Bill C-30 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on Dec. 14th, 2006

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I find my colleague Mr. Wilson's amendment very interesting. In the past, it has occurred that some clerks have received motions at 5:30 p.m. Very often, our offices are closed at that hour, and we are not made aware of the motions. If we adopt the 24-hour notice rule, and set 3:00 p.m. as the deadline, I believe that this may be interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Is there any further discussion on the amendment?

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I think the three o'clock compromise is right.

To counter Mr. Jean, people have tried to bring motions before committee the day of, and it doesn't work at all. People take great offence to the process. There has to be some notice. I agree that there's going to be an unusual schedule to this, mostly likely in terms of Bill C-30. The ability to pop something in by three o'clock and get the translation out before our office is closed gives people enough time overnight to consider it before the morning meetings.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

If I could get some clarification, Mr. Chair, does that mean that if the clerk gets it by 3 p.m. for a nine o'clock meeting the next day, it doesn't have to come to us until five or six o'clock? If we don't receive the notice by 3 p.m., it just has to go to the clerk, in essence?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

What would be the essence of the 3 p.m.?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

That's my question. What does 3 p.m. mean?

The 24 hours I can understand. If it's an actual 24 hours--and if that's a friendly amendment that it's 24 hours before--the clerk would have the process and ability to get it to all the members. But 3 p.m. doesn't mean that I'm going to see it at 3 p.m. In fact, I might be gone at 4:30 and I'm not going to see it until the next morning. That is uncomfortable. I like to do research. I like background information. I like to know what I'm going to vote on before I go there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The full 24 hours.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

The full 24 hours, certainement.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

I can table a formal motion in compliance with the spirit of Mr. Wilson's proposal. If the clerk receives the motion no later than 3:00 p.m., he will most likely be able to send out the motion to our offices by 5:00 p.m. Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of Mr. Wilson's proposal, I move that at the end of the motion that has just been tabled, after the words “official languages”, the words “no later than 3:00 p.m. on the preceding day” be added.

Therefore, the amended motion would read as follows: That 24 hours' notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the committee unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and distributed to members in both official languages no later than 3:00 p.m. on the preceding day.

Pardon me. The words “48 hours” would be deleted. Therefore, the motion would read as follows: “That a notice be required for any substantive motion...”. The hour 3:00 p.m. would replace the words “48 hours”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

The question is the time the clerk has to distribute it, or the time the clerk receives it. I think the critical time is when it's sent from the clerk to the members. Do we agree?

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

The motion would read as follows: That notice be required for any substantive motion to be considered by the Committee, unless the substantive motion relates directly to business then under consideration; and that the notice of motion be filed with the Clerk of the Committee and distributed to members in both official languages no later than 3:00 p.m. on the preceding day.

In addition, in order to make sure the motion is received by everybody, we could also specify that the motion will be distributed to all committee members in both official languages before 5:00 p.m. As such, we would ensure that the motion would be received in members' offices not at 5:30, as is often the case, but at 5:00 p.m.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Paradis.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I understand the essence of my colleagues' comments.

Firstly, we must make sure that the motion is filed in both official languages so that the clerk is not forced to translate it.

The point of all this is to make sure that the motion is distributed no later than 3:00 p.m. Perhaps we should make sure that the motion is filed even earlier. From what I gather, the point of the motion is to make sure that members receive notices by 3:00 p.m., because 5:00 p.m., for all intents and purposes, is rather late.

Earlier, we also considered the possibility of having a full 24-hour notice. For example, if a motion is filed no later than 6:00 p.m., there's no problem: the clerk has more than enough time to work and send the motion to members of the committee. We would have a full day, meaning we would have the following day to consider the motion. So 24 hours would elapse between the tabling of the motion and its consideration in committee.

The point is simply to make sure that members are not taken by surprise. I would say respectfully that I find the 5:00 p.m. deadline to be fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Whether it's three or five, I'm not sure I care. I suggest we tack on any amendments to this as well, so amendments, along with motions, need to be received and sent out by a certain time. If we're going to have all this discussion around motions, why not have the same thing apply to amendments?

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

There is a separate motion on that.

Mr. Wilson.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

The one thing I want to emphasize is that the time we submit it is what's important. As members of Parliament, we have control over when we submit it. It's not when it gets distributed at 5 o'clock, because there could be problems with the clerk and it might not get distributed until 5:30 and not take effect. We have control over the fact that we can submit it to the clerk by 3 o'clock, and if it's 3:30, it's our fault that we didn't get it there on time.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

The comments made by my colleague, Mr. Wilson, confirm what I have just said. If we control when the motion is filed, and if members of the committee do not receive it in time because of technical reasons...

In my humble opinion, I believe that it would be wise to set the deadline for filing a motion no later than 6:00 p.m., but to allow for a full 24 hours to go by from the time of filing to consideration in committee. Whether problems arise or not, nobody will be taken by surprise. There is not a huge difference in terms of hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Watson.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm concerned about the narrow timelines, even for the sake of the ability of the clerk's office. This committee doesn't exist in isolation. The clerk's office has many other things to do, and they may not necessarily accord an amendment that comes in from this committee priority just because it came in. They have to be able to translate it and get it distributed.

That's why routine motions, in some respect, are routine. Whether it's 24 hours or 48 hours, it builds in enough flexibility for the process to be done and for it to be distributed. In putting them under the clock, what happens if they don't fulfill that because they have other things to do? It's not just for the benefit of the members; it's for the process itself, so that it goes. I think we need to have greater flexibility, not less. Setting a time for when it's distributed still allows them the flexibility for most of the day to be able to translate it and get it to people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I agree with Mr. Watson in part. When we get it to them is important, but it's also important for the other members to receive it in time. My concern is that, exactly as Mr. Watson and Monsieur Paradis said. As important as it is to get it to the clerk, I want to see the motion. I want to be able to work on the motion before I come to committee, and I need to have the ability of proper notice.

This is about notice. This is not about how good we are at getting the document in to the clerk, it's about how much notice we have to prepare for the next day.

I would be happy to move a friendly amendment to Mr. Bigras' motion, Mr. Chair, simply to say that by 3 p.m. it must be distributed to the members.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Monsieur Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do not understand the government's argument, because this leaves very little time to analyze the motion from the time that it is filed. I could understand if the argument came from the opposition, because we have limited resources. But I have trouble understanding why the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, who has significantly more resources than opposition members, is saying that receiving the motion at 5:00 p.m. would not leave enough time for an analysis. I do not find this to be a valid argument, especially when it comes from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. He has very considerable departmental resources. If members of the opposition, with our limited resources, are able to study a motion as soon as it is received, the government should be able to allocate the necessary resources to do the same, if it truly believes in the importance of this committee. This motion would give the clerk two hours to distribute the motion, something that is eminently achievable. To the extent that the government believes in the work of this committee, it should be able to find the resources to study a motion, if the opposition is able to do the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Laurie Hawn]

Mr. Warawa.