Evidence of meeting #1 for Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 2nd Session) in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was hours.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I echo Mr. Comartin's comments completely. This is why we always leave ourselves this flexibility. A witness might ask to appear in camera. It is possible.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I will call the question, but I do want to add one point. I have been told that there is the potential for us to be in a committee room where it cannot be televised. That will be subject to availability, just so that everyone is aware of that.
I call the question on the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Motion as amended agreed to)
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
The motion is moved, with 48 hours' notice for any potential amendments that may be required.
Mr. Moore.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
I'd like to move another amendment, to delete the words “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”. We would still give the 48 hours, which would mean that 48 hours' notice would be required for all motions.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
It's what Mr. Lee had said about 48 hours' notice. In addition, we would delete “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration”. It would mean that 48 hours' notice would have to be given for any motion.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
This is a point of order.
Mr. Moore's suggestion is that the section that says “unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration” be deleted. Let's say at some point in our committee meetings--presuming the 48 hours' notice is adopted but with the deletion being requested by Mr. Moore--someone has given 48 hours' notice for a substantive motion and it's now in the course of being debated. If, as a result of the debate that's ongoing, several members of this committee, or one member, wish to either amend the substantive motion or, as a result of the debate, attempt to bring another directly related motion--it directly relates to the substance, the content of which is being debated--they would not be able to bring that motion. Is my understanding here correct?
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
I think what you're referring to, and what would be allowed at that time, is an amendment to the motion that had been given 48 hours. In that case, it would obviously be allowed to happen right away.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Right. And in the second scenario, as a result of debate on a substantive motion for which 48 hours was given, if someone attempts to bring a motion—not an amendment but a new motion directly related to the substance that is up for debate—they would not be able to do so at that point without unanimous consent. Is that correct? Is my understanding correct?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
That's a good question. You raise a good point, Ms. Jennings.
The difficulty here is that, technically speaking, we determine what a substantive motion is. So we'd have to determine at the time whether or not that motion required 48 hours' notice based on it being substantive.
It's a little difficult to try to--
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
No, I understand that. I understand that. And that goes directly to my question: if this notice of motion was amended in the way suggested by Mr. Moore, and there was an attempt in future business of the committee to bring a motion while a discussion was going on, and you deemed it to be a substantive motion, the individual would not be able to table the motion and have it debated then. They would simply have to give 48 hours' notice, and it wouldn't be until 48 hours later that it could actually be moved, debated on, and voted if necessary. But this motion, as it is currently worded, would allow someone to move a motion during a discussion or debate; you deem it to be a substantive motion that is in fact directly related to the business then under consideration; and there would be the possibility of having it actually debated and determined at that point, while the business then under consideration continues to be under consideration.
So this amendment being proposed by Mr. Moore is actually quite substantive and could actually change the way in which the committee works. I've sat on legislative committees before. Normally the notice of motion, except for the number of hours' notice required, which has changed--in some cases it was 24 hours, in other cases there was no notice required--has always permitted that a substantive motion that related directly to business then under consideration could be moved and debated without the deadline notice.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rick Dykstra
There are a couple of things.
It is a point of order insofar as it concerns putting it out here.
The first I would offer is that we are not a standing committee. We're a legislative committee with a very specific purpose. I would assume that any motion that would come forward would relate only directly to the bill we are studying. It would relate to nothing else.
I would offer and ask that if the amendment carried, then obviously I would have to have a little bit of latitude from the committee to be able to make a determination of what would be substantive and what would not be substantive. But that would be based on whether it related directly to the bill or not.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
That still doesn't answer my question, which is that should Mr. Moore's amendment to this motion for notice of motion be adopted, and then the motion itself, the main motion as amended, be adopted, then if at any point in the future this committee is dealing with business, is considering certain business obviously directly related to Bill C-2--that's the business and main mandate of this committee--and someone attempts to table a motion without the hours' notice, whether we decide that's going to be 48 hours', 24 hours', 36 hours', 35 hours', 23 hours' notice, or whatever--
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Whatever we decide, we could have another amendment to change that. But whatever the hours' notice would be, we would not be able--and you, as chair, would not be able--to receive that motion. You would only be able to receive it as a notice of motion, and it would not be debatable immediately even if you deemed it to be a substantive motion directly related to the business at hand, because the motion would have been adopted if the motion were adopted with Mr. Moore's amendment.
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I want to be part of this debate. Mr. Moore's motion may not be in the interests of the committee's work. I also think that 48 hours may not work for the committee, in the sense that the kind of motion that we would like to table might involve matters that the committee is dealing with right then, like adding witnesses or other questions like that. Since we may find ourselves sitting three times a week, could 48 hours notice not be an obstacle for the committee's work? I would like to change it from 48 hours to 24 hours, but I do not want us to vote on Mr. Moore's motion. I think that we have to ask ourselves what kind of motion we want the committee to deal with. I think that 48 hours notice could be an obstacle, unless someone can give me examples that are not occurring to me. I do not want us to vote on Mr. Moore's amendment.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Provisions like this are inserted to facilitate the work of the committee. The government may have some concerns that it would be used for some ulterior motive here.
An example of a motion that could pop up, which you'd want to deal with quickly if there was a strong consensus, would be concerning a witness who didn't show up. The committee would want to give an order. You'd want to move a motion. The clock is running on this committee. You don't want to wait for a long period before you respond to that. During clause-by-clause consideration, if you had a very strong consensus to make an amendment, whether it were technical or otherwise, based on this, you wouldn't be able to move that motion. You'd have to send the bill back to the House without an appropriate amendment that had a strong consensus behind it.
I don't see any problem with the current wording. Rarely have I seen it abused. I can't recall a case. I can appreciate the government's caution here, but whether it's 24 hours' or 48 hours' notice, it really doesn't make too much difference.
Has somebody moved 24 hours' notice?