Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on May 17th, 2006

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

That wasn't during the steering committee; it was after that.

Now I forget where I was, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You were talking about your conversation with Mr. Poilievre.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Yes, I think that this is important, if I could remember it.

It was that the additional hours, that approach be tabled against the development of some sort of a methodology that we are going to consider amendments. Other than more deputations, we really haven't talked about a schedule of how we're going to deal with amendments. And I'm not suggesting that we should deal with amendments as the Martin-Poilievre mechanism that has developed. I'm very envious of that. I would hope there's one that I can be included on for the next round so I could get credit for it.

Mr. Chairman, seriously, I don't think the committee is at all opposed to extended meetings, whether it's within the framework suggested by Mr. Poilievre or another one, if it's against a work schedule. And that work schedule is how are we going to go through the clause-by-clause?

If we don't have any sense of and any intake of suggested amendments, I think we're just going to be spinning our wheels. So my suggestion would be that we table this motion and that members give consideration, or that our parliamentary research give consideration, as to the methodology that we will be using, whether we can prioritize amendments, and that we can start scheduling part of our work program on actually that clause-by-clause, but much more focused than just starting at the beginning and going through the bill.

If that makes sense, Mr. Chairman, I put it forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Is that a recommendation or a motion?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I would move that as a motion to table.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

We have to vote on that, don't we?

Just give me one second.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

And I don't know whether you can do it this way. In another place you were able to do this. It would be tabled for the purpose of providing a methodology whereby we would be able to match the schedule of hearings to the consideration of amendments. So that would be on you, Mr. Chair. You could have the steering committee, it could be with staff, put forward some suggestions so we could get on with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I don't think there's a debate on this, is there?

Could you repeat your motion to table?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether you can table with a further instruction. That would be my--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's sort of a conditional table.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Yes, the motion is to table, and that you, along with research, provide a methodology for the consideration of amendments. And then the matter will come back to the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. James Moore.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The way parliamentary procedure works is that Mr. Tonks has made a motion to table. It doesn't matter why he's made it. He's made clear why he's made it, and that's fine, and that can be discussed, but there's a motion to table that can't be debated. You have to go straight to a vote.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Okay, I accept that.

I appreciate, Mr. Moore, that it would be for that purpose, so I would continue with the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, we'll have a vote.

Mr. Tonks has moved that the motion that is being debated be tabled. Do you understand what we're doing?

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Sir, would you just hold on one moment.

They're not quite clear what “motion to table” means, so their legislative assistant is explaining it in French.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, in order to table a motion, isn't there a requirement for notice of... Isn't unanimous consent required?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All those in favour of the motion to table? Opposed?

Six for and six against.

The chair votes against the motion.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 6)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

So we're back on Mr. Poilievre's motion.

Again we have six for and six against.

The chair votes in favour of the motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 6)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have motion two, Mr. Poilievre. Where are we in time here?

Yes, Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You haven't explained your vote, which goes against maintaining the status quo. Given that it's 5:30 p.m., isn't the unanimous consent of the committee required in order to continue the meeting?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

You don't have our consent.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

You don't have ours. Thanks a lot for voting against the status quo. He doesn't have to explain why he voted against, but according to Marleau-Montpetit...

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

He voted in favour of continuing the debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The meeting is adjourned until nine o'clock tomorrow, in this room.