It's five against five.
Evidence of meeting #5 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
Evidence of meeting #5 for Industry, Science and Technology in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
1:05 p.m.
A voice
It's five against five.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
1:05 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Richard Dupuis
If you don't vote, there's no decision. Your ruling is maintained.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'm asking for the indulgence of members. We started off this committee with a very good spirit. It could quickly descend into just pure partisan lines, splinter in four different directions. Can we discuss it on Thursday? We will allocate half an hour after the other two meetings. We have the Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Auto Workers Union. We'll allocate half an hour and Mr. Holland can introduce his motion.
Mr. Julian.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Chair, as you know, when the committee is split as it is, normally we would continue with the process. We did receive notice of motion. It is completely appropriate to have an amendment to that notice of motion. As Mr. Fontana mentioned, if a notice of motion were required for every amendment, that would mean this committee could never get a motion adopted, because at each meeting as amendments are brought forward, a 48-hour pre-notice would apply.
So we do have an amendment that has been moved to a motion that was submitted in due form. I would suggest the committee move now to consider that amendment.
May 30th, 2006 / 1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Let's not get carried away. Such an amendment does not amend the main motion, which is the real motion. In my opinion, this is not an amendment to the main motion; it's completely different. We can't start playing with words, and say that this is different and claim that it is an amendment just to have it debated. It is a new motion that contains new information.
We can interpret it any way we wish, but when we say that the committee makes recommendations in the form of a report to be tabled in the House, I believe that this is one of the most important points of Mr. Holland's motion. And yet the second motion doesn't even deal with it. This is not simply an amendment; the motion completely changes the main motion.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I stand my ground with respect to whether or not this motion is in order, but I would like to know why this motion must be adopted today. Why the urgency? I would like some clarification on that, please. Why do we have to debate this motion today? What is the justification?
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I've only been a parliamentarian for two years, and prior to that I was in council for seven years, but this is the first time I've ever seen a motion that wasn't allowed to be amended. It's dealing with an issue, and the issue is the same. It's a question of how the committee deals with that issue. I've never seen a motion that wasn't allowed to be amended. It's that precedent that concerns me. It's not the urgency of the motion; it's the precedent of being unable to amend the motion because it's taking the committee in a different direction on a particular issue. We can spend all day debating this, but to me it doesn't make any sense at all.
By the same token, rather than spend the entire day debating this, I think what we can do is move it to Thursday and have it as the first item of business on Thursday. And I would suggest that the steering committee have a conversation about the ability to amend motions. That's of concern to me, and I think you're hearing that from a lot of committee members. There's a very different opinion about the ability to bring forward an amendment.
What I would say, very quickly, because I think it's important, is that if you have a matter that is before the committee, and if that matter is dealing with a particular issue, and the committee, through amendment—if it doesn't want to do it through a motion of substitution—wants to take a different direction on a particular issue than the motion suggests, but it is still on the same item and still deals with the same issue, that should, in my opinion, be in order on a go-forward basis. Rather than try to resolve this now, my suggestion is that you put it to the steering committee.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Raymond Bonin Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Mr. Chair, you had proper notice of a motion, and you have to deal with that motion. If you don't accept the amendment as an amendment, you are faced with dealing with two motions that talk about the same issue. Get proper advice. You are creating a problem for this committee. If the first notice of motion passes, what effect does that have on the second? If it doesn't pass, what effect does that have on the second? What should be an amendment has become a main motion. It just doesn't make sense.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Just to clarify that point, the clerk advises me that the 48-hour notice was not given for the second motion.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Holland Liberal Ajax—Pickering, ON
I've made a recommendation. I don't know if you want to take up the suggestion.
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I appreciate that.
We'll have Mr. Crête, and then I'd like to wrap this up.
1:10 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I am ready to debate whether or not the motion is in order, whenever you would like. But an amendment in which the only word from the main motion that appears is « that »... Based on that rationale, anything can be amended. I could even throw in some fish, if you like.
To hold a debate at the steering committee on whether or not this motion is in order is inappropriate. I don't believe that it is the right place, because members who are not sitting on the steering committee will want to reopen the question again. Let's block off some time, perhaps in September, to discuss the issue, but until then, let us duly discuss this motion at the appropriate time, that is after 48 hours' notice.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'll wrap it up.
I appreciate that. I think Mr. Holland has made a very gracious suggestion.
Do I have agreement for the first item of business on Thursday? Can we meet at 10:30, then, because we have the Canadian Auto Workers.
1:15 p.m.
Bloc
Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I don't agree that this is a priority. We need some time before or after to discuss this, but this should in no way affect our study of the manufacturing sector, because we have to produce a report on that subject by June. We can take a half-hour either before or after, but we cannot use up any time scheduled for the topic that has been placed on the agenda.
I, for one, mark this as being my 14th priority, as compared to the other.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Here's a suggestion, then. We'll have a separate meeting to deal with this issue. We'll deal with it from 10 to 11 o'clock and make sure we're finished discussion on this issue by 11. Hopefully we'll finish much sooner than that.
Then I will follow Mr. Holland's suggestion. We will take this up with the steering committee. The decision will have to be made on what constitutes a substantive and what constitutes an amendment. Can we amend motions completely, or are there limitations on the kinds of amendments that can be accepted or not?
Okay. The meeting is adjourned.