Human Resources Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Sure.

I'm going to ask that in the future we have translated copies of the motions. But for the time being, I'm going to ask Mr. Komarnicki to read the motion slowly into the record so we can determine what he is talking about.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I thank Mr. Lessard for his indulgence, and I certainly take what he and Madame Folco say to heart. I give my assurance that in the future we will do that in advance.

I will read the motion:

That 48 hours' notice be required for any motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages and that the period of notice be calculated from the time the motion has been distributed to the members of the committee by the Clerk of the Committee (not counting weekends).

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Once again, I believe what is different in this motion from the original number nine is that the start of the time period will be when members receive the motion versus the clerk of the committee.

That's really what we're debating here, correct, Mr. Komarnicki?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

It's the essence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

So let's keep that in mind as we move forward.

I'm going to continue with the list, and we can add people. I've got Ms. Minna, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Komarnicki.

Let's go with Ms. Minna.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I'm okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

You're okay? Thank you.

Mr. Martin.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Yes, I just want to know from Mr. Komarnicki what problem he's trying to solve with this motion. I mean, you keep referencing how this worked at some other committee. We didn't have a problem at this committee with it. I don't remember there being any kind of a kerfuffle over the timing of when a motion was put in or sent out or whatever. We all knew it took two days. It was 48 hours from when we submitted it, and we expected it would come up at the next committee meeting. So I don't know what problem we're trying to solve with this amendment and why we would do that when we haven't had any difficulties on this issue.

We may be anticipating difficulties, but we've been able to resolve those on this committee. We've had our differences and our very intense and heated debates over various things, but at the end of the day we have worked them out.

Maybe Mr. Komarnicki is bringing forward problems of other committees that really didn't happen at this committee. I think that would be unfortunate. I think we have a unique and very positive history here. We have a culture of working together. I don't think we want to be solving the problems of other committees by moving amendments that really aren't necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thanks.

I have Mr. Komarnicki and Mr. Vellacott.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Just to clarify, it's not to cause any problems or to resolve a problem that exists today, but many times it's wise to set the rules so when a problem arises you're not debating the issue then. It makes good sense, because what's important in the 48 hours' notice, or the two days' notice, is the fact that you have that time from the time you get it. If it comes to the clerk late in the day or something and doesn't get out necessarily to the members, you don't have the fullness of that notice.

All this says is that I can be assured when I give a motion that Mr. Savage will have it in exactly two days and everybody else on the committee will have it in two days, because it's from the time he gets it as opposed to the time it gets sent to the clerk. Nothing against the clerk, but it just puts that level of certainty on it and it removes any doubt, and you know when you've got notice you need to deal with it. That's all it's meant to do. It's something you do in advance so that nobody argues about it and they know how to govern themselves when they send the motion out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

On my list I have Mr. Vellacott, Ms. Minna, and Mr. Savage.

Mr. Vellacott, please.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

First I would appeal to Tony off the top. If there's no harm and this is pretty much how we operate and we're in a fairly amicable manner here, then there's really no particular harm in including this level of detail. It doesn't hurt or harm us in any way, but as well it's a protection for the clerk. I don't know--and maybe we could question the clerk--but there may be times when the clerk is under the weather and heads home early. Things come up where the clerk, in fairness and in protection for the clerk, is maybe getting it spun off to her at the very last minute of the day. Maybe she doesn't catch it, and I think probably, in fairness to her, it then allows a kind of latitude as well.

I assume they're dealt with forthwith and distributed pretty quickly by the clerk, but we want to be sure to protect our clerk in this whole thing, so there's not any challenge or controversy around that. I can't see the harm in it personally, if this is our understanding of it anyhow, and I would think that in view of that Mr. Martin would probably be agreeable to the modification here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Madam Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I suggest you call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have Ms. Minna, Mr. Savage, Mr. Lessard.

Mr. Lessard, do you want to go with the vote or do you have a comment? I have three people on the list; two people have waived their turn.

If you want to speak, go ahead, sir.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

First of all, I fully agree with Mr. Martin. To my knowledge, we have never had a problem with that.

Unless I am mistaken, because I don't have the French version, what I think we are removing here, from the text I have in front of me which was our previous motion, are the words: “unless there is unanimous consent“.

That provision enabled the committee to make the necessary arrangements, based on the reality of the situation. So I don't see why we would remove it, nor why we would change something that is working well.

I understand that the situation may have caused problems or difficulties on other committees and that there is a desire to introduce that motion here. Mr. Komarnicki's motion may be relevant one day, but for the time being, I don't see the need for trying to bring everything that seems to work best at other committees here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I have no more names on the list.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

I understand what his concern is. In fact, you could simply add or subamend it in—just simply add “unless by unanimous consent”, which is a fair and reasonable proposal, I think, onto Mr. Komarnicki's motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

We're on the motion, so are you proposing that you add “unless there is unanimous consent” at the beginning?

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

All right.

Just stay with me here. We have a proposal by Mr. Vellacott to add “if there is unanimous consent”. So that's the first thing we're going to be voting on.

I guess the question is whether it's a friendly amendment that's accepted?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I'm okay with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

So it was a friendly amendment. Okay.

Now we're going to go back to what Mr. Komarnicki suggested in terms of what his motion was.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Could I ask that the motion be read, Mr. Chair, with the amendment that Mr. Vellacott proposed?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes. It reads:

That unless there's unanimous consent, 48 hours' notice be required for any motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the motion relates directly to the business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages and that the period of notice be calculated from the time the motion has been distributed to the members of the committee by the Clerk of the Committee (not counting weekends).

(Motion agreed to)