International Trade Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Have you a point of order?

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

I would like to refer you to page 804 of Marleau and Montpetit, where it says:

In relationship to standing, special or legislative committees, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable [...]

In what way does what you said earlier make this non applicable?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Monsieur Cardin, this is a standing committee, not a special committee, and it is my understanding, on the advice I've been given, that this doesn't in fact apply to this committee.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I quoted this passage:

In relationship to standing, special or legislative committees, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable [...]

Why would this not be applicable in this case?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay. I will ask for advice again.

The advice I was given was that it doesn't apply to this committee, but we will have a discussion on that, Mr. Cardin. Thanks for bringing that up.

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

I have a further point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No, Mr. Julian, you don't have the floor. We're dealing with this point of order first.

Monsieur Cardin, the ruling I made earlier, I believe, was correct because on page 646 of Marleau and Montpetit, under “Length of Speeches”, it says:

Frequently, a committee will pass motions to govern its proceedings, such as motions to regulate the length of time that members of the committee may speak, to establish....

--and so on. And that's what this committee is choosing to do.

If I understand what you were saying, there should be no contradiction. The committee can choose to behave differently from what the rules of the House would determine.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

What I said in my first intervention did not imply that we are not entitled to make our own rules, but simply that there was no amendment to this motion. Therefore, it cannot be debated. Once the motion is made, it must be put to a vote. If there is no amendment, there can be no debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Menzies, on the point of order.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I thank my honourable colleague for that observation, and I appreciate his diligence in reading from the book, Marleau and Montpetit, that what we are doing is absolutely within the jurisdiction of this committee. I assume we can now...I will not spend any more time. We've wasted enough time filibustering. I think it's time we got on with this, and I would like to ask you, Mr. Chair, to call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Menzies, on what Monsieur Cardin was saying, this is a motion on the business proceedings of the meeting and it is debatable. So we have to go ahead with it on that basis, but you do have the floor, Mr. Menzies.

Except Mr. Julian has a point of order.

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

My point of order, Mr. Chair, is very simple. The committee adopted regulations at the beginning of the session that required 48 hours' notice for substantial motions. This is substantial, and it is a clear violation of the procedures that we set up as a committee, so--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You know, Mr. Julian, that the committee can at any time set the rules to govern the procedure.

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

No. We set up guidelines, and you as chair should rule it out of order. It is very clear that you need a 48-hour pre-notice to actually provide a substantial motion of this nature. I'd be very happy to consider it next Tuesday, but it cannot be submitted simply like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, this is a routine business motion; it is not a substantive motion. The notice is required for substantive motions. Your first two motions, for example, from today would not have required notice because they're dealing with the issue that is before the committee today. You gave notice, but there was no requirement for it.

Even what we did pass, Mr. Julian, makes it clear that you can bring motions at any time dealing with business that is before the committee.

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

This is substantive, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No. Let's just go to Mr. Menzies to speak to his motion, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This has turned out to be a most frustrating way to represent our constituents. I must get that on the record. We've heard many people around this table talk about how important it is that we get this completed and get some solid support behind these industries so that they know how they can move forward. The longer this is filibustered.... And I would argue that I'm certainly glad this isn't televised, because no one should have to see what has gone on here today.

We're trying to complete a piece of legislation that enables a very good and a very solid bill. I listened to our ambassador to the United States last night talk about the challenges that he and other individuals went through to get this softwood lumber agreement in place. We all recognize that. We also recognize how important it is that we get it completed.

We also recognize that there should be some healthy debate—not filibustering, Mr. Chair, but some healthy debate. That is why we've suggested three minutes per member, to get our points out in succinct fashion, and I would like to offer that this will provide enough time for all of us.

Now, if it is appropriate, I would like to ask you to call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That, of course, Mr. Menzies, isn't in order.

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, since you're recognizing me—I believe for the first time on the substantive debate, as I understood how you were interpreting it—I would like to move two amendments to Mr. Menzies' motion.

The first clause reads:

That the total number of minutes of debate per amendment, per member, be limited up to a maximum of three minutes, and that three minutes per member also be allotted to the clause, amended or not.

I'd like to propose a first amendment of “thirty minutes” for that first clause.

The second clause reads:

That the committee finish clause-by-clause consideration for Bill C-24 by the end of the day on Tuesday, November 7, 2006.

I move an amendment that deletes that clause of his motion.

The third clause reads:

That all clauses that have no proposals for amendment be voted on together in one vote at the start of the meeting on Tuesday, November 7, 2006

I'd like to propose an amendment to change that date to later in November when we are meeting, to “Tuesday, November 28, 2006”.

Finally, in the fourth clause—it's a very lengthy motion, so I appreciate your indulgence as I work through amendments or subamendments, and there may be subamendments coming forward as well—which reads “That Bill C-24 be reported back to the House on Thursday...or as soon as possible”, I would like to move to delete the words “on Thursday...or”—those three words—so that it would read “That Bill C-24 be reported back to the House as soon as possible”.

I would like to delete the fifth clause:

That the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-24 be completed before considering any other committee business.

And I would change the sixth clause:

That any debate on motions related to Bill C-24 be limited to three minutes per person per motion.

That's what it says now. I would change that, Mr. Chair, to amend it to read “thirty minutes”.

Before I speak to those amendments, I'd like to review them for you.

In the first clause, we would be changing the two clauses that say specifically “three minutes”; we would change them to “thirty minutes”, so that with the amendment it would read: “That the total number of minutes of debate per amendment, per member, be limited up to a maximum”—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You have a point of order, Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I appreciate how you're trying to help this process along, but that completely changes the intent of this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

And I am considering that. We are considering that right now, Mr. Menzies. I want to hear what he says on it, or at least enough to be able to do it.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Chair, once again, I plead with you, would you call the question on this motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I can't do that, Mr. Menzies.

Mr. Julian.