Evidence of meeting #1 for Bill C-35 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I agree, but when an amendment is tabled during the hearing—I have seen it done in other committees—, it must be written in both languages because we are studying a bill, and that is very important.
We should not have to rely on the interpreter; we need a translator. There is a difference between the two: the interpreter translates what we are saying in spoken form, but the translator translates a text written in legal language, because this is what we will be voting on.
Consequently, if an amendment was introduced, the Chair would have to have a real legal translator certify both the French and the English versions.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
Okay.
All the amendments that the clerk will receive in the 48-hour time limit will be in both official languages, there's no doubt about that, but usually when an amendment comes on the floor, it's very difficult to have both languages ready at that time. What we are doing in many committees that I chair is this. We have the amendment itself, we have the translation, and at that time we want to be sure that it's perfect, and this is left to the chair at that time to verify that everything is juridiquement all right, correct.
March 29th, 2007 / 3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Do you understand? This is similar to what has happened during the examination of Bill C-30, Mr. Chair. I believe that parliamentarians still have happy memories of that bill.
During the course of our proceedings, our inventive genius and our inspiration can suggest to us some amendments, including in the course of conversations that are uncensored and flowing freely.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
The amendment reads:
That amendments to Bill C-35 be submitted to the clerk of the committee 48 hours prior to clause-by-clause consideration, without precluding the introduction of additional amendments.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
If you want some clarification on that, we're talking about subamendments but not a substantively new amendment.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
They would be substantial amendments, not just subamendments. We're talking about amendments--subamendments are included--but it could be a new amendment to the bill, a new clause in a bill.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Then why do we have it that amendments should be submitted 48 hours prior if now we're saying amendments can be submitted at any time?
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Bernard Patry
The reason for that is there are many amendments, and it gives the clerk a chance at that time, and the people working with the clerk, to prepare everything in a ruling. If all the amendments are coming on the floor right away, it's going to take a long time, because sometimes we need to consult with the clerk and with the lawyers who are with the clerk at that time.
Yes, Mr. Moore.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I don't agree with that amendment to the routine motions, because we'll need time prior to the clause-by-clause to consider amendments. I understand in the course of clause-by-clause that sometimes a subamendment will come forward, but what I understand Mr. Ménard to be saying is that he wants to be able to introduce, with less than 48 hours' notice, a substantial amendment. If there's a substantial amendment to move, you should be able to move it with the 48 hours' notice. I don't see why he'd want to move one right before clause-by-clause.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I've sat on legislative committees before, I've sat on numerous standing committees of the House, and we've virtually always had the possibility, because of the experience, to be able to present an amendment on the floor while we're doing clause-by-clause. It meant there usually was a vote of the committee to say yes, they would allow it, but it was something that was permitted. It didn't happen all that often, but the reason it really did happen was there was usually virtually unanimous consent of all of the members, including government members. Everybody had come to a realization once we received all of the amendments that there was something that wasn't covered that had been recommended, and everybody was pretty much in agreement about it.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
We can still do that, Chair, by unanimous consent, but I think we should stick to the rule of 48 hours for substantial amendments. If we want to do something by unanimous consent, we can always do that.
3:50 p.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Chair, we should understand two realities. First of all, this bill is not very long. As well, all of us, as parliamentarians, make an effort to plan our amendments, out of respect for the clerk.
The amendment has the same purpose as that introduced on the bill about same sex marriage and other bills. And I do not recall that there had been a vote beforehand.
However, it may very well happen during the discussions with officials from the Department of Justice or with our colleagues that we think about a possible amendment. In such a case, we should not be hindered by the 48-hours rule.
I agree with the interpretation given by the chair and the parliamentary secretary: we should plan our amendments as much as possible. On the other hand, if it is not possible and if inspiration dictates to us some improvement to the bill and if we want to bring forward an amendment immediately, I believe that we should not be precluded from doing so.
I was a member of the legislative committee that examined the bill on same sex marriage, and there was no vote taken before the tabling of amendments. So the amendment is introduced and if we do not agree, it is rejected. This is not contrary to the 48-hours rule.
For example, if Mr. Moore was saying that we will table the amendment because the government wants to examine its scope, we could do so. However, let us not deprive ourselves of this creative spontaneity that makes us parliamentarians able to apprise ourselves of any new reality.
Let us not be too conservative or too strict.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Art Hanger Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
I can see why Mr. Ménard gets into so much trouble, because he is so spontaneous.
There has to be some flexibility on the amendments issue. I've sat in the position that you are in, Chair, and I know it doesn't always work out that you have 48 hours, for whatever reason. Sometimes an amendment may be brought forward. If it means that the general rule of 48 hours is required to assist in moving things along, all the better. If the exception becomes the rule, then that's a problem for the committee.
Mr. Lee has chaired numerous committees. I would assume he would have an opinion on this as well.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Art Hanger Conservative Calgary Northeast, AB
Yes, so the committee chair and the committee need a little bit of flexibility, I believe. The general rule of 48 hours is good, with some flexibility.
