International Trade Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think Dean has basically made the point. I think we've all sat at committees—not that I want to hear more Conservatives speak, to be honest—but the fact of the matter is that you do go to committees where sometimes, especially when witnesses' time is broken into an hour apiece, some members of the committee, and it's usually on the government side, never get a chance to raise their voice.

What this really does is this. If there's a single member of the NDP at the committee, that committee member will have 12 minutes to speak, while the majority on the committee will have only five minutes. I don't think that's proper balance. The makeup of Parliament is the way it is, and I think every committee member, if at all possible, should be given the opportunity, if they wish, to raise questions and speak with witnesses.

So I would be opposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

That does conclude our speakers list.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I'll call the question. I think minds are made up here. We could continue the debate, but the question's been called.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We'll move back to the original motion, and I'll call the question.

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

Mr. Chair, the versions in English and French are completely different, so you have two different--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

They're not completely different at all. There's a two-word change. It was just a typographical error in the French, where we've typed Nouveau...démocratique instead of libéral--

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

No, Mr. Chair, because actually--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

--and added the extra Conservative. I think that's been resolved by the committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I've called the question, Mr. Julian.

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

No, no, Mr. Chair, to be fair, we--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

I think we've been more than fair. We've given you an opportunity, Mr. Julian. I think I have the sense of where the committee wants to go here, and the question has been called.

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

Mr. Chair, I have indicated that there is an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

The question has been called, Mr. Julian. You can challenge the chair, but right now we have a question before the committee.

Those in favour of the motion, please raise your hands.

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

Mr. Chair, I challenge your ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We're in the middle of a vote, Mr. Julian.

Those in favour of the motion as it is written here in English? For clarity, the motion--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The motion as amended, you mean.

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

No, there was no amendment; it's the original motion.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

Mr. Julian, do you want to challenge that?

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

Mr. Chair, there is clear procedural precedence that when members signify an amendment, you acknowledge the amendment and allow the amendment to be brought forward. You don't try to ram through the vote.

Now, here we've had--

[The Chair, Conservative, Lee Richardson]

We have heard your amendment.

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

No, I had a first amendment that I proposed. There was a second amendment that I wanted to bring forward. We very clearly have an inequitable speaking order here. We don't have the ability for a supplementary question. That is a problem, obviously. The fact that we would normally be entitled to two members around this committee, given the results of the election, means that the NDP actually has a lower percentage of speaking time than any other party around the table and per member. There's a fundamental problem here.

When we have a right, according to the formula, of 1.75 or 1.8 members, and we're reduced to being able to intervene once and having no supplementary question, there is a fundamental question of equity. I know that my colleagues in the Bloc and the Liberals would be willing to recognize that if I brought forward another amendment.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

I am suggesting for procedural issues such as this that it's incumbent upon you to recognize what would be a reasonable amendment. I'm not talking about filibustering or a person trying to talk out the clock. I'm simply speaking about a reasonable amendment that allows us to address some inequity.