Evidence of meeting #2 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was motions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Yes. I was at the Liaison Committee at noon. Every committee has a budget of $5,000 to start off with, and it's my understanding that we have another $40,000 that we can work within until we have something special where we might be going over that amount, which we would have to request. So we have $5,000 to start with, and that works for food, witnesses, and things like that. That is our starting budget.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Motion number 8 is about in camera meetings transcripts: that one copy of the transcript of all in camera meetings be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.
It is moved by Mr. Kotto.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Motion number 9 concerns notice of substantive motions: that, except for amendments to bills, 48 hours' notice be given before any substantive motion is considered by the committee; that the motion be filed with the clerk of the committee and circulated to members in both official languages; and that notice given on a Friday be deemed to have been given on the following Monday. Upon receipt of the notice, the clerk shall put the motion on the agenda of the committee's next meeting.
Can I have a mover for that?
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I'm sorry. I guess we need a motion and then discussion.
Conservative
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
This is just for clarification. In the example there, “Friday be deemed to have been given on the following Monday”, when does the 48 hours start to count? If it starts to count on Monday, that means that this motion could not be handled except by unanimous consent by the committee on the Tuesday. It would be the following Thursday; should that be that my understanding? So if something arose out of the Tuesday meeting, then it effectively would be the following Tuesday before the motion could be handled?
Conservative
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I have a problem with that, Mr. Chairman. I think we should be able to debate a Friday motion at the following Tuesday's meeting. What this means is that you're basically limiting yourself. Unless you come out of this meeting today at 5:30, and craft your motion and give notice by 6 o'clock, then you're stuck. I think that's way too restrictive. For a Friday motion, tabled in due course by--I don't know what the usual time is on Fridays, I think it's 2:30--we should be able to deal with that on the following Tuesday.
Bloc
Maka Kotto Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
I support what my colleague has said. Last year, we could table motions on Friday before 6:00 p.m. in order that they be debatable on Tuesday. That was done regularly.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe that motions are tabled on Friday, but they are deemed to have been received on Monday. However, in the last sentence one can see: “Upon receipt of the notice the clerk shall put the motion on the agenda of the committee's next meeting”, which would fall on the Tuesday.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
If the motions are deemed to have been received on the Monday, as 48 hours is required, that would bring us to Thursday.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Yes, but the way in which I interpret that sentence is that the motion is received on Monday, but it is taken into account for the next agenda, that is to say for Tuesday. Perhaps we need to clarify the wording.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
The problem I find is that on Thursday, particularly in this first session where Thursday ends at 5:30 and a lot of people are leaving, it means someone would not be able to have something dealt with that came up at a Thursday evening meeting until the next Thursday. It seems an unfair imposition. If someone on Friday morning said, “Something came up and we have to deal with it; I'm getting a motion and everything is translated, it's sitting on everybody's desk”, after that, to wait a full week is unnecessary.
Conservative
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
I will give you my suggestion for amendment, but by the way, I should point out that I'd like to establish some goodwill here from the point of view of the parliamentary secretary. I brought that issue up because I knew it was going to be a bone of contention at some point. Clearly, it works to the government's advantage to be able to delay a motion. I just want to point out--
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
It's not likely it's going to be a government motion.
I just want to point out that we're a team here; we're trying to get things done. My suggestion is that if we changed it from 48 hours to 24 hours, we would resolve the issue. We don't have to reword the thing, we just say 24 hours.
Conservative
Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Just change the numbers from 48 hours' notice to 24 hours' notice.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
My suggestion would be that we say “members in both official languages” and then take out, “and that notice given on a Friday be deemed to have been given on the following Monday”. If we take that out, it would do it. I respect that we used to meet in the morning, and yes, if we're done at 5:30, it would be hard to do, and I do understand why it might have been put in here, that if someone goes home on a Thursday night, you wouldn't get notice in your office until the next Monday when you came back, unless you've got a Blackberry, and I don't.
Anyway, all in favour of striking out those words from that?