Evidence of meeting #1 for International Trade in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Witnesses' expenses: that if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation, and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses, not exceeding two representatives per organization, and that in exceptional circumstances payment for more representatives be made at the discretion of the chair.
Could I have a mover? Mr. Allison. That's presented.
Does anybody want to debate?
(Motion agreed to)
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
The next is priority of legislation: that the consideration and examination of any bill, government or private member's bill, that falls within the express mandate of the committee shall take precedence over any study or non-legislative examination other than questions of privilege. In such circumstances, the non-legislative study shall be deferred until such time as the bill is reported back to the House.
Can I have a mover?
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I just have a question for the clerk. I don't believe we've had this in past routine motions.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
No, that's a new one then. Let's get it moved, and then we can have a debate on it, if you'd like to have debate.
Mr. Harris moves it.
Mr. Julian, you would like to speak to this.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I'm a little concerned, Mr. Chair, because essentially we haven't had this in the past. I think we've always shown due diligence in our work, both under your mandate and going back to the 38th Parliament under Mr. Cannis's mandate. We've been consistent in doing our duty. This seems to set the committee agenda for us, and I don't believe that's useful or helpful to the committee. We take our responsibilities seriously. I'm a little perplexed as to why this would appear when we've always been very diligent in doing our work.
So in a sense, this would set the agenda for us, and it would mean that the government would essentially be setting the agenda for us by whatever bills it brings forward.
So I don't think it's particularly useful and I don't think we should be adopting this.
9:45 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Chairman, I will use a term that is very dear to me. The committee is sovereign—it is master of its own fate, and it decides on its agenda. Adding this would not be appropriate.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wasn't going to intervene, but having heard what Mr. Cardin just said, it really doesn't bother me as it's written, because as he stated, we are masters of our own doing. We can in essence decide. Surely, as elected representatives of the people, when a piece of legislation is brought before the committee, we should have the intellectual capacity to judge what we should and shouldn't do as a committee.
So for me personally--I can speak on behalf of our side--it really doesn't bother me.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
When I used the word, “sovereign”, that did not mean I was excluding the ability to think—quite the contrary. The committee will decide on its agenda, according to the importance of the bills referred to it. That is what we have done in the past, Mr. Chairman. We could continue to do the same thing. I would not like to see the legislative agenda imposed on this committee, in a systematic fashion. The committee might be engaged in a study that is just as important as the bill referred to it, and the bill could thus take second place. I simply want the committee to have that freedom.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I have no further names on the list, so I'll put the question on the motion of Mr. Harris.
(Motion agreed to)
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
The next one concerns motions: that 48 hours' notice shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, and that the motion shall be filed and distributed to members by the clerk in both official languages.
Can I have a mover for that motion?
Mr. Cannis.
Is there any debate?
(Motion agreed to)
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
The next one concerns deferring motions: that for motions requiring 48 hours' notice, the chair be authorized to defer consideration until 15 minutes prior to the adjournment time for the meeting as indicated in the notice of meeting.
I guess we've done that before, haven't we? Anyway, let's get it on the table. I can't recall this one. I think we did this as practice. I don't remember whether it was in the previous set or not.
Is there a mover?
Mr. Keddy.
We have some debate.
Mr. Julian.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
First I have a question, again to the clerk. I don't believe this motion has come forward previously.
9:45 a.m.
The Clerk
I believe it's new to this committee.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I disagree quite strongly with this, as I think all members of the opposition should, Mr. Chair. Essentially what it would mean for all motions is that we'd be automatically deferring them to the 15-minute period. We're essentially saying that the chair is authorized to defer consideration until 15 minutes prior.... Often there will be motions brought forward by my Liberal or Bloc colleagues that may require more debate. To automatically assume that all motions brought forward should be deferred until 15 minutes prior to the adjournment I don't think makes any sense at all. Certainly our ability as parliamentarians to bring forward motions would be negatively impacted. It essentially means we're limiting debate on motions that are brought forward.
I don't think it's necessary. We've functioned very well through you, Mr. Chair, in the past with this. Since we functioned well in the past, I think we should continue with our current practice, which is that normally the member bringing the motion forward will raise it with you; there's some discussion about when it should be on the agenda. You, Mr. Chair, have been I think very diligent in determining how much debate time might be needed. It has often appeared at different points in our agenda.
I think you've done a very effective job. That's why I moved your election as chair.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
I think we're on the same point here, but the difference is with regard to notice of a motion, getting it on the table—getting that accepted by the committee—or debating the substance of the motion at length, which could take forever.
One of the problems, which we have had only very rarely in this committee, is being in the middle of something—for example, we have witnesses waiting to appear—and someone at the beginning of the meeting raising a notice of motion; debate ensues, and it's an hour and a half later.
This was only a suggestion that, as a courtesy to witnesses—and that's why we're having a debate—we defer these to the end of the meeting. We hear the witnesses, and if we want to carry on, then I guess we carry on at the subsequent meeting, but at least we have an opportunity to tell witnesses that they might be a little late at the next meeting. I think that's the intent here. It's not to limit anyone's ability to raise motions. It's just that they have, in the past, inconvenienced witnesses who came from some distance, when they have been raised at the beginning of the meeting.
I don't think any motion ought to take more than 15 minutes to debate anyway, and it's all about notice for a subsequent meeting rather than the meeting in progress, in any event. it's just a notice of motion to bring it to a meeting.
This is just for clarification. So that everybody understands where we're going here, that's what it's about.
Mr. Keddy.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is pretty straightforward stuff. It is within the purview of the chair anyway to decide when to hear the motion. You can recognize the motion and hear it in the last 15 minutes or the last five minutes, and the motion is not off the books until it's settled at committee, so it can be carried over to the next meeting.
What it does is prevent, when you have four witnesses sitting here waiting to be heard, any member of committee who has tabled a motion deciding to speak to that motion while the people who may have travelled from across the country have to sit through it all. It's not in any way, shape, or form an attempt not to hear the motion. It's within the purview of the chair, to begin with, to decide when we hear it. He can recognize the motion and say we will deal with this during the last 15 minutes. This just puts in writing what we do in practice.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very good at this—you have touched on a point that is very important to me, the presence of witnesses and their commitment to testifying before the committee. Occasionally, we have started debating a motion before the witnesses spoke, and that delayed their comments. At times, we even ran the risk of not hearing what they came to say. I am very aware of that issue.
That brings me to this question: How could we proceed so that the motions moved are not consistently postponed? The motions do take some time. Fifteen minutes is not very long. We need to find a mechanism that makes it possible for motions not to be carried over constantly from one meeting to the next. We know that when witnesses appear before the committee they have spent a long time preparing. In fact, it is quite good of us to consent to the 48-hour notice, because sometimes urgent matters arise and a 24-hour notice would have been practical as well.
I'm trying to think of how we could go about this to ensure we do not carry over debate on motions constantly, while maintaining our respect for witnesses. That is an important problem. I would ask committee members to think very seriously about it, because putting motions off all the time is not something we should be doing. Motions are always fairly important depending on their content. Unless we adopt a more effective mechanism of dealing with them, I fear that some motions will simply be put off for much too long.