Evidence of meeting #113 for International Trade in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ministers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
That amendment will just be done as a friendly amendment, okay?
Mr. Sidhu mentioned the issue of the four meetings. Maybe the best way to have that laid out is that it be commenced immediately upon resumption of the committee in September and that this be the first order of business.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
That's okay? It will be the first order of business when we come back in September.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
If I may, I'm going to ask for your formal and regulatory opinion. If we agree to hold these four meetings by September 30, will we lose all our flexibility and end up in a situation where we can't evaluate any emergency that might arise between now and then?
Conservative
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
To my colleague's question, I thought it was read into the record that we'd be changing “with 4 meetings held before September 30th” to wording that would consist of “with eight meetings starting on September 16th, and that the meetings consist of,” and then we would have a list. So we would start immediately on September 16 and have eight meetings. That wouldn't preclude having a minister appear perhaps not on the 16th but on the next day, and maybe on that first day we could begin with stakeholders. But it would be eight meetings at the beginning.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
That is basically what I have suggested.
The very first order of business would be the eight meetings that we are committing to with this study, and if there were an emergency, Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you would bring it to the committee and ask the committee for a change. Is that right?
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
In fact, I would like to make another proposal about our meetings, and the aim is not to invite fewer ministers.
Instead of inviting fewer ministers, I propose that we hear from each minister for one hour. That way, we could hear from all of them over the course of two meetings instead of four. I also propose that we hold three, not four, additional meetings.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Savard-Tremblay has suggested that the ministers appear for one hour rather than two hours. Is there any discussion on that?
Mr. Williams, go ahead.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Last of all, our study would take a total of five meetings.
Liberal
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Yes, since two, not four, meetings could be used for ministers, and the three others would be used to hear from witnesses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Mr. Genuis, your hand is up. Do you want to speak to what Mr. Savard-Tremblay has suggested?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, it seems like we're being a bit more informal, which is fine. I'm a sub here, so it's as you wish in terms of proceeding.
In terms of the proposal by Mr. Savard-Tremblay, I do think having the two hours available for ministers would make a lot of sense. There are a couple of caveats that obviously exist with that. Number one is that the committees don't have the power to compel ministers to appear, so if we ask a certain number of ministers to appear for two hours, there's the possibility that we won't get them for that time. There's also the possibility that we won't get them at all, and it is what it is.
I do find that in a one-hour period, in any committee I've been on, you have the process of getting organized. The minister provides their testimony, and then that leaves fairly limited time to actually get through the remaining parties. It means that not every person who's a member of the committee even gets to ask a question, typically, unless they're splitting rounds, so I do think that the two hours is important for providing for a substantial exchange.
I think all four of these ministers are important. Whether all of these ministers will show up for the time allotted seems fairly unlikely, and I can speak to why each is important. I think I'll have a chance to speak more to this later on, maybe, but there are many different issues that are engaged. There are economic issues and the impact on Canadian workers. There are also strategic and human rights issues. I do think having the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs for a sufficient amount of time to ask questions that cover some of those distinct themes.... What's the impact on Canadian workers? We're also talking about various different industries, right? There are likely specific issues with specific sectors, so to be able to drill down into all of the different sectoral impacts, as well as the strategic and human rights issues, in one hour does not seem to me to be sufficient.
I do want us to be able to cover the different themes in different kinds of meetings, which is why I think the length of the study is appropriate. That would be my take. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Thank you.
The reality is you cannot compel the minister to be here for two hours. The request can go out that, if possible, the committee would like the minister to be here for a two-hour meeting, and the minister's office will respond with the amount of time prior to their scheduling. By having it in there, we can ask all we want. It is an important study, and there is a lot of information that the committee would like to have back on it.
On that issue, do we want to take a vote on the suggested amendments from Mr. Savard-Tremblay?
Conservative
Ryan Williams Conservative Bay of Quinte, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I understand where Mr. Savard-Tremblay is coming from on this. In past committees, we've had the minister multiple times at the industry committee. We've had the finance minister at the finance committee. What normally happens when you ask for a two-hour meeting is you get one hour with the minister and one hour with officials. Mr. Champagne has been most gracious. In a lot of meetings, he'll give us another ten minutes, depending on how important the topic is.
What I would respectfully ask is we try to get the four meetings. It doesn't mean we'll get the minister, and as Mr. Genuis noted, we may not, but I think this is such an important topic for allowing these four ministers to be available. What they do is they bring officials, including their deputies, who normally are more knowledgeable on some of the bigger issues. I think the government's going to be interested in trying to explain a lot of what's happening. I think we four opposition members are going to try to get a lot more answers about what is happening. For the democratic process, this allows the most amount of time to be available, not just for the ministers, but for the departments to be able to come and answer to the public about what is happening. As we've stated, this is not a little issue. This is the major issue right now in Canada.
I think the second one is that Mr. Savard-Tremblay has mentioned three meetings, which would be seven. I would respectfully ask if perhaps he'd be open to setting a meeting, but being open to more meetings, if that became a priority for this committee. That means that with the subcommittee—and I know we've stated that we have Standing Order 106(4) meetings if there are major emergencies, and we know other things are happening—if he could respond, the request I'd ask for is whether, if we found we needed some more witnesses on a certain subject or we found that the situation had evolved, because we don't know now what we're going to know probably in a week or three weeks, he'd be open to making that open-ended. I'd maybe ask him, Madam Chair, if he's on the speaking list, to speak to that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
We are speaking to the amendments suggested by Mr. Savard-Tremblay. All right? We need to close that loop of whether or not we're going to support that.
Mr. Sidhu, go ahead.
Liberal
Maninder Sidhu Liberal Brampton East, ON
Mr. Savard-Tremblay, I get where you're coming from on making sure we are using our time effectively. Going back to what my colleague Mr. Garnett Genuis said, he mentioned that, of course, the committee can't compel ministers, and we need to be flexible, so maybe we need to add the words, “invite ministers and/or officials” for that four-hour period. You want to cut it down from, I see, four meetings to two meetings, and Mr. Savard-Tremblay, it might be an idea to consider adding the words “ministers and/or officials”.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
I think every time a minister comes, they also come with officials, but it would give us another hour. If the minister was here for an hour, then you'd have officials for an hour to get additional information.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
The minister would send the officials or have the officials there. The question here now is where we are with all of this, so we have....
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jean-François Lafleur
That's a good question. Maybe for the sake of clarity for the clerk, it might be advisable to have Mr. Savard-Tremblay state what he is in agreement with and what he is proposing based on—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Judy Sgro
Okay, so on this issue, Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you've heard from the mover of the motion and you've heard from others. What do you want to do here?