International Trade Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2006

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The first clause is perfectly within our rights as a committee. Mr. Menzies is proposing to limit time per member; I'm proposing to limit time per member too. I would assume he'd be in agreement, and it certainly would be a compromise between his very radical position and something that I think would allow us to go in depth into each of these amendments.

The first clause would read:

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

The second clause, currently reads:

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

That would be deleted from the motion.

The third clause, which is “That all clauses that have no proposals for amendment be voted on together in one vote at the start of the meeting”, currently reads, “on Tuesday, November 7”. With the amendment, it would read “on Tuesday, November 28”. So there's a fixed date, certainly, that the government can look to for finishing the clauses that don't have amendments.

The fourth clause reads, “That Bill C-24 be reported back to the House as soon as possible.” We would be deleting the words “on Thursday...”, so it would read, “That Bill C-24 be reported back to the House as soon as possible.”

The fifth clause, “That the clause-by-clause consideration for Bill C-24 be completed before considering any other committee business”, would be deleted.

And then the final clause of his rather extensive motion--it's a little more streamlined with these amendments--reads, “That any debate on motions related to Bill C-24 be limited to thirty minutes per person per motion.”

Hopefully, the clerk has those amendments.

Great. Thank you very much.

Now I'd like to speak to the actual amendments themselves.

Essentially, what Mr. Menzies has been proposing is closure. There's no other way of saying that. It's closure. It's limiting members to a scant three minutes of debate. It's saying that by the end of the day Tuesday, November 7, clause-by-clause consideration just happens, regardless of whether we've gone into the due diligence or not. What we are essentially doing is saying that on Tuesday, clause-by-clause consideration is done, no matter how serious, how irresponsible the impact would be on softwood companies across the country.

The various clauses that we've already gone through to a certain extent indicate that this bill has serious difficulties. So essentially, what we'd have to do, Mr. Chair--and I'm sure you'd agree with me--is go through the clause-by-clause consideration and ensure that we've done our due diligence.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, we have a point of order.

Ms. Guergis.

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

Can we please call the vote, Mr. Chair? This is getting repetitive. We've already heard this from the honourable member.

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

Actually, Mr. Chair, you haven't, because you ruled me out of order on that first substantive intervention. So this is the first time—

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

Yes, we have, in fact, heard this already.

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

—I've had substantive intervention on the amendments.

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

When you were suggesting your amendments—

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

You can't have it both ways.

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

—you said the exact same thing.

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

No, I was ruled out of order, so I had to present them again.

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

You just did your amendments, Mr. Julian.

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

I had to re-present them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, are you ready for the question then?

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

Yes.

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

Mr. Chair, I am in the process of explaining the amendments, so I would like to continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Then there is debate. I have to allow the debate.

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

Thank you very much.

So I believe very strongly that we as a committee have to take the due diligence that is required to do the clause-by-clause consideration in a responsible and in-depth way, going into each of those particular clauses that raise serious concerns across the country.

This deletion would essentially allow us to do our deliberations in an effective way and provide the clause-by-clause consideration that I think Canadians, particularly Canadians involved in the softwood industry, would require, rather than saying we're going to, at the end of day, have closure, that no matter how many problems there are on this bill, no matter how many things need to be fixed, we're going to bring this back to the House.

What an embarrassment that would be for members of the committee to bring something in that people outside this House have already flagged as major concerns, though we're not allowing those folks to testify, and other parliamentarians are aware of those concerns as well. So to come back with a half-baked, half-done job because the government wants to impose clause-by-clause consideration being done by the end of the day on Tuesday makes absolutely no sense.

We're talking about decisions that will make the difference in millions and millions of dollars between softwood companies and how this bill is currently configured and what softwood companies can actually expect back, and the kinds of penalties and the kinds of interest charges that softwood companies will have to endure. So for us to simply throw our hands up and say we're not going to deal with this, we're going to throw out the bill no matter how badly botched it is at the end of the day on Tuesday, November 7, certainly signals to me the highest irresponsibility.

Let's look at the third clause of Mr. Menzies' motions and I think what is a helpful amendment that I've offered to make the change, make the improvement to what he has actually said. He says in his motion 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--that's next Tuesday--that we simply vote them all together.

We've already had concerns that have been raised. We know in Marleau and Montpetit, very clearly--and I'll stipulate the clause--we have the right to raise amendments. Certainly even though we've responded as a courtesy to the government with dozens of amendments to help improve the bill in good faith last Tuesday, it is very clear that we didn't have to have that obligation.

Marleau and Montpetit, in chapter 20, which deals extensively with the committee structure in the House of Commons and how committees need to act--I don't need to signal that to you, Mr. Chair, as I know you're aware of all of those elements--says very clearly in the second paragraph that motions to amend a clause of a bill do not require notice. So we do not require notice to provide these amendments; we can simply provide them.

Well, we have had eight days to consider the clause-by-clause, and it is by no means certain I think for any of us that we have exhaustively gone through the various improvements that need to be made to this bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, your relevance is an issue here. You're not speaking to this motion now, and if you have--

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

Mr. Chair, if we look at the third clause--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

If you have no more debate on the motion, Mr. Julian, I'm going to go to the question.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm raising new information.

I have not raised the concern that essentially other amendments we may identify would not be able to be brought forward because of Mr. Menzies' particular motion. It's November 7. After that, even if we discover an egregious short sight in terms of how this bill is structured, we will have already voted on all of those clauses. Very clearly, Marleau and Montpetit says we have the right, indeed the responsibility, to bring those motions forward.

What I am proposing is shifting Mr. Menzies' date to a much more reasonable date. The much more reasonable date is November 28. It is in three and a half weeks' time, Mr. Chair. In three and a half weeks' time, I believe we will have done the due diligence on the bill to actually go clause by clause and improve those clauses that desperately need to be improved.

As a member of the opposition, I would submit that by November 28 we would be willing to vote on all the proposals that do not have amendments. It could be done in one vote. We could also do it clause by clause. It can be done with cooperation, not with a date imposed of next Tuesday, but with a date that is reasonable.

Let me move to the fourth clause, Mr. Chair. We talk about Bill C-24 being reported to the House on Thursday, or as soon as possible. Very clearly, here is another issue. In previous clauses, clauses that are a precedent to this main fourth clause, which really is the heart of this.... We're going to vote en masse for all of these unamended motions. Regardless of whether we've done our job, we're going to put the bill out and report to the House on Thursday, or as soon as possible. On Thursday we will bring back a bill that is distinctively flawed. We are bringing it to parliamentarians who will actually know that it is distinctively flawed and that we as a committee have not done our due diligence. So fourth clause is really the heart of this motion. It is one that I think as parliamentarians we can all see is irresponsible.

On the fourth clause, Mr. Chair, what we do is take out the Thursday date and we allow for it being as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It is approaching one o'clock, Mr. Julian.

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

I now come to the fifth clause, Mr. Chair, which I have not spoken on.

On the fifth clause, Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Order, Mr. Julian.