International Trade Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Okay.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think it's fair to say that under your mandate we haven't had difficulties, because you've taken a very reasonable approach. You've discussed with members motions that are coming forward. The problem of witnesses has not been a problem under your mandate. Under a previous chair it was a problem, and it was often a problem because the government would filibuster motions that were brought forward by the opposition. To be reasonable in all four corners of this committee, I think we work through you and schedule a motion at an appropriate time. You've taken a reasonable approach.

We don't need this motion. To put this motion in assures that we can't have fulsome debate on some motions that will be brought forward from the opposition. Since we've functioned very well under your mandate, not only do I not see a need for this motion; I also think it would be counterproductive to our work, because it means that a Liberal motion brought forward will only have 15 minutes of consideration. To say that maybe at the next meeting we can start off with the motion.... I don't see that loophole within this. Essentially that motion would be scheduled for 15 minutes prior to adjournment at the following meeting. So a Liberal motion that's brought forward would not receive appropriate consideration.

I think we should keep with our current practice, which is working through you, Mr. Chair. You've been reasonable about this, and I think this motion would harm the committee work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I just want some clarity. I thank you for that. I agree very much with what you've said, that it's been a very collegial approach and that it works when we have some consultation beforehand. I just like to avoid surprises, because it's not in the interest of anybody on the committee or of witnesses to have surprise dilatory motions delay the work of the committee.

So that was the intent here. I want to be clear, though, that this is not in any way suggested to limit debate. It's just about the notice of motion of debate, to get it on the table; that's the concern I had. You can debate it again at the next meeting, if the committee so desires. That was the reason for it in this instance; it's just for clarity. I don't mean to change the tenor of the debate here. I just want to clarify where we are.

The next on the speakers list is Mr. Cannis.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hope my friend Mr. Julian wasn't referring to my tenor. I thought we had a lot of flexibility at that time.

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

Your tenor was perfect. We had a good first chair and a good last chair.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thanks.

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

There were some problems in the middle.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Chairman, I think the concern here is that once the meeting opens and the witnesses are identified--and as Mr. Julian pointed out, the motions will be dealt with as a second item--if I understand correctly, it's the 15-minute limitation. Is that what it's all about? I wonder, if that 15 minutes wasn't there, whether that would help out all the members in moving forward on this motion. Dealing with it at the end—

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The whole point was just to not delay the meeting. We want to deal with the motions, as members have a right to bring a motion to the meeting. But rather than take the time of witnesses and the committee at the beginning, just put it at the end. It doesn't have to be 15 minutes; that just seemed to be a reasonable amount of time to allow someone to present a motion.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

So we recognize that at the opening of the meeting there would, first of all, be witnesses A, B, C; secondly, we would have a motion on the agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Yes.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

The concern I sense on this side is with the 15 minutes.

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

It becomes the rule.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I don't know whether there's some flexibility in terms of the 15 minutes. Maybe they'll help us overcome this stumbling block.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Well, it just means that the consideration of the motion begins 15 minutes before the end of the meeting; it doesn't mean you have to conclude that discussion. It can carry on to the next meeting ad nauseam, as in some cases it has.

Mr. Julian.

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

Mr. Chair, with respect, it becomes a hard and fast rule. Mr. Cannis has been an excellent chair, and you've been an excellent chair, but I have Mr. Harris, who's very shrewd—I won't use the word “scheming” that he used against me—a very shrewd parliamentarian. Mr. Harris will point to that and say, well, Mr. Chair, we adopted as a committee a routine motion at the beginning of this Parliament that stated that the chair is authorized to put forward consideration until 15 minutes prior to the adjournment time. That means that in the case of any motion coming forward, you're authorized to bring it up there, and that becomes a rule.

Then, if I were a shrewd member of the government—and Mr. Harris certainly is—15 minutes is easy to talk out. This means essentially that we will not have sufficient time to debate any opposition motion, and I would even say any government motion, because it will be easy to talk out the clock.

That's my problem with this. Not only do I not believe we need this; I think it'll be harmful to our work as a committee, because it becomes a hard and fast rule that any shrewd parliamentarian will point to. If today we've adopted this routine motion, it becomes a hard and fast fixed motion through the entire 40th Parliament. It will be detrimental to our work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

All right.

Mr. Harris.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Well, with all due respect to the suggestions that have been put forward, I think perhaps Mr. Julian and others have lost track of the reason for this motion. It is to show respect for the witnesses who have in many cases travelled a long way from home and taken time off work or out of their teaching or whatever to come as witnesses before this committee. The last thing they deserve is to sit here in their chairs while motions are being put forward that could go on ad nauseam. I've seen it—everyone has seen it happen in committees we've been on—and it's very embarrassing.

This boils down to a motion that, if you want to pass a motion that will show respect to any witnesses who come before this committee, you will pass. If you don't want to support that show of respect, then you will defeat it.

There is a possible amendment you could make to it. You could make this motion particular to any meeting in which witnesses were present. In any meeting where there were witnesses present, this would apply; where there were no witnesses present, it's possible, because of the purpose of this, that there could be some flexibility, if there were a compromise there.

Certainly I don't want to sit in any more committee meetings in which witnesses are sitting where there are motions coming up, and at which these folks have to sit around watching a bunch of politicians play, in many cases, some pretty stupid games—in front of witnesses who have come here with a good purpose.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

That's an interesting twist: that we just add “at meetings where witnesses are waiting” somehow.

I don't think we could do that. Would I be able to call on your wisdom here, Mr. Easter?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I haven't sat on this committee, Mr. Chair, but we have no such restriction on the committees I'm on, and I agree with Mr. Julian; I think it's a bad idea. You really don't want to limit debate when you're making a decision. The whole purpose is to bring forward a motion, whether it's a government motion or an opposition motion, and give the government direction or make a decision relative to a report. It's extremely important that parliamentarians who have been elected have the full opportunity to debate it as necessary.

I know that Dick is right, in that sometimes games have been played on all sides, but I think the last thing you want to do for parliamentarians is limit debate. It is why, in fact, we're here. We've never, I think, had trouble at previous committees I've been on with witnesses being restricted because we were debating motions. In fact, I think sometimes they like to see that debate, to see that their issues have in fact been heard and listened to and that sides are taken.

I don't know why you just don't take it out. It's certainly not in my committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Monsieur Cardin.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat what Mr. Julian and Mr. Easter have already said. We can function without this provision regarding the deferral of motions. On the whole, the system has worked well and we should not need to add this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

All right.

Mr. Keddy, you're the last one on the list.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Call the question, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Or you can withdraw the motion.