Mr. Martin.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #1 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I have one question of clarification.
These draft routine motions were probably printed 30 years ago, when there were three parties in the House of Commons; now there are more than three. The way it reads, you could have one of the vice-chairs chairing the meeting and only opposition members present, with no government members. Just so people are aware, that's what we're voting for.
I'm not sure it's desirable to call that quorum. I suggest, if my colleagues will entertain a friendly amendment, that it should say, “five members present, including one member of the opposition and one member of government”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
We have an amendment on the floor. Is there any discussion on the amendment?
(Amendment agreed to)
The amended motion reads:
That the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, provided that at least five members are present, including one member of the opposition and one member of the government.
(Motion as amended agreed to)
Liberal
Paul Steckle Liberal Huron—Bruce, ON
I move that only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents to members of the committee, and only when such documents exist in both official languages.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I would like to amend that to say:
That only the clerk of the committee be authorized to distribute documents, including motions, to members of the committee, and only when such documents exist in both official languages. The clerk shall advise all witnesses appearing before the committee of this requirement.
Conservative
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
It doesn't matter so much to me, but I think this is one that the Bloc members should certainly embrace. I know they were upset a number of times previously when witnesses came here with documents that weren't in both languages. I think this would go further to ensure that didn't happen.
Bloc
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
It is basically the clerk's job. I have no problem with the clerk having to advise witnesses appearing before the committee. On the other hand, I do not see the point of Mr. Anderson's amendment to add motions.
Conservative
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I have the same concern as André, that if there is some barrier to circulating and producing motions it may hold members back in their interest in trying to promote something at the committee. There's probably a good reason why the word “motions” was left out of the original clause, as contemplated in the routine motions. I would vote against having the words include “motions”, but I wouldn't object to adding the sentence at the end, “that the clerk so advise all witnesses”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Mr. Anderson, we will be dealing with notices of motion as a standing order, as well.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I think the point is that we get everything going through the clerk only, so that everything is going to him--and that includes motions--so that they come back to us, so we have the same amount of time to see them, the same amount of time to prepare--other than the person who has written them, obviously, who will know ahead of time--and that they have to be in both official languages at the time of distribution.
That hasn't always.... Things get handed out, and they don't necessarily go through the clerk, so we're unsure about where these motions are at. I think this would just clarify it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Just for clarification, Jean-François is telling me that any clerk is not allowed to circulate any document or motion if it's not in both official languages.
Mr. Miller.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Just further to that, I'd like somebody to explain to me what the problem is. I have a motion that I'm going to give notice on today. I thought I had to have it in both official languages. I've done that. To me it's an advantage for anybody who doesn't read English. If there's a problem, tell me what the problem is.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
That might be the practice in this committee, but in other committees that I know about you can submit motions in one of the official languages. Maybe to circulate it further, it should be in both languages. But it would be a barrier for me to submit a spontaneous notice of motion if I had to go and have it translated first.
It's not unusual in the course of a committee meeting to jot down a motion and hand it to the clerk, that it should be serving notice, at least, of it. I don't think it has to be in both official languages. I think it can be in one of the official languages in terms of moving the motion. For circulating it further, then the clerk would obviously have to do it in both languages.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Bezan
Any time you send anything to the clerk, though, regardless of the committee, the clerk has the obligation to get it translated before it's circulated. You're talking about spontaneity, but the clerk still has to receive notice and translate it before it can be distributed to the committee members.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
But the notice can be in one language. Larry doesn't have to have it in both languages now.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Anyway, here, to give notice.... I guess I probably don't.
I don't think, then, Pat, that would exclude you from making a spontaneous notice of motion. It's when the motion actually....
Am I correct in that?
Conservative
