Evidence of meeting #63 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.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Merci, monsieur Cardin.
Before we go to Mr. Lemieux, I would say that amongst ourselves, the clerk, the researchers, and I have tried to present a balanced slate of witnesses and thought we had done it. But we'll deal with the motion on the floor right now.
Mr. Bains.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
I just want clarification on this. The amendment that was brought forth says that “the number of witnesses be balanced for and against”. How does one determine “for and against”? How is this criterion established? Ultimately, that's my concern: in whose viewpoint? It's very subjective. From what perspective are we talking? Is it on the subject matter? Then who determines “for” and “against”? I have some concerns about that amendment.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You understand now, Mr. Bains, some of the issues the chair, the clerk, and the researchers deal with when we're looking at witnesses for the committee.
Mr. Brison.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
To expand on my colleague's concern, most trade issues are fairly complex in that there's not necessarily a “for” or an “against”. When you hear from witnesses, they are experts who offer us their advice. It's possible for the same expert to offer nuanced advice with some arguments for and some against. It's almost impossible to demarcate among witnesses who is for something or against something when questions are not that simple. Maybe we're dealing with a wording issue as opposed to an intention issue.
But every member of the committee has the opportunity to submit names to the clerk. If the committee wants to meet after that to review those names and select from them, it's always possible that there are some that are redundant. For instance, there may be an industry organization that represents individual companies, and as such you may not need to hear from each company; you can simply hear from the industry organization. But it's impossible to do that procedurally and structurally. It is possible once you have names, when the committee is determining the schedule.
I just don't see issues as being so simplistic that we can divide witnesses for and against on every issue. It's pretty tough to do that.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We have witnesses waiting. We've cut about 10 minutes of their time from them already and from the committee.
(Amendment negatived)
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
I'd like to make an amendment to the main motion to strike the word “subcommittee”. So just the committee will be reporting it.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I just have one word--absurd. This makes absolutely no sense. Mr. Cannan knows full well that Mr. Bains' motion is attempting to achieve some more balance, which we haven't necessarily had with committee witnesses. For him to try to refer it back to the committee simply puts us in the same situation we're in.
Mr. Bains' motion is very helpful. It allows us to move forward and have some discussions at subcommittee meetings. I hope we'll have one scheduled as early as this week. So his amendment is absurd.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I don't think it's as absurd as Mr. Julian would have us believe. I remember many meetings when the subcommittee met and determined the list of witnesses, but when it came back to committee we had to debate it all again. In fact it's highly inefficient, and MPs' time is short. We have a subcommittee meeting and then all the business comes back here anyway and we just restart the whole debate.
I don't understand the efficacy of having a subcommittee if we don't respect its decisions. I don't think it's as absurd as you say, Mr. Julian.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Once we have voted on the amendment we cannot go back and amend the main motion again. Any amendments should be put forth prior to voting, all amendments, not after one amendment has been defeated or passed, so you can have an amendment to the motion.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
I've been asked a question. This motion can be amended any number of times. It's required that you deal with subamendments first, then amendments, and then the main motion. If another amendment is presented we deal with that. That's exactly what we're doing here.
Mr. Cannan.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Just to clarify, I did check with the clerk before I made the amendment. So Mr. Temelkovski can rest at ease.
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The problem is rather at caucus level. If people in one party cannot have confidence in their representative on a subcommittee, all they have to do is name another representative. I do not see why the same members of the same party are always challenging their subcommittee representative. I do not see the relevance of this motion, Mr. Chair.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Okay, is there any other discussion on the proposed amendment? We'll go to the question.
(Amendment negatived)
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
We'll now go to motion unamended. Those in favour of the motion of Mr. Bains.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
My motion is basically to include the testimony given in the second half of the previous meeting or include all of the testimony as the official testimony of the committee.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
As you know, Mr. Temelkovski, when the chair gavels, the meeting ends, and anything said after the time of the gavel is not a part of the meeting.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Lui Temelkovski Liberal Oak Ridges—Markham, ON
Mr. Chair, I spoke to the Clerk of the House in regard to this, who advised me that the witnesses' testimony after the gavel, when we carried forth with the meeting, was basically in courtesy to the witnesses, as opposed to having them come from Calgary, or wherever in Canada, and not be heard from. They were here and we continued.
There were members from each party here, the researchers were here, the clerk was here, and the meeting took place and it was recorded.
I move that this testimony be accepted into the record.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
The committee, of course, is master of its own destiny, as is stated so often.
So you're asking that the informal comments after the gavel, or after the meeting ended, be included in some fashion as if they had been part of the meeting?