Information & Ethics Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I so move.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Mr. Martin, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This is something I recommended earlier. There are committees that meet with no notice required. It takes a better degree of perhaps protocol and cooperation and trust. You have to have an atmosphere where you know that people aren't out to sabotage the work of the committee. But I also believe that in that atmosphere of cooperation and trust rules like that can still lead to a productive working committee.

I will move the amendment that rather than 24 hours notice being required for any substantive motion, we simply delete that and zero hours be required. I'm not sure how it would be phrased. We may want to delete the clause altogether.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Are you suggesting that we say that no notice be required?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think that would be kind of redundant. If there's no notice required, why would you have a rule at all?

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Because other committees will have different rules; it's just that this committee's rule is that no notice is required.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My proposed amendment is that no notice be required.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

And the procedure and House affairs committee in fact has that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's correct; there's a model example.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

They're the only one, but that's because if they needed notice of motion, some of the members who are on this committee right now wouldn't be here right now, because they'd still be waiting for the notice period.

All right, no notice is the amendment.

Mr. Hiebert, please.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to move an amendment that would change the notice to 48 hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, we have an amendment on the floor.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Okay, then I'm not going to speak to this amendment because I don't support it. I don't think it's reasonable to put members in the situation where they have no opportunity to prepare for a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try not to repeat myself, but from my experience in the last session when I was on this committee, I introduced a motion to the committee. Somebody also on the committee, not me and not a Conservative member, actually moved that we waive the rules and move to the motion right away. I actually said no, because I thought it needed to be translated and I had not had it translated, to give the opposition parties an opportunity to have a look at it.

Not to my surprise—although I had tried to explain it the best I could in English—when the opposition parties, particularly the Bloc Québécois, saw the motion, they did not like the motion once it was translated. It didn't translate the way they wanted it to, and it got defeated eventually.

The notice of the motion and not waiving the rules and allowing it to be translated and for them to do the work of studying what it meant made a difference in their decision-making. Although I may not agree with them, I think it was a reasonable approach.

So I think there needs to be some notice, for two reasons: one, to make sure everybody, whichever language it's in, understands the language and that it's accurate; two, that the parties and the individual members have an opportunity to do a little bit of research on the motion and what it means.

I'm interested in some time. I know we're all busy here, but to get a motion slapped on the table when we're here.... It's hard enough to get things done in between committee meetings, let alone on the fly. That's why I'll not be supporting Mr. Martin's amendment to the motion.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you.

Madame Lavallée.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Obviously, in the best of all possible worlds, that would be the ideal approach. We would table a motion on a hot topic and everyone would agree. Unfortunately, we have found that in this committee, some members make considerable use of delaying tactics. One afternoon, we even saw a committee member read the Access to Information Act from beginning to end. It took several hours.

It is unfortunate, but I do not think we can proceed in this way in this committee. I would be too afraid that this would be used to delay things. However, it really would be the best way of proceeding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Thank you, Madame.

Mr. Del Mastro, please.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to speak to the motion put forward by Mr. Martin. I think that if we want the committee to do good work, work we can be proud of, the members have to be prepared. Being prepared requires time for notice so that members can be prepared for what's to be debated.

As indicated earlier, by unanimous consent we can always work outside of these rules. These are the general guidelines. If a motion were brought forward that the committee decided it would like to move on immediately, it could do so.

At the finance committee the other day, we actually talked about this at length and talked about the general rule being two sleeps. So even though we put hours to it, essentially what we mean is it can be dealt with at the next sitting of the committee. I think that's wholly reasonable. It allows members to be prepared. It allows us to be able to plan a little better as to what we're going to be dealing with. In fairness to everyone on the committee, I think we should stand by those rules.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Are there any further items?

Okay, we'll deal with the amendment, which is basically to replace the words “24 hours” with the word “no”. Is that correct, Mr. Martin?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Then I would like to call the question on the amendment, please.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

There being no further debate, I'll put the question now on the main motion that's before you.

[Russ Hiebert, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC]

Mr. Chair, I asked to speak, to make an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Well, you were out of order by trying to put an amendment when there was an amendment on the floor, unless you wanted to put a subamendment.