Bill C-31 (40th Parliament, 2nd Session) Committee on Dec. 7th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there general agreement with that principle? Okay. That's agreed. The clerk will contact the department, then, and arrange for that presentation with a specific focus on the fingerprinting issue for their appearance.

Since we're talking about future meetings, there are a number of routine motions that most committees adopt. Is it the will of the committee that we adopt those motions? I have them here. So I'll just quickly read through each one and seek the committee's approval for each motion. These are fairly standard motions that most committees operate under.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

You want to read them first and then ask if anyone has any comments. Is that correct? Is everyone fine with that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Sure.

For those of you who might not have heard, there was a question about what a normal date would be for a cut-off for suggestions for a list of witnesses. The clerk has informed me that in order to facilitate the workings of the committee, three or four days in advance of our first meeting back here would be helpful to him so that he can make arrangements.

Madam Jennings.

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

I was going to suggest Monday, January 4. If at that point members have further witnesses they want to propose at a later date, then...ideally, January 4. We're now at December 7 and we're giving everyone a month. I understand that Christmas holidays intervene, but still, there are quite a few working days engaged.

If push comes to shove, if the light bulb goes off on January 15 and members suddenly think about someone, then they can put it through.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I'll take that as a motion that the lists of witnesses be provided to the clerk no later than January 4, 2010.

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

You are suggesting that we have a meeting when, in fact, we are leaving on Thursday. I was not advised of this. Now you're asking us to put forward the names of possible witnesses. You're telling us that we need to have this ready for January 4, when, in fact, everyone is leaving for the holidays. I'm not in favour of this. I would suggest January 15 instead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please.

There seems to be agreement that January 15 will be a suitable date for the committee. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chair, I want to state for the record that this kind of situation must never happen ever again. At our last meeting, we heard from 10 witnesses, which did not leave us enough time for even one round of questions. In addition, I would like the speaking order to be respected.

If we are to hear from witnesses, we need to take the time to ask them questions and to listen to what they have to say. I want this message to be conveyed clearly to the members sitting opposite. They were responsible for the fact that we had 10 people on the witness list and that's unacceptable. I hope that this won't happen again. Even if it means we have to hold one or two more meetings, we need to do our job properly, as far as Bill C-31is concerned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I understand.

Mr. Ménard.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Now that we've read this, may we make another suggestion? First of all, the spelling should be corrected. In the amendments, at the beginning, the “l'” should be deleted. Moreover, this bill is several pages long. It's possible that further to our discussions on the initial amendments, we might want to move some subamendments. For that reason, I suggest that amendments to Bill C-31 be submitted to the clerk 48 hours before they are scheduled to be studied.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Sorry, but I believe it's...unless I misheard....

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

If we begin the clause-by-clause study on January 30 and continue during the first half of February, according to what I'm reading here, all amendments will have to be ready 48 hours before January 30 and no additional ones could be moved thereafter.

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

You can move amendments from the floor. Nothing restricts you from moving amendments from the floor.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

When amendments are moved during debate, we do not have time to review them. Having 48 hours' notice would give us time to reflect on them a bit.

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

But if new ideas come up, you want to be able to move changes to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I should mention to the committee that we can do whatever we want with these routine motions and make some changes. We can change it to 48 hours' notice before an amendment or subamendment is tabled and not pick a specific date for a deadline, but if a member wants to submit an amendment or subamendment that there just be 48 hours' notice in general. That would solve the problem if we are into clause-by-clause and it takes a few days; amendments and subamendments would still be able to be moved, provided there is notice. That's one suggestion.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

That is what I'm proposing. I think we need to draft this as a proper motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

Maybe the clerk can confirm this, but my understanding is that amendments can be moved at any time during clause-by-clause consideration. My understanding of this particular clause in the routine motions is that substantive amendments be moved 48 hours before the committee's clause-by-clause consideration so that.... They know the general direction of the other committees and can propose responses.

I'm not suggesting that 48 hours before is a bad amendment, but I don't want to be restricted on the basis that an amendment has been moved and a subamendment or a friendly amendment might have to be moved to deal with that particular issue. You're not precluded, I think, from the normal practice, which is to move a subamendment during clause-by-clause consideration. I do it all the time.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Then it must be okay.

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

It is. I'm sure. I've never been ruled out of order so that's a good sign.

Thanks for all the support on that one, Rob.

[Serge Ménard, Bloc, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

We agree. To make this a formal motion, the text should read “that amendments be submitted to the clerk 48 hours before they are scheduled to be studied”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I'll take the direction of the committee. If the committee wants to have a requirement for notice, the wording suggested is that there be 48 hours' notice before that amendment is moved.

We'll go to Madam Jennings.