If you can find an answer—
Evidence of meeting #3 for International Trade in the 43rd 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.
Evidence of meeting #3 for International Trade in the 43rd 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.
2:45 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Madam Chair, once again, we have no interpretation because the microphone is too far away.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
October 30th, 2020 / 2:45 p.m.
Director General, Trade Policy and Negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development
There isn't really a quick answer to the member's question.
2:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Ms. Wilshaw and associates, for the good work you're doing in very difficult times. You appear to have a great group of associates working with you, Ms. Wilshaw, and I wish you much success.
We are going to deal with committee business.
Witnesses, you can do whatever it is you do to leave the meeting so that we can continue with our committee business. I'll just give everybody a minute to find their way.
We're going to deal with Mr. Dhaliwal's motion. I asked the clerk to send out another copy of the motion, plus a revised version. I need to read into the record certain things in order to explain my position on that motion.
Standing Order 67(1) and Standing Order 67(2) consider a motion to go in public or in camera to be non-debatable. This is also outlined in Bosc and Gagnon on page 1089:
Any member may move a motion to go from sitting in public to sitting in camera (and vice versa). The motion is decided immediately without debate or amendment.
As members know, committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent that they respect the higher sources of authorities, which the Standing Orders are. In the previous Parliament, the procedure and House affairs committee and the human resources committee adopted similar motions. For reference, the procedure outlined in this type of motion tended to be used more as a guide for the chair and the committee on a way to proceed rather than as a strict rule. Generally speaking, a committee may decide to adopt this as a general way of proceeding and there may be agreement to continue to do so. However, it is important that members of the committee know that, at some point, there could be a risk of this motion coming into conflict with what is laid out in the Standing Orders mentioned above.
Given the discussion that we had on Mr. Dhaliwal's motion, my sense from the committee members who spoke to it was that they clearly wanted to have that motion in place, so I am not going to rule it inadmissible. What I have suggested is a couple of amendments that would make it much easier for us to function as a committee. You should all have the amendments with you, and I can read this out if necessary.
First, this version of the motion could be interpreted by some as taking away the chair’s discretion to start a meeting in camera. For greater clarity, a line could be included regarding the chair’s discretionary authority to call a meeting in camera. For example, in the motion adopted by PROC during the 42nd Parliament, this line was included: “That the Chair may schedule all or portions of a meeting to be in camera for the reasons listed above”.
Second, committee business is not included, which means that, for example, to call a meeting to discuss the committee’s working calendar, as it stands now, I would not be in a position to make this decision. Therefore, I would suggest that committee business be added to the list of purposes to go in camera in Mr. Dhaliwal's motion.
Finally, as the motion reads now, there are no limits to the debate about going in camera or in public, which could go on for quite a while, eating all the time that the committee would have at its disposal. Here again, a suggestion is that, as PROC did in the 42nd Parliament, we move:
That any motion to sit in camera shall be subject to a debate where the mover, and one member from each of the other recognized parties, be given up to three minutes each to speak to the motion; and that the mover shall then be given up to one minute to respond.
With those suggested amendments to Mr. Dhaliwal's motion, things should continue to flow as they have previously, and I think with the support of the committee.
Is there any discussion? Is someone prepared to move those suggested amendments to Mr. Dhaliwal's motion?
Mr. Sheehan, go ahead.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Sheehan Liberal Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Madam Chair, I hope I hit the virtual hand right. It came up with a yellow hand, so I hope I hit the right button, but I'm not sure. Christine is saying yes.
I would like to move those amendments as stated and circulated.
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Madam Chair, I thought I had the “raised hand” function up, but it might be....
2:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Yes. It is for me too.
My question is with regard to what you read out about the time limit. Was it for presenting a motion to go in camera? I can't remember how you phrased it. It would seem to me that it would be limiting debate, in a way. It's not a criticism of you, obviously, but I'm not quite sure we usually have that as a practice, limiting debate on a motion.
I'm just wondering if we could get some more clarification on that one.
2:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Let me read it out again. This was the suggestion:
That any motion to sit in camera shall be subject to a debate where the mover, and one member from each of the other recognized parties, be given up to three minutes each to speak to the motion; and that the mover shall then be given up to one minute to respond.
It wasn't to stifle debate; it was so that we wouldn't end up using an hour to discuss whether we'd go in camera or not. I believe that's what this would achieve. It was adopted by PROC as well. You know how these things sometimes go, where we can end up debating for an hour, easily, on whether we'll go in camera or not.
By restricting the mover to three minutes and giving everyone three minutes to speak to the motion, the issue then technically would be dealt with within about 30 minutes, at the most. I think that was the intent. PROC adopted that in the 42nd Parliament.
2:55 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Hoback has his hand raised.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
I'm just curious to know how you came to the conclusion of one member from each party and then limiting it at that. With Zoom meetings, I think one member...that could be really awkward and tough. Is this something they have done in other committees, that they have gone to one member for three minutes? Is that enough time, or should we be basing it on something to reflect the population of the House? There are more Liberals. There are more Conservatives. Do we want to do something like that, where you look at that scenario and say that each party, based on their representation in the House, would have that amount of time to speak on a motion to go in camera?
I'm just throwing it out there for people to discuss.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
PROC has adopted this particular part as well, in the exact same format. Presumably, if PROC feels it's suitable for that committee, I would think it would be okay for ours. Again, I guess we can always change something later on or at another point, if we want to.
Madam Clerk, do you have any comments on that?
2:55 p.m.
The Clerk
No.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Good clerk; she doesn't. She probably doesn't like the fact that I overruled you to begin with.
Clearly, the committee wanted to go in this direction. I was just looking for a way to make sure we went in that direction and everybody would be comfortable.
2:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
I don't know if I'm in order or out of order here on the list.
2:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
That's okay. I don't have a list, but I have to make the list.
Go ahead, Ben.