is get in the way and drag this debate on and on.
I want to get back to why this is important to the people of Hull—Aylmer. How is it important? My colleague Ms. Lapointe talked about this in her remarks, when she did a very good job of explaining why the project is important. She talked about Highway 50.
In the Outaouais region, we sometimes say that we're both far from Ottawa and far from Quebec City. We don't have all the infrastructure we need for our economic development. For generations, we've had to cross into Ontario to get to Montreal, Quebec's largest city. For years, it was Route 148, a secondary road, that connected the two. Highway 50 had been promised since 1976. A small segment was built near Mirabel.
Conservative
