Evidence of meeting #35 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was julian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You can use it through the chair, but not to another member of the committee directly.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I apologize, Mr. Chair. I apologize to Mr. Menzies as well.
Conservative
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Can we refer this back to you, Mr. Chair? With all respect, it is up to you whether to interrupt a member whose remarks or questions are repetitious. I would argue that the points Mr. Julian is making are simply repetitions of a very narrow commentary. I ask for a ruling, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you, Mr. Menzies. Just give us a minute.
Yes, Mr. Menzies, as I've said, I've already mentioned to the member that he is being repetitious at times. All I can do as chair is point that out. If it becomes extreme, or if he is repeating the same thing, then I will make a judgment call. But I've been advised, and I agree, that Mr. Julian isn't at that point yet. So we'll continue with Mr. Julian's debate.
Yes, Mr. Menzies.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
To clarify, Mr. Chair, you have the authority to suspend this meeting if you decide that the repetition is—
Conservative
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
I guess it's debate. I prefer to call it repetition. But you have the authority to suspend the meeting if the debate continues to be repetitive.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I do. It is to some extent a judgment call, but there is guidance for it, and that guidance indicates that we aren't there yet.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
If we get there, I will end Mr. Julian's debate, and we can get on to the next people on the list.
Conservative
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I think it is important to note that we saw the same thing with the environment committee. It was another party--in that case it was the Conservative Party--that was raising concerns that it felt were important to the environment committee. Certainly at that time, in the environment committee, that member was allowed to speak, and I believe he spoke for two hours. He raised important points. I think I have more important points that I would like to raise, so I certainly appreciate the chair sticking to what is the very strict definition of what members' rights are in committee work. Very clearly, Mr. Cannan's motion does not respect the ability of members to raise these important elements of concern.
Now the punitive aspects, or the dictatorial aspects--I certainly won't use the word “draconian”--of the second half of this legislation are something that require due diligence, and certainly require our going through, step by step, line by line, to check to make sure that every word is exactly the way we would wish it to be. And I would certainly hope, and have offered a series of amendments to that effect, to water down or dilute the dictatorial nature of this particular legislation.
I'd like to come back to the more important components that are at the beginning of the legislation, because as you know, Mr. Chair, it's not just the amendments that Mr. Cannan is targeting that have already been proffered. As I mentioned earlier, in Marleau and Montpetit, very clearly, members of this committee have the ability to move amendments at any time. They simply have the ability to do that.
Now, what we have, in addition to amendments that have already been proffered, are amendments coming from the independent remanufacturers, for example. This is a similar type of amendment that would be impacted by Mr. Cannan's very draconian approach--I'll use it in the sense of how he's approaching the clause, not the legislation. The legislation is dictatorial, but I would say that Mr. Cannan's motion--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, under Standing Order 58.... We've been having a discussion, and the clerks have gone for an opinion on this outside of those present, and they have determined, Mr. Julian, actually, that because this actually isn't a superseding motion, it is out of order. So we will have to end the debate on this motion, because it is out of order. A motion can be brought up only when....
We do have another motion before the committee. It wasn't clear, and it is certainly a debatable point, but we have received that advice, and I concur with that advice. So that motion is out of order at this time.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
What you're saying is that you can't bring any comments on that motion to the table.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
That is, of course, in the hands of the members of the committee and of each individual member at this time. It can be brought forth once this motion, which is on the floor, is dealt with. So when we have the vote on this clause, we can go to any motion that a member might want to bring forward.
So, Mr. Julian, that last discussion, I guess, was for naught, and we are going back now to your debate on NDP-1. By the way, Mr. Julian, just so you know, NDP-2 is a consequential amendment to NDP-1, and therefore the vote on both will take place together, and so will the debate. It is a consequential amendment. That's been ruled.
Go ahead, Mr. Julian, with your debate on NDP-1. Thank you.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, with respect to that, you are saying that NDP-1, which fixes it in terms of moneys owed to the government, and NDP-2, which is in terms of moneys owed to companies, would be treated as similar amendments. I would have to disagree.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
One is consequential to the other, and that is the advice I've been given by the legislative clerk. So, Mr. Julian, go ahead with your debate on NDP-1 and NDP-2, and we'll go to the vote when we have no more speakers on that. Proceed.
My apologies. Mr. Julian had concluded his debate on that. That is correct. So we could, then, go to another motion.
Mr. Julian, my memory is flawed, and I have been reminded. That is correct. You had ended your debate on that.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I had ended it on NDP-1, but you are now saying that we would be voting on NDP-1 and NDP-2 together. That is subsequent to the debate on NDP-1, which would allow me to debate NDP-2.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
You are announcing that you are combining the two after we have started debate on the first amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
One is dependent on the other, Mr. Julian. They are consequential amendments.