International Trade Committee on May 10th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'd like to see the will of the committee. Is there agreement to have a special meeting before the minister's appearance on Monday? I believe it would have to be unanimous consent for that as well.

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

To go back to your comment, Mr. Chair, we didn't demand a 48-hour notice on the request to bring the minister as a witness. We were trying to be conciliatory and agreed to that without the 48-hour notice, but to change the format of the meeting after it's been agreed--I don't find that acceptable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, on your earlier point, the clerk has pointed out that at the organizational meeting, the normal 48-hour requirement to discuss issues and to bring forth motions is different--it's a special case. That's why we could make a decision to have the minister here. We wanted to do it so we could accommodate and get the invitation out to the minister as soon as possible.

Clearly, you would have to provide notice. At the next meeting, either at the Monday meeting or the Wednesday meeting, we could deal with your motion.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Well, no, Mr. Chair; that is effectively torpedoeing the will of the committee. My sense is that the majority of committee members would prefer to have this done--this is public policy--at the regular meeting of this committee.

You're saying we're changing the rules of the game while that's in course. I don't think it should apply to this motion. We had a practice at our first meeting in which a motion was brought forward and was adopted. Now we have a motion, and you're saying we need delay. If you're saying you want to move to a formula requiring 48 hours be given, then I think it should apply for subsequent motions. I don't think we should change the game rules in midstream, which is effectively what's happened.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Again, Mr. Julian, I was taking the advice of the clerk. He was the person who indicated that the organizational meeting is a different situation, and that 48 hours is required. There is no motion before this committee because we haven't received the 48-hour notice, so could we put that to bed?

If you want to have the minister again, you're completely free to bring that to the committee--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

What I'm suggesting, then, Mr. Chair, is that it be the first motion we vote on. We would have to have the decision prior to the minister's actually beginning his presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You're saying that at the start of the next meeting--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

At the start of the meeting we would have the motion; we would vote on it, and then we would proceed to the minister's presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Yes, Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

We voted on it at the last committee meeting and it was defeated. I see no reason to overthrow that. I see no reason why it would be voted on any differently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I guess all we can do now is the 48-hour notice of motion. If we receive that and it has the appropriate 48 hours before the time of the meeting, we'll decide at that meeting how to deal with it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

At the beginning of the meeting.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Yes. If you're playing procedural games, the committee--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We will--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair. I'll complete my comments.

Here we have a situation where we are saying that it will take a 48-hour pre-notice. In that case, given the importance of the meeting on Monday, we would vote on that at the beginning. I'm certainly willing to abide by the will of this committee, but it has to take place before. Otherwise, it's an effective veto on the will of the committee to establish the parameters around the appearance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Well, what we would be doing is changing the decision of the committee.

Ms. Guergis.

[Helena Guergis, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Let me say that I really think this conversation is unfortunate. I think the minister has been ready, willing, and able to come before the committee and work with us to answer our questions, to give us information, to be as open and as transparent as he possibly can, yet we're seeing that members opposite are disrespecting that.

In my opinion, if you want to waste the majority of the time that we have with the minister going through another motion or even waste 10, 15, or 20 minutes of precious time of the minister in going over another motion, I absolutely disagree with that. I think this is something that has already been decided.

Perhaps at the meeting you can ask the minister in your questions if he would like to come back and have it more public. I'm sure his answer would probably be yes. But at this point I think we need to proceed with the original schedule.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

We'll have to handle this issue at the next meeting.

I did have one more.... Yes, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

But at the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Chair. The vote will take two minutes. We've had the discussion today. We would simply call the question. We will bring the motion forward, and that would be the first thing voted on prior to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's something we'll have to determine--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

No, Mr. Chair. I think--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'll be discussing this with the clerk and we'll see what is the appropriate procedure. We'll certainly follow appropriate procedure, Mr. Julian. I can assure you of that. So I will have that discussion and we'll decide on that.

It would be very unfortunate.... I've seen this happen before--I intend this to be a very helpful and friendly comment--where we've ended up taking the minister's time, sometimes all the time, in a discussion on a motion to change the basis upon which the minister is attending. He agreed to--

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

That's because you're not permitting the vote today, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Well, we agreed at the founding meeting to have a 48-hour notice of motion. That has not been given. There certainly has been a week since we had that founding meeting, so I'm only following the rules. I'm not going to start doing things that impede the ability of opposition members, or any member, to carry out their jobs. I'm not trying to interfere in the will of the committee. I simply think we have to follow the rules.

If we could quickly.... Everybody has it in front of them, in both official languages, I think, on the subcommittee. We discussed it last time. When we had the discussion last time we said we should have one member from each party. The subcommittee will operate on consensus. I feel there would be a conflict if the chair--and I would also be chairing the subcommittee on the agenda--is also putting forth the position of the government. So I would prefer the chair to be a chair, not to be trying to determine the agenda and not to be trying to pitch, in this case, the government's position. What this would mean is we'd have the chair, the two vice-chairs, and one government member and a member of the New Democratic Party on the steering committee. Is that agreeable?

Mr. Julian.