Evidence of meeting #36 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I would like to make a motion that we amend our current process to allow for only ten seconds per vote, per individual, as a maximum.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well, this is beautiful. This is beautiful. I would love to see the government press conference on this: sixty seconds a clause, ten seconds to vote, let's just ram it through. It shows the complete lack of responsibility of this government.
You failed. You screwed up on the negotiating.
Mr. Chair, what we've had is a government that has completely failed in its responsibility to take care of softwood companies. We now have a bill that is unravelling as we speak.
Do you think the senators are going to take this with any degree of seriousness—sixty seconds per amendment, ten seconds to vote, let's just ram this through as quickly as possible? Do you think for a second, Mr. Chair, that we are actually going to be treated with any degree of respect as a committee, with these rules of order that come from Picasso? I mean, they're absolutely appalling. It's farcical.
So it's sixty seconds an amendment, ten seconds a vote, Mr. Chair. This goes beyond belief. Not only has it never happened in committee history, but it would mean that many of the things the Conservatives used to do when they were out of power, they won't be able to do any more, either as Reform or as the Alliance or as the Conservative Party. What they're doing is setting a precedent now that, when they are no longer in power, they will no longer be able to do everything they did from 1993 right through to 2006.
They should be very careful about the kinds of precedents they're setting. What this means is a completely different approach to committees, at all times from now on. We're going over the abyss, Mr. Chair. This is unbelievable.
The irresponsibility I can understand, coming from the government side; what I can't understand is opposition members supporting this type of absolutely appalling conduct: sixty seconds an amendment, sixty seconds a clause, ten seconds a vote. Why not make it five? Why not make it 1.3? Why stop there? Why don't we just decide that there will no longer be any votes and that the government will prevail.
Since you're in the mood to be authoritarian, dictatorial, draconian, and mean-spirited, why stop there, Mr. Chair? Why don't we just say that certain people can't vote, certain types of people can't vote, people we disagree with can't vote anymore? Why don't we go all the way?
If this is going to be the farcical type of committee hearing that we have put into place—that we essentially no longer pay any respect, pay any heed, to parliamentary rules, that the types of tactics the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance and the Conservative Party used to use when they felt very strongly about legislation, to try to improve that legislation...that that no longer carries any more, that we will now have rules of procedure that are bludgeoning members of Parliament--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Helena Guergis Conservative Simcoe—Grey, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just would like to point out that Mr. Julian's behaviour around the committee table is appalling, to be honest. It's very childish. In fact, he thinks he can sit here and waste the committee's time by taking one, two, or three minutes to cast his vote on amendments that he actually introduced.
To suggest that maybe he hasn't thought about his work here, is that what he's telling us? Because that's irresponsible of him if he hasn't actually put his time and his thought into the amendments he's put forward here for us to discuss clause by clause around this table, if he hasn't actually given it any thought, if he's just put them together for a stall tactic. Is that what I'm hearing from him? I think he's confirming what I thought all along today, and even last Thursday, that his only purpose here is to try to stall.
He has absolutely no respect for the work of this committee and the responsibility of this committee to go clause by clause. So I very much support this motion to limit the time for a vote to ten seconds. Because, quite frankly, it doesn't take you any longer to say yes or no. And you should already know. He should already know what he's going to be doing with respect to his own amendments. So what are we even doing here discussing them in the first place?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'd like to consult the head table.
Has this ever happened, has this type of motion ever been brought forward? And has the Speaker ever ruled on this type of draconian--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, the committee is of course the master of its own destiny.
We're moving ahead.
Mr. Eyking.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, I did ask a question of the head table.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, the head table is here to advise me. We've discussed this already and I've given you my answer.
Mr. Eyking.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
On a point of order, I asked a specific question and I would like a response. It is a very specific question. I would like to hear from the head table whether or not this has happened before in parliamentary history.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Eyking Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd first like to show my disappointment that this committee has come to this sort of action. I was hoping our committee could move along in a very productive way and use our time and that each one of us could have a fair share maybe in having discussions over some of these clauses.
This might not have happened in any other committee before, and it might not have to happen again, but it's too bad that we had to succumb to this.
I'd like to hear the motion again for the record, exactly what it is.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
The motion was that we limit the voting time of each individual member to ten seconds for them to cast their individual vote.
November 7th, 2006 / 3:50 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
First off, Mr. Chair, I'd like to see that motion in writing. Secondly, this very clearly overrides the powers that were given to this committee when Bill C-24 was assigned to it.
There were very clearly no rules enforcing the limited period of time, a few scant seconds, in order to cast the vote. I'm assuming that this means--
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Mr. Julian, that is not a point of....This committee does control its own destiny, and that's exactly what it is doing with this motion.
Mr. Maloney.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
John Maloney Liberal Welland, ON
Mr. Chair, I would submit that extraordinary mischief requires an extraordinary response.
Mr. Julian has lost the credibility of this committee. He has shown no respect to you as chair or to us as colleagues on this committee.
I will support this motion, but I wonder if the member would consider a friendly amendment to the effect of an addition: “and if no individual vote is cast, it shall be deemed an abstention”.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, friendly amendment. All right.
Yes, Mr. Julian, on the amendment.