International Trade Committee on May 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, as you know, the meeting ended when the gavel was used, and from that time forward what happened was not a part of that meeting. We certainly will include any testimony from the time before the meeting was gavelled.

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I heard one of the Conservative members on the other side say that discussion after the gavel was no more valid than if it had taken place in a bar. Mr. Chair, I have to say that this was not particularly considerate to the witnesses who took the trouble to remain and provide their testimony for all that time. Anyway, there is no problem with having a discussion in a bar if those whose judgment is impaired have already left.

So I have to ask the member to apologize to the witnesses, and above all, that they should be given access to the evidence provided after the Conservatives left.

Of course, I will be voting for the Liberal motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I will remind all members that we do have witnesses waiting for us, again.

We'll go to Monsieur André, then Mr. Bains, then Mr. Cannan, and I hope we can go to the question.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Chair, of course, I am going to vote for this motion. We have indeed asked resource people from outside to come before us, and there are costs related to that. What happened is antidemocratic in my opinion, and has resulted in public funds being wasted. I have never seen antics like it.

Because of the antics and to show respect to the witnesses in question, I think that their evidence should be part of the official record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Monsieur André.

Go ahead, Mr. Bains.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to echo what you said. We do have witnesses, and I'd like this discussion to proceed very quickly so we can move to the vote and get on with the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll have Mr. Cannan.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just need to have on record the fact that it wasn't disrespectful of the witnesses. I did stay behind. I was told that there was no meeting, so I stayed behind because I wanted to hear from that one gentleman. I did a lot of reading on him, and talking about absurd, that was the information he was bringing forward. I wanted to hear it with my own ears.

I think each one of us has a responsibility when witnesses come to have them talk on topic. I think that as Mr. Julian brought the witness, he should inform his witnesses to stay on topic.

It's not disrespectful of the discussion—we have information all around—if we have an informal discussion, whether it's inside the room or outside the room. It's not an official meeting and you don't have it on record. So I think the member from Quebec should understand that it wasn't disrespectful that I stayed behind...and get the facts, and don't let the facts interfere with the truth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Can we go to the question?

Mr. Menzies.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I just have a suggestion.

Could we have this tabled until we ask for a ruling from the Speaker? Can it be tabled as a report to the Speaker and we can let the Speaker rule on this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You could bring a tabling motion. There's no debate on that. We would go to a vote on it.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I sense that most of us here are unclear about what the actual procedures would be. The last motion that we just passed.... I'm concerned, embarrassed for this committee. I don't want to be embarrassed anymore. So I would like to suggest that we table this until we have a ruling, an accurate ruling, on whether it is admissible as evidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

A suggestion isn't going to get us anywhere, but I do appreciate your comments, of course.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I'll make a motion to table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll go to the question on the motion to table.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Can we now go to Mr. Bains' motion? Sorry, it was Mr. Temelkovski's motion.

Do we have the motion in form? We have to know exactly what we're voting on here.

Mr. Lemieux, the clerk is writing up the motion.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That's fine.

While he's doing that, there's something that I don't quite understand about the way this committee is functioning, and that is, while I see a big book called House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit, and we have another book on parliamentary procedure and committee procedure, we seem to be able to override them at will. I think part of the problem we've had with this committee is that policy and procedure don't seem to matter. If the opposition wants it a certain way—if they want to say that black is white and white is black—they just vote, and so be it.

So I have a problem with this. I'm a new MP. In the House we follow policy and procedure. Why aren't we doing that here in committee? Why is it that it's cast aside so easily? I'm wondering if someone can explain that to me. It could be you, it could be the clerk, it could be—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Lemieux, of course I've expressed a similar concern in my opening comments. I can't answer that and I really don't think anyone can. It's up to the members to be responsible for their actions at committee, and I don't think we want to get into a discussion on that. I hope the rules of procedure will be respected in the future.

The clerk will read the motion.

[The Clerk]

It reads as follows:

That, the testimony provided at the unofficial meeting attended by members of the committee be appended to the evidence of the committee's official meeting of Thursday, May 10, 2007.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the motion. Those in favour of the motion—

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

Mr. Chair, “appended” is different from what Mr. Temelkovski said, which was “circulated as part of the minutes”. It was not “appended to the minutes”, but “circulated as part of the minutes”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, if you want that to happen, then we will go to the Speaker of the House to make a ruling on that. I don't believe that would be in order. I'm not certain. I would need some further help. I certainly need time to consider it. So if you would like to go that way, I will put this aside. I will take time to consider it and I'll bring it back to the committee.

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

Mr. Chair, it is exactly what Mr. Temelkovski requested and what the clerk has read. The difference between its being appended to the minutes, marked “unofficial”, and being circulated with the minutes unofficially is that the circulation of the minutes unofficially is something that takes place on a regular basis. I don't want minutes, and I don't think Mr. Temelkovski wants minutes circulated that do not contain that valuable testimony from the second part of the meeting. Unofficial as it may have been—and that's for the Speaker to clarify—we're not contesting the fact that it would be marked “unofficial”. But I think what we are pressing for on this side of the table is that it be circulated with the minutes. “Appended” could mean circulated or not, depending on the choice of the chair. We're not suggesting that. We're suggesting it be part of the minutes and circulated, though marked “unofficial”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, if it's appended to the evidence, then it will be circulated any time evidence is circulated.

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

My question is to the clerk then.

How would that appear—