International Trade Committee on May 15th, 2007

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

No, he said that they be circulated as part of the minutes of the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Was it your motion that they be part of the minutes? Could you read your motion again, Mr. Temelkovski.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I think they should be included, Mr. Chair. The clerk and the researchers can help us with the wording of this, but I think you got the main message.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

That's the intent, then, is to have the—

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

The intent is to have the entire meeting, from its start until 1 o'clock, from 11 to 1 o'clock, so that all of the testimony be admitted as official testimony.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, of course I would ask the clerk, but I.... The testimony after the gavel can't be included as if it happened before the gavel, but maybe it could be appended in some fashion. Is that good enough?

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

I will leave it in your capable hands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

The clerk certainly can deal with that.

Okay, you've heard the motion.

Mr. Cannan.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Speaking to the motion, as a member who was there, I was told there was no meeting when the gavel hammered, that there was no record of the information and that there wouldn't be any way of including it as minutes of a meeting that didn't take place. It would be like sitting around afterwards in a bar and talking about what happened at a meeting that never took place.

So how can you keep a record of a meeting that was never officially a meeting?

I'd maybe like to get a record from the clerk, because I was told there wasn't a meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I will ask the clerk whether there is a record, in fact, of what happened after the meeting.

Mr. Clerk, we will maybe have a little discussion. Are you ready to answer that?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Normand Radford]

There is an unofficial transcript of the evidence of this unofficial meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay, you've heard the clerk.

Mr. Lemieux, you had your hand up.

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

I just wanted a clarification on the motion we're discussing right now. Do we require 48 hours' notice of a motion such as this? It's not dealing with the business of this particular meeting.

[An hon. member]

That was my question too.

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

So I think we should have had 48 hours' notice on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

It's a fine question, and I think I'll take a minute to consider that. I'm not certain. I'm trying to think of what else we've discussed here. The issue is whether it's relative to the meeting of today.

I have consulted with the clerk, and he has commented--and I agree--that because I made an opening statement on this subject matter, this motion is in order. We will deal with the motion now. Are we ready to go to the question?

Mr. Menzies, then Mr. Cardin, and Mr. Julian.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

If I may make a comment, I think Mr. Temelkovski's motion is procedurally incorrect. The meeting was adjourned, and we would have had to reconvene a new meeting to hear those witnesses.

May I make a suggestion, a friendly amendment if you will, that those witnesses be recalled to appear before this committee to have an opportunity—

[An hon. member]

Oh yes, that's a brilliant idea.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Did you have the microphone or did I?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Order!

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I think that is well within order. It will clear up a huge misunderstanding and provide them an opportunity to provide an appearance on topic.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have a motion on the floor. I don't think that's an amendment, Mr. Menzies. It may be something you want to bring up later. Certainly, include it in the discussion.

Next is Mr. Julian.

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

I support Mr. Menzies' amendment. I would love to have two hours with Gordon Laxer in televised hearings. I think that would be important in the public domain, important for the Canadian public, so I can't help but support it. However, it does run counter to the Conservative ideal—

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Mr. Julian, just as a reminder, of course, that was not an amendment. I didn't accept it as an amendment. Let's keep the discussion to the motion, please.

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

Bringing witnesses back to testify a second time at the taxpayers' expense because the Conservatives refused their first testimony is quite bizarre, to say the least. What we have is a motion from Mr. Temelkovski to recognize the transcripts that we already have that indicate the testimony that has already been given, and to circulate that as part of the committee minutes. If the chair wants to put “unofficial” in brackets, that is something we will have to fight in the House of Commons. As far as Mr. Temelkovski's motion is concerned, it is in order. It is the logical thing to do.

We cannot censor witnesses we disagree with, however much some members around this table would like to do that. His testimony and the testimony of Common Frontiers is valuable and should be circulated as part of the committee minutes. If the chair wants to put “unofficial” in brackets, we will go to the Speaker of the House and seek clarification on that.

But there is no doubt that the meeting took place, that members from all four parties participated, including Mr. Cannan, who certainly wasn't embarrassed in asking questions of the witnesses. So I'd like to blow up this myth that somehow the meeting didn't happen. It did. To pretend anything else is censorship.