Natural Resources Committee on Nov. 15th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

This amendment certainly wouldn't affect the ability of the committee members to have access to those transcripts. Part of my motion is that they do have that access, so the only change is that they be destroyed at the end of the session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I would ask the clerk to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that after the committee dies with the end of a session, or with the establishment of a new committee, those notes from in camera meetings aren't available to anyone anyway. They're available, of course, as long as the committee is operating. Is that correct?

[The Clerk]

That is my understanding.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

In that case, there would certainly be no problem with what you're asking for.

Mr. Boshcoff is next.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you.

Just for that reason, I feel we shouldn't be destroying them at the end of the session if we don't have anything to fear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We've had the discussion. Is there any more discussion?

Shall we go to a vote then?

All those in favour of the motion—

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Do you mean the amendment or the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

There was only a motion.

(Motion negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

If there are any motions that anyone else wants to bring up, please do so. I'm just being guided by last year's....

Next is notice of motions.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

What about in camera meetings?

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Oh, in camera transcripts, yes. Now we have to deal with the motion. Does someone wish to bring another motion before the committee on that?

Go ahead, Madame DeBellefeuille.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I do not want to move another one, I want to move the one contained in the document, Mr. Chairman.

You will have to get use to wearing your earpiece regularly, because I often take the floor.

I just want to say that I move the motion as it appears in the document.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

You've heard the motion. Is there any discussion?

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Next is notice of motions.

You see what was at the last committee. Are there any suggestions for notice of motions?

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I'm going to make a suggestion. It's a motion that's a little bit different from the one in front of us. The main change is that we go to 48 hours' notice on motions, so the motion would read that 48 hours' notice shall be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee, that the period of notice for that motion be calculated from the time the motion has been distributed to the members of the committee—so the 48 hours would start when we get the notice of motion—that the motion be distributed to members in both official languages, and that all motions received by the clerk shall be placed on the agenda of the first committee meeting following the period of notice. That ensures that those motions will come forward as well.

So there are four components to it--that there be 48 hours' notice, that the period of notice be calculated from when we get the motions from the clerk, that the motions be in both official languages, and that all motions be put on the agenda at the first meeting at which they're eligible to be on that agenda.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Certainly the first three components are what I've had at every committee I've ever been at since I came here: the 48 hours' notice, the time of the calculation of the 48 hours, and the last one, when it is placed on the agenda. So the committee has heard the motion.

Discussion on the motion?

Yes, Mr. Boshcoff.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't believe we would have any problem with changing it from 24 hours to 48 hours. There's no problem with both official languages, no problem about getting it at the first available committee meeting. The question, then—and this is the difference—is whether the 48 hours should start when the clerk receives the motion, as opposed to what has been proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Can I just ask the clerk to comment on that and what normally has been done with that? I know what it has been at committees I've been part of before, but in terms of the calculation of the 48 hours, when does that normally start? Or is there wide variation on that?

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, the practice on the committee has been to get them to me as soon as they can. So generally I've had them well in advance of the 24-hour requirement. In the absence of an instruction from the committee indicating a specific time, or any other kind of instruction from the committee, I defaulted to the interpretation that's given in the journals branch for the House, being 6 o'clock of the drop-off day during the week for notices of motion and 2 o'clock on Fridays for the notice of motion in that sense. From that point, from 6 o'clock, essentially what I used is two sleeps.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

But from the time the clerk has sent that to the members or...?

[The Clerk]

Well, it's two sleeps, regardless. If two nights have passed, then the notice requirement will have been fulfilled.

So if I send it, say, at 7 o'clock on a Monday evening and we have a meeting on a Wednesday, then that's fine because you have the Monday night, you have the Tuesday night, and the meeting is on the Wednesday. So two sleeps is the rule, in the absence of an instruction from the committee. Obviously it's up to the committee to decide its notice requirement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Okay.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I just think it's fair to people to have a time limit in here. The person who's sending the motion in, and/or their party, has a specific advantage if we don't have a particular time here. To me, it seems to be fair to everyone that when it goes out from the clerk—if you want to put it at 24 hours or whatever—everybody is operating on the same scale. I think 48 hours is a reasonable time for motions, especially with this committee. There don't seem to be many contentious issues, but it gives everybody a chance to be prepared on the issues, to deal with the motions, and everyone is treated fairly that way. There's no advantage to anyone to be sending motions in and trying to do anything with them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

I'll just make a comment. I don't know how many of you have been having problems with your e-mail on the Hill here, but the clerk receiving a motion and the members receiving a motion are sometimes quite different, and that's the issue we're discussing here.

Again, if anyone would like to add to this, you understand why Mr. David Anderson has asked for it to be from the time members actually receive the motion, or at least until it's sent to members.